Deleted posts

[cajar]

thanks for that.

anyone else think the punishment was harsher than most joyriders without a licence get?

Do you not think that he, or his female accomplice driving the car, could easily have injured innocents nearby?

I do agree, though, that 'sentences' handed down to joyriders are a positive encouragement for them to repeat offend.

yes I agree that she did was dangerous, but on a scale, probably no more than 25mph. but she was fined £1000 and banned for 2 years (which will affect her as she works and pays insurance etc)

then compare it to these two sisters who led police on a 90mph chase through urban streets, both drunk, until they crashed. neither of them have a licence. their punishment? a driving ban(!), and pay £250 each. ban won't affect them because they were effectively 'already banned' from driving as they don't have a licence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-ask-officers-cigarette-finally-stopped.html

 

[JBR]

thanks for that.

anyone else think the punishment was harsher than most joyriders without a licence get?

Do you not think that he, or his female accomplice driving the car, could easily have injured innocents nearby?

I do agree, though, that 'sentences' handed down to joyriders are a positive encouragement for them to repeat offend.

yes I agree that she did was dangerous, but on a scale, probably no more than 25mph. but she was fined £1000 and banned for 2 years (which will affect her as she works and pays insurance etc)

then compare it to these two sisters who led police on a 90mph chase through urban streets, both drunk, until they crashed. neither of them have a licence. their punishment? a driving ban(!), and pay £250 each. ban won't affect them because they were effectively 'already banned' from driving as they don't have a licence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ficers-cigarette-finally-stopped.html[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how our glorious judges hand down sentences these days. The stock answer is that we are not aware of the full details of the prosecution and the defence which, I suppose, is true. It still doesn't give me much confidence in our judicial system, though. I still think it's a bit of a lottery.

 

[JBR]

That's where we must beg to differ: I can't see why there has to be any name calling at all.

Disagree, that's fine, argue, no problem. But there's no need for name calling.

I think you misunderstand, SS; I am not supporting name-calling.
I was merely making the point that a post where someone was called a t**t stayed on the boards for some good while (although it appears to have gone now), while my light quip about "having a drink" was binned within no time at all.

Same as my last post just above. Perhaps DIYnot mods are also judges! (Oops, here comes a ban!)

I must say, though, that name-calling can sometimes be quite innocuous if done in a friendly way, just like calling your mate a t**t down at the pub. It's not so easy on the internet though, I suppose, to differentiate the one from the other.

 

[Brigadier]

Just checked again - the personal insult is still there. My bad.