Katie Price

[Tashyboy]

Do you think her disabled son would have had any influence or bearing?

She would be to thick to think of that, her Barrister would of used that “ angle”. It’s a shame she never thought of her son when she was being a plank on the road.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

She would be to thick to think of that, her Barrister would of used that “ angle”. It’s a shame she never thought of her son when she was being a plank on the road.

Not trying to defend her or her actions and like many others I think given here previous and her disregard to being banned, taking drugs, driving dangerously and being a menace on the roads the sentence is a mockery. Just wondering (aloud on here) if her son may have had an influence on the decision

 

[Foxholer]

She would be to thick to think of that, her Barrister would of used that “ angle”. It’s a shame she never thought of her son when she was being a plank on the road

I'm almost certain her barrister would have used everything in his/her power to mitigate the sentence. That's certainly their role for a 'Guilty' plea.

And FWIW, you might consider reading this article - https://www.express.co.uk/comment/c...rice-stupid-act-masks-high-IQ-Richard-Madeley

 

[Billysboots]

Do you think her disabled son would have had any influence or bearing?

Difficult to answer with any certainty as I don’t know her full circumstances but, in general terms, there does seem to be a reluctance to imprison women with parental responsibility. So it is possible.

 

[Billysboots]

Billy I love your posts to bits, But I think you are holding back a lot.

last year my Sis in law was killed by a driver. He had class A drugs in his system.But fortunately for him not over the limit. He had a drink after he left the golf club. He the drink/ drug driving under the limit person wiped out my sis in law, smashed up me bro and another.
This is where it gets interesting, the guy that killed my sis in law had money to spend on the best barristers. At magistrates and Crown court for the sentencing. His first advice was to plead guilty. It halved his sentence. He/ Barrister then stated it was not in the publics interest to include the injuries suffered to two injured motorcyclists to go alongside the death of a motorcyclist. It meant less charges. At the sentencing he put forward X number of letters of good character of this road killer. The CPS quite frankly was useless. The CPS has a phrase “ it is not in the publics interest“. The CPS does not serve the publics interest. Bottom line he killed someone and got a suspended sentence. A tag and community service. He is a primary school teacher. I could name the killer. I could go on and have a rant.But.
My point is, money buys you a better defence. Be it a killer or a woman who is famous for getting her tits out. The CPS is not fit for purpose and the prosecution system should be passed over to the police. The very people who have to deal with 99.9% of the very people who break the law.
Re law breakers. 99.9% of us do not break the law. And to that end the sentencing guidelines that are both inadequate under the powers that are available. Should be a lot tougher, in the sense that the punishment including custodial sentences should be part of the deterrent. They need massively updating and modernising
What shocks me re Katie Prices sentencing is she has been here before. Why her suspended sentence was not invoked before emphasises show antiquated our prosecution system is.

Tash, it’s extremely difficult to comment on the awful case involving your sister in law without knowing all the circumstances.

But no amount of money impacts on the sentencing guidelines the judiciary adhere to. For example, a discounted sentence for an early guilty plea is obligatory under sentencing rules, regardless of whether a defendant hires the best defence money can buy, or represents themselves. It sounds to me as though the driver had no defence whatsoever to what he had done, was advised to plead and, having followed that advice, received the discount he was entitled to.

The rest of it is very difficult to comment on as I don’t know what the driver was charged with. Road traffic law is a minefield, especially where death and serious injuries are concerned, and much of it would seem utterly perverse. For example, whilst there is an offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, there is no offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. It’s a huge hole in legislation which means that a victim’s injuries have no bearing whatsoever on a charge if the standard of driving is careless. Perverse? Absolutely it is.

The frustration for me, and clearly for victims and their families, is when the judiciary don’t pass the sentences which are available to them. Sometimes the judiciary have their hands firmly tied, but too often they seem to give defendants the benefit of the doubt, or “one more chance” when their offending history is such that they have clearly had too many chances to mend their ways.

I don’t miss my job. There is an awful lot I could say about it but this is not the place.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Do you think her disabled son would have had any influence or bearing?

I believe he lives elsewhere now so she is not his carer or whatever the phrase is. As others have said, I'm sure that angle would have been thrown in though. They must have thrown the kitchen sink in to get that outcome.

 

[Foxholer]

A little more info in an extract from a later BBC report....
[Extract]
Price had previously admitted drink-driving while disqualified and driving without insurance when she appeared at the same court on 29 September.
Her sentencing was adjourned at the time on the condition she have treatment at the Priory Centre, not commit any further offences, and be banned from driving in the interim.
"The public may be appalled to hear that I can't send you to jail today," District Judge Kelly said.
"But the law says that when a person has complied with the terms of their release then you have a legitimate expectation not to be sent to prison today, even though you deserve to spend Christmas behind bars."
She further sentenced Price to 100 hours of unpaid work and 20 sessions of rehabilitation work with probation, adding that she had shown "no concern for the lives of others" at the time of the crash.
[End Extract]

Explains some of the 'complaints' on here

 

[chrisd]

A little more info in an extract from a later BBC report....
[Extract]
Price had previously admitted drink-driving while disqualified and driving without insurance when she appeared at the same court on 29 September.
Her sentencing was adjourned at the time on the condition she have treatment at the Priory Centre, not commit any further offences, and be banned from driving in the interim.
"The public may be appalled to hear that I can't send you to jail today," District Judge Kelly said.
"But the law says that when a person has complied with the terms of their release then you have a legitimate expectation not to be sent to prison today, even though you deserve to spend Christmas behind bars."
She further sentenced Price to 100 hours of unpaid work and 20 sessions of rehabilitation work with probation, adding that she had shown "no concern for the lives of others" at the time of the crash.
[End Extract]

Explains some of the 'complaints' on here

It does, but hardly looks right to us law abiding citizens imo

 

[spongebob59]

Katie Price: Police consider appeal against drink-driving suspended sentence

https://t.co/hV6iDNkh5p

 

[Foxholer]

It does, but hardly looks right to us law abiding citizens imo

Yeah...Playing the system?

 

[backwoodsman]

It does, but hardly looks right to us law abiding citizens imo

Aye, but us law abiding citizens would presumably expect the judiciary to abide by the law?

 

[Foxholer]

Katie Price: Police consider appeal against drink-driving suspended sentence

https://t.co/hV6iDNkh5p

Given the Judge's pretty emphatic (and seemingly disappointed) statement about WHY she was not (couldn't be) jailed, I suspect that's not a 'real' story, more likely one fabricated/suggested by the reporter - even with the name of a/the cop quoted. It would seem a waste of police & court time if the Judges hands were tied as she suggested - unless any appeal was intended to challenge the concept of that reason.

 

[Orikoru]

Maybe it’s about time interlocks are fitted to all vehicles, even retrospectively. For those that don’t know what they are, you breathe into a tube which analyses your breath. If your alcohol content is too high, the car won’t start.

Based on her attitude so far, she would just start borrowing other people's cars.

 

[bobmac]

“The public may be appalled to hear that I can’t send you to jail today. But the law says that when a person has complied with the terms of their release then you have a legitimate expectation not to be sent to prison today, even though you deserve to spend Christmas behind bars.”

Well change the law, how hard can it be.

The law also says when you're banned from driving, you mustn't drive. She clearly doesn't care about the law but hides behind it when it suits her.
You can't flaunt the law one minute and hide behind it the next.
And as for the driving ban, what a joke. If she has ignored her previous 5 bans, what's to suggest she'll take any notice of this new ban.

But she has been fined £213 so that will teach her, but she'll probably just add that onto the £7,358 in fines she already owes the court and hasn't paid.

 

[backwoodsman]

Given the Judge's pretty emphatic (and seemingly disappointed) statement about WHY she was not (couldn't be) jailed, I suspect that's not a 'real' story, more likely one fabricated/suggested by the reporter - even with the name of a/the cop quoted. It would seem a waste of police & court time if the Judges hands were tied as she suggested - unless any appeal was intended to challenge the concept of that reason.

Quite! It's a non-story as it only ever uses phrases like "exploring options", "considering appeal" etc. ie they are actually doing naff all as, presumably, they know there's no point. But it sounds good?

 

[Swango1980]

Well, for those that watch GMB, we know they always have an agenda. And, if they are interviewing anybody they are against (e.g. any Conservative MP), they will hound them with leading questions where it is clear the answer they want will not look good on the person trying to answer it. And, if that person tries to gently tackle the answer to that question, the GMB hosts will just keep interrupting and suggesting what the "correct" answer is.

So, today they had Katie Price on the show. They obviously asked about her latest driving incident. Katie simply said that, although she was not proud of it, there were reasons leading up to it (which she is unwilling to reveal yet) which is why she did it. She also said she'll see a therapist every week for the rest of her life, and having a dry January. She made it clear it is not fair for people to judge her as they do not know what lead to the incident. GMB were happy with that, and then went on to talk about her and her son Harvey (who was sat beside her).

So, no doubt we will hear about the reasons leading up to this incident when she reveals all in a big magazine / tabloid deal (the money making her ready to talk about it). And, when she next gets done for driving under the influence, it is yet another guaranteed pay cheque for her down the line.

 

[Robster59]

Well, for those that watch GMB, we know they always have an agenda. And, if they are interviewing anybody they are against (e.g. any Conservative MP), they will hound them with leading questions where it is clear the answer they want will not look good on the person trying to answer it. And, if that person tries to gently tackle the answer to that question, the GMB hosts will just keep interrupting and suggesting what the "correct" answer is.

So, today they had Katie Price on the show. They obviously asked about her latest driving incident. Katie simply said that, although she was not proud of it, there were reasons leading up to it (which she is unwilling to reveal yet) which is why she did it. She also said she'll see a therapist every week for the rest of her life, and having a dry January. She made it clear it is not fair for people to judge her as they do not know what lead to the incident. GMB were happy with that, and then went on to talk about her and her son Harvey (who was sat beside her).

So, no doubt we will hear about the reasons leading up to this incident when she reveals all in a big magazine / tabloid deal (the money making her ready to talk about it). And, when she next gets done for driving under the influence, it is yet another guaranteed pay cheque for her down the line.

There is NO excuse for driving under any influence.

 

[Ethan]

Well, for those that watch GMB, we know they always have an agenda. And, if they are interviewing anybody they are against (e.g. any Conservative MP), they will hound them with leading questions where it is clear the answer they want will not look good on the person trying to answer it. And, if that person tries to gently tackle the answer to that question, the GMB hosts will just keep interrupting and suggesting what the "correct" answer is.

So, today they had Katie Price on the show. They obviously asked about her latest driving incident. Katie simply said that, although she was not proud of it, there were reasons leading up to it (which she is unwilling to reveal yet) which is why she did it. She also said she'll see a therapist every week for the rest of her life, and having a dry January. She made it clear it is not fair for people to judge her as they do not know what lead to the incident. GMB were happy with that, and then went on to talk about her and her son Harvey (who was sat beside her).

So, no doubt we will hear about the reasons leading up to this incident when she reveals all in a big magazine / tabloid deal (the money making her ready to talk about it). And, when she next gets done for driving under the influence, it is yet another guaranteed pay cheque for her down the line.

I am sure it is the usual cocktail of excuses, blaming her past/present/future poor-me crock of equine excrement.

The bottom line is that she is a recidivist criminal who knowingly and recklessly endangered the lives of others for the umpteenth time. I think we can safely assume that she has not been caught every time she drove illegally/drunk/high or some combination thereof. Any ordinary person would have seen the inside of Her Majesty's Clink by now. She is a public menace.

 

[SatchFan]

Bugs me that this worthless individual is allowed primetime exposure to probably make a load of money flogging her latest celebrity sob story.

 

[spongebob59]

Bugs me that this worthless individual is allowed primetime exposure to probably make a load of money flogging her latest celebrity sob story.

ITV will be doing another series on her, hence the interview