Three jailed for dangerous driving

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

The purpose of the analogy, I believe, is he is expressing a belief that no harm no foul is not applicable to dangerous driving, in respect that it should still be dealt with robustly with due regard to the actions, even in the absence of injury/damage. As it also should with discharging a firearm in a public place resulting in no injury/damage.

Then treat every dangerous driving offence exactly the same. Let’s just assume the worst outcome for everything.

Good plan 1/10

Each dangerous driving offence is not exactly the same nor are they all treated exactly the same, just as each case of burglary is not the same. You need to look at all the facts that distinguish it.
But every dangerous driving case has to satisfy the points to prove for the offence, otherwise it isn't dangerous driving (but can then still be careless driving).

[Solocle]

I think, continuing the analogy, the riding by the motorcycles would be somebody shooting an air rifle willy nilly. A car driver doing the same would be somebody firing off a normal handgun, and, should a lorry do the same, that would be a 50 cal.

[kestral]

exgtt said:

Anyone who films themselves breaking the law deserves whatever they get.

And if you don't film yourself then you don't deserve what you get.

[Hungrymc]

vonhosen said:

Hungrymc said:

vonhosen said:

And the successive governments of both main flavours, that have been voted in by the electorate, have presided over the legislation & sentencing guidelines we do have.

It really is pretty pointless comparing or complaining about various individual cases, none of which we will be privy to the full sentencing considerations for when making those comparisons or complaints.

Is the recent decision to allow cameras into crown court an indication that the authorities recognize there an issue with transparency? I'd suggest it a good move and it may demonstrate that your trust in the system and the "full evidence" fully explaining what can appear as inconsistent sentencing is fully founded. Or it may show that the "prior conviction and full evidence" argument is not the whole story.

Good to see the authorities recognizing the need to modernize and be more accountable either way.

And Pointless? We can't discuss anything without 100% clarity on all facts? We can't have an opinion or a discussion based on the limited facts we do have? Erm, okey dokey.

Accountability & transparency has been moving forwards for decades.

I'm saying it's pointless taking hard positions when comparing individual decisions when we don't have all the facts the decision was based on. If we have all the facts & the sentencing guidelines available that's fine, but it's not an informed opinion if we don't, it's just based on your gut & personal prejudices rather than information. That's not a reasoned debate.

Like I say expressing an opinion on wider policy, such as should anyone ever be imprisoned for an offence of dangerous driving, is a valid discussion to have where opinions also have some validity within the argument, but to compare the individual outcomes of two cases without knowing the information or reasoning behind them is pure folly & serves no useful purpose.

Maybe I misunderstood. I took your point about successive governments as being some sort of indication that the system is right and must be trusted. I’d disagree strongly and am pleased to see the authorities recognise that to hide behind the ‘you don’t know all the facts’ while denying the public they serve the ‘facts’ is daft and needs changing..... is all a bit Tony Blair / Iraq war.

With regards to discussing topics where all the facts are not know. I’m afraid it’s rare in life to have 100% information and as such we have to deal with what we do know. Perhaps it is telling that your default position is to trust the system where as mine (and some others) is to question the system. I’d suggest there is value in questioning the current system, and the decision to allow cameras in is a result of people questioning the system and understanding that more transparency and accountability is needed.

I have learned from this thread. And although I disagree with some of your comments / views, i’ve found it interesting to see just how different people view these maters. So for me, it’s been interesting and that’s as much as you can gain from a forum. Is almost disappointing that you’ve found a discussion you have been quite engaged in a folly. But once again, maybe an example of how different we all are.