Another classic case of double standards

[anonymous-user]

Lucky she wasn’t riding a motorcycle?

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/18162829.an...

It’s a joke these days. You can freely mow down kids and get a slap on the wrist, yet ride like a loon, and not actually hurt anyone and you get locked up.

Well done all.

[anonymous-user]

And the three guys jailed, hurt nobody. But no suspended sentences there?

Apparently trying to kill these kids, and she has a previous DD is ok, as long as you’re a woman, and vulnerable?

It’s ridiculous.

[anonymous-user]

pavarotti1980 said:

What were the factors for three blokes being locked up

Loads of men get suspended sentences. Next door neighbour nicked £30k from social club funds. Suspended sentence for him. He was neither a women or vulnerable

They were speeding and being naughty. But nobody was injured...

This is the issue for me.

How is this not more serious? A woman took a vehicle with the intent to hit these kids.

[anonymous-user]

Looked in expecting that this might be a certain type of familiar PH thread, as we were sort of overdue one in here. Won bet with self.

Am a tad disappointz that no one has said "snakes with tits" yet. Standards are slipping!

[anonymous-user]

yonex said:

And the three guys jailed, hurt nobody. But no suspended sentences there?

Apparently trying to kill these kids, and she has a previous DD is ok, as long as you’re a woman, and vulnerable?

It’s ridiculous.

Apparently not.

[anonymous-user]

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"?

[anonymous-user]

kestral said:

If this had been a male he would have gone to prison.

...

Sexist BS is sexist BS no matter how you spin it. Read the informed posts above, although that would require you to open your mind to information.

[anonymous-user]

It is, but I was referring more generally to the idea of throwing people in jail for bad driving - my bad for not being clear on that.

[anonymous-user]

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.

It’s not been debunked at all. Bikers jailed for 153mph yet this bint tries to kill a couple of kids and gets let off?

What are you struggling with, apart from everything?

[anonymous-user]

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.

It’s not been debunked at all. Bikers jailed for 153mph yet this bint tries to kill a couple of kids and gets let off?

What are you struggling with, apart from everything?

Were the sentencing guidelines applied incorrectly in either case?

In order for there to be a foundation for double standards, that would have to be the case.

[anonymous-user]

Female drink driver let off by female judge "because she is a woman"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6915387/D...

Drink drive mum spared jail as is would "impact taking the children to school"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10757849/drink-drivi...

Law does not really apply unless you are a white male.

[anonymous-user]

Always fun to be told I'm none too bright by a person who uses a term such as "bint" to describe a woman. Hey, yonex, what sort of tape do you use to prevent your knuckles getting all scratched up as you walk? Does it get a bit smoky in the cave when there's cooking going on, or are you still at the eat it raw stage? Asking for a friend.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 17th January 14:51

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.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Always fun to be told I'm none too bright by a person who uses a term such as "bint" to describe a woman. Hey, yonex, what sort of tape do you use to prevent your knuckles getting all scratched up as you walk? Does it get a bit smoky in the cave when there's cooking going on, or are you still at the eat it raw stage? Asking for a friend.

I think called a permatanned runt of a woman ‘bint’ is fair enough given her recent history.

I’m sure you’d be happy with her in your family?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Are you a white male by chance?

Are you brainwashed by the law by chance?

[anonymous-user]

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.

What would suit me is a 14 month jail term for her, not custodial. There’s no excuse for trying to run people over.

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

So what are and where are the double standards?

Establishing those things given the topic title would seem a good place to start.

I expect that won't be achieved.

[anonymous-user]

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?

[anonymous-user]

Greendubber said:

She intended to kill them, really?

She began the evening with a verbal threat of killing them...