Huhne

[Guest]

I'm puzzled as to how Mr. Huhne came to his sticky end.

It is, I believe, far from uncommon for MPs to get excessive points on their driving licences. But the idea that 12 points leads to removal of licence is nonsense......I know plenty of people who, having reached their limit, have gone humbly to court and pleaded that the removal of their licence would lead to their inability to continue with their work, thus adding to the unemployment statistics and leading to yet another charge upon the state.

A fine is imposed and you have to cover the cost of your travel to the area where the offence was committed (because that's where you'll appear in court). Then you can drive away, with a caution.

Surely a man as versed in the ways of the world as Mr. Huhne should have known this? I realise he was not an MP at that point, but the fact that he would have to do a lot of scooting about in order to win his constituency would have been a powerful argument for letting him off, n'est pas?

A sobering thought, though, that this miserable perjurer could easily have become the leader of his Party. It would not have been the first time a person with a cavalier attitude to the law had led a party with 'liberal' in its title.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/snp-s-joan-mcalpine-given-driving-ban-for-speeding-1-2779588

[Dave2002]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transpo...ding-1-2779588

Might have been better if there could be a statute of limitations for things like this. After so many years this does seem like a witch hunt simply to get someone down.

I'm not advocating letting everything go (e.g. old murder casess), but I think a decent sense of proportion has been lost in this case. The media of course love it.

[ahinton]

I'm puzzled as to how Mr. Huhne came to his sticky end.

It is, I believe, far from uncommon for MPs to get excessive points on their driving licences. But the idea that 12 points leads to removal of licence is nonsense......I know plenty of people who, having reached their limit, have gone humbly to court and pleaded that the removal of their licence would lead to their inability to continue with their work, thus adding to the unemployment statistics and leading to yet another charge upon the state.

A fine is imposed and you have to cover the cost of your travel to the area where the offence was committed (because that's where you'll appear in court). Then you can drive away, with a caution.

Surely a man as versed in the ways of the world as Mr. Huhne should have known this? I realise he was not an MP at that point, but the fact that he would have to do a lot of scooting about in order to win his constituency would have been a powerful argument for letting him off, n'est pas?

It doesn't puzzle me. Yes, there are ways of trying to circumvent licence removal that can work in certain circumstances, but the accused is very much in the lap of the Courts in such cases, so there can be no hard-and-fast guarantees of getting away with it unless the offence can successfully be disproved. His "sticky end" came about not through this, however, but through the manner and matter of his perjury and exchanging of licence points, which is a quite different offence to the sort that can attract points on a licence in the first place and an especially serious one for someone who was to become an MP and who sought to cover it up in part because he'd become one. Oh - and it's "n'est-ce pas", by the way...

A sobering thought, though, that this miserable perjurer could easily have become the leader of his Party. It would not have been the first time a person with a cavalier attitude to the law had led a party with 'liberal' in its title.

With this assertion I think you've largely answered your own question, actually...

[Sir Velo]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transpo...ding-1-2779588

Seems McAlpine got off lightly. I fail to understand that having 9 points already on her licence she didn't get the full penalty which the law demands. The excuse about needing the car for work is beyond belief, given she already had had three de facto warnings. Something has to be done about magistrates failing to enforce the proper punishment here, as approximately 40% of all those with 12 or more (sic) points on their licence are still on the road. "Extreme hardship" is the only mitigation according to the law. On no conceivable grounds could McAlpine be considered to suffer extreme hardship from a ban.

As usual, the lawyers are making capital out of this farcical state of affairs. Scroll down for the Celtic footballer's testimonial that he and "a number of teammates" have been helped in the past. Beggars belief.

[Mandryka]

It doesn't puzzle me. Yes, there are ways of trying to circumvent licence removal that can work in certain circumstances, but the accused is very much in the lap of the Courts in such cases, so there can be no hard-and-fast guarantees of getting away with it unless the offence can successfully be disproved. His "sticky end" came about not through this, however, but through the manner and matter of his perjury and exchanging of licence points, which is a quite different offence to the sort that can attract points on a licence in the first place and an especially serious one for someone who was to become an MP and who sought to cover it up in part because he'd become one.

Yes, he's resigned and will probably go to jail because of the perjury - but my point was that his contortions over getting his wife to take the points where not necessary, when there was a probable 'get out' available to him.

[Dave2002]

There are people driving who have effectively more than 12 points. You could argue that in some cases this might be justified. Doctors are a particular case, and one argument might be that good doctors can do more good overall by being allowed to continue to work, even though their driving might be questionable, than if they are prevented from doing so. There may be other occupations where the balance of risks and benefits need to be taken into account by courts relating to driving offences. I believe that the current approach by the judiciary does take such balance into account.

[ahinton]

There are people driving who have effectively more than 12 points. You could argue that in some cases this might be justified. Doctors are a particular case, and one argument might be that good doctors can do more good overall by being allowed to continue to work, even though their driving might be questionable, than if they are prevented from doing so. There may be other occupations where the balance of risks and benefits need to be taken into account by courts relating to driving offences. I believe that the current approach by the judiciary does take such balance into account.

That's right, of course - but we do appear to be losing sight of the fact that Huhne's downfall was far less about numbers of points and driving responsibilities than about whose points were whose, a cavalier attitude towards the law (which is not the best kind for a politician to have), contempt of Court and barefaced and persistent lying.

[Mr Pee]

There are people driving who have effectively more than 12 points. You could argue that in some cases this might be justified. Doctors are a particular case, and one argument might be that good doctors can do more good overall by being allowed to continue to work, even though their driving might be questionable, than if they are prevented from doing so. There may be other occupations where the balance of risks and benefits need to be taken into account by courts relating to driving offences. I believe that the current approach by the judiciary does take such balance into account.

Well that's an interesting point of view. As a vulnerable cyclist, I'll bear it in mind if I get mown down by a speeding doctor who should have lost his licence.

[Resurrection Man]

..... Oh - and it's "n'est-ce pas", by the way...

..

It's generally considered bad manners to criticise a fellow poster's errors in this way.

[Sir Velo]

There are people driving who have effectively more than 12 points. You could argue that in some cases this might be justified. Doctors are a particular case, and one argument might be that good doctors can do more good overall by being allowed to continue to work, even though their driving might be questionable, than if they are prevented from doing so. There may be other occupations where the balance of risks and benefits need to be taken into account by courts relating to driving offences. I believe that the current approach by the judiciary does take such balance into account.

I wish I could share your faith in the judiciary. Sadly, there is little consistency among magistrates. Have a look at some of the testimonials in the previous link and ask yourself whether you are happy for these people to still be on the road: I know I'm not.

The simple answer, and I'm afraid it really is simple, is stick to the speed limit. Anyone with 12 points has effectively had three warnings so they can hardly claim bad luck. What gets me is McAlpine's martyr act; "Oh yes, there can't be a different rule for me as an MP, so I accept my punishment", as if she's been treated harshly. Too right. That's called the law stupid!

[Sir Velo]

Well that's an interesting point of view. As a vulnerable cyclist, I'll bear it in mind if I get mown down by a speeding doctor who should have lost his licence.

:ok:

A joke that's sadly all too true that's doing the rounds among the cycling fraternity is that if you want to kill someone, just run them over. You probably won't get more than 12 months, and most likely won't even lose your licence.

[MrGongGong]

People do talk a load of tosh about this
It's fairly clear what the speed limits are
driving too fast is likely to be the cause of death of the person you hit
it's very simple not to drive to fast
and if you do it's also clear what happens
whether you are a doctor , mp or roadsweeper

When I went on a "speed awareness" day out (which is what you get here for going over the limit by a small amount in place of points and a fine) I was amazed at the nonsense one person came out with about how "unjust" it was.

Doctors get paid well enough to be able to afford to take a taxi if they are prosecuted for speeding .......

[Mandryka]

It's generally considered bad manners to criticise a fellow poster's errors in this way.

I have been critical of ahinton's writing style in the past, hopefully in a constructive way, so I take his correction of my French grammar in good part. :)

[gurnemanz]

People do talk a load of tosh about this
It's fairly clear what the speed limits are
driving too fast is likely to be the cause of death of the person you hit
it's very simple not to drive to fast
and if you do it's also clear what happens
whether you are a doctor , mp or roadsweeper

When I went on a "speed awareness" day out (which is what you get here for going over the limit by a small amount in place of points and a fine) I was amazed at the nonsense one person came out with about how "unjust" it was.

Doctors get paid well enough to be able to afford to take a taxi if they are prosecuted for speeding .......

I was going to chip in to make similar comments. I got three points quite soon after these cameras first started appearing. It worked. After that I have been much more careful to keep to the limits, which almost certainly means that I am less likely to kill or maim someone.