Perverting justice after an fatal RTA

Man bailed over boy's road death

Kyle died of his injuries at Sheffield Children's Hospital .

A man has appeared in court charged in connection with the death of a
boy in a hit-and-run accident.
Seven-year-old Kyle McDermott, of Mexborough, South Yorkshire, died
after being hit by a van as he cycled near his home on 11 September
last year.

Christopher Collins, 44, of Albert Road, Mexborough, is accused of
driving without due care and attention and failing to stop after a
collision.

Magistrates granted him bail to appear at Doncaster Crown Court next
Friday.

Relatives in court

Mr Collins, who was allegedly driving a Ford Transit van when the
incident took place, is also charged with intending to pervert the
course of justice.

In addition, he is accused of failing to report the accident to
police, even though he knew it had proved fatal and other people could
be arrested as a result.

He spoke only to confirm his name and address.

Members of Kyle's family sat in the public gallery for the hearing at
Doncaster Magistrates' Court, which took less than 10 minutes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/6411503.stm

What's the perversion aspect of this case?


Does it mean denying driving?

Falsely registering the vehicle?

Trying to wipe the blood off the van?

What, for instance , would be the appropriate punishment for someone
who proposes this:

"You could have made up a number plate from a similar make and colour
car to yours seen driving around.

This is called number plate cloning and is becoming quite common. It
would be hard to justify your incorrect cloned plate if stopped by
Police.

You might fare a little better if your number plate incorporates a
simple mistake such as two numbers changed round.

For example A 123 ACB instead of A 123 ABC. If stopped you could
simply claim ,that it must be an error."

"Don't be too keen to wash the winter filth off your car!

Don't be too keen to remove that bike rack from the back.

If your number plate falls off or gets broken, don't be in too much
of a hurry to get it
replaced.

We hear the motorcycle chain lubricant in a spray can will make a
few
usefully unreadable streaks or blobs.

Or do a little mudslinging; mud stuck on the numberplate could well
obscure enough of the numbers and letters.

In some areas kids think it is funny to attach black tape to
a number plate to make the numbers and letters different; this is a
trend well worth encouraging."


Paul Smith- Safespeeding.

spindrift wrote:
Man bailed over boy's road death

[...]

Why do you do this? Fair enough the original story is relevant to this
group in a way and is one that we would like to see the answers to.
However there is nothing linking this to Safespeed or Paul Smith and yet
you fire off on your favourite topic. The comments to Matt B from
bookieb about the effect of the single issue poster are just as relevant
here. My reaction reading your post was at first one of interest, but as
soon as you went into your tirade, my thought was "Oh f*ck, he's off again."

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Give your child mental blocks for Christmas.

"Don Whybrow" wrote in message
...
spindrift wrote:
Man bailed over boy's road death

[...]

Why do you do this? Fair enough the original story is relevant to this
group in a way and is one that we would like to see the answers to.
However there is nothing linking this to Safespeed or Paul Smith and yet
you fire off on your favourite topic. The comments to Matt B from bookieb
about the effect of the single issue poster are just as relevant here. My
reaction reading your post was at first one of interest, but as soon as
you went into your tirade, my thought was "Oh f*ck, he's off again."

It's all well and good for the OP to fire off against Paul Smith and
Safespeed here but it's largely preaching to the converted. Wouldn't the
anti Safespeed tirades be better off being posted in the motoring forums
where they will challenge more entrenched pro-Safespeed people?

spindrift wrote:
What's the perversion aspect of this case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/6411503.stm



Oh I see now, everything up to the link was simply what was in the link and
everything you posted below was a straw man of your own invention


Give it a rest or the sound points you do make will be lost in the dross of
the single issue rant you delight in indulging in.


pk

p.k. wrote:
spindrift wrote:
What's the perversion aspect of this case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/6411503.stm



Oh I see now, everything up to the link was simply what was in the link and
everything you posted below was a straw man of your own invention


Give it a rest or the sound points you do make will be lost in the dross of
the single issue rant you delight in indulging in.


pk


". Wouldn't the
anti Safespeed tirades be better off being posted in the motoring
forums
where they will challenge more entrenched pro-Safespeed people? "

You can't, you just get banned and the post deleted if you even
question the pro-speeding agenda on their forums, let alone highlight
their criminal past. Nobody's ever had a satisfactory answer here for
the above quotes.

25% of RTA's in East London are hit-and-runs, which is a kind of
perversion of justice in itself as far as I'm concerned. People kill
and cripple other road users and immediately think of nothing but
saving their own skin.

How come, for instance, the fine for driving without insurance is
less than the premium? It's a no brainer, the chances of getting
caught are so slight that buying insurance is a waste of money, or
they insure the car, get through the MOT and then cancel the
insurance.

Point taken though, I'll leave the speedophiles to the obscurity they
deserve.

spindrift wrote:
p.k. wrote:
spindrift wrote:
What's the perversion aspect of this case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/6411503.stm

Oh I see now, everything up to the link was simply what was in the link and
everything you posted below was a straw man of your own invention

Give it a rest or the sound points you do make will be lost in the dross of
the single issue rant you delight in indulging in.

". Wouldn't the
anti Safespeed tirades be better off being posted in the motoring
forums
where they will challenge more entrenched pro-Safespeed people? "

You can't, you just get banned and the post deleted if you even
question the pro-speeding agenda on their forums, let alone highlight
their criminal past. Nobody's ever had a satisfactory answer here for
the above quotes.

Go to uk.rec.driving, you can't get banned from usenet.

25% of RTA's in East London are hit-and-runs, which is a kind of
perversion of justice in itself as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, funnily enough, criminals don't go straight to the police station
after committing a crime, they tend to try to escape. Perhaps the law
should be changed to make it compulsory to proceed immediately to the
nearest police station as soon as practical after committing a crime.

People kill
and cripple other road users and immediately think of nothing but
saving their own skin.

Yes, if it was more difficult, and thus less likely, to drive illegally,
more would be inclined to stop after collisions, as they, themselves,
would have less to loose.

How come, for instance, the fine for driving without insurance is
less than the premium?

Because premiums are so high?

It's a no brainer, the chances of getting
caught are so slight that buying insurance is a waste of money, or
they insure the car, get through the MOT and then cancel the
insurance.

Yes, so perhaps it's time to explore alternatives. How about automatic
3rd party for all, funded from fuel duty?

--
Matt B

On 9 Mar, 08:46, Matt B wrote:

Yes, so perhaps it's time to explore alternatives. How about automatic
3rd party for all, funded from fuel duty?


Having gained a low premium through building a long record of
accident- & conviction-free driving, I am not keen on the idea of
paying a higher one based on the (higher) averaged risk posed by all
drivers. As well as costing compentent drivers more, it would remove
an incentive for driving properly, thus potentially increasing the
risk of accidents.

It would also mean that there was less incentive to buy safer models
of vehicle, as exists at present.

Jon

"Jon" wrote in news:1173454609.914377.318030
@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Having gained a low premium through building a long record of
accident- & conviction-free driving, I am not keen on the idea of
paying a higher one based on the (higher) averaged risk posed by all
drivers. As well as costing compentent drivers more, it would remove
an incentive for driving properly, thus potentially increasing the
risk of accidents.

It would also mean that there was less incentive to buy safer models
of vehicle, as exists at present.

However, it would remove the control from the insurance cartel, who
currently have more power to determine who can legally drive what than does
the police, the judiciary, or even Parliament itself. That said, it will
never happen because the insurance cartel is too powerful and has too much
to lose.

Jon wrote:
On 9 Mar, 08:46, Matt B wrote:
Yes, so perhaps it's time to explore alternatives. How about automatic
3rd party for all, funded from fuel duty?

Having gained a low premium through building a long record of
accident- & conviction-free driving, I am not keen on the idea of
paying a higher one based on the (higher) averaged risk posed by all
drivers.

You'd just just have to pay the difference from 3rd party to whatever
cover you required. I imagine a not-for-profit 3rd party fund, shared
by all fuel buyers, would be quite economical.

As well as costing compentent drivers more,

Or less, as the case may be. It would be proportional to fuel used.

it would remove
an incentive for driving properly, thus potentially increasing the
risk of accidents.

My incentive is pride and safety, what is yours?

It would also mean that there was less incentive to buy safer models
of vehicle, as exists at present.

Most hight power models would of course me more thirsty, so the fuel
cost (including insurance fund duty) would cost more.

--
Matt B

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Jon
gently breathed:

It would also mean that there was less incentive to buy safer models
of vehicle, as exists at present.

The issue with "safer models" though is that generally they are safer
for their occupants in the event of a crash. While this has reduced the
numbers of deaths caused to vehicle occupants very significantly over
the last 30-odd years, it has also encouraged some drivers to drive in a
more dangerous and reckless manner, and caused an increase in the risk
to cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, horse-riders, etc.

PS: I agree with what several others have said re the single-issue rant
that started this thread. While clearly Spindrift cares passionately
about the daily carnage on the roads, endless anti-safespeed homilies
here really don't help - take them to uk.rec.driving (largely populated,
IMO, by mostly-reasonable people who care about good driving), or
uk.transport (lots of ranting, which is partly why uk.rec.driving was
created as an alternative).

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com