What the hell is wrong with UK justice??
Discussion
Deva Link said:
t11ner said:
I don't know any more of the facts than were in the linked article but he was only prosecuted for careless driving, if there was evidence that his original actions deserved a stronger charge surely he would have been done for dangerous driving or even manslaughter?
There's a bit more detail in this article - he was charged with Dangerous Driving but found guilty on the lesser charge. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Jail-airman...I think the OP's outburst is OTT but the circumstances do sound iffy, to say the least.
Nottingham Post said:
Rodgers told the jury he had no time to break
Doesn't it drive you mad when even the journalists can't spell! 
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'? 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 fbrs on Wednesday 28th July 01:50
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'? 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 fbrs on Wednesday 28th July 01:50
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.
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
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.
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.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
As per the title of the thread. A lot.
Just a week ago 2 of the 4 people who beat up my friend (Punched him from behind, stamped on his head, spat on him, then when he was being carried away unconscious one of them headbutt him) got away with it.
The worst the 2 people who got found guilty will get is house arrest.
All this because they're 17.
Just a week ago 2 of the 4 people who beat up my friend (Punched him from behind, stamped on his head, spat on him, then when he was being carried away unconscious one of them headbutt him) got away with it.
The worst the 2 people who got found guilty will get is house arrest.
All this because they're 17.
Silver993tt said:
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.
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.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
On topic, I wouldn't agree that it is double standards. It's already been suggested on this thread that a short spell in jail might mean nothing to a dole dosser but it could end a career of a serviceman so equal treatment on sentencing would not give equal results in the effect the sentence has - hardly a just result?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff