S
S
spindrift
Guest
On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
B
Brian G
Guest
spindrift wrote:
> On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
>
>
> Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
> road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
>
> What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
There can be no proper punishment. If you take the biblical view, the
man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
his victim's. If you take the view that the man knowingly used a lethal
weapon in public while alcohol-impaired, that has to be murder and the
current sentence is life imprisonment in one of our already apparently
overcrowded prisons.
In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of
time. Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO,
failing to stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he
would undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive
supervision.
It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and
piously hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we
must try to ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a
life driving ban.
--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
> On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
>
>
> Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
> road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
>
> What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
There can be no proper punishment. If you take the biblical view, the
man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
his victim's. If you take the view that the man knowingly used a lethal
weapon in public while alcohol-impaired, that has to be murder and the
current sentence is life imprisonment in one of our already apparently
overcrowded prisons.
In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of
time. Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO,
failing to stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he
would undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive
supervision.
It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and
piously hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we
must try to ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a
life driving ban.
--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
M
Mark T
Guest
> If you take the biblical view, the
> man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
> his victim's.
<pedant mode> Old Testament view </>
> man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
> his victim's.
<pedant mode> Old Testament view </>
B
Brian G
Guest
Mark T wrote:
>> If you take the biblical view, the
>> man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
>> his victim's.
>
> <pedant mode> Old Testament view </>
I thank you for the sermon. My biblical knowledge is no less shaky than
my knowledge of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam or the complete works of
Liam Gallagher
--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
>> If you take the biblical view, the
>> man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
>> his victim's.
>
> <pedant mode> Old Testament view </>
I thank you for the sermon. My biblical knowledge is no less shaky than
my knowledge of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam or the complete works of
Liam Gallagher
--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
M
Matt B
Guest
spindrift wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
As accurate as ever in your summary, I see ;-)
It does though, make one wonder whether compulsory insurance is such a
good thing. Those who don't have it have a big disincentive to hanging
about after a collision to help - they will be prosecuted whether it was
their fault or not. Those with it will succumb to "risk compensation",
and drive a bit less carefully, happy that they will be covered,
whatever the consequences of their actions. I wonder if any studies
have been done into the effects on road safety of compulsory insurance.
--
Matt B
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
As accurate as ever in your summary, I see ;-)
It does though, make one wonder whether compulsory insurance is such a
good thing. Those who don't have it have a big disincentive to hanging
about after a collision to help - they will be prosecuted whether it was
their fault or not. Those with it will succumb to "risk compensation",
and drive a bit less carefully, happy that they will be covered,
whatever the consequences of their actions. I wonder if any studies
have been done into the effects on road safety of compulsory insurance.
--
Matt B
M
Matt B
Guest
spindrift wrote:
> On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
>
> Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake,
Preconception, wishful thinking, or what?
> just left at the side of the
> road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
Disgraceful. One of the downsides of requiring compulsory insurance though.
> What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
1) To have actually done it deliberately.
2) To have killed the victim.
Here, again, we see one of the consequences of providing special
low-culpability, low-proof-requirement offences especially to convict
motorists, the penalties must be low.
Justice would be better served by removing the huge raft of "special
laws", created to make it easy to convict motorists of /something/, and
revert to the time-tested common law, the laws that are used
satisfactorily day-in, day-out for all non-motoring offences.
We will see even more outcries soon, as the new low-proof,
low-culpability, "technicality" "death by" laws are used, which will
also necessitate low penalties.
--
Matt B
> On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
>
> Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake,
Preconception, wishful thinking, or what?
> just left at the side of the
> road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
Disgraceful. One of the downsides of requiring compulsory insurance though.
> What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
1) To have actually done it deliberately.
2) To have killed the victim.
Here, again, we see one of the consequences of providing special
low-culpability, low-proof-requirement offences especially to convict
motorists, the penalties must be low.
Justice would be better served by removing the huge raft of "special
laws", created to make it easy to convict motorists of /something/, and
revert to the time-tested common law, the laws that are used
satisfactorily day-in, day-out for all non-motoring offences.
We will see even more outcries soon, as the new low-proof,
low-culpability, "technicality" "death by" laws are used, which will
also necessitate low penalties.
--
Matt B
D
Dan Gregory
Guest
spindrift wrote:
> On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
>
>
> Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
> road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
>
From which it seems he is never going to recover ...
> On 14 Jan, 09:42, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece
>
>
> Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
> road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.
>
From which it seems he is never going to recover ...
S
Sir Jeremy
Guest
On 14 Jan, 10:15, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
suspended sentence
>> What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
suspended sentence
J
JNugent
Guest
Sir Jeremy wrote:
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
>>after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
> OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
> suspended sentence
By what and how high?
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
>>after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
> OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
> suspended sentence
By what and how high?
J
John Clayton
Guest
>
> In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
> him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
> out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of time.
> Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO, failing to
> stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he would
> undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive supervision.
>
> It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
> determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and piously
> hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we must try to
> ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a life driving
> ban.
>
> Brian G
A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.
We need more imagination in punishment, we need our government to consider
fairly preventable crimes like this instead of the vain, press conscious
empty posturing we've had for years now.
John
> In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
> him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
> out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of time.
> Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO, failing to
> stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he would
> undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive supervision.
>
> It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
> determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and piously
> hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we must try to
> ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a life driving
> ban.
>
> Brian G
A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.
We need more imagination in punishment, we need our government to consider
fairly preventable crimes like this instead of the vain, press conscious
empty posturing we've had for years now.
John
D
David Hansen
Guest
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
>this will drive and drive again.
The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
against it.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
>this will drive and drive again.
The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
against it.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
P
PK
Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps
>>like
>>this will drive and drive again.
>
> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
> easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
> against it.
Surely that would just increase then numbers of unregistered drivers?
pk
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps
>>like
>>this will drive and drive again.
>
> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
> easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
> against it.
Surely that would just increase then numbers of unregistered drivers?
pk
S
spindrift
Guest
On 15 Jan, 20:03, "John Clayton" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
> > him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
> > out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of time..
> > Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO, failing to
> > stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he would
> > undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive supervision.
>
> > It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
> > determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and piously
> > hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we must tryto
> > ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a life driving
> > ban.
>
> > Brian G
>
> A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
> this will drive and drive again.
> We need more imagination in punishment, we need our government to consider
> fairly preventable crimes like this instead of the vain, press conscious
> empty posturing we've had for years now.
>
> John
In July 2003 James Foster was tragically killed in a road traffic
accident. He was on a bicycle, an experienced cyclist, killed by
coincidence outside the bike shop that he worked on Essex Road, London
N1.
The driver, Sabrina Harman (24 of Apprentice Way, Clarence Road,
London E5), when breathalised was found to be over the legal limit.
Later examination of the skid asseses a speed of approximately 47 -
55mph (in an area with a 30mph limit). Sabrina has a previous
conviction for drink driving,On 21 June 2001, she was in court for
drink driving, fined £190 and disqualified for one year.
She was given 21 months' gaol sentence and disqualified from driving
for three years. She will serve half the sentence and be on license
for the remainder of the time. She appeared to smile as the sentence
was passed.
Sabrina was speeding, drunk, unlicensed, uninsured and driving with a
previous drink driving conviction just two years earlier for which she
was fined and disqualified from driving for one year.
This time she had a learner driver passenger and she ran down and
killed an innocent cyclist through her criminal negligence.
In these circumstances, a car is a dangerous weapon.
For all these simultaneous offences, she received 21 months custodial
sentence and merely a three-year driving ban - almost spent by the
time her sentence is over.
Family and friends now ask: * After so much time and effort was put
into collecting evidence for the prosecution, why was so little effort
made to present it? *
Why was James- life not acknowledged in the court? *
What more could Sabrina have done to be disqualified from ever
legally driving again?
http://www.deter.org.uk/consequence.php
wrote:
> > In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
> > him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
> > out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of time..
> > Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO, failing to
> > stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he would
> > undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive supervision.
>
> > It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
> > determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and piously
> > hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we must tryto
> > ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a life driving
> > ban.
>
> > Brian G
>
> A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
> this will drive and drive again.
> We need more imagination in punishment, we need our government to consider
> fairly preventable crimes like this instead of the vain, press conscious
> empty posturing we've had for years now.
>
> John
In July 2003 James Foster was tragically killed in a road traffic
accident. He was on a bicycle, an experienced cyclist, killed by
coincidence outside the bike shop that he worked on Essex Road, London
N1.
The driver, Sabrina Harman (24 of Apprentice Way, Clarence Road,
London E5), when breathalised was found to be over the legal limit.
Later examination of the skid asseses a speed of approximately 47 -
55mph (in an area with a 30mph limit). Sabrina has a previous
conviction for drink driving,On 21 June 2001, she was in court for
drink driving, fined £190 and disqualified for one year.
She was given 21 months' gaol sentence and disqualified from driving
for three years. She will serve half the sentence and be on license
for the remainder of the time. She appeared to smile as the sentence
was passed.
Sabrina was speeding, drunk, unlicensed, uninsured and driving with a
previous drink driving conviction just two years earlier for which she
was fined and disqualified from driving for one year.
This time she had a learner driver passenger and she ran down and
killed an innocent cyclist through her criminal negligence.
In these circumstances, a car is a dangerous weapon.
For all these simultaneous offences, she received 21 months custodial
sentence and merely a three-year driving ban - almost spent by the
time her sentence is over.
Family and friends now ask: * After so much time and effort was put
into collecting evidence for the prosecution, why was so little effort
made to present it? *
Why was James- life not acknowledged in the court? *
What more could Sabrina have done to be disqualified from ever
legally driving again?
http://www.deter.org.uk/consequence.php
S
spindrift
Guest
On 14 Jan, 23:36, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> >>after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
> > OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
> > suspended sentence
>
> By what and how high?
For instance the woman speeding in an unfamiliar who killed a cyclist
walked free from court:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...t+driving+sports+car+in+high+heels/article.do
This woman had been done for speeding twice in recent years, she was
driving at 20mph over the maximum speed limit in a car she was unfit
to drive with her limited driving skills and she was wearing
ridiculous 2.5 inch heel shoes. Drivers have to realise they have an
enormous responsibility to the safety of others, but this woman
obviously didn't care about anybody else. Only severe jail terms will
make such road users realise that driving a car is not something that
can be taken lightly.
This sentence is a joke, a lovely girl is dead and this woman walks
off in her high heels.
wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
> >>after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?
> > OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
> > suspended sentence
>
> By what and how high?
For instance the woman speeding in an unfamiliar who killed a cyclist
walked free from court:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...t+driving+sports+car+in+high+heels/article.do
This woman had been done for speeding twice in recent years, she was
driving at 20mph over the maximum speed limit in a car she was unfit
to drive with her limited driving skills and she was wearing
ridiculous 2.5 inch heel shoes. Drivers have to realise they have an
enormous responsibility to the safety of others, but this woman
obviously didn't care about anybody else. Only severe jail terms will
make such road users realise that driving a car is not something that
can be taken lightly.
This sentence is a joke, a lovely girl is dead and this woman walks
off in her high heels.
M
marc
Guest
David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
>> this will drive and drive again.
>
> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
> easily.
how????
However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
> against it.
And anyone that doesn't trust the government to get it right.
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
>> this will drive and drive again.
>
> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
> easily.
how????
However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
> against it.
And anyone that doesn't trust the government to get it right.
M
Matt B
Guest
David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
>> this will drive and drive again.
>
> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
> easily.
How? Would it continuously monitor each driver of each vehicle at all
times, to ensure they weren't banned? If drivers were more rigorously
checked for validity at the roadside, it would simply create a market
for forged id cards with the "clean driving licence" bit set to true.
Any banned motorist would then become "legitimate", and untouchable.
> However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
> against it.
Can you cite evidence to support that. Don't you think that we should
/all/ oppose anything, and everything to do with the "identity" card scheme?
--
Matt B
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
>> this will drive and drive again.
>
> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
> easily.
How? Would it continuously monitor each driver of each vehicle at all
times, to ensure they weren't banned? If drivers were more rigorously
checked for validity at the roadside, it would simply create a market
for forged id cards with the "clean driving licence" bit set to true.
Any banned motorist would then become "legitimate", and untouchable.
> However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
> against it.
Can you cite evidence to support that. Don't you think that we should
/all/ oppose anything, and everything to do with the "identity" card scheme?
--
Matt B
M
Matt B
Guest
spindrift wrote:
>
> For instance the woman speeding in an unfamiliar who killed a cyclist
> walked free from court:
It wasn't the "speeding" though that led to the collision was it. Do
you think that she could have pulled-off that manoeuvre safely, in the
same circumstances, at the same speed, if the speed limit had been 20
mph higher?
No, it was inappropriate speed for the circumstances that caused the
problem. The result would have been exactly the same whether the speed
limit there had been 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph.
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...t+driving+sports+car+in+high+heels/article.do
--
Matt B
>
> For instance the woman speeding in an unfamiliar who killed a cyclist
> walked free from court:
It wasn't the "speeding" though that led to the collision was it. Do
you think that she could have pulled-off that manoeuvre safely, in the
same circumstances, at the same speed, if the speed limit had been 20
mph higher?
No, it was inappropriate speed for the circumstances that caused the
problem. The result would have been exactly the same whether the speed
limit there had been 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph.
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...t+driving+sports+car+in+high+heels/article.do
--
Matt B
P
Paul Boyd
Guest
Matt B said the following on 16/01/2008 09:39:
> Can you cite evidence to support that. Don't you think that we should
> /all/ oppose anything, and everything to do with the "identity" card
> scheme?
*********** - there's something I agree with you about
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
> Can you cite evidence to support that. Don't you think that we should
> /all/ oppose anything, and everything to do with the "identity" card
> scheme?
*********** - there's something I agree with you about
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
D
David Hansen
Guest
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:52:51 -0000 someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
>> easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
>> against it.
>
>Surely that would just increase then numbers of unregistered drivers?
They wouldn't be able to start a car.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>> The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
>> easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
>> against it.
>
>Surely that would just increase then numbers of unregistered drivers?
They wouldn't be able to start a car.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
