Man buys speedboat “to pull women”......
Discussion
I think I would be on the run if I thought the standard of jurors likely to be found in British courts were a representative sample of PH.
1) You don't need any qualification to use a boat on the Thames.
2) The person who is driving the boat is in control, and owes a duty of care to their passengers.
3) Hitting a log on the Thames is unlucky not negligent. You can hardly see the things.
4) Not wearing a lifejacket is the responsibility of anyone over the age of eighteen.
5) The owner of the boat has a responsibility for it to be serviceable and have lifejackets/safety equipment in good working order
Because you don't need a qualification to drive a boat on the Thames it is unreasonable for you all to hold the owner to a higher standard and demand he assesses a persons qualification to drive the boat, and takes overall responsibility as trainer and proxy driver.
He simply bought a boat. That doesn't give him any superpowers. He can't perform marriages he can't asses potential drivers for competence when there is no standard.
Hating someone because they are a douche is all well and good but assigning blame here is rather like telling people that if they take part in a dangerous sport and get injured, the British legal system will look for someone to blame, so God help you if you are taking part with them. Very dangerous legal road to take which will end with adults being treated like children.
1) You don't need any qualification to use a boat on the Thames.
2) The person who is driving the boat is in control, and owes a duty of care to their passengers.
3) Hitting a log on the Thames is unlucky not negligent. You can hardly see the things.
4) Not wearing a lifejacket is the responsibility of anyone over the age of eighteen.
5) The owner of the boat has a responsibility for it to be serviceable and have lifejackets/safety equipment in good working order
Because you don't need a qualification to drive a boat on the Thames it is unreasonable for you all to hold the owner to a higher standard and demand he assesses a persons qualification to drive the boat, and takes overall responsibility as trainer and proxy driver.
He simply bought a boat. That doesn't give him any superpowers. He can't perform marriages he can't asses potential drivers for competence when there is no standard.
Hating someone because they are a douche is all well and good but assigning blame here is rather like telling people that if they take part in a dangerous sport and get injured, the British legal system will look for someone to blame, so God help you if you are taking part with them. Very dangerous legal road to take which will end with adults being treated like children.
julian64 said:
I think I would be on the run if I thought the standard of jurors likely to be found in British courts were a representative sample of PH.
1) You don't need any qualification to use a boat on the Thames.
2) The person who is driving the boat is in control, and owes a duty of care to their passengers.
3) Hitting a log on the Thames is unlucky not negligent. You can hardly see the things.
4) Not wearing a lifejacket is the responsibility of anyone over the age of eighteen.
5) The owner of the boat has a responsibility for it to be serviceable and have lifejackets/safety equipment in good working order
Because you don't need a qualification to drive a boat on the Thames it is unreasonable for you all to hold the owner to a higher standard and demand he assesses a persons qualification to drive the boat, and takes overall responsibility as trainer and proxy driver.
He simply bought a boat. That doesn't give him any superpowers. He can't perform marriages he can't asses potential drivers for competence when there is no standard.
Hating someone because they are a douche is all well and good but assigning blame here is rather like telling people that if they take part in a dangerous sport and get injured, the British legal system will look for someone to blame, so God help you if you are taking part with them. Very dangerous legal road to take which will end with adults being treated like children.
1 and 2 - correct. 1) You don't need any qualification to use a boat on the Thames.
2) The person who is driving the boat is in control, and owes a duty of care to their passengers.
3) Hitting a log on the Thames is unlucky not negligent. You can hardly see the things.
4) Not wearing a lifejacket is the responsibility of anyone over the age of eighteen.
5) The owner of the boat has a responsibility for it to be serviceable and have lifejackets/safety equipment in good working order
Because you don't need a qualification to drive a boat on the Thames it is unreasonable for you all to hold the owner to a higher standard and demand he assesses a persons qualification to drive the boat, and takes overall responsibility as trainer and proxy driver.
He simply bought a boat. That doesn't give him any superpowers. He can't perform marriages he can't asses potential drivers for competence when there is no standard.
Hating someone because they are a douche is all well and good but assigning blame here is rather like telling people that if they take part in a dangerous sport and get injured, the British legal system will look for someone to blame, so God help you if you are taking part with them. Very dangerous legal road to take which will end with adults being treated like children.
3 - Hitting a log at 5 knots is unlucky, hitting it at 12kts plus and it could easily be plus if he has tide under him, is negligent.
There is ample case law on this - it applies if you're a knobhead in a stinkboat or a curry chef serving peanuts to the unwary. it's a legal road that's decades old.
julian64 said:
I think I would be on the run if I thought the standard of jurors likely to be found in British courts were a representative sample of PH.
1) You don't need any qualification to use a boat on the Thames.
2) The person who is driving the boat is in control, and owes a duty of care to their passengers.
3) Hitting a log on the Thames is unlucky not negligent. You can hardly see the things.
4) Not wearing a lifejacket is the responsibility of anyone over the age of eighteen.
5) The owner of the boat has a responsibility for it to be serviceable and have lifejackets/safety equipment in good working order
Because you don't need a qualification to drive a boat on the Thames it is unreasonable for you all to hold the owner to a higher standard and demand he assesses a persons qualification to drive the boat, and takes overall responsibility as trainer and proxy driver.
He simply bought a boat. That doesn't give him any superpowers. He can't perform marriages he can't asses potential drivers for competence when there is no standard.
Hating someone because they are a douche is all well and good but assigning blame here is rather like telling people that if they take part in a dangerous sport and get injured, the British legal system will look for someone to blame, so God help you if you are taking part with them. Very dangerous legal road to take which will end with adults being treated like children.
I suspect his defence team may have made those points at trial, and why they felt the 4 tests for the offence had not been satisfied.1) You don't need any qualification to use a boat on the Thames.
2) The person who is driving the boat is in control, and owes a duty of care to their passengers.
3) Hitting a log on the Thames is unlucky not negligent. You can hardly see the things.
4) Not wearing a lifejacket is the responsibility of anyone over the age of eighteen.
5) The owner of the boat has a responsibility for it to be serviceable and have lifejackets/safety equipment in good working order
Because you don't need a qualification to drive a boat on the Thames it is unreasonable for you all to hold the owner to a higher standard and demand he assesses a persons qualification to drive the boat, and takes overall responsibility as trainer and proxy driver.
He simply bought a boat. That doesn't give him any superpowers. He can't perform marriages he can't asses potential drivers for competence when there is no standard.
Hating someone because they are a douche is all well and good but assigning blame here is rather like telling people that if they take part in a dangerous sport and get injured, the British legal system will look for someone to blame, so God help you if you are taking part with them. Very dangerous legal road to take which will end with adults being treated like children.
Labradorofperception said:
Hitting a log at 5 knots is unlucky, hitting it at 12kts plus and it could easily be plus if he has tide under him, is negligent.
It's just as well that Sir Henry Segrave didn't survive, then? Instead of being regarded as a national hero, he'd presumably have been prosecuted for manslaughter, too.Equus said:
Labradorofperception said:
Hitting a log at 5 knots is unlucky, hitting it at 12kts plus and it could easily be plus if he has tide under him, is negligent.
It's just as well that Sir Henry Segrave didn't survive, then? Instead of being regarded as a national hero, he'd presumably have been prosecuted for manslaughter, too.
t heap, in the dark, on the Thames, full of ale, speeding and zig zagging, with a pissed up lass who's nautical experience was the log flume at Alton Towers and not wearing life jackets. other than that your analogy stands.
Fact is he is probably somewhat responsible, if she was drunk he should never have given her the wheel,
But so was the woman, did she not know it was night, he should have offered her a life jacket but she did not have to set off without one, if it can't be proved who was at the wheel then we don't know she might have been driving so might he.
The sentence is harsh in my view, people get less then that for killing people on the road while running from police and not having a license. People get less then that for punishing and killing random people on a drunken night out
I wonder what the sentence would have been if they were in a car, they hit a stag that just ran out, his defense I was not driving she was, anyone know?
Is there a DUI limit for driving boats?
I went out with a friend last year in his new (to him) speed boat on a river, never wore life jackets, did more then 12kts. Won't do that again after reading this!
But so was the woman, did she not know it was night, he should have offered her a life jacket but she did not have to set off without one, if it can't be proved who was at the wheel then we don't know she might have been driving so might he.
The sentence is harsh in my view, people get less then that for killing people on the road while running from police and not having a license. People get less then that for punishing and killing random people on a drunken night out
I wonder what the sentence would have been if they were in a car, they hit a stag that just ran out, his defense I was not driving she was, anyone know?
Is there a DUI limit for driving boats?
I went out with a friend last year in his new (to him) speed boat on a river, never wore life jackets, did more then 12kts. Won't do that again after reading this!
Labradorofperception said:
... not wearing life jackets.
In fact, Segrave took a conscious decision to run without life jackets, which is why the member of his crew who was killed went down with the boat.The story goes that only one specially armoured life jacket had been delivered and rather than delay the run waiting for the others, or assigning the one available jacket to someone and leaving the other two without it, all three would run without them.
Surely a conscious, sober, educated and pre-meditated decision to put your crew members' lives at unnecessary risk is even worse than doing so out of drunken poor judgement?
Equus said:
In fact, Segrave took a conscious decision to run without life jackets, which is why the member of his crew who was killed went down with the boat.
The story goes that only one specially armoured life jacket had been delivered and rather than delay the run waiting for the others, or assigning the one available jacket to someone and leaving the other two without it, all three would run without them.
Surely a conscious, sober, educated and pre-meditated decision to put your crew members' lives at unnecessary risk is even worse than doing so out of drunken poor judgement?
Had he survived and it was 2018 he might well have been prosecuted, although life jackets in those days were pretty ropey, compared to a modern self deploying PFD. Different days then, they were all probably more concerned about whether their moustaches were correctly waxed. The story goes that only one specially armoured life jacket had been delivered and rather than delay the run waiting for the others, or assigning the one available jacket to someone and leaving the other two without it, all three would run without them.
Surely a conscious, sober, educated and pre-meditated decision to put your crew members' lives at unnecessary risk is even worse than doing so out of drunken poor judgement?
The life jacket thing is only part of it, as is the 12kts. i'ts what is and isn't appropriate.
I have happily run a 40 foot yacht down the Kyle of Lochalsh, full sail and kite up at 20 kts, not wearing a life jacket. iI's a question of what is appropriate. At night or in very bad weather or lumpy sea- you wear a jacket, no arguments - all three and you clip in and clip in at night whatever.
To be honest, I tire of seeing people on Countryfile or whatever wearing a life jacket when reporting from a trout farm....
Labradorofperception said:
To be honest, I tire of seeing people on Countryfile or whatever wearing a life jacket when reporting from a trout farm....
I did a development alongside the Gloucester to Sharpness Canal, where we had issues with some ties back from the canal sheet piling into our land. The British Waterways Engineer who turned up to discuss them wore a lifejacket the whole time - his Safety Elf insisted upon it, apparently - despite the fact that we never went within 20 metres of the canal bank.OTOH, I have myself been b
ked by my Group Chairman for wandering round in an open field in rural Gloucestershire, without wearing a hard-hat and hi viz jacket.Shepherd was a bit of a t
t, no doubt, but it does seem pretty unfair - and symptomatic of the increasingly absurd approach to H&S that we have in this country - to convict him of manslaughter and imprison him. 
dieselgrunt said:
who is paying for all the legal costs in Georgia? He has defence lawyers working against the extradition which can't be cheap.
His lawyer in Georgia says he’s paying her out of his own pocket.“Ms Kublashvili, also known for trying to become a Martini girl and defending a man believed to have had links to IS, has insisted she is not being paid with British legal aid cash and that Shepherd is paying her privately.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
But of course he’s still getting legal aid in this country.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
Equus said:
Labradorofperception said:
To be honest, I tire of seeing people on Countryfile or whatever wearing a life jacket when reporting from a trout farm....
I did a development alongside the Gloucester to Sharpness Canal, where we had issues with some ties back from the canal sheet piling into our land. The British Waterways Engineer who turned up to discuss them wore a lifejacket the whole time - his Safety Elf insisted upon it, apparently - despite the fact that we never went within 20 metres of the canal bank.OTOH, I have myself been b
ked by my Group Chairman for wandering round in an open field in rural Gloucestershire, without wearing a hard-hat and hi viz jacket.Shepherd was a bit of a t
t, no doubt, but it does seem pretty unfair - and symptomatic of the increasingly absurd approach to H&S that we have in this country - to convict him of manslaughter and imprison him. I'd be interested to read the court summary on this . I used to run a race charter business and was acutely aware of what constituted luck and negligence.
I also have been trying to be arsed to finish my mountain guiding quals for bloody ages, and have been watching recent court cases such as the MTB paralysis case a couple of years back, to see where he law is going. That's more from a professional angle - here I think it is still in the realm of well travelled criminal law, but the two seem to be merging more and more.
BlackLabel said:
His lawyer in Georgia says he’s paying her out of his own pocket.
“Ms Kublashvili, also known for trying to become a Martini girl and defending a man believed to have had links to IS, has insisted she is not being paid with British legal aid cash and that Shepherd is paying her privately.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
But of course he’s still getting legal aid in this country.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
£93,000 legal aid! WTF? How? “Ms Kublashvili, also known for trying to become a Martini girl and defending a man believed to have had links to IS, has insisted she is not being paid with British legal aid cash and that Shepherd is paying her privately.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
But of course he’s still getting legal aid in this country.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
BoRED S2upid said:
BlackLabel said:
His lawyer in Georgia says he’s paying her out of his own pocket.
“Ms Kublashvili, also known for trying to become a Martini girl and defending a man believed to have had links to IS, has insisted she is not being paid with British legal aid cash and that Shepherd is paying her privately.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
But of course he’s still getting legal aid in this country.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
£93,000 legal aid! WTF? How? “Ms Kublashvili, also known for trying to become a Martini girl and defending a man believed to have had links to IS, has insisted she is not being paid with British legal aid cash and that Shepherd is paying her privately.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
But of course he’s still getting legal aid in this country.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8275789/jack-shepher...
Of we could go back to rapists, pedophiles, murderers etc. cross examining their accusers because they can't afford legal representation.
Well if the snivelling smug little st hadnt done a runner prior to his court case he could have given his version of events to a jury of peers who might have believed him.
instead he ran away after glassing someone in a hotel to try and hide and it has backfired.
he should grow a pair and accept that he made reckless mistakes which ultimately led to the death of someone.
He still has a wife in the UK as well so he has legged it from his relationship too so he can be a playboy in Georgia
t hadnt done a runner prior to his court case he could have given his version of events to a jury of peers who might have believed him.instead he ran away after glassing someone in a hotel to try and hide and it has backfired.
he should grow a pair and accept that he made reckless mistakes which ultimately led to the death of someone.
He still has a wife in the UK as well so he has legged it from his relationship too so he can be a playboy in Georgia
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff