Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:32 pm  

David Titan wrote:

This chap had no insurance certainly. But perhaps that was because he couldn't afford the fees charged by these state-backed monopoly fraudsters.

Well, that is bollox, as the car was his wife's, and while I am the last person to speak for basstard insurers, the plain and unvarnished truth is if (for whatever reason) you cannot pay the premium then simply: DON'T FUKKIN DRIVE. It couldn't be simpler.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:47 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

You're missing the point. Not having insurance is a behavioural pattern. A lack of regard for the law in the same way he showed a lack of regard by driving off.

It showed he was acting recklessly. A reckless act resulting in the death of a human carries 5 years? He'll probably be out in less on good behaviour. Imagine that was your father, your son...your brother. Dead. 5 years?

How can we trust, respect........have faith in a system which shows such an abhorrent disreguard for human life?

It's disgusting.

From the newspaper article I read I don't think the driver was actually at fault for the accident. I think if he was an insured driver he wouldn't have been blamed at all for the accident. The cause of the accident would have probably been placed at the pedestrian for attempting to cross a busy road when it was unsafe to do so.

The guy got blamed because he was driving uninsured and he did a runner. He deserves strong punishment for that. I think he's received that.

I think this thread was a misguided rant from the start. It says nothing whatsoever about the justice system but quite a lot about the uninformed opinions of most people.