Would you jail her ?
Discussion
If she had no insurance, tax etc and hit someone elses child and killed them then WE would be calling for the book to be thrown at her. Just because the child that died was hers should this change her responsibility. I personally would suggest that the full force of the law is used against her.
I agree that her grief is greater because it was her child that died but that does not absolve her of responsibility.
Should she get a shorter sentence because she is pregnant, NO. However it may be a good idea to have the child raised elsewhere whilst she is in prison.
I agree that her grief is greater because it was her child that died but that does not absolve her of responsibility.
Should she get a shorter sentence because she is pregnant, NO. However it may be a good idea to have the child raised elsewhere whilst she is in prison.
No sympathy for the likes of her. Driving without a licence makes her a menace to every one of us on the roads. Custodial sentence. Preferably long enough to act as a deterrent to others. Those who drive without licences/insurance are the biggest single risk to other road users in the UK today.
Will she do the same thing with her next child?
As a parent if you choose to put your child in a dangerous situation and it all goes wrong, then manslaughter charges should be brought.
Ignorance is no defence.
Jail with a big question mark as to whether the unborn child should remain in her care after birth.
As a parent if you choose to put your child in a dangerous situation and it all goes wrong, then manslaughter charges should be brought.
Ignorance is no defence.
Jail with a big question mark as to whether the unborn child should remain in her care after birth.
Agree with most of the above, she sounds like the sort of scum who plague our roads and routinely get away with (or at worst lightly punished for) offences that should carry harsh penalties.
If you drive unlicensed, uninsured etc etc you are breaking the law, if anyone dies as a result, you should be very heavily punished.
Might be a bit off of me, but there's a reason stupid people do stupid things...
If you drive unlicensed, uninsured etc etc you are breaking the law, if anyone dies as a result, you should be very heavily punished.
Might be a bit off of me, but there's a reason stupid people do stupid things...
From the facts in the story, manslaughter would be a far more appropriate charge. As I said above, no sympathy for her at all. You get into a car without a licence or insurance, and stick your child in a car seat incorrectly, that makes you a liability and a danger.
She might have been unaware the child seat was wrong, but she knew full well she had no licence or insurance.
People like her sum up everything that's wrong about road policing in Tony's Britain. Police should be targetting scum like this, but of course the cash cameras are far cheaper to run and speeders are far easier to prosecute...
She might have been unaware the child seat was wrong, but she knew full well she had no licence or insurance.
People like her sum up everything that's wrong about road policing in Tony's Britain. Police should be targetting scum like this, but of course the cash cameras are far cheaper to run and speeders are far easier to prosecute...
The proper charge in such a case would more than likely be Death by Dangerous Driving. In terms of decisions to prosecute, the CPS do take into account the circumstances, i.e. the suspect losing a relative in an accident.
However, given that she was unlicenced/uninsured I would hope the CPS would see it is in the public interest to prosecute. If they didn't, what kind of message would it send?
Should she be jailed? Definately. I reckon a 12 month sentence would be about right, given her loss and pregnancy.
However, given that she was unlicenced/uninsured I would hope the CPS would see it is in the public interest to prosecute. If they didn't, what kind of message would it send?
Should she be jailed? Definately. I reckon a 12 month sentence would be about right, given her loss and pregnancy.
On the other hand if you look at the actual causes of the problem it is really the nanny state. We could incorporate basic insurance and road tax into the price of petrol, leaving the wealthy and nervous to top up to fully comprehensive if they wish. If we had made the driving qualification meet the needs of the road user then clearly such issues like child seats and towing and other basic issues would have been covered. The nanny state introduced legislation to ensure car seats for children are common. As a child I was bunged into the back of a car and driven for miles without a seatbelt. As a young man I drove my V8 Rover with my boss in the passenger seat and her grandaughter standing in the footwell at 120mph up the M62. It seems our society which once flogged a young man to the brink of death for hitting an old woman now regards that as the responsibility of society and so the crime goes unpunished. Conversely, simply making a mistake is now full justification for incarceration and public outcry. The more I hear of this kind of nonsense the less respect I have for those who impose it on us.
Historically there was less appreciation of the risks...and a lot less traffic.
Now...it's all over the papers...everyone knows what the risks are.
No sypathy. Jail sentence.
If the car had been legit, then it would have been a terrible thing anyway, but she was clearly anti-social enough not to tax or INSURE her car...and a head-to-head accident can quite easily be fatal for either party...she could have killed or hospitalised the other driver and without insurance what the victim's dependents have done?!?
Now...it's all over the papers...everyone knows what the risks are.
No sypathy. Jail sentence.
If the car had been legit, then it would have been a terrible thing anyway, but she was clearly anti-social enough not to tax or INSURE her car...and a head-to-head accident can quite easily be fatal for either party...she could have killed or hospitalised the other driver and without insurance what the victim's dependents have done?!?
nonegreen said:
On the other hand if you look at the actual causes of the problem it is really the nanny state. We could incorporate basic insurance and road tax into the price of petrol, leaving the wealthy and nervous to top up to fully comprehensive if they wish. If we had made the driving qualification meet the needs of the road user then clearly such issues like child seats and towing and other basic issues would have been covered. The nanny state introduced legislation to ensure car seats for children are common. As a child I was bunged into the back of a car and driven for miles without a seatbelt. As a young man I drove my V8 Rover with my boss in the passenger seat and her grandaughter standing in the footwell at 120mph up the M62. It seems our society which once flogged a young man to the brink of death for hitting an old woman now regards that as the responsibility of society and so the crime goes unpunished. Conversely, simply making a mistake is now full justification for incarceration and public outcry. The more I hear of this kind of nonsense the less respect I have for those who impose it on us.
Giving basic insurance to all based on an additional tax would obviously mean that claim free drivers would have to support those with a bad driving record as well as the young or those with more "high risk" cars?
First step needs to be changing the law so that "No insurance" and or licence can be an imprisonable offence, all that happens at present is a fine and points. It takes three offences at present before you can jail on whilst disqualified offence!
Nick
nonegreen said:
On the other hand if you look at the actual causes of the problem it is really the nanny state. We could incorporate basic insurance and road tax into the price of petrol, leaving the wealthy and nervous to top up to fully comprehensive if they wish. If we had made the driving qualification meet the needs of the road user then clearly such issues like child seats and towing and other basic issues would have been covered. The nanny state introduced legislation to ensure car seats for children are common. As a child I was bunged into the back of a car and driven for miles without a seatbelt. As a young man I drove my V8 Rover with my boss in the passenger seat and her grandaughter standing in the footwell at 120mph up the M62. It seems our society which once flogged a young man to the brink of death for hitting an old woman now regards that as the responsibility of society and so the crime goes unpunished. Conversely, simply making a mistake is now full justification for incarceration and public outcry. The more I hear of this kind of nonsense the less respect I have for those who impose it on us.
Good point NG. Something has gone horribly wrong when deliberate immoral acts are lightly punished (if at all) and what any reasonable person would consider an accident is heavily punished.
There is a difference between criminal negligence and simply making a mistake but these days the courts do not seem to distinguish between them.
This not not meant to condone the actions of the woman mentioned above, but I think it is a mistake to try to legislate for stupidity or for that matter heavily punish stupid people. Stupid people will make stupid mistakes, thats life.
I appreciate your point of view Nonegreen, and I also remember being a child, stood in the footwell of parents cars. I think you're quite right that the nanny state has gone far too far in lots of areas.
I don't have the exact figures to hand, but around 30 years ago, with only half the number of cars on the roads, more than twice as many people were killed on the roads compared to today. And that was precisely because we didn't wear seatbelts and found it acceptable to have kids "loose" in the back of cars. Drink driving was another thing that was largely ignored.
I think the state should be reigned in in lots of areas, but I think road safety is one area where some degree of intervention is necessary in what is a profit driven industry.
Having said that, I'd happily scrap every speed camera on the roads, as they IMO contribute next to nothing to road safety and are a perfect illustration of government meddling for no reason other than to tax motorists.
I don't have the exact figures to hand, but around 30 years ago, with only half the number of cars on the roads, more than twice as many people were killed on the roads compared to today. And that was precisely because we didn't wear seatbelts and found it acceptable to have kids "loose" in the back of cars. Drink driving was another thing that was largely ignored.
I think the state should be reigned in in lots of areas, but I think road safety is one area where some degree of intervention is necessary in what is a profit driven industry.
Having said that, I'd happily scrap every speed camera on the roads, as they IMO contribute next to nothing to road safety and are a perfect illustration of government meddling for no reason other than to tax motorists.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK, but does the presence of a fall-back fund for emergencies JUSTIFY her actions?!? If so, then I'll cancel my £800+ per year policy (clean license, full NCB) and road tax and use the extra grand for a nice holiday!
I cannot abide scum who try and go through life on a free ride from the rest of society, those who feel like the rules don't apply to them. This applies equally to the poewrful/influential/rich as it does to the scum and chavs.
xxplod said:
The proper charge in such a case would more than likely be Death by Dangerous Driving. In terms of decisions to prosecute, the CPS do take into account the circumstances, i.e. the suspect losing a relative in an accident.
However, given that she was unlicenced/uninsured I would hope the CPS would see it is in the public interest to prosecute. If they didn't, what kind of message would it send?
Should she be jailed? Definately. I reckon a 12 month sentence would be about right, given her loss and pregnancy.
Is "Nearest und dearest"? und charge relates to how driver endangered other road users in the inscident - und they have to have the evidence for manslaughter. Think (but only going off what I hear) focus in such cases ist on the way she affected other road user, the danger of the driving und fact she had no legality. Sadly ... badly fit baby seats are far too common a problem - we were very choosy mit our baby seat for youngest kitten und I do not set off until I know that seat ist ft correctly und she ist comfortable. She usually fall asleep once we drive - so obviously I mus be smoothest purrrr-fection
But ist a case of choosing wisely und getting person in shop to fit display model into car as each car ist differnet und requires slightly different fitting technique.
But should this silly woman be jailed?
For no insurance und no licence - certainly. Ist privilege to drive car und we pay for that privilegge mit the lessons, the test fee und the car licence und the insurance - und we have obligation not to do anything dangerous such as
driving a dodgy vehicle - certainly - throw away key!
. ist not the fact she had not the intelligence to work out how to fit the car seat or ask for help in fitting it from a garage mechanic - ist fact that she was not applying a COAST skill on this road either. Baby crying ist a distraction - even for me - but ist case of soothing hum of nursery song while I look for somewhere safe to pull in if she needs something . But she usually gurgles and sleeps anyway. But each baby ist different and am lucky not to have a wailer.
Und am organised - she ist changed und fed und burped before a drive out as well. So... I would think 12 month sentence even though it means baby will be born in prison.
I do not think she needs to have baby in care as this ist not a neglect issue - just a criminal stupidity mit owning a car issue und should not reflect her mothering abilities. I do not know how long she can keep baby in prison maternal wing after birth - have forgotten - - but likely baby will be fostered until release und I have taken babies to visit mamas in prison when fostering in the past.
She did not simply make a mistake, she chose to drive whilst not having a licence, did she ever have one? did she just take to the roads without any formal instruction?
As a mother she has a duty of care to her child, if she is too stupid to take on that responsibility then another child should not be put at risk.
As a mother she has a duty of care to her child, if she is too stupid to take on that responsibility then another child should not be put at risk.
xxplod said:
I think the state should be reigned in in lots of areas, but I think road safety is one area where some degree of intervention is necessary in what is a profit driven industry.
This is true, however saftey has become a major selling point for most motor manufacturers. It is in their own interest to produce safe vehicles. I'm not sure that we will see the kind of penny pinching that has occurred previously (Ford Pinto fuel tanks etc) due to the changes in expectations of car buyers.
The problem with things like this is that peoples risk perception is generally quite poor. They do potentially dangerous things often without a problem and so they stop considering them a risk, and are then suprised when something goes wrong. When taken in isolation the stupidity of something like this is obvious, but it may not have been to them at the time.
This is not to excuse her actions, but similar events can be seen in all walks of life. Industrial accidents, plane/train crashes, ships sinking etc which come down to "human error" often have something similar as the cause.
Make her attend an advanced driving course, show her lots of driving videos basically brainwash her into being a good driver, make her do it for 12 months. Give her a decent car at the end of it with a correctly fitted kiddies seat. More constructive in the long run than throwing her in jail, probably cheaper to.
Then if she re-offends throw the book at her
Then if she re-offends throw the book at her
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff