Seems a tad harsh to me ...

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime


Its a hard one, do you wait for a large loss of life caused by excessive
speed at a place where it is common to speed followed by a public outcry
and pillorying of the police and courts.... or... do you try and nip it
in the bud.

TBH, yes I do think jail is inappropriate for a 1st offence, which I
assume it is as there appears to be not reference to to any. Banned from
driving fo 5 years + a large fine (and all the insurance top ups that
would ensure) would have been more than enough.

Thats me keeping it below a 100 in Scotland now then :-(

 

What like everytime someone gets done for dangerous driving just
because they broke a speed limit you mean?

 

"Last year more than 20 motorists were caught travelling at more than
100mph on the Dolphinton stretch of the A702."

Nice to know it's still a cracking bit of road. Of course, the stupid
cunts have fucked it up for everybody, now.

 

Let's not forget that it wasn't tested in a court case - he pleaded
guilty. Would he have been found guilty in a trial? <shrug> We'll never
know, will we?

But what did he plead guilty to? A quick google finds...

---
Dangerous driving is defined in S2(A)(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A
person is guilty of dangerous driving if:

1. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver and
2. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous
---

Good luck if you think you'll have anything short of a bastard of a job
convincing Joe Average that the thick end of 170 down a single
carriageway road, less than arrow-straight and with a bunch of side roads
and houses, isn't dangerous...

 

Adrian wrote:

He didn't crash or maim/kill anyone. Ipso Facto Dildo Bugger perfectly
safe.

 

Hah. You might think so. I know different.

It's never actually presented as such or formally agreed, but it's a
very strong hint from your legal git with a nod and wink. Same golf
club, etc.

 

In some cases, he'd be lucky to GET to court without first collecting 6 or 7
bullets along the way.

You carry on believing that.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

No, because he was (probably) blackmailed into pleading guilty for a
crime he didn't commit.

Which is the crux of the problem. Had he been tried in front of a jury
of UKRMers, he would've been found innocent[1]. A jury of 'think of the
children' twats would've found him guilty. It's just luck of the draw
how the mix is on the day. Being prosecuted for DD & sent to jail just
for breaking a speed limit is, imo, a miscarriage of justice.

[1] Unless he was Welsh, natch.

 

YTC#1 said:

"His lawyer said he was "deeply ashamed" of the offence."

Why? He wasn't riding the bike now was he? !!!

 

CT said:

Evolution innit?

 

Yeh, very common occurrence, that.

<rolls eyes>

<quick google>
Thick end of 100,000 people in prison in the UK.
Average custodial sentence about 16months.

So that's about a third of a million people gone through British prisons,
just in the 4.5yrs since that _one_ man was shot dead by plod in a rather
spectacular ****-up.

I'm willing to take those odds.

 

It's insane. People walk out of the court after inflicting GBH or thieving
significant sums of money or goods.

He could appeal but on current form he is too fucking thick to consider it.

 

So will they create a new offence for your actual DD, with a penalty ITRO
death by cyanide chamber. Or have we abandoned proportionality.

 

No idea of percentages but off the top of my head,

Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Stefan Kisko, Sion Jenkins, Hicky brothers,
mostly as I recall the Police fitting them up or at the least
withholding evidence that doesn't fit their view.

 

Add to that my mate Lionel - who did 3 months for punching a copper -
despite not being in the same room at the time. 4 lying coppers all said
they saw him do it - so off he trotted.

He actually quite liked it inside - said it was like being in the army
but you couldn't go to the pub at night.

He learned his lesson (we were 19 at the time) and went to live in Spain
and instead of working hard over here for sod all, worked very non-hard
but still managed to become exceedingly rich. Retired having sold his
businesses at 45. Not too shabby really for a jail-bird.

 

I reckon those Japs at Pearl Harbour weren't doing under 30 in a built up
area.

Concorde - if he'd gone down the runway at 30mph the tyre bursting
wouldn't have been a problem.

I hear that the Titanic was trudging on at full speed too...

Want any more?

 

I agree with you, but the govt (back in the 1960's) set the national
limit in the name of safety. Therefore, if you exceed that safe speed,
are you not, by definition, putting yourself in danger?

Maybe the limits are set wrong, but it's the argument that is used by the
hard of thinking (and Juries are not picked exclusively from Mensa).

 

Ah, the Harvard Lampoon lives on.

 

Aye. The quick ... and the dead.

 

Dildo Bugger of Bog End, and his friends Spam Gangrene and Frito.

I thought I was the only sad bastard who remembered that from the 1970s.