Prev: Start/Stop "ECO" cars
Next: Car dealers still conning the public on finance...
From: Silk on 29 Apr 2010 13:46
On 29/04/2010 19:01, FrengaX wrote:
> What do the revised rules on MPs' expenses say about the use of
> chauffeurs of very large taxi bills? And what if the reason for
> needing these is self-inflicted, i.e. you are banned from driving.

They're our leaders for goodness sake. They should be entitled to a bit
of privilege; this is Great Britain, not Scandinavia. Otherwise, what's
the point? Same goes for first class travel. They're in a class above
the riff-raff and deserve be treated as such. Anyone who thinks
otherwise should remember that envy is a sin.
From: Silk on 29 Apr 2010 13:50
On 29/04/2010 19:17, JNugent wrote:

> I thought that the only circumstances where that applied were ones where
> there was something about the commission of the offence (eg, the
> driver's drink having been spiked) which rendered it non-deliberate?

You can also use an emergency as an excuse. For example, if someone was
chasing you with a gun and the only way of escape was to drive away. In
either case, you would simply be found not guilty.
From: Conor on 29 Apr 2010 15:03
On 29/04/2010 19:01, FrengaX wrote:
> What do the revised rules on MPs' expenses say about the use of
> chauffeurs of very large taxi bills? And what if the reason for
> needing these is self-inflicted, i.e. you are banned from driving.
>

The Prime Minister earns ONE THIRD of what the Chief Executive of my
local council does.

The winner of "The Apprentice" earns 50% more than an MP.



--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: JNugent on 29 Apr 2010 15:41
Brimstone wrote:
>
>
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:83u05nF4e6U8(a)mid.individual.net...
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>
>>> Many people don't get banned after being convicted of drink driving. The
>>> magistrates have the discretion.
>>
>> For drink/drive? Really?
>>
>> I thought that was a mandatory one year, three for second-in-a-decade
>> (with possibility of later reduction to two)?
>
> Do you not recall cases where a ban has not been imposed due to the
> effect it would have on the offenders family or some other aspect of his
> life?

Only under totting-up or an offence where a ban is possible but
discretionary. Bans for alcohol offences are only discretionary if there is a
demonstrated defence of total inadvertence.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 30 Apr 2010 04:46
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:03:43 +0100, "Brimstone"
<brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>Many people don't get banned after being convicted of drink driving. The
>magistrates have the discretion

"many" or one or two?
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Start/Stop "ECO" cars
Next: Car dealers still conning the public on finance...