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

[darreni]

Glassing/ bottling someone is is act of a coward.

I trust his days inside will be long and unpleasant.

[anonymous-user]

jakesmith said:

No no! He was just messing about like how we love joining in our cars! An innocent man!

You know it's possible to have different opinions on two separate incidents right? Personally I think the sentence for the ''speedboat'' accident was harsh (skipping trial aside) but have no doubt at all that the bottling sentence will be pathetic and probably run concurrently.

[jakesmith]

fblm said:

You know it's possible to have different opinions on two separate incidents right? Personally I think the sentence for the ''speedboat'' accident was harsh (skipping trial aside) but have no doubt at all that the bottling sentence will be pathetic and probably run concurrently.

What sentence would you feel appropriate for a man who took a woman out in a completely unroadworthy car, without an MOT or driving license, then let her drive it on a dangerous road, and then say it crashed and burst into flames, made no attempt to save her?

[Red Devil]

I'm pretty sure that his previous 'form' for speeding on the river, and having received more than one warning for it, was an aggravating factor when it came to sentencing.
Not to mention the defects in the vessel and stowing away the lifejackets. Then he flees from justice prior to sentencing and potential incarceration.
AIUI the bottling incident took place the day before he did so.

Harsh? I don't think so.

If you are in charge of a vessel your responsibilities are that much greater than the driver of a car. Unless you drive your p&j into a lake your passenger/s don't run the risk of drowning.
The buck stops with the captain of a ship even if someone else is at the tiller/wheel.

[anonymous-user]

jakesmith said:

fblm said:

You know it's possible to have different opinions on two separate incidents right? Personally I think the sentence for the ''speedboat'' accident was harsh (skipping trial aside) but have no doubt at all that the bottling sentence will be pathetic and probably run concurrently.

What sentence would you feel appropriate for a man who took a woman out in a completely unroadworthy car, without an MOT or driving license, then let her drive it on a dangerous road, and then say it crashed and burst into flames, made no attempt to save her?

Who cares what I think about a hypothetical and largely irrelevant analogy. The simple fact is if he had instead punched her in the head and killed her he'd have likely got less than 6 years. https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-ne... That's why it seems harsh to me. As for the bottling; he's a fvcking psycho, throw away the key for all I care.

[85Carrera]

jakesmith said:

What a pair of prats you are

I suppose him bottling a barman who happened to be a former servicemen trying to get over PTSD after fighting for his country, could have happened to anyone too?

Did you miss Yellowjack criticising him for this attack about 3 posts above yours?

[Red Devil]

fblm said:

jakesmith said:

fblm said:

You know it's possible to have different opinions on two separate incidents right? Personally I think the sentence for the ''speedboat'' accident was harsh (skipping trial aside) but have no doubt at all that the bottling sentence will be pathetic and probably run concurrently.

What sentence would you feel appropriate for a man who took a woman out in a completely unroadworthy car, without an MOT or driving license, then let her drive it on a dangerous road, and then say it crashed and burst into flames, made no attempt to save her?

Who cares what I think about a hypothetical and largely irrelevant analogy. The simple fact is if he had instead punched her in the head and killed her he'd have likely got less than 6 years. https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-ne... That's why it seems harsh to me. As for the bottling; he's a fvcking psycho, throw away the key for all I care.

You have no way of knowing whether their sentences would not have been higher if they had fled abroad to escape being banged up.

[anonymous-user]

Red Devil said:

You have no way of knowing whether their sentences would not have been higher if they had fled abroad to escape being banged up.

That's a fair point but he was sentenced to 6 years for the death with an additional 6 months for absconding so I assume there's not supposed to be any extra built into the 6 years.

The good news is I just read the feeble 4 years he got for the bottling is consecutive so it adds up to a decent sentence no matter what our opinion on the severity of each crime.

[Octoposse]

In practical terms, do you feel that he was actually fleeing from facing the consequences of the assault in the bar, rather than the speedboat 'accident'?

[anonymous-user]

I’m quite surprised that anyone is sticking up for him in any way whatsoever.

As far as I’m concerned, his actions have demonstrated that he is a nothing but a detriment to our society. He can do many years in prison for all I care.

I have never behaved like he has, in any way shape or form.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people like him to behave themselves and not do stupid things that endanger others, or as his latest incident shows, attack others.

[Byker28i]

jakesmith said:

fblm said:

You know it's possible to have different opinions on two separate incidents right? Personally I think the sentence for the ''speedboat'' accident was harsh (skipping trial aside) but have no doubt at all that the bottling sentence will be pathetic and probably run concurrently.

What sentence would you feel appropriate for a man who took a woman out in a completely unroadworthy car, without an MOT or driving license, then let her drive it on a dangerous road, and then say it crashed and burst into flames, made no attempt to save her?

We've only his word she was driving. It sounded more like he was trying to place all the blame on her...

[anonymous-user]

It responsibility to ones own actions. Basically whatever happened a blind could see he didn't want to take any responsibility and that is why he fled. This most likely counted against him. I think being in IT and earning good money he probably thought he was just better than everyone around him. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't a psychopath.

[anonymous-user]

Lord Marylebone said:

I’m quite surprised that anyone is sticking up for him in any way whatsoever.

As far as I’m concerned, his actions have demonstrated that he is a nothing but a detriment to our society. He can do many years in prison for all I care.

I have never behaved like he has, in any way shape or form.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people like him to behave themselves and not do stupid things that endanger others, or as his latest incident shows, attack others.

It is very strange.

I am sure if it had been their daughter killed or son attacked they would not be so supportive.

[anonymous-user]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I’m quite surprised that anyone is sticking up for him in any way whatsoever.

As far as I’m concerned, his actions have demonstrated that he is a nothing but a detriment to our society. He can do many years in prison for all I care.

I have never behaved like he has, in any way shape or form.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people like him to behave themselves and not do stupid things that endanger others, or as his latest incident shows, attack others.

It is very strange.

I am sure if it had been their daughter killed or son attacked they would not be so supportive.

Has anyone actually been supportive? Ignoring the skipping bail, attack on the bar man and the fact that he is obviously a total knobber who deserves a very long stretch inside (in other words lets drop the 'won't someone think of the children' stuff); do you think an accidental death involving willing adult participants should get more time inside than, to use the example above, a boxer who punched a man to death over the course of two attacks?

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Has anyone actually been supportive? Ignoring the skipping bail, attack on the bar man and the fact that he is obviously a total knobber who deserves a very long stretch inside (in other words lets drop the 'won't someone think of the children' stuff); do you think an accidental death involving willing adult participants should get more time inside than, to use the example above, a boxer who punched a man to death over the course of two attacks?

In my opinion, that depends entirely on the activity.

If he had said “let’s get drunk and then go for a midnight walk along the river”, and the girl had slipped fell in, I don’t think there would be much of a case for him to answer.

But what he suggested was in my opinion staggeringly dangerous and irresponsible.

Mind blowingly dangerous.

Very awful things happen to people on big tidal rivers like the Thames, and the danger is massively greater at night.

It makes me shudder just thinking about going anywhere near a river at night.

Yet after he had been drinking heavily, he suggested/encouraged/offered to take a drunk girl out on a small defective boat, on the river Thames, at night.

He might as well have just smashed her over the head with something then and there, such was the danger that he was proposing they both partake in.

We ALL have a duty of care towards other humans.

That duty is not absolved just because the other person says “Yeah, ok then”.

I’ve never suggested, offered or encouraged that another person join me in doing something dangerous. You know why? Because I care about other people’s safety, and I’m not stupid.

[anonymous-user]

Lord Marylebone said:

He might as well have just smashed her over the head with something then and there, such was the danger that he was proposing ...

Yeah i think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Lord Marylebone said:

He might as well have just smashed her over the head with something then and there, such was the danger that he was proposing ...

Yeah i think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Which is fair enough.

As for your actual question, which I forgot to answer:

What deserves the greater sentence? The person who killed someone else by punching them, or the case we are discussing here?

In my opinion they both deserve a similar sentence.

They are both manslaughter, and:

Punching someone is stupid and potentially lethal.

Taking a drunk girl out in a speedboat, at night, on the river Thames is stupid and potentially lethal.

There will of course be mitigating or aggravating factors in any case that will additionally be taken into account.

[Gargamel]

But looking at what the police day in that article, I just wonder what in the wide world of sports is going on when it takes 15 months to investigate that case and bring it to trial ?

Surely with a video like that, interviews and a medical report you could be in court in a month tops !

[CoolHands]

Yeah strange isn’t it. Yet you can lob an egg at corbyn in a mosque on 3rd March and be in court and jailed on 25th March

Regarding the ahole this thread’s about - look at him loitering with his hands behind him holding the bottle for most of that clip, looking inoffensive. Then when he gets the chance he strikes so hard. Unbelievable. I would honestly give someone like that 20+ years in jail.

[yellowjack]

85Carrera said:

jakesmith said:

What a pair of prats you are

I suppose him bottling a barman who happened to be a former servicemen trying to get over PTSD after fighting for his country, could have happened to anyone too?

Did you miss Yellowjack criticising him for this attack about 3 posts above yours?

This one?

yellowjack said:

The man is a complete arse. You can "blame alcohol" all you want, but alcohol does not make peaceful people turn violent, it simply dismantles inhibitions, allowing violent people to come out from behind their veneer of civilised behaviour. He's an arse, and a violent one at that. He's just managed to keep a lid on it (or not get caught) prior to this incident. Most people getting thrown out of a pub for being excessively drunk would just leave, after a verbal protest, and maybe kick the door or a chair on the way out, not grab a concealed vodka bottle and smash someone in the face with it.

The more I find out about this bloke, the less inclined I am to give him the benefit of any doubt about his behaviour on the night his boat flipped in the Thames, quite frankly...

I'm afraid Jakey-boy sounds like one of those wholesome chaps who likes nothing better than a good jerk of the knee before all the evidence has been examined. As someone who spent 25 years with a gun in his hand and a rules of engagement card in his top left-hand pocket, I prefer to ask questions before opening fire. It's very easy to be right (or believe that to be the case) sat in front of a backlit screen. Try your hand at a situational/judgemental simulator. It's shocking how many trained, experienced soldiers open fire on an innocent bystander when the tunnel vision descends and they get caught up in a scenario. Life is seldom black and white, and I made all my previous comments before seeing that rather shocking video clip. I fully expected a less ferocious attack with a smaller bottle to be honest, and although I've seen some pretty extreme events in my time, the ferocity of the bottle attack, and the fact that he appeared to be planning it suggests to me that his "I was drunk" shtick was just a load of cobblers to try to mitigate his sentence down. The camera evidence, in this instance, seems pretty clear cut.

Now, if only we had some quality cctv footage of that Thames boat trip, we could probably justify burning him at the stake...


...and if only Jakey-boy had known that I too am an ex-serviceman battling a diagnosed mental health issue (9 years now, but don't feel sorry for me - save the sympathy for my long-suffering wife) after "fighting for my country" (I'm uncomfortable with that phrase for a number of reasons, btw), he might have been a little less hasty when it came to wielding his digital vodka bottle, eh?

TL;DR? I don't personally feel that I ever wrote a post defending him, but some may have interpreted it that way. Then I saw a story about him assaulting another man with a bottle and changed my mind about giving him the benefit of any doubt. Having not seen the evidence for myself in either case I was basing decisions about his character on limited information. Now that I've seen the video of the assault, though, I've moved decisively into the pitchforks and torches camp. Hope that helps...

Edited by yellowjack on Saturday 8th June 01:20