Man buys speedboat “to pull women”......

[FWIW]

jakesmith said:

Can't be, I believe the first photo has a picture of Sonja Crabilowska the Ukrainian model who was born in 2001 on the wall. She would only have been 3 if that pic was 15 years ago.

GLOL

[BlackLabel]

/\/\/\/\

Lol good spot.

Meanwhile.......

A man who killed a woman in a speedboat crash has been jailed for an extra six months for fleeing the country. Jack Shepherd fled before he was sentenced to six years for the manslaughter of Charlotte Brown, who died in the crash on the River Thames. He returned to the UK on Wednesday night after 10 months on the run. Shepherd, 31, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to breaching bail and absconding and was sent to prison to begin his six-and-a-half-year sentence.

[Gameface]

Why doesn't he at least receive the 10 months that he was on the run for??? Should be double IMO. Aren't the judiciary and police embarrassed he escaped?

[hidetheelephants]

He didn't escape, he absconded; there is a difference. He's still an arse though.

[Gameface]

Sigh...

My point stands.

[anonymous-user]

The judge will be sentencing within their guidelines.

If there's no reason not to bail him then the court will grant bail.

If he has his passport and leaves the country (and there's no information brought to their attention he's going to abscond), what can the police do?

[peterperkins]

Gameface said:

Why doesn't he at least receive the 10 months that he was on the run for??? Should be double IMO. Aren't the judiciary and police embarrassed he escaped?

Totally agree.

In my book, the minimum sentence extension should be double time for absconding and quadruple time for escaping.

Abscond whilst on bail and go awol for 5 years, you get 10 years extra on your sentence.

Escape and go awol for one year then get four years extra.

Escaping being more serious..

[jakesmith]

Gameface said:

Why doesn't he at least receive the 10 months that he was on the run for??? Should be double IMO. Aren't the judiciary and police embarrassed he escaped?

Why should he!? He’ll still have to serve his sentence
Then a separate sanction would apply for absconding but that’s a lesser crime
It would hardly deter people from absconding- absconding has an almost zero sucess rate of evading recapture and inevitably leads to a higher cat prison or longer sentence or both, So there probably isn’t a deterrent that would work

[konark]

So Jack Shepherd has now been given an extra 6 months chokey for absconding, meaning that the 6 years sentence that he got for manslaughter was not inflated by him scarpering as many on here were suggesting.

The mysterious part of this case for me is that the incident happened in December 2015, yet he wasn't charged until September 2017, 21 months later. I know the legal system can be a bit glacial but that seems an excessive period of time to bring charges, and might support the assertion that whilst the event was initially seen as a tragic accident subsequent and prolonged influence was brought to bear to change the minds of the CPS.

[anonymous-user]

konark said:

as a tragic accident subsequent and prolonged influence was brought to bear to change the minds of the CPS.

possible but still convicted by his peers.

[anonymous-user]

Thesprucegoose said:

konark said:

as a tragic accident subsequent and prolonged influence was brought to bear to change the minds of the CPS.

possible but still convicted by his peers.

Which means nothing. Many juries don’t have a clue about the legal situation and of what they’re ‘judging’

I’ve stood in a Crown Court dock and looked at a jury, who might have been charged with making such a judgement about me. It was terrifyingly to see some of them.

In my case the Judge ruled no case to answer at half time, so it wasn’t necessary but my barrister told me that one of the biggest risks was that the case actually reached the point were a jury would make a decision because it’s never certain they’ll make the right one.

[Randy Winkman]

REALIST123 said:

Thesprucegoose said:

konark said:

as a tragic accident subsequent and prolonged influence was brought to bear to change the minds of the CPS.

possible but still convicted by his peers.

Which means nothing. Many juries don’t have a clue about the legal situation and of what they’re ‘judging’

I’ve stood in a Crown Court dock and looked at a jury, who might have been charged with making such a judgement about me. It was terrifyingly to see some of them.

In my case the Judge ruled no case to answer at half time, so it wasn’t necessary but my barrister told me that one of the biggest risks was that the case actually reached the point were a jury would make a decision because it’s never certain they’ll make the right one.

That genuinely must have being worrying. I'm being a bit mischievous now - why was it "terrifying to see some of them"? And I do know you possibly weren't literally terrified.

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

Thesprucegoose said:

konark said:

as a tragic accident subsequent and prolonged influence was brought to bear to change the minds of the CPS.

possible but still convicted by his peers.

Which means nothing. Many juries don’t have a clue about the legal situation and of what they’re ‘judging’

I’ve stood in a Crown Court dock and looked at a jury, who might have been charged with making such a judgement about me. It was terrifyingly to see some of them.

In my case the Judge ruled no case to answer at half time, so it wasn’t necessary but my barrister told me that one of the biggest risks was that the case actually reached the point were a jury would make a decision because it’s never certain they’ll make the right one.

You can't say it means nothing. It means, at the very least, there's a case to answer if it passes all the safeguards, of which you benefited from.

There are also the post-conviction safeguards such as appeal which help limit unjust verdicts.

[anonymous-user]

As a juror, the perp not being there would most likely gone against him, which was his choice, to be a slimy weasel who at every step has besmirched the victims family. i guess this and they 'help me' helped to convict him.

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

That genuinely must have being worrying. I'm being a bit mischievous now - why was it "terrifying to see some of them"? And I do know you possibly weren't literally terrified.

Well, not literally, I suppose, but some of them looked totally disinterested, others like rabbits caught in the headlights, young women more interested in their looks than anything else........

I’d also spent 18 months with 7 short appearances in various courts, whilst the prosecution first accused me of something I couldn’t be responsible for, but were repeatedly allowed to change the basis for their prosecution, bring in completely new parameters and make new accusations.

I saw so many lies and misrepresentations made and apparently accepted by the courts, all without a single chance to refute them that when you finally get to CC you’re well aware that a lot of them are going to be presented to the jury and that many of them won’t have a clue what’s true or not.

Fortunately we had a judge who could tell black from white.

Btw, after 9 days it took him 20 minutes following my Barrister’s ‘No case to answer submission’ to rule in my favour.

[Tryke3]

Really feel bad for this guy, woman needs to take responsibility for her own actions

[Gameface]

Don't feed him.

Look at his posting history.

He posts something to provoke and then flounces.

[yellowjack]

Gameface said:

Don't feed him.

Look at his posting history.

He posts something to provoke and then flounces.

I'm not with the court of public opinion on this one.

Yes, he was the boat's owner and "captain", and yes, he's a bit of a weaselly looking bloke. But he's been dragged through the court of public opinion and taken to pieces over his life choices, and they're not far off a lot of posters here, and on other online forums. Even the thread title is a bit of a dig at the bloke, as if it's the preserve of the sad loner to "buy a speedboat to pull women".

What difference is there really between "buying a speedboat to impress..." and "buying a nice 650S to impress and pull the laydeeez..." ???

He's been pulled apart for being on dating sites. Well so was his "victim". And she's not being taken to pieces for being so desperate for a shag that she'd put herself about online. If he'd died, and she'd been plucked alive and well from the Thames does anyone think she'd be getting criticised for making no effort to save him?

He's just done what thousands of people do on a typical Friday night in towns all over the country. Dressed himself up, equipped himself with an aspirational lifestyle accessory (the boat, in his case, but insert what you like here, an Evoque on PCP, a hired Lambo, etc) and gone all-out to impress his desired date by offering her something other potential suitors didn't have.

I'm not at all impressed by the bile that has been directed at him in the press. It's frankly ridiculous, and massively out of proportion with his "crime". He didn't set out to kill the poor girl. He was at as much risk as she was in the event of a capsize.

Where I'm not on his side is his absconding, though. He should have stood in the dock, and answered the charges. If he'd defended himself then he might have been found not guilty, or faced a less severe sentence. But what disturbs me most about the media coverage is the way they tear into him for his constant "smirking". In his defence, he's not trained in presenting a media image, and as far as I know he hasn't been coached by an image consultant or PR 'guru'. And given the way he's behaved, and can't accept responsibility for his actions, I think he may well have some form of mental ill health. So on the one hand those campaigning newspapers are all for better treatment for people with mental health issues, yet here they are shredding a guy who (and I speak as someone fighting mental ill-health myself) appears to be exhibiting behaviours and symptoms of a personality disorder of some kind.

The whole thing stinks, IMHO. Take the Daily Mail for one. They want Jack Shepherd hung, drawn, and quartered over this accidental death, but Alexander Blackman ought to have his sentence quashed and be free, despite a video existing that shows him firing a fatal shot into another human being. It smacks of hypocrisy, and wanting to have your cake and eat it.

It's also surprising that PHers, who have a reputation for "enjoying a hoon" now and then, should be queuing up to figuratively kick Jack Shepherd in the nuts when his prosecution and sentence could set a precedent for the prosecution of anyone keeping a nice toy in the garage/marina and using it for the purposes of "showing off" or "pulling". The Jack Shepherd case ought to serve as a warning to those supercar owners who indulge in "spirited driving" on public roads going to and from car meets for the sole benefit of Youtube onanists. Because if this case stands, then you lot could easily be the next ones on the end of a rude awakening at the hands of a jury. If you claim that this bloke belongs in prison for 6 years, be careful what you wish for...

[wc98]

yellowjack said:

It's also surprising that PHers, who have a reputation for "enjoying a hoon" now and then, should be queuing up to figuratively kick Jack Shepherd in the nuts when his prosecution and sentence could set a precedent for the prosecution of anyone keeping a nice toy in the garage/marina and using it for the purposes of "showing off" or "pulling". The Jack Shepherd case ought to serve as a warning to those supercar owners who indulge in "spirited driving" on public roads going to and from car meets for the sole benefit of Youtube onanists. Because if this case stands, then you lot could easily be the next ones on the end of a rude awakening at the hands of a jury. If you claim that this bloke belongs in prison for 6 years, be careful what you wish for...

if they were hooning when pissed and it resulted in the death of someone then they would deserve all they got. i do have a nagging wonder if this had been two blokes would the sentence have been the same ?

[Terzo123]

wc98 said:

yellowjack said:

It's also surprising that PHers, who have a reputation for "enjoying a hoon" now and then, should be queuing up to figuratively kick Jack Shepherd in the nuts when his prosecution and sentence could set a precedent for the prosecution of anyone keeping a nice toy in the garage/marina and using it for the purposes of "showing off" or "pulling". The Jack Shepherd case ought to serve as a warning to those supercar owners who indulge in "spirited driving" on public roads going to and from car meets for the sole benefit of Youtube onanists. Because if this case stands, then you lot could easily be the next ones on the end of a rude awakening at the hands of a jury. If you claim that this bloke belongs in prison for 6 years, be careful what you wish for...

if they were hooning when pissed and it resulted in the death of someone then they would deserve all they got. i do have a nagging wonder if this had been two blokes would the sentence have been the same ?

A quick Google shows numerous instances of fatalities on lakes and lochs where alcohol and inexperience in boats have been a factor in deaths yet no charges have ever been brought against the owners or sailors.

I find it strange why this chap has been singled out.

I certainly dont agree with his conduct after the incident, but at the same time was fairly took back by his sentence.