• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
null;

David Beckham - has the law changed?

Recommended Posts

Beckham uses Mr Loophole to get off a speeding ticket on a technicality:

Quote

 

District judge Barbara Barnes said a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) was sent on 2 February and should have arrived at Bentley Motors Ltd, the registered keepers of the vehicle, by 6 February.

However, she was satisfied on the evidence heard it did not in fact arrive until 7 February - one day outside the statutory 14-day window.

 

My understanding of NIPs was that they are posted and are deemed to have arrived - even if they get totally lost in the post. I thought the critical thing was when they are sent, not when they arrive.

Have I got that wrong?

And what is it with these people that he can't just admit it and pay the fine? There was no arguement that he wasn't speeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spygirl said:

No, just the expensive lawyer.

You can carry them in the trunk and the bury them in dirt under the motoway. I saw a film about that, by some poof called Quentin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, null; said:

And what is it with these people that he can't just admit it and pay the fine? There was no arguement that he wasn't speeding.

May not have even known about it as they have lackeys to sort this sort of shit out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MrPin said:

Should I get a Bentley like a footballer?

It sounds like if you can give the registered keeper of the vehicle(obviously best if not you)  a sufficiently difficult address so that the postie can't find it in 14 days, you can drive as fast as you like. So there you go. Register it to someone in the wilds of Scotland up a dirt track or at the end of a flooded causeway that's only dry at low spring tides, and you're good to go.

Oh and you'd have to have a camera to prove when it did arrive late.

Edited by swiss_democracy_for_all
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, think I've worked it out.

Claiming you never received the NIP is a non starter, especially as otherwise everyone would just claim it never arrived.

The trick is say you did in fact receive the NIP but that it was late, outside of the 14 day window.

The thing is, would the mags believe you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

It sounds like if you can give the registered keeper of the vehicle(obviously best if not you)  a sufficiently difficult address so that the postie can't find it in 14 days, you can drive as fast as you like. So there you go. Register it to someone in the wilds of Scotland up a dirt track or at the end of a flooded causeway that's only dry at low spring tides, and you're good to go.

 

I believe I shall do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is likely that the court would have needed someone else to appear as a witness, possibly from Bentley,  to vouch that the letter had not been received in time. If they are happy to state this under oath then there is no reason for the court to believe otherwise.

I don't have a problem with anyone getting out of a ban which it may have well been at that speed. He is acting within the confines of the law and anyone can represent themselves in court using the exact same reasoning. If the courts don't like it then they shouldn't have imposed these arbitrary time limits.

The website Pepipoo is a great free resource for things like this and has helped me in the past. I'd like to know how much Freeman was paid for representing him though, ultimately Beckham could have done all of this himself for about 15 minutes work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spunko said:

The website Pepipoo is a great free resource for things like this and has helped me in the past. I'd like to know how much Freeman was paid for representing him though, ultimately Beckham could have done all of this himself for about 15 minutes work. 

I expect that Beckham has paid more for his defence than paying a chauffeur for the period he might have been disqualified from driving for. Notwithstanding his insurance premium might increase.  

Fine: Band B £100 - £1000

Points: 4 - 6 

Disqualification: 7 - 28 days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sleepwello'nights said:

I expect that Beckham has paid more for his defence than paying a chauffeur for the period he might have been disqualified from driving for. Notwithstanding his insurance premium might increase.  

Fine: Band B £100 - £1000

Points: 4 - 6 

Disqualification: 7 - 28 days

Beckham is a tosser IMO. He doesn’t think for himself. Instead he listens to his “advisors’.....for a fee of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shindigger said:

No get one like the cockney dwarf, gobshite, plumber, you know, the fella who is Sky News' idea of the working man.

What that "pimlico" guy with the boufant hairdoo? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WorkingPoor said:

What that "pimlico" guy with the boufant hairdoo? 

The hairstyle adds at least 2inchs to his height.

I wonder if he does something similar with his pubes ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't fine national treasures.

I'd expect the people fining him were embarrassed. No lawyers involved.

Edited by 201p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar happened to him over a decade ago. I only knew of it because a late night jock on Jazz FM (before it turned to crap by chasing the cash register) was ranting about him keeping his license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National treasure (?!) or man on the street, shouldn't make any difference really. Why should a celebrity be expected to pay a fine that the everyman would get out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some sympathy for Beckham.

He didn't kill anyone, or cause anyone loss or harm. His crime was purely a legal technicality.

If the law is going to be founded on technicalities then the law itself should follow all of it's own technicalities.

If the law is inflexible even when no harm is done, the law cannot be flexible about it's own rules in order to prosecute someone.

Whether I believe his tale about the NIP arriving late is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy Renting said:

I have some sympathy for Beckham.

He didn't kill anyone, or cause anyone loss or harm. His crime was purely a legal technicality.

If the law is going to be founded on technicalities then the law itself should follow all of it's own technicalities.

If the law is inflexible even when no harm is done, the law cannot be flexible about it's own rules in order to prosecute someone.

Whether I believe his tale about the NIP arriving late is another matter.

Absolutely wrong.  With that kind of attitude there'd be disasters all over the place.

The deal with driving is the same as with other low-probability high-impact activities that are undertaken, such as piloting an aircraft, operating heavy machinery, running factories, working in hospitals, etc.  You know, if you're drugged up the chances are you won't crash your car.  If you've got a junior nurse with insufficient training the chances are they won't mix the drugs wrongly.  If you've got an extremely tired pilot the chances are you won't muck up landing an aircraft.  But in those circumstances those 'bad events' are more likely to happen (even if from a low base), and if those  things do happen, then you've got a whole world of pain ahead.  Hence we have rules to try to stop them where possible.

With driving offences such as speeding you can't say 'no-one was hurt'.  With Beckham's speeding it is the same as the other 1,000's of incidents of speeding per day -- with the majority no-one is hurt, but, pretty much randomly, every now and then someone does get hurt.  That one individual isn't the only guilty party -- each person that didn't cause an accident should be saying 'oh, lucky today -- I was one of the 99,999* that didn't cause a serious injury/death through my own eagerness to get to lunch 50 seconds earlier'.

* or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dgul said:

Absolutely wrong.  With that kind of attitude there'd be disasters all over the place.

The deal with driving is the same as with other low-probability high-impact activities that are undertaken, such as piloting an aircraft, operating heavy machinery, running factories, working in hospitals, etc.  You know, if you're drugged up the chances are you won't crash your car.  If you've got a junior nurse with insufficient training the chances are they won't mix the drugs wrongly.  If you've got an extremely tired pilot the chances are you won't muck up landing an aircraft.  But in those circumstances those 'bad events' are more likely to happen (even if from a low base), and if those  things do happen, then you've got a whole world of pain ahead.  Hence we have rules to try to stop them where possible.

With driving offences such as speeding you can't say 'no-one was hurt'.  With Beckham's speeding it is the same as the other 1,000's of incidents of speeding per day -- with the majority no-one is hurt, but, pretty much randomly, every now and then someone does get hurt.  That one individual isn't the only guilty party -- each person that didn't cause an accident should be saying 'oh, lucky today -- I was one of the 99,999* that didn't cause a serious injury/death through my own eagerness to get to lunch 50 seconds earlier'.

* or whatever.

Agreed, except that your hypothetical accident didn't happen, and thus his particular crime WAS a technicality. There was no victim, no injured party. 'Just' a broken rule.

But he didn't escape conviction because his alleged crime was a technicality. It was because the prosecution also has to obey technicalities. Your post above is, in fact, in support of observing technicalities.

Arguing that there could have been an injured party is a red herring - someone could have been injured even if he was driving at below the speed limited. The likelihood may be lower, but likelihood is a projection of future events, not retrospective. It didn't happen, whatever the speed.

Consider a different, but equally unpalatable scenario: The public is held inflexibly to account to the full letter of the law, but the prosecution is allowed to bend and ignore their own rules as it pleases. That is the essence of tyranny.

With that kind of attitude there would be malfeisance and injustice all over the place.

So I agree with the law, as upheld by the Court in this case.

Edited by Happy Renting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.