British justice? Don''t make me laugh

17 Feb 2009

Quote by DeeCee
I think in this case justice has been served.
The guy was caught, tried and convicted. He has recieved a prison sentence.
What more do you want?
Oh , sorry, looks like only a lynching would appease some!!!!!

Well how did I know that your good self would have that attitude.
Funny...........I bet that if that had been your family, no doubt you would still have been happy with that verdict? Somehow guessing, you would be a tad more angry.
Still it's done and the vast majority of people agree that his sentence was a joke. Do you really think, in all honesty, that 3 months jail for each killing is justice? I presume you do indeed sir, with your above comment.
Have a little peep at those kids faces, and tell me if those poor lives lost, are only worth three months a pop.

17 Feb 2009

Quote by woohoo
Yep got to agree law is an ass ...
Read in the metro today about a father of three who burst into the local drug dealers house and flushed his drug stash down the loo and the father of three got three months Jail.
:?

I think he should think himself bloody lucky not to have got more. The dealer might have half the output of Afghanistan in his front room, but that doesn't give anyone other than a Police Officer with a legal warrant the right to invade his home. Can't find the story on the Metro website WooHoo, but did he break in when the occupier was out, in which case it's burglary of a dwelling, or did he enter while the occupier was in, in which case, did this dealer stand idly by while he searched his house, or is there a suggestion of violence, or the threat of violence? :?

Quote by Kent
Do you really think, in all honesty, that 3 months jail for each killing is justice? I presume you do indeed sir, with your above comment.
Have a little peep at those kids faces, and tell me if those poor lives lost, are only worth three months a pop.

Kent, you're being deliberatively emotive, as usual, because he didn't get three months for each at all. He got three years for each, but the six sentences run concurrently, which is fair IMO. That might sound like some trite hair-splitting, but three years imprisonment for an offence of careless driving is about right. I certainly don't believe the sentences should have been made consecutive, because an eighteen year sentence would quite obviously be manifestly excessive in these circumstances. Maybe he should have got the maximum sentence of five years, but not being party to all the evidence presented to the court, and not being a judge privy to the technicalities of the sentencing guidelines, I'm in no position to judge whether what he did warrants that or not. dunno

Yes, six people died, but there was no intent to kill on this drivers part. The driver was stupid and reckless, yes, but there but for the grace of God goes just about anyone who sits behind a steering wheel. A moments inattention fiddling with the radio, or the cig lighter, or shouting at the kids in the back, and someone's dead. That should not be dealt with in the same way as someone who deliberately goes out to cause harm to others. I can't help wondering how many of those demanding something stronger have been guilty of answering a mobile phone while driving lately, or doing 90 on the motorway when they think they can get away with it? :?
Neil x x x ;)

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I think in this case justice has been served.
The guy was caught, tried and convicted. He has recieved a prison sentence.
What more do you want?
Oh , sorry, looks like only a lynching would appease some!!!!!

Well how did I know that your good self would have that attitude.
Funny...........I bet that if that had been your family, no doubt you would still have been happy with that verdict? Somehow guessing, you would be a tad more angry.
Still it's done and the vast majority of people agree that his sentence was a joke. Do you really think, in all honesty, that 3 months jail for each killing is justice? I presume you do indeed sir, with your above comment.
Have a little peep at those kids faces, and tell me if those poor lives lost, are only worth three months a pop.
777 you said he "pop" that sounds a little like he shot them with a gun. That would be intent and should be dealt with accordingly.
This was an accident there was no intent a tragic accident.
Should taking a life with intent or without be dealt with the same way?

17 Feb 2009

Quote by flower411
I was out on my bike this year and in my opinion was not close to the car in front. He thought I was so slammed his brakes on...nice one. As I was not that close to him I mangaed to stop before I hit him. As a motrocyclist it is def not in my interest to tailgate, as I would come off much worse if I could not stop in time. I do not suffer from tailgating on my bike as not many can keep up enough to get that close.

Quote by kentswingers777
Would you like to find where I have said it, or is that also a wild assumption?

No wild assumptioms as far as I can see.
I am impressed Flower, that you managed to find that. Good work my dear Watson. wink

That still does not really prove anything. I always keep to the speed limit. :wink:
Your powers of searching are impressive, must have more time on your hands than I thought.

17 Feb 2009

Just to throw a spanner in the works, i read somewhere
the police were checking that the driver who caused the accident was actually on his lap top at the time of the collision.
Think that might put a new slant on him having it on his mind forever, and the sentance.

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I was out on my bike this year and in my opinion was not close to the car in front. He thought I was so slammed his brakes on...nice one. As I was not that close to him I mangaed to stop before I hit him. As a motrocyclist it is def not in my interest to tailgate, as I would come off much worse if I could not stop in time. I do not suffer from tailgating on my bike as not many can keep up enough to get that close.

Quote by kentswingers777
Would you like to find where I have said it, or is that also a wild assumption?

No wild assumptioms as far as I can see.
I am impressed Flower, that you managed to find that. Good work my dear Watson. wink

That still does not really prove anything. I always keep to the speed limit. :wink:
Your powers of searching are impressive, must have more time on your hands than I thought.
Not wishing to step on anyones toes here... but if you stuck to the speed limit then everyone would be able to keep up therefore making one of your statements in red a bit of a fib! :mrgreen:

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I was out on my bike this year and in my opinion was not close to the car in front. He thought I was so slammed his brakes on...nice one. As I was not that close to him I mangaed to stop before I hit him. As a motrocyclist it is def not in my interest to tailgate, as I would come off much worse if I could not stop in time. I do not suffer from tailgating on my bike as not many can keep up enough to get that close.

Quote by kentswingers777
Would you like to find where I have said it, or is that also a wild assumption?

No wild assumptioms as far as I can see.
I am impressed Flower, that you managed to find that. Good work my dear Watson. wink

That still does not really prove anything. I always keep to the speed limit. :wink:
Your powers of searching are impressive, must have more time on your hands than I thought.
but if you kept to the speed limit then surely everyone else would have no trouble keepin up with you dunno

17 Feb 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
Yep got to agree law is an ass ...
Read in the metro today about a father of three who burst into the local drug dealers house and flushed his drug stash down the loo and the father of three got three months Jail.
:?

I think he should think himself bloody lucky not to have got more. The dealer might have half the output of Afghanistan in his front room, but that doesn't give anyone other than a Police Officer with a legal warrant the right to invade his home. Can't find the story on the Metro website WooHoo, but did he break in when the occupier was out, in which case it's burglary of a dwelling, or did he enter while the occupier was in, in which case, did this dealer stand idly by while he searched his house, or is there a suggestion of violence, or the threat of violence? :?

Quote by Kent
Do you really think, in all honesty, that 3 months jail for each killing is justice? I presume you do indeed sir, with your above comment.
Have a little peep at those kids faces, and tell me if those poor lives lost, are only worth three months a pop.

Kent, you're being deliberatively emotive, as usual, because he didn't get three months for each at all. He got three years for each, but the six sentences run concurrently, which is fair IMO. That might sound like some trite hair-splitting, but three years imprisonment for an offence of careless driving is about right. I certainly don't believe the sentences should have been made consecutive, because an eighteen year sentence would quite obviously be manifestly excessive in these circumstances.
Yes, six people died, but there was no intent to kill on this drivers part. The driver was stupid and reckless, yes, but there but for the grace of God goes just about anyone who sits behind a steering wheel. A moments inattention fiddling with the radio, or the cig lighter, or shouting at the kids in the back, and someone's dead. That should not be dealt with in the same way as someone who deliberately goes out to cause harm to others. I can't help wondering how many of those demanding something stronger have been guilty of answering a mobile phone while driving lately, or doing 90 on the motorway when they think they can get away with it? :?
Neil x x x ;)
Thanks for helping me to answer Neil. Your answer shows you have grasp and understanding of the system that others fail to clearly understand and appreciate.
The OP, this response to my statement, the article itself, and the majority of the replies to this thread dont even scratch the surface of the deeper debates and ethical issues arising out of this real life case and how the Judge in question dealt with the specifics.
For now, Im sticking with what I said..... having to digress to bring people upto speed on the definitions of Justice/fairness, subjectiveness/ objectiveness, recklessness et al and deal with emotive , knee-jerk reactions requires more time than I can spare at the moment.
....and a little more patience than I can safely be prepared to show....
enjoy

17 Feb 2009

Quote by Dirtygirly
I was out on my bike this year and in my opinion was not close to the car in front. He thought I was so slammed his brakes on...nice one. As I was not that close to him I mangaed to stop before I hit him. As a motrocyclist it is def not in my interest to tailgate, as I would come off much worse if I could not stop in time. I do not suffer from tailgating on my bike as not many can keep up enough to get that close.

Quote by kentswingers777
Would you like to find where I have said it, or is that also a wild assumption?

No wild assumptioms as far as I can see.
I am impressed Flower, that you managed to find that. Good work my dear Watson. wink

That still does not really prove anything. I always keep to the speed limit. :wink:
Your powers of searching are impressive, must have more time on your hands than I thought.
Not wishing to step on anyones toes here... but if you stuck to the speed limit then everyone would be able to keep up therefore making one of your statements in red a bit of a fib! :mrgreen:
Just for the record, for those that are not " in the know ", my bike can do 0 to 70mph in just over two seconds now.....what other vehicle could keep up with that, and that is not me breaking the speed limit.
So on that basis that does not mean I am speeding just because other vehicles cannot keep up. A bit of a nit picker here. :wink:

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Just for the record, for those that are not " in the know ", my bike can do 0 to 70mph in just over two seconds now.....what other vehicle could keep up with that, and that is not me breaking the speed limit.
So on that basis that does not mean I am speeding just because other vehicles cannot keep up. A bit of a nit picker here.

Indeed... provided you're in a 70mph zone! :wink:
Although, in my view, doing 0 to 70mph in two seconds is not appropriate on a public highway regardless of the speed limit. You may think you're the safest driver/rider in the country but sadly the OP is a fine example of how easy it is for accidents to happen. If you feel the need for speed then do it on a race track when the only person in danger is yourself.
Driving responsibly is far more important than owning a vehicle that does 0 to 70mph in two seconds in my humble opinion! :mrgreen:

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Just for the record, for those that are not " in the know ", my bike can do 0 to 70mph in just over two seconds now.....what other vehicle could keep up with that, and that is not me breaking the speed limit.
So on that basis that does not mean I am speeding just because other vehicles cannot keep up. A bit of a nit picker here.

You may not be speeding if you accelerate like that in a 70mph limit, but, in my opinion, that would constitute reckless driving at least, and quite probably dangerous driving. Should the worst happen to you let's hope there are no innocent third parties involved, unlike the Portuguese lorry driver.

17 Feb 2009

Blimey a lot of opinions being bounded about today. :P

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Blimey a lot of opinions being bounded about today. :P

Just as it should be! That's what forum life is all about! wink

17 Feb 2009

:gagged:

17 Feb 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I was out on my bike this year and in my opinion was not close to the car in front. He thought I was so slammed his brakes on...nice one. As I was not that close to him I mangaed to stop before I hit him. As a motrocyclist it is def not in my interest to tailgate, as I would come off much worse if I could not stop in time. I do not suffer from tailgating on my bike as not many can keep up enough to get that close.

Quote by kentswingers777
Would you like to find where I have said it, or is that also a wild assumption?

No wild assumptioms as far as I can see.
I am impressed Flower, that you managed to find that. Good work my dear Watson. wink

That still does not really prove anything. I always keep to the speed limit. :wink:
Your powers of searching are impressive, must have more time on your hands than I thought.
Not wishing to step on anyones toes here... but if you stuck to the speed limit then everyone would be able to keep up therefore making one of your statements in red a bit of a fib! :mrgreen:
Just for the record, for those that are not " in the know ", my bike can do 0 to 70mphin just over two seconds now.....what other vehicle could keep up with that, and that is not me breaking the speed limit.
So on that basis that does not mean I am speeding just because other vehicles cannot keep up. A bit of a nit picker here. :wink:
i hope that just on the motorway? :wink:
so does t

17 Feb 2009

Quote by Dirtygirly
Blimey a lot of opinions being bounded about today. :P

Just as it should be! That's what forum life is all about! wink

Not everyone would agree with that, but I most certainly do.

17 Feb 2009

Quote by Mr-Powers
I was out on my bike this year and in my opinion was not close to the car in front. He thought I was so slammed his brakes on...nice one. As I was not that close to him I mangaed to stop before I hit him. As a motrocyclist it is def not in my interest to tailgate, as I would come off much worse if I could not stop in time. I do not suffer from tailgating on my bike as not many can keep up enough to get that close.

Quote by kentswingers777
Would you like to find where I have said it, or is that also a wild assumption?

No wild assumptioms as far as I can see.
I am impressed Flower, that you managed to find that. Good work my dear Watson. wink

That still does not really prove anything. I always keep to the speed limit. :wink:
Your powers of searching are impressive, must have more time on your hands than I thought.
Not wishing to step on anyones toes here... but if you stuck to the speed limit then everyone would be able to keep up therefore making one of your statements in red a bit of a fib! :mrgreen:
Just for the record, for those that are not " in the know ", my bike can do 0 to 70mphin just over two seconds now.....what other vehicle could keep up with that, and that is not me breaking the speed limit.
So on that basis that does not mean I am speeding just because other vehicles cannot keep up. A bit of a nit picker here. :wink:
i hope that just on the motorway? :wink:
so does t
Of course not...I do that in every 30mph zone I can find. :wink:
Joke btw. cool