From: D Walford on
On 30/03/2010 10:54 PM, Noddy wrote:
> "D Walford"<dwalford(a)> wrote in message
> news:4bb1e0f7$0$27792$c3e8da3(a)
>> Yep but once he found out who he was all hell broke loose
> Go watch the video's :)

What videos?

> The cops pulled him over, informed him that his car was going to be
> impounded under the hoon laws like anyone elses, and towed it away. That's
> *precisely* what they would have done (and *have* done) for anyone else in
> similar circumstances regardless of their celebrity status.

Not correct, my son was stopped for getting his car sideways around a
roundabout, he was let off with a warning.
> The only hell braking loose was the media having a field day with an F1
> driver acting irresponsibly which, in my opinion, he thoroughly deserved.
>> Not at all but even the worst F1 driver in history actually has a clue
>> about how to control a car, "louts" doing burnouts usually don't.
> I'd argue that if he *really* had a clue then he wouldn't have been doing
> what he did within close proximity of other vehicles and pedestrians.

What makes you think there was anyone near where it happened?
That road is normally very quiet after hours with sfa traffic and even
less pedestrians.

From: D Walford on
On 30/03/2010 10:32 PM, Noddy wrote:
> "D Walford"<dwalford(a)> wrote in message
> news:4bb1d987$0$27808$c3e8da3(a)
>> Correct but in this case it seems they were applied more harshly simply
>> because he was famous.
> Are you *seriously* suggesting that he was treated the slightest bit
> differently to how anyone else would be?

See my reply about my son getting off with a warning.

> The only part of his "treatment" that was harsh as far as I could tell was
> the media attention he copped, and that had nothing to do with the law or
> the actions of the police. The average Joe wouldn't have been on the
> receiving end of such attention, which was all the more reason for him to be
> conscious of what he was doing.
>> Littering is a more serious offence than what he did but I doubt throwing
>> some rubbish on the ground would have created a media frenzy as there
>> would be nothing in it for Vic's chief nanny (Ken Lay).
> That may or may not be so, but he got what he deserved and that was the
> *right* thing to do. The authorities had no choice in the matter as the
> media was all over it.

Which brings up the question of how the media "was all over it".

To have *not* prosecuted him would only serve to
> ridicule the police and the law and create a media shitfight about "laws for
> them and us".

We agree on that point, once they found out they had to be seen to be
doing something:-)

From: Neil Gerace on
D Walford wrote:

> Do the Poms have such laws?
> If Pommy laws on such things are the same as ours and he knew it was a
> big deal than I would agree but most sane people wouldn't think spinning
> a cars wheels warranted such a furore.

It should no difference whether he knew what the law was, or not.

> Hands up those here who have never span a cars wheels,

Not having been in his position, I've never done it next to a cop car while thinking, "I'm famous, I'm untouchable."
From: Neil Gerace on
D Walford wrote:

> Of course he could have prevented it if he had wanted to but he probably
> wasn't familiar with Vic law which makes wheel spin a hanging offence,
> it still doesn't make him a bad driver.

Not having the presence of mind to stop himself from doing what he did - that's what makes him a bad driver.
From: Neil Gerace on
D Walford wrote:
> That is true to a point but believe it or there are places on this
> planet where spinning your cars wheels aren't considered to be such a
> big deal.

Not many such places are public streets with lots of people watching, I reckon.