no image

Julia Nachalova deprived of rights and fined. To blame?

This story has dragged on since December last year, when the singer stopped the outfit of the police, but she refused to undergo the medical examination.

Today the world judge of the Dorogomilovskiy district for a half year have deprived of a driving licence singer Julia Nachalova for refusing to undergo medical examination for alcohol, reported the court clerk Eugene Gorokhov.

“Aldonin Yu. V. (real name of the singer) found guilty under part 1 of article 12.26 of the administrative code of Russia and deprived of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of one year six months. Also, she appointed a fine of 30 thousand rubles”, — transfers words of the Secretary of the court RIA Novosti.

In December last year at about midnight the traffic police stopped the singer, who was driving his Lexus, and asked her to pass the examination. She refused, adding that he understands that she is a danger. One of the policemen took this conversation on video, and very quickly it spread on social networks.

It is clear that refused from medical examination always suspected that they hide their intoxication, because, once abandoned, then you have a history. However, it is likely not the case. After the incident, Julia was overcome with journalists and a television programme she was forced to explain. Her words seem quite compelling: late in the night she was stopped by police, which could be disguised as bandits, and offer to get out of an expensive car and go with them to medical survey. It could learn and understand that surely the singer has her money. She refused, because I was just scared and, in addition, was sure that later I will be able to prove that he was sober, as for several years of suffering from gout, so her alcohol is strictly prohibited. Before the incident, the actress carefully hid her illness, hesitate pineal formations on the hands, knew only her family, but then was forced to talk about it. Singer is outraged that a video of the incident without her consent appeared on the Internet. Shouldn’t employees in the performance to respect the citizen’s right to privacy? This video could attach to the materials, but to put it on public display was very incorrect.

However, the judge reasoned in his own way. Perhaps that was the reason, which we do not know, and the singer still deprived of rights. Although in fairness it should be noted that the maximum for this violation, the singer was threatened with deprivation of rights for two years, and deprived her only of 1.5 years.

Other materials rubric “Accident” look for the link.


Залишити відповідь