Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Thracian]

The current offence of dangerous driving comes from the Road Traffic Act 1988 - well within the last Tory administration.

I'm sure there were laws made in Roman times too. Defend em as much as you like but Labour are the ones in power and have been since before some people on here were born.

If they wanted to change things and be "Tough on Crime and the Causes of Crime" (their words not mine) they'd have done it.

But they haven't. It's all been yet more bullshit. Raj might jokingly label me a liar in his film but I'd have to be Pinnochio at his worst to lie like that lot.

PS: Why the Tories being soft on crime should somehow be any better than the Labour Party being so I don't know. Do people's lives count for less under one administration than another? Or is there something I've missed?

Edited 19 March 2009 by Thracian

[James.]

General Benjamin Juma

[Jon the Hat]

Remember them and their victims the next time you watch "Jerk Off with Jezza" about the latest piece of kit that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds...

I am sure these idiots were driving vehicles worthy of a slot on Top Gear. Fool.

[Guest]

I'm sure there were laws made in Roman times too. Defend em as much as you like but Labour are the ones in power and have been since before some people on here were born.

If they wanted to change things and be "Tough on Crime and the Causes of Crime" (their words not mine) they'd have done it.

But they haven't. It's all been yet more bullshit. Raj might jokingly label me a liar in his film but I'd have to be Pinnochio at his worst to lie like that lot.

The criminal justice system has been evolving over hundreds of years, it is not going to take 12 to sort out the mess.

[Alexikokopops]

I am sure these idiots were driving vehicles worthy of a slot on Top Gear. Fool.

What are you talking about? The first guy was driving an Escort with no Driving License, they do that on Top Gear all the time!

[Thracian]

The criminal justice system has been evolving over hundreds of years, it is not going to take 12 to sort out the mess.

It certainly won't if people haven't got the will to do it. Talk is cheap, as has been admirably demonstrated by both politicians and judges.

Edited 19 March 2009 by Thracian

[Manwell Pablo]

It certainly won't if people haven't got the will to do it. Talk is cheap, as has been admirably demonstrated by both politicians and judges.

I think you should stand for local governmant. I'd vote for you.

Well actually I wouldn't because I don't like in Hinckley and I can't be arsed to vote. But I'd send you good thoughts.

[Guest]

It certainly won't if people haven't got the will to do it. Talk is cheap, as has been admirably demonstrated by both politicians and judges.

Well, the figures for recorded crimes show the following for dangerous driving (Linky).

2002/03 7,624

2003/04 7,567

2004/05 6,669

2005/06 5,923

2006/07 5,353

2007/08 4,709

Not only is the rate apparently going down, but it doesn't say how many involved injuries, if at all. It's easy to speculate but if only a small percentage of those offences involved serious injury, does the government have the time to spare researching and debating upgrading the offence whilst they also have the important task of reviewing immigration policies, which you also think need reviewing urgently? This is on top of everything else that needs doing in getting this country sorted.

[Hullfox]

But it's your party that's in Government, your party that makes the rules and socialists' great concern for human rights that makes effective sentencing of these and other offenders so difficult.

You just don't have the will to deal with it or to change the "numpty" judges referred to earlier in the thread who seem to abound, though whether their decisions reflect their own feelings or the guidance they are given I really couldn't say.

All your efforts seem to be spent collecting stealth tax from motorists driving 10mph over what is a a ridiculously low speed limit in the middle of the night or for driving with the effects of half a glass of beer too much in their system and being a "potential" danger.

But so often when there really is a violent person, a calculating criminal or an idiot to deal with, someone who has demonstrably done serious wrong, your party is found wanting and totally lacking the balls to deal with them.

Basically, while you are happy bullying accidental or careless offenders - often those who have something to lose and are easily bullied - you baulk at dealing with the real villains and the real threats to this country and its people.

I sort of find all this hard to believe bearing in mind your support for drunk driving.

[Thracian]

Well, the figures for recorded crimes show the following for dangerous driving (Linky).

2002/03 7,624

2003/04 7,567

2004/05 6,669

2005/06 5,923

2006/07 5,353

2007/08 4,709

Not only is the rate apparently going down, but it doesn't say how many involved injuries, if at all. It's easy to speculate but if only a small percentage of those offences involved serious injury, does the government have the time to spare researching and debating upgrading the offence whilst they also have the important task of reviewing immigration policies, which you also think need reviewing urgently? This is on top of everything else that needs doing in getting this country sorted.

I wouldn't doubt that they're catching more criminals, not least because they've made a lot more laws and therefore a lot more potential criminals which take the valuable time up that you mention.

My concern is where their focus lies and what they actually do with serious criminals when they catch em.

Seems to me that the law is often used more as a fund raiser than a means of permanently protecting people from those who are real threats in various ways.

Only human rightists would somehow find an excuse to defend the sort of arseholes who beat vulnerable women to death

or the sex slavers and drugs pushers or even the tradespeople who deliberately and ruthlessly target vulnerable people and do them out of thousands of pounds.

But what is Labour's tough response? It's pathetic to be honest. And nothing like enough to stop such things happening again and again.

But while influential human rightists so conveniently ignore victims while finding all sorts of reasons for treating criminals with the decency they never extend to their victims, there will never be serious progress.

[Thracian]

I sort of find all this hard to believe bearing in mind your support for drunk driving.

That's a simplistic and inaccurate way of summarising what was a complex debate and which basically said that it's the standard of driving rather than the amount of alcohol someone has consumed that matters to me. And what actually happens on the road rather than what might happen.

Presumably you'd see the drunk driver who trundles home safely without any incident as being far worse than the sober driver who's more interested in checking his route map on a computer than whether he kills a family with his artic.

Edited 19 March 2009 by Thracian

[Guest]

I wouldn't doubt that they're catching more criminals, not least because they've made a lot more laws and therefore a lot more potential criminals which take the valuable time up that you mention.

My concern is where their focus lies and what they actually do with serious criminals when they catch em.

Seems to me that the law is often used more as a fund raiser than a means of permanently protecting people from those who are real threats in various ways.

Only human rightists would somehow find an excuse to defend the sort of arseholes who beat vulnerable women to death

or the sex slavers and drugs pushers or even the tradespeople who deliberately and ruthlessly target vulnerable people and do them out of thousands of pounds.

But what is Labour's tough response? It's pathetic to be honest. And nothing like enough to stop such things happening again and again.

But while influential human rightists so conveniently ignore victims while finding all sorts of reasons for treating criminals with the decency they never extend to their victims, there will never be serious progress.

You've done it again!! You've taken the one subject (dangerous driving) and turned into a crusade against the government on a whole multitude of issues.

Victims are becoming more involved in the process, and we have come full circle from the 18th century on this.

Report

And it's not human rights that have determined prison sentences, as most have been set for many years, pre-dating the HRA.

[Hullfox]

That's a simplistic and inaccurate way of summarising what was a complex debate and which basically said that it's the standard of driving rather than the amount of alcohol someone has consumed that matters to me. And what actually happens on the road rather than what might happen.

Presumably you'd see the drunk driver who trundles home safely without any incident as being far worse than the sober driver who's more interested in checking his route map on a computer than whether he kills a family with his artic.

What an outrageous thing to say.

[Sir Fynwy]

That's a simplistic and inaccurate way of summarising what was a complex debate and which basically said that it's the standard of driving rather than the amount of alcohol someone has consumed that matters to me. And what actually happens on the road rather than what might happen.

Presumably you'd see the drunk driver who trundles home safely without any incident as being far worse than the sober driver who's more interested in checking his route map on a computer than whether he kills a family with his artic.

Got to say it, Fcuk off Tony, driving drunk is never acceptable.

[Hullfox]

Got to say it, Fcuk off Tony, driving drunk is never acceptable.

SF, you've made me spit out my wine there.

[Guest]

SF, you've made me spit out my wine there.

Keep your eyes on the bloomin' road!!

[Hullfox]

Keep your eyes on the bloomin' road!!

I can't, I'm using the internet, my laptop is on the passenger seat.

[Corky]

Thrac, why are you taking on Lise?

You're fighting a losing battle here.

[Daggers]

I'll say again - everyone in Caracas drives drunk at night and accident rates are virtually non-existent because everyone drives slowly, I saw one accident in my entire time there - the car impressively burying itself into a lamp-post.

Strikes me the problem with drink-driving in this country is that far too many people drive like cunts when they're sober - so they stand no chance when they're pissed.

[Thracian]

Got to say it, Fcuk off Tony, driving drunk is never acceptable.

I well understand your sensitivity on the subject because of Janx and, despite Hullfox's rhetoric, I've never defended "drunk" driving as in "drunk and incapable" anyway.

But while my wife is unwise to drive after one drink, especially at night and some people can't drive properly even when sober, many people can drive perfectly well on two or three pints and significantly better than some of the arseholes I see out there. Whether you accept that or not, it's the truth.

And I see no way that a sober but careless driver whacking an artic into a family car and killing the occupants should be less harshly treated than a guy who's simply been stopped and breathalysed in a random check while otherwise driving safely. Quite the contrary.

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, there are many other factors like relationship break-ups, being made redundant, rowing with a colleague, medical problems/pills, unfamiliarity with roads or lack of concentration which contribute to accidents and the law doesn't focus on these. It just focuses on speed and what might happen after a drink.

And even if a sober driver is entirely responsible for causing an accident with another motorist who happens to have had a couple of drinks, it'll often be the drinker will get the harsher punishment not the person who drove carelessly or dangerously.

Justice that may be to you and Hullfox but not to me. I've significantly changed my own driving habits as a direct result of what happened to Janx and the feelings of people on here as a result but my views on the subject haven't changed. Bad driving is bad driving whether the person concerned has been drinking or not and a person who's had a drink cannot be assumed to have driven badly simply because of that fact.

Edited 19 March 2009 by Thracian

[Daggers]

If we (as a country) were in the remotest bit serious about drink driving then we'd mandate all vehicle manufacturers to include breathalyser-based immobilisers to be fitted to all new vehicles.

[Hullfox]

I'll say again - everyone in Caracas drives drunk at night and accident rates are virtually non-existent because everyone drives slowly, I saw one accident in my entire time there - the car impressively burying itself into a lamp-post.

Strikes me the problem with drink-driving in this country is that far too many people drive like cunts when they're sober - so they stand no chance when they're pissed.

Is that because everyone has to drive slowly though?

16 miles in 5 hours

[Hullfox]

If we (as a country) were in the remotest bit serious about drink driving then we'd mandate all vehicle manufacturers to include breathalyser-based immobilisers to be fitted to all new vehicles.

If we (as a country) were in the remotest bit serious about drink driving then we'd have zero tolerance to any levels of alcohol,

IMO

[Hullfox]

I well understand your sensitivity on the subject because of Janx and, despite Hullfox's rhetoric, I've never defended "drunk" driving as in "drunk and incapable" anyway.

But while my wife is unwise to drive after one drink, especially at night and some people can't drive properly even when sober, many people can drive perfectly well on two or three pints and significantly better than some of the arseholes I see out there. Whether you accept that or not, it's the truth.

And I see no way that a sober but careless driver whacking an artic into a family car and killing the occupants should be less harshly treated than a guy who's simply been stopped and breathalysed in a random check while otherwise driving safely. Quite the contrary.

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, there are many other factors like relationship break-ups, being made redundant, rowing with a colleague, medical problems/pills, unfamiliarity with roads or lack of concentration which contribute to accidents and the law doesn't focus on these. It just focuses on speed and what might happen after a drink.

And even if a sober driver is entirely responsible for causing an accident with another motorist who happens to have had a couple of drinks, it'll often be the drinker will get the harsher punishment not the person who drove carelessly or dangerously.

Justice that may be to you and Hullfox but not to me. I've significantly changed my own driving habits as a direct result of what happened to Janx's and the feelings of people on here as a result but my views on the subject haven't changed. Bad driving is bad driving whether the person concerned has been drinking or not and a person who's had a drink cannot be assumed to have driven badly simply because of that fact.

Do you mean that you've given up drink driving?

[Thracian]

Thrac, why are you taking on Lise?

You're fighting a losing battle here.

Bloody hell I changed my driving habits out of respect for Lise's views - I'm damned if I'm going to change my opinion too.