Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1652525
This 71 year old fella just got for two and a half years and for the life of me I can't see why. I'd wager that 90% of people in prisons are there for pointless Victorian style retribution, not discouragement of others or rehabilitation.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... e-m42-ask/
By cockney steve
#1652538
There has been plenty of publicity over the years since the first stretch of M1 was opened. in 1959.

Outside lane is for overtaking only
no stopping
no turning back
In event of breakdown, park on hard shoulder
Evacuate occupants behind barrier or to embankment.
walk to nearest marker-post, that will tell you which direction to the nearest roadside phone.
Proceed along hard shoulder,to phone,keeping away from carriageway.
Phone is free,direct to motorway police.

The senile old clown has not absorbed the rules in 59 years...his stupidity kills 2 women, including his partner ...and then, whilst banned he shows his lack of remorse and guilt by"teaching" some other unfortunate sucker, to "drive"

2 years not enough, a lifetime ban is a start, plus a ban on any motorised transport which is not under the sole control of A.N. Other. :x
Flying_john, Katamarino liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1652547
[quote="eltonioni"]This 71 year old fella just got for two and a half years and for the life of me I can't see why[\quote]

Really? He killed two people by dangerous driving, that’s why.

He deserved his custodial sentence IMHO

Peter
Katamarino liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1652567
1. Extreme negligence - not just towards his passengers; all other road users and the worker too.
2. 2 People dead
3. Driving whilst disqualified

Why should he be judged any different? Because of his age? That would be ageist.
Katamarino liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1652591
PeteSpencer wrote:
eltonioni wrote:This 71 year old fella just got for two and a half years and for the life of me I can't see why[\quote]

Really? He killed two people by dangerous driving, that’s why.

He deserved his custodial sentence IMHO

Peter

I understand the sentiment though I don't see how prison has any meaningful relationship with preventing the crime, ergo it's not a suitable response to events.it's just a retribution that helps nobody, costs a fortune, and takes up scarce resources that could be used for more practical outcomes.

Surely prison should be used to protect the public and rehabilitate the offender, and if it doesn't there needs to be some other response because locking up a 71 year old man who's stupidity was responsible for killing his own loved ones doesn't help anyone that I can tell.
flybymike liked this
By johnm
#1652598
If Maggie Thatcher hadn't closed down all the psychiatric hospitals and promoted an ineffective care in the community regime, there would be somewhere sensible for him and others like him to go. As it is.....
cockney steve liked this
User avatar
By akg1486
#1652609
eltonioni wrote:I understand the sentiment though I don't see how prison has any meaningful relationship with preventing the crime, ergo it's not a suitable response to events.it's just a retribution that helps nobody, costs a fortune, and takes up scarce resources that could be used for more practical outcomes.

Punishments handed out by courts are not solely about preventing crime, except for the fact that each person in prison can't do any crimes on the outside during the incarceration. Retribution is very much a part of any legal system. Rehabilitation is a beautiful thought, but still prisons world-wide are filled with repeat offenders.

The main reason that most people don't go around robbing and killing others is not to avoid prison time. Not even the "three strikes"-law used in parts of the US, where you can go to prison for life for a very minor crime, works as a deterrent.

(Previous post snipped for brevity, hopefully without distorting the poster's opinion.)