Category - News

Theory Test Has 90% Failure Rate

Don’t worry – it’s not in the UK. The Bangkok Post reports that the new multiple choice test introduced a few days ago is showing a greater than 90% failure rate in the first set of results from Chiang Mai.

It seems that the new multiple choice test introduced last Sunday – which requires 45 correct answers out of 50 – is similar to the one we use in the UK. The recent change has increased the number of questions from 30, and set the pass rate at the higher level of 90%.

The department has enforced tougher measures to obtain driving licences after it found that many road accidents were caused by a lack of drivers’ ability.

I wonder if Thailand’s driving instructors are blaming the authorities yet? After all, that’s what many of them do over here when one of their little darlings fails the UK theory test.

Thailand is also piloting a system it calls “E-driving”.

Instead of having an examiner sitting in the car with them, test cars will be equipped with computers and cameras to monitor drivers.

“The E-driving system provides accurate and precise results and will do away with problems in the old system, which relies on a committee to assess results,” says Department chief Asdsathai Rattanadilok Na Phuket.

I’m not 100% sure what this chap is saying – is it the old method which requires a committee decision, or the E-driving one? Who will decide now? Just one person? But he adds:

It will also bring a drop in the number of applicants passing the test, from 70% to only 30%.

Interesting.

Left-Hand Driving School

This story appeared in the Mail Online a few days ago. Someone has set up a left-hand driving school on the strength of the “revelation” that…

…more than a quarter of holidaymakers are afraid to drive abroad.

Unless their entire client base consists of authentic Chelsea tractor drivers, I’ll give it 6 months before it goes under (although it is a free course which is being funded from somewhere, so it might survive just a little longer). The article also identifies the “Top 5 Fears When Driving Abroad”:

  1. Not recognising road signs
  2. Getting lost
  3. Going around roundabouts
  4. Trying to navigate
  5. Driving on the other side of road

Errm, well actually, with the possible exception of #5 (and not even then in some cases), that’s exactly the same list most would give if asked about driving on British roads. So it’s hardly the basis for a business plan. If people are too stupid to look up the necessary details about road signs and procedures for the country they intend to visit before they go, it’s going to take a little more than a free course to sort them out.

Of course, it helps if you realise that the company behind it – SkyScanner – describes itself as follows in its “About us” section:

…a leading global travel search site, providing instant online comparisons for millions of flights, as well as car hire and hotels.

It’s not quite as altruistic as it first appears, is it? It’s not even a “school” – it’s a course (with an unspecified number of classes), which is apparently being delivered by driving instructors who have “teamed up with” (i.e. they must be getting paid) SkyScanner to deliver the “free” course. That’s a convoluted way of saying that it is a novel advertising exercise. I mean, there’s no problem with it, but you shouldn’t turn it into something it isn’t.

I can’t imagine there’d be much opportunity for practical sessions, either.

A Leading Driving School?

You don’t half see some rubbish, sometimes. This story came in on the newsfeeds, and it begins:

One of the leading driving schools in the country has embarked on an expansion plan which will see it cover all the parts of the United Kingdom.

This “leading driving school” is called County Learners Driving School, of whom I had never heard. I had never seen an advert for them, and a Google search only threw up three recent press releases with the exact same text. Their own website – if such existed – didn’t come up at all. Odd for a “leading” company, don’t you think?

If you use the domain name part of the contact email address given at the end of the press release you find what is obviously an unfinished website. Actually, that’s an overstatement – what you find is a barely started website. I has literally no content and no functionality whatsoever. It has what appears to be some sort of countdown timer, which reads:

Anticipate NaN DaysNaN HoursNaN MinutesNaN Seconds

There is no text to indicate who the website refers to.

So you have to wonder how they can call themselves a “leading driving school”. On that basis, I could call my own school “worldwide” or “international” just because I like the words. I think they mean they’re a “new” driving school, and I wonder if the ASA is aware of this misleading hype.

NSA Harvests Photos For Face Recognition

This story came through on the news feeds today. Apparently, the NSA is harvesting photos of people in order to build up its database to be used for face recognition. They are harvesting millions of photos every day according to the latest Edward Snowden leaks.

Coincidentally, I got some new Dilbert books over the weekend, and this strip really made me laugh.

Apparently, the NSA would need to get court approval to get pictures of Americans – unless they email a photo outside the US.

I think what they mean is that the NSA would need court approval if it was going to admit to anything. Previous Snowden leaks suggest that they don’t concern themselves overmuch with petty things like that.

Arsene Wenger Signs New Contract

Although he’d always said he was going to, the news that Arsene Wenger has signed a three-year contract to remain Arsenal’s manager comes as very welcome news.Arsene Wenger holds up the FA Cup, 2014

Read some of the inane comments (written in crayon before being transposed by the BBC, I’d imagine) at the bottom of that story and you can see that not everyone is happy.

When Arsene goes, we’ll be in the same kind of trouble Manchester Utd were after Ferguson left. These idiots can’t see this.

PoliceWitness.com – An Update

As of June 2019, this article has received a few hits. Please note that it is an old post and is not relevant any longer. DVSA allows recording of tests using dashcams now (but still not the audio). Indeed, I often use dashcam footage to show pupils where they went wrong. However, the original post is still of interest because of what was being advised at the time I wrote it. Namely, covert recording of tests at a time when DVSA (or DSA as it was) did not allow it.


Back in February I commented on a story that had come through on the newsfeeds concerning advice from PoliceWitness.com. The company sells in-car cameras, and in a story published in Fleet News, it was stated:

Learner drivers are being encouraged to film their driving tests, covertly if necessary, by PoliceWitness.com.

Earlier today, I received an email from PoliceWitness.com. The full text is as follows (with their permission):

Dear Sir,

I am writing with reference to your post on your website, diary of an adi: https://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14855 which states that PoliceWitness.com has given irresponsible advice about filming driving tests.

I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion and thought it would be useful to update you on our recent correspondence with Alastair Peoples, the Chief Executive of the DVSA.

On your website you state “PoliceWitness is getting itself into a very muddy area, since unless an examiner gives permission such recording could be a breach of the Data Protection Act”.

When we contacted Alastair Peoples and asked about the DPA and filming of driving tests, his reply was “…You suggested that we have used the Data Protection Act as the reason why we do not allow the filming of driving tests. This is not the case. While it is true there are data protection issues associated with the recording of tests, the main reason we do not allow tests to be recorded is that a single video camera mounted in a test car could not provide an accurate record of everything that happened on test”.

We have had several subsequent letters from Mr Peoples who has recently advised, and I quote As you may appreciate, there are many issues to take into account when considering the recording of driving tests. For many years, our position has been – aside from a few very exceptional circumstances – that we did not allow the recording of live tests. This policy developed largely from our concerns that the recording of tests from inside a vehicle could have been a breach of the Data Protection Act. We were also concerned that footage from a single, internally-mounted camera could not show a true representation of events both inside and outside the vehicle. There is also the possibility that a recording could be altered to show something different from what actually happened.

We are, however, aware that times change and cars that are fitted with cameras, telematics systems and other forms of recording devices for insurance purposes are becoming more common. It is difficult to foresee how we could exclude vehicles with these technologies from

testing, neither would we wish to do so. We are committed to working with stakeholders to design a modern and relevant driver training and testing regime that delivers safe and responsible drivers and riders. It is clear that the current position on the recording of driving tests needs to be reviewed and we are currently looking into that. During that review the safety of test candidates, examiners and other road users, and the integrity of the driving test must take priority. Once we have completed our review we will publicise the outcome through the usual communication channels”

As a driving instructor (are you based in Nottingham?) I thought you might be interested to hear about the driving test review that is underway and to hear how PoliceWitness.com is supporting many DI’s who have dash cams installed, not only to protect themselves on the road but to use them as a training tool for their pupils.

I hope you have found the update from Mr Peoples useful and would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Kind regards,

Paul
Customer Services

With a proven track record of holding bad drivers to account, we have been instrumental in changing driving standards for the better.

Our most significant step forward of late has been to secure genuine insurance reductions for those using a dash cam.

Unlike many insurers that merely use ‘x% off’ as a marketing message, we’ve gone straight to an underwriter who already recognised and understood the benefits of a dash cam during a claim.

As such we guarantee to reduce our members insurance costs. Even beating the likes of Direct Line and Aviva. An announcement will follow.

In my response, I included an email I received from DSA (now, DVSA) in February this year, which I also include in full, below (I have underlined the significant portions):

Dear [DOAADI]

Thank you for your email of 3 February about using video equipment to record a practical driving test.  I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention. I have informed our relevant departments who will also investigate further if necessary.

We do not allow people to record driving tests as images and/or audio recorded consist of, in most cases, the personal data of the examiner. This means that the images or recordings are subject to the Data Protection Act (DPA).

The fact the act is employed means that the Approved Driving Instructor must ensure the processing of this personal data is ‘Fair’ and they satisfy certain conditions that allow processing in this way. They must take account of the privacy and wishes of the person whose being filmed, especially when an individual objects to filming. Based on this, we made the decision to prohibit the filming of tests, owing to the data protection issues involved.

It is within the examiner’s rights to stop a test if they become aware of someone filming the test without the agency’s permission. If it becomes apparent that filming equipment is active either in a test vehicle or externally, the examiner should politely ask for the equipment to be switched off. If this request is not complied with the test should be terminated.

If a test is terminated because of filming the candidate would lose their fee. If a test is filmed covertly and the examiner did not know, then all DPA laws would apply. Our position is still that we do not allow tests to be recorded because of the DPA protection implications. If a test is filmed we would not view the footage unless it is deemed to have involved criminal activity, in this instance we would send the film directly to the Police.

You can find further information here.

This is not to say that vehicles fitted with CCTV etc will be refused for test. However, the equipment must be turned off while the test occurs.

Yours sincerely

Customer Support Correspondence

Customer Operations

[old DSA email address no longer correct]

As you can see, there is a discrepancy here. Alastair Peoples says one thing, whereas the DSA part of the new DVSA says another. However, the fact remains that – at present – DVSA does not allow any form of recording to take place during tests, and I maintain that it is – at present – irresponsible to advise covert recording of driving tests.

There are a number of issues that Alastair Peoples does not seem to have considered in his comments to PoliceWitness.com. Concerning DPA, there is the fact that the majority of test candidates are under the age of 18 (and a large proportion of those are female). The Protection of Children Act (1978) was amended in 2003 to apply to anyone under the age of 18, and so the routine recording of 17-year olds will definitely raise questions – or, at the very least, put the person making such recordings in a very risky position – should the person being filmed raise any objections. I’m not saying it would definitely be in breach of the DPA and associated laws, but it is clearly sailing bloody close to the wind. Also, the inside of a tuition vehicle is not a “public place”, so as I said in that earlier article, it’s a very muddy area – and one that is best kept out of by instructors,

Furthermore – and irrespective of any possibility that recordings can be amended to show something different to what actually took place – in order for a bona fide recording to show all of the necessary information for an appeal over a test result, it would have to have been made from several simultaneous camera angles. To cover all possible situations, you would need forward- and rear-facing footage, footage from at least one camera either side of the car, and close-ups of both the examiner and the candidate. All of these channels (at least six) would have to be synchronised. Only then could you begin to address the usual “but I did check… oh no, you didn’t” claims when someone fails. And it would still need lengthy expert assessment to decipher what was going on. Mr Peoples doesn’t seem to have considered that – or how much it would cost DVSA to wade through the inevitable deluge of unfair claims that would ensue.

And yes, there is the risk of footage being edited to bolster any claim, though this is the least of any problems that might arise from allowing tests to be recorded.

You also have to remember that both VOSA and DSA have a long history of “looking into things” – and an equally long history of actually doing bugger all about any of them in the end. For Alastair Peoples to say something like this now – less than a year away from a General Election – is typical. It is likely we will have a new government this time next year, and in the meantime the existing one will be more concerned about not losing votes than it is about changing things which won’t win any. In any case, the uncertainties over the legal situation mean that changes to the Law are likely, and that means consultations. All of this is even less likely to happen inside any reasonable time frame.

I have no problem with PoliceWitness.com selling cameras for the purposes of combatting theft and fraud, but driving tests are not conducted fraudulently, give or take a few high-profile cases every few years. Advising covert recording of something which is already expressly forbidden is a bit of a contradiction in terms.


This article is getting a a fair few hits from Theory Test Pro, and an article of theirs which give 5 reasons why ADIs should use a dash cam. All of the reasons are sound – and not one of them involves recording driving tests.

As I have written before, I use a camera for training purposes – I’ve experimented with several – but recording tests is something I would never do, even if it was allowed. [EDIT 2019: I am a steaming hypocrite! I forgot I actually wrote those words until just now. Since DVSA started allowing it, I initially didn’t record tests. But then I got a camera which starts up as soon as the car is started, and I didn’t want to keep removing it, so I left it in. It’s turned out to be a Godsend in helping pupils understand what they did right/wrong on test]. There is simply no need. And there is no need for any of the many hundreds of other people who take tests daily to record theirs, either. There’s even less need for them to be egged on by someone who sells cameras on the premise that they’re being cheated out of test passes.

It must be stressed that DVSA does not object to dash cams being fitted. However, driving tests cannot be recorded [that is no longer correct in 2019, or for the last couple of years]. People seem a little confused by this, and seem to assume having the dash cam at all is a problem. It isn’t.


This article has been getting a few hits during the summer from a forum dedicated to one particular dash cam. The thread that is triggering the interest has two posts of note.

One ADI comments that he has forgotten to switch his camera off a few times on test, and that the footage makes “interesting viewing”. This is a fairly ambiguous comment – it may mean just what it says (though you can sit in on test and see exactly the same “interesting” things), or it could mean that the ADI in question disagrees with what he has seen.

However, all ambiguity is removed by another poster, who comments:

I bet they do make interesting videos! I may have to “forget” to switch mine off during test!

Regular readers will know that I often refer to the attitudes of some ADIs, and how this us-and-them approach to the DVSA doesn’t do anyone any favours. Deliberately suggesting that DVSA rules are going to be broken – and the current rule IS that no videoing of tests is allowed – is… well, you can work it out for yourself.

I’m sure some people become ADIs just to cause trouble. There is no need whatsoever for 99.9% of tests to be recorded, and the remaining 0.1% is insufficient (and insignificant enough) to justify that they should be! The DVSA is NOT routinely doing anything that warrants covert filming, and it is nauseating to keep hearing camera vendors, disgruntled pupils, and even ADIs suggest that they are.


Note this update from September 2014. DVSA will now allow insurance cameras to be fitted and running, but you still cannot record driving tests per se or any audio, nor will DVSA enter into any form of discussion about disputes arising from such insurance video footage.

My original assertion that advising people to covertly record their tests is irresponsible still stands. However, I do think DVSA has shot itself in the foot (albeit with a spud gun) over this.

I don’t think they should have changed their original stance.


Note the edits in this post. I forgot I’d written it until it started getting hits in June 2019. I have done a U-turn and record tests (but never audio). It is very useful. But note that the original purpose of the post was valid – at the time, DVSA (or DSA as it was called then) didn’t allow recording at all, and the company referred to was advising covert recording in complete opposition to that – apparently with the suggestion that test fails could be appealed.

DVSA will not entertain an appeal based on video footage for the reasons already given.

Universities To Clamp Down On Binge-Drinking

Most people will have heard the classic version of 11th century King Canute attempting to hold back the waves, and failing. Well, it seems we now have a modern equivalent.Typical student behaviour

The National Union of Students (NUS) is bringing in a new “initiative” to stem the tide of binge-drinking amongst students (the Home Office is also involved).

…the aim is to create a “cafe culture that runs into the evening”.

Not that old “cafe culture” thing again! The British and “cafe culture” are poles apart – and the gap is even wider where students are involved. One of the prime considerations for people going to university is the night life – the choice of university for many students is based purely on the craic available in the host city. “Cafe culture” doesn’t even appear on the list.

It’s like tapas bars. They’re great if you go to Spain, but in Britain they’re both expensive (compared to Spain) and pretentious. We have one in West Bridgford, and you should see the kind or people who go in there (actually, West Bridgford is probably the only place one would work in Nottingham). And “cafe culture” is the same – the British just don’t do “cafe culture” very well at all.

Driving past any of the numerous student complexes in Nottingham (this is yet another way in which the City Council is screwing up this place – instead of building houses, it builds student flats, and then tears up green belt for the houses) you can see the level of “cafe culture”, as the current residents proudly display their empty vodka and Jägermeister bottles on their windowsills. You can also assess how well the “cafe culture” went the previous evening from the number of smashed bottles and glasses in the roads around student digs when you go to pick up a pupil from one of them.

The true British ethic is also well illustrated by the boards outside trendy bars (“shots and bombs, £1 all night”), and this is where you should start if you’re going to try and prevent students getting rat-arsed at every opportunity. If they had to pay £4 a pop like the rest of us, they’d soon cut down.

Learner Driver Car-Jacks His Instructor

This story in The Mirror tells how a learner driver turned on his instructor when challenged over unpaid lesson fees.Darwin Awards

As well as being (“allegedly”) the kind of scumbag who didn’t pay for his lessons in the first place, the learner then decided that punching his instructor in the face would be a good way of managing the situation. But this new candidate for the 2014 Darwin Awards couldn’t let it go there. Because when his 56-year old instructor attempted to call the police as the halfwit tried to make off, he then decided that the best way of handling this new development would be to return and continue the attack, then steal the car.

It would have been the perfect crime if the instructor hadn’t have had the idiot’s home address, and it appears that the police arrested him quite easily as a result of that small detail. The car has not yet been traced, though it is bright red and is emblazoned with the driving school’s livery.

The 22-year old imbecile from Erdington, Birmingham, was arrested on suspicion of robbery and assault and is being questioned by police.

I can’t wait until we find out this saddo’s name. I’ll add it to this story when we do.

eBay And Hacking Scandal

I use eBay a lot – mainly to buy, very occasionally to sell. I like it because items listed there are usually cheaper than identical items from normal online retailers. In addition, postage is often free – I’ve lost count of the times I’ve got to the checkout stages with an online retailer who is advertising something at a low price only to discover on the final page that postage costs are close to (and sometimes more than) the advertised price of the thing I’m trying to buy. Amazon is bad for this where third-party vendors are involved.eBay Headquarters

Of course, this is an underhand way of dragging people in – a bit like driving instructors advertising low prices, then trying to keep hold of people for more lessons to make up some of the shortfall they’ve created for themselves. For example, over on eBay something might be advertised at £15 with free postage, whereas an online store will be blatantly advertising the same product for £10 – but with postage costs (hidden right until the end) set at something like £8.99 (and then it arrives seven days later by first/second class Royal Mail – not Special Delivery – in a Jiffy bag).

Anyway, back to eBay. Some years ago I picked up a newly-published book while I was at Heathrow waiting for a flight to Vienna. It was called The Perfect Store: Inside Ebay, written by Adam Cohen. It’s worth getting hold of a copy if only to marvel at how the dotcom bubble of the 90s so easily made silk purses out of sows’ ears, and then for seeing how writers like Cohen managed to hype it up still further a decade later. In truth, eBay existed for years with a sociopath in charge of the hardware and software on which it depended. Every step forward the company made was opposed by the sandal and poncho-wearing employees who had been there from the start. Flotation on the stock market was seen as a sell-out  by these people, and as an insult to what “eBay stood for”. In fact, the main reasons eBay was so successful very early on was because of a) the chat room it operated, and b) those who used it, and who didn’t have lives of their own. Some of the original employees were drawn from this pool of misfits, and they fitted the TV sit-com stereotype of that era like a hand in a glove. Once eBay moved to real offices, staff really did play office ball games at set times every day, and they really did consider desks, suits, and ties as “terminally un-cool” (apparently, no one who turned up to an interview in such attired was ever recruited, and that was on the say-so of the recently promoted chat room people). As an aside, the book is also notable for the number of times Cohen uses the word “iconoclastic” to describe founder, Pierre Omidyar.

The buying and selling part of eBay eventually reached critical mass, and it became successful IN SPITE of the chat room and the weirdoes in it. However, it never got rid of the underlying “hippiness” and radical attitudes – particularly those which dogged its technical division – and those attitudes persist to this day.

If ever you’ve ever had contact eBay you will know that you’re like a drop of water falling on to a bone-dry sponge the size of several football fields. You’ll get saccharin-sweet emails which don’t help one bit or, if you phone (or online chat) them, you’ll be connected with someone with a restricted grasp of English who will try to persuade you that your problem fits into one the the neat pigeon holes he (or she) has on the desk in front of him. When it doesn’t. he will try to persuade you that it does, and before long you’ll be wishing you’d never bothered.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to discover this same attitude permeating eBay’s responses (or lack thereof) to the recent massive hack, which has seen the personal details of every single eBay user stolen.

To start with, it has taken eBay as much as THREE MONTHS to reveal that the hack took place. That’s THREE MONTHS during which the thieves have had plenty of time to steal identities. Secondly, even two days after the announcement – which broke in the media, not from eBay – eBay has still not implemented any form of communication forcing users to change passwords (I changed mine 10 minutes after I saw the story). Thirdly, it would appear that most of the stolen data were not encrypted in any way – which means that someone out there now knows my name, address, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Passwords appear to have had only minimal encryption, meaning a skilled criminal could probably crack them inside a couple of days.

eBay’s attitude and responses to questions from the outside world (or maybe that should be the REAL world) have been typically “eBaysian” (that’s another word the group-hug brigade in the early eBay coined for itself). There are many searching and very relevant questions that eBay has simply not answered. All eBay cares about is eBay.

If I ever find out my identity has been stolen as a result of this, eBay is going to have a lawsuit on its hands. My personal details have basically be handed out to God knows who by eBay.

Come to think of it, eBay made almost $13 billion last year, and the details of 145 million users have been stolen. It would be a relatively simple gesture to pay each of these users $1 million in compensation. Now there’s a thought… because back in the days covered by Cohen’s book, eBay dished out massive bonuses to the weirdoes it originally employed for much less.

Sickening Story From Oz About Distracted Driving

I thought our legal system was bad enough, but Australia’s appears even worse – particularly if you come from, say, Taiwan.

Meghan Hopper is the daughter of a prominent local businessman in Queensland. She was arseing about with her iPhone (apparently using Google Maps) when she slammed into Taiwanese fruit-pickers Chen-Chuan Yang and Kwan-Jun Wu. Yang was killed, and Wu severely injured. Hopper said she did not see either of the innocent parties. She was 17-years old and driving on P plates at the time.

Laughably, Hopper was awarded a 30-month suspended sentence for all this.

The sentence was considered to be too lenient by the Attorney-General (AG) and it was appealed. The AG said:

I appealed the sentence of Ms Hopper because I felt her sentence was manifestly inadequate,

I note the Court of Appeal agreed that ordinarily this offence would demand a sentence of imprisonment.

Incredibly, the appeal was lost and the court ruled that the original sentence would stand. The AG subsequently added:

Even so, the court [of appeal] did not hand down a prison sentence and I must respect its decision.

He also added that he had no further avenue of appeal.

To make matters worse, a “respected” former traffic cop has waded in. I’ve put the word “respected” in inverted commas because Garry Church, the person referred to, is a long-time friend of Hopper’s uncle. So obviously he is TOTALLY unbiased on the subject. He is also completely devoid of any logic, and you can only offer thanks to whatever God you believe in that you never had someone like this working against you. He says:

“I don’t by any means condone what Meghan has done in taking a life and seriously injuring another, and I certainly don’t condone the second incident where she was caught using a mobile in the Brisbane area.

“Having a driving licence means you take a big responsibility when entering our road for yourself and other road users and this responsibility shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

But he said he did not believe sending a young person for jail was warranted in this case as it did not involve speed, alcohol or any deliberate act.

Have you ever heard such complete bollocks in your life? In the UK, what Hopper did would have got her sent away for up to 14 years (though being a woman, our Courts would probably have gone for a sentence way down at the lower end).

And it gets even worse. Five months after her spoilt brat attitude killed Yang, she was stopped in Brisbane by police after she was caught using her mobile phone while driving.

Stock photo of a typical defence lawyerThe Appeal Court totally ignored that detail, or the fact that she clearly hadn’t learned any sort of lesson. Her well-to-do family hired a lawyer who – at the original trial:

…put in a sterling performance and kept the teen out of the big house.

His address was professional and impeccable.

He told the court Hopper had “found religion” since the incident. Looks like she forgot it again when she was driving around Brisbane.

The stupidity doesn’t stop there. At the appeal:

The Queensland Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed Mr Bleijie’s [the AG] appeal despite all three justices agreeing the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Two of them exercised their discretion not to interfere based on Hopper’s rehabilitation attempts and psychologist visits since sentence.

The Aussie judges are on a more distant planet than UK ones, it seems. How can you agree that the sentence is inadequate, then turn down an appeal to have it sharpened?

Justice Hugh Fraser said new evidence showed Hopper had benefited from not having a custodial sentence.

Yes, and she showed what benefit that was 5 months later when she was caught using a phone at the wheel of her car. Again.

Apparently, there are over 7,000 other people serving jail terms in Australia for lesser crimes than this. It is worth reading that whole article just to get a handle on how stupid the Australian legal system appears to be, especially over this affair.

Let’s just go into theoretical territory a moment. Nothing to do with Hopper or her wealthy family with it’s obvious connections to the local police force, you understand. You can imagine how – if you had the right connections, and if the courts were corrupt enough to respond to such connections – you could put sufficient pressure on them to get an ultra-soft sentence for a crime which would ordinarily warrant a much harsher outcome. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

One thing we can conclude with some confidence. The life of a Taiwanese fruit-picker is worth a lot less than that of a dumb and spoilt little Australian rich girl as far as this Australian court is concerned. I wonder if they’d have behaved as leniently if it had been a Taiwanese fruit-picker who had slammed into Meghan Hopper? I doubt it.