The Country has gone mad.

[cee-dee]

First, a bloke crashes at 100MPH on the M5 while drink driving and only gets banned for 6 months plus a 12-month community order and ordered to take an advanced test.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335075/Engineer-100mph-crash-spared-jail-claiming-sleep-driving.html

 Then we have a bloke fined £28,000 for cutting down a tree. (He owned the tree!).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10095375/Businessman-fined-28000-for-felling-protected-yew-tree.html

[upthecreekyetagain]

The second case was a premeditated crime which will continue to earn the perpetrator over £40,000 a year 

I should think they are laughing all the way to the bank at being fined just £28,000

[bankhaunter]

He was actually fined £10,000 for cutting down the tree, the rest was costs and pay back under the proceeds of crime.

However the driver does seem to have got off extremely lightly, I'm sure that just failing a breathalyser test and then found to be over the limit, usually gets a longer than 6 months ban

Driving/Attempting to Drive with excess alcohol (DR10)

Penalty - Fine - up to Level 5 (£5,000) and/or up to 6 months imprisonment

Mandatory disqualification for at least 12 months for first offence

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Drink_Driving_Law

[al**bear]

The tree cutter should have been fined a LOT more

How about

a 19 yo  man in full employment , a first offender, was sent to jail for 3 months for sing a 'naughty' song at a football match (no free speach in Scotland under Scottish labour and now the SNP)

In the same court, under the same Sheriff, Ian Abercrombie, only Days later in Oct 1012

Allister Davidson (46), was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and was placed on the sex offenders’ register after being found with over 1400 images of child porn. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

Can't find in any of the reports that the driver was charged with driving whilst over the limit.

It appears he was only charged with dangerous driving.

[cee-dee]

I know that I'd rather not meet a drunken driver doing 100MPH thanks very much and I'd much rather deal with an unauthorised tree feller.

Any damage caused by speeding and drink driving can never be undone but a replacement tree can easily be planted.

The idiocy of the two situations is not helped by people who seem to think that the tree episode is the more serious and I wonder what their reaction might be if they were involved with a speeding drunken driver?

I suppose that those living near the tree (now removed) would not dare to say that they're glad to see the back of it because it spoils the view of the houses and the view down the road? (Yes, I've driven down that road!!)

[lhasa.two]

Can't find in any of the reports that the driver was charged with driving whilst over the limit.

It appears he was only charged with dangerous driving.

creaky, see below from the article.

A drunken driver who crashed his car at 100mph has avoided jail after telling a court he was ‘sleep driving’.

David Hamnett, 47, had been drinking whisky and wine before getting behind the wheel of his Volvo S40 while, he claimed, he was still asleep.

He travelled 150 miles at up to 100mph before rear-ending another vehicle and slamming into a motorway’s central barrier.

The marine engineer was cut free from the wreckage wearing a  T-shirt and jogging bottoms with bare feet. He was found to be almost twice the drink-drive limit.

Very worrying that someone could drive that far whilst sleeping... Not only could he have killed himself but others as well. I hope he has to visit his GP for referral somewhere to get it sorted out before he kills someone, dreadful really. I suppose the court could only apply the law as it stands on his particular case.

As for the tree, reading the article it emphasised the wealth of the man, based on the judges comments, rather than the seriousness of removing a protected tree. TPO's are there for a reason and developers know this. He's not a developer, just someone "developing" a site to maximise its return, probably for his pension... 

Our local council didn't even impose a fine when a local farmer demolished his Grade 2 Listed house. :_| 

[upthecreekyetagain]

The reports also say he was over the DD limit but none of them say he was actually charged with this.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Any damage caused by speeding and drink driving can never be undone but a replacement tree can easily be planted.

The idiocy of the two situations is not helped by people who seem to think that the tree episode is the more serious and I wonder what their reaction might be if they were involved with a speeding drunken driver?

Not sure how  you come to the conclusion that people think the tree episode is more serious or even that the sentence was more onerous than the one the man got for dangerous driving ?:|

In the case of the tree the sentence imposed meant that the perpetrator only made £12k profit in the first year rather than £40k.  In other words it was no penalty at all!

[cee-dee]

It was reading some of the responses here which led me to the conclusion that the tree episode was viewed "more seriously" than the drink driving case.

It also seemed to me that the attitude was "He's got/getting it, let's have a slice of that".

That attitude doesn't seem to prevail when some poor devil has been killed by a dangerous driver. The victim is dead, gone, not here but do you see such a levy imposed on the perpetrator?

Part of the tree "fine" was put down as "proceeds of crime". OK then, let's impose such a levy on killer drivers because the rest of their life results in them earning from the process of their crime.

[cee-dee]

Further to the drink driver episode, a woman was stopped during a "routine stop", no crash, no dangerous driving, not had a drink for years, had one the day previous but found to be over the limit (53 instead of 35). She was fined £400 +£40 surcharge and banned for three years.

I ain't saying the woman was treated harshly, I'm saying the bloke in my OP was treated very, very leniently.

[mitzigirl_123]

Different Acts for different crimes = different financial penalities but I agree, it is out of proportion and so would most of the members of the judicial system but changing the Act is an even greater financial expense that no one wants to fork out for.

[cee-dee]

The drink driver in my OP was driving at 100MPH and crashed.

The woman was not speeding and hadn't crashed.

Both drink drivers, different "endings" but vastly different sentences. The woman was given a substantially harsher sentence than the bloke, comparatively speaking.

The tree bloke was also treated very harshly too, different "crime" or not.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The difference between the two drivers is that one, (the woman), was prosecuted for driving whilst over the limit, the other wasn't.

[cee-dee]

Yes, I know but why not? He should have been?

[renomarvinm]

Why would a Yew tree be protected?  In the days prior to firearms, they made bows out of them?  Are there only a few left?

[cee-dee]

It's quite a nice area there and I suppose the powers that be thought the tree added to the look of the street.

It wouldn't have mattered what tree it was if they so decided!

[cee-dee]

[upthecreekyetagain]

Yes, I know but why not? He should have been?

Presumably because they didn't have the evidence to support such a charge.

He had to be cut out of the car, had a broken back and spent a month in hospital - it's unlikely in such a case that the police would have been able to get an evidential blood sample.

[cee-dee]

Really? So how did they determine this then?:-

"He was found to be almost twice the drink-drive limit."