|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: Dec 11, 2007 01:23
Obviously, if you don't mind killing kids then why not use a car.
"A driver who spent only six weeks in jail for mowing down a three-
year-old girl in a stolen car breached his five-year ban four times
after he was freed, a court heard.
Mohammed Aqueel Hussain struck Levi Bleasdale as she crossed the road
with her mother in September 2005.
Instead of stopping Hussain, who has never passed his driving test,
sped off and left the little girl to die.
He was jailed for 12 weeks, serving half of the sentence, with critics
saying he should have been punished more severely.
When it emerged yesterday that the 27-year-old had breached his five-
year driving ban four times - including twice on one day - they said
they had been proved right..."
More:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=501075&in_page_id...
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a killing machine than a convenience".
|
| |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Date: Dec 11, 2007 01:30
"Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
news:43ee38c2-e88c-46bf-b45b-af06f2c4fd43@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
More cut 'n' paste crap whilst failing to deal with previous questions.
Still no report on Vince moving home though.
Sorry Brimy I took your bit there.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: FodFod Date: Dec 11, 2007 03:02
On Dec 11, 10:49 am, Doug riseup.net> wrote:> On 11 Dec, 09:30, "Depresion" < 127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message>
>>news:43ee38c2-e88c-46bf-b45b-af06f2c4fd43@ s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> More cut 'n' paste crap whilst failing to deal with previous questions. >
>> Still no report on Vince moving home though.
>
>> Sorry Brimy I took your bit there.
>
> Your silly avoidance of an uncomfortable truth duly noted, i.e.
> punishment for motorist killers is very much lighter than for other
> sorts of killers.
Failure to admit that the reasons for this have been explained over
and over again to you noted.
Fod
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Dec 17, 2007 23:38
On 11 Dec, 22:18, JNugent noparticularplacetogo.com>
wrote:> Mortimer wrote:
>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote:>>>Perhaps we have at long last reached a line in the sand where
>>>motorists here will at freely admit that a hit and run killer motorist
>>>is to blame for killing a child if he has no driving licence, is in a
>>>stolen car and has ignored a driving ban. Does it take that much to
>>>blame the motorist or will someone else pipe up and say, "No, they
>>>have to be drunk, exceeding the speed limit by a wide margin and using
>>>a hands-on mobile while eating a sandwich too".
>> Just because he was driving a stolen car while banned, that doesn't
>> automatically make him to blame for killing the child. If the child ran into
>> his path, within the stopping distance for the speed that he was driving at
>> (which may have been below the speed limit, for all we know), then the child
>> is 100%% to blame.
>
> I can't agree with that. Morally, the driver is at least partly to
> blame by being there when he had no right to be there. That the law
> may not recognise that in those terms is nothing to the point. ...
|
| Show full article (2.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tony DragonTony Dragon Date: Dec 18, 2007 00:39
Doug wrote:
> On 11 Dec, 22:18, JNugent noparticularplacetogo.com>
> wrote:>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote:>>>> Perhaps we have at long last reached a line in the sand where
>>>> motorists here will at freely admit that a hit and run killer
>>>> motorist is to blame for killing a child if he has no driving
>>>> licence, is in a stolen car and has ignored a driving ban. Does it
>>>> take that much to blame the motorist or will someone else pipe up
>>>> and say, "No, they have to be drunk, exceeding the speed limit by
>>>> a wide margin and using a hands-on mobile while eating a sandwich
>>>> too".
>>> Just because he was driving a stolen car while banned, that doesn't
>>> automatically make him to blame for killing the child. If the child
>>> ran into his path, within the stopping distance for the speed that
>>> he was driving at (which may have been below the speed limit, for
>>> all we know), then the child is 100%% to blame.
>>
>> I can't agree with that. Morally, the driver is at least partly to ...
|
| Show full article (2.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: Dec 18, 2007 01:38
On 18 Dec, 07:38, Doug riseup.net> wrote:> On 11 Dec, 22:18, JNugent noparticularplacetogo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote:>>>>Perhaps we have at long last reached a line in the sand where
>>>>motorists here will at freely admit that a hit and run killer motorist
>>>>is to blame for killing a child if he has no driving licence, is in a
>>>>stolen car and has ignored a driving ban. Does it take that much to
>>>>blame the motorist or will someone else pipe up and say, "No, they
>>>>have to be drunk, exceeding the speed limit by a wide margin and using
>>>>a hands-on mobile while eating a sandwich too".
>>> Just because he was driving a stolen car while banned, that doesn't
>>> automatically make him to blame for killing the child. If the child ran into
>>> his path, within the stopping distance for the speed that he was driving at ...
|
| Show full article (3.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Dec 18, 2007 01:44
Brian Whitehead (Brian Whitehead hotmail.com>) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> We have discussed this issue on the group before. It seems that in the
> "good old days", when motorists who killed someone were indeed charged
> with manslaughter, it was very difficult to secure a conviction, as
> juries tended to sympathise with the motorist. Hence a special offence,
> initially causing death by reckless driving, was introduced. It again
> proved difficult to prove "recklessness", so the offence was changed to
> causing death by dangerous driving, which is easier for the prosecution
> to prove.
But still bloody difficult, as it requires _proof_ (beyond reasonable
doubt) that the defendent's driving was of a poor enough standard as to
be obvious to anybody that there was a likelihood of massively increasing
danger to others before the collision.
Which is why "Death by Careless" was introduced in the last year. Max
6yrs inside, IIRC, and _much_ easier to secure a conviction in cases like
those being discussed in the current Paul Smith thread on uk.r.c/uk.r.d
as it only requires proof that the defendent was not taking sufficient
care. Which is relatively easy.
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: Dec 18, 2007 05:04
On 18 Dec, 09:44, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Brian Whitehead (Brian Whitehead hotmail.com>) gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> We have discussed this issue on the group before. It seems that in the
>> "good old days", when motorists who killed someone were indeed charged
>> with manslaughter, it was very difficult to secure a conviction, as
>> juries tended to sympathise with the motorist. Hence a special offence,
>> initially causing death by reckless driving, was introduced. It again
>> proved difficult to prove "recklessness", so the offence was changed to
>> causing death by dangerous driving, which is easier for the prosecution
>> to prove.
>
> But still bloody difficult, as it requires _proof_ (beyond reasonable
> doubt) that the defendent's driving was of a poor enough standard as to
> be obvious to anybody that there was a likelihood of massively increasing
> danger to others before the collision.
>
> Which is why "Death by Careless" was introduced in the last year. Max
> 6yrs inside, IIRC, and _much_ easier to secure a conviction in cases like ...
|
| Show full article (2.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Dec 18, 2007 05:14
Brian Whitehead (Brian Whitehead hotmail.com>) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> Contrary to Doug's oft-stated view, it is probably now easier to secure
> a prison sentence for a driver who kills (not deliberately), than for
> someone who kills whilst not driving (again not deliberately).
Much easier. That's the specific intention of introducing those new
offences, AIUI - and quite right, too...
> Of course, if a driver kills deliberately, a charge of murder can be
> laid in the normal way.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: Dec 18, 2007 07:50
On 18 Dec, 13:14, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Brian Whitehead (Brian Whitehead hotmail.com>) gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> Contrary to Doug's oft-stated view, it is probably now easier to secure
>> a prison sentence for a driver who kills (not deliberately), than for
>> someone who kills whilst not driving (again not deliberately).
>
> Much easier. That's the specific intention of introducing those new
> offences, AIUI - and quite right, too...
>
>> Of course, if a driver kills deliberately, a charge of murder can be
>> laid in the normal way.
yikes, nasty stuff.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
