http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090320/tuk-1...rm-6323e80.html

IMO he should have got off!

 

Dyslexic copper!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090220/tuk-ge...fe-dba1618.html

That link on the right is true though.

Russ.

 

Your right, i didnt see that

 

it was an elise of course it was capable of those kind of speeds. The only known to be quicker is an S2000

 

+1 There, but the legal system is a very funny one.

Was he being charged for driving at 173mph or for dangerous driving / excess speed.

If it was for driving at 173mph he should have pleaded not guilty with the fact that his car was incapable of such speed.

 

I know, how many times have you done that!! bloody hell i used to do more that a quarter more than that on the bike!! id be in jail for a long time!!

 

Wonder why he copped a plea?

These Turpin guns are notoriously inaccurate so I'd have thought "unreliable evidence"

Jail for 150 - as if we needed proof this c untry is run by shitheads.

 

F***ing ludicrous

So if I do 151 in a high performance car on a deserted road and get caught I get jailed. Despite having driven for 30 years (the last 10 of them in high performance cars) with no accidents and no claims whatsever.

But then again, what else should I expect in this distinctly three tier society:
TOP: Elitist knobheads, taking-the-bleeding-p!ss-bonuses, every trick/tax doge/legal wrinkle in the book with the very best accountants and lawyers and friends in high places to get away with it.
BOTTOM: Job-dodging louts with no respect for the law or anyone else and barely getting their wrists slapped for driving with no insurance. On every benefit going and milking the system for all its bleeding-well worth.
OH, and all those mugs like us in the middle who are taking it up the @rse to subsidise all those c***s at the TOP and BOTTOM.

98

 

The way I read the article, it seems that dangerous driving was the main charge, so they must have had video evidence of him driving like a kn0b. Otherwise, 105 in a 50 is hardly worthy of a two year ban and a

 

If the car's not capable of the speed he is accused of, why did he plead at all?

Surely, any evidence is inadmissable on the grounds that it's fundamentally flawed??!