Another classic case of double standards
Discussion
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
yonex said:
Graveworm said:
The bikers were not jailed for doing 153 they were convicted of dangerous driving over a sustained period from Kent through Sussex into Hastings where they exceeded 180 at times including 130 in a congested forty, wrong side of a keep left into oncoming traffic. There was a collision, wheelies at over a ton, together with undertaking at a zebra, and numerous times on solid whites.
They were sentenced to 10, 6 and 4 months. One of the men's sentences was suspended. He has to do 150 hours unpaid service and is banned for 24 months.
The "Bint" did not get away with it. She was also convicted of dangerous driving which was a single incident that lasted a few seconds.
She was sentenced to 20 months, which was also suspended, she has to do 35 days rehabilitation (which I make about 280 hours) has a 6 month Curfew and is also banned for 2 years.
Yes it's debunked.
Did the bikers set out with the intention to harm pedestrians? They were sentenced to 10, 6 and 4 months. One of the men's sentences was suspended. He has to do 150 hours unpaid service and is banned for 24 months.
The "Bint" did not get away with it. She was also convicted of dangerous driving which was a single incident that lasted a few seconds.
She was sentenced to 20 months, which was also suspended, she has to do 35 days rehabilitation (which I make about 280 hours) has a 6 month Curfew and is also banned for 2 years.
Yes it's debunked.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 14:51
Totally different, she’s way off the scale and should be inside. The boy meanwhile has been left with a fairly mangled foot/leg.
They don't call for a copy of Yonex's sentencing guidelines (which will probably have a caveat of 'ignore what doesn't suit you' as a footnote) once they have a verdict.
vonhosen said:
The whole point is they are different & that's why there are different sentences.
They don't call for a copy of Yonex's sentencing guidelines (which will probably have a caveat of 'ignore what doesn't suit you' as a footnote) once they have a verdict.
Because the law, and the people that tow the line without being able to think, or debate, is (are) an ass.They don't call for a copy of Yonex's sentencing guidelines (which will probably have a caveat of 'ignore what doesn't suit you' as a footnote) once they have a verdict.
What would suit me is a 14 month jail term for her, not custodial. There’s no excuse for trying to run people over.
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
The whole point is they are different & that's why there are different sentences.
They don't call for a copy of Yonex's sentencing guidelines (which will probably have a caveat of 'ignore what doesn't suit you' as a footnote) once they have a verdict.
Because the law, and the people that tow the line without being able to think, or debate, is (are) an ass.They don't call for a copy of Yonex's sentencing guidelines (which will probably have a caveat of 'ignore what doesn't suit you' as a footnote) once they have a verdict.
What would suit me is a 14 month jail term for her, not custodial. There’s no excuse for trying to run people over.
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
But you'd have everyone be subject to your particular line rather than a democratically elected government's policies!
Twisting it slightly. Nobody elects the actual laws for sentencing these matters, just the idiots who make them.
vonhosen said:
I can see a self declared dictator, telling us how it should be & what's good for us, might think that's a situation for the best (& it probably is for their own self interest at least). But I don't see how that is as a step forward for the populace as a whole over a system where we elect individuals to serve our interests based on their declared manifesto. Individuals who we can of course choose not to vote for next time, in favour of another, if we feel they aren't delivering as we'd like .
No modern manifesto is worth anything, get a grip! Politicians throw the usual 'speed kills' out and everyone nods in agreement. A woman, attempted to kill some young lads, not locked up. A biker rode like a tit, locked up.How is that in anyway rational?
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
I can see a self declared dictator, telling us how it should be & what's good for us, might think that's a situation for the best (& it probably is for their own self interest at least). But I don't see how that is as a step forward for the populace as a whole over a system where we elect individuals to serve our interests based on their declared manifesto. Individuals who we can of course choose not to vote for next time, in favour of another, if we feel they aren't delivering as we'd like .
No modern manifesto is worth anything, get a grip! Politicians throw the usual 'speed kills' out and everyone nods in agreement. A woman, attempted to kill some young lads, not locked up. A biker rode like a tit, locked up.How is that in anyway rational?
She wasn't convicted of attempting to kill anybody was she?
If not, you believe that making stuff up to pad out your straw man somehow helps your argument?
Again, rational would be looking at the full circumstances & determining the sentence with due regard to the full circumstances.
Rational would not be shooting from the hip whilst spouting
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 17th January 17:24
yonex said:
Breadvan72 said:
Those of you who clamour for jail sentences in motoring cases and various other cases that do not involve things such as rape and other violence - what do you think jail sentences achieve?
The thread title has, BTW, been pretty comprehensively debunked above. No double standards at all. I wonder will the OP be along to say "Oops, sorry ,my sexist codswallop thread is sexist codswallop"?
You’re not the brightest so I’ll try and help. The thread title has, BTW, been pretty comprehensively debunked above. No double standards at all. I wonder will the OP be along to say "Oops, sorry ,my sexist codswallop thread is sexist codswallop"?
With whatever valid arguments you could make about PH setting a pretty low bar, yes BV is one of the brightest and the poor choice of insult only raises questions about your own judgement.
Try, “hey BV, you have some crap ugly cars that were crap and ugly even when they were new, therefore I am right and you are wrong!”
May be worth reading this OP rather than picking two arbitrary cases from the meeja:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Because there is data in here that shows that females are less likely to be given custodial sentences than males.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Because there is data in here that shows that females are less likely to be given custodial sentences than males.
yonex said:
No modern manifesto is worth anything, get a grip! Politicians throw the usual 'speed kills' out and everyone nods in agreement. A woman, attempted to kill some young lads, not locked up. A biker rode like a tit, locked up.
How is that in anyway rational?
She intended to kill them, really? How is that in anyway rational?
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
I can see a self declared dictator, telling us how it should be & what's good for us, might think that's a situation for the best (& it probably is for their own self interest at least). But I don't see how that is as a step forward for the populace as a whole over a system where we elect individuals to serve our interests based on their declared manifesto. Individuals who we can of course choose not to vote for next time, in favour of another, if we feel they aren't delivering as we'd like .
No modern manifesto is worth anything, get a grip! Politicians throw the usual 'speed kills' out and everyone nods in agreement. A woman, attempted to kill some young lads, not locked up. A biker rode like a tit, locked up.How is that in anyway rational?
For probably similar reasons one of the biker's sentences was also suspended. If jailing the remaining 2 would have caused similarly disproportionate hardship, for others, but they were jailed none the less, you would have your double standard. Jail is the right penalty and justice would be served. ,Jail which also punishes 2 young children by putting them into care and taking 2 children from an abused woman is a much bigger step and probably not justice.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 18th January 10:02
yonex said:
Greendubber said:
She intended to kill them, really?
She began the evening with a verbal threat of killing them...It's probly all that drunk driving she's done that makes her such a skilful driver.
Jasandjules said:
Greendubber said:
She intended to kill them, really?
I am curious as to your interpretation of the intention of a person who drives a car at people even up on the pavement....If they thought they could prove intention to kill why no charge/conviction & then sentencing for that?
It's no good trying to compare a courts sentencing for attempting to kill someone (against another offence) where the court were never dealing with such an offence & therefore not using the sentencing powers for such circumstances.
vonhosen said:
Jasandjules said:
Greendubber said:
She intended to kill them, really?
I am curious as to your interpretation of the intention of a person who drives a car at people even up on the pavement....If they thought they could prove intention to kill why no charge/conviction & then sentencing for that?
It's no good trying to compare a courts sentencing for attempting to kill someone (against another offence) where the court were never dealing with such an offence & therefore not using the sentencing powers for such circumstances.
I do see the argument that the bikers hurt no one - no harm was actually done. They didn't even turn themselves into mince... But the woman deliberately smashed her car into kids due to her rage - one kid had his leg smashed up and spent time in hospital. To my mind the sentences would make more sense if swopped to match the results and actual tangible impact of the actions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff