llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 In the examples I gave, they received no penalty whatsoever. so presumably they were either found not guilty at a trial, or they were let off with a light sentence due to mitigating circumstances, or they got away with it. What has any of that got to do with this? If this puts the next student off hurling dangerous objects during a "peaceful protest" then its worth it is it not? The public need protection from the people that do this kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 drunk driving has nothing to do with the original story either if you want to take that attitude. Yes it does. This mysterious case of a hurt child and cannabis you keep banging on about clearly doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 so presumably they were either found not guilty at a trial, or they were let off with a light sentence due to mitigating circumstances, or they got away with it. Nope. There was no trial, it says so in the posted links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yes it does. This mysterious case of a hurt child and cannabis you keep banging on about clearly doesn't. no it doesn't - the original story that was posted as a link doesn't discuss drunk drivers or the cases you posted in this thread. The story i posted has direct relevance to the posts made in this comparing inequality of sentencing and behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Nope. There was no trial, it says so in the posted links. and?.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 no it doesn't - the original story that was posted as a link doesn't discuss drunk drivers or the cases you posted in this thread. . Wrong again: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=703159 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 and?.......... and so SOME acts are treated very differently to others. Some acts bring the full forces of law and order down upon the criminal. Others with far worse outcomes don't even make it to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 willman, what on earth are you talking about? Drug testing is common for drivers after a RTC, you haven't posted a link to any story so I have no idea what you are talking about when you keep banging on about a child's death and cannabis which has nothing to do with the subject! With respect , you are the one who brought drivers into this debate , a debate which has NOTHING to do with motorists/ drivers . This is a debate about the idiot who endangered lives by deliberately throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof into a crowd of people below, and the merits of his sentence. How you can make any link what so ever between these issues is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 With respect , you are the one who brought drivers into this deb. Nope, the link was made in the OP, the link's to the Evening Standard website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Nope, the link was made in the OP, the link's to the Evening Standard website. But you quoted it in your OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.