Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
One rule for one ,and all that
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 10
|
By:
Technicality,spelling never my strong point
 |
|
By:
Bet it would have been far cheaper to have paid the fine instead of his brief
|
|
By:
He was using a car supplied by Bentley and their post room said they did not receive the fine within 14 days.
I'll never buy a Bentley in protest. |
|
By:
i think knight commander is spot on
unless hes already got a few points of course |
|
By:
Maybe it's a matter of principal . Let's face it , the judiciary are quite happy to convict people based on 'technicalities' . Works both ways .
|
|
By:
Joe Public fine would be with Bailiffs, and a Monkey added on in charges HTH.
|
|
By:
I can understand the outrage at Beckham, but isn't the outrage misdirected?
It's not Beckham's fault if the procedure to prosecute him was illegal. The law is always framed to include loopholes for smart lawyers to exploit. This is no surprise because lawyers write the laws themselves, and it's in their interests to create ambiguities and stumbling blocks for the prosecution to fall foul of which might bring them future work. This is simply another case where the law is shown to be an ass. |
|
By:
Happens too often and in much more serious cases.
Where human error is to blame then the charge should be allowed to stand. We'd all take the opportunity to get off not just Beckham. |
|
By:
not helping himself in his quest for a knighthood
now the loophole is made public, expect an avalanche of challenges royal mail took 4 days to deliver letter according to news. 3 days would have made it legal. rather like the lack of roadsigns negating speed pelanties on the a1 around newcastle a few years back |
|
By:
if only lawyers understand the law then only they should be under its rule
|