Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 17, 2025 03:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 19:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
MEN wrote:
Car menace jailed

22/10/2008


ONE of Britain's worst drivers has been jailed after being convicted of driving while disqualified a staggering 54 times.

Anthony Lee Marland, 39, is beginning a four-month sentence - believed to be his first period behind bars - after a judge told him: "This is one of the worst records of driving I have ever seen."

Road safety campaigners welcomed the decision, saying prison was the only way to stop such 'blatant disregard' of the law.

Cathy Keeler, of road-safety charity Brake, said: "It is ridiculous that it has taken 54 offences to land him in jail.

"When somebody so blatantly disregards laws which are there to protect public safety and insists on putting other road users at risk by driving without a valid licence, jail is the only option."

Marland, of Osborne Terrace, Ashton under Lyne, pleaded guilty to the latest in a long line of motoring offences after being caught by a patrolling police team last month.

He claimed he was driving to visit his partner, who he said was undergoing treatment for cancer at Manchester's Christie Hospital.

One of the officers recognised Marland and confirmed he was a disqualified driver after checking with the national police database.

Nicoletto Amatino, prosecuting at Minshull Street crown court, said: "His records show a considerable history for similar offences, a total of 53 [previous] convictions of driving when disqualified."

Marland pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. He was banned from driving for a further two years and his licence was endorsed.

Judge Andrew Lowcock told him: "This is one of the worst records of driving I have ever seen. Court orders don't seem to mean anything to you.

"You tell the probation officers that you were driving to see your partner who was in hospital. Whether or not this is true I do not know, but it is no excuse for you to drive a car again.

"In light of your record I think that in this case a custodial sentence is justified. This is due to your continual flouting of court orders."

Mike Leeming, defending, said Marland had been on his way to the Christie Hospital where his partner was 'due to undertake an operation'.

The court heard Marland had been given a suspended sentenced and a community order for previous offences.

Miss Amatino added: "Previous cases against the defendant include two counts of burglary.

"The properties were entered while the occupants were asleep. In one case car keys were stolen from a jacket pocket and a Toyota Yaris was stolen."



Reader comments on the Manchester site reckon he should have got longer...


But note A POLICE OFFICER copped him.

We still need more as I have no doubt I will be reading of offence number 55 in a couple of months. :furious:

I think only a long term would stop this person to be honest.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 21:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
He wasn't jailed, as Brake seem to think, for being a dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured lunatic.

Quote:
In light of your record I think that in this case a custodial sentence is justified. This is due to your continual flouting of court orders


It's to do with contempt for the authority of the court and not to protect the public.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 22:12 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
malcolmw wrote:
He wasn't jailed, as Brake seem to think, for being a dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured lunatic.

Quote:
In light of your record I think that in this case a custodial sentence is justified. This is due to your continual flouting of court orders


It's to do with contempt for the authority of the court and not to protect the public.




Thank GOD!


I did not comment. I wanted someone else to see what I thought here.

I would have hoped that he received concurrent or better consecutive sentences here.

Lip service to road safety. You know .. I will not state the blinking obvious .. but

even sub standard amoebic life form can see how much actual non -value placed on the reality of saving lives versus an "easy option from a computer desk or CCTV viewing"


No .. I do not ever call for revenge sentencing. But I still want punishment to reflect the affrontal insult to society,


I agree .. his punishment degrades justice here.

When we decide on a safe speed for condition .. we are also accepting responsibilty based on our judgement. Now that's one heavily serious decision given what skills it demands of us all.

We know there are roads we can easily "ton it up on". We know there are roads which quite frankly one would be stupid not to "respect"

But this one? Oh .. I would agree with BRAKE that the sentence is way too ridiculously "pee cee". It undermines safepeed. It undermines police. It undermines safety. It undermines common sense too. And yes.. he undermines the COURT who did not really serve justice. As so help me.. 54 offences and zero learning?


Where the hell do we go next to try to stop this?


I think any comment to help would be welcome. I would even think Paul's arch enemy would have a constructive opinion on this type.

So we all disapprove.. but how do we stop this type?

I am worried lest I read of a death caused by an idiot on his 55th offence. So should he be tagged and pulled the second police detect in moving vehicle and so what if they stop a bus or a taxi?

How do you stop a recidivist fool? :?

It's a brain teaser.

I put the above comment for discussion purpose. It off the cuff "brainstorm"Justa thought which fleet in and which some may pick on to discuss how it may or may not work :wink:

Errr .. that's what me and Wildy try to do. Get folk thinking .. and with that debate come the meet half way and the progress forward :wink:


We need to think this one through carefully and any opinion will help further things overall.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
I wonder what his original disqualification was for??

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 13:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 00:42
Posts: 310
Location: North West England
Mad Moggie wrote:
How do you stop a recidivist fool? :? It's a brain teaser.


It depends on what sort of society we'd like. And how we want to be seen by the rest of the world.

In the case of this man prevention is clearly the only 'cure'. So we either incarcerate him or we physically prevent him driving without having to lock him up - much as the Saudis physically prevent pickpockets doing it again. Neither are solutions are easy swallowed by polite society. In becoming more civilised we also lay ourselves open to this sort of abuse, a significant swathe of our population have no fear of authority or the law and this case is just one of a myriad. So we either decide to get a lot tougher with those who won't pay the game or live with the consequences. We still haven't quite come to terms with the unpalatable fact that some are lost to society, and probably always were, that they can't be saved and that we need to deal with them effectively to maintain any sort of civilised society.

It isn't really a brain teaser, just a simple question of stomaching more jails or maiming those who will not behave as the majority of society thinks fit - and telling the liberals to go to h*ll on this occasion. Personally I can understand a hungry man stealing food, and we should help put him in a position where he isn't hungry. But if a well fed man steals food he deserves all he gets. And what he gets should be enough to persuade him not to do it again.

Oh and maybe if we paid more attention in their formative years we may get fewer of them. As it is the way things are going we're just setting ourselves up to get more of them. If getting a little less 'civilised' with the worst examples means we don't end up in gated communities with armed guards (basically imprisoning ourselves) then where do I sign?

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 02:09 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Hang on, what were these 54 offenses? They could all have just been technicalities.
Maybe... ;)
They can't all have been for driving while disqualified, surely? If so, why was he disqualified in the first place?

I probably committed that many "offenses" over the weekend. :roll:

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Ziltro wrote:
Hang on, what were these 54 offenses? They could all have just been technicalities.
Maybe... ;)
They can't all have been for driving while disqualified, surely? If so, why was he disqualified in the first place?

I probably committed that many "offenses" over the weekend. :roll:


That was pretty much my point.

Now, the fact of the car theft and burgalary suggest that he is not a particularly upstanding member of socioty.

But, I can certainly see a scenario where a different person, an "Innocent" person, gets a ban due to (harmless) speeding and totting up and then simply refuses to accept the ban. A form of civil dissobediance if you will. under those circumstances he would certainly be "targeted" by the authorities and every effort would be made to make him look bad. (EG a 1/4" tear on the outside edge of the NS wiper blade could be construed as an "Offence", as could a faulty number plate light bulb but neither would have any practical effect on vehicle safety and neither would say anything about the drivers competance and behaviour, Yet listed as "offences" in the headlines make him look wreckless and irrisponsible.)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.022s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]