Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You're right we do not know this, but this is the issue that the court judged him upon based on the information provided by the defence and prosecution. as is always the case. and while we have to abide by what the courts say we all know that they get things wrong some time. he's not gonna get raped(it's very rare in the UK prison system) and he will only do half at the most, but the message sent by this sentence, i think, is the wrong one to the people it was aimed at. all they've done is to get students and other protesters to sit up and say 'victimization'. they always speak of the impetuousness of youth and that 'moments of madness' should not have to haunt someone forever. this kid sounds to me like jail is gonna mess him up some. i don't know what he was studying but let's hope whatever it is he wants to do won't judge him by his criminal record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 3000 deaths a year and ten children killed or seriously injured on the roads every day isn't really a negligible carnage rate. You have to factor in the number of journeys taken to decide whether it is negligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 You have to factor in the number of journeys taken to decide whether it is negligible. No, you don't. No loss of life is acceptable and simply WOULD NOT HAPPEN if drivers did not routinely take exactly the same absurd, reckless and homicidal risks as this long-haired idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No, it isn't. Face to face conversation relies on many non-verbal clues that don't exist with remote conversations with someone not present. When talking on a phone rather than with someone in the car you have to concentrate much harder because you lack these non verbal clues. That's why drivers on mobiles are more dangerous than drunk drivers. So you look for those non verbal clues while driving? When looking out of the frontwindow (where you should be looking when driving) it is difficult to see any of the non verbal clues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html Drivers who talk on either handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers, according to experimental research conducted by Drs. Frank Drews, David Strayer, and Dennis L. Crouch of the University of Utah. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/20060830105036.html Dated 2006, 2002, and 2006 (same research source), so there should be at least 8 years of statistics to prove the research correct. Have mobile phone drivers killed or injured more people that drunk drivers consecutively for the last 8 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The law very rarely works to "make an example" of people. Sentences are set down by precedent and while judges do have some scope to make their own decisions they are bound by decisions in higher courts it does, hence the term 'deterrent'. in this case i think they concentrated too much on that aspect and not on, not that it means much, 'justice'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Maybe some of the student leaders who were condoning the violence would like to comment on the fact that the only result of it is the criminalising of some young people and the change to fees going ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No, you don't. No loss of life is acceptable and simply WOULD NOT HAPPEN if drivers did not routinely take exactly the same absurd, reckless and homicidal risks as this long-haired idiot. I'd agree with you if those drivers drove their vehicles purposefully into crowds of people at speed. But there is a difference. Can you not see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No, you don't. No loss of life is acceptable and simply WOULD NOT HAPPEN if drivers did not routinely take exactly the same absurd, reckless and homicidal risks as this long-haired idiot. No need for the "long haired idiot remark" really and deaths on the road are not just down to reckless and homicidal risks of people. there are thousands of causes of accidents that are sometimes beyond human control (brake failure, ice etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No, you don't. No loss of life is acceptable and simply WOULD NOT HAPPEN if drivers did not routinely take exactly the same absurd, reckless and homicidal risks as this long-haired idiot. yes you do, a negligible number is a number very near to 0. It doesn't take into account the emotional factors. Drivers do not routinely take absurd, reckless and homicidal risks. I think you will find that most people drive responsibly and try at all times to avoid injuring themselves and others. Driving is used to get from A to B. Throwing an extinguisher at a crowd has no effect other than injury or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.