As my colleague said when he saw this - “A one year ban? That’s ridiculous. How’s he going to get to work?”
p.s. Just to clarify, the minimum driving age over here is 17.
Perhaps that begins once the kid is of “legal age” to drive? So they have to wait until they are 18?
Otherwise… it’s silly.
I would hope it’s to take effect on his 17th birthday. Either that or the Chairman had a sense of humor.
Or the world is slowly going nuts. That’s my explanation.
OK, but what’s the minimum working age?
Just askin’.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5043969.html
It appears the court are using the threat that if he’s caught behind the wheel again, the fact he’s breached this ban means he’ll face much more severe punishment.
Plus, he’s been given nine penalty points, which will be on his licence when he reaches legal age.
Ah, will they though? If they’re given to him now, they’ll be taken off before he’s 17, won’t they? They’re removed 4 years after the offence is committed. The article you linked to says the 1 year ban is “with immediate effect”, so I can only assume the points are too.
THis is what I don’t get. If you are ineligible to drive, then the fact that you are not breaching an actual driving ban should be irrelevant. The driving ban should be to remove the legal right to drive from someone who actually has that privilige. if you have no right to drive (underage, no license etc) then you are automatically banned in my view. So I am in the camp that thinks this is a silly punishment (unless the driving ban doesn’t kick in until his 17th birthday in which case it makes more sense). As to what his pinishment should have been, well that’s a knotty one.
For a start, we’re talking about an eleven-year-old. He’s only just into the bracket where he can even be held legally-responsible, and there’s great difficulties for the court to convict at all.
The point about having a ban in place is that if this were the case, and he’s caught doing it again, the breach of that ban can be used as evidence. If there were no ban, the previous conviction could not be used as evidence in a future case. It’s not the main part of the punishement, irrespective of how the media has reported it.