See this: http://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/news/crime..._1_3468198

I read this and thought "Jeez... this poor woman was sooooo close to losing her licence, thus her livelihood, and who knows what else because of what I see as AN OVERSIGHT"

I dunno if I'm in the wrong / minority here but, to me, she's been made to feel as though she should be sooo grateful for being allowed to keep her licence when (as I read it) she's guilty of, at most, a slip up, oversight, human error. NOT a deliberate attempt to subvert the rule of law or anything quite so evil. Just anything that could happen to anyone.

Why do folk like this get treated so badly(?) or at least get within a gnat's of having the book thrown at them when we all know people whose behaviour warrants a much firmer hand but who get away with virtually no punishment. Is it because they're more deserving of our sympathy or is it because they don't give a s t ??? so we don't bother sticking it to them?

Ah well, rather outraged rant over. Happy to be put right on this one. Thanks! ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

she done the crime so should do the time...............and should have lost her licence.

the judicial system is too soft by far.

Iain

"admitted using her Freelander without insurance ..>" more accurately surely to say "admitted leaving a non-working, therefore not driveable (& not gonna crash etc) Freelander..."

I take your point but it just makes me think that we're soft on scumbags, hard on law-fearing normal types... ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

She was in the wrong, she was caught and prosecuted. Ignorance is not a defence

It is also worth noting that what goes on in a court room and what is reported by the hack on duty are very often completely different, especially with these type of stories as we do not get all the facts. Newspapers are a money making enterprise, not a public information service.

ok I guess there's some right in what you say... Would you say that it would have been excessive to take away her licence ? ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

If it was an oversight (if), then yes it would have been excessive.

She admitted using the vehicle, this doesn't necessarily indicate that she had driven it, however, if there was a significant time since it was last insured, then she may have had a tough time defending her stance that it was broken down and yet she needed to drive for work.

Soft judicial system....you bet

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news..._1_2622632