This is well out of order. Yes he shouldn't have been doing these speeds, but he shouldn't be put in prison when there are real criminals being given community service and ASBO's for more serious crimes.

Why does this moronic Government think that speeding should be given such a high priority by the Police. Let's start focusing on real crimes that wreck peoples lives.............or does that sound like too much hard work

 

nope

it would be an impossible task

so me stealing your milk would equate to you failing to declare SORN

or you misrepresenting your car in an advertisemnt would attarct the same punishment as me kicking your dog

couldn't be done

the guy in the speeding case has been prosecuted and punished to the extent that he was, because of how far over the limit he was going

same as you tend to attract a longer ban, depending on how far you are over the DD limit

if you have an accident, it's ramped up again

 

If we started focusing on crimes that wreck peoples lives, Tony, Gordon, and Fred would all be in prison by now

 

Interesting you mention the DD.

If you are 6 times over the limit, would that mean you go to prison then?

I very much doubt it - I don't think I can recall of anyone going to prison for DD ALONE (as in no crash).

 

Anyone who watches any sort of news is well aware that if a biker or driver is caught doing over about 140 then they have a good chance of jail time.

From memory there was a bloke in Scotland in a BMW who got 4 months.
Another bloke in Birmingham on a bike who got 6 or 9 months and someone in Wales on a bike – all ended up in jail.

Being caught speeding doesn’t give you a jail sentence.
You can be doing 100mph on the M5 and get a fine, 0 points and a 1 week ban, you can be doing 120 and get not much more.

But doing 160mph+ on an A road is going to get you into a lot of trouble.
Especially if you manage to do that speed past a police speed check.

Should it be a custodial sentence?
That’s the punishment we have in this country for lawbreakers.

 

So you can explain why if you are 6, 7, 8, hell, 10 times over the DD limit, you won't get your afore mentioned custodial sentence?

 

No I can't.
I could take a few guesses, same as you.
But I don't know the legal reasons.

I’ll take a random guess that it’s considered legally equally as dangerous to be 5% over as it is to 500% over as once you are unsafe to drive then there’s no scale of unsafeness.
Once you are unfit to drive it doesn’t matter how unfit - maybe

Whereas the higher your speed the greater likelihood of crash/death (maybe?)

Of course, that’s a just a random guess – don’t bother ripping it apart as I’m sure everyone can see holes in it.

As to why all drunk drivers aren’t jailed, again a random guess : there may just be the practicalities that jailing drink drivers would fill jails pretty quickly whereas much fewer people drive at over 150mph?

 

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous - I said that with the current state of the country and the prison population, the imposition of such a sentence, for speeding, was out of proportion.

By all means penalise the guy, but putting him in prison seems a totally non constructive response.

 

The Magistrates Guidelines do indeed instruct them to consider a custodial sentence for Driving or attempting to drive with Excess Alcohol.

If your breath reading is above 166 or blood reading above 265 they recommend a minimum of a 30 month ban and that custody is considered. So, it is possible to receive a custodial if you are about 3x the legal limit or more....

 

Sorry, I'm with th OP on this one. If you give criminals a non custodial sentence, how can you justify prison for what should be a civil matter.