From today's newspaper.
1. Drunken footballer driving whilst disqualified demolishes lampost. Three months jail and new driving ban.
2. Drunken illegal immigrant driving whilst unlicensed and uninsured kills child. Eight weeks jail, can reapply to stay in UK.
Justice or travesty or something from Edward Lear?
|
This is a very good example of how things can seem very different when you don't have all the facts.
To number 1 add: 2.5 times over the drink drive limit.
Does it sound a little more like justice now?
What about the question: Do you know if the illegal immigrant was in any way at fault? Or should he just be assumed to be guilty because he's an illegal immigrant?
|
This is a very good example of how things can seem very different when you don't have all the facts. To number 1 add: 2.5 times over the drink drive limit. Does it sound a little more like justice now? What about the question: Do you know if the illegal immigrant was in any way at fault? Or should he just be assumed to be guilty because he's an illegal immigrant?
i dont think it sounds like justice and i dont expect the parents of the child who died think it either but suffice to say we dont have all the facts and we are unlikely to get them the press will play on the fact that he is an illegal immigrant. where i think you will find he is actually an appellant assylum seeker on his fifth appeal apparently.
as a complete aside to that i do think if you are over the drink drive limit and someone dies in an accident you are involved in then there should be a minimum jail term imposed regardless of any other factors like insurance or licence ...cheers...keo.
|
Interesting, the footballer's solicitor said that he "was very unlikely to reoffend." Even though he's already been banned.
What I can't understand is how someone could be so stupid as to not bother with insurance when they earn 10,000 a week. I think he completely deserves it, and would have been better with more than 3 months.
Out of curiosity, does the driving ban take effect instantly, or on the date he's released from prison?
|
The footballers solicitors also claimed that the court should be lenient as it could 'destroy his footballing career'. People are out of the game for far longer than 3 months, and a lot later in their career, without it ending. Just a cheap attempt to get leniency i think.
What I can't understand is how someone could be so stupid as to not bother with insurance when they earn 10,000 a week.
I suppose if he was banned at the time, he could not be insured.
|
|
|
|
No. He should be assumed guilty because he was drunk.
--
Adam
|
OK, I've completely misread that, and not seen the drunken bit.
This must refer to a different case than the one I've seen recently, hadn't heard that the driver was drunken in what I thought was the second case.
I agree, if drunk, anyone should have the book thrown at them.
|
I only heard it myself this morning - Alan Beswick and BBC GMR polish my debating skills!
--
Adam
|
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, in either case. Not to know the law is no defence in law.
It was the footballer's choice to drive in those circumstances, by implication prepared to jeopordise his career. To then plead hardship is a farce. He should take his punishment and shut up!
To kill whilst driving in a drunken state is, in my opinion, approaching premeditated murder. The sentence, again in my opinion, should reflect this. Whether he is an illigal immigrant, asylum seeker, footballer, tourist, uk "legal" resident, or whatever should make no difference to the punishment. His future, whether in this country or not, should take the crime into account. With this criminal record, I bet he wouldn't get into the USA!
|
The sentence at the end of my original post was a question. I wanted to find what others thought and I have, thank you, For the record I believe that both sentences are too lenient, in the first case because the chap was already banned from driving and therefore by default uninsured. In the second case the immigrant was deliberately flouting laws which he must have been aware of as he has been living with his sister in the midlands for many months. In my opinion light sentences such as these ensure that more irresponsible people will drive without a license or insurance thereby making life more expensive and probably more hazardous for the rest of the generally law abiding road users. To my simple mind our traffic laws are a mess and our magistrates' courts an unco-ordinated shambles.
|
|
Alan Beswick could easily take over the Jeremy Vine show, as he's one of the few presenters not afraid to speak his mind and shout down his opponents. Obligatory motoring link: great to listen to in the car...
|
Hear hear. I must admit, I disagree with a lot of what he says but I admire his convictions and when he decides he doesn't like someone - it's hilarious. Motoring link - it really makes long journies better!
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
To number 2: the immigrant guy was 1.5 times over the limit according to the BBC ( news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4310737....m ).
I have to say, it doesn't sound like justice.
1.5x over, kill somebody, no jailtime
2.5x over, damage lamppost, jailed
Driver's immigration status irrelevant.
|
Fairly clear from the BBC report that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving. Perhaps the outcome was unaffected by his being drunk?.
One's heart goes out out the bereaved family but if the court heard all the evidence and came to a reasoned conclusion that's what justice is about.
Not sure about the pejorative use of claimed as in "the prosecution claimed". Like they've an interest in getting him off.
|
Maybe the conclusion was that although the driver was guilty of a string of offences, the tragic result of the accident would have been the same even if he'd been 'legal' in every respect.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
enoch powell was right in what he said.....
|
whar did he say ?
[finger poised over thread deletion button]
|
A concerned lurker
[snip] seems to me that a concerned lurker would haev read enough to know that discussion of moderation should take place in e-mail, not in the forum. Or is that not a big enough soapbox for you ?
By all means e-mail your conspiracy theory type concerns to us and we will give them our undying attention.
Mark.
|
|
|
|
enoch powell was right in what he said.....
>>
The best Prime Minister we never had.
(a gift for Mark)
|
>>The best Prime Minister we never had.
Neil Kinnock?
Michael Foot?
William Hague?
Ian Duncan-Smith?
Paddy Ashdown?
David Owen?
Ken Dodd?
Cheers, SS
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't aware that he'd said much of note about motoring?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And in today's news ( news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/431...m )
Sober, insured policeman driving at or below speed limit crashes into stationary car on motorway, tragically killing a man.
Two years jail.
?????????
|
enoch powell was right in what he said.....
Most people are right in what they said somewhere along the line, including.
Arthur Scargill
Janet Street-Porter
Norman Lamont
Red Robbo
Norman Tebbitt
Saddam Hussein
Etc, etc.............
Sofa Spud
|
That was a short party political broadcast on behalf of the Sofa Spud party....
but now it's time to hand back over to the backroom for a motoring related theme.
|
|
|
|
And in today's news ( news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/431...m ) Sober, insured policeman driving at or below speed limit crashes into stationary car on motorway, tragically killing a man. Two years jail. ?????????
Sober and below limit but apparently paying zero attention to the task in hand. However, suspect the sentence is at the harsh end of the spectrum and that an appeal may be productive. Loss of career and income also in play.
|
Sober and below limit but apparently paying zero attention to the task in hand. However, suspect the sentence is at the harsh end of the spectrum and that an appeal may be productive. Loss of career and income also in play.
Sadly, also a chance of loss of home and family. But someone was killed, whose family will also not be best pleased.
Best not to reach conclusions on the sentence without seeing all the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
