Last I heard, the law of Great Britain required monogamous marriages, not polygamous ones. It also imposes speed limits that require drivers to travel at temperate speeds in certain neighborhoods, presumably to protect other drivers and pedestrians. In Scotland, however, these laws went out the window so that a Muslim commuting between his two wives (one of whom really ought not to exist in a legal sense), was allowed to speed without losing his license, even though his speeding was so significant that loss of license is the automatic penalty under the law:
When it comes to avoiding a ban for speeding, the courts hear every excuse in the book.
But yesterday one motorist offered what must be a unique reason why he should keep his licence.
Mohammed Anwar said a ban would make it difficult to commute between his two wives and fulfil his matrimonial duties.
His lawyer told a Scottish court the Muslim restaurant owner has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow – he is allowed up to four under his religion – and sleeps with them on alternate nights.
He also needed his driving licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, Stirlingshire.
Airdrie Sheriff Court had heard that Anwar was caught driving at 64mph in a 30mph zone in Glasgow, fast enough to qualify for instant disqualification.
Anwar admitted the offence, but Sheriff John C. Morris accepted his plea not to be banned and allowed him to keep his licence.
Instead, he was fined £200 and given six penalty points.
Lorna Jackson, from the road safety charity Brake, called the decision “astonishing”.
She said: “Regardless of the number of wives or businesses this man drives to, he broke a law which is there to protect everyone.
“Travelling just a few miles over the limit in a 30mph zone can be the difference between life and death if you hit someone, let alone driving at more than twice the speed limit.
“Drivers know the law, and they know the punishment they could face when they break it.
“For the courts to allow someone to keep their licence when they have so blatantly flouted the law and put peoples’ lives at risk, on the basis of an excuse such as this, is astonishing.”
You can read the rest here, but it doesn’t get any better no matter how much of the article you read.