Kill in a park and avoid prison.

David Hansen

On 27 Mar 2008 00:04:43 GMT someone who may be Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote this:-

>Martin Dann writtificated
>
>> Motorists should be able to judge what is and is not safe
>
>..and pigs should have wings :-/

It was the inability of motorists to judge what is safe and not safe
that caused the public clamour for speed limits to be applied to
them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:44:30 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote this:-

>Police also stated that the car's windscreen appeared to have
>shattered at the moment of impact with the cyclist, and not before, as
>the defendant’s evidence that his windscreen suddenly "went white" had
>suggested.

So, the offender's windscreen suddenly "went white" and, instead of
applying the brakes, the offender swerved the vehicle?

I don't believe it.

The question of a suitable sentence is more difficult.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ekul Namsob

Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > 30mph through a park is excessive.
> >
> > I have said this before:
> > The Park must accept some responsibility for the death of Mr Woods. It
> > is absurd to allow motorists to drive at 30mph through a park. It is
> > a nonsense that overtaking is permitted on a 6m wide two-way road
> > without markings - though it appears that Mr Voong was not overtaking.
>
> Motorists should be able to judge what is and is not safe, they should
> not need signs telling them not to overtake when it is not safe. However
> I agree that a 20mph speed limit should be in place in the park.

Absolutely. Similarly, people should not require signs telling them not
to trespass on railway lines and indeed much of the Highway Code is
actually a statement of common sense. Sadly, many people are fallible
and require a certain amount of guidance.

I agree with others that imprisonment would almost certainly be of
benefit to nobody.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob

Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> In article <bk9lu3dafbfj092r7eevj50o9bhte09cih@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>
> > Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
> > offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
> > voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
> > pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
> > with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
> > clinically depressed since the incident.
>
> Hardly the typical reckless selfish twat who would deserve to be banged
> up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?

That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
readers.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

james.annan@gmail.com

On Mar 27, 5:32 pm, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:44:30 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote this:-
>
> >Police also stated that the car's windscreen appeared to have
> >shattered at the moment of impact with the cyclist, and not before, as
> >the defendant's evidence that his windscreen suddenly "went white" had
> >suggested.
>
> So, the offender's windscreen suddenly "went white" and, instead of
> applying the brakes, the offender swerved the vehicle?

I had a windscreen "suddenly go white" on me several years ago (hit by
a stone). It was at night, so not exactly a barrel of laughs, but
stopping the car safely didn't involve any drama. The remainder of the
trip home with no windscreen (once I'd knocked it out) was less fun,
and bits of glass kept dropping out of the air vents for years
afterwards.

James

Rob Morley

In article <1iegecl.aduicb1bkrq25N%
notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>, Ekul Namsob
notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com says...
> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <bk9lu3dafbfj092r7eevj50o9bhte09cih@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> > kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
> >
> > > Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
> > > offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
> > > voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
> > > pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
> > > with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
> > > clinically depressed since the incident.
> >
> > Hardly the typical reckless selfish twat who would deserve to be banged
> > up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?
>
> That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
> 'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
> readers.
>
What's wrong with "non-custodial sentence for driver in fatal crash"?

Nick

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <1iegecl.aduicb1bkrq25N%
> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>, Ekul Namsob
> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com says...
>> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <bk9lu3dafbfj092r7eevj50o9bhte09cih@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>>> kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>>
>>>> Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
>>>> offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
>>>> voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
>>>> pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
>>>> with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
>>>> clinically depressed since the incident.
>>> Hardly the typical reckless selfish twat who would deserve to be banged
>>> up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?
>> That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
>> 'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
>> readers.
>>
> What's wrong with "non-custodial sentence for driver in fatal crash"?
>

The obvious answer would be that it fails to convey the fact he caused
and was responsible for the death. He is a killer.

Driving in the way he did does seem to be exactly the action of a
reckless selfish twat. Swerving across the road would have been bad
enough on a normal road but in the middle of a park? Why was he driving
through the park anyway? In twenty five years living in the area I have
never driven my car through the park.

I for the life of me can't understand why you are trying to excuse him.
I fail to see why a few comments from his lawyer that could have come
off a generic script for this type of case make you think he is OK?
Allowing his religion to be used some kind of mitigating factor is just
disgusting, it seems to be based on the presumption he should be
punished less than an atheist? It seems to come from the same selfish
mentality as a man who uses a park as a rat run.

Nick

Simon Brooke wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> Wednesday.
>
> I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning him.
> I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving license
> back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver a better
> person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded
> that the community needs to be protected from this man in any way that just
> stopping him driving won't achieve.
>
Yes I accept prison would not protect the public or serve as a
deterrent. However it is often used as a measure of the seriousness of
the crime. By not sending him to jail the public is given the impression
this is not a particularly serious offence.

Nick

Tom Crispin wrote:
> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
> Wednesday.
>
So do we know which restaurant is his yet? I don't think either of the
two you mentioned are takeaways?

Tom Crispin

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:14:53 +0000, Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> In article <1iegecl.aduicb1bkrq25N%
>> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>, Ekul Namsob
>> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com says...
>>> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <bk9lu3dafbfj092r7eevj50o9bhte09cih@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>>>> kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>>>
>>>>> Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
>>>>> offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
>>>>> voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
>>>>> pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
>>>>> with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
>>>>> clinically depressed since the incident.
>>>> Hardly the typical reckless selfish twat who would deserve to be banged
>>>> up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?
>>> That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
>>> 'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
>>> readers.
>>>
>> What's wrong with "non-custodial sentence for driver in fatal crash"?
>>
>
>The obvious answer would be that it fails to convey the fact he caused
>and was responsible for the death. He is a killer.
>
>Driving in the way he did does seem to be exactly the action of a
>reckless selfish twat. Swerving across the road would have been bad
>enough on a normal road but in the middle of a park? Why was he driving
>through the park anyway? In twenty five years living in the area I have
>never driven my car through the park.
>
>I for the life of me can't understand why you are trying to excuse him.
>I fail to see why a few comments from his lawyer that could have come
>off a generic script for this type of case make you think he is OK?
>Allowing his religion to be used some kind of mitigating factor is just
>disgusting, it seems to be based on the presumption he should be
>punished less than an atheist? It seems to come from the same selfish
>mentality as a man who uses a park as a rat run.

The Avenue is only open to motor traffic during the rush hour -
therefore the Royal Parks encourage its use as a rat run.

Tom Crispin

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:20:39 +0000, Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> Wednesday.
>>
>So do we know which restaurant is his yet? I don't think either of the
>two you mentioned are takeaways?

I do not know if they offer takeaways. I expect they do.

JNugent

Nick wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:

>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> Wednesday.

> So do we know which restaurant is his yet? I don't think either of the
two you mentioned are takeaways?

And yet you were all for boycotting them.

Simon Brooke

Nick wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>>> Wednesday.
>>
>> I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning
>> him. I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving
>> license back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver
>> a better person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not
>> persuaded that the community needs to be protected from this man in any
>> way that just stopping him driving won't achieve.
>>
> Yes I accept prison would not protect the public or serve as a
> deterrent. However it is often used as a measure of the seriousness of
> the crime. By not sending him to jail the public is given the impression
> this is not a particularly serious offence.

I think that's an attitude we - as a society - need to grow out of.

Prison is ludicrously expensive. If you imprison this man, not only do you
wreck his life (probably permanently) and the lives of his immediate
family, you also harm his employees, who are innocent. You turn a
productive member of society into a social cripple, someone who will not
merely be expensive to keep in prison but also expensive to rehabilitate
when he leaves prison.

Qui bono?

I say again: the correct response in this sort of case is permanent
revocation of his driving license, together with a life sentence - which
recognises the severity of the offence - immediately suspended on license
provided the offender does not drive. That means, he can never drive again;
if he is ever caught driving, he can be immediately imprisoned without
reference to the courts.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

james.annan@gmail.com

On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>
> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.

Nonsense.

What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?

Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
personal injury or serious damage to property.

James