Guest prescience Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Tidied means post deletion presumably You'll not be popular Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Tidied means post deletion presumably You'll not be popular Ah well that's a cross I'll have to bear Some post that were definitely off topic (random) have been deleted to save the continuity of this thread...... as its good to have a interesting debate on this sort of subject..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ByteJuggler Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 My biggest problem is the fact that people who commit fairly serious crimes get put away for "life" and are back on the street less than 15 years later. The way that soo many get out serving not even 3/4 of thier sentance makes a mockery of the system. If you are put away for 10 years you stay away for 10 years. If you are put away for 25 years you stay away for 25 years. OK maybe let them out a few months early if they are fine but otherwise let them do the time they did the crime. If the jails are full build more - keeping the on the street does not solve the problem in any way - lots will say oh that will cost too much - well make them work for god sake. Every other person in the world has to work day in day out to eat drink etc. There are many many jobs that could be done by someone thats locked up. How they would should be a factor of thier early release. Don't work you don't get out early. Then when they do get out at least they have been doing something decent rather than back to crime +10 Hell, +100... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 To be honest, my point of view is for any of the really serious offences (especially repeat) then I'd like to see corporal punishment brought back..... Murder, Rape, Child offences, etc...... to be honest, prisons are overcrowded and these people don't deserve better anyway, so I'd have them put down! As long as it was absolutely proved without any doubt what so ever etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest prescience Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 If you mean corporal punishment then I think that a good spanking is a bit lenient If you mean capital punishment then I cannot see a justifiable argument for that given the notorious miscarriages of justice which have happened in the past. Why not let them rot in jail for 50 years - I prefer to pay for that than for a quick easy out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 To be honest, my point of view is for any of the really serious offences (especially repeat) then I'd like to see corporal punishment brought back..... Murder, Rape, Child offences, etc...... to be honest, prisons are overcrowded and these people don't deserve better anyway, so I'd have them put down! As long as it was absolutely proved without any doubt what so ever etc.... Corporal or capital, mate? I'm not sure flogging them is going to work.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 If you mean corporal punishment then I think that a good spanking is a bit lenient If you mean capital punishment then I cannot see a justifiable argument for that given the notorious miscarriages of justice which have happened in the past. Why not let them rot in jail for 50 years - I prefer to pay for that than for a quick easy out Yeah you right, sorry rushed typo..... was meant to be capital, not corporal. I think the problem is Dorian, that NO ONE actually rots in jail anymore for 50 years, or even 20! I know what you mean, but the flip side being how many times in the last year have you heard about a rapist etc thats been in jail countless times, only to come out and re-offend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest prescience Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 If you mean corporal punishment then I think that a good spanking is a bit lenient If you mean capital punishment then I cannot see a justifiable argument for that given the notorious miscarriages of justice which have happened in the past. Why not let them rot in jail for 50 years - I prefer to pay for that than for a quick easy out Yeah you right, sorry rushed typo..... was meant to be capital, not corporal. I think the problem is Dorian, that NO ONE actually rots in jail anymore for 50 years, or even 20! I know what you mean, but the flip side being how many times in the last year have you heard about a rapist etc thats been in jail countless times, only to come out and re-offend? There's the rub and that is what needs putting right, killing someone who may be years later proven innocent is unacceptable and is the wrong solution and furthermore, is often the knee-jerk reaction cf The Birmingham Pub Bombers were basically framed (or at best convicted on flawed analysis) and if we had had CapP, would be dead now (they've probably died of old age anyway) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 There's the rub and that is what needs putting right, killing someone who may be years later proven innocent is unacceptable and is the wrong solution and furthermore, is often the knee-jerk reaction cf The Birmingham Pub Bombers were basically framed (or at best convicted on flawed analysis) and if we had had CapP, would be dead now (they've probably died of old age anyway) True enough, and I can understand that. But I would say that the number of these case were proven guilty much later is probably much smaller than the number of scallies that come straight out of jail to re-offend. As I said, I don't mean death straight away, it would only be for certain capital crimes and once all appeals etc had been processed and proved invalid. Guess there would always be the odd one that was complete unjust, but then again, you can't have an omelette without breaking eggs. The majority would probably outweight the odd case, no matter how unfortunate. I know this is harsh to that odd case, but what else happens...... Anyway, it will never come back. We live in a much too "pc" world now. I mean, here's the world where a burglar can break into my house (and lets face it, he didn't "trip" through my window), I can confront him, then when a struggle breaks out etc then he can have me charged for assault! I mean, FFS!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam's Z Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Eye for Eye,,, Tooth for tooth!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Ming Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 One thing that really winds me up is that I often have clients coming to me after being in accidents with hit and run drivers. The police seem to have no interest in investigating the cases notwithstanding that these people are genuinely injured. Often the clients are advised that they can pursue a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau who will make payments for the victims of untraced drivers, however, in most cases that is only injury compensation and the client will be left with a damaged or written off vehicle, storage and recovery charges etc. potentially running into several thousand pounds and no recompense. I have had a couple recently where the third party vehicle details were recorded by an independent witness and the police have still closed their file without making further investigations. In 11 years handling road traffic accident claims I can only recall one occasion where the police located a hit and run driver. I am sure there is a police side to this which I would be interested to hear so that I can explain it to clients who feel the system has let them down. PS Ming, I hope you see this as a genuine question in the spirit of the thread. Hi Digsy This is exactly the sort of question i hoped we would get though to be fair traffic is proably my weakest subject The system as it is now involves two types of accident. Injury and non injury taking the latter first these are completed on a small form and submitted through a supervisor who SHOULD make sure all items have been dealt with. A hit and run with a witness with vehicle details SHOULD be followed up before the file is written off as completed. Often the vehicle details are wrong or in most cases refer to a previous owner three times removed. this can and does lead to severe problems in locating the driver. Injury accidents - sorry we cannot call them accidents now as that indicates negligence so they are road traffic collisions - are slioghtly different in that the form is more complex and more enquiries are expected. the same goes however for the owner driver thing. i have in the past located cars/drivers/offenders from details provided by a witness and once or twice pulled a stunt or two that illicted an admission The major trouble is that almost all road traffic matters are non endictable and as such are statute barred (cannot be proceeded with) after 6 months!! This is why many matters go un detected. A polite call / letter to the duty inspector of the officer dealing with the collision -there i go PC again - with a 'whats happening with my accident' - much better - goes a long way to getting action if things seem to be dragging on. we are in the era of accountability and a letter HAS to be answered. (I know i have had loads of them regarding either my jobs or my officers jobs) hope that this helps mate Ming the Cop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 One thing that really winds me up is that I often have clients coming to me after being in accidents with hit and run drivers. The police seem to have no interest in investigating the cases notwithstanding that these people are genuinely injured. Often the clients are advised that they can pursue a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau who will make payments for the victims of untraced drivers, however, in most cases that is only injury compensation and the client will be left with a damaged or written off vehicle, storage and recovery charges etc. potentially running into several thousand pounds and no recompense. I have had a couple recently where the third party vehicle details were recorded by an independent witness and the police have still closed their file without making further investigations. In 11 years handling road traffic accident claims I can only recall one occasion where the police located a hit and run driver. I am sure there is a police side to this which I would be interested to hear so that I can explain it to clients who feel the system has let them down. PS Ming, I hope you see this as a genuine question in the spirit of the thread. Hi Digsy This is exactly the sort of question i hoped we would get though to be fair traffic is proably my weakest subject The system as it is now involves two types of accident. Injury and non injury taking the latter first these are completed on a small form and submitted through a supervisor who SHOULD make sure all items have been dealt with. A hit and run with a witness with vehicle details SHOULD be followed up before the file is written off as completed. Often the vehicle details are wrong or in most cases refer to a previous owner three times removed. this can and does lead to severe problems in locating the driver. Injury accidents - sorry we cannot call them accidents now as that indicates negligence so they are road traffic collisions - are slioghtly different in that the form is more complex and more enquiries are expected. the same goes however for the owner driver thing. i have in the past located cars/drivers/offenders from details provided by a witness and once or twice pulled a stunt or two that illicted an admission The major trouble is that almost all road traffic matters are non endictable and as such are statute barred (cannot be proceeded with) after 6 months!! This is why many matters go un detected. A polite call / letter to the duty inspector of the officer dealing with the collision -there i go PC again - with a 'whats happening with my accident' - much better - goes a long way to getting action if things seem to be dragging on. we are in the era of accountability and a letter HAS to be answered. (I know i have had loads of them regarding either my jobs or my officers jobs) hope that this helps mate Ming the Cop Thanks for the insight, Ming. My experience is that in most cases no-one ever explains the situation to the victim of these incidents, so they just feel ignored and let down by the system. This means that where there are genuine reasons for a case not being followed up the police's reputation can be sullied by lack of communication. Of course there are officers who for whatever reason don't follow up these cases. One extremely pleasant elderly client who tried to enquire about his case found that the officer refused to speak to him and avoided his calls. The case was dropped and he was never given an explanation. Fortunately, I was more tenacious and with the help of the independent witness persuaded the third party's insurers to pay up. I imagine part of the problem will be lack of funding/manpower so that officers don't have the time to keep the victims in the loop but better communication would help the public perception of the police, who I believe in general do a good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluffy Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 To be honest, my point of view is for any of the really serious offences (especially repeat) then I'd like to see corporal punishment brought back..... Murder, Rape, Child offences, etc...... to be honest, prisons are overcrowded and these people don't deserve better anyway, so I'd have them put down! As long as it was absolutely proved without any doubt what so ever etc.... dont they already have to prove it without any doubt? certainly agree about capital punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ming, my first point is that I completely agree with what you've already stated as being wrong with the system. Its all too soft, the prison & young offenders institutes are laughable. The amount of scallies knocking around is ridiculous and virtually every one of them is a wannabe gangster. They give you attitude if you as much as look sideways at them. Whats gone on over the last few years? I'm only 30 and it wasn't like that when I was growing up, you'd respect other people and god help you when you got home if you'd done something wrong. Now the scum bags that wander our streets and break into and scratch our cars quite frankly dont give a s**t about anyone else and certainly have no fear whatsoever of police, parents or anyone else. Its a joke And a couple of questions for you: (1) If someone breaks into your house when you're asleep and you happen to catch the little tw*t with a baseball bat around the chops, how much trouble are you in? (2) A scenario for you: I used to live in a pretty dodgy part of Salford (on a reasonably new estate). All the time there was teenagers bombing around the esate on quads & bikes. Never wore helmets, and normally had hoodies on - sure you've seen em a million times. One night a car was turning into the estate and one of the mindless tools crashed right into the front of it and just made off. The police later removed the bike. Where does the driver stand, would he be in trouble for hitting someone? And secondly what about the insurance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Quads Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 interested to know the answer. The whole "reasonable force" is just so open its silly. I don't think there should be any issues. If they are hurt tough. If they are killed because my baseball bat cracked thier skill tough. They are breaking in to your property so you should defend it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomoto Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 interested to know the answer. The whole "reasonable force" is just so open its silly. I don't think there should be any issues. If they are hurt tough. If they are killed because my baseball bat cracked thier skill tough. They are breaking in to your property so you should defend it recently in the press , I'm sure I've read that if someone has broken in to your property whilst your inside you have every right to shoot them so long as it is in the face!! not their back., then jump up and down on their bloodstained body shouting hallaluya, or was it just some fantastic dream i was having Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Ming Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 One thing that really winds me up is that I often have clients coming to me after being in accidents with hit and run drivers. The police seem to have no interest in investigating the cases notwithstanding that these people are genuinely injured. Often the clients are advised that they can pursue a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau who will make payments for the victims of untraced drivers, however, in most cases that is only injury compensation and the client will be left with a damaged or written off vehicle, storage and recovery charges etc. potentially running into several thousand pounds and no recompense. I have had a couple recently where the third party vehicle details were recorded by an independent witness and the police have still closed their file without making further investigations. In 11 years handling road traffic accident claims I can only recall one occasion where the police located a hit and run driver. I am sure there is a police side to this which I would be interested to hear so that I can explain it to clients who feel the system has let them down. PS Ming, I hope you see this as a genuine question in the spirit of the thread. Hi Digsy This is exactly the sort of question i hoped we would get though to be fair traffic is proably my weakest subject The system as it is now involves two types of accident. Injury and non injury taking the latter first these are completed on a small form and submitted through a supervisor who SHOULD make sure all items have been dealt with. A hit and run with a witness with vehicle details SHOULD be followed up before the file is written off as completed. Often the vehicle details are wrong or in most cases refer to a previous owner three times removed. this can and does lead to severe problems in locating the driver. Injury accidents - sorry we cannot call them accidents now as that indicates negligence so they are road traffic collisions - are slioghtly different in that the form is more complex and more enquiries are expected. the same goes however for the owner driver thing. i have in the past located cars/drivers/offenders from details provided by a witness and once or twice pulled a stunt or two that illicted an admission The major trouble is that almost all road traffic matters are non endictable and as such are statute barred (cannot be proceeded with) after 6 months!! This is why many matters go un detected. A polite call / letter to the duty inspector of the officer dealing with the collision -there i go PC again - with a 'whats happening with my accident' - much better - goes a long way to getting action if things seem to be dragging on. we are in the era of accountability and a letter HAS to be answered. (I know i have had loads of them regarding either my jobs or my officers jobs) hope that this helps mate Ming the Cop Thanks for the insight, Ming. My experience is that in most cases no-one ever explains the situation to the victim of these incidents, so they just feel ignored and let down by the system. This means that where there are genuine reasons for a case not being followed up the police's reputation can be sullied by lack of communication. There has recently been brought in a sort of victims charter which basically gives set time guidelines that officers have to adhere to for informing complainants of progress of the complaint. This inlcudes telling them when someone has been arrested - sent to court - the court result - and lastly if and why the case has been dropped. Bobbies are thier own worst enemies in that if an outside agency - say for instance CPS - decide not to persue the case then because they know the complainant will give them loads of flack for something that was often not of their doing and out of their control they avoid the complainant as opposed to telling them what and why. Hopefuly this might change now Of course there are officers who for whatever reason don't follow up these cases. One extremely pleasant elderly client who tried to enquire about his case found that the officer refused to speak to him and avoided his calls. The case was dropped and he was never given an explanation. Fortunately, I was more tenacious and with the help of the independent witness persuaded the third party's insurers to pay up. Good man. It is always disappointing when someone from your profession lets the side down. I imagine part of the problem will be lack of funding/manpower so that officers don't have the time to keep the victims in the loop but better communication would help the public perception of the police, who I believe in general do a good job. Lack of resources is ALWAYS a problem. The regular patrolling officers at my district often come on days and have to deal in an 8 hour shift with 40 or 50 incidents to be shared out between 8 or 9 officers. Smoe of these incidents can take most of the shift and as such old stuff gets forgotten. Times many I have taken my meal, sat a computer checking my crimes, my emails, and sorting a file as well as making courtesy phone calls. There were periods of weeks where I NEVER had a full 45 meal BREAK. One where I sat in the canteen and watched a little telly and eat your meal unhurried. You are exactly right about the communication issue and I think I have explained that above Ming the Old timer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Ming Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ming, my first point is that I completely agree with what you've already stated as being wrong with the system. Its all too soft, the prison & young offenders institutes are laughable. The amount of scallies knocking around is ridiculous and virtually every one of them is a wannabe gangster. They give you attitude if you as much as look sideways at them. Whats gone on over the last few years? I'm only 30 and it wasn't like that when I was growing up, you'd respect other people and god help you when you got home if you'd done something wrong. Now the scum bags that wander our streets and break into and scratch our cars quite frankly dont give a s**t about anyone else and certainly have no fear whatsoever of police, parents or anyone else. Its a joke Have you been inside my head. We certainly have very similar views from what I can see. I honestly believe that the situation we are in now with todays youth is directly caused by a lack of discipline. My dad and your dad when they were young did not need threatening with an acceptable behaviour contract or an ASBO (What a fuc*ing joke they are I can tell you) because if they got into bother then three things happened. The complainant gave you a thick ear, followed clcosely by the bobby, followed an hour or two later by your old man. One or two of those and evwen the thickest of kids soon started to realise that behaving was a great and pain free idea. If that didn' work then a lovely place called BORSTAL loomed and boy did you learn you damn lesson in there!!!!!!! And a couple of questions for you: (1) If someone breaks into your house when you're asleep and you happen to catch the little tw*t with a baseball bat around the chops, how much trouble are you in? The law is quite specific when it comes to the using of violence LAWFULLY. You can use a reasonable amount of force necessary to protect you, your family and your property - there are other situations but in general these are the ones people really worry about. Example: You are in the back garden having a BBQ with friends and family when nasty little scum bag comes in with big knife and demands everyones money. His actions and the knife make him VERY dangerous and you HONESTLY fear for your own and others personal safety. You also feel the need to protect these people and their property. He comes towards you and you HONESTLY think he is going to attack you and take your property and you HONESTLY believe that to protect yourself you need to use force on the person and as such stick your BBQ fork through his hand NO OFFENCE. (Protecting self family etc) Scenario continues. Scum bag screams grabs two handbags and does it on his toes. You give chase and because there is a lot of property in the bag including Auntie Ethals gold watch you throw said BBQ fork at him sticking it in his leg causing him to drop the bags and fall to the floor. (No offence protecting property) More You run up feeling REAL good about yourself and recover the bag. Little Mr Scumbag is howling with pain and no longer a threat but you keep him sat on the floor at BBQ fork point until the law arrives. (No offence as you HONESTLY feel that if not held like this he will regain his feet and attack you. Whilst waiting for the boys in Blue to arrive little Mr Scumbag statrs verbally threatening you calling you nasty names and saying horrid things about your daughter so in order to teach him a lesson you stick the fork back in his leg once or twice just for good measure. (OFFENCE. No IMMINENT threat to you or anyone else. Violence unnecessary) You also have to be aware of offensive weapons. The fork as outlined above is not because you have it with you for a lawful use but if you have a bat behind the door with several nails stuck through it in a case marked "In case of burglary break glass and use to beat to death" then it could well be considered to be an offensive weapon and its use COULD be considered as an unacceptable assault (2) A scenario for you: I used to live in a pretty dodgy part of Salford (on a reasonably new estate). All the time there was teenagers bombing around the esate on quads & bikes. Never wore helmets, and normally had hoodies on - sure you've seen em a million times. One night a car was turning into the estate and one of the mindless tools crashed right into the front of it and just made off. The police later removed the bike. Where does the driver stand, would he be in trouble for hitting someone? And secondly what about the insurance? The insurance is a bit of athorny issue. there is a pool of monies held by the insurers to pay out for uninsured drivers but ITHINK it only covers injury. As such the person concerned would have to claim of his own insurance for the damage to his car IF he is fully comp. (TBH it is so little more to go fully Comp as it TPFT that the later is just not worth it in my opinion.) By hitting if you mean in the RTA sense then it is not much of a problem as the little sh*t should not have been on the road and unless the driver ofthe car was negligent then there would be no problem. If by hitting you mean he gets out of the car with a tyre lever in his hand, looks at the damage to his recently painted Zed front end and spills the contents of his skull on the pavement whilst still comatose from the accident then yes he is in trouble. Please remember these are just my opinions based on years of practical use of these parts of the law. The courts can and still do make quite peverse decisions Ming the considered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Hi Ming I thought that in the case of somebody has hit your car and is uninsured, then the Insurance Bureau handles it. Is this not the case then. I was once in a taxi with a girlfriend at the time. We were involved in a crash. Girlfriend got bad whiplash (honest, quite bad actually) The taxi driver was working for a firm and it was ordered by phone. Unfortunately the taxi drive had no insurance and vanished. The injury claim was paid by the Insurance Bureau. Took ages though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 The Motor Insurers Bureau is set up by statute and funded by the aforementioned contributions from all insurers. It has two schemes - one for the victims of UNINSURED drivers and one for the victims of UNTRACED drivers. Where you are hit by a driver for whom you have full details (name, address, reg no. etc) but was not insured, the first scheme applies. Your claim in theory is treated in the same way as where there is an insurer involved i.e. you can claim for exactly the same losses and the MIB pay your legal costs if you are successful and the claim is not a "small claim". The MIB are severely underfunded and understaffed so these claims tend to take longer to settle but if they are messing around you can issue County Court proceedings against the uninsured motorist and if you obtain an upaid Judgment against him the MIB must meet it. I don't know how often the MIB try and recover what they have paid out from the uninsured motorist direct but in theory they can. Where the driver is untraced i.e. hit and run, the second scheme applies. This is far less favourable to the victim. Only if the offending vehicle is traced (i.e. they leave it at the scene) can you claim for property damage. Otherwise it's personal injury and related losses only. The MIB are even slower with these cases (I know of one still going after 12 years! ) and because there is no identified driver to sue there is no threat to make to speed them up. To add insult to injury the MIB only have to pay a contribution to your legal costs based on the value of your claim which in most cases does come close to covering the full amount and leaves you having to pay your solicitor the balance out of the damages. Both of these schemes involve lots of technical issues/deadlines which if not followed to the letter are draconian and allow the MIB to avoid the claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Have you been inside my head. We certainly have very similar views from what I can see. I honestly believe that the situation we are in now with todays youth is directly caused by a lack of discipline. My dad and your dad when they were young did not need threatening with an acceptable behaviour contract or an ASBO (What a fuc*ing joke they are I can tell you) because if they got into bother then three things happened.The complainant gave you a thick ear, followed clcosely by the bobby, followed an hour or two later by your old man. One or two of those and evwen the thickest of kids soon started to realise that behaving was a great and pain free idea. If that didn' work then a lovely place called BORSTAL loomed and boy did you learn you damn lesson in there!!!!!!! Mate I could go on & on for hours about this I really could, a definate & harsh deterrent is by far the best solution. Thanks for answering the questions too, if some scroat comes into my pad at least I know I can make him regret it and rightly so. Would this be the same if you found someone leaving a big scratch down your Z? (just wondering as theres no direct threat to you) The car thing wasn't involving me fortunately. I just happened to be coming out of the house at the time and saw it as soon as I walked out the door. Didn't half feel bad for the poor bloke driving the Corsa (and not only cos of that!!) when he got his front end mashed up. The little ba***rd made straight off without thinking twice, swine was too flaming quick too To be honest it was probably a good thing, little co**sucker probably had a blade, which is another thing!! Agree with your earlier comments too about arming the police wouldn't solve anything, it just means more criminals get more heavily tooled up and you would pretty soon get the ripple effect. It wouldn't take a genius to realise we'd only be a matter of years away from the problems America is facing. Andy now stepping down from his soapbox..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 I was watching car wars last night. There was a chap from warrington who got pulled in his Citreon AX. It had a mot disc which was from a leyland truck, no insurance, the boot was held on with string and the driver had no licence. Thankfully the police nicked him, but what I don't understand is why the courts gave him * point on his license and a tiny fine. What is the point of giving somebody points on his license when he hasn't got one. Hardly a deterrent, and it wasn't the first time the guy had been pulled either. I just wish the legal system could back up the police at times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Check this one out, my missus was telling me about it last night, she's read it in a magazine: A black woman has gone into a club with her friends, the place isn't her cup of tea but she goes because its a friend's birthday. Their having a good night, minding their own business when the lady in question goes to the toilet. While she's in the cubicle somebody knocks on the door/cubicle wall asking for some loo roll, the woman nicely replies to give her a second. The other woman becomes aggresive saying give me some now! Which obvioulsy the black woman says no to because this other woman has got all lairy. She finishes her p**s and comes out of the cubicle to be confronted by this other woman who's shouting that she can get her thrown out of the club and this and that. The lady calmly walks out of the toilet and goes back to join her friends, thinking no more of it. As it turns out this other woman is the mother of the club owner and within a few minutes the black woman is approached by a burly bouncer and asked to leave as she's "given some grief" to this other woman. She calmly picks up her coat and nicely says that she'll leave and has no gripe with the other woman. She starts walking out of the club as she didn't really want to be there anyway and is looking forward to going home. The bouncer starts saying to her who the hell does she think she is saying no to this other woman. Again the black woman keeps her cool and says politely to the bouncer that she isn't after any trouble and just wants to leave. The bouncer loses it and gets the woman in a brutal headlock. The woman tells him repeatedly that he's hurting her but it makes no difference - end result he breaks her neck. This poor woman can now no longer walk, she has spent I don't know how many days/weeks/months recuperating in hospital. She is a single parent with 3 sons - the eldest, about 17 had to go and live with his Dad as he couldn't cope. Another had to go and live abroad with a cousin, again cos he couldn't cope. The youngest, 13, is still living at home but is understandably far from being right. The bouncer has destroyed not only her life but also all of her childrens & broken up a family. The clubs stance initially was that she was play acting and they wouldn't even phone an ambulance. When they realised it was more serious they were still very slow. The bouncer has denied that he was heavy handed and I suspect that he's said that she was giving him all sorts of grief. Now you'd expect the full fury of the law to come down on him wouldn't you? What did the judge dole out, (well obviously as the judges are so in touch with life and aren't all doddering old cronies who live in gold gilted and marble palaces), in his infinite wisdom he gave the bouncer a 12 month sentence. Which was a suspended sentence by the way, with some ridiculous thing like 120hrs community service. At least you'd expect the woman to get some decent compensation now though wouldn't you? Nope, wrong again - she got £2k. The bouncer? He's still driving around in his Aston with a nice private plate. What a joke of a legal system we've got If anyone is interested - this woman is after support to stop bully bouncers, my missus is sending me the link later. I'm going to put my support to her campaign and if anyone else would like to I'll post the link up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest prescience Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Put that link up and the private plate wouldn't go amiss On the other side 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.