Wildcat Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I have no problem with condign sentences being meted out to cases of serious negligence, leading to industrial accidents. However, this is a totally different issue and has no bearing upon a case involving serious, and potentially lethal, violent disorder. Why does it not have a bearing? If you want to make any statement about the sentencing you need to make comparisons not look at cases in isolation. It only makes sense to defend the sentencing in this case if you think custodial sentences are appropriate for actions that not only potentially lead to deaths, but those that do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/213612-drunk-driver-jailed-over-horror-car-crash/ http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Drunk-driver-jailed/article-1073308-detail/article.html http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-drunk-driver-jailed.6027805.jp http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/drunk-driver-jailed-over-charity-biker-death/4500.html http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Drunk+driver+jailed+child+death/3823744/story.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12023922 These all got shorter sentences than this lad. In my view they should all have got longer sentences. In the case of violent disorder in riot situations, judges do seem to impose sentences which are meant to send out salutary lessons about the consequences of violent rioting. In other words, they appear to add a premium because of the circumstances in which the crime took place. I have no problem with this approach. The problem I do have, in relation to current sentencing policy, is Kenneth Clarke, who appears to want to empty our prisons. This is likely to impact on sentencing policy at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 The student damaged a fire extinguisher. The driver killed someone when he drove drunk. The student got the higher sentence. Yep, that strikes me as utterly wrong and completely insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The student damaged a fire extinguisher. The driver killed someone when he drove drunk. The student got the higher sentence. Yep, that strikes me as utterly wrong and completely insane. What is utterly wrong and insane is your opening sentence, i.e. 'the student damaged a fire extinguisher'. Do you really think he was sentenced for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 As another forummer pointed out, imagine had this been an EDL person, imagine the sheer amount of condemnation we would have seen. Yet because it was a lefty student, the forum leftists try to trivialise what was a very serious incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I have no problem with condign sentences being meted out to cases of serious negligence, leading to industrial accidents. However, this is a totally different issue and has no bearing upon a case involving serious, and potentially lethal, violent disorder. the bearing is that the system is flawed. white collar criminals that embezzle billions get away with simply declaring a company bankrupt after destroying lives yet someone gets time coz they could have hurt someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What is utterly wrong and insane is your opening sentence, i.e. 'the student damaged a fire extinguisher'. Do you really think he was sentenced for this? Yes he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 What is utterly wrong and insane is your opening sentence, i.e. 'the student damaged a fire extinguisher'. Do you really think he was sentenced for this? No, I've already said I think the sentence is politically motivated. I think the chances of the lad re-offending are slight and I can't see the point of the expense of imprisoning him. No, he wasn't sent to prison for damaging a fire extinguisher, it seems clear he was sentenced because of the potential consequences of his actions, whilst the driver who killed whilst drunk was sentenced to less time in prison for the real, fatal consequencs of his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 But he aimed for a gap. That has to be to most desperate defence of the undefendable possible. Most of us can't get the tea-bag into a cup from two feet away. Besides, there are people moving in the gap and in the time it takes for the extinguisher to fall it could have been full. What did he expect the extinguisher to do after impact, come to an immediate standstill at the point he was aiming for? Barnes Wallace was only aiming for the water I suppose. This is no different to throwing a slab off a bridge onto a motorway or railway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 The Buller, as it is known to members, was founded in the 19th century as a hunting and cricket club, but is now devoted to drink and dining. Membership is by invitation only and normally limited to alumni of leading public schools. New recruits are secretly elected before being informed of their good fortune by having their college bedroom invaded by way of a window and methodically "trashed". The club's notorious dinners typically involve members booking a private dining room (under an assumed name) and drinking themselves silly before destroying it elaborately. They wear royal blue tailcoats with ivory lapels, and - having made merry - pride themselves in politely paying the restaurant's owners compensation in high-denomination banknotes. One former Bullingdon member, the journalist Harry Mount, has recalled "being rolled down a hill by a Hungarian count". Boris Johnson once admitted to "dark deeds involving plastic cones and letterboxes". Yet the "high jinks" that took place on the night the photo was taken (at Canterbury Quad, Christchurch) are up there with the best of them. At some point after the dinner, the group walked through Oxford when one (thought to be Fergusson, though exact recollections differ) threw a plant pot through the window of a restaurant. The burglar alarm was activated and police descended with sniffer dogs. Six of the group were collared and spent the night at Cowley police station before being released without charge. "David Cameron was one of the four people who escaped," a witness says. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/camerons-cronies-the-bullingdon-clubs-class-of-87-436192.html The flower pot could easily have brained anyone sat in the restaurant. Still, at least Cameron's cronies received a stiff penalty from the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.