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



W

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.
 

Skunk

New Member
Apr 29, 2003
74
0
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.
 
N

Nathaniel David

Guest
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?
 
C

Colin Blackburn

Guest
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
--
 
W

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?
 
T

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.
 
S

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.
 
E

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
 
W

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.
 
W

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.
 
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
 
C

Colin Blackburn

Guest
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
--
 
W

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
****** 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.
 
W

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.
 
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
"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).
 
S

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.
 

limpet

New Member
Feb 13, 2004
14
0
0
Originally posted by Simian
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.


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.
 
D

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
 
J

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.