General Chat

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

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

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

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 believe anyone that ends up killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol should be tried for murder lets face it they know what they are doing when they drunk and get behind the wheel of a lethal weapon Paul

Murder has to be intentional, which in this case it patently was not. The correct charge would be manslaughter. If I recall correctly, that's what the driver in the Selby train crash was charged with, although in that case I don't think it was justified as he fell asleep at the wheel and the vehicle went onto a railway line, was hit by a passenger train which derailed, the derailed train then hit some points which threw it onto the other track where it was hit be a goods train coming the other way. No way could the car driver have imagined that those sets of circumstances would have all lined up!

Paul W - am with you on this one. No excuse for drink driving whatsoever. Daisy

Brian so going out drinking in a car and drinking too much then climbing in the car knowing you are over the limit is NOT intentional??? Paul

Apparantly he wont even do the 2 months as he has already done that while waiting to go to trial.......not much justice there then! Bev

He should be sent back to his previous country immediately he gets out of gaol, no messing... Can I just point out that holding a mobile phone while driving is just as dangerous (and illegal), so why are men and women still doing it? I see at least one every day. Equally, I can never understand drivers with children loose in the car, unbelted, don't they love those kids? Dilys

If I offend any one sorry....but the law is an ass, there is no justice. Bev

I don't think anyone of us knows the exact details of the case, but we live in a country when people are innocent until proven guilty. Sure, it means that some people get off with ridiculous sentences or nothing at all, but what is the alternative? Having people have to prove they are not guilty? No thanks. I think the law is slightly unbalanced in favour of the defendant but to me the answer is to utilise technology (nation police force, national and compulsory finger print database, national and compulsory DNA database, more cameras, biometric scanners, facial recognition software (when it actually works),etc, etc. Yes, the law is often an ass, but it could be much, much worse. What would you rather have, a minority getting ridiculous sentences, or a Stalin like government where we are all waiting for the knock at the door because someone things we have done something and it is up to us to prove otherwise?

If you are proven over the limit with either a breath or blood test while driving a car you ARE GUILTY end of story Paul

Greg The fact that he was an illegal immigrant automatically denies him access to motor insurance, road tax etc. The laws of the land were set out for the indigeous population, who are mainly law abiding. Our laws do not cater for such situations. Why don`t we direct our anger at the appropiate people? Keith

I don't care whether they are over the limit, drugged up to the eyeballs, holding a mobile phone, eating a cornish pasty, overtired or speeding. If the result of them driving is a death it should be treated as manslaughter. The only excuse for killing someone with a vehicle should be that the driver was taking ALL necessary precautions which includes their personal condition.

Grandpa Jim Say what you mean, don`t beat around the bush! Are you after the resumption of the judge putting on the black cap? Keith

Keith, I haven't read the article, but I thought he was an asylum seeker not an illegal immigrant. Either way, the fact that someone was killed does not become a more serious crime depending on the status of the person behind the wheel. The fact that he is an 'asylum seeker' is completely irrelevent to the story as far as I am aware and no one has been able to provide a valid exaplanation of how it is relevent.

Hi Greg Like 'Lisa from Sunny Southsea' I come from an even sunnier 'Eastney'. Every week in the local Evening News, they have a court round up. It may be coincidence or not, but the majority of the convicted don`t have local sounding names. Are they here on 'Daytrips'? Keith PS:- I`m talking motoring offences

Well we probably drive on the other side of the road for most of them :) The point is though, that I would bet money that the fact that he is either here illegally, or an asylum seeker is completely irrelvent to the sentence. Yes the sentence sounds like a joke, but all the 'daily hate' etc do is make the situation worse because unfortunately, there are people out there who will read it and thing 'god damn asylum seekers' when in fact it is nothing at all to do with the fact he is one. This is the most tolerant country I have ever lived in despite the hatred drummed up by the press. It would be nice if it stayed that way. Unfortuately, until more people stop buying trash and start thinking objectively, we will continue down the path to Germany 1933.

the law has recently been changed,to include 'death by dangerous driving'...surely drink/driving is dangerous! bryan.