CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27" en Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:31:56 +0000 zesty on ""public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27"" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11625#post-132745 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:29:52 +0000 zesty 132745@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Which idiot left the keys in the truck in the first place? </p> crowriver on ""public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27"" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11625#post-132744 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:29:04 +0000 crowriver 132744@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Driving a <em>stolen</em> vehicle too. No charges for theft?</p> <p>Even his lawyer had no defence.</p> <p>Sheriff's a bit of a newbie mind you, only <a href="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1012625.aspx">appointed in May</a>. Perhaps that explains the undue leniency? </p> rosscbrown on ""public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27"" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11625#post-132732 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:39:03 +0000 rosscbrown 132732@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Would he have got less is 1) he was insured or 2) had a full licence? </p> Focus on ""public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27"" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11625#post-132730 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:32:48 +0000 Focus 132730@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's laughable how often you read of somebody driving illegally with no licence, a provisional or a suspended licence and then getting a (usually short) driving ban. Like that is some sort of barrier to then doing it all over again. Having no right to drive a vehicle before didn't stop them so why would it a subsequent time?</p> <p>Also interesting that for someone who can afford a licence (and presumably a vehicle), as well as to go out drinking, appears to have received no fine, only community service. Why not both?</p> <p>And since judgement has been passed, why is the article not open to comments? No angle for cycle hatred to be included, is that it? </p> chdot on ""public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27"" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11625#post-132712 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:27:29 +0000 chdot 132712@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>months</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/drunk-man-stole-tram-dumper-truck-in-12mph-joyride-1-3190032" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/drunk-man-stole-tram-dumper-truck-in-12mph-joyride-1-3190032</a> </p>