OT Jade Goody given driving ban.



M

Martin Dann

Guest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6270506.stm

>
> Jade Goody is handed driving ban

> Television celebrity Jade Goody has been banned from driving for six months after admitting motoring offences.
>
> The 26-year-old, from Chipping Ongar, Essex, admitted driving her car on the M1 motorway in Buckinghamshire, in November, under a provisional licence.
>
> The former Big Brother contestant also pleaded guilty to driving while uninsured, and otherwise in accordance to her licence, in Brentwood, in March.
>
> Basildon Magistrates Court also ordered Goody to pay more than £1,500in fines.
>
> Passing sentence, magistrates' chairman Richard Albon said 14 points would be added to her driving licence resulting in the ban under the totting-up procedure.
>
> Phillip Kelly, mitigating, told the court Goody had made an error, cancelling her motor insurance instead of her home insurance policy.
>
> He also claimed Goody was "totally dependant" on her car.

> Mr Albon said the penalties had been imposed as a six-month driving banwould not cause "exceptional hardship" to Goody.

Ms Goody was "totally dependant" on her car, yet she only
had a provisional license.
 
Martin Dann wrote on 04/07/2007 17:27 +0100:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6270506.stm
>
>>
>> Jade Goody is handed driving ban
>
>> Television celebrity Jade Goody has been banned from driving for six
>> months after admitting motoring offences.
>>
>> The 26-year-old, from Chipping Ongar, Essex, admitted driving her car
>> on the M1 motorway in Buckinghamshire, in November, under a
>> provisional licence.
>>
>> The former Big Brother contestant also pleaded guilty to driving while
>> uninsured, and otherwise in accordance to her licence, in Brentwood,
>> in March.
>>
>> Basildon Magistrates Court also ordered Goody to pay more than £1,500
>> in fines.
>>
>> Passing sentence, magistrates' chairman Richard Albon said 14 points
>> would be added to her driving licence resulting in the ban under the
>> totting-up procedure.
>>
>> Phillip Kelly, mitigating, told the court Goody had made an error,
>> cancelling her motor insurance instead of her home insurance policy.
>>
>> He also claimed Goody was "totally dependant" on her car.
>
>> Mr Albon said the penalties had been imposed as a six-month driving
>> ban would not cause "exceptional hardship" to Goody.
>
> Ms Goody was "totally dependant" on her car, yet she only had a
> provisional license.

Ah but only because she made an error, cancelling her driving license
instead of her television license ;-)-

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
Martin Dann wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6270506.stm
>
>>
>> Jade Goody is handed driving ban
>
>> Television celebrity Jade Goody has been banned from driving for six
>> months after admitting motoring offences.
>>
>> The 26-year-old, from Chipping Ongar, Essex, admitted driving her car
>> on the M1 motorway in Buckinghamshire, in November, under a
>> provisional licence.
>>
>> The former Big Brother contestant also pleaded guilty to driving while
>> uninsured, and otherwise in accordance to her licence, in Brentwood,
>> in March.
>>
>> Basildon Magistrates Court also ordered Goody to pay more than £1,500
>> in fines.
>>
>> Passing sentence, magistrates' chairman Richard Albon said 14 points
>> would be added to her driving licence resulting in the ban under the
>> totting-up procedure.
>>
>> Phillip Kelly, mitigating, told the court Goody had made an error,
>> cancelling her motor insurance instead of her home insurance policy.
>>
>> He also claimed Goody was "totally dependant" on her car.
>
>> Mr Albon said the penalties had been imposed as a six-month driving
>> ban would not cause "exceptional hardship" to Goody.
>
> Ms Goody was "totally dependant" on her car, yet she only had a
> provisional license.

She's an oxygen thief, isn't she? She's been pictured in big black
motors for years in the celeb mags, but only passed her test last month.
 
Zog The Undeniable wrote:

> She's an oxygen thief, isn't she?

Yup!!!

> only passed her test last month.

Confused now, how could she have passed her test last month and yet have
a six month ban for driving on a motorway on a provisional?
--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk
 
soup wrote:
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
>> She's an oxygen thief, isn't she?
>
> Yup!!!
>
>> only passed her test last month.
>
> Confused now, how could she have passed her test last month and yet have
> a six month ban for driving on a motorway on a provisional?

The offence happened last November.

Stan Cox
 
Stan Cox said the following on 05/07/2007 06:56:

> The offence happened last November.

Perhaps under the circumstances they should have withheld her full
license until the case had been resolved. After all, it isn't one where
there could have been any doubt. She was on a motorway with no
insurance and a provisional license - that was never in question, was
it? In her short driving career she has already demonstrated that she
hasn't earned the right to drive.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
"Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stan Cox said the following on 05/07/2007 06:56:
>
>> The offence happened last November.
>
> Perhaps under the circumstances they should have withheld her full license
> until the case had been resolved. After all, it isn't one where there
> could have been any doubt. She was on a motorway with no insurance and a
> provisional license - that was never in question, was it? In her short
> driving career she has already demonstrated that she hasn't earned the
> right to drive.
>

Innocent until proven guilty has to come to mind.

What I mean by this is that she was caught in November and the law in this
country allows you to carry on with your life until the court case. As such
in that time she passed her test so why should she not get a full licence
even if a few weeks later she will get endoresments and have it withdrawn.

If they had witheld her full licence she could have still driven alone as
she had passed the test (although I realise there are certain restrictions
without the full licence in your possession), it would have served no
purpose.

Or are you suggesting that if you get caught committing an offence that you
should not continue with that activity (in this case driving) until the
court decides.

If that were the case then she would have technically been disqualified from
driving from that point and would have had to been deducted from the period,
a bit like they do when someone is remanded in custody for 12 months as it
has taken that long for the case to get to court.


Dave
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Martin Dann wrote on 04/07/2007 17:27 +0100:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6270506.stm
> >
> >>
> >> Jade Goody is handed driving ban
> >
> >> Television celebrity Jade Goody has been banned from driving for six
> >> months after admitting motoring offences.
> >>
> >> The 26-year-old, from Chipping Ongar, Essex, admitted driving her car
> >> on the M1 motorway in Buckinghamshire, in November, under a
> >> provisional licence.
> >>
> >> The former Big Brother contestant also pleaded guilty to driving while
> >> uninsured, and otherwise in accordance to her licence, in Brentwood,
> >> in March.
> >>
> >> Basildon Magistrates Court also ordered Goody to pay more than £1,500
> >> in fines.
> >>
> >> Passing sentence, magistrates' chairman Richard Albon said 14 points
> >> would be added to her driving licence resulting in the ban under the
> >> totting-up procedure.
> >>
> >> Phillip Kelly, mitigating, told the court Goody had made an error,
> >> cancelling her motor insurance instead of her home insurance policy.
> >>
> >> He also claimed Goody was "totally dependant" on her car.
> >
> >> Mr Albon said the penalties had been imposed as a six-month driving
> >> ban would not cause "exceptional hardship" to Goody.
> >
> > Ms Goody was "totally dependant" on her car, yet she only had a
> > provisional license.
>
> Ah but only because she made an error, cancelling her driving license
> instead of her television license ;-)-

oh they still write letters, though not exackly well targeted they send
loads to places that don't exist any more, mind you one of the gas firms
sends letters to one of the moblie phone transmitters...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
Dave said the following on 05/07/2007 09:11:

> Or are you suggesting that if you get caught committing an offence that you
> should not continue with that activity (in this case driving) until the
> court decides.

I did say "under the circumstances". As reported by the media, this was
clear-cut. It wasn't a case of "Was she driving without insurance or a
full license?" but "She was driving without insurance or a full
license." Whilst the actual sentence would still have been to be
decided, the fact that she was guilty of this particular offence was not
in question - she was proven guilty as soon as she was caught. It's a
bit like driving without VED [1] - you either have it or you don't. It
doesn't need a court for the DVLA to issue a fine if you don't have it.

This is a different situation to a speeding camera trap for instance,
where if the offender chooses to take the case to court the police (?)
have to prove it was that person driving - in that situation there is
legal doubt and the offender is entitled to be considered innocent until
proven guilty, even if they are guilty :)

[1] for the pedants :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
"Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave said the following on 05/07/2007 09:11:
>
>> Or are you suggesting that if you get caught committing an offence that
>> you should not continue with that activity (in this case driving) until
>> the court decides.
>
> I did say "under the circumstances". As reported by the media, this was
> clear-cut. It wasn't a case of "Was she driving without insurance or a
> full license?" but "She was driving without insurance or a full license."
> Whilst the actual sentence would still have been to be decided, the fact
> that she was guilty of this particular offence was not in question - she
> was proven guilty as soon as she was caught. It's a bit like driving
> without VED [1] - you either have it or you don't. It doesn't need a
> court for the DVLA to issue a fine if you don't have it.
>

In this county we don't officially have trial by media though. So it may be
true that she doesn't have a full licence or insurance and was driving on
the motorway but it is for a court to find the case proven even if someone
please guilty the court have to accept that plea then pass sentence.

Had she effectively been banned from driving from the time she was caught
she would have been half way through the ban by now.

I agree with you about VED - because that is a tax and you have either paid
it or you haven't. If you haven't then you suffer the consequenses. If on
the other hand you have no MOT and need it you are not prevented from using
the car in most instances until the case goes to court.


> This is a different situation to a speeding camera trap for instance,
> where if the offender chooses to take the case to court the police (?)
> have to prove it was that person driving - in that situation there is
> legal doubt and the offender is entitled to be considered innocent until
> proven guilty, even if they are guilty :)
>

I don't know where you stand legally here as I have never tried it (don't
drive), but when a speeding offence occurs and it is a camera whether fixed
or mobile that "catches" you a letter is sent from the Police Force and it
asks you as registered keeper who was driving the vehicle at this time - you
have so many days to give that info and the letter tells you that to fail to
provide that info will involve you been taken to court for the offence of
failing to provide this info.

So as far as I can see they don't have to prove who was driving but thae
fact that the particular vehicle was in a given place at a given time and
date and was speeding.

If you choose not to tell them who was driving then you would have to argue
with the court.

Dave
 
Roger Merriman wrote on 05/07/2007 09:48 +0100:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ah but only because she made an error, cancelling her driving license
>> instead of her television license ;-)-
>
> oh they still write letters, though not exackly well targeted they send
> loads to places that don't exist any more, mind you one of the gas firms
> sends letters to one of the moblie phone transmitters...
>

We have a place we escape to without a television (or phone!) and its
been quite amusing watching the monthly letters from TVLA getting more
and more threatening and hysterical over the years about us not having a
TV license. My response at the beginning of "if you have any evidence
that we are using a TV..." was met by the expectation that I must prove
to them I didn't have a TV. Well forget that!


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
Jane Goody. Reminds me of that line - The triumph of mediocrity.

Why on earth would any rational, balanced person want to watch the
goings on of a bunch of half witted social misfits talking and acting
a load of complete and utter bollocks is beyond me. Big Brother -
watched by millions. The thing that really worries me is that they are
all liable to sit on juries if over 18!
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>We have a place we escape to without a television (or phone!) and its
>been quite amusing watching the monthly letters from TVLA

We spend a fair amount of time at a cottage that has no television or
phone, but it doesn't have a postal service either, which appears to
avoid that problem.
 
citizen142 said the following on 05/07/2007 13:13:
> Jane Goody. Reminds me of that line - The triumph of mediocrity.
>
> Why on earth would any rational, balanced person want to watch the
> goings on of a bunch of half witted social misfits talking and acting
> a load of complete and utter bollocks is beyond me. Big Brother -
> watched by millions.

According to the Mirror (not my paper!!!) she can't use public transport
because she's a celebrity. Uh???

> The thing that really worries me is that they are
> all liable to sit on juries if over 18!

The actors or the viewers? :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Tony Raven said the following on 05/07/2007 12:22:

> We have a place we escape to without a television (or phone!) and its
> been quite amusing watching the monthly letters from TVLA getting more
> and more threatening and hysterical over the years about us not having a
> TV license.

I never had a television whilst I was growing up. I'm told I had a
deprived childhood! Quite regularly though a bloke would knock at the
door demanding of either myself or my brother to see our TV License (Mum
would usually still be at work - we were latch-key kids as well as
having no telly!!!). The answer "We haven't got one" would result in a
tirade about how bad that was, so we let them finish then say "No, I
meant we haven't got a television". Oddly they never actually wanted to
come in and check!

My mother had the same problem when she moved to Lincolnshire, then
after a series of increasingly threatening letters a man turned up at
her door. Apparently he was very pleasant, didn't want to come in, was
just doing his job, and toddled off again. She's had no hassle since.

Sitting on my desk at work at the moment is a mildly threatening letter
about these premises not having a license and the consequences of not
sending the form back to them. We're just waiting for someone to turn
up! I've got better things to do at work than fill in forms - things
like playing on usenet :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Roger Merriman twisted the electrons to say:
> mind you one of the gas firms sends letters to one of the moblie phone
> transmitters...

npower used to regularly send an electricity bill to a roadsign on the
A166.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 

> According to the Mirror (not my paper!!!) she can't use public transport
> because she's a celebrity. Uh???

I saw (inadvertantly, honest!) a bit of a documentary about her well
over a year ago and she was driving (alone) a Porsche Boxter and
scraping it up against another car whilst giggling all the time that
she was a hopeless parker.

Robert
 
citizen142 wrote:
> The thing that really worries me is that they are
> all liable to sit on juries if over 18!

Jeremy Clarkson wrote an article about that and how some "human rights
activists" were up in arms at the loss of trial by jury for small cases.
He then went on to talk about how incredibly stupid some people were and
that they could decide on the guilt or innocence of defendants.





--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk
 
Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> writes:


> According to the Mirror (not my paper!!!) she can't use public
> transport because she's a celebrity.

Perhaps she should get a bike then :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Paris - Roubaix- result not given
Replies
2
Views
175
UK and Europe
[email protected]
U
S
"Cycle doctor" given jail sentence.
Replies
0
Views
435
UK and Europe
Simon Mason
S
S
I'm not usually given to shouting from the sofa [tdf spoiler]
Replies
19
Views
653
UK and Europe
Martin 'MSeries' Newstead
M
P
H*lm*ts given prominent coverage on news.bbc.co.uk
Replies
11
Views
685
UK and Europe
Vc
V
P
H*lm*ts given prominent coverage on news.bbc.co.uk
Replies
11
Views
363
UK and Europe
VC
V
Top Bottom Back