Another classic case of double standards

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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

[Graveworm]

Ken Figenus said:

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.

The bikers got between half and a fifth of the sentence she got.

[Greendubber]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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 JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:08

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.

Edited by Greendubber on Saturday 18th January 10:16

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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

She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper.

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]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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 JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:08

She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper.

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?

I'm not saying its OK, I'm saying stick to the facts. No one is defending this idiot, just pointing out it isn't what some are claiming it to be!

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 10:16

Guessing you don’t have children, because if you did, you would likely be a little more concerned.

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]

yonex said:

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.

Edited by Greendubber on Saturday 18th January 10:16

Guessing you don’t have children, because if you did, you would likely be a little more concerned.

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?

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.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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

She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper.

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?

I'm not saying its OK, I'm saying stick to the facts. No one is defending this idiot, just pointing out it isn't what some are claiming it to be!

Just for clarity, what are you saying it's not that others are saying it is?

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

yonex said:

The intent was to kill, she threatened them with the same.

Shame the CPS didn’t have your brilliant input.

They could have authorised the ‘correct’ charges then

Although the CPS entry test requires a person to understand what double standards are so it’d be a non-starter.

[Greendubber]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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 JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:08

She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper.

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?

I'm not saying its OK, I'm saying stick to the facts. No one is defending this idiot, just pointing out it isn't what some are claiming it to be!

Just for clarity, what are you saying it's not that others are saying it is?

A case of double standards.

[Greendubber]

yonex said:

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.

I can see the seriousness, it's a shame you dont understand what others have explained to you, numerous times.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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

She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper.

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?

I'm not saying its OK, I'm saying stick to the facts. No one is defending this idiot, just pointing out it isn't what some are claiming it to be!

Just for clarity, what are you saying it's not that others are saying it is?

A case of double standards.

Problem is, if it appears that way to general public then it effectively is, no matter the logic behind it. Which is why the justice system gets such a bad rap. Time and again we see women let off for crimes that would and do land men in jail, or appearing at similar times to male-committed much less serious crimes such as speeding that land them in prison.

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 clusterfk 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

[Greendubber]

JimSuperSix said:

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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 15:30

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.

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 JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:08

She didn't 'drive over' anyone. The report says the kid with the broken leg was hit by the bumper.

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?

I'm not saying its OK, I'm saying stick to the facts. No one is defending this idiot, just pointing out it isn't what some are claiming it to be!

Just for clarity, what are you saying it's not that others are saying it is?

A case of double standards.

Problem is, if it appears that way to general public then it effectively is, no matter the logic behind it. Which is why the justice system gets such a bad rap. Time and again we see women let off for crimes that would and do land men in jail, or appearing at similar times to male-committed much less serious crimes such as speeding that land them in prison.

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 clusterfk 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 JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:51

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.

[Castrol for a knave]

The problem with people decrying the sentence, and claiming it's all stacked against white males, is that they are basing their supposition on a couple of high profile media headlines.

She's clickbait, with a nice FB profile the Mail can scrape for it's piece.

Our creaking, groaning underfunded criminal justice system churns thousands of these people, not all as photogenic. There's a PhD in it for you if you can go away and plough through it all and come up with a definitive answer.......

[anonymous-user]

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.

[Greendubber]

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.

[Graveworm]

JimSuperSix said:

The bikers caused no injuries, and I highly suspect they had no intention of doing so either.


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 JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:08

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.

[NewUsername]

It seems some users still can’t understand the purpose of prison.....

[anonymous-user]

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.

Click > thick > share