spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 There's a surprise - Spindrift bringing in the subject of cars v pushbikes I didn't mention pushbikes. A number of people have criticised this sentence for the same reasons. The warning:"once you recklessly endanger the lives of innocent people you are in big trouble" does not apply in other circumstances, like industrial accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I didn't mention pushbikes. A number of people have criticised this sentence for the same reasons. The warning:"once you recklessly endanger the lives of innocent people you are in big trouble" does not apply in other circumstances, like industrial accidents. he wasn't reckless, with your car analogy he aimed the car at the crowd and was very lucky he didn't kill anyone! An even closer analogy He aimed the car at a gap in the crowd (according to him) whilst he was maybe 8 seconds away. He closed his eyes and floored the car and was lucky not to have killed anyone partially because someone saw the car and warned everyone around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I didn't mention pushbikes. A number of people have criticised this sentence for the same reasons. The warning:"once you recklessly endanger the lives of innocent people you are in big trouble" does not apply in other circumstances, like industrial accidents. Yes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 he wasn't reckless, with your car analogy he aimed the car at the crowd and was very lucky he didn't kill anyone!Exactly. The idiot who has now been rightly jailed deliberately threw a lethal heavy object from a great height into a crowded area, either willfully knowing it could have caused grievous injury, or attempoting to cause grievous injury or deathy. A car driver who (through some unintended course of events) ends up in an unfortnate accident, just does not compare. I think the judiciary can work that much out, shame it's lost on some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yes it does. Simon Jones went to work for the first time on Friday April 24 last year. By the end of the day, he was dead. Simon, 24, who was taking a year out from his studies at Sussex University, was sent by an emplyment agency to work inside a ship at Shoreham dock - one of the most dangerous jobs in the country - with no training or experience. Within two hours, his head had been crushed by a crane. Although this was clearly an industrial accident, which should have been prevented, no person or company is being held responsible for his death. Despite a lengthy police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled that there is "insufficient evidence" to warrant a charge of corporate manslaughter. http://www.simonjones.org.uk/articles/bigissuefeb99.htm Simon's mother, Anne, adds: "Students nowadays have to pay fees as well as having no grant so they're forced onto the casual labour market. Most of them don't know what to watch out for when they go into a quarry or a building site and they don't get training if they're casuals. "When the CPS told us they weren't going to prosecute we couldn't believe it - with the amount of evidence available, it was incomprehensible. Tim (simon's brother) asked the CPS: 'If Simon wasn't killed by negligence, what did kill him?' There just seems to be a lack of political will when it comes to presecuting employers for corporate manslaughter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 It seems some people are missing an important point and that is the subtle difference between careless and reckless. Carelessness is brought about by an omission(ie failing to act) whereas a reckless act requires an element of intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Exactly. The idiot who has now been rightly jailed deliberately threw a lethal heavy object from a great height into a crowded area, either willfully knowing it could have caused grievous injury, or attempoting to cause grievous injury or deathy. A car driver who (through some unintended course of events) ends up in an unfortnate accident, just does not compare. I think the judiciary can work that much out, shame it's lost on some. How do you unintentionally get drunk and drive a car? An accident is unforeseeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Simon Jones went to work for the first time on Friday April 24 last year. By the end of the day, he was dead. Simon, 24, who was taking a year out from his studies at Sussex University, was sent by an emplyment agency to work inside a ship at Shoreham dock - one of the most dangerous jobs in the country - with no training or experience. Within two hours, his head had been crushed by a crane. Although this was clearly an industrial accident, which should have been prevented, no person or company is being held responsible for his death. Despite a lengthy police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled that there is "insufficient evidence" to warrant a charge of corporate manslaughter. http://www.simonjones.org.uk/articles/bigissuefeb99.htm Simon's mother, Anne, adds: "Students nowadays have to pay fees as well as having no grant so they're forced onto the casual labour market. Most of them don't know what to watch out for when they go into a quarry or a building site and they don't get training if they're casuals. "When the CPS told us they weren't going to prosecute we couldn't believe it - with the amount of evidence available, it was incomprehensible. Tim (simon's brother) asked the CPS: 'If Simon wasn't killed by negligence, what did kill him?' There just seems to be a lack of political will when it comes to presecuting employers for corporate manslaughter." irrelevant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Nope I was saying the gap is irrelevant as clearly it was not big enough for no-one to move into it during the time it took for the extinguisher to fall. Also no-one has aim that good! One of the weakest defences I have ever heard! It could easily have hit a member of the crowd if they had moved (you're right of course-they wouldn't move in a riot-stupid of me!) and even if it had hit a helmeted police officer it could still have killed/maimed them. Add to that the fact that some of the crowd had riot gear on is no excuse for throwing heavy objects at them! How can you say that nobody has an aim that good, your talking our of your <REMOVED>, I have given you video footage and the event itself proves that people do have an aim that good. When working at the Loughborough Uni on the tower block we were throwing construction waste off the top and hitting the skips at the bottom, it's not that hard to aim and hit something. The crowd could have moved forward indeed but they would have stood more chance being clobbered by the riot police than being hit by the extinguisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 An accident is unforeseeable.Thank you! Yes, it is - and that's why we don't blame and jail people for having an accident, but we do prosecute people for doing things deliberately reckless with fire extinguishers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.