Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2003
- 23,163
To quote Connery in Goldfinger: “Shocking, poschitively shocking”
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Sussex] Katie Price Arrested Again for Alleged Drink Driving
- Thread starter Chicken Run
- Start date
Do they all also have a similar amount of 'previous'?
studio150
Well-known member
Although those don't seem to have also been driving while banned, driving while uninsured and have multiple previous motoring convictions.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19785994.live-katie-price-faces-jail-amid-drink-drive-sentencing/
Price already owes thousands to the court
The former glamour model will have to pay £213 in costs.
The court was told that she already owes the court £7,358.
I must presume Katey Price is 'Bankrupt' (financially that is) and the car is leased/ borrowed? Her previous offences, the amount of alcohol and driving whilst banned really doesn't stack up with these low levels of fines and suspended sentence.
It will probably all end up with someone being badly hurt or killed next time she drives whilst drunk/ banned, which she almost certainly will do.
Very sad.
Gabbafella
Well-known member
- Aug 22, 2012
- 4,746
She is such a low life piece of shit.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
51 people arrested for Drink /drug driving so far in the pre Christmas clampdown by Sussex police who said they were shocked by the numbers
Regards
DF
Regards
DF
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,741
This verdict doesn't make any sense to me. Presumably she WOULD have gone to jail if - by chance - she'd rolled into another car which - by chance - she didn't.
It's difficult to know who seems to get more "last chances" - her or Boris.
I worry - like before - she'll get behind a wheel while disqualified and kill someone. Isn't the point of prison to take dangerous people like her out of society and give them a short, sharp shock that might then change their behaviour?
It's difficult to know who seems to get more "last chances" - her or Boris.
I worry - like before - she'll get behind a wheel while disqualified and kill someone. Isn't the point of prison to take dangerous people like her out of society and give them a short, sharp shock that might then change their behaviour?
Last edited:
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,940
I agree,. The BBC reporting she has had FIVE previous disqualifications ! Also tested positive for Cocaine too after this latest arrest, not sure why the police did not press charges on that too.
I think you’ve hit the nail on its head. It was a single vehicle incident, no other party involved. Plus she admitted everything (drink and drugs) to the police very early on in hospital.
banjo
GOSBTS
The 5th time, and still owes over £7000 in previous fines. One rule for one……
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
I think the District Judge got it right, despite my initial thoughts.
Firstly, if she had imposed an immediate custodial sentence (16 weeks is pretty much the maximum given the early guilty plea) no-one would have batted an eyelid and it would have been fully justified. However she would have been released after 8 weeks and, given her history, would be likely to offend again, maybe next time she would kill herself or someone else.
A deferred sentence is uncommon but what it effectively says is "you say you can get help and will engage, come back in three months with proof that you have".
So Ms Price must have successfully engaged with the rehab programme to such a degree that they could give a favourable report and that they felt that she could make further progress.
A suspended sentence with considerably onerous requirements (unpaid work and further treatment) give her the chance to permanently change her behaviour and coping strategy; with the threat of immediate activation of the suspension and thus imprisonment hanging over her.
The alternative is an almost inevitable further offence and next time she, or an innocent party, could be seriously hurt or killed.
Firstly, if she had imposed an immediate custodial sentence (16 weeks is pretty much the maximum given the early guilty plea) no-one would have batted an eyelid and it would have been fully justified. However she would have been released after 8 weeks and, given her history, would be likely to offend again, maybe next time she would kill herself or someone else.
A deferred sentence is uncommon but what it effectively says is "you say you can get help and will engage, come back in three months with proof that you have".
So Ms Price must have successfully engaged with the rehab programme to such a degree that they could give a favourable report and that they felt that she could make further progress.
A suspended sentence with considerably onerous requirements (unpaid work and further treatment) give her the chance to permanently change her behaviour and coping strategy; with the threat of immediate activation of the suspension and thus imprisonment hanging over her.
The alternative is an almost inevitable further offence and next time she, or an innocent party, could be seriously hurt or killed.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
Nicely explained, ta. What I don't understand in these cases is the length of ban, genuinely think once people are on to their 3rd/4th/5th chance, a long ban like 5-10 years would be appropriate.....
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
A second (or subsequent conviction within 10 years attracts a mandatory three year disqualification.
In Ms Price's case the more serious offence is Driving Whilst Disqualified (possible imprisonment plus the addition of a further period of disqualification).
The problem with imprisonment is that it is seen as a "final" sentence in that one should be free of any encumbrance upon release, so the court cannot impose, say, 10 weeks inside with a treatment requirement; prisons do absolutely nothing to help addicts for shorter sentences (and very little for longer term prisoners).
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
She can launch a book explaining her stress whilst waiting for the verdict.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,509
If this were the first or maybe second occasion then I could accept your reasoning but this is the FIFTH time and its a reasonably well publicised case which is sending out the message we are not strong enough on drink drivers.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,648
Teflon Katie Rides Again. And again and again...
schmunk
"Members"
And fair enough? If she (or an associate) writes it, and people want to buy it, who are we to judge?
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
I'll put it on your Christmas list for 2022.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
On the basis of her history, whilst she might give up the booze and drugs, I can’t see complying with the driving ban.I just hope that she gets reported if she is seen driving around.