- cross-posted to:
- nominativedeterminism
- cross-posted to:
- nominativedeterminism
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m confused by this article. It sounds like the normal fine is £65 and 3 points. But the judge says he has “a clear history” and had a reason to be speeding, so “that can’t happen here.” Instead, he gave Moron a £650 fine and 5 points.
Also, the offender’s name is Moron, which is funny but not particularly relevant.
If the judge felt he had a mitigating explanation, why is the penalty worse than normal?
I think what’s meant by “a clear history” is “an obvious history,” and not “a flawless history;” ergo, the harsher penalty.
Not deliberately speeding sounds like he was driving without due care.
So it’s worse because he was not paying attention to his speed? I could understand if the judge found that it was just as bad as speeding intentionally.
No, not being aware is far worse. Far less aware of things like stopping distances at the speed that he wasn’t paying attention too.
A defence barrister told Dungannon Magistrates’ Court that 55-year-old Moron was going to collect his mother from the airport.
