No Driving Ban For Stan !.

[tonyav]

Stan Collymore escapes a driving ban.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/10/03/mother-saves-stan-from-driving-ban/

[Hopkirk]

He should have been banned for being a Villa fan.

[grasscarp]

ok. he escaped driving ban for doing 48 in a 40.
I cant see that he should have been banned. I did 103 on a motorway and "escaped a driving ban". If everyone who has been over the limit was banned from driving there would be very few motorists not banned.

[bazwillrun]

errr, id suggest looking at his previous driving issues,this scummy woman beater obviously thinks he can do what we wants

[tonyav]

grasscarp, he has got three speeding offences in the last 6 months.

[tonyav]

Hopkirk
Mark as Best Answer
He should have been banned for being a Villa fan.

But he has been a fan of every club that he played for, Hopkirk ;-)

[PankySmooch]

Had to laugh at this "Collymore said he does heavy lifting around the house, takes her to the shops and clears her driveway during bad weather"

No mention of his dogging activities then

[tonyav]

Well you can't go dogging without a car !.

[baza]

you learn something everyday on here . ^^^

[tonyav]

We aim to please, baza ;-)

[agchristie]

Collymore is very articulate and his broadcasting experience would serve him well in the court arena.

No stranger to controversy and I sometimes think his brain is always in fifth gear too, such as his views on the Falkland Islands....

[New Judge]

He was not facing a ban for the single speeding offence. He was facing a ban under the "totting up" rules, having accumulated twelve points in less than three years. He argued that "exceptional hardship" to him or others would follow if he were banned. This option is only open to those facing a ban under the totting up rules and not to those facing a ban for a single offence.

My view is that very often this argument is too flimsy but is nonetheless accepted by Magistrates. In any case the option should be removed. Drivers facing such a ban have committed at least two and more usually four offences in a short space of time and that should be warning enough.

By the way Mr Collymore should refrain from commenting about the Falkland Islands as he obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about. As a historian he might (or might not be, I wouldn't know) a good footballer, but that is it.

[anotheoldgit]

There are many who lose their jobs through being banned from driving.

if Collymore is so concerned about his mother, perhaps he should now give up his very well paid commitments and become a full time carer for his mum?

[Zacs-Master]

It's all down to the pedigree of the barrister you can afford.

[New Judge]

It's not actually, Zacs.

The success rate of the "exceptional hardship" argument is quite high and a large number of the successful applicants either represent themselves or employ a jobbing solicitor.

The problem is that Magistrates' interpretation of "exceptional" has become increasingly less severe in recent years. Many Benches now take the view that loss of employment amounts to exceptional hardship when, in fact, it is almost certainly a given for somebody who needs to drive for their living and is by no means exceptional. However, most of the successes usually involve the plea that a ban will lead to hardship for somebody else (as in Mr Colleymore's case).

I am firmly of the belief that the facility to make the argument should be withdrawn. It is becoming abused and in any case those in danger of reaching twelve points have plenty of warning to moderate their driving. They need to consider what hardship might follow if they are banned rather than expect the court to agree that what is a perfectly forseeable consequence is "exceptional". They almost always know what a driving ban will mean to them and others who may rely on them. It is doubtful Mr Colleymore's mother became ill and dependant upon him between him having nine points on his licence and acquiring the other three. In many of these cases it is not "hardship" that will follow, but merely inconvenience.

[Zacs-Master]

I think it probably was in SC's case. I should have made my statement more specific. But thanks.

[agchristie]

NJ - yes, a good assessment.

I know in civil cases where people face eviction as a starter tenant and plead hardship. The test applied is a 'stringent' one. Trouble is, one judge's application of the guidelines can differ to another.

Are more well known folk more likely to succeed in escaping driving bans? Flintoft also springs to mind i.e charity work!

[New Judge]

Yes you're probably right in this case, Zacs.