Search This Blog

Friday, 8 February 2013

"Drink - Drugs - Driving - And Kangaroo Courts"

"Three Cases To Confuse You"

Case 1: Drugged up driver let off jail sentence because he is only 23 Years old. WTF?

Case 2: Lawyer let off jail sentence because he is a lawyer. WTF?

Lawyer ‘humiliated’ after all-day drinking session

A JERSEY lawyer described his ‘humiliation’ at being caught driving while three times over the legal limit after an all-day heavy drinking session.
Advocate Michael Leigh Preston had drunk so much that the Magistrate said he was off the scale of sentencing guidelines and could have been jailed.
The 44-year-old partner at law firm Voisins told the Magistrate’s Court on Monday that the offence last Sunday was a ‘moment of madness’.

Piss head Advocate Mike Preston of Law Firm Voisins
He was banned from driving for 30 months and ordered to carry out 90 hours of community service after pleading guilty to drink-driving in Gas Place.

Case 3: Woman jailed for five months who was
"NOT" over the legal limit!!! WTF?

In case three, the police unlawfully raided her home, hid evidence, the States analyst concluded she was "NOT" over the limit in the toxicology report, and her lawyer frightened her into not appealing her case.

Why was she jailed?

She just happened to be dating Curtis Warren's 'alleged' right hand man!!!


  1. The capacity to drink that quantity of alcohol is limited to alcoholics. Without alcohol treatment this driver can't avoid repeating his dangerous behaviour.

  2. Case one stimulates me somewhat, how is it that a lawyer can put forward a mitigating argument that the offender is only aged 23?

    Case two is reasonably construed as run of the mill.

    Case three I await the detailed explanation from the blogs authors. I am hoping there will be one.

  3. You better believe there will be one, even though we are meeting some mounting resistance at the minute, truth will out....Eventually :)

    Pay for nothing, go to court, fuck'em....

  4. What what do you mean "we are meeting some mounting resistance"? From who???

  5. RE Case one. "..deserved credit for his youth ..."

    And to think that we had 18 year olds flying Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. They certainly knew responsibility when they saw it.

    The Beano is not the Rag

  6. I dont see what the issue is here, she deserved to go to jail because she did not learn her lesson from her previous conviction, the others are first offenders.

    1. Can't you read!! The toxicology report states she was UNDER the limit when she drove!! There is so much more to this case than meets the eye. If you actually read up on the case before passing judgement, you too would see it!!!!

  7. i really don't see the problem:
    Case 1:first offence,how many people get a prison sentence for a 1st driving under the influence ?
    Case 2: ok,he's a lawyer and should have known better but again a first offence.
    case 3: been convicted before,if she was not over the limit for her second court appearance then she should not have been convicted. No judge would convict somebody with out the proper evidence. I think there is more to this than you are telling us

  8. "No judge would convict somebody with out the proper evidence."

    Hahaha, the sheer naivety of some people hey?

    1. Absolutely!! I believe this Lady was treated very badly including an illegal search on her house! I also believe she was found guilty as B Shaw didn't believe her!! There was zero evidence! The poor woman wasn't even in her car but cooking lunch for her Mother! There is NO justice in Jersey! It's the establishment that should be behind bars!!!

  9. Are you actually reading the same report that you have reproduced from the JEP... it clearly states that on both occasions she was significantly over the limit and there is no mention of the toxicology report.

    If you want credibility provide some evidence for your accusations otherwise people may dismiss you as a nutter with an axe to grind

    1. I think the trouble here anon, is that "you believe" what was printed in the JEP! The JEP do NOT report, they just print what they are told to. I have the toxicology report sat on the table in front of me so I know what it says, and it says she could not have been over the drink drive limit....Now that makes Magistrate Bridget Shaw a criminal, does it not?

      We will be revisiting this story at a later date, and publishing all the evidence. In the meantime, I suggest you start getting your local news from the blogs, and not the corrupt State Media....

    2. In fact, I may just print the toxicology report tonight or tomorrow :)

      That should give you all a very good clue as to just who are the criminals in this case. Would you like to see it?

  10. I'd like to ask a question please? In this case an illegal search warrant was issued and the Ladies home searched illegally. So, If police came to my house with a warrant, how am I to know it's a legal one and what would happen If I refused them entry as I didn't know if it had been issued legally or illegally? Would they force their way in? What (if any) rights would I have?
    I'm really interested in any feedback re this.... Thanks Ian

  11. Hi anon, firstly, if you have done nothing wrong, why wouldn't you talk to the police? You do not have to let them enter your property to talk to them, this can be done from an upstairs window. Once you let them in you have contracted with them, you are not obliged to grant them entry to your home. You can ask them to put the warrant through your letter box and check the authenticity of the warrant, either on their website or by phoning the police station. The warrant itself should contain all the elements of it's use. You can also remove their implied right of access with a notice, click on THIS LINK for details. Remember, policemen are public servants, their job is to help you, not hinder or harass you.