Annoyed isn't the word: Driver kills other motorist through admitted neglect and gets a 2 year driving ban plus 2 year suspended sentence. Has spent no time in custody and will spend no time in custody. The culprit's admission to the court that she was distracted by her mobile phone, "saw brake lights ahead but thought the traffic was still moving" will have been the most favourable wording possible without actually telling a lie. She claimed "I couldn't have been doing more than 70" - accident investigators estimate her speed at impact between 35 and 45 mph so she clearly had no mind on what she was doing at all. Utter disgrace Judge has cast the value of the slain motorcyclist at zero. Of course there is no suggestion the killer intended to harm anybody but to get off scot free essentially absolves her of responsibility for her actions. Accidentally killing someone is still manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel of a motorcar puts the driver in charge of a ton of metal and unequivocally responsible for everything that happens from that point forward. Ploughing into the back of stationery traffic on a dual carriageway because you admit to not paying sufficient attention to notice the traffic has stopped is exactly the same as jumping a red light on a pedestrian crossing. This reckless moron is a danger to society and her punishment should reflect that. If she'd carelessly kicked a brick off some scaffolding and killed a passer by she'd be done for manslaughter and serve a minimum 5 years - the death was accidental but the cause was wanton negligence rooted in reckless self-absorbed irresponsibility - do that at the wheel of a car and judges lose all grip on reason and responsibility. This particular blight on the judiciary and stain on humanity has to be defrocked immediately - he simply has no actual regard for human life at all. Were the fatality someone he knew, let alone a member of his family would he think differently - or at all? He's robbing our taxes to let negligent killers off scot free.
You can find the names of the culprit and the moron in the wig in today's tabloid press.
I am sure about a year or so ago, I read that the government was going to change the law for cases like this to manslaughter, but I have not heard anything since, whether anyone can update this
Annoyed isn't the word: Driver kills other motorist through admitted neglect and gets a 2 year driving ban plus 2 year suspended sentence. Has spent no time in custody and will spend no time in custody. The culprit's admission to the court that she was distracted by her mobile phone, "saw brake lights ahead but thought the traffic was still moving" will have been the most favourable wording possible without actually telling a lie. She claimed "I couldn't have been doing more than 70" - accident investigators estimate her speed at impact between 35 and 45 mph so she clearly had no mind on what she was doing at all. Utter disgrace Judge has cast the value of the slain motorcyclist at zero. Of course there is no suggestion the killer intended to harm anybody but to get off scot free essentially absolves her of responsibility for her actions. Accidentally killing someone is still manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel of a motorcar puts the driver in charge of a ton of metal and unequivocally responsible for everything that happens from that point forward. Ploughing into the back of stationery traffic on a dual carriageway because you admit to not paying sufficient attention to notice the traffic has stopped is exactly the same as jumping a red light on a pedestrian crossing. This reckless moron is a danger to society and her punishment should reflect that. If she'd carelessly kicked a brick off some scaffolding and killed a passer by she'd be done for manslaughter and serve a minimum 5 years - the death was accidental but the cause was wanton negligence rooted in reckless self-absorbed irresponsibility - do that at the wheel of a car and judges lose all grip on reason and responsibility. This particular blight on the judiciary and stain on humanity has to be defrocked immediately - he simply has no actual regard for human life at all. Were the fatality someone he knew, let alone a member of his family would he think differently - or at all? He's robbing our taxes to let negligent killers off scot free.
You can find the names of the culprit and the moron in the wig in today's tabloid press.
I am sure about a year or so ago, I read that the government was going to change the law for cases like this to manslaughter, but I have not heard anything since, whether anyone can update this
I think the maximum term for death by dangerous driving was to be raised from the derisory 5 years to 10 years bringing it more into line with manslaughter - although 15 years or more can be handed down to reckless killers (not driving a car).
The wanton killer at the wheel is most at fault obviously. The judge in this case has debased his profession in practically absolving the culprit of the life taking. But I also have a major problem with why manslaughter charges are never brought when the negligent killer is at the wheel of a motorised vehicle. There is an easily comprehensible crime on the statute books describing the unwitting/accidental taking of human life. There's no charge of 'being reckless on a building site causing death' * - it's always manslaughter. The homicide is the offense, surely? Quite what one was doing when one was careless enough to cause the death is very much secondary isn't it? Plod and CPS seem paralysed by this mickey mouse charge of "...by dangerous driving" A person is dead - charge the culprit with that - not some technical breach of the Highway Code FFS!! *Half a lifetime ago I sat in on a court case around the death of a worker during the 2nd Dartford Tunnel construction. Lots of the workforce were French or French speaking, including the deceased, and a mate of mine was working as an interpreter. It was ages after the event cos obvs the HSE had stuck its nose in and held things up while it vainly sought to justify its existence and rack up plenty of expenses. The poor chap expired under some piece of heavy plant that overbalanced on sodden ground. A company was charged with corporate manslaughter. Nobody did anything deliberately, it was obvious to all it was a most unfortunate sequence of events but a bloke was killed as the demonstrable result of someone not doing what they should - ergo he was killed and somebody's responsible and the charge is manslaughter. Most galling of all, I was chatting with my interpreter mate and a French brief he'd got to know over the many months of the process. M. solicitor francais couldn't understand all the rigmarole over one life lost, and I quote "Il n'était qu'un Belge"
Annoyed isn't the word: Driver kills other motorist through admitted neglect and gets a 2 year driving ban plus 2 year suspended sentence. Has spent no time in custody and will spend no time in custody. The culprit's admission to the court that she was distracted by her mobile phone, "saw brake lights ahead but thought the traffic was still moving" will have been the most favourable wording possible without actually telling a lie. She claimed "I couldn't have been doing more than 70" - accident investigators estimate her speed at impact between 35 and 45 mph so she clearly had no mind on what she was doing at all. Utter disgrace Judge has cast the value of the slain motorcyclist at zero. Of course there is no suggestion the killer intended to harm anybody but to get off scot free essentially absolves her of responsibility for her actions. Accidentally killing someone is still manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel of a motorcar puts the driver in charge of a ton of metal and unequivocally responsible for everything that happens from that point forward. Ploughing into the back of stationery traffic on a dual carriageway because you admit to not paying sufficient attention to notice the traffic has stopped is exactly the same as jumping a red light on a pedestrian crossing. This reckless moron is a danger to society and her punishment should reflect that. If she'd carelessly kicked a brick off some scaffolding and killed a passer by she'd be done for manslaughter and serve a minimum 5 years - the death was accidental but the cause was wanton negligence rooted in reckless self-absorbed irresponsibility - do that at the wheel of a car and judges lose all grip on reason and responsibility. This particular blight on the judiciary and stain on humanity has to be defrocked immediately - he simply has no actual regard for human life at all. Were the fatality someone he knew, let alone a member of his family would he think differently - or at all? He's robbing our taxes to let negligent killers off scot free.
You can find the names of the culprit and the moron in the wig in today's tabloid press.
I am sure about a year or so ago, I read that the government was going to change the law for cases like this to manslaughter, but I have not heard anything since, whether anyone can update this
I think the maximum term for death by dangerous driving was to be raised from the derisory 5 years to 10 years bringing it more into line with manslaughter - although 15 years or more can be handed down to reckless killers (not driving a car).
The wanton killer at the wheel is most at fault obviously. The judge in this case has debased his profession in practically absolving the culprit of the life taking. But I also have a major problem with why manslaughter charges are never brought when the negligent killer is at the wheel of a motorised vehicle. There is an easily comprehensible crime on the statute books describing the unwitting/accidental taking of human life. There's no charge of 'being reckless on a building site causing death' * - it's always manslaughter. The homicide is the offense, surely? Quite what one was doing when one was careless enough to cause the death is very much secondary isn't it? Plod and CPS seem paralysed by this mickey mouse charge of "...by dangerous driving" A person is dead - charge the culprit with that - not some technical breach of the Highway Code FFS!! *Half a lifetime ago I sat in on a court case around the death of a worker during the 2nd Dartford Tunnel construction. Lots of the workforce were French or French speaking, including the deceased, and a mate of mine was working as an interpreter. It was ages after the event cos obvs the HSE had stuck its nose in and held things up while it vainly sought to justify its existence and rack up plenty of expenses. The poor chap expired under some piece of heavy plant that overbalanced on sodden ground. A company was charged with corporate manslaughter. Nobody did anything deliberately, it was obvious to all it was a most unfortunate sequence of events but a bloke was killed as the demonstrable result of someone not doing what they should - ergo he was killed and somebody's responsible and the charge is manslaughter. Most galling of all, I was chatting with my interpreter mate and a French brief he'd got to know over the many months of the process. M. solicitor francais couldn't understand all the rigmarole over one life lost, and I quote "Il n'était qu'un Belge"
Just so we're clear, 'Plod' no longer have any say in what charges are brought. They present the evidence to the CPS, who alone decide what charges to bring. I'm sure that most Police Officers, seeing as they are the ones who have to deal with the (often horrific) incidents, including informing the families of the deceased and the aftermath, feel just as strongly as you and share your frustration at the perceived leniency of the current situation.
I get 4 or 5 scam calls a day from callers with South Asian accents. Even more annoying as I’m waiting on calls re jobs. Like those that send emails pretending to be princes etc, I don’t care how desperate they are, these people are criminal scum.
Annoyed isn't the word: Driver kills other motorist through admitted neglect and gets a 2 year driving ban plus 2 year suspended sentence. Has spent no time in custody and will spend no time in custody. The culprit's admission to the court that she was distracted by her mobile phone, "saw brake lights ahead but thought the traffic was still moving" will have been the most favourable wording possible without actually telling a lie. She claimed "I couldn't have been doing more than 70" - accident investigators estimate her speed at impact between 35 and 45 mph so she clearly had no mind on what she was doing at all. Utter disgrace Judge has cast the value of the slain motorcyclist at zero. Of course there is no suggestion the killer intended to harm anybody but to get off scot free essentially absolves her of responsibility for her actions. Accidentally killing someone is still manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel of a motorcar puts the driver in charge of a ton of metal and unequivocally responsible for everything that happens from that point forward. Ploughing into the back of stationery traffic on a dual carriageway because you admit to not paying sufficient attention to notice the traffic has stopped is exactly the same as jumping a red light on a pedestrian crossing. This reckless moron is a danger to society and her punishment should reflect that. If she'd carelessly kicked a brick off some scaffolding and killed a passer by she'd be done for manslaughter and serve a minimum 5 years - the death was accidental but the cause was wanton negligence rooted in reckless self-absorbed irresponsibility - do that at the wheel of a car and judges lose all grip on reason and responsibility. This particular blight on the judiciary and stain on humanity has to be defrocked immediately - he simply has no actual regard for human life at all. Were the fatality someone he knew, let alone a member of his family would he think differently - or at all? He's robbing our taxes to let negligent killers off scot free.
You can find the names of the culprit and the moron in the wig in today's tabloid press.
hopefully the attorney general will appeal the leniency of the sentence as they did (unsuccessfully unfortunately) for PC Andrew Harper
Annoyed isn't the word: Driver kills other motorist through admitted neglect and gets a 2 year driving ban plus 2 year suspended sentence. Has spent no time in custody and will spend no time in custody. The culprit's admission to the court that she was distracted by her mobile phone, "saw brake lights ahead but thought the traffic was still moving" will have been the most favourable wording possible without actually telling a lie. She claimed "I couldn't have been doing more than 70" - accident investigators estimate her speed at impact between 35 and 45 mph so she clearly had no mind on what she was doing at all. Utter disgrace Judge has cast the value of the slain motorcyclist at zero. Of course there is no suggestion the killer intended to harm anybody but to get off scot free essentially absolves her of responsibility for her actions. Accidentally killing someone is still manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel of a motorcar puts the driver in charge of a ton of metal and unequivocally responsible for everything that happens from that point forward. Ploughing into the back of stationery traffic on a dual carriageway because you admit to not paying sufficient attention to notice the traffic has stopped is exactly the same as jumping a red light on a pedestrian crossing. This reckless moron is a danger to society and her punishment should reflect that. If she'd carelessly kicked a brick off some scaffolding and killed a passer by she'd be done for manslaughter and serve a minimum 5 years - the death was accidental but the cause was wanton negligence rooted in reckless self-absorbed irresponsibility - do that at the wheel of a car and judges lose all grip on reason and responsibility. This particular blight on the judiciary and stain on humanity has to be defrocked immediately - he simply has no actual regard for human life at all. Were the fatality someone he knew, let alone a member of his family would he think differently - or at all? He's robbing our taxes to let negligent killers off scot free.
You can find the names of the culprit and the moron in the wig in today's tabloid press.
hopefully the attorney general will appeal the leniency of the sentence as they did (unsuccessfully unfortunately) for PC Andrew Harper
We'd hope that would be the case but the AG's office has quite the headache around this and the Court of Appeal, processes, AG may well feel (quite wrongly) it has bigger fish to fry
Lissie Harper has been severely let down by the refusal to increase the sentences handed down to the three wrong uns. Personally I’d have added six years to each taking it up to 22 years for Henry Long and 19 years for the other two. Serving two thirds of their sentences will see them out before they’re thirty, an age PC Andrew Harper never got to reach because of their criminality.
Lissie Harper has been severely let down by the refusal to increase the sentences handed down to the three wrong uns. Personally I’d have added six years to each taking it up to 22 years for Henry Long and 19 years for the other two. Serving two thirds of their sentences will see them out before they’re thirty, an age PC Andrew Harper never got to reach because of their criminality.
Offenders can be considered for parole after serving half to 2/3 of their custodial sentence but that does still rely on them being granted license. We can but hope that the gravity of the crime and the occupation of the victim will continue to inform the decision makers. Nature of these low lives will see them racking up the offenses while inside and recidivism will see them back in front of a beak within hours of their eventual release. What are the chances that any ex-coppers serving as warders will have issues with these scum and their violent behaviour throughout their sojourn at HM's pleasure?
Contacting Curry’s service partner hoping to get some help reactivating Netflix on a smart device and only being able to comprehend every 7th word of the person on the other end, So infuriating, I had to put the phone down.
A day later, going to a drive-thru KFC and having to repeat the order on the speaky thing about three times due to the person on the other end having such a poor comprehension of my Danny Dyer dialect.
Lissie Harper has been severely let down by the refusal to increase the sentences handed down to the three wrong uns. Personally I’d have added six years to each taking it up to 22 years for Henry Long and 19 years for the other two. Serving two thirds of their sentences will see them out before they’re thirty, an age PC Andrew Harper never got to reach because of their criminality.
Offenders can be considered for parole after serving half to 2/3 of their custodial sentence but that does still rely on them being granted license. We can but hope that the gravity of the crime and the occupation of the victim will continue to inform the decision makers. Nature of these low lives will see them racking up the offenses while inside and recidivism will see them back in front of a beak within hours of their eventual release. What are the chances that any ex-coppers serving as warders will have issues with these scum and their violent behaviour throughout their sojourn at HM's pleasure?
The system’s changed, they have to do two thirds and because they received determinate sentences that’s when they’ll be released unless they misbehave inside and get extra days added. Upon release they will serve the remainder of their sentences on licence for the final third and can be recalled to prison if they breach their conditions whatever they may be. The probation service is understaffed and in a bit of a mess at the moment but because of the victims job I’m certain they’ll be monitored extremely closely and as you say because of the kind of people they are I find it hard to believe that at least one if not all three will be recalled at some point.
I personally don’t know any ex-police officers who have joined the job, it’s usually the other way round and officers, especially the younger ones, leave to join the police. As for any chance of them getting a bit of natural justice at the hands of officers then I can’t see it. It just doesn’t really happen these days. The other cons of course won’t look down on them because of their offence, some indeed may give them a pat on the back.
Lissie Harper has been severely let down by the refusal to increase the sentences handed down to the three wrong uns. Personally I’d have added six years to each taking it up to 22 years for Henry Long and 19 years for the other two. Serving two thirds of their sentences will see them out before they’re thirty, an age PC Andrew Harper never got to reach because of their criminality.
Offenders can be considered for parole after serving half to 2/3 of their custodial sentence but that does still rely on them being granted license. We can but hope that the gravity of the crime and the occupation of the victim will continue to inform the decision makers. Nature of these low lives will see them racking up the offenses while inside and recidivism will see them back in front of a beak within hours of their eventual release. What are the chances that any ex-coppers serving as warders will have issues with these scum and their violent behaviour throughout their sojourn at HM's pleasure?
The system’s changed, they have to do two thirds and because they received determinate sentences that’s when they’ll be released unless they misbehave inside and get extra days added. Upon release they will serve the remainder of their sentences on licence for the final third and can be recalled to prison if they breach their conditions whatever they may be. The probation service is understaffed and in a bit of a mess at the moment but because of the victims job I’m certain they’ll be monitored extremely closely and as you say because of the kind of people they are I find it hard to believe that at least one if not all three will be recalled at some point.
I personally don’t know any ex-police officers who have joined the job, it’s usually the other way round and officers, especially the younger ones, leave to join the police. As for any chance of them getting a bit of natural justice at the hands of officers then I can’t see it. It just doesn’t really happen these days. The other cons of course won’t look down on them because of their offence, some indeed may give them a pat on the back.
Yeah right, you'll be telling us they've removed the soap from the shower rooms next
Annoyed isn't the word: Driver kills other motorist through admitted neglect and gets a 2 year driving ban plus 2 year suspended sentence. Has spent no time in custody and will spend no time in custody. The culprit's admission to the court that she was distracted by her mobile phone, "saw brake lights ahead but thought the traffic was still moving" will have been the most favourable wording possible without actually telling a lie. She claimed "I couldn't have been doing more than 70" - accident investigators estimate her speed at impact between 35 and 45 mph so she clearly had no mind on what she was doing at all. Utter disgrace Judge has cast the value of the slain motorcyclist at zero. Of course there is no suggestion the killer intended to harm anybody but to get off scot free essentially absolves her of responsibility for her actions. Accidentally killing someone is still manslaughter. Getting behind the wheel of a motorcar puts the driver in charge of a ton of metal and unequivocally responsible for everything that happens from that point forward. Ploughing into the back of stationery traffic on a dual carriageway because you admit to not paying sufficient attention to notice the traffic has stopped is exactly the same as jumping a red light on a pedestrian crossing. This reckless moron is a danger to society and her punishment should reflect that. If she'd carelessly kicked a brick off some scaffolding and killed a passer by she'd be done for manslaughter and serve a minimum 5 years - the death was accidental but the cause was wanton negligence rooted in reckless self-absorbed irresponsibility - do that at the wheel of a car and judges lose all grip on reason and responsibility. This particular blight on the judiciary and stain on humanity has to be defrocked immediately - he simply has no actual regard for human life at all. Were the fatality someone he knew, let alone a member of his family would he think differently - or at all? He's robbing our taxes to let negligent killers off scot free.
You can find the names of the culprit and the moron in the wig in today's tabloid press.
I’ve had two non fault accidents on my motorcycle in the last two years, one was a van doing a u turn and the other a driver pulled onto the other side of the road hitting me into oncoming traffic, Both drivers did not look and both drivers did not indicate. There were plenty of witnesses including an off duty copper. I was battered in both incidents both bikes written off and both third party drivers admitted full and total liability. And I had substantial time off to recover and the second accident caused me to lose my job. In both cases I received a letter saying that it was not in the public’s interest to prosecute the other drivers even though I was six inches away from being brown bread in on of the incident. Remember the above when you get a £60 fine for doing 34 mph in a 30 zone.
Watch the news for 5 minutes before you go for your morning run, then it might actually occur to you to give people a wide berth when you're running past them, rather than panting your sweaty breath all over the back of my neck as you jog past me, even though you've got about 4 metres of width that you could have made use of.
Watch the news for 5 minutes before you go for your morning run, then it might actually occur to you to give people a wide berth when you're running past them, rather than panting your sweaty breath all over the back of my neck as you jog past me, even though you've got about 4 metres of width that you could have made use of.
Our daughter dropping the presents to the back of our car parked on our driveway and we’re having a conversation with her and my Granddaughter via the windows of our lounge when a passerby acknowledged this by saying that it’s sad that this situation has arisen and families are having to meet like this grabbing a 5 minute chat in the garden and fuck me if he doesn’t try and join in the conversation. How about fuck off and let us have that 5 minute chat in peace. 😡
Comments
The wanton killer at the wheel is most at fault obviously. The judge in this case has debased his profession in practically absolving the culprit of the life taking. But I also have a major problem with why manslaughter charges are never brought when the negligent killer is at the wheel of a motorised vehicle. There is an easily comprehensible crime on the statute books describing the unwitting/accidental taking of human life. There's no charge of 'being reckless on a building site causing death' * - it's always manslaughter.
The homicide is the offense, surely? Quite what one was doing when one was careless enough to cause the death is very much secondary isn't it? Plod and CPS seem paralysed by this mickey mouse charge of "...by dangerous driving" A person is dead - charge the culprit with that - not some technical breach of the Highway Code FFS!!
*Half a lifetime ago I sat in on a court case around the death of a worker during the 2nd Dartford Tunnel construction. Lots of the workforce were French or French speaking, including the deceased, and a mate of mine was working as an interpreter. It was ages after the event cos obvs the HSE had stuck its nose in and held things up while it vainly sought to justify its existence and rack up plenty of expenses. The poor chap expired under some piece of heavy plant that overbalanced on sodden ground. A company was charged with corporate manslaughter. Nobody did anything deliberately, it was obvious to all it was a most unfortunate sequence of events but a bloke was killed as the demonstrable result of someone not doing what they should - ergo he was killed and somebody's responsible and the charge is manslaughter. Most galling of all, I was chatting with my interpreter mate and a French brief he'd got to know over the many months of the process. M. solicitor francais couldn't understand all the rigmarole over one life lost, and I quote "Il n'était qu'un Belge"
hopefully the attorney general will appeal the leniency of the sentence as they did (unsuccessfully unfortunately) for PC Andrew Harper
Nature of these low lives will see them racking up the offenses while inside and recidivism will see them back in front of a beak within hours of their eventual release.
What are the chances that any ex-coppers serving as warders will have issues with these scum and their violent behaviour throughout their sojourn at HM's pleasure?
A day later, going to a drive-thru KFC and having to repeat the order on the speaky thing about three times due to the person on the other end having such a poor comprehension of my Danny Dyer dialect.
The system’s changed, they have to do two thirds and because they received determinate sentences that’s when they’ll be released unless they misbehave inside and get extra days added. Upon release they will serve the remainder of their sentences on licence for the final third and can be recalled to prison if they breach their conditions whatever they may be. The probation service is understaffed and in a bit of a mess at the moment but because of the victims job I’m certain they’ll be monitored extremely closely and as you say because of the kind of people they are I find it hard to believe that at least one if not all three will be recalled at some point.
I personally don’t know any ex-police officers who have joined the job, it’s usually the other way round and officers, especially the younger ones, leave to join the police. As for any chance of them getting a bit of natural justice at the hands of officers then I can’t see it. It just doesn’t really happen these days. The other cons of course won’t look down on them because of their offence, some indeed may give them a pat on the back.
Poor Mat.
I was battered in both incidents both bikes written off and both third party drivers admitted full and total liability. And I had substantial time off to recover and the second accident caused me to lose my job.
In both cases I received a letter saying that it was not in the public’s interest to prosecute the other drivers even though I was six inches away from being brown bread in on of the incident.
Remember the above when you get a £60 fine for doing 34 mph in a 30 zone.
Watch the news for 5 minutes before you go for your morning run, then it might actually occur to you to give people a wide berth when you're running past them, rather than panting your sweaty breath all over the back of my neck as you jog past me, even though you've got about 4 metres of width that you could have made use of.
Tossers.