Ignorant victims miss point

Amanda and Philip Peak, of Partington, near Manchester, are despicable stupid cunts and I’m glad their children are dead.

Harsh? Well, yes. Fair? Well, yes. Why?

1) they exemplify the modern ‘person to whom a bad but unusual thing has happened’ tendency to assume that Terrible Terrible Badness, and not Miserable Luck is at fault – despite the fact that if anything bad happens to you, up to and including murder, bad luck will almost inevitably have far more impact than anyone’s malicious intentions (with ‘your own stupidity’ and ‘other people’s stupidity’ also counting way above ‘badness, malice etc’ in the list).

2) they also exemplify the current government’s utterly insane tendency to deal with harmful things that are already illegal by proposing to make things that aren’t harmful illegal. In this case, because someone who was at more than twice the drink-drive limit crashed into their car, they want to cut the drink-drive limit to zero.

Now, on 1 I’m absolutely fucking right: it’s very easy to do stupid things that could kill someone; we all do stupid things that could kill someone on a regular basis; anyone who says they don’t is a liar and a hypocrite; and therefore when someone kills someone by doing a stupid thing, we should view it primarily as a terrible shame rather than an opportunity to satisfy Um Primitive Tribal Rage God by sacrificing the other person on an altar of pointless cruelty.

However, I accept that most people in society are barbaric fuckwits who barely deserve the title ‘human’, and therefore will concede this point to the primitive ‘oooh, punish, punish, punish’ morons until I’m dictator, at which point I’ll contrive bizarre and elaborate schemes to ensure that every single potentially dangerous action one of these people takes brings horrible pain and suffering to a loved one, then ask them how they feel about punishing people for bad luck a year later.

(yes, drinking and driving bad mkay; no, I’ve never drink-driven. If I was in a hotel at 6AM drunk-but-feeling-sober after two hours sleep and I got a text that my relationship with the person I loved was fucked up, would I definitely be able to stop myself from going and sort things out? Anyone who says they definitely wouldn’t is a liar, and I despise them for their utter cant and wish nothing but suffering on them. Because they’re malicious, whereas Luke McCormick wasn’t. That makes them worse than if he’d killed a fucking *million* children).

(also, on what planet is a minimum 3.5 years in jail, plus entirely losing your only shot at a decent career, not an incredibly severe punishment? Again, I’d love to see how the Peaks and their defenders would cope with the same – *extremely fucking harsh* situation).

Anyway. Enough; I’ll concede that point to you barbarians and morons.

Point two alone is enough to want the Peaks strung up. In exchange for *absolutely fucking nothing*, for a measure that would have done *literally fuck all* to save their kids’ lives, they want to make it effectively impossible to enjoy the excellent pleasure of going to a country pub and having a couple of beers with lunch. That isn’t worth it. It fucking isn’t. Even if there were evidence that a lower limit would save lives, which there isn’t, it still wouldn’t be enough: given that the value of a life is set at approximately £1m in benefit-cost analysis, if countryside drinking killed 10 people a year but provided £11m worth of amusement, then banning it would be moronic. But there isn’t, so the point is even stupider.

In short, fuck them; if there’s any inheritability at all to intelligence, I’m glad their kids won’t grow up to vote.

21 thoughts on “Ignorant victims miss point

  1. NRG says:

    Not to mention this particularly fucking obnoxious quote from the BBC article:

    “I bet you a pound to a penny he will not be at a Christmas table thinking of the kids he’s just killed and their grandkids that they’re not going to have. ”

    Ok so its factually correct, but only because he won’t be at any sort of christmas table because he’s in fucking prison. As if he’s ever gonna be able to forget that he caused the death of two kids and fucked up his entire life in the process. I’d happily bet the stupid bitch ten grand to a penny that he feels far worse about what happened than he would about getting any number of years in prison and if she doesn’t realise this then she must have some serious fucking mental problems.

  2. pdf says:

    Absolutely right. The court/prosecution side of things is necessary for that to happen, since if he were just let go it’s the sort of thing it’d be easy for one’s mind to blank out as ‘horrible thing I don’t need to remember’ – but there’s no way in hell it won’t haunt McCormick forever, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a gibbering clown.

  3. redandwhitestripes says:

    And off from my RSS feed you go.

  4. Jim Bliss says:

    80% of the time you’re on the money. In those instances your strident tone is hilarious and adds something to the post.

    15% of the time you’re just wrong. In those instances the tone adds a forced quality to the proceedings.

    5% of the time you’re waaaay wrong. Like now. Then the tone makes you look like a total cock.

    It’s a far better right-to-wrong ratio than most bloggers manage. Including myself I’m quite sure. And for that I salute you.

    But this is a spectacularly ill-judged piece of writing.

  5. pdf says:

    I really don’t give a fuck if some halfwit Nazi deselects me. I’m mildly impressed that some halfwit Nazi bothered to keep me on his RSS for 6 months; in some ways I’d wish to meet him and see if he were a decent or tolerable person in real life; I think that he’s much more likely to be so than 99% of his party-mates.

    Jim’s point, which I know is shared by most readers, bothers me. Why is this ill-judged – ? Is it more ill-judged than suggesting that Holocaust deniers ought to be gassed and see if they like it?

    Is it literally just because people who’ve suffered horrible suffering shouldn’t be subjected to additional torture due to third parties, on top of the appalling suffering they’re already going through? (in which case, even if you accept that Lee McComick is an automaton incapable of suffering, then arresting Denise Goldsmith would be right out).

    So come on – is it “whilst your points are sort-of sensible you shouldn’t be such cunts about people with dead kids”, or “no, you’re actually wrong to say that malice vs idiocy doesn’t matter”. Because if it’s the former, then this isn’t the blog for you; if it’s the latter, then we have an interesting discussion ahead of us….

  6. Bravo – stirring as always.

  7. geoff says:

    There is a distinction to be made between malice and grief, even given both can cause one to act like a vindictive cock.

    Which makes gloating over the death of innocent children undeniably harsh and not something to be attempted on a first date. Though the valid point remains that people in the grip of lunacy shouldn’t be aloud anywhere near the legislative process or, frankly, bbc news.

  8. geoff says:

    Re point 2: you seem to be blaming the deathcrash parents for the faults of the labour government.

  9. Jim Bliss says:

    Yeah. What Geoff said.

    Only by email. And using far more words.

  10. I can see where PDF is coming from here and see why he’s also being a cunt about it – as he might know, I used to work in the courts so I’ve got pretty similar ideas to his about what should be an imprisonable offence.

    OTOH, about two months ago, my brother was in his motor stopped at a roundabout, when some crazy bitch in a yellow Porsche hit the back of his car at 50mph, fucking it so totally that he had to be cut out of it. What a great night at the hospital with my mum and dad that was, waiting to see if he’d come out quadraspazzed – he’s wound up with a fucked back that hurts all the time, so, no more pub football for him at the age of 24, but at least he’s up and about.

    I spoke to the copper who interviewed the woman that hit him, and it turns out she was fucking about with her phone and didn’t realise she was on a massive drawdown to a roundabout, despite the huge painted-on yellow lines thick enough to resonate through the suspension on any wanky cockmobile.

    Even better, she told the cops that this was the second Porsche she’d written off in four months – she rolled the other one into a ditch. I don’t know whether that one was yellow too, but maybe it was.

    She managed to wipe out four cars – hers, my brother’s, the guy in front of him and the guy in front of the guy in front of him. The copper told me that it’s only because my brother saw her coming in his rearview, realised she wasn’t stopping and turned the wheels to move into the other lane that he isn’t dead – otherwise, dead-on concertina, splattered bloke. As it was, anyone sitting in the back seat of his crappy motor would’ve been pancaked.

    My brother’s getting married next year, and this asshole could have killed him right there because she was too fucking stupid to wait until she parked her car before checking her text messages.

    So hell, what am I getting at here? She didn’t kill or cripple him, so I suppose it’s vindictive to want some kind of criminal sanction. OTOH, she could’ve killed the only brother I have or will ever have quite easily, the stupid Porsche-driving, phone-twiddling bitch, and I want her fucking licence taken off her so she can’t fuck her stupid, cock-sucking sports car into some other poor fucker because she’s wanking into her expensive fucking phone.

    That’s not what happened, though – the coppers decided that, since the road was a main artery into Edinburgh and rear-enders are the most common form of accident, they’d just drag the cars off and not waste their time measuring the enormous skidmarks on the road. They didn’t do anything about it, she didn’t get points on her licence and she’s still battering around the roads in East Lothian, so far as I know.

    Hell, I’m not saying she should’ve been hauled off to jail, but fuck me, maybe a bit of a ticking off was in order, no? Maybe a stern lecture from a judge or something, possibly three points or so.

    So, I can understand where the parents you talk about in your post are coming from, PDF, even if they’re being unreasonable about this very long prison sentence. I’m nobody’s empath, but I totally understand their feelings on the matter.

    Sorry for the massive comment, I didn’t realise I felt so strongly about it until now.

  11. Matthwe says:

    This post is surely wrong simply because you have not made any allowances for the children’s own welfare and future happiness, or other relations/friends of the children (less the lesser impact on the football player’s friends and relations).

  12. spazmo says:

    So if the kids were being bummed by their dad McCormick should get a shorter sentence for puting them out of their misery?

  13. spazmo says:

    So if the kids were being bummed by their dad McCormick should get a shorter sentence for putting them out of their misery?

  14. Matthwe says:

    Probably not, but one can’t really say one is glad someone is dead just because of the impact on another person, and not take into account the dead person’s welfare…

  15. pdf says:

    I take Jim and Geoff’s points, and broadly endorse them.

    At FR – but that’s kind of my point. If the Porsche lady had been equally rubbish but caused someone’s death, she’d have been sentenced to 5-10 years in jail. A system where sheer luck is the difference between “not even a crime” and “up there with rape and GBH” in terms of punishment is a stupid system, and imposing even harsher punishments for being unlucky isn’t going to help…

  16. Larry Teabag says:

    What do you think about inverting the current system? So people caught driving way over the limit, or otherwise appallingly (like FR’s Porsche bint), get draconian-ish-ly punished. The exceptions being those who cause horrible accidents, who are basically let off on the grounds that bad luck has already punished them enough, and they’re highly unlikely to reoffend anyway.

    The philosophy is that there’s no point in attempting to deter people from causing fatal accidents: everyone who isn’t mad is already deterred from that. But people generally don’t believe that it’ll happen. But there is a point in deterring people from driving drunk and/or terribly, and the best way to do it is to address those crimes in and of themselves, rather than only taking them seriously once someone ends up dead.

  17. PDF says:

    Yes, I like that a lot.

  18. Agree, PDF – just saying that if a cynical smartarse with a reasonable grasp on the law like myself can get all teary-eyed and vengeful about it, I can understand why other people might not be too reasonable.

    And, what Larry said.

  19. voice of reason says:

    you are an absolute moron. you obviously have no children of your own. probably because you spen all your time thinking up vile things to write on your pathetic little blog. no loving parent deserves to have their children die and people driving cars need to take responsibility for there actions. you hide behind your faceless web page voicing your ill informed opinions without the courage to show yourself. you are a sad loser who probably has no life outside of cyberworld.

  20. voice of reason says:

    you are an absolute moron. you obviously have no children of your own. probably because you spend all your time thinking up vile things to write on your pathetic little blog. no loving parent deserves to have their children die and people driving cars need to take responsibility for there actions. you hide behind your faceless web page voicing your ill informed opinions without the courage to show yourself. you are a sad loser who probably has no life outside of cyberworld.

  21. voice of reason says:

    you are an absolute moron. you obviously have no children of your own. probably because you spend all your time thinking up vile things to write on your pathetic little blog. no loving parent deserves to have their children die and people driving cars need to take responsibility for there actions. you hide behind your faceless web page voicing your ill informed opinions without the courage to show yourself. you are a sad loser who probably has no life outside of cyberworld.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>