Clarkson faces prosecution

[nota]

Clarkson may be prosecuted for being on his cell while driving at 70 mph (http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/03/12/clarkson-may-be-prosecuted-for-being-on-his-cell-while-driving/)

"Seems like Clarkson just can’t keep himself out of the spotlight. The Top Gear star was recently photographed chatting on his cell phone while doing 70mph on the highway in his, what the DailyMail so uselessly points out, ‘gas-guzzling 6.3 liter Mercedes.’

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/clarkson_on_cell_phone_doing_70.jpg

"Clarkson is now facing investigation and could get three points on his license along with a £60 fine if convicted. Police are analyzing the photograph that was snapped with cell phone by a passerby (that we hope was in the driver seat of another vehicle because then that’s just wrong) to decide whether Clarkson should be charged.

"A police insider said that there are no exceptions made for celebrities.

"He said: “At a time when the Government and police are clamping down on motorists putting safety at risk by using mobiles at the wheel, it’s vital that police are seen to be taking action against all alleged offenders, no matter who they are.”

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Lol.

That mobile phone is not a B&O Serene. The phone he is notorious for using (Simply because the design does not make sense for ANYONE else :p)

Secondly, just because the man is dressed badly does not make him Jeremy Clarkson.

Thirdly, if they are only going off this particular photo for evidence, they have very little grounds. no face, no numberplate, no offence :)

[nota]

Excuse of the year?


March 15 2008 at 12:00PM

A lorry driver from Germany escaped a rap for driving while using a mobile phone - after claiming he was using it as an ear warmer.

A court in Hamm accepted Walter Klein's claims that he had been using the phone, which was warm, after being recharged to warm his ears.

It means he had not broken the law which says drivers can only make phone calls with a hands free set.

"I had an earache and it was being made worse because the cab had not heated up yet - it takes a while on a big rig," Klein, 43, told the court.

"So I grabbed the phone that had been on charge and put it to my ear, and that was when I was stopped by police."

The court accepted his claim after he produced an itemised telephone bill proving he had not been using the phone at the time he was stopped.

[aiasib]

wasn't the B&O Serene marketed as a 'ladies' mobile phone?

[ScionDriver]

I agree he should be held to the same standard as everyone else but it doesn't look 100% to be him, but I guess it could be. 70 kph and talking on the phone doesn't seem so bad but I guess if its the law, its the law.

[henk4]

I agree he should be held to the same standard as everyone else but it doesn't look 100% to be him, but I guess it could be. 70 kph and talking on the phone doesn't seem so bad but I guess if its the law, its the law.

70 Mph....he isn't wearing a seatbelt either....

[Cotterik]

wouldnt he be driving his gallardo spyder instead anyways :rolleyes:

if it really is him, which i doubt, the daily mail are just a bunch of haters who are over-emphasising this whole thing. I mean they just HAD to add that he was driving a 'gas-guzzler' when most of them probably drive X5's around london themselves.

[zeppelin]

I like to think that they're not in a journalistic caliber that can afford X5s. The Daily Mail is pretty terrible.

edit. actually I may be thinking of The Sun, that's the terrible UK newspaper. Still, this was a pretty weak article.

[Jack_Bauer]

I like to think that they're not in a journalistic caliber that can afford X5s. The Daily Mail is pretty terrible.

edit. actually I may be thinking of The Sun, that's the terrible UK newspaper. Still, this was a pretty weak article.

The Daily Mail is every bit as terrible as The Sun. At least The Sun is unashamedly tabloid in its presentation and sensationalism, so most folk are able to take most of what it says with a pinch of salt.

The Daily Mail actually masquerades as a serious broadsheet type newspaper and, sadly, a lot of people seem to fall for their bullshit. It is every bit as sensationalist, biased and small-minded as the likes of The Sun, but the fact that a lot of people actually take it seriously makes it all the more dangerous as a publication.

And don't even get me started on the Daily Express! :p

[jediali]

that car was Jcs xmas present apparently from his wife. Either way (hot shot lawyer or not him) he will get off with it.

[mattyp]

I think this is his mercedes pullman he got recently, he had an article on top gear about what a problem it is to run. And as its like 50 years old i dont think you need a seatbelt if it wasnt installed originally.

But anyway i seriously doubt he would get anything and not because he is famous its because a photo taken with a phone by a member of the public would not stand up in court as trustworthy evidence, especially now its been splashed over the newspapers, besides, millions of people still use the phone and drive, its just typical for a tabloid to make a song and dance about it.

NOBODY CARES!

[nota]

NOBODY CARES!
you cared enough to post :p

[2ndclasscitizen]

1) You can't tell who it is.
2) Since when is a random camera phone shot evidence of a traffic violation.
3) And if they get him, they've got to charge the person who gave them the photo, because they're clearly using their phone whilst driving.

There was something similar in Queensland a couple of months back. A guy driving to work videoed a guy doing a wheelie on a freeway, and the cops were getting all self-righteous about it, and thanking the driver for reporting it...right up until the point where it was pointed out ot them that it was illegally gathered evidence. Haven't heard much since.

[Zytek_Fan]

It could also be at a stop because camera phones are terrible at taking pictures at speed, and it doesn't look like it is at speed.

[Waugh-terfall]

I swear Clarkson has a Motorola RAZR2 V8.
In all teh top gear races he had the same V3 RAZR but in the British Leyland special he pointed out how Rover were timelords for making a cubby hole the perfect size for his RAZR2

And besides, the person who has taken the photo is patently in the wrong too, that pic must have been taken right up to teh window as there is no reflection or pillars evident which, as it's in England (RHD), must mean that the driver took the photo, using what? Oh! A mobile phone! Gracious!

[coolieman1220]

photoshop?

[Blue Supra]

Someones going to get fined, and i think itll be the picture taker not the person in it.

[Daz27]

Do cars only have one window on the drivers side in england? How can you assume the driver took the photo? I mean are'nt you guys allowed to carry rear seat passengers?? Hmmm.
There wont be any fines for anyone, purely because there is no identity to fine. Who do they address the fine to? to ... 'The guy with the crap jacket on the phone in a crappy old Merc?'

[Waugh-terfall]

"Crappy old Mercedes".... Those things are pretty rare and still fetch about £70,000

[Ferrer]

"Crappy old Mercedes".... Those things are pretty rare and still fetch about £70,000
You can have a standard 600 for as "little" as £23,000.

[Lagonda]

How the hell are they going to prosecute him. No way that they can do that with that picture (unless they have another one showing his face). And I'm not even sure that a picture taken by a third party has any legal weight whatsoever.

[Waugh-terfall]

You can have a standard 600 for as "little" as £23,000.

Clarkson's is a Grosser though isn't it? lol,'as little' it's 30yrs old:p

[nota]

another crappy old merc 600....

[Ferrer]

Clarkson's is a Grosser though isn't it? lol,'as little' it's 30yrs old:p
AFAIK all the 600 were "Grossers". Then there were different versions, like Long Wheelbase or Pullman.