Makes me mad!!!

how you can get away with killing people in a car! time after time, people get away with poxy fines and short bans for killing people.

Some bloke in the paper today was fined £200 and banned for two years fro wiping out a cyclist. The driver had never passed his test, was overtaking cars at 60mph in a 30mph zone. Kid on bike was all in black, which is very sensible, but still.

Anyway, what makes anyone think that this idiot will take heed of the ban? He hasn't got a licence anyway has he?
AND in this case they said "please don't give him too big a fine cos he already owes 1400 quid in fines." And the other fines were for? MOTORING OFFENSES!!!!! How many more people will this guy be allowed to wipe off the face of the earth before they lock him up?

hmm not ranted as much as I thought I would here! But it seems like murdering people in cars is the best way to do it. Forget knives, guns, strangling, jsut mow them down with a motor and you can get away with it.


  • agreed

    shoot the git.
  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
  • Animal. make him live with Jon in Tooting for a month....bad punishment!
  • There seems to be quite a few cases like this.
  • Tulips - exactly. it's not a rare occurrence is it? it's shite
  • cns - I agree with ya. They treat theft far more severely than they do killing people with cars. I don't ride my bike at night any more - just too dangerous !
  • I'm afraid the system has to take some of the blame, it should not be possible for such a sentance to be handed down.

    2 seperate issues here

    1... the driver.
    2. The sentance.
  • Bring back the stocks
    The whip
    The Birch
    And a the chaingang
  • we don't want to know what you get up to in you're spare time Will.

    They have increased the maximum sentence for killing someone with a car.
  • The people of a free society get the judiciary that they deserve, the judiciary can only act within the constraints of the acts passed by parliament, and parliament is a body elected by you to act for you. If you don't like it, tell your MP not the forum. Your MP should act for you and as your representative in parliament should represent the views of the people in his constituency. If all he hears all day is people moaning that their benefit payments are late he will focus his attentions on addressing the benefits system. If all he hears all day are people saying "hang the bastard" he should, as your representative reflect your views in parliament.

    Tell your MP.

    Cut his hands off, then watch him try to drive.
  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
    Unfortunatey they still have to impose it Tulips. They can extend the maximum to life, but if the judge decides that a fine and a ban are enough, it is irrelevant.
  • My sentiments seem to have been expressed in printable I won't tell you, well maybe just a little


    Power to tha cyclists...

  • agree with DB!!!!

    including the last bit.
  • i don't think i'd better be drawn on elected/accountable/populist/vote-seeking/lynch mob politicians vs experienced/intelligent/circumscribed judges.i'm not a neutral.but i know that judges do 'live in the real world'.blunkett is blind.does he?

    was it a judge or a magistrate?

    key question.given that there seems to have been a whiff that public opinion is we should send loads more convicted criminals(nb they don't catch many and don't convict many of the ones they catch-thanks police and prosecutors for that)to prison,and politicians seem to have believed that since Maggie,why haven't the home office built about 50 new prisons,so that at least being deprived of liberty for a serious length of time is the punishment rather than being overcrowded into a subhuman environment-slopping out,university of crime and almost complete certainty of drug abuse-and forgotten about.i'm no apologist for criminals but it seems odd to be having to let a load of them out because the prisons are full and we want to stuff some more and demand?perhaps its just that no mp wants a great big shiny new prison in their constituency....
  • and,mr headmaster,talk me through the 'sentance' !!! :-)
    sp. see me later.
  • Laws, in general, aim to hurt the law-abiding. Those who live perpetually outside the law (no licence, insurance etc) are not hurt by the law. They are less easy to trace and catch and also unlikely to heed disqualifications and/or fines.

    Eloquence over. Shoot the b@st@rds
  • Alex, why do you think a blind person cannot live in the 'real world'?
  • I read the story in the paper and also the one about the 79 yr old director of Sotheby's who had colluded with another auction house to what amounted to a fraud. He gets a prison sentence!!

    The old feller is not going to kill me or my family by his behaviour. The worst is he'll rip me off a few quid. I don't need prison protection from him , but we do off the speeding scum.

    Same argument with Jeffrey Archer really. He's a lying philandering pompous Tory twat, but I don't feel threatened by him. I can think of a dozen people in this village I'd rather see banged up than him.
  • Well said Bod.

    Shouldn't non-payment of fines, non-observance of bans etc qualify as contempt of court, which should result in indefinite imprisonment?

    It irritates me greatly that the emphasis is put on persecuting basically law-abiding motorists, while leaving reckless morons to wreak carnage (and grossly distort the road death statistics, which are then used to persecute basically law-abiding motorists etc)

    Break the cycle, crack down hard on the loony 1%, make the roads safer for everyone!

    <deep slow breaths> thank you for listening

  • Isn't contempt of court what Archer was finally locked away for?
  • Agree with barnsleyrunner re Jeffrey Archer too...

    The court case and attendant publicity made sure that everyone was aware that he is untrustworthy and that is all that is necessary. He is no threat to anyone's safety...yet morons can be allowed on the roads to kill again, If people don't respect a driving ban, they should be imprisoned for the length of that ban to make sure it is enforced.
  • Think it was, br! (posts crossed there)
  • i would love to find out more about this particular case. Is killing a cyclist while speeding with no licence, insurance, etc, not deemed as "Death by Dangerous Driving"???
  • Apparently the CPS would only prosecute on the charge of `careless driving' because the cyclist was wearing dark colours and `causing death' might not have stuck.

    Still the scum has a new 2 year driving ban. That'll sort it then.

    To hark back to another thread on driving, that youth has got a £200 fine he probably won't pay up against my £30 fine for not wearing a seatbelt on a quiet Norfolk country lane.

    So someone's life is worth 7 times more than someone forgetting to wear a seatbelt?

    I consider myself very liberal but this sort of stuff makes my blood boil and feel like vigilanteism can be justified. In principle I know this is wrong, but in practice what else can be done to stop it?
  • just read the article

    A speeding motorist who killed a 15-year-old cyclist on a village street after never having passed a driving test has escaped with a £200 fine.

    The victim's family condemned the sentence as "appallingly lenient", while a police officer who investigated the case called for the creation of a new offence so courts would have greater powers when sentencing such offenders.

    Anthony Wakelin died instantly after James Boffey, 18, overtook a line of cars at speeds of up to 60mph and struck Anthony's bicycle as he crossed the road in the village of Wool, Dorset.

    Wareham magistrates heard that Anthony had said goodbye to his mother Sarah and was cycling to a recreation ground to meet up with friends. However, because Anthony was wearing dark clothing and had no lights, Boffey was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving. On Monday he admitted the lesser offences of careless driving and having no licence or insurance, for which a fine is the maximum penalty.

    Anthony's sister Natalie, 18, a university drama student, said Boffey had "stolen" her brother's life and he should have been jailed.

    She said: "The sentencing of James Boffey has left me feeling numb and has twisted the knife in me more."

    Pc Andrew Steele, of Dorset police, who has comforted Anthony's family, said: "I would like to see the Home Office bring in a charge that covers death by careless driving without the drink or drugs factor so the court could have more teeth when it comes to sentencing."

    He added: "A file was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and they made a decision that a charge of careless driving should be brought. Death by dangerous driving can be quite hard to prove."

    Boffey was also banned from driving for two years.

  • stupid f**ked up system!
  • o, and if u accidently kill someone other than on the roads, ur lookin at doing time for manslaughter at least, y not for this c**t??
  • just felt I had to add to this thread. On 17th Dec 2001 at 6pm my hubby was stationery waiting to turn right on his m/c. He was wearing a sam brown as well as bike jacket etc. He was hit from behind by a car being driven in excess of 60mph (the driver was 21/2 times over the limit. Age 25, this was his 3rd offence. He was banned from driving for 4 years (like he kept to that!) and fined £200.

    Hubby had his leg in plaster for 9 weeks, off work for 3 months, paid £400 for his American import bike (it was nearly a vintage but not worth much according to insurance), had op on his cartilage (caused by the accident.

    This managed to ruin our daughters' Xmas (not to mention mine - we had 5 horses at the time). We think he should have served time.
  • Spot on bitch, do we think he's contemplating the 3+ years of his driving ban still to serve with remorse?? How do you stop yourself exacting revenge in other ways?
  • £200 and a ban = 1 boys life

    Is that what it's come to?
Sign In or Register to comment.