The Liverpool incident.

[Londonlisa2001]

Well I’m sure the revellers hurt will be ok for Christmas unlike the baby in the link above.

You are beginning to sound insane Darran. Genuinely.

 

[Darran]

As horrific as that is, you can’t compare the two. But to add, that person in your link should also have had a lot longer bird, but that’ll be the fault of the sentencing guidelines.

Again I agree but my initial point was the discrepancy in sentences is bizarre.
If he’d killed just one person half a mile away before he turned into the street of revellers whilst over the limit he’d probably have had less.

 

[Darran]

You are beginning to sound insane Darran. Genuinely.

Am I wrong then?

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Am I wrong then?

Yes.

You are conflating entirely different crimes.

 

[Darran]

Oh and on a side note why does a judge in the same sentence (in many cases) say “I’m jailing you for 21 years but you can come out after 14.”

 

[Darran]

Yes.

You are conflating entirely different crimes.

I’m making a point about using a car as a weapon.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I’m making a point about using a car as a weapon.

Someone drink driving is not doing that though.

It may result in the same outcome but as I said before, the intent is not the same. And intent matters under the law.

 

[Darran]

Someone drink driving is not doing that though.

It may result in the same outcome but as I said before, the intent is not the same. And intent matters under the law.

I’m not disagreeing with you but how can the sentences be so far apart when a car is involved.
I’m pretty sure you’d have given the woman who killed a baby more than 4 years.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I’m not disagreeing with you but how can the sentences be so far apart when a car is involved.
I’m pretty sure you’d have given the woman who killed a baby more than 4 years.

Yes I would.

But a lot of sentencing is all over the shop. The fact that having indecent images of children is not an automatic 10 year sentence plus chemical castration is beyond me.

But the crimes here are totally different. Drunk driving doesn’t involve intent to harm. He deliberately harmed as many as he could until he was forcibly stopped.

 

[Darran]

Yes I would.

But a lot of sentencing is all over the shop. The fact that having indecent images of children is not an automatic 10 year sentence plus chemical castration is beyond me.

But the crimes here are totally different. Drunk driving doesn’t involve intent to harm. He deliberately harmed as many as he could until he was forcibly stopped.

Thank you,I quite like you.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Thank you,I quite like you.

Obviously.

 

[Darran]

Obviously.

Ok don’t push it.

 

[Jack2jack]

Yes I would.

But a lot of sentencing is all over the shop. The fact that having indecent images of children is not an automatic 10 year sentence plus chemical castration is beyond me.

But the crimes here are totally different. Drunk driving doesn’t involve intent to harm. He deliberately harmed as many as he could until he was forcibly stopped.

But surely if you get into a car and you are drunk, then you know before hand that there is a chance you may crash into someone and cause harm, then the intent is there. Although I'm sure the law would argue against that view. Clearly I'm not lawyer just saying.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

“You struck people head on, knocked others on to the bonnet, crushed prams and forced others to scatter in terror. You ploughed on at speed, violently knocking people aside or running over them, person after person after person.”

Prosser eh.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

“Driving offence”.