An 11 year old has been banned from driving for a year… despite not legally being allowed to drive anyway. I mean, that’s like banning a 5 year-old from brothels for a year. Or saying that George W Bush isn’t allowed to sit MENSA exams. It’s more pointless than a box of snapped pencils.
To make it worse, the court “imposed three penalty points for driving without a licence and six penalty points for driving without insurance”. Now, this is a little paradoxical. He’s been given penalty points for not having a license. These penalty points go onto his license. Which he doesn’t have. Which is why he’s getting points on it. More paradoxes than 10 series of Dr Who.
Can’t we just break his legs so he can’t reach the pedals?
Even if he did have a license to hold the points on, they would have been wiped by the time he was old enough to drive legally.
I know! They may as well just say “bad boy” and send him home!
There are some silver linings here. The little idiot is probably going to drive again anyway, so I can always hope that he kills himself by driving into a river. By himself though, don’t want him killing more people than himself.
The points and ban will be applied once he gets a licence, it turns out. He’s also got a slap-on-the-wrist supervision order.
And the parents…?
Also, Damo, don’t want to piss on your comment, but I thought the same about teenage joyriders right up to the moment one actually died right in front of me.
No, they don’t deserve it.
Send two blokes called Dave round (Big Dave and Bigger Dave) with a baseball bat and a lug-wrench to explain to his parents what will happen to them if they ever let the little bugger out of their sight again.
Quite right not-so-scary Mr.Duck. I was possibly a tad harsh. Where I live we had a bloke who had lost his license when he was 15. He used to get his thrills by banger racing (thereby negating the need for a road license), but he used to boast in the village pub that the police would never catch him driving on the road. My point should have included this guy as he had no remorse for the fact that if he killed someone in a car (sans insurance) then that person’s relatives would not get any kind of insurance payout (not that would make the bereaved family’s life any better).
Having a driving licence should be a privelage and not a right. Nobody really desrves to die as Mr Duck points out. So the kid has no licence but the points are held until he has a licence, which is correct. Maybe we should say that the right to apply for a licence has now been moved back until he is 5 years over the minimum legal age. (No point in saying until he is 23, as the goverment may put the minimum age up). And then if he passes a test the points are added making his licence as a new driver a worthless bit of paper. Technically if he gets 6 points in the first year he has to go for more lessons and a retest, so the day he passes he would then be put back to being a learner..
If he gets caught a second time before he has a licence a futher 5 years are added to the minimum age, and so on up until 20 years when the right to have a driving licence is totally removed from him for ever.
Just a thought!
SFG
I may rant about this on my own blog later to save filling your comments up!
Woah – comment deluge at last! Part of me agrees with Damo’s original comment, especially when I think about a story 3-4 years back on Tyneside. Two joyriding ***** mowed down and killed a small child – he was about 8, I think.
Neither got charged with it. Because they both said the other was driving. The police couldn’t prove guilt as a result, so they both just got done with the driving charges and not the murder.
*They* deserve to die. Both of them. And, Mr Duck, though I agree with your rebuttal this is very much an exception as they’ve already taken a life.
Alan – can we also send those two Dave’s round to my girlfriend’s ex to “convince” him to stop ******* harassing her for money she doesn’t owe him?