Safe Speed Forums

But then there are already more people in jail for minor motoring offences than burglary

feature

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

The man is a total prat. Remember his antics when he played for Leeds? If he is so stupid as to drive at that speed, he deserves all he gets. Sorry, no sympathy whatsoever.

Brian

Especially given his previous record.

If you could be imprisoned for being an a******e he would be banged up tomorrow

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Hang on, what are we saying here?

a) that he should be imprisoned for being an a***hole, in which case I agree - but then together with al lot of other a***holes, including many politicians, or

b) that he should be banged up for the heinous crime of driving at 112mph? (other details unknown)

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

This website is about Safe Speed. I can't imagine anyone who is a regular here having the slightest sympathy for this moron.

GW

A long standing SS member once stated, when he was having problems with DVLA, that he would like to think that his previous record of honesty and integrity would earn him some benefit of the doubt. I agreed.
However, I'd also like to think it would work the other way. Jerks and morons tend to leave a trail of jerkish and moronic behaviour behind them, Lee Bowyer has such a trail. As I have no sympathy for anyone caught driving at this sort of speed regardless of their previous character; with Bowyer's track record, I reckon he deserves everything he gets.

Why? Because it's illegal or because it's unsafe? Or just because he's a prat?

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

A custodial sentence is the final sanction. It is a driving offence and should be treated as such. The maximum penalty if no one was injured should be suspension of your license. If you are driving without one then maybe but not just for speeding.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I've stated my position on this quite clearly before Pete. Because its gone way, way beyond the point of making a fist at obeying the law. My support of the SS argument does not extend to self-authorised high speed drives way in excess of the limit; the law has to be seen to be invoked at some point.

This was not meant as a wholly serious suggestion


It is an established principle of justice in this country that you run the risk of imprisonment for repeated offences, where a first offence would be very unlikely to attract a prison sentence (drink-driving, for example).

You cannot be imprisoned purely for speeding, and it would I imagine be difficult to prove a charge of dangerous driving for 112 mph. It would be interesting to know if this was the actual charge in this case.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I respect your views.
It's just that I don't believe a custodial sentence can be justified for committing a purely technical offence - by however much - unless it represented a clear danger.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I'm sorry Pete, but calling this a 'purely techincal offence' is to offer casual dismissal as one would wave away an irritating remark with an impatient gesture. 46mph over the limit, regardless of our old 'being done safely' argument is a piss take.
Society has to have a way of recognising and punishing people who refuse to obey the norms of decent behaviour. I'd agree that isolated instances of, say, high speed driving or even punching someone once in the heat of an argument committed by individuals with an otherwise unimpeachable record should not in themselves deserve a custodial sentence.
Here however we have an individual, not untypical of many others like him, who has a long track record of misbehaviour both on the roads and with respect to his general yobbish attitude. Ultimately he/she will step over the line once too often and at that point, with the broader picture in mind, something has to be done, but what? The punishment needs to meaningful in that it properly punishes the individual, clearly this will differ for different people.
A fine? For a professional footballer it would need to be a bloomin' big one to make his eyes water.
A driving ban? Perhaps, but then the accusation may well be levelled that he was being banned from driving for non-driving related misdemeanours.
Community Service? Perhaps a viable option.
Custodial Senetence? Should be considered bearing in mind the big picture.

Is a custodial sentence possible for a speeding-only charge? I didn't think so.

Some points:

1. This guy is a tw*t if he didn't see the police car and they followed him for long enough to get a good average speed reading.

2. I have never really understood why it is OK for the police to follow at high speed if this is "dangerous" per se. (Speed kills, you see)

3. Rigpig, I don't agree with the concept of the punishment being related to the income of the offender. Perhaps if anyone were caught on a camera the police could look up on the Inland Revenue database and fine them accoring to income? Perhaps the Congestion Charge should be graduated also to punish the city "fat cats"

4. In this case the punishment should be related to the seriousness of the crime. A long ban and having to attend a community punishment is possibly more appropriate than prison.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Nor do I in principle, I was just exploring possibilities



Eh? Well do you or don't you support graduated fines I don't get why you put this bit..sorry.

Punishment has to be meaningful in that it makes the offender think twice before repeating the offence. The point I was trying to make about fines was that, to someone like a professional footballer a fine of, say, £1000 is nothing, yet to me its bloody enormous. I'd be very, very punished by such a fine, Lee Bowyer wouldn't therefore IMHO there has to be another way to ensure adequate reprimand is dispensed.

Yes - and he would be able to afford a chauffeur, you or I wouldn't.



I agree with you on this.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Sarcasm, irony ......

I will phrase my vain attempts at humour more carefully in future.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Question:
Is this behavior from Bowyer more or less serious that the failure of a 73 year old pensioner to pay £60 of Council Tax she owed?
She got 7 days in the nick and another pensioner got 28 days for a similar offence.
So repeated speeding (without any accidents) and failing to pay a few quid to the authorities are things for which prison is appropriate now?
Better stick to corporate fraud/false acounting, robbery, assault, possession of drugs, abh, etc, and know that the most likely sentence for a 1st offence will be a fine, community service or a police caution with no threat to freedom or continuation of career and employment.

Thanks for that bit of perspective Coops. While I agree that Mr Bowyer is a prat and deserves to be dealt with, in the context of activities with much farther-reaching consequences receiving lesser punishments I think we are falling into a trap here!

I'm sorry can't agree.

we know who did it and therefore have some idea about his character.

But so what if he was doing 112mph? If it was safe then its fine if it was dangerous then do him for that.

otherwise he's going to be imprisoned for breaking a technical rule.

where does it end? exceed any technical rule my more than a certain margin then you 'have the book' thrown at you?