Council leader fined for driving without insurance (From Daily Echo)

loosehead wrote:
Well I hope if he had indeed contacted his insurer with a different e-mail address & they sent it to the wrong one sue them for this. you lot are quick to jump on his back but many internet insurers e-mail you your policy & you have to print it so if they had e-mailed the wrong address after being told of the new one this is the insurers fault. ow please answer this one was the council worker driving? did he take the photo whilst driving? as if he was & did he/she broke the law so why no venom at them?

loosehead wrote:
Well I hope if he had indeed contacted his insurer with a different e-mail address & they sent it to the wrong one sue them for this.
you lot are quick to jump on his back but many internet insurers e-mail you your policy & you have to print it so if they had e-mailed the wrong address after being told of the new one this is the insurers fault.
ow please answer this one was the council worker driving? did he take the photo whilst driving? as if he was & did he/she broke the law so why no venom at them?

loosehead wrote:
Well I hope if he had indeed contacted his insurer with a different e-mail address & they sent it to the wrong one sue them for this. you lot are quick to jump on his back but many internet insurers e-mail you your policy & you have to print it so if they had e-mailed the wrong address after being told of the new one this is the insurers fault. ow please answer this one was the council worker driving? did he take the photo whilst driving? as if he was & did he/she broke the law so why no venom at them?

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Cllr. Smith broke the laws and has paid the price
.
I am not a going to join the lynch mob, and start kicking the dog when it is down
.
All I want to know is, having found he was driving car that was not insured at the time, did the police officer let Royston Smith still continue driving it or left him at the mercy of council worker in the vicinity to give Roy a ride home? Where does law stand on situation like this?

IronLady2010 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Cllr. Smith broke the laws and has paid the price
.
I am not a going to join the lynch mob, and start kicking the dog when it is down
.
All I want to know is, having found he was driving car that was not insured at the time, did the police officer let Royston Smith still continue driving it or left him at the mercy of council worker in the vicinity to give Roy a ride home? Where does law stand on situation like this?

I was asking myself the same question.

They can't allow him to continue to drive and they can't allow him to leave it on a public road, this is why they now tow away uninsured vehicles.

Taskforce 141 wrote:
How very interesting that under legislation all cars which are not insured are seized and crushed. So why has that sneaky worm managed to keep his Jag in one piece?

Play the i'm a politician card did we Rambo? You corrupt douche.

Its nice to see the lead by example approach. Now had he been an employee or one of those people Royston likes to tread on then, would they not endur disciplinary action for careless driving and possibly even sacked, so I ask what punishment will Roy recieve as the police have already let him get away with his car in one piece.

He has tainted SCC and should step down for this.

Taskforce 141 wrote:
How very interesting that under legislation all cars which are not insured are seized and crushed. So why has that sneaky worm managed to keep his Jag in one piece? Play the i'm a politician card did we Rambo? You corrupt douche. Its nice to see the lead by example approach. Now had he been an employee or one of those people Royston likes to tread on then, would they not endur disciplinary action for careless driving and possibly even sacked, so I ask what punishment will Roy recieve as the police have already let him get away with his car in one piece. He has tainted SCC and should step down for this.

waltons11 wrote:
Probably no hard evidence of corruption, however he did break the law and should now stand down, this is what he would expect of anyone else, people in glass houses!!

Shoong wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote: How very interesting that under legislation all cars which are not insured are seized and crushed. So why has that sneaky worm managed to keep his Jag in one piece? Play the i'm a politician card did we Rambo? You corrupt douche. Its nice to see the lead by example approach. Now had he been an employee or one of those people Royston likes to tread on then, would they not endur disciplinary action for careless driving and possibly even sacked, so I ask what punishment will Roy recieve as the police have already let him get away with his car in one piece. He has tainted SCC and should step down for this.

I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to see the evidence you have that this MP is corrupt. But let's not hold our breath...

Shoong wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:
How very interesting that under legislation all cars which are not insured are seized and crushed. So why has that sneaky worm managed to keep his Jag in one piece?

Play the i'm a politician card did we Rambo? You corrupt douche.

Its nice to see the lead by example approach. Now had he been an employee or one of those people Royston likes to tread on then, would they not endur disciplinary action for careless driving and possibly even sacked, so I ask what punishment will Roy recieve as the police have already let him get away with his car in one piece.

He has tainted SCC and should step down for this.

I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to see the evidence you have that this MP is corrupt.

But let's not hold our breath...

shazcarmon wrote:
should have had his car Crushed I thought that was the penalty for driving without insurance.
couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke!!

acid drop wrote:

shazcarmon wrote:
should have had his car Crushed I thought that was the penalty for driving without insurance.
couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke!!

Yes it should have been crushed with it's owner inside it.

IronLady2010 wrote:
The seatbelt offence, obviously Royston has no excuse for, but it's still a minor traffic offence nothing major.

The Insurance, I can actually understand Roystons story regarding this as I use Swift Cover Insurance who are purely online, they do not post ANYTHING via mail, everything is done via email. Your Insurance documents are stored in your online profile which you can print off as and when you choose much like online banking.

Royston stated he changed ISP so therefore would lose his email address and would need to make a new one with his new ISP. In which case he wouldn't have received any emails advising him of any potential problems, just a simple oversight that could happen to anyone.

It's not like he set out to intentionally break the Law!

Talking of breaking the Law, next time I see our bin men smoking in the cab of the Bin lorry, I'll report them! That is also illegal and intentional!!

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
The seatbelt offence, obviously Royston has no excuse for, but it's still a minor traffic offence nothing major.

The Insurance, I can actually understand Roystons story regarding this as I use Swift Cover Insurance who are purely online, they do not post ANYTHING via mail, everything is done via email. Your Insurance documents are stored in your online profile which you can print off as and when you choose much like online banking.

Royston stated he changed ISP so therefore would lose his email address and would need to make a new one with his new ISP. In which case he wouldn't have received any emails advising him of any potential problems, just a simple oversight that could happen to anyone.

It's not like he set out to intentionally break the Law!

Talking of breaking the Law, next time I see our bin men smoking in the cab of the Bin lorry, I'll report them! That is also illegal and intentional!!

Snitch!

IronLady2010 wrote:
The seatbelt offence, obviously Royston has no excuse for, but it's still a minor traffic offence nothing major. The Insurance, I can actually understand Roystons story regarding this as I use Swift Cover Insurance who are purely online, they do not post ANYTHING via mail, everything is done via email. Your Insurance documents are stored in your online profile which you can print off as and when you choose much like online banking. Royston stated he changed ISP so therefore would lose his email address and would need to make a new one with his new ISP. In which case he wouldn't have received any emails advising him of any potential problems, just a simple oversight that could happen to anyone. It's not like he set out to intentionally break the Law! Talking of breaking the Law, next time I see our bin men smoking in the cab of the Bin lorry, I'll report them! That is also illegal and intentional!!

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
The seatbelt offence, obviously Royston has no excuse for, but it's still a minor traffic offence nothing major. The Insurance, I can actually understand Roystons story regarding this as I use Swift Cover Insurance who are purely online, they do not post ANYTHING via mail, everything is done via email. Your Insurance documents are stored in your online profile which you can print off as and when you choose much like online banking. Royston stated he changed ISP so therefore would lose his email address and would need to make a new one with his new ISP. In which case he wouldn't have received any emails advising him of any potential problems, just a simple oversight that could happen to anyone. It's not like he set out to intentionally break the Law! Talking of breaking the Law, next time I see our bin men smoking in the cab of the Bin lorry, I'll report them! That is also illegal and intentional!!

The seatbelt offence may seem minor but the fact that he has clearly lied to the media about it being a 'one off mistake' is not. Anyone who drives rergularly and wears a seatbelt regularly does not 'accidently' forget to put it on or occassionaly not put it for some 'unknown' reason. Driving without a seatbelt when you normally wear one feels absolutely alien and it is therefore clear to me that on the balance of probability this is a law he regularly flouts. Also, a member of my family was stopped after an outomatic recognition camera clocked their car as having no insurance. As he was 'adamant' he did have, the police gave him 48 hours to prove it. The insurance Co had made a mistake, they faxed a letter to the police station to this effect and there were no consequences. Obviously Royston coould not prove his 'genuine mistake'.

Don't lie Royston, you are in a position of extreme power and trust and the people over whom you have a great degree of determination deserve better. Shame on you on all counts.

IronLady2010 wrote:
The seatbelt offence, obviously Royston has no excuse for, but it's still a minor traffic offence nothing major. The Insurance, I can actually understand Roystons story regarding this as I use Swift Cover Insurance who are purely online, they do not post ANYTHING via mail, everything is done via email. Your Insurance documents are stored in your online profile which you can print off as and when you choose much like online banking. Royston stated he changed ISP so therefore would lose his email address and would need to make a new one with his new ISP. In which case he wouldn't have received any emails advising him of any potential problems, just a simple oversight that could happen to anyone. It's not like he set out to intentionally break the Law! Talking of breaking the Law, next time I see our bin men smoking in the cab of the Bin lorry, I'll report them! That is also illegal and intentional!!

thinklikealocal wrote:
I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question:

You "got away with it".

Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question:

Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

thinklikealocal wrote:
I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

notaposht*at wrote:
obviously torchies a tory sympathiser, yes i do suffer from dyslexia but hey your probably a manager and you bully everyone who isnt as good as you at spelling. get a life and do something usefull instead of taking the p**S

AdrianMonk wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:
I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Here's my comment:

What's interesting about the BBC report is that Smith is contemplating legal action against his old insurer. Their terms and conditions will almost certainly have included methods by which they can "serve" him and it's likely he had an obligation to inform them of his new email address as part of those conditions. This is just the 21st century way if saying you must tell us if you move house.

His case will fail - leaving even more egg on his smiling face. He needs to take it on the chin, realise what a fool he has been and pay the higher premium like the rest of us would. Oh and resign.

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:
I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Here's my comment:

What's interesting about the BBC report is that Smith is contemplating legal action against his old insurer. Their terms and conditions will almost certainly have included methods by which they can "serve" him and it's likely he had an obligation to inform them of his new email address as part of those conditions. This is just the 21st century way if saying you must tell us if you move house.

His case will fail - leaving even more egg on his smiling face. He needs to take it on the chin, realise what a fool he has been and pay the higher premium like the rest of us would. Oh and resign.

NO NO NO, He states Legal advice, not action.

How things always get twisted when you are anti someone ;-)

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:
I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Here's my comment:

What's interesting about the BBC report is that Smith is contemplating legal action against his old insurer. Their terms and conditions will almost certainly have included methods by which they can "serve" him and it's likely he had an obligation to inform them of his new email address as part of those conditions. This is just the 21st century way if saying you must tell us if you move house.

His case will fail - leaving even more egg on his smiling face. He needs to take it on the chin, realise what a fool he has been and pay the higher premium like the rest of us would. Oh and resign.

NO NO NO, He states Legal advice, not action.

How things always get twisted when you are anti someone ;-)

Just a thought..........

If a County Court issues a judgement against you and you didn't receive the notice, you can apply to have it removed.

I'm not sure about how it works with Traffic offences, but for County Court Judgements is certainly works that way.

I know, I issue enough of them!

IronLady2010 wrote:

waltons11 wrote: Probably no hard evidence of corruption, however he did break the law and should now stand down, this is what he would expect of anyone else, people in glass houses!!

It's an offence which is not arrestable. Get over it, he's been punished by a fine and points on his licence for an error. Blimey, anyone would think he'd robbed a Bank!! Although, he has committed the offence, I honestly believe it was an innocent error which Royston will pay for in his future Insurance premiums. It has no bearing on his job as Councillor. I've had points in the past for speeding in a 30 MPH zone, it doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden some major criminal.

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

rightway wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

waltons11 wrote: Probably no hard evidence of corruption, however he did break the law and should now stand down, this is what he would expect of anyone else, people in glass houses!!

It's an offence which is not arrestable. Get over it, he's been punished by a fine and points on his licence for an error. Blimey, anyone would think he'd robbed a Bank!! Although, he has committed the offence, I honestly believe it was an innocent error which Royston will pay for in his future Insurance premiums. It has no bearing on his job as Councillor. I've had points in the past for speeding in a 30 MPH zone, it doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden some major criminal.

You are correct, it does not mean your a major criminal, but what it does show is that you along with councillor Smith have no respect for the laws of the land. There is a reason why on certain roads there is a 30mph limit. But of coarse you are to good a driver for this to apply to you.
Every day the police hear these kind of lies about insurance and every day they pick up the pieces left by uninsured drivers.
He has lost all right to be a public figure, but as a true Tory, resignation on principle is not something he will ever understand.

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady,

During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady,

During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!!

Your memory has failed you ;-)

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Here's my comment: What's interesting about the BBC report is that Smith is contemplating legal action against his old insurer. Their terms and conditions will almost certainly have included methods by which they can "serve" him and it's likely he had an obligation to inform them of his new email address as part of those conditions. This is just the 21st century way if saying you must tell us if you move house. His case will fail - leaving even more egg on his smiling face. He needs to take it on the chin, realise what a fool he has been and pay the higher premium like the rest of us would. Oh and resign.

NO NO NO, He states Legal advice, not action. How things always get twisted when you are anti someone ;-)

Just a thought.......... If a County Court issues a judgement against you and you didn't receive the notice, you can apply to have it removed. I'm not sure about how it works with Traffic offences, but for County Court Judgements is certainly works that way. I know, I issue enough of them!

The thing is did the Insurance company apply a read receipt on the email so they know he received the email? What happens if the email went to spam through no fault of the recipient? I'm guessing this is why Royston is seeking advice as this is an honest mistake.

IronLady2010 wrote:

rightway wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

waltons11 wrote: Probably no hard evidence of corruption, however he did break the law and should now stand down, this is what he would expect of anyone else, people in glass houses!!

It's an offence which is not arrestable. Get over it, he's been punished by a fine and points on his licence for an error. Blimey, anyone would think he'd robbed a Bank!! Although, he has committed the offence, I honestly believe it was an innocent error which Royston will pay for in his future Insurance premiums. It has no bearing on his job as Councillor. I've had points in the past for speeding in a 30 MPH zone, it doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden some major criminal.

You are correct, it does not mean your a major criminal, but what it does show is that you along with councillor Smith have no respect for the laws of the land. There is a reason why on certain roads there is a 30mph limit. But of coarse you are to good a driver for this to apply to you. Every day the police hear these kind of lies about insurance and every day they pick up the pieces left by uninsured drivers. He has lost all right to be a public figure, but as a true Tory, resignation on principle is not something he will ever understand.

Rightway, I was doing 34 in a 30. Now I could have kept my eyes glued on the speedometer, but then would that be driving without due care and attention as I wasn't focused on the road ahead? Drivers can't win! Watch the road ahead AND watch your dashboard!!

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake.

Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image.

On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake. Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image. On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake. Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image. On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

I will also hold my hands up and say an offence is an offence regardless. But this is a trivial driving issue, I'll also admit had he have had an accident things could have been far worse. No-one has been harmed other than Royston who now has to pay through the nose for Insurance. His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing. I bet if we were to check every Councillor in the UK, most would have had points on their Licence for one thing or another. It's no big deal, I don't get why everyone wants blood?

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake. Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image. On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

I will also hold my hands up and say an offence is an offence regardless. But this is a trivial driving issue, I'll also admit had he have had an accident things could have been far worse. No-one has been harmed other than Royston who now has to pay through the nose for Insurance. His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing. I bet if we were to check every Councillor in the UK, most would have had points on their Licence for one thing or another. It's no big deal, I don't get why everyone wants blood?

To me the problem here is not so much the actual driving offences, but, his failure to hold his hands up to them. Quite frankly I don't believe he forgot or otherwise to put his seat belt on. He chose not to do this in direct contravention of the law and he should have enough integrity to admit this. He may have genuinely made a mistake re his insurance renewal but why not admit it instead of riggling and making pathetic excuses that quite frankly don't add up. The Police saw him for the liar he is and so do I. That is the integrity issue. He has made this worse for himself by failing to do the right thing TWICE.

SpicersVoice wrote:
One word "Karma"

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake. Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image. On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

I will also hold my hands up and say an offence is an offence regardless. But this is a trivial driving issue, I'll also admit had he have had an accident things could have been far worse. No-one has been harmed other than Royston who now has to pay through the nose for Insurance. His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing. I bet if we were to check every Councillor in the UK, most would have had points on their Licence for one thing or another. It's no big deal, I don't get why everyone wants blood?

To me the problem here is not so much the actual driving offences, but, his failure to hold his hands up to them. Quite frankly I don't believe he forgot or otherwise to put his seat belt on. He chose not to do this in direct contravention of the law and he should have enough integrity to admit this. He may have genuinely made a mistake re his insurance renewal but why not admit it instead of riggling and making pathetic excuses that quite frankly don't add up. The Police saw him for the liar he is and so do I. That is the integrity issue. He has made this worse for himself by failing to do the right thing TWICE.

He has admitted it. Where does it say he denies anything? You are making things up as you go along............. He hasn't been charged with attempting to bribe Police has he?

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake. Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image. On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

I will also hold my hands up and say an offence is an offence regardless. But this is a trivial driving issue, I'll also admit had he have had an accident things could have been far worse. No-one has been harmed other than Royston who now has to pay through the nose for Insurance. His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing. I bet if we were to check every Councillor in the UK, most would have had points on their Licence for one thing or another. It's no big deal, I don't get why everyone wants blood?

To me the problem here is not so much the actual driving offences, but, his failure to hold his hands up to them. Quite frankly I don't believe he forgot or otherwise to put his seat belt on. He chose not to do this in direct contravention of the law and he should have enough integrity to admit this. He may have genuinely made a mistake re his insurance renewal but why not admit it instead of riggling and making pathetic excuses that quite frankly don't add up. The Police saw him for the liar he is and so do I. That is the integrity issue. He has made this worse for himself by failing to do the right thing TWICE.

He has admitted it. Where does it say he denies anything? You are making things up as you go along............. He hasn't been charged with attempting to bribe Police has he?

No he hasn't admitted he made a mistake. He's making excuses for himself citing problems with card payments and emails.He's even taking 'legal advice'. Does that sound like someone whose 'owned up' and 'taken responsibility' for their actions? I think not and I'm afraid it points to the mans morals and character.

By the way, did I say or intimate in any way that he tried to bribe the Police?

Matt Probert wrote:
I think people are being too hard on Royston, a man I know personally. The seat belt law is a stupid one which imposes on one's personal freedom. Confusion over renewing your insurance is the sort of thing we all do from time to time, like being a few days late getting the MOT, or the tyres changed. Its not like he has never had insurance, it was an embarrassing mistake on his part, and the penalty is pretty severe for any of us in that situation. The laws in this land need to be relaxed, and efforts exerted in preventing real and dangerous crime like muggings, rapes, assaults, murders etc. Not pathetic motoring indiscretions like this. Matt

Matt Probert wrote:
I think people are being too hard on Royston, a man I know personally. The seat belt law is a stupid one which imposes on one's personal freedom. Confusion over renewing your insurance is the sort of thing we all do from time to time, like being a few days late getting the MOT, or the tyres changed. Its not like he has never had insurance, it was an embarrassing mistake on his part, and the penalty is pretty severe for any of us in that situation. The laws in this land need to be relaxed, and efforts exerted in preventing real and dangerous crime like muggings, rapes, assaults, murders etc. Not pathetic motoring indiscretions like this. Matt

IronLady2010 wrote:
At least Royston has balls to admit to his errors. Unlike so many hiding behind false usernames ;-) I bet Soton Unison/Unite are having a Firework display tonight lol

Matt Probert wrote:
I think people are being too hard on Royston, a man I know personally. The seat belt law is a stupid one which imposes on one's personal freedom. Confusion over renewing your insurance is the sort of thing we all do from time to time, like being a few days late getting the MOT, or the tyres changed. Its not like he has never had insurance, it was an embarrassing mistake on his part, and the penalty is pretty severe for any of us in that situation. The laws in this land need to be relaxed, and efforts exerted in preventing real and dangerous crime like muggings, rapes, assaults, murders etc. Not pathetic motoring indiscretions like this. Matt

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
At least Royston has balls to admit to his errors. Unlike so many hiding behind false usernames ;-) I bet Soton Unison/Unite are having a Firework display tonight lol

The only correct use of the word balls in a post on this issue is balls-up as in right royal which is what Royston has made. Note from his reply, he will not come clean on the seatbelt issue. He's had to on the insurance, clearly realised nowhere to hide, but still wriggling where he can.

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

AdrianMonk wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: I read the BBC article before reading the the The Echo one. Tell me, what is in the BBC article that contradicts anything I have posted? My post gave my reasons for coming to the summary I did and I stand by them. Not being caught before means nothing. Ask 100 'mainstream/ respectable' drivers who regularly wears a seatbelt if they sometimes 'forget' to put it on or 'ocassionaly' don't for an 'unknown' reason and 100 will tell you NO. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you don't use a car? So what is it Royston, are you 1. Non Mainstream 2. Not Respectable or 3. A Liar?

Of course I use a car otherwise why would I have said above I use Swift Cover for my car Insurance?? Yes I have been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, although got away with it ;-)

Here's my question: You "got away with it". Does this mean that if you are stopped again for the same offence you will own up and tell the Police it is the second time - or insist it is the first. It's a serious question because it cuts to the very heart of determining one's integrity.

It was a mistake. I was leaving a Supemarket and intended to get petrol on the way out so didn't put my seatbelt on for those 200 yards on private property. However, the petrol station had a queue so I carried on driving and forgot the seatbelt, so it can happen.

Here's my follow-up question: Please answer my question - I am not interested in your excuse - just how you will respond the next time you are caught?

If I'm honest with you, I would be like every other person and keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine anyone asking to be given a fine and points. At the time, I never had to give an excuse, they had no intention of giving me a fine, it was more an educational lesson.

Iron Lady, During the bin strikes, I am sure when you were lambasting the dusties and moaning about the 'rotting rubbish around your property' someone recommended you stop moaning and take your rubbish to the tip and you replied that you didn't have a car. My memory is pretty spot on usually....

Quite the opposite. I always stated I will continue to take my bins to the tip and leave them clean for when they actually turn up just to annoy them!!! Your memory has failed you ;-)

On this ocassion it seems I have, and as an honest person, I am happy to put my hands up and admit my mistake.

Mind you, I've never 'forgotten' to put my seat belt on or 'overlooked' the fact that I haven't received either a renewal reminder that my car insurance was due (it stands to reason that on the grounds of Royston's own 'jackanory' he wouldn't have received this), or, confirmation my insurance had been renewed (likewise). Neither have I lied to the Police to try and save my own skin or the media to protect my shining (I think not) image.

On that basis, I'm pretty happy that my integrity is intact. Royston Smith's is not and he has surely lost his mandate to lead the body making important decisions on issues such as road safety on behalf of Southampton's residents. He should resign now.

I will also hold my hands up and say an offence is an offence regardless.

But this is a trivial driving issue, I'll also admit had he have had an accident things could have been far worse.

No-one has been harmed other than Royston who now has to pay through the nose for Insurance.

His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing.

I bet if we were to check every Councillor in the UK, most would have had points on their Licence for one thing or another.

It's no big deal, I don't get why everyone wants blood?

clausentum wrote:
"His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing."

You are right. There is no criminal record as a result of his illegal driving.

You are wrong. His personal driving DOES reflect on his work as a Councillor. For the following reasons:

It is reasonable for local citizens, taxpayers and voters to have high expectations of people holding public office in terms of their behaviour, personal values, integrity, honesty and how they go about making decisions and exercise sound judgment.

Add to that short List, the expectation that Councillors abide by Laws and if found to be committing an offence ( regardless of the level of severity of the law-breaking ) that they own up, do not shilly shally with some form of flim flam nonsense in the form of excuses and so maintain the level of trust placed in them.

In this particular incident involving the Leader of SCC it is reasonable for anyone reading the reported account of the way he responded, to being found out by Police, to interpret his responses as falling short of expectations placed by us in him as an important and powerful local public figure.

The longer you persist in being an Apologist for his law-breaking, the weaker becomes your opinion.

I would hold the same viewpoint about his responses to his law-breaking if he were not a local politician but were a vicar, a doctor, a union official, or any other notable public figure in whom we invest trust that requires, in return, our respect.

clausentum wrote:
"I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, . . . "

The person sitting in the car is the same person sitting in the Council Chambers.

How they exercise personal judgment in either location is identical, because it originates from the same, single, source - their inner value system of high integrity or lack of it.

IronLady2010 wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
At least Royston has balls to admit to his errors. Unlike so many hiding behind false usernames ;-) I bet Soton Unison/Unite are having a Firework display tonight lol

The only correct use of the word balls in a post on this issue is balls-up as in right royal which is what Royston has made. Note from his reply, he will not come clean on the seatbelt issue. He's had to on the insurance, clearly realised nowhere to hide, but still wriggling where he can.

Blimey, I hope he doesn't shout at his wife for burning his dinner or all the Unions will be out on strike!!!!

clausentum wrote:
"I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, . . . "

The person sitting in the car is the same person sitting in the Council Chambers.

How they exercise personal judgment in either location is identical, because it originates from the same, single, source - their inner value system of high integrity or lack of it.

IronLady2010 wrote:
Let's not forget, for driving with no Insurance, Royston has just won votes from every Council Estate LOLOL

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Let's not forget, for driving with no Insurance, Royston has just won votes from every Council Estate LOLOL

.. not funny.
.. in hole = stop digging

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing."

You are right. There is no criminal record as a result of his illegal driving.

You are wrong. His personal driving DOES reflect on his work as a Councillor. For the following reasons:

It is reasonable for local citizens, taxpayers and voters to have high expectations of people holding public office in terms of their behaviour, personal values, integrity, honesty and how they go about making decisions and exercise sound judgment.

Add to that short List, the expectation that Councillors abide by Laws and if found to be committing an offence ( regardless of the level of severity of the law-breaking ) that they own up, do not shilly shally with some form of flim flam nonsense in the form of excuses and so maintain the level of trust placed in them.

In this particular incident involving the Leader of SCC it is reasonable for anyone reading the reported account of the way he responded, to being found out by Police, to interpret his responses as falling short of expectations placed by us in him as an important and powerful local public figure.

The longer you persist in being an Apologist for his law-breaking, the weaker becomes your opinion.

I would hold the same viewpoint about his responses to his law-breaking if he were not a local politician but were a vicar, a doctor, a union official, or any other notable public figure in whom we invest trust that requires, in return, our respect.

I hardly think residents are worrying over Roystons Driving issues when they have more concerns over striking workers.

I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, which by the way Royston has advisors etc to ensure he applies the Law in his position as Councillor.

When he leaves the offices, he doesn't have a legal team to tell him how to drive ;-)

From the Edge wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing."

You are right. There is no criminal record as a result of his illegal driving.

You are wrong. His personal driving DOES reflect on his work as a Councillor. For the following reasons:

It is reasonable for local citizens, taxpayers and voters to have high expectations of people holding public office in terms of their behaviour, personal values, integrity, honesty and how they go about making decisions and exercise sound judgment.

Add to that short List, the expectation that Councillors abide by Laws and if found to be committing an offence ( regardless of the level of severity of the law-breaking ) that they own up, do not shilly shally with some form of flim flam nonsense in the form of excuses and so maintain the level of trust placed in them.

In this particular incident involving the Leader of SCC it is reasonable for anyone reading the reported account of the way he responded, to being found out by Police, to interpret his responses as falling short of expectations placed by us in him as an important and powerful local public figure.

The longer you persist in being an Apologist for his law-breaking, the weaker becomes your opinion.

I would hold the same viewpoint about his responses to his law-breaking if he were not a local politician but were a vicar, a doctor, a union official, or any other notable public figure in whom we invest trust that requires, in return, our respect.

I hardly think residents are worrying over Roystons Driving issues when they have more concerns over striking workers.

I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, which by the way Royston has advisors etc to ensure he applies the Law in his position as Councillor.

When he leaves the offices, he doesn't have a legal team to tell him how to drive ;-)

He has personal responsibility as a driver to insure his car.

As resident of this city, I don't worry too much if my bin doesn't get emptied on the day it is supposed to due to industrial action, no harm was done.

As a resident of this I do however worry about people driving around this city uninsured without a seatbelt.

This man is a custodian of this city, he became that as soon as he became leader of the Tory council, as a custodian he has a duty of care to the people of the city.

This man has responsibility for budgets worth millions, he has responsibility for hundreds of employees, he has responsibility for ensuring the sacking of staff, yet a simple day to day task such as insuring a car and remembering putting on seatbelt seems to be beyond him.

You call it an oversight, if Royston Smith had run over a child or a pensioner and killed them, would you be so lenient or defensive of him just because he is a councillor?

If a person (not in the public eye) had driven without insurance through the streets, would you be so lenient of them?

It was not an oversight to not put on a seatbelt, that is a personal choice, which is against the law, I would say Royston personally made a decision not to belt up.

Driving without correct insurance is a criminal offence, holding an official strike is not, as a resident I worry about that.

nana2009 wrote:
Iron lady2010 I once told you and Lone Ranger to get a room? But the way you are sticking up for old Rambo I am wondering if I have got the wrong person??????????????


Rambo has done wrong and there are no excuses. Even if you change internet provider you can still access your old accounts, I am with Sky but my old email is another supllier and I still have access. Rambo is talking B*****Ks.

clausentum wrote:
"blabla . . . "

Indeed !

;-)

IronLady2010 wrote:
At least Royston has balls to admit to his errors. Unlike so many hiding behind false usernames ;-)

I bet Soton Unison/Unite are having a Firework display tonight lol

IronLady2010 wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing."

You are right. There is no criminal record as a result of his illegal driving.

You are wrong. His personal driving DOES reflect on his work as a Councillor. For the following reasons:

It is reasonable for local citizens, taxpayers and voters to have high expectations of people holding public office in terms of their behaviour, personal values, integrity, honesty and how they go about making decisions and exercise sound judgment.

Add to that short List, the expectation that Councillors abide by Laws and if found to be committing an offence ( regardless of the level of severity of the law-breaking ) that they own up, do not shilly shally with some form of flim flam nonsense in the form of excuses and so maintain the level of trust placed in them.

In this particular incident involving the Leader of SCC it is reasonable for anyone reading the reported account of the way he responded, to being found out by Police, to interpret his responses as falling short of expectations placed by us in him as an important and powerful local public figure.

The longer you persist in being an Apologist for his law-breaking, the weaker becomes your opinion.

I would hold the same viewpoint about his responses to his law-breaking if he were not a local politician but were a vicar, a doctor, a union official, or any other notable public figure in whom we invest trust that requires, in return, our respect.

I hardly think residents are worrying over Roystons Driving issues when they have more concerns over striking workers.

I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, which by the way Royston has advisors etc to ensure he applies the Law in his position as Councillor.

When he leaves the offices, he doesn't have a legal team to tell him how to drive ;-)

He has personal responsibility as a driver to insure his car.

As resident of this city, I don't worry too much if my bin doesn't get emptied on the day it is supposed to due to industrial action, no harm was done.

As a resident of this I do however worry about people driving around this city uninsured without a seatbelt.

This man is a custodian of this city, he became that as soon as he became leader of the Tory council, as a custodian he has a duty of care to the people of the city.

This man has responsibility for budgets worth millions, he has responsibility for hundreds of employees, he has responsibility for ensuring the sacking of staff, yet a simple day to day task such as insuring a car and remembering putting on seatbelt seems to be beyond him.

You call it an oversight, if Royston Smith had run over a child or a pensioner and killed them, would you be so lenient or defensive of him just because he is a councillor?

If a person (not in the public eye) had driven without insurance through the streets, would you be so lenient of them?

It was not an oversight to not put on a seatbelt, that is a personal choice, which is against the law, I would say Royston personally made a decision not to belt up.

Driving without correct insurance is a criminal offence, holding an official strike is not, as a resident I worry about that.

We are going round in circles..... Every case should be judged on its own merits.

Now if a Chav was driving a car with no Insurance because they have never held any Insurance then yes, throw the book at them.

You can't compare that chav to a man who has always held Insurance, holds a clean Licence after driving for numerous years.

Maybe he had a meeting with the Unions that day and his head was messed up? Mine would be after all their nonsense.

We all make mistakes, no matter what position we hold. At least Royston's mistakes had no casualties other than his own Insurance premium.

Maine Lobster wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
At least Royston has balls to admit to his errors. Unlike so many hiding behind false usernames ;-)

I bet Soton Unison/Unite are having a Firework display tonight lol

They can't even afford sparklers after the pay cuts!

From the Edge wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing."

You are right. There is no criminal record as a result of his illegal driving.

You are wrong. His personal driving DOES reflect on his work as a Councillor. For the following reasons:

It is reasonable for local citizens, taxpayers and voters to have high expectations of people holding public office in terms of their behaviour, personal values, integrity, honesty and how they go about making decisions and exercise sound judgment.

Add to that short List, the expectation that Councillors abide by Laws and if found to be committing an offence ( regardless of the level of severity of the law-breaking ) that they own up, do not shilly shally with some form of flim flam nonsense in the form of excuses and so maintain the level of trust placed in them.

In this particular incident involving the Leader of SCC it is reasonable for anyone reading the reported account of the way he responded, to being found out by Police, to interpret his responses as falling short of expectations placed by us in him as an important and powerful local public figure.

The longer you persist in being an Apologist for his law-breaking, the weaker becomes your opinion.

I would hold the same viewpoint about his responses to his law-breaking if he were not a local politician but were a vicar, a doctor, a union official, or any other notable public figure in whom we invest trust that requires, in return, our respect.

I hardly think residents are worrying over Roystons Driving issues when they have more concerns over striking workers.

I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, which by the way Royston has advisors etc to ensure he applies the Law in his position as Councillor.

When he leaves the offices, he doesn't have a legal team to tell him how to drive ;-)

He has personal responsibility as a driver to insure his car.

As resident of this city, I don't worry too much if my bin doesn't get emptied on the day it is supposed to due to industrial action, no harm was done.

As a resident of this I do however worry about people driving around this city uninsured without a seatbelt.

This man is a custodian of this city, he became that as soon as he became leader of the Tory council, as a custodian he has a duty of care to the people of the city.

This man has responsibility for budgets worth millions, he has responsibility for hundreds of employees, he has responsibility for ensuring the sacking of staff, yet a simple day to day task such as insuring a car and remembering putting on seatbelt seems to be beyond him.

You call it an oversight, if Royston Smith had run over a child or a pensioner and killed them, would you be so lenient or defensive of him just because he is a councillor?

If a person (not in the public eye) had driven without insurance through the streets, would you be so lenient of them?

It was not an oversight to not put on a seatbelt, that is a personal choice, which is against the law, I would say Royston personally made a decision not to belt up.

Driving without correct insurance is a criminal offence, holding an official strike is not, as a resident I worry about that.

We are going round in circles..... Every case should be judged on its own merits.

Now if a Chav was driving a car with no Insurance because they have never held any Insurance then yes, throw the book at them.

You can't compare that chav to a man who has always held Insurance, holds a clean Licence after driving for numerous years.

Maybe he had a meeting with the Unions that day and his head was messed up? Mine would be after all their nonsense.

We all make mistakes, no matter what position we hold. At least Royston's mistakes had no casualties other than his own Insurance premium.

Absolute tosh, are you taking the mickey?

How do you prove a person has never had insurance?

You can only prove a person (chav as you put it) at the time she/he is caught driving without it, a case in point, I have had driving license for 5 years but have never owed my own or driven a car, if I drive tomorrow without insurance and get caught, can you claim I have not been insured for 5 years? answer no.

Yes we all make mistakes, choosing not to wear a seat belt is NOT a mistake, it's a choice, a deliberate act, also when a person in power makes a mistake like this it makes one wonder what other mistakes he has made.

Luckily on this occasion no one got hurt or injured, every case should be judged on it's merits, I could understand if Royston changed his e-mail address, but using the ISP excuse is lame and he should consider his position.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
At least Royston has balls to admit to his errors. Unlike so many hiding behind false usernames ;-)

I bet Soton Unison/Unite are having a Firework display tonight lol

They can't even afford sparklers after the pay cuts!

They can afford more than you think!!

Salary£8.50 - £10.00 per hour
First Call Contract Services are recruiting up to 10 HGV Drivers for a new contract in Winchester, Hants working for Biffa UK.
All applicants should ideally have knowledge of Refuse Trucks and/or REL operations Rear End Loaders, and/or exp of Driver/Loader work. Applicants without this experience will be considered as long as they understand the role is not exclusively driving.
All vehicles operate a Bin Lift system for either domestic bins or trade waste collections.
The work is 5-days a week with above average wages with early starts every day, before 6.30am.
THIS ROLE HAS IMMEDIATE STARTS

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"blabla . . . "

Indeed !

;-)

At least I post facts ;-) xxxxxxxxxxxxx

notaposht*at wrote:
well it was me who took the photo, you asume that every council worker drives wot a t**t, also i was not breaking the law, rambo was so my integrity is not in question. it is that jumped up tory t**T who broke the law. you should have seen his face when i asked him to give me a smile, he went white and said oh f**k. Why wasn't he sent to court like everyone else who drives without insurance? i will be asking the police the question.loosehead you have a lose tounge as well, get your facts straight before you make assumptions.

IronLady2010 wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

From the Edge wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"His personal driving doesn't reflect on his work as a Councillor. He has no criminal record from his wrongdoing."

You are right. There is no criminal record as a result of his illegal driving.

You are wrong. His personal driving DOES reflect on his work as a Councillor. For the following reasons:

It is reasonable for local citizens, taxpayers and voters to have high expectations of people holding public office in terms of their behaviour, personal values, integrity, honesty and how they go about making decisions and exercise sound judgment.

Add to that short List, the expectation that Councillors abide by Laws and if found to be committing an offence ( regardless of the level of severity of the law-breaking ) that they own up, do not shilly shally with some form of flim flam nonsense in the form of excuses and so maintain the level of trust placed in them.

In this particular incident involving the Leader of SCC it is reasonable for anyone reading the reported account of the way he responded, to being found out by Police, to interpret his responses as falling short of expectations placed by us in him as an important and powerful local public figure.

The longer you persist in being an Apologist for his law-breaking, the weaker becomes your opinion.

I would hold the same viewpoint about his responses to his law-breaking if he were not a local politician but were a vicar, a doctor, a union official, or any other notable public figure in whom we invest trust that requires, in return, our respect.

I hardly think residents are worrying over Roystons Driving issues when they have more concerns over striking workers.

I fail to see how an oversight on a personal issue can affect a Council decision, which by the way Royston has advisors etc to ensure he applies the Law in his position as Councillor.

When he leaves the offices, he doesn't have a legal team to tell him how to drive ;-)

He has personal responsibility as a driver to insure his car.

As resident of this city, I don't worry too much if my bin doesn't get emptied on the day it is supposed to due to industrial action, no harm was done.

As a resident of this I do however worry about people driving around this city uninsured without a seatbelt.

This man is a custodian of this city, he became that as soon as he became leader of the Tory council, as a custodian he has a duty of care to the people of the city.

This man has responsibility for budgets worth millions, he has responsibility for hundreds of employees, he has responsibility for ensuring the sacking of staff, yet a simple day to day task such as insuring a car and remembering putting on seatbelt seems to be beyond him.

You call it an oversight, if Royston Smith had run over a child or a pensioner and killed them, would you be so lenient or defensive of him just because he is a councillor?

If a person (not in the public eye) had driven without insurance through the streets, would you be so lenient of them?

It was not an oversight to not put on a seatbelt, that is a personal choice, which is against the law, I would say Royston personally made a decision not to belt up.

Driving without correct insurance is a criminal offence, holding an official strike is not, as a resident I worry about that.

We are going round in circles..... Every case should be judged on its own merits.

Now if a Chav was driving a car with no Insurance because they have never held any Insurance then yes, throw the book at them.

You can't compare that chav to a man who has always held Insurance, holds a clean Licence after driving for numerous years.

Maybe he had a meeting with the Unions that day and his head was messed up? Mine would be after all their nonsense.

We all make mistakes, no matter what position we hold. At least Royston's mistakes had no casualties other than his own Insurance premium.

Absolute tosh, are you taking the mickey?

How do you prove a person has never had insurance?

You can only prove a person (chav as you put it) at the time she/he is caught driving without it, a case in point, I have had driving license for 5 years but have never owed my own or driven a car, if I drive tomorrow without insurance and get caught, can you claim I have not been insured for 5 years? answer no.

Yes we all make mistakes, choosing not to wear a seat belt is NOT a mistake, it's a choice, a deliberate act, also when a person in power makes a mistake like this it makes one wonder what other mistakes he has made.

Luckily on this occasion no one got hurt or injured, every case should be judged on it's merits, I could understand if Royston changed his e-mail address, but using the ISP excuse is lame and he should consider his position.

How do you prove he hasn't ever held Insurance?

I can't imagine Royston driving around the City knowing he has no insurance.

I'm happy to accept his words, his reasons seem more than acceptable. I would be in a similar situation if I changed email address and my Bank Card expired. I would (wrongly) assume my Insurance would be renewed as previous years.

This doesn't make me any less able to do my job.

dolomiteman wrote:
The law clearly states the it is the driver who is resonsible for ensuring they are insured, this can be checked by going to www.askmid.co.uk.
The car was impounded under section 165A of the road traffic act 1985 for which he has to pay to get it back at a cost of £150 plus £20 per day storage after proving his has insurance, he will also have to tel his insurance company of the six points he has received, if the car is not claimed with 14 days the car can be either sold or scrapped.

loosehead wrote:

notaposht*at wrote: well it was me who took the photo, you asume that every council worker drives wot a t**t, also i was not breaking the law, rambo was so my integrity is not in question. it is that jumped up tory t**T who broke the law. you should have seen his face when i asked him to give me a smile, he went white and said oh f**k. Why wasn't he sent to court like everyone else who drives without insurance? i will be asking the police the question.loosehead you have a lose tounge as well, get your facts straight before you make assumptions.

If you read my post correctly I asked if you were driving so why call me a Tw+t or should it be t++t ? Loose tongue eh? What assumptions? ow ( meant to be oh) please answer this one was the council worker driving? this was a question not a statement of fact so please apologise to me when you realise your wrong Thank You

thinklikealocal wrote:

loosehead wrote:

notaposht*at wrote: well it was me who took the photo, you asume that every council worker drives wot a t**t, also i was not breaking the law, rambo was so my integrity is not in question. it is that jumped up tory t**T who broke the law. you should have seen his face when i asked him to give me a smile, he went white and said oh f**k. Why wasn't he sent to court like everyone else who drives without insurance? i will be asking the police the question.loosehead you have a lose tounge as well, get your facts straight before you make assumptions.

If you read my post correctly I asked if you were driving so why call me a Tw+t or should it be t++t ? Loose tongue eh? What assumptions? ow ( meant to be oh) please answer this one was the council worker driving? this was a question not a statement of fact so please apologise to me when you realise your wrong Thank You

Loosehead, you are being a bit of a pr*t. Your earlier post asked, no more demanded, was the Council worker who took the photo driving? What the hell has that got to do with anything. You justify the question on the basis that if they were they were breaking the law. Well, if at the time of taking the photo they had been robbing a bank, walking down the street naked, mugging someone or doing a hundred other things they would have been breaking the law, but you didn't ask that. Face it, you picked driving because you assumed, and quite wrongly, that any Council employee out and about in the City during the day must be driving a vehicle. WRONG. Accept it, admit it, and you should be the one apologising....

clausentum wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

clausentum wrote:
"blabla . . . "

Indeed !

;-)

At least I post facts ;-) xxxxxxxxxxxxx

" xxxxxxxxxxxxx "

Unsolicited virtual snogging is grossing me out. :-( Ugh! Stick with lamely trying to defend the indefensible, as that is, marginally, more wholesome an activity ( on second thoughts, maybe it is not )

dolomiteman wrote:
Loosehead, you do not call the tax office for road tax, its Vehicle Excise Duty and dealt with by the DVLA!
Ironlady, you at least to me find it a minor offence that people drive uninsured, not only does this act cost every insured motorist £30 extra which goes into a fund so the courts can make payouts to drivers involved in an incident with someone uninsured but the reality is it is very difficult to make a claim against an uninsured driver so you can end up losing your car due to the cost of repairs or if a pedestrain is hit by an uninsured driver there is very little compensation for being off work for months.
To say its Chavs or council estate dwellers that drive unsured is factually untrue, a lot are working folk with newer cars.
And yes I do know what im talking about, I have impounded several cars this week, unfortunatly it was not me that nabbed Mr Smiths Jag though.

IronLady2010 wrote:

dolomiteman wrote: Loosehead, you do not call the tax office for road tax, its Vehicle Excise Duty and dealt with by the DVLA! Ironlady, you at least to me find it a minor offence that people drive uninsured, not only does this act cost every insured motorist £30 extra which goes into a fund so the courts can make payouts to drivers involved in an incident with someone uninsured but the reality is it is very difficult to make a claim against an uninsured driver so you can end up losing your car due to the cost of repairs or if a pedestrain is hit by an uninsured driver there is very little compensation for being off work for months. To say its Chavs or council estate dwellers that drive unsured is factually untrue, a lot are working folk with newer cars. And yes I do know what im talking about, I have impounded several cars this week, unfortunatly it was not me that nabbed Mr Smiths Jag though.

Driving without Insurance is serious. But you're forgetting the circumstances. I totally agree that probably 20% of Council estate people hold no Insurance. But, seriously and I mean seriously, do you honestly believe Royston intentionally drove his vehicle without Insurance? The seat belt he should get a smack in the head over, but the Insurance surely is a genuine mistake?

dolomiteman wrote:
Loosehead, you do not call the tax office for road tax, its Vehicle Excise Duty and dealt with by the DVLA!
Ironlady, you at least to me find it a minor offence that people drive uninsured, not only does this act cost every insured motorist £30 extra which goes into a fund so the courts can make payouts to drivers involved in an incident with someone uninsured but the reality is it is very difficult to make a claim against an uninsured driver so you can end up losing your car due to the cost of repairs or if a pedestrain is hit by an uninsured driver there is very little compensation for being off work for months.
To say its Chavs or council estate dwellers that drive unsured is factually untrue, a lot are working folk with newer cars.
And yes I do know what im talking about, I have impounded several cars this week, unfortunatly it was not me that nabbed Mr Smiths Jag though.

go ahead punk make my day wrote:
sweet !

go ahead punk make my day wrote:
The 'coppper' was doing a sterling job maybe he's due a promotion me think's, he's made my weekend tops!

go ahead punk make my day wrote:
Hello Loosehead it's been a while, who say's i voted again'st it, it is after all a democracy the most votes wins isn't that how it works? the sticking point was the legal side a good few of us want that weasel shown up for what he is, do not try to crush the working man he is getting wise to the bull.sh1t look east my friend.

loosehead wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

loosehead wrote:

notaposht*at wrote: well it was me who took the photo, you asume that every council worker drives wot a t**t, also i was not breaking the law, rambo was so my integrity is not in question. it is that jumped up tory t**T who broke the law. you should have seen his face when i asked him to give me a smile, he went white and said oh f**k. Why wasn't he sent to court like everyone else who drives without insurance? i will be asking the police the question.loosehead you have a lose tounge as well, get your facts straight before you make assumptions.

If you read my post correctly I asked if you were driving so why call me a Tw+t or should it be t++t ? Loose tongue eh? What assumptions? ow ( meant to be oh) please answer this one was the council worker driving? this was a question not a statement of fact so please apologise to me when you realise your wrong Thank You

Loosehead, you are being a bit of a pr*t. Your earlier post asked, no more demanded, was the Council worker who took the photo driving? What the hell has that got to do with anything. You justify the question on the basis that if they were they were breaking the law. Well, if at the time of taking the photo they had been robbing a bank, walking down the street naked, mugging someone or doing a hundred other things they would have been breaking the law, but you didn't ask that. Face it, you picked driving because you assumed, and quite wrongly, that any Council employee out and about in the City during the day must be driving a vehicle. WRONG. Accept it, admit it, and you should be the one apologising....

Well as I was replying to some one else what the hell has it got to do with you Eastleigh girl ? I actually asked the question as it seems people like you have never cocked up or done something which no matter how innocent it might seem could be seen as breaking the law. Also would you be posting these remarks if it was Mike Tucker or Ian Woodland? If as you all make out Royston was driving on purpose with no insurance then he was a plank & should be crucified but the police officer seems to have accepted his version of what happened he's paid the fine & in his words is trying to sort out with the insurance company what happened to try to get the points removed from his licence. now unless your saying he's bribed the officer why don't you look forward to working for a private company?

thinklikealocal wrote:

loosehead wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

loosehead wrote:

notaposht*at wrote: well it was me who took the photo, you asume that every council worker drives wot a t**t, also i was not breaking the law, rambo was so my integrity is not in question. it is that jumped up tory t**T who broke the law. you should have seen his face when i asked him to give me a smile, he went white and said oh f**k. Why wasn't he sent to court like everyone else who drives without insurance? i will be asking the police the question.loosehead you have a lose tounge as well, get your facts straight before you make assumptions.

If you read my post correctly I asked if you were driving so why call me a Tw+t or should it be t++t ? Loose tongue eh? What assumptions? ow ( meant to be oh) please answer this one was the council worker driving? this was a question not a statement of fact so please apologise to me when you realise your wrong Thank You

Loosehead, you are being a bit of a pr*t. Your earlier post asked, no more demanded, was the Council worker who took the photo driving? What the hell has that got to do with anything. You justify the question on the basis that if they were they were breaking the law. Well, if at the time of taking the photo they had been robbing a bank, walking down the street naked, mugging someone or doing a hundred other things they would have been breaking the law, but you didn't ask that. Face it, you picked driving because you assumed, and quite wrongly, that any Council employee out and about in the City during the day must be driving a vehicle. WRONG. Accept it, admit it, and you should be the one apologising....

Well as I was replying to some one else what the hell has it got to do with you Eastleigh girl ? I actually asked the question as it seems people like you have never cocked up or done something which no matter how innocent it might seem could be seen as breaking the law. Also would you be posting these remarks if it was Mike Tucker or Ian Woodland? If as you all make out Royston was driving on purpose with no insurance then he was a plank & should be crucified but the police officer seems to have accepted his version of what happened he's paid the fine & in his words is trying to sort out with the insurance company what happened to try to get the points removed from his licence. now unless your saying he's bribed the officer why don't you look forward to working for a private company?

What has it got to do with me? Erm, this is a public forum!!!! Do I need to explain the basics to you? You are exceptionally rude. If you think posting viscious bully boy comments makes you right or superior to others then - WRONG. Grow up.

No I wouldn't be posting my remarks if it was Mike Tucker or Ian Woodland because they are not the leaders of Southampton City Council, with ultimate responsibility for a number of 'vital' services to many 'vulnerable' people, hundreds of millions of pounds in budgets etc etc. Also, they don't treat people with arrogant contempt. I'm afraid Royston has put himself on a pedestal and is now paying the price, except not as dearly as I would like.

thinklikealocal wrote:
Having ultimate responsibility does not give you carte blanche to do anything you want without those affected having the right to lawful opposition. For employees, that it industrial action, for the voters, that will be via the ballot box next May (can't wait).

Carte Blanche = dictatorship and I am sure you do not support that notion.

loosehead wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote: Having ultimate responsibility does not give you carte blanche to do anything you want without those affected having the right to lawful opposition. For employees, that it industrial action, for the voters, that will be via the ballot box next May (can't wait). Carte Blanche = dictatorship and I am sure you do not support that notion.

Would that be the same Carte Blanche of the TUC? Watched the politics show the union guy was asked what Maude could say to stop the strikes the answer was Capitulation do what we say or face industrial action surely that counts as dictatorship by the unions?