OTish- Radio 2 soon (ie 1-2pm) - asylum seeker and manslaughter

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by W K, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. W K

    W K Guest

    Well, someone thinks he should be done for manslaughter. I really really hate this show as it seems
    to contain nothing but unthinking knee jerk reactions.

    But might have some insights.
     
    Tags:


  2. Skunk

    Skunk New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's typical of the media to highlight this particular case involving an asylum seeker. I browsed through here the other day and read of a similar case involving a british solicitor/accountant? - i can't remember which - who got a similar sentence after killing a cyclist through dangerous driving and then failing to stop.
    I find myself turned off by the use of "asylum seeker" as used by the media as the issue has naff all to do with whether this guy was an asylum seeker or not. The argument then becomes one about what he was doing here, etc.etc. and then it's the right against the left and the issue of the sentence and the victim are lost and diluted in political points scoring.
     
  3. W K wrote:

    >Well, someone thinks he should be done for manslaughter. I really really hate this show as it seems
    >to contain nothing but unthinking knee jerk reactions.
    >
    >But might have some insights.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    manslaughter?
     
  4. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:13:46 +0000, Nathaniel David Porter
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > W K wrote:
    >
    >> Well, someone thinks he should be done for manslaughter. I really really hate this show as it
    >> seems to contain nothing but unthinking knee jerk reactions.
    >>
    >> But might have some insights.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    > Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    > manslaughter?

    Presumably for evidential reasons.

    However, the point here is the way this has become a cause celebre for the tabloid press. They don't
    give a stuff about road safety in the vast majority of cases, the overwhelming number of cases that
    make up the carnage on the roads. A daily carnage of around 10 lives. If they all happened in one
    place at one time it would be headline news, day in day out. What this case is about is asylum not
    road safety. A press that supports the "otherwise law-abiding" motorist when they routinely speed, a
    press that bleats about more drivers going to prison than burglars (or whatever numbers they want to
    make up this week.) That press is only interested in this case because of the driver. A black
    illegal immigrant has killed a blond-haired blue-eyed white boy. It is a disgrace that the boy was
    killed but it is also a bloody disgrace that 10 people a day are killed on the roads.

    Colin
    --
     
  5. W K

    W K Guest

    "Nathaniel David Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    > manslaughter?

    Hidden in all this emotional baggage is the FACT that he was not driving recklessly. Evidence from
    the three other witnesses clearly suggest he was driving in a perfectly normal way.

    The lesson to learn: don't let emotions take you for a ride.

    Do you actually know the details of how he was driving?
     
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Guest

    > >> Well, someone thinks he should be done for manslaughter. I really really hate this show as it
    > >> seems to contain nothing but unthinking knee jerk reactions.
    > >>
    > >> But might have some insights.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > > Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    > > manslaughter?
    >
    > Presumably for evidential reasons.
    >
    > However, the point here is the way this has become a cause celebre for the tabloid press. They
    > don't give a stuff about road safety in the vast majority of cases, the overwhelming number of
    > cases that make up the carnage on the roads. A daily carnage of around 10 lives. If they all
    > happened in one place at one time it would be headline news, day in day out. What this case is
    > about is asylum not road safety. A press that supports the "otherwise law-abiding" motorist when
    > they routinely speed, a press that bleats about more drivers going to prison than burglars (or
    > whatever numbers they want to make up this week.) That press is only interested in this case
    > because of the driver. A black illegal immigrant has killed a blond-haired blue-eyed white boy. It
    > is a disgrace that the boy was killed but it is also a bloody disgrace that 10 people a day are
    > killed on the roads.

    Indeed - and where are the reports about another source of preventable death: the 24,000 people who
    die from starvation every day.

    Bah.

    Tom.
     
  7. Stephen \

    Stephen \ Guest

    Colin Blackburn wrote:
    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:13:46 +0000, Nathaniel David Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> W K wrote:
    >>
    >>> Well, someone thinks he should be done for manslaughter. I really really hate this show as it
    >>> seems to contain nothing but unthinking knee jerk reactions.
    >>>
    >>> But might have some insights.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >> Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    >> manslaughter?
    >
    > Presumably for evidential reasons.
    >
    > However, the point here is the way this has become a cause celebre for the tabloid press. They
    > don't give a stuff about road safety in the vast majority of cases, the overwhelming number of
    > cases that make up the carnage on the roads. A daily carnage of around 10 lives. If they all
    > happened in one place at one time it would be headline news, day in day out. What this case is
    > about is asylum not road safety. A press that supports the "otherwise law-abiding" motorist when
    > they routinely speed, a press that bleats about more drivers going to prison than burglars (or
    > whatever numbers they want to make up this week.) That press is only interested in this case
    > because of the driver. A black illegal immigrant has killed a blond-haired blue-eyed white boy. It
    > is a disgrace that the boy was killed but it is also a bloody disgrace that 10 people a day are
    > killed on the roads.
    >
    Absolutely true. I don't read the tabloids and haven't even heard about this case - that's how "big"
    news it is outside of the gutter press. What is big news is that cyclists get killed daily and
    virtually everyone gets away with it but that doesn't make people buy papers.
     
  8. Eatmorepies

    Eatmorepies Guest

    "
    > > Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    > > manslaughter?
    >
    > Hidden in all this emotional baggage is the FACT that he was not driving recklessly. Evidence from
    > the three other witnesses clearly suggest he was driving in
    a
    > perfectly normal way.

    If normal driving includes having no licence, insurance, tax and MOT. Such lack of regard for the
    rules does imply a certain lack of regard for other road users. I can imagine a situation where a
    child may run out in front of my car and be hurt - a less than pleasant thought. However, I set out
    to work with all rules obeyed, surely a signal that I intend to do the right thing with my vehicle.
    What I do know is that if I am unlucky (unskilled at driving?) to damage a person then my insurance
    policy will be in force and will offer some financial support to them for the rest of their life. If
    a driver has no operative insurance then they are demonstrating a scant regard for other people and
    deserve a hefty punishment. I think 6 months too short.

    Please note I apply this comment to people with a right to live in the UK as well as to those
    who don't.

    John
     
  9. W K

    W K Guest

    "Eatmorepies" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "
    > > > Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    > > > manslaughter?
    > >
    > > Hidden in all this emotional baggage is the FACT that he was not driving recklessly. Evidence
    > > from the three other witnesses clearly suggest he was driving
    in
    > a
    > > perfectly normal way.
    >
    > If normal driving includes having no licence, insurance, tax and MOT. Such lack of regard for the
    > rules does imply a certain lack of regard for other road users.

    It might do, and it does carry quite stiff penalties, and he had the whole big book and more
    thrown at him.

    It still remains that he was not driving recklessly.
     
  10. W K

    W K Guest

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

    > You are completely correct that it's a disgrace the boy was killed.

    Said by three people - but why?

    Its an accident with fairly simple causes, in many ways a rather clear cut case. Two boys run across
    a road, a third follows them. The first two were behaving in an extremely risky way - and gave their
    side of the story.

    It was the kind of accident that will happen for as long as we have cars or children.
     
  11. W K

    W K Guest

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

    > As will the driving away without stopping :-(

    A different issue of course, and the family did have a point about "non assistance of person in
    danger" type laws.
     
  12. J

    J Guest

    "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > m16.aol.com...
    >
    > > You are completely correct that it's a disgrace the boy was killed.
    >
    > Said by three people - but why?
    >
    > Its an accident with fairly simple causes, in many ways a rather clear cut case. Two boys run
    > across a road, a third follows them. The first two were behaving in an extremely risky way - and
    > gave their
    side
    > of the story.
    >
    > It was the kind of accident that will happen for as long as we have cars
    or
    > children.

    So you really think it is unavoidable?

    Now I've looked it up, here's the link:

    http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2495144

    Exerpt: "CJ was crossing the road with his 12-year-old brother Sam and another friend when the
    collision took place as Kadri overtook another vehicle.

    Reading a statement outside court, Paul Hayward, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "Although
    the road accident involving Mr Kadri resulted in the tragic death of Callum, the evidence shows that
    his death was not caused by either dangerous or careless driving.

    "There was insufficient evidence to give a precise indication of the speed of Mr Kadri's vehicle,
    but eyewitnesses stated that he appeared to be travelling at a speed slightly in excess of the
    50mph limit.

    "Mr Kadri's defence was that he was not aware of this at the time.

    "For the CPS to advise that he be charged with dangerous driving, there would have to be evidence
    which shows that his driving fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
    and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

    And the MIRROR:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13920524_method=full_s iteid=50143_headline=-NO-JUSTICE-
    name_page.html

    "Kadri admitted he was speeding when he overtook a car which had slowed down after seeing Callum
    crossing a road with his brother Sam, 12, and a friend on New Year's Day. "

    Comment: it says there was not enough *evidence* to convict of a more serious offence. Yet he may
    well have been speeding. Arguably he should have seen pedestrians in the distance. The other car was
    slowing and he overtook - dangerous manouevre? To me this shows the burden of proof is incorrect in
    this country regarding motoring offences. It seems that to be convicted of manslaughter in the UK
    you would have to drive on the pavement, hit several pedestrians, then reverse back over them... and
    even then you'd probably be acquitted as the CPS would go for dangerous driving....

    Honestly, I am not a racist, but the tabloids highlighting this sort of thing is good for road
    safety in the long run I think. Maybe the law can get changed to make people in charge of dangerous
    machinery act responsibly.

    J
     
  13. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:27 +0000 (UTC), W K <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > m16.aol.com...
    >
    >> You are completely correct that it's a disgrace the boy was killed.
    >
    > Said by three people - but why?

    He admitted, in court, he was speeding.

    >
    > Its an accident with fairly simple causes, in many ways a rather clear cut case. Two boys run
    > across a road, a third follows them. The first two were behaving in an extremely risky way - and
    > gave their side of the story.
    >
    > It was the kind of accident that will happen for as long as we have cars or children.

    It is the kind of 'accident' that would be less likely to happen or have less serious consequences
    if drivers didn't speed.

    Colin
    --
     
  14. W K

    W K Guest

    "j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote
    in
    > > message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > > You are completely correct that it's a disgrace the boy was killed.
    > >
    > > Said by three people - but why?
    > >
    > > Its an accident with fairly simple causes, in many ways a rather clear
    cut
    > > case. Two boys run across a road, a third follows them. The first two were behaving in an
    > > extremely risky way - and gave their
    > side
    > > of the story.
    > >
    > > It was the kind of accident that will happen for as long as we have cars
    > or
    > > children.
    >
    > So you really think it is unavoidable?

    Not completely unavoidable, but even if the car was going at 40mph - risk compensation would have
    pissed away safety benefits.

    > http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2495144
    ...
    > travelling at a speed slightly in excess of the 50mph limit.

    >
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13920524_method=full_s
    > iteid=50143_headline=-NO-JUSTICE-name_page.html
    >
    > "Kadri admitted he was speeding when he overtook a car which had slowed
    down
    > after seeing Callum crossing a road with his brother Sam, 12, and a friend on New Year's Day. "
    >
    > Comment: it says there was not enough *evidence* to convict of a more serious offence.
    Spin. The bloke on the radio pointed out there WAS evidence to prevent him from being convicted for
    more serious offenses.

    > Yet he may well have been speeding. Arguably he should have seen pedestrians in the distance. The
    > other car was slowing and he overtook - dangerous manouevre?

    It was a dual carridgeway. Hardly dangerous to be overtaking. It appears he was going slightly above
    the limit, and did not slow down when he saw(?) children at the side of the road.

    Do you slow down (as in slam on the brakes) whenever you see children near a road? Do you never go
    slightly above the speed limit?

    If either of these are true, then you are as guilty as he was of dangerous driving.
     
  15. W K

    W K Guest

    "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:27 +0000 (UTC), W K <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote
    in
    > > message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >> You are completely correct that it's a disgrace the boy was killed.
    > >
    > > Said by three people - but why?
    >
    > He admitted, in court, he was speeding.

    By a small margin.

    > > Its an accident with fairly simple causes, in many ways a rather clear cut case. Two boys run
    > > across a road, a third follows them. The first two were behaving in an extremely risky way - and
    > > gave their side of the story.
    > >
    > > It was the kind of accident that will happen for as long as we have cars or children.
    >
    > It is the kind of 'accident' that would be less likely to happen or have less serious consequences
    > if drivers didn't speed

    No doubt true in many cases, but it doesn't look like it in this one. The same set of circumstances
    could easily have happened at the speed limit.
     
  16. "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Nathaniel David Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > Well, he did kill somone whilst driving very recklessly, so why shouldn't he be done for
    > > manslaughter?
    >
    > Hidden in all this emotional baggage is the FACT that he was not driving recklessly. Evidence from
    > the three other witnesses clearly suggest he was driving in
    a
    > perfectly normal way.
    >
    > The lesson to learn: don't let emotions take you for a ride.
    >
    > Do you actually know the details of how he was driving?
    >

    I'm sorry, but driving without insurance is massively irresponsible, as is running away from the
    scene of an accident. Sure, it won't cause accidents - but as you point out elsewhere on this
    thread, accidents will always happen, and I don't think its too much to ask for motorists to be
    expected to provide assistance in the event of an accident.

    It's not so much the accident itself that pisses me off- rather the fact he did *nothing* to help
    once it had happened. Refusing to help at the scene of a serious accident, regardless of fault, is
    IMHO tantamount to manslaughter (unless of course the accident is obviously being dealt with by the
    emergency services and/or others - but that doesn't apply in this case).
     
  17. Simian

    Simian Guest

    W K wrote:
    >
    > It was a dual carridgeway. Hardly dangerous to be overtaking. It appears he was going slightly
    > above the limit, and did not slow down when he saw(?) children at the side of the road.

    It was dark, he probably didn't see them till they ran across in front of him.

    Given the other car in the left hand lane, he may not have been able to see them even in
    broad daylight.
     
  18. limpet

    limpet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0

    I am sick and tired of the excuses made about this kind of offence

    1, He had no licence
    2, He had no insurance

    ergo, If he had abided by the law he wouldn`t have been on the road.

    3, He was speeding.
    Saying he was speeding a little bit is like saying the boy is a little bit dead.

    Regardless of him being an asylum seeker or not, ignorance as we all know is no excuse.
    It`s about time people started taking responsibility for their own actions.
    The items indicated above show that he could hardly have been driving any more unlawfully.
    I think manslaughter is a reasonable charge.
    I wouldn`t have baulked at murder.......it might have made a few of the other idiots driving around in similar circumstances think twice.......merry christmas.
     
  19. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:06:29 GMT, limpet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I wouldn`t have baulked at murder.......it might have made a few of the other idiots driving around
    >in similar circumstances think twice...

    To get a murder conviction you have to show an intention to kill. If there wasn't enough evidence to
    prosecute for causing death by dangerous driving a murder charge would have been a non-starter. Even
    that thug Carl Baxter was not charged with attempted murder though in my view his intention to kill
    was obvious.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:15:27 +0000, Dave Kahn <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Even that thug Carl Baxter was not charged with attempted murder though in my view his intention to
    >kill was obvious.

    I still have a question about the offence with which he was charged, though. According to the CPS he
    was charged with assault causing grievous bodily harm with a maximum sentence of 5 years, But
    according to my reading of it, GBH carries a maximum of life. For someone committing an assault of
    this nature, and given his previous conviction for assault, it would seem that the sentence he was
    given was woefully inadequate. With two convictions for assault following on from what are, after
    all, the perfectly normal frustrations of driving, plus a token suicide attempt on conviction, he
    seems to me to be a dangerously unstable character who will always be a ticking bomb when behind the
    wheel of a car.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at the University of Washington.
     
Loading...
Loading...