Otherwise straightforward and law abiding people do sometimes do foolish things.
For example, getting stopped by police in a car, given a 'producer', then realisisng you have no MOT.... so the sensible option, tell the truth, catch a non endorsable £20 fine at court, if that....or buy a stolen or forged one down the local pub, which them means you're prosecuted for the criminal offence of Handling Stolen Goods or Forgery, whichever one applied. Criminal record etc, instead of the most minor motoring offence?
Unfortunately, perverting the course of justice is seen as an absolute 'no-no' because it undermines the whole point of the system....so the otherwise innocent folk who stray into it by stupidity, get wrapped up in something far more serious, because the authorities have to clamp down on it, as an example to others...In reality though, the penalties are well publicised, it always reaches the newspapers and news etc, so there's no real excuse, it's only the people who refuse to take personal responsibility for anything.
He took the risk, got caught, too bad, shouldn't have done it.
P.S. i'd like to see the thieving lying toe rags that tell the most impossible stories in court as a means of defence, go away for Perjury when they're inevitably found out. I live in hope.
|
...i'd like to see the thieving lying toe rags that tell the most impossible stories in court as a means of defence, go away for Perjury when they're inevitably found out...
So would I.
Strict enforcement by the courts of the caution would be a start:
...it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you later rely on in court...
|
|
|
|
|
I think the very fact that some of us are getting so exercised about the prison sentence is proof that prison here will prove to be a deterrent to anyone tempted to do likewise.
|
prison here will prove to be a deterrent to anyone tempted to do likewise.
Perhaps. But really all this squirming and lying isn't the sort of thing sensible people go in for in the first place. I don't go in for it myself, but not because I'm scared of going to jail. I just don't do it even when tempted.
|
|
|
This guy didn't just name someone abroad as the driver, he falsified flight logs to show he couldn't have been the driver.
He has lost a lot, but that was because he had a lot to lose. I suspect that when you start off on something like this perverting the course of justice just doesn't enter your head. But that's what it is, I suppose.
It's tough but he did have form.
|
|
He could have created a lot of problems for the lady in iceland.How people can react in panic ,he had a responsible good job and he messed up big time.He is only 27,let's hope he has learnt his lesson and go back to his job as a air ambulance pilot.
|
He is only 27 let's hope he has learnt his lesson and go back to his job as a air ambulance pilot.
Let's hope he is not as blase with the flying rules and regs as he is the driving ones then. It 's a bit different making a maistake...than going to great lengths to cover it up.
|
MrTee - I can't disagree that cautioning for GBH is quite incredible and apparently inexcusable. BUT, there are countless cases where victims refuse to assist the Police, and if an offender admits their actions, cautioning is the only positive disposal available. Reported 'facts' frequently lack fact. Furthermore, only one assault in the report meets the CPS charging standard for GBH, the remainder are ABH or common assault. In any case, cautioning policy was set by HM Government and the Police are required to use it. Once again, the Police get the blame on these forums for following Government policy aimed at reducing the number of offenders appearing in court. As for officers getting the whisky out of the cupboard and puffing out their chests - you sink to juvenile comment. Motorists may make easy targets - I wouldn't argue the point, but again I say that camera policy and road safety policy is driven (pardon the pun) by the Government, who set a clear agenda for reduced casualties on the roads. And cops merely report the offences, courts punish, don't forget. That a speeding motorcyclist gets jailed and a burglar given community service is not the fault of the Police. Criticism in such cases should be aimed at the courts.
Inefficiency of the Police was mentioned earlier: how we may measure the efficiency of Policing I'm not sure because to do so requires some sort of meaningful comparator. Perhaps it's time that there were separate Police forces: one for traffic and one for all other crime. This may be nearer than some think what with the advent of the motorway 'HATO's', those striped up cars normally mistaken for Police cars. I note several contributors bemoaning the demise of the 'traffic' officer on other threads and then criticism of their actions when they are present. Which do people want? You certainly can't please everyone in Policing. I digress, back to efficiency: to have any meaningful discussion about efficiency surely there must be some account taken of number of officers, number of population, numbers of crimes reported, what types of crime etc, etc. Anyone can claim that any public service is inefficient but it does not amount to meaningful argument without any facts presented.
|
What bugs me is, a passenger in a stolen car - whose driver speeds through residential roads, without insurance, often without a license, who then crashes the car, then escapes - gets caught does not have to name the driver, but the owner of a car has to when they get a NIP
In response to woodster above, points made are probably true, but the Police can choose which crimes they investigate and which area to put resources
Was jail the right sentence? I understand the deterrent factor, but do we not have criminals being released because there is no room, burglars, muggers, rapists who then go on to commit more crimes?
Edited by skittles on 09/11/2009 at 11:07
|
What bugs me is a passenger in a stolen car - whose driver speeds through residential roads without insurance often without a license who then crashes the car then escapes - gets caught does not have to name the driver but the owner of a car has to when they get a NIP
i was under the impression that if the occupants caught in a stolen vehicle dont fess up as to who was driving ,they all get knicked for it
|
|
|
|
Point 1 - Well said, woodster.
Point 2 - From the DT article: "After an earlier hearing, he [Drury] said: "I put it all down to a moment of madness. I was under intense stress as an air ambulance pilot being responsible for the crew, and the patients."
Surely if the job was causing him "intense stress", he wasn't really cut out for it and would have come a-cropper one way or another before too long? In which case we can be thankful it didn't involve a plane-load of medical staff and patients.
Point 3 - I may be wrong on this, but I was given to understand that due to prison overcrowding etc., a custodial sentence of 6 months or less is not actually served in a prison at all, rather it is dealt with by tagging and/or curfew?
A friend's parent found themselves in exactly that situation around 3 years ago (sentenced to 6 months, but they never set foot inside a jail), I don't know if the guidelines have been changed since but stories such as that tend to stick around for a long time.
Edited by Dave_TD {P} on 09/11/2009 at 11:28
|
|
|
|
>> He is only 27 let's hope he has learnt his lesson and go back to his job as a air ambulance pilot.
Lets hope he doesent. The guy is not fit to have a pilots license
|
How do you know ?
He may well be an absolutely brilliant natural pilot. Flying an aeroplane in our crowded airspace needs a lot more concentration and skill than driving a car.
I suggest that you have no right to make such a judgement and that maybe you should stop being an armchair Judge as you do not know the facts about this man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
