this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
20 points (83.3% liked)
And Finally...
959 readers
431 users here now
A place for odd or quirky world news stories.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse:
- !weirdnews@real.lemmy.fan
- !offbeat@lemmy.ca
- !nottheonion@lemmy.world
- !nottheonion@lemmy.ml
- !nottheonion@zerobytes.monster
- !aiop@lemmy.world
- !jingszo@lemmy.world
- !forteana@feddit.uk
- !strangetimes@lemmy.world
- !goodnews@feddit.uk
- !upliftingnews@lemmy.world
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other
- The Internet will resurface old "And finally..." material. Just mark it [VINTAGE]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.