Get in debt and wriggle out of a driving ban

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html

On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html

Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html


Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html

Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html

Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.

But not for cyclists.

On 03/07/2015 21:04, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html

Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.

But not for cyclists.



Even though drinking and cycling is very common.

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 13:13:37 +0000 (UTC), Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html


I haven't read the article: I assume you know that he was a cyclist given that
you have posted it here. Was he?

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:49:21 +0200, Tosspot wrote:

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html


Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.


Was that about other cyclists? - or have I strayed in to the wrong group?

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 21:17:15 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 03/07/2015 21:04, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2015 19:49, Tosspot wrote:

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...VOIDS-ban.html

Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.

Disqualification for excess alcohol is mandatory.

But not for cyclists.



Even though drinking and cycling is very common.


cyclists are certainly "common".

Judith wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:49:21 +0200, Tosspot wrote:

On 03/07/15 20:36, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2015 14:13, Simon Mason wrote:

Driver gets 42 points on his licence, but because he ran up debts on a
spending spree, escapes a ban.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nded-42-points
-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html


Disqualification on "totting-up" is not, and never has been, mandatory.

That's why it's dealt with by a properly-constituted court rather than
by a machine.

And it's quite common

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...10-000-motoris
ts-12-penalty-points-escape-driving-bans.html

So don't let a few pints down the boozer bother you too much.


Was that about other cyclists? - or have I strayed in to the wrong group?

since this is uk *recreation* cycling and I've not seen a on topic post
for years.

its as on topic as any others ie not at all.

on topic posts would be say I've gone for a bike ride, I'm watching TDF
or well what ever.

Roger Merriman