Dangerous driving

Joined
24 Sep 2005
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
268
Country
United Kingdom
The boxer Amir Khan has been released on bail after being charged with dangerous driving.
Greater Manchester police confirmed that Khan, 19, had been arrested on Saturday after an incident in March in his home town of Bolton.
A spokesman said: "On Thursday March 2 2006, police were called to Bradshawgate in Bolton following reports that a car was in collision with a pedestrian.
The pedestrian was taken to the Royal Bolton hospital suffering from a broken leg."

I am betting not guilty - irrespective...
I wonder if someone has / will make a blunder in the required procedures ... Cue the 'loophole' brief..
:cool:
 
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
ban-all-sheds said:
That seems a singularly pointless piece of unfounded supposition.

:D :D :D If you are rich enough .... Apparently, 'there is a good chance a loophole existing.. Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences runs to 1,300 pages plus a further 2,300 pages of statutes and regulations.'

Loophole brief? ..
One
Two

This next one is just about - 'irrespective' - of the fact that the person was 'over the limit' ..
"I recently defended a businessman who had crashed his car and was taken to hospital seriously injured," he says. "The law used to forbid the police from taking blood from an unconscious person, but now allows it on condition that consent is obtained from the person afterwards. In this case, the driver was surrounded by about seven surgeons trying to save his life, so the police surgeon, not wanting to get in the way, asked one of them to draw some blood from a tube coming out of the driver's arm. There was no doubt the driver was over the limit, but the relevant legislation says that the blood must be taken by someone who is not associated with the driver's care. In this case, it was taken by a surgeon directly involved, and so the man was acquitted."

:rolleyes:
 
Cue the 'loophole' brief..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1695965,00.html

Watched an interview with him on local TV recently, he was talking about his reputation and speeding. He came over as quite modest really and reckoned around 90% of speeding offences are technically wrongly issued and challengeable. Most of us just don't know the law well enough and obviously can't afford "celebrities" defending us.

I am not condoning speeding or dangerous driving but you would expect the police or CPS to get it right by now. :eek:
 
If it cant be proved who was driving the car, then charge the legal owner (registered keeper) with the offence. If the person who WAS driving the car (if it wasn't the RK) has a conscience, they will come forward and admit, then the charge transfers to them.

Loophole my eye. I think its time the govt started counter-loopholes such as my suggestion above, this would stop the morons claiming they weren't driving ;)

Saw some pictures in the paper today of idiots driving while talking on a handheld and with no hands while speeding etc, taken from the new cameras that can see the driver. Good stuff. ;)

Also, if someone is claiming they weren't driving and has 11 points on their license, its blindingly obvious that they are making this claim to avoid loosing their license. Charge them and ruin their career. They should have thought about the consequences before undertaking the action. :evil:
 
ban-all-sheds said:
Only from the likes of some of the ranting neanderthals here...
never been called that before. first time for everything i suppose.

:LOL: :cool: :LOL: :cool: :LOL: :cool:
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top