It gets worse...

[Frank X]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > <plonk>
> >
> > What does plonk mean ?
>
> It means he's kill-filed you. He's instructed his newsreader to ignore your messages.
>
Personally I think <plonk> is bad etiquette, if you want to ignore some why not just killfile
them silently.

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3473907.stm
>
> A man jailed for two years after leaving the scene of an accident in which a nine-year-old boy
> died is to have his sentence reduced.

Actually he was only sentenced to 8 months for the motoring offences. The other 16 months were for
passport offences. The 8 months was reduced to 6 because 6 was the legal maximum for the offences he
was charged with. It seems he was only charged with failure to stop, failure to report an accident,
driving without tax, and driving without insurance. Presumably there was not enough evidence to
charge him with more serious offences.

--
Dave...

 

[Graeme]

"Frank X" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Personally I think <plonk> is bad etiquette, if you want to ignore some why not just killfile them
> silently.

Partly because it lets the offending poster know that they will not receive any replies to posts
directed at the person who put them in their kill file, but also it lets other people know that you
find the kill-filed poster's views or posts objectionable. In this particular case the second
option may be the over-ruling one, but personally I prefer to state out right that the OP is an
ignorant f*ck wit (just so there is no doubt that I don't share the view of my namesake) and *then*
kill file him.

Graeme

 

[Johnb]

Dave Kahn wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3473907.stm
> >
> > A man jailed for two years after leaving the scene of an accident in which a nine-year-old boy
> > died is to have his sentence reduced.
>
> Actually he was only sentenced to 8 months for the motoring offences. The other 16 months were for
> passport offences. The 8 months was reduced to 6 because 6 was the legal maximum for the offences
> he was charged with. It seems he was only charged with failure to stop, failure to report an
> accident, driving without tax, and driving without insurance. Presumably there was not enough
> evidence to charge him with more serious offences.

Like someone hid the body?

John B

 

[Nick Maclaren]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes:
|> On 09 Feb 2004 18:52:17 GMT, dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
|>
|> > I tell you, if anyone seriously has an inkling to do away with someone over here in the UK, I
|> > seriously doubt they'd ever get charged with murder or manslaughter if they used the car as the
|> > means to the literal end. It stinks, it really does.
|>
|> I don't think this comment is fair. I'm sure that the police and CPS will charge people with
|> offences such as dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention etc if they have
|> sufficient evidence to have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. ...

It is perfectly fair. At least in Cambridge, the police make damn sure that they don't get that
evidence where the victim is a cyclist, at least when there is only injury and damage involved. I
can't say in cases where the victim has been killed, as I have not been involved in any such
incidents personally.

I gave up cycling after being rammed three times in a year. In each case, the driver said that he
did it because I was riding on the road, and in each case I am absolutely certain that it was
deliberate. In two cases, there were independent witnesses (yes, plural) prepared to say that it
was assault.

In one of those cases, I followed the police's advice to report an accident and provide the further
details afterwards. I was not contacted, so I sent them by mail, explaining the deliberation and
witnesses. The response was "After extensive investigation, we have decided not to take further
action." That was a bare-faced lie, as they made no attempt to contact either me or the witnesses.

In the other case, I attempted to report it as assault. The police refused point-blank to accept or
record the report. They made no attempt to ask for any further information from me or to contact the
witnesses.

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

 

[Graham]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > <plonk>
> >
> > What does plonk mean ?
>
> It means he's kill-filed you. He's instructed his newsreader to ignore your messages.

That's a shame ! I really valued his opinion !

Graham
>
> --
> Dave...

 

[Graham]

"Graeme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank X" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Personally I think <plonk> is bad etiquette, if you want to ignore some why not just killfile
> > them silently.
>
> Partly because it lets the offending poster know that they will not
receive
> any replies to posts directed at the person who put them in their kill file, but also it lets
> other people know that you find the kill-filed poster's views or posts objectionable. In this
> particular case the second option may be the over-ruling one, but personally I prefer to state out
> right that the OP is an ignorant f*ck wit (just so there is no doubt that
I
> don't share the view of my namesake) and *then* kill file him.
>
>
> Graeme

Even my "Namesake" is upset, god what have I done ! Oh, I know I've expressed an opinion in
"Right On" Britain, don't **** off anybody in case they offend you, I'm so sorry we're all equal
all different, multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, good for you good for Britain. Dio
vorrei morir !

Graham

 

[Michael Macclan]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:43:03 +0000 (UTC), Graham wrote:

> "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> > <plonk>
>>>
>>> What does plonk mean ?
>>
>> It means he's kill-filed you. He's instructed his newsreader to ignore your messages.
>
> That's a shame ! I really valued his opinion !
>
> Graham
>>
>> --
>> Dave...

That's the wonder of the kill-file. It means you still get to read his opinions but he doesn't have
to read yours. (Even when you're trying to be nice.)
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[James Hodson]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:27:17 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dirty racist b****** !! Get him out of this newsgroup now !

I withdraw my first coment from the other thread. As Hot Chocolate said, no doubt about it.

James

 

[James Hodson]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:14:33 -0000, "Frank X" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It is interesting to compare this to Maxine Carr's sentence. Is she more culpable than this man?
>

Carr was found guilty of perverting the course of justice, IIRIC, and was sentenced to only a short
time in gaol. She has served about half of her sentence (incuding time spent on remand) and so is
allowed or due to be released soon under the current rules.

You don't have to like it, Frank - whether you like it or not is irrellevant - but that's the
way it is.

However, Carr's reported wish to appear on TV is not the best approach, IMO.

James

 

[Jp]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
> >
> > Further comments on the reduction of sentence and how it affects the
victim's
> > family is at
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3474847.stm
> >
>
> Family? Who are they? This is a car accident we are talking about. Nothing counts other than the
> scratch on the vehicle and the poor poor killer, sorry whoops I meant car driving victim who will
> have to live with this for blah blah
blah.
>
> John B

Spot on John. As usual the thread is polluted by those who ignore the victim and defend the killer.

 

[Gonzalez]

On 10 Feb 2004 14:57:49 GMT, [email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>In the other case, I attempted to report it as assault. The police refused point-blank to accept or
>record the report. They made no attempt to ask for any further information from me or to contact
>the witnesses.

You can demand to see the inspector if you are unsatisfied with the way your case is being dealt
with. My experience is that inspectors usually speak common sense and leave you with the feeling
that you have been treated fairly - if nothing else.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
JP <[email protected]> typed:
> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>>>
>>> Further comments on the reduction of sentence and how it affects the victim's family is at
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3474847.stm
>>>
>>
>> Family? Who are they? This is a car accident we are talking about. Nothing counts other than the
>> scratch on the vehicle and the poor poor killer, sorry whoops I meant car driving victim who will
>> have to live with this for blah blah blah.
>>
>> John B
>
> Spot on John. As usual the thread is polluted by those who ignore the victim and defend
> the killer.

Except for the fact that there wasn't sufficient evidence that the driver was driving dangerously or
carelessly, according to the CPS. On the other hand, I'm surprised the maximum penalty for failing
to stop at an 'accident' is 6 months in prison. Maybe it should be longer for fatal collisions.

If he hadn't been an illegal immigrant, this case wouldn't have been heard about far outside the
town where it occured.

A

 

[Rj Webb]

>It is interesting to compare this to Maxine Carr's sentence. Is she more culpable than this man?
>
>
>
But she is a celebrity witch... Good mob fodder.., they need a Myra substitute. And she did not use
a car to mislead the police.

Richard Webb

 

[Rj Webb]

>> I would rather live in a society where the occasional offender escaped punishment because of
>> insufficient evidence than one in which the prisons contain even more innocent people than at
>> present.
>> --

Absolutely.. except the law is specificily framed so that scumbag kiddie killers can do it with a
car and all but get off. Convicting the bastards is one thing, then they are not allowed just
sentencing.

Stinks... still must not obstruct the holy motor. I am disgusted. I suppose its only an "accident" .
Manslaughter charge? As for the pissheads that kill...

Where are the witchhunter tabloids when you need them?

Richard Webb

 

[Rj Webb]

>It means he's kill-filed you. He's instructed his newsreader to ignore your messages.
>

Your messages will not be read due to an irony malfunction

Richard Webb

 

[Frank X]

"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:14:33 -0000, "Frank X" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It is interesting to compare this to Maxine Carr's sentence. Is she more culpable than this man?
> >
>
> Carr was found guilty of perverting the course of justice, IIRIC, and was sentenced to only a
> short time in gaol. She has served about half of her sentence (incuding time spent on remand) and
> so is allowed or due to be released soon under the current rules.
>
> You don't have to like it, Frank - whether you like it or not is irrellevant - but that's the
> way it is.
>

Carr was sentenced to three and a half years for covering up for her boyfriend, whom she may
well have believed to be innocent. She was in no way implicated as being responsible for the
death of a child.

This guy was sentenced to eight months (reduced to six) for covering up the death of a child, being
directly involved in that death and failing to stop and help the child after the accident.

> However, Carr's reported wish to appear on TV is not the best approach, IMO.
>

The point was not about Carr (as a person) it was about the law's double standards. Whichever way I
spin the story I can't justify that Carr deserved a sentence twice as long as this guy. I was
curious what others thought.

It is my theory that the public enjoy demonising crimes such as Carr's because they know it could
never happen to them. Where as when a motorist kills a child the public are always cautious to
condemn, thinking it could have been me. I wanted to use Carr an example of how casually we treated
child road deaths in comparison to murders.

I actually have a ten year old, if it was a choice between having this guy or Maxine Carr living
next door to me I would choose Carr every time.

You didn't actually answer the question about relative culpability.

 

[Peter B]

"chris French" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Re apparent sentencing anomalies:

> He was only convicted of things like no insurance, leaving the scene of an accident - he was given
> a greater sentence for those than he should have been apparently.

Thanks for the explanation.
--
Regards, Pete

 

[Dave Kahn]

"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> What hacks me off is that the assault resulted in pretty minor injuries and I'd have been
> extremely unlikely to end up permanently injured or dead. OTOH, I've just been told that my car
> smashed arm and shoulder won't be fixed for a year and will probably never be as good as new.

Bad news - sorry to hear about that. :-(

--
Dave...

 

[Simian]

JohnB wrote:
> Dave Kahn wrote:
>>
>> "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3473907.stm
>> >
>> > A man jailed for two years after leaving the scene of an accident in which a nine-year-old boy
>> > died is to have his sentence reduced.
>>
>> Actually he was only sentenced to 8 months for the motoring offences. The other 16 months were
>> for passport offences. The 8 months was reduced to 6 because 6 was the legal maximum for the
>> offences he was charged with. It seems he was only charged with failure to stop, failure to
>> report an accident, driving without tax, and driving without insurance. Presumably there was not
>> enough evidence to charge him with more serious offences.
>
> Like someone hid the body?
>

Unfortunately, an unsupervised 9 year old child playing (and to avoid misunderstanding - most
children of that age when with a few friends are playing, whether kicking a ball around a field or
crossing a road) on a busy duel carriage way is fairly likely to be hit by an unobservant driver,
and the law reflects that.

If there had been any evidence that the bloke had been driving dangerously, then maybe he would have
been prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, which carries slightly harsher penalties
than manslauter. But all they had was that he was probably exceeding the speed limit by 10mph or so
- like most of the rest of the traffic on that road.

As it stands, the laws relating to failing to stop, and driving without insurance or licence, are
intended to persuade your average, mostly law abiding, citizen to do the right thing, and to punish
those who don't. They are not intended to assuage the moral outrage over the road death of a child
felt by all right minded people.

Simon.