Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

MP Nicholas Soames banned from driving

 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 1:00pm Lord Landport wrote:
Conservative MP Nicholas Soames has been banned from driving after he was caught riding a quad bike with a seven-year-old boy perched on the back.
Hunt saboteurs filmed Soames, who is a grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, using the four-wheeler on a public road on New Year's Day. (type his name into youtube)
He was also pulling a trailer carrying a group including two children aged three and five and a woman who was six months pregnant.
what a W****R
 
1
On 15 May 2008 at 1:32pm Prince Charles wrote:
He also happens to be a close personal friend of my namesake.
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 1:33pm Taff wrote:
W****r yes I agree. Though no one got hurt?
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 4:05pm Tory Toff wrote:
W****r? Why? 'Cos he drove some people for a few yards down a public road at the break-neck speed of 5-10 mph? Did he force the children and their parents into the trailer at gun point? Was the poor pregnant woman pistol-whipped and forced to climb aboard? Let's have some perspective here ...
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 5:14pm madge wrote:
He only got a small fine & ban - I wonder why he wasnt penalised with the full force of the law. What does it matter what speed he was going or that he didnt make them get in the trailer, as the driver he is responsible for his actions & should have known better. You can do irreversable damage at any speed so he is indeed a total w*****r & so is Tory Toff for defending him. His punishment is futile for someone like him as he will easilly afford to be driven to his 'job'.
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 5:29pm Tory Toff wrote:
"Full force of the law" Madge? What do you want exactly? Should we remove his testicles? Hang him at dawn perhaps?
He was done for driving a few yards on a public highway without insurance. What a naughty man.
As far as I can tell he has been suitably punished. I was merely raising an eyebrow at Lord Landport's suggestion that he was indulging in onanism. We have no evidence of that, as far as I can tell.
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 5:32pm Tory Toff wrote:
PS. I am not actually a Tory Toff. I just thought it might give my post more impact if I used that moniker.
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 7:00pm Prince Charles wrote:
Making love to Soames was described by one woman as like having a heavy wardrobe fall on you with the key still in the lock. So perhaps w****r is not quite the word.
 
1
On 15 May 2008 at 7:16pm Tory Toff wrote:
Interesting post, Your Royal Highness. Do you have a source for that?!
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 7:19pm Lord Landport wrote:
Type his name into youtube a comedy scetch show does that gag..
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 7:54pm madge wrote:
Well maybe the phrase 'full force of the law' was a bit dramatic, what I meant was he should get the same treatment as others would have done. From what I understand he got off lighter than most might by bleating that he needed his licence to get to the house of commons.
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 8:02pm Tory Toff wrote:
So it does Lord Landport, second one down in fact. Very good. He was my MP once upon a time. Only ever saw him on election day, at Haywards Heath railway station. Norman Baker by contrast is all over the place.
 
1
On 15 May 2008 at 8:23pm Tory Toff wrote:
I think he merely bleated that he would be less able to serve his constituents if he was banned from driving. Nothing to do with getting to Westminster. Still, he got a two month ban and probably deservedly so. I am not an expert on "driving without insurance" law. I am just a contrary so and so who likes jumping on people who take a "hang 'em and flog 'em" line. Sorry ;-).
 
 
On 15 May 2008 at 10:02pm Neil Secundus wrote:
This is the nanny state at work . He was going down a quiet country lane, not the A23. This is thanks to our friends at BBC South East Today again, the same people who got the good people of Firle in trouble for their caravan tab. Some yougurt knitting anti hunt protester couldn't find any foxes being eaten to catch on camera so he thought he would get poor old Nick on his quad bike instead. He sent the tape to South East Today who had it as their main feature on the following days newes.The Crown Prosicution service should hang their heads in shame for bringing this into court and i would argue that if it hadn't been Nick Soames and it hadn't been on South East today it wouldn't have got any where near a court room.
 
1
On 16 May 2008 at 8:36am Taff wrote:
I tire of all this 'what may have happened' nonsense. It didnt happen and that is that.
I ask you why many of us are expected to take part in one of the more dangerous activities, i.e drive to work and as soon as we get through the door we are governed by Health and safety issues that are based on what could happen rather than actual fact. If someone has a dangeroud job then one hopes the employers have given appropriate training, if they have not then its their negligence.
No one was hurt or damaged, either mentally or physically by this w*****r's action so why the fuss, bother and waste of public money bringing a case against him?
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 9:33am madge wrote:
Then why is everyone moaning about the kids on the Neville driving wrecklessly, they havent done anyone any damage yet. Let them continue until someone actually gets injured & then take action against them. If Mr Soames example is acceptable then maybe everyone should be able to behave irresponsibly knowing they can make one mistake regardless of the possible consequences. No ned to worry or show consideration for others unless you actually hurt someone - oh yeah thats a good idea.
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 10:43am Prince Charles wrote:
@Tory Toff wrote: 'Interesting post, Your Royal Highness. Do you have a source for that?!'
It's a story told many times Mr Toff. Whether it's true or not, it's certainly plausible.
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 10:54am Taff wrote:
I never said his behaviour was acceptable. All I said was no one got hurt.
I am sure if the Neville situation was captured on film as well and either given to the media or Youtube the Police would soon be on the case. That way they public recognition brownie points too.
Trust me Madge I drive a motocycle and am very aware of poor driving by all walks of life, including some bikers too and they are not always youngsters. However for a lot of overcosseted youngsters this is probably thier first opportunity for them to experience a thrill as all other potential dangers have been removed from their lives up until now, byH&S, teachers, parents and the so called right to sue for injury that is currently practised. Thrill is the direct result of exposure to danger, however large or small the thrill is. Some people develop to manage it and some will never do it again, its all part of lifes learning curve. How can these kids beleive they are creating a danger, for others or themselves when they have been raised on video games and mega protectiveness all round them?
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 12:08pm Frak wrote:
Right, i'm off to have ten pints then go for a drive round Lewes. As long as i don't hurt anyone, that's alright isn't it.
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 10:11pm Neil Secundus wrote:
I bet when you write your posts on this forum Madge you wear a High visability vest, Goggles and protective gloves.
Comparing a Bloke and his family travelling 100 yards down a country lane on a quad bike and trailer to nutty kids charging round the Nevile in their cars is completely rediculas.
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 10:22pm DYL wrote:
And what is "rediculas"?
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 10:34pm PC Witherspoon wrote:
Has anyone actually reported them? If so,what has been the outcome? You can ring Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
 
 
On 16 May 2008 at 10:40pm Neil Secundus wrote:
Rediculas is ridiculous after 3 bottles of Harveys Star Of Eastbourne. My God thats potent stuff. Many apologies for very poor spelling. It was still a crap comparison by Madge though.
 
 
On 17 May 2008 at 7:54am madge wrote:
Neil Secundus you couldnt be more wrong in your sarcastic personal assumption above, like any reasonably intellegent individual I am perfectly well aware that many H&S rules are pathetic. However we cannot pick & choose when it suits us, for example you sound just like one of those morons who think they (above all others) can still drive perfectly safely with several drinks inside them or maybe in your world you are under the illusion that its ok to drive two blocks while under the influence as only a few people would be at risk. We all let our hair down & behave irresponsibly from time to time & but we know how far we can go & take a calculated risks. When people choose to take on responsible public roles in life they forfeight any excuse to be blase' about the law. Mr Soames like others in his position must be aware his actions will always be held up as an example. To blatantly put others at risk even for a moment is a disgrace in anyones book & you are wrong to trivialise his actions.
 
 
On 17 May 2008 at 1:23pm madge wrote:
Neil Secundus you couldnt be more wrong in your sarcastic personal assumption above, like any reasonably intellegent individual I am perfectly well aware that many H&S rules are pathetic. However we cannot pick & choose when it suits us, for example you sound just like one of those morons who think they (above all others) can still drive perfectly safely with several drinks inside them or maybe in your world you are under the illusion that its ok to drive two blocks while under the influence as only a few people would be at risk. We all let our hair down & behave irresponsibly from time to time & but we know how far we can go & take a calculated risks. When people choose to take on responsible public roles in life they forfeight any excuse to be blase' about the law. Mr Soames like others in his position must be aware his actions will always be held up as an example. To blatantly put others at risk even for a moment is a disgrace in anyones book & you are wrong to trivialise his actions.
 
 
On 17 May 2008 at 10:24pm Neil Secundus wrote:
Im sorry Madge, but if im wrong to trivialise his actions then you are wrong to exagerate them .
Yet again you use an extream example for your argument. Last night it was the nutters driving round the Neville and tonight it's morons ( like me apparently ) driving while under the influence.
Mr Soames proberbly did calculate the risk and i bet that in that calculation a 2 month driving ban did not enter his head. Why on Earth would it .
With regards to his position, i don't care if it's Mr Soames, Princess Anne or Wayne Rooney, They should be judged on what they have done and not who they are.
 
 
On 17 May 2008 at 10:49pm madge wrote:
NS the word is extreme & you have now contradicted yourself! The whole point of my comments were to say that everyone should be judged the same & that he should not be above the law just because of who he is, he did wrong - he got caught - he deserved what he got - no excuse acceptable. I suggest you read back over your own posts.
 
 
On 19 May 2008 at 1:01pm The law wrote:
Think you are not reading the small print he got banned for having nine points on his licence at the time of the offence not for being famous.......

joe public would also have got a ban....in same sittuation
 
 
On 19 May 2008 at 7:23pm sashka wrote:
From what i read in the paper, the point was that if he drove all those unstable passengers around on his own land, that was a different matter. The reason he was prosecuted is that he was driving like that uninsured on the public highway. I may be wrong.
That is really dumb, and lit is just unfortunate for him he got caught.. i don't think he is appealing or anything, so whatever any of us think, he obviously agrees that he shouldn't have done it either.
Young idiots driving like loonies around Neville are probably more dangerous, and should be stopped, but they are also young, stupid, irresponsible, and probably have no real concept of danger. Nicholas Soames is an elderly MP for goodness sake. He helps MAKE the laws he is breaking! That is what disappoints me, he is supposed to be thye best Britain can offer, a political leader.....and he already had 9 points, so it is not like this breach was a one off!


8 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Closet and Botts 29:132
Closet and Botts

Possibly calling them may have answered your question more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Oscar Wilde