Harriet Harman fined £350 for driving offence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Vicko Zoomba on 8 Jan 2010 08:12 On 8 Jan, 12:58, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > Bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > > saying: > > >> Agreed, surely the phone records were checked? > > > The phone records would not prove whether she committed that offence or > > not. > > She must have denied it, then? > > Unless she exercised her right to say nowt. I'm sure we don't have a right to say nowt in this country. Wasn't it removed about three yrs ago or so? McKevvy
From: Vicko Zoomba on 8 Jan 2010 08:13 On 8 Jan, 12:59, "Mortimer" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7qonugFp5bU22(a)mid.individual.net... > > > Vicko Zoomba <vicko_zoo...(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > > like they were saying: > > >> Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, has admitted driving > >> without due care and attention. > > >> My, oh my. I wonder why the phone charge was dropped. Weren't the > >> witness statements enough? > > > I'm quite happy with DWDC&A being the only charge that's stuck. It's the > > most serious of them. > > I think DWDC&A and a £350 fine is very severe for an accident that caused no > damage that resulted in anyone contacting their insurance company. When I > saw the headline about a £350 fine, I assumed it was for using her phone > while driving and/or "failing to report an accident" (to the owner of the > car as opposed to a witness), both of which offences were mentioned when the > incident was originally reported. But if she wasn't charged with those or if > the charges were later dropped, then all that's left is a minor nudge that > should have been sorted out with a few quid changing hands to cover any > damage and no need to take it further. I suspect that the owner of the car > was out to cause maximum trouble and embarrassment to HH. > > Maybe the phone charge was dropped because it was difficult to prove to the > second when the accident occurred, to relate it to when she was on the > phone. She could say "yes, I was using the phone but I stopped, then set off > and a second or so later hit the car". But there were witnesses as well. I wonder why she wasn't charged with leaving the scene? McKevvy
From: Bod on 8 Jan 2010 08:14 Nkosi (ama-ecosse) wrote: > On 8 Jan, 12:59, "Mortimer" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> "Adrian" <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7qonugFp5bU22(a)mid.individual.net... >> >>> Vicko Zoomba <vicko_zoo...(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >>> like they were saying: >>>> Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, has admitted driving >>>> without due care and attention. >>>> My, oh my. I wonder why the phone charge was dropped. Weren't the >>>> witness statements enough? >>> I'm quite happy with DWDC&A being the only charge that's stuck. It's the >>> most serious of them. >> I think DWDC&A and a �350 fine is very severe for an accident that caused no >> damage that resulted in anyone contacting their insurance company. When I >> saw the headline about a �350 fine, I assumed it was for using her phone >> while driving and/or "failing to report an accident" (to the owner of the >> car as opposed to a witness), both of which offences were mentioned when the >> incident was originally reported. But if she wasn't charged with those or if >> the charges were later dropped, then all that's left is a minor nudge that >> should have been sorted out with a few quid changing hands to cover any >> damage and no need to take it further. I suspect that the owner of the car >> was out to cause maximum trouble and embarrassment to HH. >> >> Maybe the phone charge was dropped because it was difficult to prove to the >> second when the accident occurred, to relate it to when she was on the >> phone. She could say "yes, I was using the phone but I stopped, then set off >> and a second or so later hit the car". But there were witnesses as well. > > Should have been hung, drawn and quartered like the rest of us. > > Nkosi > > If Steve Filth had have been prosecuting, he would have probably had the heinious crime of 'Driving a POS... Rover 75'...Ha! :-) Bod
From: CorporalJones on 8 Jan 2010 11:31 On 08/01/2010 12:42, Vicko Zoomba wrote: > Sentencing, District Judge Nicholas Evans said: "I propose a fine of > �350, costs of �70, a victim surcharge of �15 and the licence will be > endorsed with three penalty points." > > > McKevvy She will probably claim the cost of the fine as a legitimate expense whilst on business. -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: Vicko Zoomba on 8 Jan 2010 11:48
On 8 Jan, 16:31, CorporalJones <CorporalJo...(a)thentlworld.com> wrote: > On 08/01/2010 12:42, Vicko Zoomba wrote: > > > Sentencing, District Judge Nicholas Evans said: "I propose a fine of > > £350, costs of £70, a victim surcharge of £15 and the licence will be > > endorsed with three penalty points." > > > McKevvy > > She will probably claim the cost of the fine as a legitimate expense > whilst on business. > I dont think there's much else that will surprise me about the current crowd of politicians. McKevvy |