Tougher Sentencing At Last

[Rich B]

Originally Posted by chipper

Yep..we just need all the other offenses brought into line

yep.. better off deliberately kniving some old lady on pension day now rather than get caught reading a text while driving.

[legrat]

the biggest load of bull s**t i ever heard was on the news to day ,crime is down and so is serios assault ,only because the majority of people opto stay in doors now its cheaper for a beer and do not have to go outside for a smoke

[Rich B]

lol was only yesterday they were finally admiting there actually is as we already know more crime!

all about how the stats are presented, and recatagorising things so they dont appear in unfavourable areas. same as unemployment figures..basically all a load of blx fed to us when theres an election on the cards etc

[legrat]

Originally Posted by Rich B

lol was only yesterday they were finally admiting there actually is as we already know more crime!

all about the stat presentation...

i know our favourite mr b stood there saying how they are solving it and are winning b**l s**t

[chipper]

Originally Posted by legrat

the biggest load of bull s**t i ever heard was on the news to day ,crime is down and so is serios assault ,only because the majority of people opto stay in doors now its cheaper for a beer and do not have to go outside for a smoke

They probably record it differently to fiddle the figures.

[legrat]

as you can guess by my previos posts three things get me mad crime and police in this country,goverment number ONE i hope you do not call a general election till you have to mr b as all the people i talk to [big labour area] say they NO votes for you, if our local mp was to defect to lib dems he would be voted straight back in again for 20 years he has been good for area and would not like to see him lose seat because of you know who

[dewie]

Originally Posted by Richf

Plus i would also challenge this statement, i would love to see a source as i cant believe that the majority of people killed on the road are killed by that sector of the motoring public

Most of them are drunk, stoned, uninsured, banned or dangerous drivers - pr a combination of those factors

Very few people who kill others whilst driving don't end up being prosecuted. A few are drunk, quite a few are banned and/or uninsured, but most were driving badly (ie careless or dangerous driving charges follow).

I can get the police traffic accident report stats as all fatalities are reported even if no "crime" is said to have been committed, but only about 20 percent don't result in prosecution based on the last figures I saw which was (I think) 03-04 and 04-05.

There are some where there is no driver error but often it is mechanical failure of the vehicle which results in a Dangerous Driving charge if the vehicle was not roadworthy and the rest are cases where it was the fault of a pedestrian.

[Richf]

Originally Posted by dewie

Very few people who kill others whilst driving don't end up being prosecuted. A few are drunk, quite a few are banned and/or uninsured, but most were driving badly (ie careless or dangerous driving charges follow).

I can get the police traffic accident report stats as all fatalities are reported even if no "crime" is said to have been committed, but only about 20 percent don't result in prosecution based on the last figures I saw which was (I think) 03-04 and 04-05.

There are some where there is no driver error but often it is mechanical failure of the vehicle which results in a Dangerous Driving charge if the vehicle was not roadworthy and the rest are cases where it was the fault of a pedestrian.

Yeah but in the majority of cases the person who dies is the person who is driving badly , not nessessarily dangerously no doubt in home office statistic it will appear that they were of course.

My problem is dangerous driving is applied too much nowadays , no-one can simply make a mistake for example , drive at 40mph in a 30 limit and you are speeding , drive at 40mph in a 30 limit and hit a drunken pedestrian who stumbles into the road and its causing death by reckless driving

[chipper]

Originally Posted by Richf

Yeah but in the majority of cases the person who dies is the person who is driving badly , not nessessarily dangerously no doubt in home office statistic it will appear that they were of course.

My problem is dangerous driving is applied too much nowadays , no-one can simply make a mistake for example , drive at 40mph in a 30 limit and you are speeding , drive at 40mph in a 30 limit and hit a drunken pedestrian who stumbles into the road and its causing death by reckless driving

Good arguement Rich

[dewie]

Originally Posted by Richf

Yeah but in the majority of cases the person who dies is the person who is driving badly , not nessessarily dangerously no doubt in home office statistic it will appear that they were of course.

My problem is dangerous driving is applied too much nowadays , no-one can simply make a mistake for example , drive at 40mph in a 30 limit and you are speeding , drive at 40mph in a 30 limit and hit a drunken pedestrian who stumbles into the road and its causing death by reckless driving

I totally agree and there is too much hysteria surrounding drivers who kill people because it does seem to always be assumed they were at fault -particularly if it was a kid.

I had a good old rant about this a while back (on here I think) with yet another of those "DRIVER WHO KILLED 8 YEAR OLD BOY GOES TO PRISON FOR 4 WEEKS!!!" and the article says how disgusting it is.......yet it doesn't explain that

He was sober, insured, not speeding and not driving carelessly and it was entirely the kids fault for running out in front of him and the guys is racked with guilt and has had sleepless nights ever since.

His "crime"? Panicking and driving off. Don't get me wrong - we need to deter people from "hit and run" scenarios but the hysteria surrounding such incidents means people assume they'll get locked up if they knock someone over (even when they are patently not at fault) and it results in people freaking out and driving off.

The few people I have dealt with in such scenarios were decent, honest, hardowrking people who had lived decent lives and were so totally panic-stricken having hit a kid who ran out from nowhere that they drove off and then ended up handing themselves in a day or two later and were grief stricken and absolutely riddled with guilt and sorrow.

I think sending people like that to prison does no-one any good.

[MR Y]

depends if the 8 year old boy would have lived had he stopped. Someone knocked me or one of my family over and drove off, I'd wish alot worse than prison on them

[dewie]

Originally Posted by MR Y

depends if the 8 year old boy would have lived had he stopped. Someone knocked me or one of my family over and drove off, I'd wish alot worse than prison on them

The last case I dealt with the lad was killed instantly and someone who saw it called an ambulance immediately anyway - but I totally agree - if that leads to their death then tough sentences are appropriate.

[Richf]

Originally Posted by MR Y

depends if the 8 year old boy would have lived had he stopped. Someone knocked me or one of my family over and drove off, I'd wish alot worse than prison on them

I understand how i would feel if it were my son as well but I also understand the impulse to flee even if you have done nothing wrong.

[Edan]

they really need a better way of deciding if it was intentional or not because if i hit someone (or even something) i know i'd damn well s**t myself and there's a high possibility that i'd end up driving off too. for the same reason - i'd know the second the police turned up i'd be cuffed and dragged down to the station while i watched the b*****ds drag my car off to be crushed, because it could never be a drunken c**t or some brat that thinks he's gonna look all tough in front of his mates by running in front of a car and making it stop (something which HAS happened to me before now!) that is at fault...oh no, it's always the driver!

[dewie]

A colleague of mine dealt with the lorry driver in Leicestershire arrested the other week following a fatasl collision with a car in which all the occupants of the car were killed.

Police arrive at the scene - he is clearly in shock - the wreckage and the mess of the vehicle and occupants (from the photos the police showed) was quite horrific.

The lorry was on the correct side of the road - the car was not.

That was all the evidence they had at the time. No eyewitnesses - nothing.

Did the police

(a) Take the driver to hospital to have his minor injuries looked at and get him checked for concussion and have someone help him deal with the shock/trauma

(b) Send him home but as he was the only witness ask him to return to the station in a couple of days as it would really help them if he could make a statement

(c) Immediately arrest him, handcuff him despite no resistance and no history of violence, take him to the station and tell him he was being arrested on suspicion of causing the deaths of 5 people and put him in a cell for 8 hours before he got to speak to anyone and then put him back in the cell for another 5 hours until he got to see a lawyer and get interviewed - and then be released without charge as they were satisified he was absolutely blameless.

???