What the hell is wrong with UK justice??

[Silver993tt]

Typical institutional double standards:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10746308

This guy should be in jail for a miniumum of 10 years and his career ended immediately. How arrogant of UK law to protect someone due to their position in a government run department.

So two lives are worth less than one pathetic "career".

I really hope this guy gets shot down and extinguished in his first armed combat (which of course he will try and avoid at the tax payers expense since he seems to be a complete coward).

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 24th July 05:10

[Silver993tt]

fbrs said:

Silver993tt said:

Typical institutional double standards:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10746308

This guy should be in jail for a miniumum of 10 years and his career ended immediately. How arrogant of UK law to protect someone due to their position in a government run department.

So two lives are worth less than one pathetic "career".

I really hope this guy gets shot down and extinguished in his first armed combat (which of course he will try and avoid at the tax payers expense since he seems to be a complete coward).

you want the guy in jail for 10 years or killed for causing an, albeit tragic, accident? get a fvcking grip. everyone has done something stupid behind the wheel, you included, but we usually get lucky. i couldn't care less about the case but since when has a 'senior aircraft technician' in the raf at 26 been a 'pathetic career'?

Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 28th July 01:50

I'm sure you'll have the same thinking when one of your family is wiped out and the person that caused their death gets let off because of what he does 9-5pm. Let's see who has a "fvcking grip" then.

[Silver993tt]

t11ner said:

Once again, it obviously isn't going to be the same if the victims are people you know. There has been some comments on here about revenge being a necessary part of the justice process; I'd suggest that part should be about appropriate punishment, not revenge.

The family or victims of crime are never going to be able to judge appropriate punishment; if someone robs my house I'd be happy enough to see the burglar tied to a chair whilst I beat him with a bat or we could go old-style and just chop his hands off, that would be fine as well. Whether he lives or dies or can't work again and starves on the streets doesn't matter to me but even for a deliberate and premeditated crime this might not be considered to be an appropriate punishment by a less involved bystander.

It seems to me that the "if it was your house/wife/mother/child" argument gets you nowhere, it's correct in that I would feel differently but it's not a reason to change the way we judge things.

Edited by t11ner on Wednesday 28th July 07:22

the point of the trhread was that the judge 'let off' the guy who killed the other people because he had a "career" in the forces. Double standards/two sets of rules being applied - that is the point.