Scooter Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Interesting flip side to this harsh IMO sentancing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 It was basically a death waiting to happen at that speed. If he had hit someone (person) he would have killed them and got 7+ years. As it is he will be out in about 2 months and perhaps not make the same choices in his future speeds. Harsh but not out of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Interesting flip side to this harsh IMO sentancing Says it all really doesnt it. How inconsistant can the law in this country be lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 It was basically a death waiting to happen at that speed. If he had hit someone (person) he would have killed them and got 7+ years. As it is he will be out in about 2 months and perhaps not make the same choices in his future speeds. Harsh but not out of order. He didnt hit anyone though so its a speeding offence with either dangerous or reckless driving thrown in for good measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 He didnt hit anyone though so its a speeding offence with either dangerous or reckless driving thrown in for good measure. Yip. And in scotland anything over 115mph is dangerous per se according to the appeal court. Also the difference in the other case was it was on a motorway and a lower speed but the driver ought to have been banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kslb Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 If he had hit someone (person) he would have killed them If you hit someone at 70 they are just as dead! Way over the top, a ban and fine would have done the job. A custodial sentance is plain daft, if we need to cut the defence budget and put soldiers at risk can we afford to put speeders in jail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 That is a daft response given stopping times and distance covered etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden1989 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 3 times the speed limit? And a custodial sentence is harsh? I hate to say 'what if' but he is seriously putting other people in danger. We al speed from time to time but that just takes the piss - deserves everything he gets. I agree, 9 months isnt the end of the world, im sure it is long enough to make him think twice in future, Out of interest is this a single carriageway or dual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesC Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 too harsh IMO 9 months isnt the end of the world, im sure it is long enough to make him think twice in future, It's not just the 9 months though, it's also the fact he'll lose his job, his family may have to sell the house as he could have been the only income into the house. He then gets out and can't get another job, etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martini Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 It's not just the 9 months though, it's also the fact he'll lose his job, his family may have to sell the house as he could have been the only income into the house. He then gets out and can't get another job, etc etc But I guess the argument is that you shouldn't do that speed on the road? I know I wouldn't. I love going fast but there is a time and a place. M6 at 4am might seem convenient but a track is the real place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 But no one was actually hurt... So why the punishment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 way too harsh IMO in comparison to what other people are let off with in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinboy Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 But no one was actually hurt... So why the punishment? That's not the point though - it's the risk he is taking on others behalf. Just because no one was hurt this time is no excuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave17 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I suspect alot of the the "too harsher's" here haven't seen what a motorbike doing speed can do to a toddlers face. I have, i suspect nobody would be saying too harsh then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I suspect alot of the the "too harsher's" here haven't seen what a motorbike doing speed can do to a toddlers face. I have, i suspect nobody would be saying too harsh then. Its not about what if though is it, it is about what has gone before them. How many people do you know or have heard of that are doing that kind of time for speeding? I can safely say i know none. In the grand scale of things taking into account the UK's justice system this sentence is FAR too harsh. Fair enough, burn the witch and all that lark. Try to put it into perspective though, its not fair. Tell you what, we both get done for 100mph in a 60, you do time and i get off scot free. Is that OK in your case due to what could have happened? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave17 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 No i quite agree, we should both get a ticket! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 No i quite agree, we should both get a ticket! Yes, most likely a ban too. However, that doesn't happen nowadays. Some people do, some don't. Because of this, anything more than the average sentence is seen as harsh, and anything under is lean. I'm with you in that "don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time" and all that, but i have to agree that if i was in his shoes i would feel very hard done by.... even though it was my own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinboy Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Its not about what if though is it, it is about what has gone before them. How many people do you know or have heard of that are doing that kind of time for speeding? I can safely say i know none. In the grand scale of things taking into account the UK's justice system this sentence is FAR too harsh. Fair enough, burn the witch and all that lark. Try to put it into perspective though, its not fair. Tell you what, we both get done for 100mph in a 60, you do time and i get off scot free. Is that OK in your case due to what could have happened? I think not. It wasn't 100mph. It was 166. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 It wasn't 100mph. It was 166. It was an analogy, not a factual comparison. What is the fastest known illegal driving speed in the UK? Did they get the same term? It seems like a grudge against the soliciter more than anything. Think he would have got off as easy as this twat had the circumstances been different? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223111/Policeman-killed-grandmother-100mph-dash-deliver-sisters-birthday-card-jailed.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinboy Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm sorry. Your argument seems to be based upon facts. You've just proved that with a cutting which, whilst being relevant to the argument of speeding unnecessily, confuses me as to what your point actually is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm sorry. Your argument seems to be based upon facts. You've just proved that with a cutting which, whilst being relevant to the argument of speeding unnecessily, confuses me as to what your point actually is? I'm confused as to what is confusing about this? I'll simplify it with a question..... You think every murderer gets the same sentence? Every rapist gets the same sentence and every speeder gets the same sentence? If the answer is yes, then you need to open your eyes. If the answer is no, then clearly there will be a threshold of the "norm" for each case. Anything over the "norm" would be judged as harsh, taking personal emotion and feelings out of it. Anything below said "norm" would be considered getting off easy. I got done for 130 in a 70, left the court with 3 points and £100 fine. I got off easy IMO. If i had got 6 months in jail I would have felt I was treated harshly. Losing my license for 9-12 months and having a hefty fine I would have said was the norm at the time. Is it really that difficult to follow or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Where was this in scotland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 A702 near west linton? Says it's the borders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Sure, his speed was excessive, and there is an obvious danger presented to other road users. My problem is simply this, his punishment is not proportionate when compared with other crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Sorry i meant where in scotland was this; I got done for 130 in a 70, left the court with 3 points and £100 fine. I got off easy IMO. If i had got 6 months in jail I would have felt I was treated harshly. Losing my license for 9-12 months and having a hefty fine I would have said was the norm at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.