Another classic case of double standards
Discussion
Graveworm said:
yonex said:
Did the bikers set out with the intention to harm pedestrians?
Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Which is probably why her sentence for a few seconds is 2-5 times theirs for 10s of minutes. And they did admit that their driving was very poor and caused danger. Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30
Whereas she deliberately drove her car onto a pavement at some children, and then drove over at least one of them, breaking bones and causing severe injury. Only in the mind of a simpleton would this be considered anything other than incredibly dangerous and attempting to inflict deliberate harm on them.
I wonder at what point in your weird world would you admit she deserves jail? Chasing them along the pavement for some arbitrary amount of time? Reversing back over them? Getting out and laughing and pointing?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:08
Greendubber said:
JimSuperSix said:
Graveworm said:
yonex said:
Did the bikers set out with the intention to harm pedestrians?
Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Which is probably why her sentence for a few seconds is 2-5 times theirs for 10s of minutes. And they did admit that their driving was very poor and caused danger. Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30
Whereas she deliberately drove her car onto a pavement at some children, and then drove over at least one of them, breaking bones and causing severe injury. Only in the mind of a simpleton would this be considered anything other than incredibly dangerous and attempting to inflict deliberate harm on them.
I wonder at what point in your weird world would you admit she deserves jail? Chasing them along the pavement for some arbitrary amount of time? Reversing back over them? Getting out and laughing and pointing?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:08
Oh well thats OK then. His foot was pointing in the wrong direction, but hey it was just the bumper...The other kid went flying, but hey it was just air, right?
Greendubber said:
She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper. Shes an absolute cock end, regardless of being pissed off at a group of neds causing issues on the estate but let's not think this case is anything out of the ordinary or double standards.
Guessing you don’t have children, because if you did, you would likely be a little more concerned.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:16
The intent was to kill, she threatened them with the same. Just imagine if someone speeding had said into a dash cam ‘I’m going to tear the roads up today’, instant Daily Mail headline, with age, 200mph potential of bike and how much the guys house was worth.
Just a scratch then?
Greendubber said:
JimSuperSix said:
Greendubber said:
JimSuperSix said:
Graveworm said:
yonex said:
Did the bikers set out with the intention to harm pedestrians?
Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Which is probably why her sentence for a few seconds is 2-5 times theirs for 10s of minutes. And they did admit that their driving was very poor and caused danger. Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30
Whereas she deliberately drove her car onto a pavement at some children, and then drove over at least one of them, breaking bones and causing severe injury. Only in the mind of a simpleton would this be considered anything other than incredibly dangerous and attempting to inflict deliberate harm on them.
I wonder at what point in your weird world would you admit she deserves jail? Chasing them along the pavement for some arbitrary amount of time? Reversing back over them? Getting out and laughing and pointing?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:08
Oh well thats OK then. His foot was pointing in the wrong direction, but hey it was just the bumper...The other kid went flying, but hey it was just air, right?
Greendubber said:
Quick, get her back in court and present the case then with all the evidence you have to prove that then because it seems legal professionals couldn't. They'll want more than an angry Facebook post though FYI.
The fact you cannot see the seriousness is the main worry. The above doesn’t warrant a specific reply, it’s beyond obtuse.
Greendubber said:
JimSuperSix said:
Greendubber said:
JimSuperSix said:
Greendubber said:
JimSuperSix said:
Graveworm said:
yonex said:
Did the bikers set out with the intention to harm pedestrians?
Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Which is probably why her sentence for a few seconds is 2-5 times theirs for 10s of minutes. And they did admit that their driving was very poor and caused danger. Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30
Whereas she deliberately drove her car onto a pavement at some children, and then drove over at least one of them, breaking bones and causing severe injury. Only in the mind of a simpleton would this be considered anything other than incredibly dangerous and attempting to inflict deliberate harm on them.
I wonder at what point in your weird world would you admit she deserves jail? Chasing them along the pavement for some arbitrary amount of time? Reversing back over them? Getting out and laughing and pointing?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:08
Oh well thats OK then. His foot was pointing in the wrong direction, but hey it was just the bumper...The other kid went flying, but hey it was just air, right?
If you read the comments section of those articles, which are usually just a massive argument with both sides shouting at each other, in this case they almost universally think that she should be in jail, as do quite a lot of people here.
For example :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7892063/M...
Now I know the comments section is usually just a giant clusterf
k but it does give an insight into the proportion of people on each side, and in this case I didn't see a single comment saying the sentence was fair, most people are questioning why she is not in jail. When everyone thinks the sentence is wrong and that justice is a joke, I think you have a fairly major problem with the system, or at the very least with the public perception of it, and it's us that it should be serving.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:51
The OP is the paradigm example of the modern net citizen: Ill-informed, opinionated, deaf to reason and evidence, emphatically and confidently wrong, angry when challenged. Now look at the UK and wonder (or, rather, don't) about the mess that we are in!
Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
Breadvan72 said:
The OP is the paradigm example of the modern net citizen: Ill-informed, opinionated, deaf to reason and evidence, emphatically and confidently wrong, angry when challenged. Now look at the UK and wonder (or, rather, don't) about the mess that we are in!
Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
The DM's target audience. Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
Click > thick > share
Graveworm said:
The bikers admitted they put people in danger.
I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
It's not much of a deterrent then really. She already has a record of drink driving, now she's effectively attempted to kill children with a car.I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
What actual punishment has she ended up with? 35 days rehab, a curfew and a 2 year ban. It doesn't seem like enough for a pre-meditated attack that luckily "only" ended up in one with serious injuries and not the deaths of 4 children.
The police are always tweeting about how its "just sheer luck" that someone speeding didn't kill people, yet when it's actually lucky someone didn't kill someone as they deliberately hit them with a car it doesn't seem to count for as much.
Breadvan72 said:
The OP is the paradigm example of the modern net citizen: Ill-informed, opinionated, deaf to reason and evidence, emphatically and confidently wrong, angry when challenged. Now look at the UK and wonder (or, rather, don't) about the mess that we are in!
Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
You’re a typical snob born of the legal profession, clinically proven to produce nothing of real value.Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
Graveworm said:
The bikers admitted they put people in danger.
I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
Then they were as thick as you are. Clearly. I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
You heard it here, just be sure to say ‘what about the kids’. I’m sure our resident legal geniuses will agree.
yonex said:
La Liga said:
The DM's target audience.
Click > thick > share
Lol, and another one. No interest in motoring, whatsoever....Click > thick > share
You’re probably more likely to buy the Mail than anyone I know.
Oh wait, that's you.
yonex said:
You’re a typical snob born of the legal profession, clinically proven to produce nothing of real value.
How is it clinically proven? Did you choose that word to try and sound clever? Seems odd how you've been asked to support the 'double standards' aspect (the title of your topic), yet just ignore it. I even spoon-fed you a place to start.
I wonder when you'll stop digging. Probably not for a while.
You have no idea of my opinion about the crime or sentencing as I've not expressed it.
People who possess basic critical thinking skills would have recognised that my view on the matter is an 'unknown' and wouldn't have written silly things about 'brainwashing' because it'd be based on assumptions.
I've merely asked you to support the 'double standards' aspect. That doesn't seem such an unreasonable request given it's what your topic is about.
That you haven't infers you're unable to.
Same trick of avoiding the question.
Best hire a JCB.
People who possess basic critical thinking skills would have recognised that my view on the matter is an 'unknown' and wouldn't have written silly things about 'brainwashing' because it'd be based on assumptions.
I've merely asked you to support the 'double standards' aspect. That doesn't seem such an unreasonable request given it's what your topic is about.
That you haven't infers you're unable to.
Same trick of avoiding the question.
Best hire a JCB.
Edited by chris.mod on Saturday 18th January 20:39
They will never take the hook out of their mouths - it's embedded. It must be weird to go through life being fed on a diet of synthetic outrage, always convinced that there's some sort of establishment conspiracy to favour [insert group that you hate the most - for PH that is usually women]. Meanwhile, you don't notice all the genuinely terrible things being done by the same sort of people as those who are feeding you the diet. You really can fool quite a lot of the people all of the time.
kestral said:
Graveworm said:
The bikers got between half and a fifth of the sentence she got.
No.Her sententence was 'suspended'(only imposed if she does wrong within the stated period).
So she never received it and never will unless she choses to receive it herself. It is now her choice whether she receives it or not. No one elses.
That's what the Judge did when he gave her a suspended sentence, he gave her the choice as to whether she wanted to do it or not.
The bikers did not get the choice.
kestral said:
Greendubber said:
I absolutley get the fact that people think she should be jailed, the thing is there are thousands of people who go through the same process and avoid jail when others think they shouldn't. It isn't a case of double standards as has been explained, 'it's just another case' but due to it being a woman the OP seems to think its double standards.
So do you believe that had this been a male the sentence would have been the same?This should be good. Watch for the maneuvering on this one.
Seems a logical place to look...
xjay1337 said:
La Liga said:
Why has a mod removed one of Yonex’s posts and edited it out from mine and VH’s reply?
Unless PH has a new ‘stupid’ threshold, it didn’t appear to break any rules.
Probably fed up of your pathetic arguing!Unless PH has a new ‘stupid’ threshold, it didn’t appear to break any rules.
Grow up all of you FFS.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff