I ain't done nuffink right?

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

threaded replied

28 March 2006, 07:47
Originally posted by eternalnomad

so my question is simple, why was she not summarily tried and sentenced for her assault on the prosecutor, it's not like there was a shortage or witnesses !

Doing it that way would make sense and save money. Doh!
Leave a comment:
eternalnomad replied

28 March 2006, 07:41
Originally posted by DimPrawn

.....punched a prosecutor and threw a jug of water at magistrates as she was jailed..

so my question is simple, why was she not summarily tried and sentenced for her assault on the prosecutor, it's not like there was a shortage or witnesses !
Leave a comment:
thunderlizard replied

27 March 2006, 16:31
The banned years start from 17, taking her up to 22. Journalists have never got the hang of this.

I think that's right, anyway. Seeing a barrister who specialises in juvenile criminal raffishness of this type in a couple of weeks anyway, so I'll check.
Leave a comment:
Mordac replied

27 March 2006, 15:23
Originally posted by DimPrawn

even though she is still under the legal driving age of 17

And under the legal drinking age of 18. She should be banned from driving for life. And then sterilised so she can't fecking breed.
Leave a comment:
scotspine replied

27 March 2006, 15:22
can we assume that [having learned her lesson] at 17, she'll be banned for 4 years? i spot an arithmetic progression here...
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn started a topic I ain't done nuffink right?

27 March 2006, 15:19
I ain't done nuffink right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...re/4850164.stm

A 14-year-old drink-driver punched a prosecutor and threw a jug of water at magistrates as she was jailed.
Leanne Black, of Thatcham, Berkshire, flew into a rage at Newbury Youth Court after being told she faced four months behind bars for driving offences.

Before the drama, the court took the unusual step of saying Leanne could be named due to public interest.

When she was 12, she is thought to have become Britain's youngest drink-driver, and was disqualified for two years.

...............

Sentencing her at youth court on Monday, Magistrate Margaret Bates banned Leanne from driving for a further three years - even though she is still under the legal driving age of 17.

....................

Earlier, with her father, mother and sister by her side, Leanne had told magistrates that she had mended her ways.

"I'm sorry for my behaviour and what I've done," she said. "I know what I have done to my dad and stuff."

So lets get this straight, at the age of 12 she was banned from driving for 2 years, (taking her up to 14). At 14 she has now been banned for a further 3 years (taking her up to 17).

All before she is legally allowed to drive anyway.
Tags: None