Grrrrr

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:42 am

Not being awkward or owt, but if this situation had been reversed the guy would be in gaol ......

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:05 am

Article states she was in an abusive relationship.....I am presuming she is guilty of beating her husband up as well then!

andy griff · Post by **andy griff** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:05 pm

Not sure I agree with you on this one Steve.

1. The prosecutors have been quite clever in charging her with motoring and criminal charges. I have seen cases where the lawyer says either assault or road traffic act. This way she will be heavily affected the points and offence codes for several years plus have a criminal conviction. The victim is now eligible for both crash compensation and criminal injuries fund.
2. She admitted it - by law she gets a more lenient sentence.
3. I can see how this should've been dangerous driving but it would have been very hard to prove so a guilty to careless with heavy points is a result.

Overall pretty fair. Bit of road rage and she's been sorted out. What I don't understand is why they didn't do her for the mobile phone offence. This started it all.

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:14 pm

andy griff wrote:Not sure I agree with you on this one Steve.

1. The prosecutors have been quite clever in charging her with motoring and criminal charges. I have seen cases where the lawyer says either assault or road traffic act. This way she will be heavily affected the points and offence codes for several years plus have a criminal conviction. The victim is now eligible for both crash compensation and criminal injuries fund.
2. She admitted it - by law she gets a more lenient sentence.
3. I can see how this should've been dangerous driving but it would have been very hard to prove so a guilty to careless with heavy points is a result.

Overall pretty fair. Bit of road rage and she's been sorted out. What I don't understand is why they didn't do her for the mobile phone offence. This started it all.

I wondered about that too ....

Blackal · Post by **Blackal** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:55 pm

Standard defence fare - to chuck in a flaky mitigation (abusive relationship) - but as has been said - she seems to have the mental willpower to be the abuser.

"The motorcyclist must have said something.............." says the defence lawyer...

That's about as factual as the prosecution saying "She must have been on crack-cocaine" Prove it, or retract it.

A mother of three (same father???) is always going to be considered for a non-custodial sentence

Al

andy griff · Post by **andy griff** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:15 pm

A mother of three (same father???) is always going to be considered for a non-custodial sentence

Al[/quote]

Which reminds me of a little joke doing the rounds when Madonna was with Guy Ritchie. Apparently, when they got married she said that she wanted to feel a 'bit more British'. When they divorced a few years later having had a child together - her third- a wag commented that as she now had three children all with different fathers it was 'job done'

boxerscott · Post by **boxerscott** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:41 pm

As I see it, 10 points on licence, £1300 fine would seem harsh punishment to someone who is sorry and recognizes that they have done wrong. Maybe when she gets her insurance renewal she may have something to think about

However in this Ladys (cough) case a stretch might have made her feel more sorry and gave her suffering cohabitees some respite.

It pays just to roll on by sometimes and avoid confrontation whilst on two wheels of any kind, as we have seen on countless headcam recordings.

www.boxertrix.com

Grrrrr

Grrrrr

Who is online