75ZT Community
A social community of enthusiasts, owners, appreciators and collectors. With expert knowledge of all things from MG to Rover and beyond.
Perhaps not one of this drivers better ideas by PaulT
Personally, I don't see a problem with that
Paul
Cogito ergo sum... maybe?
Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Cogito ergo sum... maybe?
Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
That story was soooo funny, renting an airfield and an Audi R8, the defence counsel should have been ordered to pay the £10,000 for perverting the course of justice. Hard to believe a defence counsel could be stupid enough to go along with such bullshit 
wonder what the defence fee was, hope extra was chaged . On the other hand if the driver thought he could get away with disputing what he knew he was doing, serves him right 
wonder what the defence fee was, hope extra was chaged . On the other hand if the driver thought he could get away with disputing what he knew he was doing, serves him right If at first you don't succeed, hide the evidence.
I understand Paul that the "excuse" used by those caught that it's the cars speeding, because of the inherent speedo' inaccuracies, is not uncommon?
Nice car - patently more intelligent than the driver though?
Gary M.
Nice car - patently more intelligent than the driver though?
Gary M.
Not sure of the law or if I have missed the point here, but was the driver just trying to get done for speeding below 100 as the law is easier on him than if caught over 100 as he had no chance of proving the camera/ gun was so far out as to go down from 100 to whatever the speed limit was on the road he was caught on say 70 mph
Robs Pictures at :
Robs Car Gallery
click below to access nano website
Planning is an unnatural process, much better to just get on with things, that way failure comes as a complete surprise instead of being preceeded by a period of worry and doubt
Robs Car Gallery
click below to access nano website
Planning is an unnatural process, much better to just get on with things, that way failure comes as a complete surprise instead of being preceeded by a period of worry and doubt
Develish, think counsel takes their instructions from their client, in this case the defendant. Presumably, they were happy to go along with it as it increased their fee. Presumably, the defence counsel had told his client he was a pillock but some people do not listen.
Paul
That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play
That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play
For info. Very unlikely that defence advocate was of Counsel. Much more likely to be a solicitor.
Paul
Cogito ergo sum... maybe?
Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Cogito ergo sum... maybe?
Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Trebor wrote:Not sure of the law or if I have missed the point here, but was the driver just trying to get done for speeding below 100 as the law is easier on him than if caught over 100 as he had no chance of proving the camera/ gun was so far out as to go down from 100 to whatever the speed limit was on the road he was caught on say 70 mph
I suppose the counsel or solicitor gets paid anyway, but I would have loved to have heard whoever it was stand up and say
"My client was only doing 98mph, not 101"
I would have pissed myself laughing.
101 on the speedo results must have been actual -100mph because he only won 6 points LOL, wonder how many points he had to begin with.
If I see a Audi R8 doing 25mph on my travels, I will know who is driving.
If at first you don't succeed, hide the evidence.
Am I missing something here?
The article says that the prosecution, not the defence, hired the airfield and car. Assumedly, the defence were trying to claim the speedo inaccuracy/less than 100/lesser sentence, but it was the other side who went to the stupidly expensive extreme. Perhaps it would have been better to have used the actual car and a (suitably high speed) rolling road?!
The article says that the prosecution, not the defence, hired the airfield and car. Assumedly, the defence were trying to claim the speedo inaccuracy/less than 100/lesser sentence, but it was the other side who went to the stupidly expensive extreme. Perhaps it would have been better to have used the actual car and a (suitably high speed) rolling road?!
Yes Dave, I read it as the prosecution carrying out the test but the defendant paid for the 'stupidly expensive extreme' as the cost was awarded against him. Perhaps a lesson for others who try to wriggle out of being guilty.
Paul
That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play
That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play