General Chat

He was punished for the offence he was charged with. Blame the Crown prosecution service for not charging him with death by dangerous driving. All too often, as any policeman will tell you, they go for an offence which is least likely to get thrown out. Happy days

i think the family would think differently and let us not forget how would we feel if it was our own child?xxxxxx(:

The fact that in one case a child was killed, and in the other no-one was harmed, illustrates one of the technicalities of law that I've never been able to quite get my head around. In essence the two crimes are exactly the same - ie driving under the influence or without a licence or whatever. The fact that one case had a totally different 'result' doesn't alter what the actual crime was - certainly with regard to intent which is always key to proving guilt. If you imagine a hypothetical situation where two cars (A and B) set off down a road, both driven by people who were drunk. They set off at exactly the same time and lets say it's a dual carriageway so they are travelling alongside each other at the same speed. Suppose there is a child crossing this road, and he happens to be in front of car A which runs him down and kills him - what has the driver of car A done that is any different to car B which, in the mean time has continued on it's journey and is disappearing into the horizon ? Hard though it may be to stomach, I have difficulty in accepting that driver A should get a harsher sentence than driver B. I'm not trying to excuse what the assylum seeker in question had done, or necessarily to justify his sentence, but as I say this is something I've never quite been able to get my head round. Simon

was he ros didn't realise.difference is there though he didn't kill a childxxxx(:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(:

Lisa, Yes, the sentence does appear ridiculously light.

I don't care who it was who was driving the car. The fact that he killed someone should mean a charge of manslaughter and an appropriate sentence. As a motorist of over 40 years I am apalled that drivers get away with such lenient sentences. A moving motor vehicle is a dangerous thing and the sooner that is driven (no pun intended) home to drivers the safer our roads will be.

paul he was under th influence of drink isn't that enough to warrant a tougher sentence.according to gmtv he was an asylum seeker.the title states what is fact he was an asylum seeker and he did kill a boyxxxx(:

I agree with some of what you say Greg but to me, it makes no difference whatever nationality, race, colour etc. This person killed a child, which was preventable. Yes, the media are generally selective in what they put, I don't deny that; I'm with you there. Presumably your point is about the headline 'asylum seeker'. I took notice of the '2 months' bit for the taking of this child's life.

I think the relevence of the Asylum Seeker bit is that he has had four appeals to stay in the Country turned down, so if the Government was deporting failed applicants (as they boast about doing) he wouldn't have even been in the Country. He was charged with drink driving and for having no licence or insurance. The CPS didn't charge him with dangerous driving because he was not driving fast enough. However, in my opinion the sentence is too lenient.

I heard about this on the news at lunchtime. No mention was made of him being an asylum seeker (he may or may not have been, it just wasn't mentioned on the news), however.. it was said that the man was over the drink drive limit, that he had no license or (obviously) insurance. The reason the sentence was so light, was that despite the above, it could not be proven that he was driving dangerously.

Sorry Lisa, I am not calling you a racist, just saying that the title encourages racism. Many people would read it (and probably the original story) and automatically assume that it is because he is an asylum seeker, and also that all asylum seekers are evil killers. In all probability neither is true. If the facts of the case were presented, I would bet that the judgement has NOTHING to do with the fact that he was an asylum seeker. He is not the first person to get a ridiculous sentence for a horrid crime, but then when an Englishman gets a similar sentence, it doesn't sell papers as well. I absolutely agree that the sentence looks like a joke, but we don't know all the facts. It would not be in the interests of the 'news'papers to print them if they can 'sensationalise' a story, stir up some controversy, and sell more papers to make a few more quid...

greg i am not being funny.but whatever anyone says when it is to do with a comment about another race or religion it is deemed as racist.i am not that but these two cases i find absolutely unbelieveble that one man got off scott free and the other had a sentance which doesn't warrant the crime.tell me if i am wrongx(:

I bet though in both cases, the fact that they were here illegally, or an asylum seeker had NOTHING at all to do with it. Unfortunately, it is papers like the Daily Mail (who incidently led a campaign during WW2 saying that the German Jews brought all their problems on to themselves, and supporting fascist leaders) that haven't changed their spots, and are still great at misrepresenting the truth and drumming up hatred all in the name of selling papers. It is papers like the tabloids that really do take 'freedom of the press' to such an extreme that it is incredibly harmful to the country. A lot of newspapers in this country should really carry a disclaimer stating that they should not be taken truthfully. When they do print stories like those mentioned, they often purposely mislead, or convieniently 'forget' certain facts about the case. The editors and journalists of these papers are in general scum, and I would gladly swap each and everyone of them for an asylum seeker, economic migrant etc.

Greg, it's not the 'asylum seeker' bit that has got to me, it's the sentence. Whether the killer be black, white, yellow, green, etc, whatever race, etc. I'd still think the same.

no not at all greg but another incident was highlighted where a boy of six was run over and killed by a hit and run driver.he was an illegal immegrant who had drien off and left the boy to die.he also had no insurance or mot .which in it's self is a crime and he got off scott free does make you wonder who decides theses sentances and whyxxxx(:

Glenys I'm sure I read somewhere recently that a lenient sentence can be challenged and may be extended. Any legal bods about? Daisy

What difference did the fact that he was an 'asylum seeker' make to the sentence? If he was black or jewish, it would be consider a racist remark to say 'jewish man gets two months' or 'black man gets two months'. Does the fact that he is/was/might be an asylum seeker *really* make any difference to the crime sentence? Is the fact that a twelve year old boy was killed, some how better if the killer is British? A bit of reflection is needed here I think before we all become spokes people for the daily mail/sun/daily express, and other works of trash fiction.

i think i would challenge that and not give up if it was my child.failing that i would take matters into my own handsxxxx):

Yes Lisa, I'd forgotten that bit about good behaviour. Shame the criminal couldn't be well-behaved in the first place though, don't you think? Daisy - is that possible?