|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/400008-partners-anger-as-death-crash-driver-walks-free/ The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:16:06 +0100, David Hansen
wrote: The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/400008-partners-anger-as-death-crash-driver-walks-free/ The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the charge also appears wrong. Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care & attention, and Reckless Driving? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
Tom Crispin wrote:
David Hansen wrote: The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/400008-partners-anger-as-death-crash-driver-walks-free/ The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the charge also appears wrong. Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care & attention, and Reckless Driving? The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention). I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone here can) take the view that a charge of causing death by dangerous driving is less than likely to lead to a conviction (because of the standard of proof required). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
On 6 May, 19:16, David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000... The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. As was the lie by the driver that he was not on the wrong side of the road. For the lies alone he should have had extra punishment. But as we all know both the police and the courts are dominated by the car culture, which seems to have a strong anti-cyclist, anti-vulnerable-victim bias, amounting sometimes almost to hatred if these newsgroups are anything to go by. -- UK Radical Campaigns http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
On 6 May, 21:48, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote: David Hansen wrote: The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000... The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the charge also appears wrong. Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care & attention, and Reckless Driving? The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention). I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone here can) "the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone here can)" Really? You don't say? Well, why have you never reminded us of that useful fact before? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
Doug wrote:
But as we all know Would you be polite enough to stop telling me what I "know"? It's bad enough telling me what your half arsed opinions and knowledge are, without you making unjustified assumptions about mine. BugBear |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:40:34 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
wrote this:- On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the charge also appears wrong. Agreed. The Courier has a little more http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/02/24/newsstory14598793t0.asp. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
On 6 May, 19:16, David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000... The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless. No, probably not, the majority of motorists do it. And they know best. Until it goes wrong. And then the full majesty of the law is thrown at their wrist. "In a separate case, plumber McKay was fined £275 for threatening to smash a three-foot metal plumbing tool over the head of someone who was unhappy with the quality of his work, on 19th August last year in Lochore. He was also fined a further £50 for failing to turn up at an earlier court appearance on 6th October." Why are people like this allowed to drive potentially lethal vehicles? Forget helmets for cyclists, personality tests for motorists could save quite a few lives. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
On 6 May, 19:16, David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000... The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. -- * David Hansen, Edinburgh *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 To negotiate a bend isn't tantamount to murder, it is either dangerous driving or undue care and attention. The laws punish on the actions, not the consequences unless the actions can be proven to be carried out with intent. He comes across as a badly trained knob who cannot control his temper. I can think of a few on here who also fit that description. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free
Squashme wrote:
On 6 May, 21:48, JNugent wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: David Hansen wrote: The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if it was no so serious. http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000... The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph, then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist. As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies. On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the charge also appears wrong. Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care & attention, and Reckless Driving? The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention). I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone here can) "the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone here can)" Really? You don't say? Well, why have you never reminded us of that useful fact before? What are you talking about (assuming you know)? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lorry driver who killed cyclist walks free from court with 'ludicrous' £275 fine | [email protected] | UK | 102 | July 13th 08 11:36 PM |
Lorry driver on mobile kills cyclist, walks free from court. | spindrift | UK | 0 | April 8th 08 08:42 AM |
Killer driver walks free | spindrift | UK | 0 | May 22nd 07 09:52 AM |
SMS death driver gets her licence back | cfsmtb | Australia | 37 | January 10th 06 05:00 PM |
Another killer walks free... | Howard | UK | 5 | July 8th 04 08:30 AM |