Yay, it\’s more Insane Draconian Fucktardery

Four years in jail for using a mobile at the wrong moment. Longer than, y\’know, an actual robber or violent thug who chose to harm people would have got.

There is no moral difference between the poor girl who\’s just had her life ruined, and every other driver who has driven without paying full attention to the road, which includes every single fucking driver.

I hate the way too many dickheads, and our justice system, are too fucking brain-dead to understand this.

And since you ask, if one of my loved ones were killed by a texting driver, I\’d be very sad and I\’d think that they were very unlucky – but I\’d speak at the trial of the poor sod who crashed into them begging the judge not to ruin someone else\’s life as well in a miserable, medieval quest for vengeance.

11 thoughts on “Yay, it\’s more Insane Draconian Fucktardery

  1. 01-811-8055 says:

    It’d save a lot of time and money if we just locked up every new driver for four years as soon as they gained their license, because they’re bound to fuck up sooner or later.

    I ride a bike, obviously.

  2. argeeee says:

    If you want to piss someone off criticize their driving!! the trouble is all the critics think they are brilliant drivers, its not only the young, what about the old git that says “i have been driving for 40 years and never had a crash”, the twat has probably caused dozens.

  3. Geoff says:

    Two people both enter a Grand National sweepstakes, yet only one of them picks the winner. If the loser were to believe that in doing so he had an equal claim to the prize because of his morals he would be mocked and ridiculed.

    Likewise, when someone breaks the law at the risk of someone else’s life, he is taking a gamble. If he loses, he should accept the consequences.

    The fact that so many other people choose to break the same law only increase the need for a harsh, deterrent sentence.

    But your forgiveness is admirable.

  4. Geoff says:

    Change the word morals to moral equivalnce and my reply reads much better.

  5. Nik says:

    The girl’s case is not morally equivalent to the many cunts I see every day using their mobiles while driving. The girl killed someone. Intentions are not the only important thing – outcomes matter too. On the one hand you suggest that the justice system should be sensitive to the fact that its judgement will ruin this girl’s life – an unintended consequence – and on the other you argue that the unintended consequence of her texting while driving – killing someone – should not be taken into account. For the record, I think using a mobile while driving should carry an automatic jail sentence, and her sentence was possibly too long, as I doubt she’d ever do something like that again after even a month inside.

  6. Andy says:

    Automatic jail sentence eh? Ok, what else do you want to jail people for? Applying make-up? changing radio channels? Rooting around in the glove-box. Lighting a cigarette? Turning your head whilst talking to the passenger? Leaving fog lamps on when not foggy,…… The list goes on.. all COULD cause a fatal accident…
    Accidents DO happen, and yes some are preventable. The girl driving did not intend to kill another. Yes she acted in a manner which increased the chance of harm to another and she’s paying a severe price for what was an error in judgement, but crikey, shit does happen in life..
    A sudden cry from a baby in the vehicle, resultant crash, who’s fault? The baby? How about a back seat fight between two teenagers, driver gets distracted? Jail the driver, borstal for the teenagers?

    I think PDF was posting about proportionality of sentence against crime, and when sentencing, aggravating factors, mitigating factors and the small matter of intent should be considered.
    Somebody deliberately executing a crime should ALWAYS be punished harder than someone with no ill-intent. However, in the case of driving it is always assumed that a driver fully intends to cause the most harm.
    It’s an absolute nonsense that for example, speed limits [which are set arbitrarily by an exercise in tick-boxing the relative risks present on a particular stretch of road], would be considered an aggravating factor in the sentencing of a fatal car crash, e.g. I run over an old lady at 29mph [in a 30 zone] in the rain, no problem “just one of those things Sir” – no law broken – no problem; I run over an old lady at 31mph in the dry and they throw the book at me!
    Yet other crimes, including those against the individual and with malice aforethought, are sentenced comparatively lightly. Rape, violent crime; fraudulent use of my credit card isn’t even a crime the police will entertain any more.
    We live in a society obsessed with reduction of risk at all costs. Yes things can be done to improve general safety, but there are dozens of actions by drivers which increase danger to others, are you advocating the introduction of severe penalties for these?
    If not why not? Why just phones? Why are phone users cunts and not others who don’t pay attention for numerous other reasons? Taken to its logical extension it would become an offence to do anything other than pay 100% attention to the road. Monitored by in car cameras perhaps. Great in theory, but a nonsense in practice.
    Where will it end?

  7. Looks like the authorities “made a mistake”. Glad they cottoned on. Maybe the immigration minister will admit he’s no judge of character either.

  8. ejh says:

    Newcastle Crown Court heard that she had used her phone nine times during a 15-minute journey last November.

    Nine times. Not once, not when it rang and she answered without thinking. But nine times.

    She didn’t give a fuck.

    And neither do you.

  9. Fucking hell Justin, you’re cranky today, eh?

    I always talk on my mobile when I’m driving, even though I don’t have a license.

    But don’t worry, I don’t have a car, and I only steal one every now and then when I’m totally plastered.

  10. pdf says:

    quite right too – it’d be wrong to steal cars when sober.

  11. midget tong says:

    well who is going to catch you ? the local community support office’r, or should i say ” the lost shopper”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *