What an utter waste of life

Eucris said:
I hope they paid you for it.
Click to expand...

I never asked. I'm not well at the mo so I just left them to it thinking that was less hassle plus I wouldn't want to make money out of this. I didn't help though and they couldn't work out how to do the download.
 
Just a ps on mad driving. A car has just gone through our 20mph limit at what I'd guess as 60+ it's one big laugh to them. I heard the noise as it came down the road.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just a ps on mad driving. A car has just gone through our 20mph limit at what I'd guess as 60+ it's one big laugh to them. I heard the noise as it came down the road.
Click to expand...
That road comes across as very much needing traffic calming measures ASAP.
 
Box Brownie said:
That road comes across as very much needing traffic calming measures ASAP.
Click to expand...

As above, us locals have asked and we were told that emergency services don't want it and also the police said that it'll be us locals who'd get done for traffic offences. To be fair calming wouldn't have stopped this latest 7 dead tragedy as they'd just have sped down the nearby main road will the same result. It's behaviour which has to change through attitude or fear of the consequences.
 
Box Brownie said:
In the case discussed the criminals IIRC (could have the opposite way round?) were travelling south on the north bound carriageway....the police car was properly on the northbound carriageway. They were not both travelling in the same direction, hence the reported head-on collision:(
Click to expand...
Only after reading your account of the incident did I know what really happened and only today did I hear on an LBC Radio news bulletin describe it as such . My original misunderstanding was down to the first report on TV that I watched and the reporter near the scene said this." .Police were pursuing a VW Passat through town when it went onto the A66 and hit the police car". I'm thinking 'how could that happen ? " My wife agreed that it was poor reporting and lacked clarity.. This is a case of him knowing what he meant but failing to ensure those watching his report understood what happened. There was no mentioin of the collision being head-on,either.
 
LCPete said:
If there was a meaningful punishment for causing death by reckless driving it would deter these morons and others who do similar
We don’t need new laws just deter them using the ones we already have
Click to expand...
The offence of causing death by reckless driving was changed to....'causing death 'by dangerous driving' to make it easier to get a successful conviction. All about a state of mind and awareness. Drivers were being found 'not guilty'. I should have remembered that.

I don't think the drivers re this A66 incident and the one in Ireland , or any youngsters who do this a sort of thing, gave a thought to the consequences should they be stopped and arrested by police or there is a collision and they survive. The ones in Ireland had been attempting to break into cars and homes and this latest one involved the stolen VW Passat.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
I think it should be murder as you will definitely kill someone, you just don’t know who. A bit like firing a gun indiscriminately into a crowd. You aren’t choosing a particular person but you’ll kill someone.
Click to expand...
I've pointed out to Cambsno, who couldn't even defend his position on this to me in my post above, ..because he can't.. why a driver whose manner of driving is such that it can be classed as 'dangerous driving' and results in the death of someone, cannot be charged with murder yet, he persists in his belief that it should be charged as murder by giving your post a 'like' because you believe the same to be the case.

I expect you read my post. Murder requires 'intent'. For the sake of this discussion let's say that the drivers had survived. Ask yourself this after I've described both the recent incidents. Was there or was there not an intent to kill ? In both scenarios, the M9 in Ireland and the A66 here, the young men were involved in criminality before the collisions. In Ireland they were aware that police were onto them because people had reported them for attempting to break into cars and homes. For whatever reason they went onto the wrong carriageway on the M9 motorway . Regarding the A66 incident, the young men were in a stolen VW Passat and being pursued by a police vehicle which stopped the pursuit as soon as they saw the Passat being driven onto the A66..the wrong way. Do you think that the drivers intended to ,in Ireland, crash into the car with the three sisters and the 7 year old in, intending to kill them and the driver on the A66 intended to kill the officers in the patrol car which they hit head-on ? You know the answer. It's 'no'.

You both persist in saying, had they survived and any driver in the same position should have been charged with murder. I don't know what more I can say to convince both of you that a charge of murder is not not the correct one. You'll sometimes read of the CPS prosecuting someone for manslaughter because they can't prove intent and would likely lose the case.

You give an example of someone firing a gun into a crowd. It's clear they are intending to kill someone because that's what guns/ bullets are designed to do. I've done my best to point out why a charge of murder would not be brought. If you and Cambsno still persist in your erroneous belief that it could then it's a case of.."you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. ".
 
Pound Coin said:
It doesn’t take away from what these heinous actions achieve, but I doubt there were any seatbelts used by the criminals.
Click to expand...
Quite often when young people are killed in car accidents, not even involving another vehicle, it turns out that none of them were wearing a seat belt and if one was, that one often survived. When you're young you think you're invincible or think what could happen wouldn't.
 
JohnC6 said:
I've pointed out to Cambsno, who couldn't even defend his position on this to me in my post above, ..because he can't.. why a driver whose manner of driving is such that it can be classed as 'dangerous driving' and results in the death of someone, cannot be charged with murder yet, he persists in his belief that it should be charged as murder by giving your post a 'like' because you believe the same to be the case.

I expect you read my post. Murder requires 'intent'. For the sake of this discussion let's say that the drivers had survived. Ask yourself this after I've described both the recent incidents. Was there or was there not an intent to kill ? In both scenarios, the M9 in Ireland and the A66 here, the young men were involved in criminality before the collisions. In Ireland they were aware that police were onto them because people had reported them for attempting to break into cars and homes. For whatever reason they went onto the wrong carriageway on the M9 motorway . Regarding the A66 incident, the young men were in a stolen VW Passat and being pursued by a police vehicle which stopped the pursuit as soon as they saw the Passat being driven onto the A66..the wrong way. Do you think that the drivers intended to ,in Ireland, crash into the car with the three sisters and the 7 year old in, intending to kill them and the driver on the A66 intended to kill the officers in the patrol car which they hit head-on ? You know the answer. It's 'no'.

You both persist in saying, had they survived and any driver in the same position should have been charged with murder. I don't know what more I can say to convince both of you that a charge of murder is not not the correct one. You'll sometimes read of the CPS prosecuting someone for manslaughter because they can't prove intent and would likely lose the case.

You give an example of someone firing a gun into a crowd. It's clear they are intending to kill someone because that's what guns/ bullets are designed to do. I've done my best to point out why a charge of murder would not be brought. If you and Cambsno still persist in your erroneous belief that it could then it's a case of.."you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. ".
Click to expand...
That's correct. Murder requires an intent to kill or to cause serious injury.

I don't have any answers, but it's obvious to me that the existing legislation is enough, and no amount of new or extra legislation or longer terms of imprisonment will make a scrap of difference to the type of people who commit these crimes.

Just for a start, they don't care about anyone except themselves.
Secondly, they don't think that they will be caught, simply because mostly, they aren't.
Thirdly, they think that they're expert drivers, possibly because they generally live in a sub-culture where just about everyone they know drives without a licence or insurance, there's simply nobody around to advise them.
And partly because their belief in their "driving skills" comes from computer driving games, where the worst outcome is having to start the game again, no death, no injury, no consequences at all.

The problem, as I see it, is that this type of criminality is endemic on most housing estates, where almost nobody works, bothers with a driving licence or insurance, and all of the family and friends reinforce this behaviour and encourage them.

There's also the real problem that young drivers simply can't afford insurance, responsible people start off with a small, low-performance car that they can just about manage to insure, the criminals think that they're better than that, they want high performance cars, and they're happy to steal them. And, even if they come to their senses later on, once they have driving convictions insurance becomes totally out of reach financially, so they just carry on ignoring the laws
 
A relative of one of the A66 victims in the Passat called LBC Radio earlier this evening, I'm sure it wasn't the mother..maybe an auntie..who said what a lovely lad he was, always smiling and making people laugh but the media are making them out to be really bad.

Later, someone else called in to ask why LBC were allowing that kind of call.
 
JohnC6 said:
A relative of one of the A66 victims in the Passat called LBC Radio earlier this evening, I'm sure it wasn't the mother..maybe an auntie..who said what a lovely lad he was, always smiling and making people laugh but the media are making them out to be really bad.

Later, someone else called in to ask why LBC were allowing that kind of call.
Click to expand...

Apparently they're organising or may have had a "baloon", yes that's how they spelt it, release eulogy for the them also there's a meme thingy depicting one as an angel. I still haven't spoken to anyone who has an ounce of sympathy but sadly there's an army of people and families like those 5 here. Meanwhile I think over £400k has been pledged so far for the policemen's family.

I did see one comment which resonated with me as getting the local police to respond to anything is a task. Someone pointed out that if you post hurty words on social media the cops turn up at your home mob handed yet some of the 5 were known to the police and one had a habit of bating the police into car chases which he filmed on his phone and posted on social media. Yet they remained at large. I think that's a valid point.

PS.
We live just a few hundred meters form a cemetery. A while back the police cordoned it off for the grand parade and funeral of a local crime boss. It was quite an event. I don't know where the 5 are from but I hope to gosh their funerals and burials aren't at my church or local cemetery. Holding either and they will be big events attended by the local scum a mile from the crash site would IMO be nothing short of obscene.
 
Last edited:
JohnC6 said:
I've pointed out to Cambsno, who couldn't even defend his position on this to me in my post above, ..because he can't.. why a driver whose manner of driving is such that it can be classed as 'dangerous driving' and results in the death of someone, cannot be charged with murder yet, he persists in his belief that it should be charged as murder by giving your post a 'like' because you believe the same to be the case.

I expect you read my post. Murder requires 'intent'. For the sake of this discussion let's say that the drivers had survived. Ask yourself this after I've described both the recent incidents. Was there or was there not an intent to kill ? In both scenarios, the M9 in Ireland and the A66 here, the young men were involved in criminality before the collisions. In Ireland they were aware that police were onto them because people had reported them for attempting to break into cars and homes. For whatever reason they went onto the wrong carriageway on the M9 motorway . Regarding the A66 incident, the young men were in a stolen VW Passat and being pursued by a police vehicle which stopped the pursuit as soon as they saw the Passat being driven onto the A66..the wrong way. Do you think that the drivers intended to ,in Ireland, crash into the car with the three sisters and the 7 year old in, intending to kill them and the driver on the A66 intended to kill the officers in the patrol car which they hit head-on ? You know the answer. It's 'no'.

You both persist in saying, had they survived and any driver in the same position should have been charged with murder. I don't know what more I can say to convince both of you that a charge of murder is not not the correct one. You'll sometimes read of the CPS prosecuting someone for manslaughter because they can't prove intent and would likely lose the case.

You give an example of someone firing a gun into a crowd. It's clear they are intending to kill someone because that's what guns/ bullets are designed to do. I've done my best to point out why a charge of murder would not be brought. If you and Cambsno still persist in your erroneous belief that it could then it's a case of.."you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. ".
Click to expand...
I accept the law doesn’t quite see it as murder but laws change and I’m just expressing that I do see it as murder. Such an act will inevitably result in death and it’s foreseeable that someone will get killed so just the mere act of driving the wrong way down a motorway or busy road on purpose will likely result in the death of someone, conversely shooting into a crowd may not if you don’t hit an organ. Guns and cars are used by humans to kill people. Let’s not give these waste of oxygen’s any quarter.
 
IIRC the news bulletin earlier this evening said that (edit) 4 of the 5 teenagers were known to the police with a litany of quite serious offences including links to organised crime. Plus, in a related action the police arrested others who were using a Volvo for ram raiding.

Their families may have seen them as angels but sadly for the families, they were very much fallen angels.
 
Last edited:
Do agree that murder isn’t the right term but behaviour like this, driving recklessly like that does deserve severe punishment and jail time in my opinion even just to take them off the roads to protect society
 
woof woof said:
Apparently they're organising or may have had a "baloon", yes that's how they spelt it, release eulogy for the them also there's a meme thingy depicting one as an angel. I still haven't spoken to anyone who has an ounce of sympathy but sadly there's an army of people and families like those 5 here. Meanwhile I think over £400k has been pledged so far for the policemen's family.

I did see one comment which resonated with me as getting the local police to respond to anything is a task. Someone pointed out that if you post hurty words on social media the cops turn up at your home mob handed yet some of the 5 were known to the police and one had a habit of bating the police into car chases which he filmed on his phone and posted on social media. Yet they remained at large. I think that's a valid point.

PS.
We live just a few hundred meters form a cemetery. A while back the police cordoned it off for the grand parade and funeral of a local crime boss. It was quite an event. I don't know where the 5 are from but I hope to gosh their funerals and burials aren't at my church or local cemetery. Holding either and they will be big events attended by the local scum a mile from the crash site would IMO be nothing short of obscene.
Click to expand...
This is the issue I have. As you say, post a few hurts words and you get nicked. Normally law abiding people who make a mistake for one reason and another get nicked. Yet these balaclava wearing idiots who are known to police just seem to get away with it time and time again! This is why I feel our justice system is not working.
 
LCPete said:
Do agree that murder isn’t the right term but behaviour like this, driving recklessly like that does deserve severe punishment and jail time in my opinion even just to take them off the roads to protect society
Click to expand...


It's already covered and what's needed is better enforcement and better sentencing, not more legislation.
The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving in the UK is life imprisonment for offences committed on or after 28 June 2022.
The maximum sentence for manslaughter in the UK is also life imprisonment.

So, the potential sentence for either offence is the same as for murder.

The problems, as I see them, is that:
1. The police don't try as hard if the potential charge isn't for murder, probably because of their limited resources (they can spend whatever they need to on murder cases)
2. Because the Courts often dish out far too lenient sentences.
3. And, the failures of the Courts start at the very first stage of the offending. People who are convicted of driving without insurance and without a licence aren't punished adequately, typically they are issued with a fixed penalty notice of £300 and 6 points on the licence that they don't have, and if the case does go to Court they are banned from driving but they routinely ignore that. And the type of people who commit these offences regard convictions as a badge of honour, a right of passage, which increases their status in their own sub-culture.
4. Even when someone is convicted of causing death by dangerous driving the sentence is typically:
  • High Culpability (A): Starting point of 12 years (range: 8 to 18 years, up to life in extreme cases).
  • Medium Culpability (B): Starting point of 6 years (range: 4 to 9 years).
  • Lesser Culpability (C): Starting point of 3 years (range: 2 to 5 years).
  • Driving Disqualification: Minimum 5-year driving ban, with a requirement to pass an extended re-test before getting a license back.
And those sentences are substantially reduced if the offender pleads guilty at the first opportunity.
Why is this? Because of lack of prison space. The police and the public should be supported by the Courts, but they aren't.

So, take a typical medium culpability case, sentence would be, say, 6 years. Pleading guilty reduces this to 4 years. Those 4 years are reduced by the early release scheme, so they only serve 2 years 5 months - is that all that a life is worth?

cambsno said:
This is the issue I have. As you say, post a few hurts words and you get nicked. Normally law abiding people who make a mistake for one reason and another get nicked. Yet these balaclava wearing idiots who are known to police just seem to get away with it time and time again! This is why I feel our justice system is not working.
Click to expand...
Now, this IS due to legislation. For some reason, hurty words have to be taken seriously by the police, and they have to prioritise them over some quite serious crimes, this isn't their fault.
 
cambsno said:
This is the issue I have. As you say, post a few hurts words and you get nicked. Normally law abiding people who make a mistake for one reason and another get nicked. Yet these balaclava wearing idiots who are known to police just seem to get away with it time and time again! This is why I feel our justice system is not working.
Click to expand...

They had their 'baloon' festival which was overlooked by the police helicopter. It hovered almost overhead our house for a while. Reportedly the crim crew were there in cars and on bikes and quads and there was the traditional revving of engines to show respect.

The question I have is why the hell didn't the police make multiple arrests and follow up with raids on their homes? Even when some of their own are killed they seem to handle persistant crims and street thugs with kid gloves. They turn up on stolen or at least unlicenced and uninsured bikes, quads and cars and take over the area and the police do next to nothing. Who owns the street? Well, we all know the answer.
 
woof woof said:
They had their 'baloon' festival which was overlooked by the police helicopter. It hovered almost overhead our house for a while. Reportedly the crim crew were there in cars and on bikes and quads and there was the traditional revving of engines to show respect.

The question I have is why the hell didn't the police make multiple arrests and follow up with raids on their homes? Even when some of their own are killed they seem to handle persistant crims and street thugs with kid gloves. They turn up on stolen or at least unlicenced and uninsured bikes, quads and cars and take over the area and the police do next to nothing. Who owns the street? Well, we all know the answer.
Click to expand...

Wow! How many modified ebikes, under age, no helmet etc.. crimes were committed there. Yet Dave from Accounts goes passed a speed camera 5mph over the limit and is busted!!!
 
cambsno said:
Wow! How many modified ebikes, under age, no helmet etc.. crimes were committed there. Yet Dave from Accounts goes passed (sic) a speed camera 5mph over the limit and is busted!!!
Click to expand...
So - what is the aim? Get people to obey the law? Or let some nice people off because others don't get caught?
 
Pound Coin said:
So - what is the aim? Get people to obey the law? Or let some nice people off because others don't get caught?
Click to expand...

It's more about priorities and even appearances. ATM the law seems to look like it's about controlling and extracting money from the mostly law abiding whilst obvious and multiple and what many would see as more serious offenders seem to operate with impunity.

For eg. In recent years. Two guys on my property fiddling with my cars and issuing threats to me, no response but they did lie about responding when they didn't. A common theme that, lying to the public. Thug threatens me with my mam in the car, no response. Mrs WW assaulted and racially abused, a visit 3 days later. Potentially dangerous aggressive and maybe ill dog going crazy in our back garden just yards from a school. Condescension and no response.

Oh, and add to that... restrain an offender until the police arrive and the offender is outside my house the following day AFTER BEING GIVEN MY ADDRESS BY THE POLICE. And another, driving home one night there was a mass fight which spilled into the road. A guy was laid in the road, possibly unconscious and another was the same on the pavement. Was the police call handler interested? Not in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's more about priorities and even appearances. ATM the law seems to look like it's about controlling and extracting money from the mostly law abiding whilst obvious and multiple and what many would see as more serious offenders seem to operate with impunity.

For eg. In recent years. Two guys on my property fiddling with my cars and issuing threats to me, no response but they did lie about responding when they didn't. A common theme that, lying to the public. Thug threatens me with my mam in the car, no response. Mrs WW assaulted and racially abused, a visit 3 days later. Potentially dangerous aggressive and maybe ill dog going crazy in our back garden just yards from a school. Condescension and no response.

Oh, and add to that... restrain an offender until the police arrive and the offender is outside my house the following day AFTER BEING GIVEN MY ADDRESS BY THE POLICE. And another, driving home one night there was a mass fight which spilled into the road. A guy was laid in the road, possibly unconscious and another was the same on the pavement. Was the police call handler interested? Not in the slightest.
Click to expand...

I know it's easy to say, but I'd just move, it's not going to get any better (unfortunately) and as we get older we become more vunerable, one knock to the ground (or worse, knife) because someone didn't like the way you looked at them, will end up potentially life shortening.

We are considering moving, and my (and my wife's) personal safety when we are 10-15 years older is my highest priority
 
Pound Coin said:
So - what is the aim? Get people to obey the law? Or let some nice people off because others don't get caught?
Click to expand...

No - the aim is to ideally prosecute all. Or at least prosecute the most serious offenders work and go down the list and not just go for the soft easy targets
 
woof woof said:
It's more about priorities and even appearances. ATM the law seems to look like it's about controlling and extracting money from the mostly law abiding whilst obvious and multiple and what many would see as more serious offenders seem to operate with impunity.

For eg. In recent years. Two guys on my property fiddling with my cars and issuing threats to me, no response but they did lie about responding when they didn't. A common theme that, lying to the public. Thug threatens me with my mam in the car, no response. Mrs WW assaulted and racially abused, a visit 3 days later. Potentially dangerous aggressive and maybe ill dog going crazy in our back garden just yards from a school. Condescension and no response.

Oh, and add to that... restrain an offender until the police arrive and the offender is outside my house the following day AFTER BEING GIVEN MY ADDRESS BY THE POLICE. And another, driving home one night there was a mass fight which spilled into the road. A guy was laid in the road, possibly unconscious and another was the same on the pavement. Was the police call handler interested? Not in the slightest.
Click to expand...

100%
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I know it's easy to say, but I'd just move, it's not going to get any better (unfortunately) and as we get older we become more vunerable, one knock to the ground (or worse, knife) because someone didn't like the way you looked at them, will end up potentially life shortening.

We are considering moving, and my (and my wife's) personal safety when we are 10-15 years older is my highest priority
Click to expand...

Be forced out of a place I love because of a toxic mix of scum bags and police who can't or wont do their job? And go where? Is there anywhere that's "safe"? One option for me/us is to move to Thailand but unfortunately that country is rapidly going down the toilet too.

I'd rather try and vote my way out of this. As I think I've said before in threads, we need to be very careful who we vote for. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better, if it ever gets better.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Apparently they're organising or may have had a "baloon", yes that's how they spelt it, release eulogy for the them also there's a meme thingy depicting one as an angel. I still haven't spoken to anyone who has an ounce of sympathy but sadly there's an army of people and families like those 5 here. Meanwhile I think over £400k has been pledged so far for the policemen's family.

I did see one comment which resonated with me as getting the local police to respond to anything is a task. Someone pointed out that if you post hurty words on social media the cops turn up at your home mob handed yet some of the 5 were known to the police and one had a habit of bating the police into car chases which he filmed on his phone and posted on social media. Yet they remained at large. I think that's a valid point.

PS.
We live just a few hundred meters form a cemetery. A while back the police cordoned it off for the grand parade and funeral of a local crime boss. It was quite an event. I don't know where the 5 are from but I hope to gosh their funerals and burials aren't at my church or local cemetery. Holding either and they will be big events attended by the local scum a mile from the crash site would IMO be nothing short of obscene.
Click to expand...
My bold.. I came across this today.

 
Mr Perceptive said:
I know it's easy to say, but I'd just move, it's not going to get any better (unfortunately) and as we get older we become more vunerable, one knock to the ground (or worse, knife) because someone didn't like the way you looked at them, will end up potentially life shortening.

We are considering moving, and my (and my wife's) personal safety when we are 10-15 years older is my highest priority
Click to expand...
It's a fair point. These people seem to commit crime and make life a misery for locals with impunity. Sadly, not everyone can afford to move. It's quite costly. It cost a neighbour of ours thousands in stamp duty, fees and legal costs. As Alan says..he loves where he lives so why shoukd he be 'forced' to move ? He's right but he's also right in saying it will only get worse so..it's not an easy decision but ,if things are that bad I think I'd move. We're only here once.
 
Last edited:
JohnC6 said:
It's a fair point. These people seem to commit crime and make life a misery for locals with impunity. Sadly, not everyone can afford to move. It's quite costly. It cost a neighbour of ours thousands in stamp duty, fees and legal costs. As Alan says..he loves where he lives so why shoukd he be 'forced' to move ? He's right but he's also right in saying it will only get worse so..it's not an easy decision but ,if things are that bad I think I'd move. We're only here once.
Click to expand...
I get that, and I get Alan’s points, I did say it was easy to say, but your point of “We’re only here once” has a lot of validity, everyone has choices and with choices come compromises, we all have to make the best decisions that we can.
 
The bottom line is that a lack of investment in the prison estate leaves courts..both magistrates and crown courts only able to sentence offenders to prison terms for the worst and the most persistant offending.The probation service can't do its job properly because of under- staffing due to underfunding..all courtesy of Chris 'Failing' Grayling who, gutted the prison and probation service ( he privatised 70% of the Probation Service) and wreaked havoc on the railways and was, eventually, rewarded with a peerage. He's now Lord 'Failing' Grayling. Theresa May took an axe to the police service under the guise of reform. She was the most disasterous Home Secretary.

Whole families are engaged in criminal behaviour ..it's a way of life for them and going to prison 'comes with the territory'..as they say. In the days when there were local newspapers. it was common to read about members of particular local families in court week in and week out. It's said that 90% of crime is committed by the same 10% of criminlas. My solution would be to add a third onto the last sentence they got until they decided that life outside prison was better than life inside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top