Get in debt and wriggle out of a driving ban

[Simon Mason[_5_]]

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html

[jnugent]

On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
> spending spree, escapes a ban.

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html

Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
>>
>
> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
>
> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
> by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motorists-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

[jnugent]

On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:

> On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
>
>> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
>
>> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
>> by a machine.
>
> And it's quite common
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motorists-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html
>
> So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:
>
>> On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>>>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
>>
>>> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
>>
>>> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
>>> by a machine.
>>
>> And it's quite common
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motorists-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html
>>
>> So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.
>
> Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.

But not for cyclists.

[MrCheerful]

On 03/07/2015 21:04, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>>>>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
>>>
>>>> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
>>>
>>>> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
>>>> by a machine.
>>>
>>> And it's quite common
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motorists-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html
>>>
>>> So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.
>>
>> Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.
>
> But not for cyclists.
>
>

Even though drinking and cycling is very common.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 13:13:37 +0000 (UTC), Simon Mason > wrote:

>Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>spending spree, escapes a ban.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html


I haven't read the article: I assume you know that he was a cyclist given that
you have posted it here. Was he?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:49:21 +0200, Tosspot > wrote:

>On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
>>>
>>
>> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
>>
>> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
>> by a machine.
>
>And it's quite common
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motorists-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html
>
>So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.


Was that about other cyclists? - or have I strayed in to the wrong group?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 21:17:15 +0100, Mrcheerful >
wrote:

>On 03/07/2015 21:04, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
>>>>>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
>>>>
>>>>> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
>>>>
>>>>> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
>>>>> by a machine.
>>>>
>>>> And it's quite common
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motorists-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html
>>>>
>>>> So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.
>>>
>>> Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.
>>
>> But not for cyclists.
>>
>>
>
>Even though drinking and cycling is very common.


cyclists are certainly "common".

[Roger Merriman[_4_]]

Judith > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:49:21 +0200, Tosspot > wrote:
>
> >On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:
> >>
> >>> Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
> >>> spending spree, escapes a ban.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148225/Driver-handed-42-points
> >>>-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
> >>>
> >>
> >> Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.
> >>
> >> That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
> >> by a machine.
> >
> >And it's quite common
> >
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031253/Courts-let-10-000-motoris
> >ts-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html
> >
> >So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.
>
>
> Was that about other cyclists? - or have I strayed in to the wrong group?

since this is uk *recreation* cycling and I've not seen a on topic post
for years.

its as on topic as any others ie not at all.

on topic posts would be say I've gone for a bike ride, I'm watching TDF
or well what ever.

Roger Merriman

[Simon Mason[_5_]]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:18:59 +0100, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Judith > wrote:
>

>> Was that about other cyclists? - or have I strayed in to the wrong group?
>
> since this is uk *recreation* cycling and I've not seen a on topic post
> for years.
>


Not from Judith you won't; like the rhinoceros, no manners now and he never will.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:41:55 +0100, Simon Mason > wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:18:59 +0100, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>> Judith > wrote:
>>
>
>>> Was that about other cyclists? - or have I strayed in to the wrong
>>> group?
>>
>> since this is uk *recreation* cycling and I've not seen a on topic post
>> for years.
>>
>
>
> Not from Judith you won't; like the rhinoceros, no manners now and he
> never will.
>
I agree with you, mr troll.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug