S
Sir Jeremy
Guest
On 24 Oct, 08:39, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Oct, 08:32, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> > > Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:
>
> > >> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
> > >> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
> > >> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
> > >> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
> > >> of over 40mph.
>
> > > Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
> > > pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
> > > *********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged
> > > by a jury?
>
> > Who else should decide the facts ?
>
> > There is are serious problems with juries, both the "collection of 12
> > motorists" issue, and others I noted during a recent spell on a jury .
>
> > However, without a major re-design of our judicial system (eg. investigatory
> > courts rather than adversarial), we're a bit stuck with it.
>
> > - Nigel
>
> > --
> > Nigel Cliffe,
> > Webmaster athttp://www.2mm.org.uk/
>
> It's less the juries, more the law. The current system protects
> motorists- even drunk drivers who simply run away from the person they
> killed/crippled and face a lesser sentence than that for drunk
> driving. Explain that. Or why driving bans run concurrent with
> custodials. Barking mad.
>
> Speeding along a right-turn lane toward a pelican with pedestrians on
> it is dangerous, we should not allow high paid lawyers to put this
> question beofre a jury because it is self evidently recklessly,
> stupidly dangerous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quite right, a speeding motorist- no trial-just chop his bollocks off.
> On 24 Oct, 08:32, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> > > Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:
>
> > >> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
> > >> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
> > >> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
> > >> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
> > >> of over 40mph.
>
> > > Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
> > > pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
> > > *********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged
> > > by a jury?
>
> > Who else should decide the facts ?
>
> > There is are serious problems with juries, both the "collection of 12
> > motorists" issue, and others I noted during a recent spell on a jury .
>
> > However, without a major re-design of our judicial system (eg. investigatory
> > courts rather than adversarial), we're a bit stuck with it.
>
> > - Nigel
>
> > --
> > Nigel Cliffe,
> > Webmaster athttp://www.2mm.org.uk/
>
> It's less the juries, more the law. The current system protects
> motorists- even drunk drivers who simply run away from the person they
> killed/crippled and face a lesser sentence than that for drunk
> driving. Explain that. Or why driving bans run concurrent with
> custodials. Barking mad.
>
> Speeding along a right-turn lane toward a pelican with pedestrians on
> it is dangerous, we should not allow high paid lawyers to put this
> question beofre a jury because it is self evidently recklessly,
> stupidly dangerous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quite right, a speeding motorist- no trial-just chop his bollocks off.