spindrift
May 23rd 07, 11:00 AM
On 23 May, 10:42, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Marc Brett > wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:42:33 +0100, Matt B
> > > wrote:
>
> > >Don Whybrow wrote:
> > >> Matt B wrote:
>
> > >>> Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again:
> > >>> Would you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone
> > >>> (including her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances
> > >>> and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?
>
> > >> If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
> > >> time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.
>
> > >Are you /sure/ that circumstances should not be taken into account?
>
> > Don't be willfully stupid. Of course circumstances differ, and of
> > course judges should be free to hand out severe or lenient sentences.
>
> > It just seems to me (and others) that the recklessness displayed in
> > /this/ case warrants a stiffer sentence than a suspended sentence and a
> > driving ban.
>
> indeed while one can assume that her intention wasn't to kill, from the
> report it *looks* like she was quite negligent, the sentece seems rather
> lax, on the other hand the jails are full to bursting...
>
> roger- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
She's had two chances to modertae her speeding.
She did not learn anything from the first two times she put vulnerable
road users at risk and killed Debbie Riches. And she'll be back on the
roads in 7 years. There was no evidence of suicide attempts other than
what the defence claimed she told them.
I'm taking the road bike for a run this evening. Now I have to
consider whether the tyre rumble coming behind me at 60mph is being
controlled by the wrong shoes?
I already have to guess whether it will pass me at the same time as
the car coming the other way, whether it will slow, whether it will
take my elbow off trying to stay within the white lines, whether I
will get a scream from the passenger, or his takeaway thrown into my
wheels. I've got to ensure that there is no chasm in the underinvested
pile of stones called a road to cause me to move out a few inches and
become an 'inconsiderate cyclist'. Oh, and watch for drain covers with
parallel gaps to trap my 23mm wheel. Or if that traffic island or
crazy-golf-course-road-narrowing thing ahead will be looked at with
more urgency than my sorry behind in the way.
But don't worry. The driver wasn't being 'wicked' in killing me, and
will be back on the road soon.
50 in a 30 = ban for life.
Cause a death by wearing the wrong shoes = ban for life.
Drive while banned = 1 year prison.
When I get on my bike I expect respect as an equal road user. When I
get in my car I accept responsibility for the lives of everyone it
passes in the vicinity of.
Can we have a driving course and test please that demands this, rather
than an exam asking where the dipstick is, and which lamp post to park
it under?
> Marc Brett > wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:42:33 +0100, Matt B
> > > wrote:
>
> > >Don Whybrow wrote:
> > >> Matt B wrote:
>
> > >>> Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again:
> > >>> Would you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone
> > >>> (including her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances
> > >>> and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?
>
> > >> If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
> > >> time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.
>
> > >Are you /sure/ that circumstances should not be taken into account?
>
> > Don't be willfully stupid. Of course circumstances differ, and of
> > course judges should be free to hand out severe or lenient sentences.
>
> > It just seems to me (and others) that the recklessness displayed in
> > /this/ case warrants a stiffer sentence than a suspended sentence and a
> > driving ban.
>
> indeed while one can assume that her intention wasn't to kill, from the
> report it *looks* like she was quite negligent, the sentece seems rather
> lax, on the other hand the jails are full to bursting...
>
> roger- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
She's had two chances to modertae her speeding.
She did not learn anything from the first two times she put vulnerable
road users at risk and killed Debbie Riches. And she'll be back on the
roads in 7 years. There was no evidence of suicide attempts other than
what the defence claimed she told them.
I'm taking the road bike for a run this evening. Now I have to
consider whether the tyre rumble coming behind me at 60mph is being
controlled by the wrong shoes?
I already have to guess whether it will pass me at the same time as
the car coming the other way, whether it will slow, whether it will
take my elbow off trying to stay within the white lines, whether I
will get a scream from the passenger, or his takeaway thrown into my
wheels. I've got to ensure that there is no chasm in the underinvested
pile of stones called a road to cause me to move out a few inches and
become an 'inconsiderate cyclist'. Oh, and watch for drain covers with
parallel gaps to trap my 23mm wheel. Or if that traffic island or
crazy-golf-course-road-narrowing thing ahead will be looked at with
more urgency than my sorry behind in the way.
But don't worry. The driver wasn't being 'wicked' in killing me, and
will be back on the road soon.
50 in a 30 = ban for life.
Cause a death by wearing the wrong shoes = ban for life.
Drive while banned = 1 year prison.
When I get on my bike I expect respect as an equal road user. When I
get in my car I accept responsibility for the lives of everyone it
passes in the vicinity of.
Can we have a driving course and test please that demands this, rather
than an exam asking where the dipstick is, and which lamp post to park
it under?