Discussion:
What do the team think?
(too old to reply)
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 09:15:09 UTC
Permalink
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.

He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.

This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?

The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.

I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.

What do others think?
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 09:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
It's the law that is at fault.

Presumably the charge was one of causing death by driving without due
care and attention. That, almost uniquely for a criminal offence,
requires no intention nor any gross negligence on the part of the
perpetrator. It criminalises any momentary lapse, which we all have
from time to time as a result of being human, that unfortunately has
tragic consequences. It depends entirely on the consequences, not on
the act itself. And that means it's entirely in the lap of the gods.

So, there but for fortune go you or I.

Be lucky! It's the only way to avoid conviction.

But it's not how the law should be.

I suspect that the sentence handed down was legally correct according to
the sentencing guidelines. However, you have to question what purpose
it serves other than revenge. It's not the sentence that would make him
change his ways but almost certainly what actually happened. And the
public would be protected from him, if necessary, by imposing a ban on
driving.

As regards the man's barrister arguing that he would probably have (note
the weasel words there) 'life-threatening medical issues' if he was
imprisoned, well, they all say that, don't they? It's their job. And
it's usually just flannel to be treated as the nonsense it is. Anyway,
what 87-year old doesn't at that age?

Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues' might
have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would have been
in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I don't think
we can draw any conclusions.

The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all depend
on luck.
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 10:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
It's the law that is at fault.
Presumably the charge was one of causing death by driving without due care and attention. That, almost uniquely for a criminal offence, requires no intention nor any gross negligence on the part of the perpetrator. It criminalises any momentary lapse, which we all have from time to time as a result of being human, that unfortunately has tragic consequences. It depends entirely on the consequences, not on the act itself. And that means it's entirely in the lap of the gods.
So, there but for fortune go you or I.
Be lucky! It's the only way to avoid conviction.
But it's not how the law should be.
The charge, I understand, was causing death by 'dangerous driving'.
However, it is not the conviction which I believe was wrong, but the
sentence.

He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no useful
purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a tragic
outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an elderly
and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can impose.
Post by Norman Wells
I suspect that the sentence handed down was legally correct according to the sentencing guidelines. However, you have to question what purpose it serves other than revenge. It's not the sentence that would make him change his ways but almost certainly what actually happened. And the public would be protected from him, if necessary, by imposing a ban on driving.
As regards the man's barrister arguing that he would probably have (note the weasel words there) 'life-threatening medical issues' if he was imprisoned, well, they all say that, don't they? It's their job. And it's usually just flannel to be treated as the nonsense it is. Anyway, what 87-year old doesn't at that age?
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues' might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in a
GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions - and
of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things like
this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays. But the
punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of the
perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?

There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 11:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other.
He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at
the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical
issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even
refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
It's the law that is at fault.
Presumably the charge was one of causing death by driving without due
care and attention.  That, almost uniquely for a criminal offence,
requires no intention nor any gross negligence on the part of the
perpetrator.  It criminalises any momentary lapse, which we all have
from time to time as a result of being human, that unfortunately has
tragic consequences.  It depends entirely on the consequences, not on
the act itself.  And that means it's entirely in the lap of the gods.
So, there but for fortune go you or I.
Be lucky!  It's the only way to avoid conviction.
But it's not how the law should be.
The charge, I understand, was causing death by 'dangerous driving'.
However, it is not the conviction which I believe was wrong, but the
sentence.
But the sentence for a dangerous driving offence is always greater than
for a careless driving one. The sentencing range for causing death by
dangerous driving is actually 2 to 5 years custody, so he was down at
the lower end of that.

I'd have thought the difference between dangerous and careless driving
might have something to do with intent. However, it seems even the
judge accepted that he 'didn't deliberately do it', so I'm a little bit
mystified. There's more description of the case here:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-87-jailed-killing-woman-21032119
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no useful
purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a tragic
outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an elderly
and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can impose.
I expect you're right. It's a tragedy all round caused by an accident,
and accidents do happen however hard everyone tries to be careful. They
are part of the lottery of life. Sadly, though, we now have a blame
culture. Someone must have caused it, therefore someone must be punished.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
I suspect that the sentence handed down was legally correct according
to the sentencing guidelines.  However, you have to question what
purpose it serves other than revenge.  It's not the sentence that
would make him change his ways but almost certainly what actually
happened.  And the public would be protected from him, if necessary,
by imposing a ban on driving.
As regards the man's barrister arguing that he would probably have
(note the weasel words there) 'life-threatening medical issues' if he
was imprisoned, well, they all say that, don't they?  It's their job.
And it's usually just flannel to be treated as the nonsense it is.
Anyway, what 87-year old doesn't at that age?
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.  So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in a
GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all depend
on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions - and
of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things like
this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays. But the
punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of the
perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
Not necessaily. There are things like speeding, which are absolute
offences, meaning that the police do not have to prove any intent. How
far that doctrine should extend is a matter for society to say. It's OK
for minor offences because it removes an overly onerous burden from the
police. Certainly where a jail sentence is in the offing, however, it's
my view that it should never apply.
Post by Farmer Giles
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
What should we do with them then? There are serious elderly criminals
out there who I'm sure would love to use an age exemption like that. It
would literally be their get out of jail free card.
JNugent
2019-12-29 14:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical
issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even
refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
It's the law that is at fault.
Presumably the charge was one of causing death by driving without due
care and attention.  That, almost uniquely for a criminal offence,
requires no intention nor any gross negligence on the part of the
perpetrator.  It criminalises any momentary lapse, which we all have
from time to time as a result of being human, that unfortunately has
tragic consequences.  It depends entirely on the consequences, not on
the act itself.  And that means it's entirely in the lap of the gods.
So, there but for fortune go you or I.
Be lucky!  It's the only way to avoid conviction.
But it's not how the law should be.
The charge, I understand, was causing death by 'dangerous driving'.
However, it is not the conviction which I believe was wrong, but the
sentence.
But the sentence for a dangerous driving offence is always greater than
for a careless driving one.  The sentencing range for causing death by
dangerous driving is actually 2 to 5 years custody, so he was down at
the lower end of that.
I'd have thought the difference between dangerous and careless driving
might have something to do with intent.  However, it seems even the
judge accepted that he 'didn't deliberately do it', so I'm a little bit
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-87-jailed-killing-woman-21032119
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
I expect you're right.  It's a tragedy all round caused by an accident,
and accidents do happen however hard everyone tries to be careful.  They
are part of the lottery of life.  Sadly, though, we now have a blame
culture.  Someone must have caused it, therefore someone must be punished.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
I suspect that the sentence handed down was legally correct according
to the sentencing guidelines.  However, you have to question what
purpose it serves other than revenge.  It's not the sentence that
would make him change his ways but almost certainly what actually
happened.  And the public would be protected from him, if necessary,
by imposing a ban on driving.
As regards the man's barrister arguing that he would probably have
(note the weasel words there) 'life-threatening medical issues' if he
was imprisoned, well, they all say that, don't they?  It's their job.
And it's usually just flannel to be treated as the nonsense it is.
Anyway, what 87-year old doesn't at that age?
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.  So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
Not necessaily.  There are things like speeding, which are absolute
offences, meaning that the police do not have to prove any intent.  How
far that doctrine should extend is a matter for society to say.  It's OK
for minor offences because it removes an overly onerous burden from the
police.  Certainly where a jail sentence is in the offing, however, it's
my view that it should never apply.
Post by Farmer Giles
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
What should we do with them then?  There are serious elderly criminals
out there who I'm sure would love to use an age exemption like that.  It
would literally be their get out of jail free card.
Whether the case was exceptional enough to disapply the ban on
imprisonment would be a matter for the court - perhaps even the jury in
an indictment case - to decide.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 17:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80)
be sent to prison.
What should we do with them then?  There are serious elderly criminals
out there who I'm sure would love to use an age exemption like that.
It would literally be their get out of jail free card.
Whether the case was exceptional enough to disapply the ban on
imprisonment would be a matter for the court - perhaps even the jury in
an indictment case - to decide.
I don't think we want juries deciding sentences. Juries can be vicious,
vindictive, racist, feminist or, even worse, politically correct.

At least judges' decisions are appealable.
Pamela
2019-12-29 11:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other.
He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at
the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if
he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to
allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
It's the law that is at fault.
Presumably the charge was one of causing death by driving without due
care and attention.  That, almost uniquely for a criminal offence,
requires no intention nor any gross negligence on the part of the
perpetrator.  It criminalises any momentary lapse, which we all have
from time to time as a result of being human, that unfortunately has
tragic consequences.  It depends entirely on the consequences, not on
the act itself.  And that means it's entirely in the lap of the gods.
So, there but for fortune go you or I.
Be lucky!  It's the only way to avoid conviction.
But it's not how the law should be.
The charge, I understand, was causing death by 'dangerous driving'.
However, it is not the conviction which I believe was wrong, but the
sentence.
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no useful
purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a tragic
outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an elderly
and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
I suspect that the sentence handed down was legally correct according
to the sentencing guidelines.  However, you have to question what
purpose it serves other than revenge.  It's not the sentence that
would make him change his ways but almost certainly what actually
happened.  And the public would be protected from him, if necessary,
by imposing a ban on driving.
As regards the man's barrister arguing that he would probably have
(note the weasel words there) 'life-threatening medical issues' if he
was imprisoned, well, they all say that, don't they?  It's their
job.  And it's usually just flannel to be treated as the nonsense it
is.  Anyway, what 87-year old doesn't at that age?
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.  So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in a
GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all depend
on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions - and
of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things like
this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays. But the
punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of the
perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.

It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and also
the one injured for life.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 14:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no useful
purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a tragic
outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an elderly
and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.

As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.  So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in a
GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all depend
on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions - and
of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things like
this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays. But the
punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of the
perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said “You didn’t deliberately do it".
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and also
the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do *you*
suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even for a second?

How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Pamela
2019-12-30 21:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.  So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.

For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness. His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and
also the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do *you*
suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even for a second?
How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Perhaps those are questions for you to ask in a new thread.
Norman Wells
2019-12-30 21:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.  So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?

At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and
also the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do *you*
suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even for a second?
How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Perhaps those are questions for you to ask in a new thread.
No, you raised the matter here.

Perhaps you won't answer because you can't?
Pamela
2019-12-31 11:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving
for the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for
an elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court
can impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of
line with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to
the victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken
hip and then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's
account. In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he
could reliably operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. 
So, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said
in a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were
stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had
evidence one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a
capable of driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify
them fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My
elderly mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she
was fit to drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly
wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative
things like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly
nowadays. But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the
intent of the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens
rea', was necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80)
be sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in choosing to drive when he was so prone to
error. It is predictable enough at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and
also the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do
*you* suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even
for a second?
How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Perhaps those are questions for you to ask in a new thread.
No, you raised the matter here.
Perhaps you won't answer because you can't?
More addled nonsense from you, Norman. I respectfully suggest you stay
off the Christmas booze if you want to make more sense.
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 13:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving
for the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for
an elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court
can impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of
line with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to
the victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken
hip and then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's
account. In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he
could reliably operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.ÂÂ
So, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said
in a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were
stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had
evidence one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a
capable of driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify
them fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My
elderly mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she
was fit to drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly
wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative
things like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly
nowadays. But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the
intent of the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens
rea', was necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80)
be sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in choosing to drive when he was so prone to
error. It is predictable enough at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and
also the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do
*you* suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even
for a second?
How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Perhaps those are questions for you to ask in a new thread.
No, you raised the matter here.
Perhaps you won't answer because you can't?
More addled nonsense from you, Norman. I respectfully suggest you stay
off the Christmas booze if you want to make more sense.
No answers.

As usual.
Fredxx
2019-12-31 15:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving
for the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for
an elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court
can impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of
line with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to
the victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken
hip and then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's
account. In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he
could reliably operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered.ÂÂ
So, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said
in a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were
stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had
evidence one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a
capable of driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify
them fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My
elderly mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she
was fit to drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly
wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed.  It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative
things like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly
nowadays. But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the
intent of the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens
rea', was necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80)
be sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in choosing to drive when he was so prone to
error. It is predictable enough at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and
also the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do
*you* suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even
for a second?
How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Perhaps those are questions for you to ask in a new thread.
No, you raised the matter here.
Perhaps you won't answer because you can't?
More addled nonsense from you, Norman. I respectfully suggest you stay
off the Christmas booze if you want to make more sense.
Refusing to answer questions? Are they too hard when in an alcohol
induced stupor?
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 14:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.

They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.

Those who live in rural areas should think of that before they move there, or
remain there after retirement.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
It's very tragic but mostly for the family of the dead pedestrian and
also the one injured for life.
How do *you* suggest that *all* accidents can be avoided? How do *you*
suggest that eveyone can be made mever to be inadvertent, even for a second?
How do *you* propose to change human nature?
Perhaps those are questions for you to ask in a new thread.
No, you raised the matter here.
Perhaps you won't answer because you can't?
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 14:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.

"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."

"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute
of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489

Why single out the elderly for your attentions?

I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year. At their own expense.

How does that sound?
Fredxx
2019-12-31 15:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.
"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."
"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute
of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
Why single out the elderly for your attentions?
I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year.  At their own expense.
How does that sound?
I don't have an issue with a driving test every 2 or maybe 3 years.

Your stats won't include Jeanette Newman as a statistic being killed by
an 87 year old driver.

Given the erratic nature of older drivers, and not maintaining speed,
they may well cause more deaths to others around them than themselves.
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 15:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.
"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."
"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the
Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
Why single out the elderly for your attentions?
I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year.  At their own expense.
How does that sound?
I don't have an issue with a driving test every 2 or maybe 3 years.
At everyone's personal cost? Or do you think it should be 'free'?
Post by Fredxx
Your stats won't include Jeanette Newman as a statistic being killed by
an 87 year old driver.
They clearly don't include any incidents after 2011.

But I'm not maintaining that the elderly have no accidents, just no more
than other age groups that would justify their being singled out.

If you want to target a particular age range, 17 to 24 seems the one
that most needs it.
Post by Fredxx
Given the erratic nature of older drivers, and not maintaining speed,
they may well cause more deaths to others around them than themselves.
But that's not what the Department for Transport says, nor the Institute
of Advanced Motorists quoted above.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 16:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.
In which case, nothing will change.

Old people will occasionally wreck their Discoveries, causing injury to third
parties but have a new one delivered 48 hours later.
Post by Norman Wells
"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."
"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute
of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."
Yes, well he would say that, but does he give the average annual mileage of
each age group? If so, you seem to have forgotten to include those figures.

If not, your quote means fuck-all.
Post by Norman Wells
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
Why single out the elderly for your attentions?
Because I am getting there and I know my reactions are getting slower, my
mind is more inclined to wander and get distracted, and driving after dark is
becoming a real PITA - which I avoid as much as possible.

Anyone elderly who says they do not notice these effects are in denial - and
a dangerous denial at that.
Post by Norman Wells
I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year. At their own expense.
How does that sound?
Yes that is fine by me. In fact the extreme case would be that every driver
should have a driving test every 5 years IMO; but it would be prohibitively
expensive, which is why I gave my 70, 80 and 85 ages.

I would probably fail a driving test now, and if I did I would just use the
bus.

Believe me, the time is not far off where modern technology will track your
driving behaviour anyway, and automatically report you if your driving is
considered ‘bad’ from the computers’ point of view.
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 16:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So, I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80) be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.
In which case, nothing will change.
If it ain't broke ...
Post by Keema's Nan
Old people will occasionally wreck their Discoveries, causing injury to third
parties
And younger drivers will wreck whatever they drive, causing injury to
third parties.
Post by Keema's Nan
but have a new one delivered 48 hours later.
Why is that relevant?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."
"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute
of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."
Yes, well he would say that, but does he give the average annual mileage of
each age group? If so, you seem to have forgotten to include those figures.
If not, your quote means fuck-all.
You're perfectly free to quote whatever other figures you can find, so
why don't you?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
Why single out the elderly for your attentions?
Because I am getting there and I know my reactions are getting slower, my
mind is more inclined to wander and get distracted, and driving after dark is
becoming a real PITA - which I avoid as much as possible.
Anyone elderly who says they do not notice these effects are in denial - and
a dangerous denial at that.
But younger drivers have accidents too. They must be in denial of their
abilities as well then. So, why are you singling out the elderly who,
if you're anything to go by, know their limitations rather better than
some other age groups, and act accordingly?

Do you have any factual evidence at all that the elderly are a
particularly dangerous group?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year. At their own expense.
How does that sound?
Yes that is fine by me. In fact the extreme case would be that every driver
should have a driving test every 5 years IMO; but it would be prohibitively
expensive, which is why I gave my 70, 80 and 85 ages.
You don't think that might give anyone who passes the overconfidence in
their abilities as it seems to with 17-19-year olds? Or at least be
taken as full approval of their driving abilities until the next one is due?
Post by Keema's Nan
I would probably fail a driving test now, and if I did I would just use the
bus.
You're lucky to have them and that they go where you need to.
Post by Keema's Nan
Believe me, the time is not far off where modern technology will track your
driving behaviour anyway, and automatically report you if your driving is
considered ‘bad’ from the computers’ point of view.
It's already here. Some insurance companies offer a black box that is
installed in your car and collects data about your driving style in
exchange for a reduced premium if yoiu've been a good boy.

https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/black-box-insurance/guide-to-black-box-insurance
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 17:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no
useful purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a
tragic outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for
an
elderly and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can
impose.
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal and certainly out of
line
with the serious ness of the offence. He never apologised to the
victims' families. And what was he doing driving with a broken hip and
then not being able to use the pedals correctly?
It wouldn't be physically possible for him to drive with a broken hip,
so he cearly wasn't.
If that's true then his barrister was telling porkies to the court.
Do quote what he said that gives you that impression. I think he was
referring to his condition now, ie after any injuries he may have
suffered in the accident, and not at the time of it.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As for not using the pedals correctly, there is no evidence of that
being down to any physical condition.
The expert collision investigator disagreed with the defendant's
account.
In fact needed a zimmer frame to walks, so it's a wonder he could
reliably
operate the pedals. Turns out he couldn't.
Give a link please to the report you're relying on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
Sadly, we're not told what those 'life-threatening medical issues'
might have been if they were to have arisen, nor whether they would
have been in any way related to the heart attack he suffered. So,
I
don't think we can draw any conclusions.
I believe that the barrister was simply relating what had been said
in
a GP's letter, I also understand that the precise details were
stated.
The police should look into why the man's GP certified him as fit to
drive.
You have no evidence whatsoever that his GP did. AT his age all he'd
have had to do was self-certify periodically that he was fit to drive.
To repeat, the police should look into it. I didn't say they had
evidence
one way or the other of falsely certifying a motorist a capable of
driving. It needs looking into.
No it doesn't.
Post by Pamela
For a long time doctors bowed to their patients' demands to certify them
fit to drive, until it was tightened up in govy guidance. My elderly
mother's equally elderly doctor would issue a letter saying she was fit
to
drive without a proper assessment at a time when she clearly wasn't.
It's not necessary for a GP to certify fitness to drive. It's a
self-certification process, as I told you before. Why are you finding
that so difficult to understand?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Norman Wells
The law needs to be changed. It's not right that it should all
depend on luck.
We all have to be accountable for the consequences of our actions -
and of course I am not referring to ridiculous and speculative things
like this 'incitement' nonsense that we have increasingly nowadays.
But the punishments imposed need to fully bear in mind the intent of
the perpetrator. Wasn't there a time when intent, or 'mens rea', was
necessary for a criminal conviction?
There should also be a ruling that only under the most severe and
necessary circumstances should anyone beyond a certain age (say 80)
be
sent to prison.
... unless they recklessly kill or maim members of the public and
subsequently fails to show any true remorse or make an apology.
It was *not* reckless. Even the judge said "You didn't deliberately
do it".
Deliberation is not required for recklessness.
Yes it is. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
His recklessness was in
choosing to drive when he was so prone to error. It is predictable
enough
at his age.
Got any evidence for that?
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.
In which case, nothing will change.
If it ain't broke ...
Post by Keema's Nan
Old people will occasionally wreck their Discoveries, causing injury to third
parties
And younger drivers will wreck whatever they drive, causing injury to
third parties.
Post by Keema's Nan
but have a new one delivered 48 hours later.
Why is that relevant?
I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

Just move on.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."
"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute
of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."
Yes, well he would say that, but does he give the average annual mileage of
each age group? If so, you seem to have forgotten to include those figures.
If not, your quote means fuck-all.
You're perfectly free to quote whatever other figures you can find, so
why don't you?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
Why single out the elderly for your attentions?
Because I am getting there and I know my reactions are getting slower, my
mind is more inclined to wander and get distracted, and driving after dark is
becoming a real PITA - which I avoid as much as possible.
Anyone elderly who says they do not notice these effects are in denial - and
a dangerous denial at that.
But younger drivers have accidents too. They must be in denial of their
abilities as well then. So, why are you singling out the elderly who,
if you're anything to go by, know their limitations rather better than
some other age groups, and act accordingly?
Do you have any factual evidence at all that the elderly are a
particularly dangerous group?
Yes....

https://healthfully.com/how-does-aging-affect-reaction-time-7671369.html

And so would you if you took your head out of your arse and bothered to look
for stuff.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year. At their own expense.
How does that sound?
Yes that is fine by me. In fact the extreme case would be that every driver
should have a driving test every 5 years IMO; but it would be prohibitively
expensive, which is why I gave my 70, 80 and 85 ages.
You don't think that might give anyone who passes the overconfidence in
their abilities as it seems to with 17-19-year olds? Or at least be
taken as full approval of their driving abilities until the next one is due?
I might if I could understand your drivel.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
I would probably fail a driving test now, and if I did I would just use the
bus.
You're lucky to have them and that they go where you need to.
I blame Tory governments.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Believe me, the time is not far off where modern technology will track your
driving behaviour anyway, and automatically report you if your driving is
considered ‘bad’ from the computers’ point of view.
It's already here. Some insurance companies offer a black box that is
installed in your car and collects data about your driving style in
exchange for a reduced premium if yoiu've been a good boy.
https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/black-box-insurance/guide-to-black-box-insuran
ce
Which is not quite what I meant, but..... Dream on.
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 17:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
At what age should everyone be stopped from driving in your view?
At an age that they fail a driving test, which should be introduced as
mandatory for everyone aged 70, 80 and 85.
They could have one every year for those aged 85 or over, but I doubt many
would still be driving in order to qualify.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older
drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to
restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age.
In which case, nothing will change.
If it ain't broke ...
Post by Keema's Nan
Old people will occasionally wreck their Discoveries, causing injury to
third parties
And younger drivers will wreck whatever they drive, causing injury to
third parties.
Post by Keema's Nan
but have a new one delivered 48 hours later.
Why is that relevant?
I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
Just move on.
Why, just because you have no answer?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
"There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in
2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving
17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving
20-to-24-year-old drivers."
"There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as
many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older
drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the
road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute
of Advanced Motorists (IAM)."
Yes, well he would say that, but does he give the average annual mileage of
each age group? If so, you seem to have forgotten to include those figures.
If not, your quote means fuck-all.
You're perfectly free to quote whatever other figures you can find, so
why don't you?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
Why single out the elderly for your attentions?
Because I am getting there and I know my reactions are getting slower, my
mind is more inclined to wander and get distracted, and driving after dark
is becoming a real PITA - which I avoid as much as possible.
Anyone elderly who says they do not notice these effects are in denial - and
a dangerous denial at that.
But younger drivers have accidents too. They must be in denial of their
abilities as well then. So, why are you singling out the elderly who,
if you're anything to go by, know their limitations rather better than
some other age groups, and act accordingly?
Do you have any factual evidence at all that the elderly are a
particularly dangerous group?
Yes....
https://healthfully.com/how-does-aging-affect-reaction-time-7671369.html
And so would you if you took your head out of your arse and bothered to look
for stuff.
Sorry, that doesn't go any way towards showing that the elderly are a
particularly dangerous group when it comes to driving. Where are your
statistics? Where is your evidence?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
I suggest that anyone who doesn't know the facts before pontificating
should have a compulsory driving test every year. At their own expense.
How does that sound?
Yes that is fine by me. In fact the extreme case would be that every driver
should have a driving test every 5 years IMO; but it would be prohibitively
expensive, which is why I gave my 70, 80 and 85 ages.
You don't think that might give anyone who passes the overconfidence in
their abilities as it seems to with 17-19-year olds? Or at least be
taken as full approval of their driving abilities until the next one is due?
I might if I could understand your drivel.
Passing a test is often taken as certification of excellence rather than
merely an indication of reaching just a minimum standard. And that can
be dangerous.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Believe me, the time is not far off where modern technology will track your
driving behaviour anyway, and automatically report you if your driving is
considered ‘bad’ from the computers’ point of view.
It's already here. Some insurance companies offer a black box that is
installed in your car and collects data about your driving style in
exchange for a reduced premium if yoiu've been a good boy.
https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/black-box-insurance/guide-to-black-box-insuran
ce
Which is not quite what I meant, but..... Dream on.
I'm not dreaming anything, just giving you the facts, as always.
JNugent
2019-12-29 14:54:39 UTC
Permalink
On 29/12/2019 11:51, Pamela wrote:

[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.

For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about by
car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
Fredxx
2019-12-29 15:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about by
car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
London and the SE have it easy in terms of free public transport. It's a
shame this service wasn't more uniform over the UK.

Rather than HS2, how about an underground system for Manchester?
Pamela
2019-12-29 20:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about by
car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is required
then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.

Indulging their preference of where they live by making special allowance for
them to drive can cost other people lives.
JNugent
2019-12-30 02:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about by
car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is required
then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to drive
is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can result in
the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a disqualification,
not a revocation. They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere recognition of
unfitness.
Post by Pamela
Indulging their preference of where they live by making special allowance for
them to drive can cost other people lives.
A bit far-fetched.
Pamela
2019-12-31 11:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about
by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to drive
is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can result in
the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a disqualification,
not a revocation. They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere recognition of
unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Indulging their preference of where they live by making special
allowance for them to drive can cost other people lives.
A bit far-fetched.
See this thread.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 14:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about
by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to drive
is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can result in
the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a disqualification,
not a revocation. They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere recognition of
unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification from
driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing more
than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being banned
for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is possible
that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big deal" for
someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and who has no
threat to their livelihood as a result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their driving
activities which led them to break the law.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Indulging their preference of where they live by making special
allowance for them to drive can cost other people lives.
A bit far-fetched.
See this thread.
If you say so.
JNugent
2019-12-31 14:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about
by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to drive
is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can result in
the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a disqualification,
not a revocation. They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere recognition of
unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification from
driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing more
than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being banned
for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is possible
that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big deal" for
someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and who has no
threat to their livelihood as a result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their driving
activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.

It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
Pamela
2019-12-31 15:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely
not true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get
about by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe
restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
JNugent
2019-12-31 16:02:59 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]

[responding to: Pamela]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
That is a mystifying thing to say.

No-one has a driving licence for life unless they plan to die before
their seventieth birthday.

We can all surely remember that until the 1970s, when the DVLC was
instituted at Swansea, all the older "little red" driving licences were
issued by local authorities and had to be renewed every three years.

It was only when the new green folded licence in a plastic wallet was
introduced by the DVLA that it was changed from having a max life of
three years to lasting until the holder's 70th birthday. Thereafter, the
rule was exactly the same as it is now: renew every three years.

What "foot-dragging" do you refer to?
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 16:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe.
Care to tell us why it isn't an equally big deal for families of those
killed by younger drivers?
Post by Pamela
The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
Hardly. All it takes is self-certification and you can prolong your
licence for free for as long as you like.
Pamela
2019-12-31 16:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe.
Care to tell us why it isn't an equally big deal for families of those
killed by younger drivers?
Younger drivers are not without blame but, for the most part, they do not
suffer steadily declining physical and mental abilities.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
Hardly. All it takes is self-certification and you can prolong your
licence for free for as long as you like.
You have to make an honest medical declaration. False statements can incur a
fine of £1,000 and even lead to prosecution if you're in an accident.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 16:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely
not true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get
about by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe
restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
Exactly. My father was an idiot driver well before he was forced to give up
his license.

He drove a BMW which he considered was a passport to owning the road,
tailgating, light flashing slower drivers who were getting in his way,
cutting people up at roundabouts and generally thinking he was Graham Hill
(his generation) in an F1 car, even on a bendy country road where he would
overtake anything and everything.

He lied to us all about how little he could see, but it all came to a crunch
aged 88 when he collided with another car turning right on a roundabout.
Pamela
2019-12-31 16:37:35 UTC
Permalink
On 31 Dec 2019, Pamela wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On 31 Dec 2019, JNugent wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of)
a living and/or live in Central London, that is arguably
true. For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it
is absolutely not true. Normal life for many people
depends on being able to get about by car and not being
able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where
driving is required then surely hey need to move to a more
suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being
unfit to drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being
unfit to drive can result in the revocation of a licence, but
the subject here is a disqualification, not a revocation.
They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere
recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase
"banned for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for
disqualification from driving (as a punishment for a driving
offence or series of offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps
nothing more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They
apply in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct.
It is possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much
of "a big deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say)
inner London and who has no threat to their livelihood as a
result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This
is particularly so where it directly affects financial positions,
with possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly
motorists too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was
made worse by Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the
old driving licence for life.
Exactly. My father was an idiot driver well before he was forced to give
up his license.
He drove a BMW which he considered was a passport to owning the road,
tailgating, light flashing slower drivers who were getting in his way,
cutting people up at roundabouts and generally thinking he was Graham
Hill (his generation) in an F1 car, even on a bendy country road where
he would overtake anything and everything.
He lied to us all about how little he could see, but it all came to a
crunch aged 88 when he collided with another car turning right on a
roundabout.
There's an additional problem with those who have dementia. For some
reason, most dementia sufferers are unaware of having even significant
dementia and are adament they don't have it. It's not just embarassment
but occurs in a way medics can't understand.

My mother, who had dementia, wouldn't accept she had it and wouldn't
accept for one minute that she had become unfit to drive. Her general
road sense was appalling and, as a pedestrian, would walk in the middle of
the road to avoid bumps in the pavement. She would explain drivers could
see her and anyway she had lived in the area longer than they had.

Yet the dementia team judged she had mental capacity. It was a recipe for
disaster.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 16:55:20 UTC
Permalink
On 31 Dec 2019, Pamela wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On 31 Dec 2019, JNugent wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of)
a living and/or live in Central London, that is arguably
true. For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it
is absolutely not true. Normal life for many people
depends on being able to get about by car and not being
able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where
driving is required then surely hey need to move to a more
suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being
unfit to drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being
unfit to drive can result in the revocation of a licence, but
the subject here is a disqualification, not a revocation.
They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere
recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase
"banned for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for
disqualification from driving (as a punishment for a driving
offence or series of offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps
nothing more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They
apply in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct.
It is possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much
of "a big deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say)
inner London and who has no threat to their livelihood as a
result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This
is particularly so where it directly affects financial positions,
with possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly
motorists too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was
made worse by Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the
old driving licence for life.
Exactly. My father was an idiot driver well before he was forced to give
up his license.
He drove a BMW which he considered was a passport to owning the road,
tailgating, light flashing slower drivers who were getting in his way,
cutting people up at roundabouts and generally thinking he was Graham
Hill (his generation) in an F1 car, even on a bendy country road where
he would overtake anything and everything.
He lied to us all about how little he could see, but it all came to a
crunch aged 88 when he collided with another car turning right on a
roundabout.
There's an additional problem with those who have dementia. For some
reason, most dementia sufferers are unaware of having even significant
dementia and are adament they don't have it. It's not just embarassment
but occurs in a way medics can't understand.
My mother, who had dementia, wouldn't accept she had it and wouldn't
accept for one minute that she had become unfit to drive. Her general
road sense was appalling and, as a pedestrian, would walk in the middle of
the road to avoid bumps in the pavement. She would explain drivers could
see her and anyway she had lived in the area longer than they had.
Yet the dementia team judged she had mental capacity. It was a recipe for
disaster.
I don’t believe my Dad has dementia. His memory is a bit random - but it
was the lies he told in order to keep driving which made me angry. If he was
doing it, how many hundreds (thousands? millions?) of other geriatrics are
doing the same just because they see driving as some ego-boosting
pride-driven right of passage?
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 17:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t believe my Dad has dementia. His memory is a bit random - but it
was the lies he told in order to keep driving which made me angry. If he was
doing it, how many hundreds (thousands? millions?) of other geriatrics are
doing the same just because they see driving as some ego-boosting
pride-driven right of passage?
What lies did he tell, and to whom?
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 17:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t believe my Dad has dementia. His memory is a bit random - but it
was the lies he told in order to keep driving which made me angry. If he was
doing it, how many hundreds (thousands? millions?) of other geriatrics are
doing the same just because they see driving as some ego-boosting
pride-driven right of passage?
What lies did he tell, and to whom?
He told me and his other offspring there was no problem with his vision, and
refused to have his eyes tested, refused to see the doctor, refused to have
anyone check him over at his house. He must have lied to the authorities when
self certifying himself fit to drive because when my sister co-erced him to
the opticians soon after his accident they said his eyesight was so bad they
were surprised he could see enough to walk, let alone drive.

You can’t physically force old geezers into a surgery (else they scream
‘assault’), and if you book an appointment for someone like him, he will
either cancel it or just not turn up and tell you he forgot.

He had macular degeneration and glaucoma at various stages in both eyes, and
yet was still declaring himself fit to drive. We did manage to get him to
downgrade from the BMW to a Corsa, but that took years.

Is that enough for your kangaroo court?
abelard
2019-12-31 17:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
There's an additional problem with those who have dementia. For some
reason, most dementia sufferers are unaware of having even significant
dementia and are adament they don't have it. It's not just embarassment
but occurs in a way medics can't understand.
My mother, who had dementia, wouldn't accept she had it and wouldn't
accept for one minute that she had become unfit to drive. Her general
road sense was appalling and, as a pedestrian, would walk in the middle of
the road to avoid bumps in the pavement. She would explain drivers could
see her and anyway she had lived in the area longer than they had.
Yet the dementia team judged she had mental capacity. It was a recipe for
disaster.
so it is hereditary thingy then
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-12-31 16:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely
not true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get
about by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe
restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
Exactly. My father was an idiot driver well before he was forced to give up
his license.
He drove a BMW which he considered was a passport to owning the road,
tailgating, light flashing slower drivers who were getting in his way,
cutting people up at roundabouts and generally thinking he was Graham Hill
(his generation) in an F1 car, even on a bendy country road where he would
overtake anything and everything.
He lied to us all about how little he could see, but it all came to a crunch
aged 88 when he collided with another car turning right on a roundabout.
Shock and horror!

That *never* happens to drivers younger than 70 (let alone younger than
25), does it?


[PS: I hope your dad didn't suffer any serious - or even not-so-serious
- injuries in that incident.]
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 17:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true.
For those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely
not true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get
about by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe
restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
Well they should have thought of that before they indulged in their
driving activities which led them to break the law.
That, of course, is correct.
It doesn't, though, support the assertion that "being banned for
driving" is a minor matter or "no big deal". Disqualification from
driving is a very big deal.
It's an even bigger deal for families of those killed by elderly motorists
too stubborn to stop driving when unsafe. The problem was made worse by
Britain's decades long foot-dragging in restricting the old driving
licence for life.
Exactly. My father was an idiot driver well before he was forced to give up
his license.
He drove a BMW which he considered was a passport to owning the road,
tailgating, light flashing slower drivers who were getting in his way,
cutting people up at roundabouts and generally thinking he was Graham Hill
(his generation) in an F1 car, even on a bendy country road where he would
overtake anything and everything.
He lied to us all about how little he could see, but it all came to a crunch
aged 88 when he collided with another car turning right on a roundabout.
Shock and horror!
That *never* happens to drivers younger than 70 (let alone younger than
25), does it?
Well it hasn’t happened to any of his offspring or relatives so far, and
many are in their 50s and 60s; as well as an increasing number of youngsters
who are passing their tests on a regular basis.

2020 will see my 50th anniversary of passing my test, and no license points
so far - which is why I feel I am able to pass judgement on others. If I can
manage 50 years of safe driving, I don’t see what is stopping everyone else
- except I do see it, every time I take my car out on the road. Impatient,
ego-centric, show-off, nutjob drivers.
Post by JNugent
[PS: I hope your dad didn't suffer any serious - or even not-so-serious
- injuries in that incident.]
No he didn’t have any injuries (except to his pride), but I never really
got to the bottom of what happened.

When I asked him if the police were called after the accident, and what they
had said to him; his reply was “it was a police car that I collided
with”.

Make of that what you will, but he agreed to surrender his license, his car
was declared a write-off, and that was that. He never told me or any other
family member any further details.

He is 96 now and in a care home, where he should have gone many years ago but
refused because of the same stubbornness he had for not giving up driving.
Norman Wells
2019-12-31 17:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
2020 will see my 50th anniversary of passing my test, and no license points
so far - which is why I feel I am able to pass judgement on others. If I can
manage 50 years of safe driving, I don’t see what is stopping everyone else
- except I do see it, every time I take my car out on the road. Impatient,
ego-centric, show-off, nutjob drivers.
Sounds like youngsters to me. It's hardly the bahaviour of the elderly
whom you seem to be targetting.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
[PS: I hope your dad didn't suffer any serious - or even not-so-serious
- injuries in that incident.]
No he didn’t have any injuries (except to his pride), but I never really
got to the bottom of what happened.
When I asked him if the police were called after the accident, and what they
had said to him; his reply was “it was a police car that I collided
with”.
Make of that what you will, but he agreed to surrender his license, his car
was declared a write-off, and that was that. He never told me or any other
family member any further details.
He is 96 now and in a care home, where he should have gone many years ago but
refused because of the same stubbornness he had for not giving up driving.
You think you should have been able to run his life for him then both as
regards driving and going into a home?

Isn't that just a tad arrogant, condescending and controlling?
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 17:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
2020 will see my 50th anniversary of passing my test, and no license points
so far - which is why I feel I am able to pass judgement on others. If I can
manage 50 years of safe driving, I don’t see what is stopping everyone else
- except I do see it, every time I take my car out on the road. Impatient,
ego-centric, show-off, nutjob drivers.
Sounds like youngsters to me. It's hardly the bahaviour of the elderly
whom you seem to be targetting.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
[PS: I hope your dad didn't suffer any serious - or even not-so-serious
- injuries in that incident.]
No he didn’t have any injuries (except to his pride), but I never really
got to the bottom of what happened.
When I asked him if the police were called after the accident, and what they
had said to him; his reply was “it was a police car that I collided
with”.
Make of that what you will, but he agreed to surrender his license, his car
was declared a write-off, and that was that. He never told me or any other
family member any further details.
He is 96 now and in a care home, where he should have gone many years ago but
refused because of the same stubbornness he had for not giving up driving.
You think you should have been able to run his life for him then both as
regards driving and going into a home?
Yes.
Isn't that just a tad arrogant, condescending and controlling?
No. Just common sense.

Sometimes people do things for the best. He loves being in the home. We have
asked him if he would prefer to be back on his own, and he just laughs and
says "good heavens, no, I wish I had come here years ago”.

Which is a bit comforting, even though frustrating. Even when he was on his
own, we arranged for agency help staff to come in three times a week just to
check on him and make sure he had everything he needed. After about three
weeks of that ‘intrusion’ he just cancelled them.

What can you do, eh? You try your best, but they won’t have it.
Pancho
2019-12-31 14:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to drive
is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can result in
the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a disqualification,
not a revocation. They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere recognition of
unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification from
driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing more
than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
The context was who should be allowed to drive.

Why do you repeatedly introduce this type of irrelevance into threads?

It isn't just that your arguments are irrelevant, but they are wrong
too, word salad.
JNugent
2019-12-31 14:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to drive
is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can result in
the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification,
not a revocation. They are two different things. Disqualification is a
punishment for something allegedly done wrong, not a mere
recognition of
unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
The context was who should be allowed to drive.
The context was "being banned for driving". That is disqualification and
completely different from having a licence revoked on health grounds.
Post by Pancho
Why do you repeatedly introduce this type of irrelevance into threads?
I did not introduce *anything* into this thread. I responded purely to
what had been said by others.

So you are wrong.
Post by Pancho
It isn't just that your arguments are irrelevant, but they are wrong
too, word salad.
You prefer to think of (temporary) disqualification and (indefinite)
revocation as the same thing. They aren't.
Pamela
2019-12-31 15:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
The context was who should be allowed to drive.
Why do you repeatedly introduce this type of irrelevance into threads?
It isn't just that your arguments are irrelevant, but they are wrong
too, word salad.
Nugent spends time being punctilious, especially if it might start an
argument. Sigh.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 16:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
The context was who should be allowed to drive.
Why do you repeatedly introduce this type of irrelevance into threads?
It isn't just that your arguments are irrelevant, but they are wrong
too, word salad.
Nugent spends time being punctilious, especially if it might start an
argument. Sigh.
Ah yes, but at least he is generous enough to give us a week of peace over
Christmas - by not appearing at all.
Pamela
2019-12-31 15:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true. For those in
rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not true. Normal
life for many people depends on being able to get about by car and
not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification from
driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of offences).
Mind reading?
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing more
than old age).
Mind reading again?
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being banned
for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is possible
that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big deal" for
someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and who has no
threat to their livelihood as a result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but only
if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of maiming or
killing others.

Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their chosen
way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
JNugent
2019-12-31 15:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true. For those in
rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not true. Normal
life for many people depends on being able to get about by car and
not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification from
driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of offences).
Mind reading?
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing more
than old age).
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
Mind reading again?
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being banned
for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is possible
that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big deal" for
someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and who has no
threat to their livelihood as a result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but only
if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of maiming or
killing others.
Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their chosen
way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented.

I disagreed with the assertion that being "banned for driving" isn't a
"big deal". In fact, it's a very big deal.
Pamela
2019-12-31 16:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true. For those in
rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not true.
Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about by
car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
Mind reading?
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
Mind reading again?
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but
only if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of
maiming or killing others.
Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their
chosen way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented.
I disagreed with the assertion that being "banned for driving" isn't a
"big deal". In fact, it's a very big deal.
Maybe you read my message out of context. Todal had written:

"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life"

I replied:

"Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal [in this case] and
certainly out of line with the seriousness of the offence."
JNugent
2019-12-31 16:16:45 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but
only if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of
maiming or killing others.
Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their
chosen way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented.
I disagreed with the assertion that being "banned for driving" isn't a
"big deal". In fact, it's a very big deal.
"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life"
"Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal [in this case] and
certainly out of line with the seriousness of the offence."
A: You did not write exactly that. Your inserted phrase "[in this case]"
was not present in the post to which I responded.

Your point was therefore a more general assertion about being
disqualified from driving not being a "big deal", and it was that to
which I responded.

B: Other than for the inclusion of that extra phrase (which makes a lot
of difference), that *is* the context in which I read and understood
your message.

You said that being banned isn't a big deal and very few people could
agree with that. You didn't limit the remark to a particular case or
type of case. If you meant to do so, fair enough.
Pamela
2019-12-31 16:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but
only if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of
maiming or killing others. Those whose circumstances dictate they
must drive to maintain their chosen way of life must ensure they are
not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented. I disagreed with the assertion that
being "banned for driving" isn't a "big deal". In fact, it's a very
big deal.
"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving
for the rest of his life"
"Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal [in this case] and
certainly out of line with the seriousness of the offence."
A: You did not write exactly that. Your inserted phrase "[in this case]"
was not present in the post to which I responded.
Your point was therefore a more general assertion about being
disqualified from driving not being a "big deal", and it was that to
which I responded.
B: Other than for the inclusion of that extra phrase (which makes a lot
of difference), that *is* the context in which I read and understood
your message.
You said that being banned isn't a big deal and very few people could
agree with that. You didn't limit the remark to a particular case or
type of case. If you meant to do so, fair enough.
That was the context. That is what this thread is about. I can't repeat
all the premises in every message I post. You don't honestly think I was
was proclaiming about being banned for life in an abstract context do you?

The second half of my sentence (which read, "certainly out of line with
the seriousness of the offence") should have made it clear enough that I
was referring to this court case.
JNugent
2019-12-31 16:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but
only if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of
maiming or killing others. Those whose circumstances dictate they
must drive to maintain their chosen way of life must ensure they are
not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented. I disagreed with the assertion that
being "banned for driving" isn't a "big deal". In fact, it's a very
big deal.
"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving
for the rest of his life"
"Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal [in this case] and
certainly out of line with the seriousness of the offence."
A: You did not write exactly that. Your inserted phrase "[in this case]"
was not present in the post to which I responded.
Your point was therefore a more general assertion about being
disqualified from driving not being a "big deal", and it was that to
which I responded.
B: Other than for the inclusion of that extra phrase (which makes a lot
of difference), that *is* the context in which I read and understood
your message.
You said that being banned isn't a big deal and very few people could
agree with that. You didn't limit the remark to a particular case or
type of case. If you meant to do so, fair enough.
That was the context. That is what this thread is about. I can't repeat
all the premises in every message I post. You don't honestly think I was
was proclaiming about being banned for life in an abstract context do you?
You didn't refer to "being banned for life" at all.

You simply said that being "banned for driving" isn't a big deal.

But it is.
Post by Pamela
The second half of my sentence (which read, "certainly out of line with
the seriousness of the offence") should have made it clear enough that I
was referring to this court case.
I accept that you were making separate points and that what you wrote
made that clear.
Farmer Giles
2019-12-31 16:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true. For those in
rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not true.
Normal life for many people depends on being able to get about by
car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification
from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of
offences).
Mind reading?
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
Mind reading again?
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is
possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big
deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and
who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but
only if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of
maiming or killing others.
Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their
chosen way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented.
I disagreed with the assertion that being "banned for driving" isn't a
"big deal". In fact, it's a very big deal.
"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life"
You not only got that out of context - here is the full comment:

"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no useful
purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a tragic
outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an elderly
and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can impose."

But your attribution was wrong - in fact I wrote it (in response to
Norman Wells).
Pamela
2019-12-31 16:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a
living and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true. For
those in rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not
true. Normal life for many people depends on being able to get
about by car and not being able to do so amounts to a severe
restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving
is required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive
can result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is
a disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different
things. Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly
done wrong, not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase
"banned for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for
disqualification from driving (as a punishment for a driving offence
or series of offences).
Mind reading?
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing
more than old age).
Just reading. What you wrote. If you meant something else, that's not
obvious (or my fault).
Post by Pamela
Mind reading again?
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They
apply in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being
banned for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It
is possible that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a
big deal" for someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London
and who has no threat to their livelihood as a result of being
disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but
only if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of
maiming or killing others.
Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their
chosen way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
I don't disagree with that. Had that been what you said in the first
place, I wouldn't have commented.
I disagreed with the assertion that being "banned for driving" isn't a
"big deal". In fact, it's a very big deal.
"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving
for the rest of his life"
"He could have, and probably should have, been banned from driving for
the rest of his life. As you said, the prison sentence served no useful
purpose whatsoever. Such acts of carelessness, with such a tragic
outcome, bring a punishment in themselves - particularly for an elderly
and lifelong law-abiding citizen - beyond which any court can impose."
But your attribution was wrong - in fact I wrote it (in response to
Norman Wells).
Begging your pardon. It was not Todal but your good self.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 16:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Being banned for driving is hardly a big deal...
If you haven't got a car, don't drive for (or as part of) a living
and/or live in Central London, that is arguably true. For those in
rural areas and even many suburbs, it is absolutely not true. Normal
life for many people depends on being able to get about by car and
not being able to do so amounts to a severe restriction.
If someone not fit to drive lives in a rural area where driving is
required then surely hey need to move to a more suitable area.
Perhaps they would have to (or rely on others), but being unfit to
drive is not a ground for disqualification. Being unfit to drive can
result in the revocation of a licence, but the subject here is a
disqualification, not a revocation. They are two different things.
Disqualification is a punishment for something allegedly done wrong,
not a mere recognition of unfitness.
Of course, I used neither term.
That's neither here nor there, because you did use the phrase "banned
for [sic] driving", which is the everyday term for disqualification from
driving (as a punishment for a driving offence or series of offences).
Mind reading?
You also and separately used the phrase "not fit to drive", which
implies unfitness by virtue of a medical condition (perhaps nothing more
than old age).
Mind reading again?
As I know you will agree, the two have to be distinguished. They apply
in very different contexts.
I was replying to your comment about disqualification (or "being banned
for driving", as you put it). And what I said is correct. It is possible
that not being allowed to drive will not be much of "a big deal" for
someone in good health who lives in (say) inner London and who has no
threat to their livelihood as a result of being disqualified.
Outside that group, being disqualified from driving can be a very
serious matter indeed, life-changing and even life-wrecking. This is
particularly so where it directly affects financial positions, with
possible knock-on effects on family relationships.
I'm all for the elderly retiring to a quiet life away from cities but only
if their means for sustaining such a lifestyle doesn't risk of maiming or
killing others.
Those whose circumstances dictate they must drive to maintain their chosen
way of life must ensure they are not a danger to the public.
What? In my experience it is those who choose to drive to maintain their way
of life who are the most persistent and serious dangers to the public.

The only reason most of they get away with it, is because ordinary drivers
paying attention can predict what is going to happen; so the nut job
aggressive drivers come as no surprise - or the law breaking driver pleads
their lives and income will be ruined if they are banned and the gullible
beak lets them off.
John
2019-12-29 10:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
Maybe the judge will soon die painfully.
Ophelia
2019-12-29 10:30:41 UTC
Permalink
"Farmer Giles" wrote in message news:***@brightview.co.uk...

An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.

He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.

This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?

The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.

I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.

What do others think?

===

Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.

But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving not
imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!

But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 10:54:45 UTC
Permalink
  Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
  But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving
not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
  But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
That's as maybe. But judges are not totally free agents. Once a person
has pleaded guilty or been found guilty, they are obliged to sentence.
It's their job. And they're not even totally free in that. They must
by law have regard to the sentencing guidelines as laid down by the
Sentencing Guidelines Council, which I expect were fully followed in
this case.

If you think judges should not be allowed to overrule elected people,
that implies political control of the courts with verdicts being handed
down on the basis of political convenience rather than the facts, and I
don't think many would want to go down that route.

An independent judiciary is in fact one of the greatest safeguards we
have against tyrannical government.
Jethro_uk
2019-12-29 11:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
An independent judiciary is in fact one of the greatest safeguards we
have against tyrannical government.
Well, for now. Boris and chums appear hell bent on changing that.
The Iceberg
2019-12-29 11:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
  Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
  But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving
not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
  But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
That's as maybe. But judges are not totally free agents. Once a person
has pleaded guilty or been found guilty, they are obliged to sentence.
It's their job. And they're not even totally free in that. They must
by law have regard to the sentencing guidelines as laid down by the
Sentencing Guidelines Council, which I expect were fully followed in
this case.
If you think judges should not be allowed to overrule elected people,
that implies political control of the courts with verdicts being handed
down on the basis of political convenience rather than the facts, and I
don't think many would want to go down that route.
An independent judiciary is in fact one of the greatest safeguards we
have against tyrannical government.
yes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7759483/Zimmer-frame-using-driver-87-killed-woman-64-jailed.html

She added: 'You didn't deliberately do it. In my judgement, the fact you attempted further manoeuvres before recovering from the first incident increases the seriousness of the offence. There is an aggravating factor of getting back into the car when you were still cross with yourself.'

Mr Wood contested the judge's decision to jail the 87-year-old saying it was an 'exceptional case.'

He said: 'This man is 87 and the court has before it medical evidence strongly suggesting in the words of a GP that incarceration in a new environment could result in hospital admission for a life threatening illness. That makes this an exceptional case.'

He added: 'This is arguably manifestly excessive.'

But the Judge said: 'Although the conditions he faces are serious, the GP letter doesn't amount in itself to exceptional reasons. I'm afraid I'm not so persuaded.'

She added: 'This was a case that has caused me anxiety I have spent a considerable amount of time considering the sentence.

'It is not a sentence that I give lightly or that I would voluntarily wish to impose. However, in my judgement it is the shortest sentence I can impose.'
Pamela
2019-12-29 12:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
  Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
  But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
  But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
That's as maybe. But judges are not totally free agents. Once a person
has pleaded guilty or been found guilty, they are obliged to sentence.
It's their job. And they're not even totally free in that. They must
by law have regard to the sentencing guidelines as laid down by the
Sentencing Guidelines Council, which I expect were fully followed in
this case.
Quite so. According to the Daily Mail:

the Judge said: 'Although the conditions he faces are serious, the GP
letter doesn't amount in itself to exceptional reasons. I'm afraid I'm
not so persuaded.

'This was a case that has caused me anxiety I have spent a considerable
amount of time considering the sentence. It is not a sentence that I
give lightly or that I would voluntarily wish to impose. However, in my
judgement it is the shortest sentence I can impose.'
Post by Norman Wells
If you think judges should not be allowed to overrule elected people,
that implies political control of the courts with verdicts being handed
down on the basis of political convenience rather than the facts, and I
don't think many would want to go down that route.
An independent judiciary is in fact one of the greatest safeguards we
have against tyrannical government.
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 10:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
Post by Farmer Giles
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of them
seem to lack.

Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Joe
2019-12-29 11:02:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
  Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
  But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
  But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.

As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
--
Joe
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 11:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
  Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
  But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
  But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view
of the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't
always go together.
Ophelia
2019-12-29 16:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.

===

That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.

No, no, no!!!!
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 17:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
    Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
    But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
    But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
  That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being
neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
  No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.

Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.

What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?

What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali woman
who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in the
process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting 'offensive'
comments online?

'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely biased
and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.
Ophelia
2019-12-29 17:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.

Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.

What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?

What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali woman
who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in the
process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting 'offensive'
comments online?

'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely biased
and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.

==

Agreed!!! And they get away with it! After all the current problems
one hope that Johnson means he says about bringing change. I am sure many
of us will be watching!
Fredxx
2019-12-29 17:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
    Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
    But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
    But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
   That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being
neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
   No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.
Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.
What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?
What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali woman
who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in the
process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting 'offensive'
comments online?
'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely biased
and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.
The issue are the laws themselves. Usually by politicians for a quick
fix. It's very convenient to bash the judges that preside over cases and
sentence criminals.
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 18:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
    Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
    But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
    But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
   That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being
neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
   No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.
Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.
What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?
What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali
woman who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in the
process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting
'offensive' comments online?
'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely biased
and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.
The issue are the laws themselves. Usually by politicians for a quick
fix. It's very convenient to bash the judges that preside over cases and
sentence criminals.
It is the judges that dish out sentences - and are often inconsistent in
doing so.

Judicial bias is very often quite clear - as we saw with the the Supreme
Court ruling fairly recently. In fact the judicial appointment system
now in place virtually guarantees it. As with so many areas of our
lives, potential judges have to demonstrate their commitment to
'equality and diversity'. This has been the case since the Blair
creature set out such guidelines.

This means, in effect, that all judges now are internationally-minded
multiculturists. We have no chance of getting unbiased decisions out of
such a setup.
Fredxx
2019-12-29 18:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
    Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
    But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
    But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the
courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
   That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being
neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
   No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.
Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.
What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?
What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali
woman who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in
the process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting
'offensive' comments online?
'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely biased
and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.
The issue are the laws themselves. Usually by politicians for a quick
fix. It's very convenient to bash the judges that preside over cases
and sentence criminals.
It is the judges that dish out sentences - and are often inconsistent in
doing so.
You do realise there are sentencing guidelines.
Post by Farmer Giles
Judicial bias is very often quite clear - as we saw with the the Supreme
Court ruling fairly recently.
Which goes to show that errors are brought to book. I don't see the issues.
Post by Farmer Giles
In fact the judicial appointment system
now in place virtually guarantees it.
Far better than political appointees.
Post by Farmer Giles
As with so many areas of our
lives, potential judges have to demonstrate their commitment to
'equality and diversity'. This has been the case since the Blair
creature set out such guidelines.
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
Post by Farmer Giles
This means, in effect, that all judges now are internationally-minded
multiculturists. We have no chance of getting unbiased decisions out of
such a setup.
So not so bad after all. The alternative is worse.
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 19:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
    Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
    But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
    But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the
courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
   That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being
neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
   No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.
Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.
What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?
What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali
woman who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in
the process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting
'offensive' comments online?
'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely
biased and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.
The issue are the laws themselves. Usually by politicians for a quick
fix. It's very convenient to bash the judges that preside over cases
and sentence criminals.
It is the judges that dish out sentences - and are often inconsistent
in doing so.
You do realise there are sentencing guidelines.
Yes, guidelines which give them sufficient latitude to apply their bias.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Judicial bias is very often quite clear - as we saw with the the
Supreme Court ruling fairly recently.
Which goes to show that errors are brought to book. I don't see the issues.
Post by Farmer Giles
In fact the judicial appointment system now in place virtually
guarantees it.
Far better than political appointees.
Plenty of political meddling in the present process. Problem is it's all
quite obscure.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
As with so many areas of our lives, potential judges have to
demonstrate their commitment to 'equality and diversity'. This has
been the case since the Blair creature set out such guidelines.
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
He might have redeemed himself if that was down to him, but it certainly
wasn't.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
This means, in effect, that all judges now are internationally-minded
multiculturists. We have no chance of getting unbiased decisions out
of such a setup.
So not so bad after all. The alternative is worse.
You mean treating new arrivals more leniently than the native British?

I suppose if you're a recent arrival yourself that might seem ok.
Fredxx
2019-12-29 20:24:02 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
He might have redeemed himself if that was down to him, but it certainly
wasn't.
Do you have a brown nose? He had a great to deal with it:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/20/philip-hammond-tony-blair-brexit-davos-immigration
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
This means, in effect, that all judges now are internationally-minded
Post by Farmer Giles
multiculturists. We have no chance of getting unbiased decisions out
of such a setup.
So not so bad after all. The alternative is worse.
You mean treating new arrivals more leniently than the native British?
I suppose if you're a recent arrival yourself that might seem ok.
Only in your eyes. You sound very old and bitter.
Farmer Giles
2019-12-29 20:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
He might have redeemed himself if that was down to him, but it
certainly wasn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/20/philip-hammond-tony-blair-brexit-davos-immigration
Blair had nothing to do with it. Well, no more than all the rest of them
who sold us out.

Dissatisfaction with the EU stems from the fact that it became
increasingly obvious to most what some of us have always known - i.e.
the EU has benefited Britain not one jot since we joined.

Disagree? Then perhaps you'd care to list all the benefits we've derived
since we joined the Common Market/EU?
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
This means, in effect, that all judges now are internationally-minded
Post by Farmer Giles
multiculturists. We have no chance of getting unbiased decisions out
of such a setup.
So not so bad after all. The alternative is worse.
You mean treating new arrivals more leniently than the native British?
I suppose if you're a recent arrival yourself that might seem ok.
Only in your eyes. You sound very old and bitter.
And you sound like a recent arrival.
Ophelia
2019-12-30 08:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Ophelia
Post by Joe
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:36:47 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence
at Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the
other. He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake
pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for
all concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical
evidence showed that he would probably have life-threatening
medical issues if he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded
and even refused to allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to
know that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from
driving not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task,
publicly!!
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of
them seem to lack.
Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
That assessment would probably depend on the judge's - and your - view of
the case and the defendant. Intelligence and common sense don't always go
together.
The judge is charged with being as neutral as possible. The others are
there purely to argue a particular case and not to (necessarily) "see"
the points being made by their opposition.
===
That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being neutral,
but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
No, no, no!!!!
I would say that it is virtually impossible for human beings to be
absolutely neutral and objective about anything they have much
involvement with.
Furthermore, the legal system in this country - and most others, I
suspect - is frequently guilty of making inconsistent, even
contradictory, decisions.
What system, for example, based as it claims to be on fairness and
justice, can send Amy Mura to prison over Christmas for calling Anna
Soubry a traitor and yet takes no action against Jo Brand when she
openly called for battery acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage?
What system of so-called justice doesn't imprison a gang of Somali
woman who attacked a white woman, shouting 'kill the white slag in the
process, yet jails a Plymouth man for two years for posting 'offensive'
comments online?
'Intelligent' judges, don't make me laugh. More like extremely biased
and agenda-driven ones. The 'law' is a sick joke.
The issue are the laws themselves. Usually by politicians for a quick
fix. It's very convenient to bash the judges that preside over cases and
sentence criminals.
It is the judges that dish out sentences - and are often inconsistent in
doing so.
You do realise there are sentencing guidelines.
Yes, guidelines which give them sufficient latitude to apply their bias.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Judicial bias is very often quite clear - as we saw with the the Supreme
Court ruling fairly recently.
Which goes to show that errors are brought to book. I don't see the issues.
Post by Farmer Giles
In fact the judicial appointment system now in place virtually guarantees
it.
Far better than political appointees.
Plenty of political meddling in the present process. Problem is it's all
quite obscure.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
As with so many areas of our lives, potential judges have to demonstrate
their commitment to 'equality and diversity'. This has been the case
since the Blair creature set out such guidelines.
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
He might have redeemed himself if that was down to him, but it certainly
wasn't.


I read yesterday that he had asked the EU for money to try to
stop Brexit!!!!
kat
2019-12-30 09:57:00 UTC
Permalink
On 30/12/2019 08:53, Ophelia wrote:
.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
He might have redeemed himself if that was down to him, but it certainly
wasn't.
             I read yesterday that he had asked the EU for money to try to stop
Brexit!!!!
Did they give it to him?
--
kat
Post by Farmer Giles
^..^<
Pamela
2019-12-31 15:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
As with so many areas of our lives, potential judges have to
demonstrate their commitment to 'equality and diversity'. This has been
the case since the Blair creature set out such guidelines.
Yes, Blair has a lot to answer for, Brexit for one.
If Blair is partly responsible for Brexit, then surely Brexiteers like
yourself should say Blair has a lot to be thanked for.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 17:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
That baroness that decided against the prorogation was NOT being
neutral, but overriding an elected Prime Minister.
  No, no, no!!!!
Yes, yes, yes. There have to be curbs on tyrannical governments in
order to stop them doing whatever they like. An independent judiciary
provides that safeguard.

We elect a Parliament to govern us, not a dictator.
abelard
2019-12-29 13:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Bear in mind that only the most egregious cases make it into the media.
As a veteran of four Crown Court trials (juror, not defendant), I can
say without any doubt that of the lawyers present in the courtroom, in
each case the judge appeared to be the most intelligent and sensible.
good job she didn't 'try' the 'duke of edinburgh'
--
www.abelard.org
Fredxx
2019-12-29 13:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
===
  Judges think they are gods!  It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
I disagree, they were implementing the crass law of death from lack of
due care and attention.

It is the law that is wrong, where imprisonment is the sentence where
there is no intent to do wrong.

Removing his license would have been a better outcome from someone who
placed his foot on the accelerator rather than the brake pedal.
Post by Farmer Giles
  But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving
not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
  But, what do I know about the law?  Not a lot.
It is the law, though 27 months feels on the long side, his appeal
against the sentence may well have been successful.
Mike Smith
2019-12-29 16:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving not
imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
As Beachcomber once remarked (many years ago) 'The law must not only be done it must be seen to be believed'

Humans are actually very bad at this kind of thing, fortunately we are developing technologies that can assist or even replace human judgement (such as the video recording of football to support a referee's judgement) which have the advantage that the raw data can be examined to see of the decision made was valid (one odd thing about humans is that they strongly dislike having their judgement questioned).

It is debatable whether the gentleman should still have been driving at 80 as the reaction times would be a very poor fit for the equipment he was trying to control, but humans are also averse to having their driving abilities questioned. There again a bad night's sleep can result in equally poor reaction times. We could in theory incorporate a driver assessment into the start up sequence such that the characteristics of the vehicle could be automatically adjusted to suit (maximum speed, acceleration, observance of speed limits and the like) but full automation may be a better way to go.
A lot of fighter aircraft require a degree of control a human cannot deliver, a computer flies the plane and the pilot tells it what he wants the plane to do. It is in fact analogous to a rider and horse.
With a less comprehensive system we could save a few lives, for example a proximity sensor with the ability to override the human's control could have saved the ladies in the car park (and avoided a lot of replacement bumpers and the like in general) but I cannot see people accepting that, demanding we spend money to save other people's lives is seldom appreciated.
We lose a lot of people to cars and other road vehicles and one would think that would spur some decisions, but as they are not challenging the Great Leaders that is seen as less important than catching the odd nutter seeking to express their infantile rage for religious or political reasons (not however if they are a non religiously or politically motivated nutter of course).

Humans, can't live with them ,can't shot them.

Cheers

Mike
Ophelia
2019-12-29 17:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving not
imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
As Beachcomber once remarked (many years ago) 'The law must not only be done
it must be seen to be believed'

Humans are actually very bad at this kind of thing, fortunately we are
developing technologies that can assist or even replace human judgement
(such as the video recording of football to support a referee's judgement)
which have the advantage that the raw data can be examined to see of the
decision made was valid (one odd thing about humans is that they strongly
dislike having their judgement questioned).

Tough!!! I know what you mean though. But when it comes down to
the case in question, I still believe that judge ought to be questioned and
judged !

It is debatable whether the gentleman should still have been driving at 80
as the reaction times would be a very poor fit for the equipment he was
trying to control, but humans are also averse to having their driving
abilities questioned. There again a bad night's sleep can result in equally
poor reaction times. We could in theory incorporate a driver assessment into
the start up sequence such that the characteristics of the vehicle could be
automatically adjusted to suit (maximum speed, acceleration, observance of
speed limits and the like) but full automation may be a better way to go.
A lot of fighter aircraft require a degree of control a human cannot
deliver, a computer flies the plane and the pilot tells it what he wants the
plane to do. It is in fact analogous to a rider and horse.
With a less comprehensive system we could save a few lives, for example a
proximity sensor with the ability to override the human's control could have
saved the ladies in the car park (and avoided a lot of replacement bumpers
and the like in general) but I cannot see people accepting that, demanding
we spend money to save other people's lives is seldom appreciated.
We lose a lot of people to cars and other road vehicles and one would think
that would spur some decisions, but as they are not challenging the Great
Leaders that is seen as less important than catching the odd nutter seeking
to express their infantile rage for religious or political reasons (not
however if they are a non religiously or politically motivated nutter of
course).

Humans, can't live with them ,can't shot them.

Cheers

Mike

Agreed:)
Ophelia
2019-12-29 16:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
===
Judges think they are gods! It is more then overdue for them to know
that they should not be allowed to override elected people.
But apart from that, that man ought to have been banned from driving
not imprisoned and that judge should be taken to task, publicly!!
But, what do I know about the law? Not a lot.
It's not about the law, Ophelia, but common sense - which many of them
seem to lack.

Yes, it is time for judges to be made more accountable, some of them
really do think they are a law unto themselves.

===

Yes!!!
True Blue
2019-12-29 10:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
It's clearly wrong.

When I worked in Abu Dhabi, I was struck by the way the Arab judiciary there sentenced people primarily by their *intent*. Two Emirates men raped a girl and were executed two weeks after sentencing. A Pakistani tanker driver accidentally drives over a quayside and kills two sailors and he gets a fine and deported. A tragic accident and a wicked crime are dealt with proportionally.
Omega
2019-12-29 11:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
Perhaps he showed no remorse?

Remember the guy on a fixed wheel bicycle and therefore a highly
inefficient braking system to stop himself in an emergency, some time
ago, who ran into a woman, crossing the road and his shouting "get out
of the fucking way" and though having killed a woman by his action he
showed no remorse whatsoever. An accident but all the same he got a
rather long gaol sentence! Okay, a silly woman not looking where she
was going but couldn't this man have shown some kindness for her?

We hear the result of a court case but do we ever really know what was
said during his hearing. Perhaps his attitude was, not my fault, the
silly cow shouldn't have been there? That wouldn't go down well? Do
you have any information to part with on that theme?

Had this 87 year old man deliberately withheld informing DVLC of his
'medical condition'. He had after all, life-threatening medical issues.
Why was he allowed to drive with these issues?

The list is far too long.

omega
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 13:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other.
He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at
the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if
he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to
allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
Perhaps he showed no remorse?
"Barrister David Wood, in mitigation, described Heagren as a “thoroughly
decent man” who has been “crushed” by what happened.

Heagren has never apologised to his victims’ families, but the defence
nonetheless claimed he had shown “genuine remorse” in interviews with
his probation officer."

Make of that, as you should with any plea of mitigation, what you will.
Post by Omega
Had this 87 year old man deliberately withheld informing DVLC of his
'medical condition'.  He had after all, life-threatening medical issues.
I think you have to read the report a bit carefully:

"He said: “This man is 87 and the court has before it medical evidence
strongly suggesting in the words of a GP that incarceration in a new
environment could result in hospital admission for a life threatening
illness.".

Not that he has such a condition, but just that he might get one trhough
inceration in a new enviroment, ie, presumably, that he might fall over
and hurt himself. Which of course has nothing to do with his having the
heart attack from which he died.
Post by Omega
Why was he allowed to drive with these issues?
Probably because they didn't exist.
JNugent
2019-12-29 13:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec
14th has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year
into two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other.
He apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at
the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if
he was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to
allow bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of
common sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were
needed - that there is a serious case for a more detailed look into
the way that judges are selected - and into the sort of people who
become judges.
What do others think?
Perhaps he showed no remorse?
Remember the guy on a fixed wheel bicycle and therefore a highly
inefficient braking system to stop himself in an emergency, some time
ago, who ran into a woman, crossing the road and his shouting "get out
of the fucking way" and though having killed a woman by his action he
showed no remorse whatsoever.  An accident but all the same he got a
rather long gaol sentence!  Okay, a silly woman not looking where she
was going but couldn't this man have shown some kindness for her?
It wasn't an accident. The perp was riding an unroadworthy bike in a
reckless and furious manner, imagining himself to be in some fantasy
movie (or something similar). Such an incident was entirely predictable
in a crowded city street - and entirely *preventable* by the simple
expedient of obeying the relevant laws.

He fully deserved what he got - if not a lot more.
Post by Omega
We hear the result of a court case but do we ever really know what was
said during his hearing.  Perhaps his attitude was, not my fault, the
silly cow shouldn't have been there?  That wouldn't go down well?  Do
you have any information to part with on that theme?
Had this 87 year old man deliberately withheld informing DVLC of his
'medical condition'.  He had after all, life-threatening medical issues.
Why was he allowed to drive with these issues?
The list is far too long.
omega
JNugent
2019-12-29 11:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
Just on the basis of what you have said, it sounds like a really
right-on judge who is convinced that, among other things, the planet
needs to be saved by making the lower orders wait at bus stops whenever
they need to go anywhere.
Pamela
2019-12-29 11:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
He's not truly fit to hold a driving licence. He probably knew that (as
anyone might have guessed from his age alone) but still managed to cajole
his GP to say he was fit. Seems he was reckless in attempting to drive at
all at his advanced age.

If it turns out he was truly fit to drive then he has no excuse at all for
his manslaughter.
Post by Farmer Giles
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
Did he die from the medical condition foretold by the barrister's medical
evidence (from the already negligent GP) or is the heart attack unrelated
to his illness? After all, anyone at 87 or even 77 could have a heart
attack at any time but that doesn't make for an automatic get out of jail
card for a serious offence.
Post by Farmer Giles
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
The decision to imprison him is harsh but appropriate as it serves
to discourage other 87 year old from blagging a driving licence and then
killing others. I'm sure the family of the 64 year old woman he killed
don't see prison as harsh. One press report recorded the incident like
this:

CCTV footage showed Mrs Heagren exit the driver's seat and walk into
the store without parking the car.

Heagren, who was 86 at the time of the fatal collision, then took to
the wheel to move the vehicle but collided with a bollard at slow
speed.

He was seen in an angry state looking at the damage to the front bumper
before getting back into the car and slamming the door shut.

He then reversed the automatic vehicle at maximum reverse speed
narrowly missing a father who had to pull his children out of harm.

He continued reversing until his car struck Ms Newman and Ms Taylor
carrying them towards a bollard which stopped the car in its tracks
after travelling around 100ft.

The impact left Ms Newman unconscious, and she suffered skull, facial
and rib fractures as well as a punctured lung and a blood clot on the
brain.
Fredxx
2019-12-29 13:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
He's not truly fit to hold a driving licence. He probably knew that (as
anyone might have guessed from his age alone) but still managed to cajole
his GP to say he was fit. Seems he was reckless in attempting to drive at
all at his advanced age.
We're about the only country that has a car MOT test every year. In most
it is every 2 or 3 years. Given that in excess of 95% of accidents are
human error, even before the introduction of the MOT, it makes sense to
regularly test the driver. It would take a lot of geriatric drivers off
the road.
Post by Pamela
If it turns out he was truly fit to drive then he has no excuse at all for
his manslaughter.
Agree with manslaughter but given no intent, and an easy accident of
putting a foot on the wrong pedal, I don't feel 27 months is appropriate.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 14:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
He's not truly fit to hold a driving licence.
I should think he accepts that himself now.
Post by Pamela
He probably knew that (as
anyone might have guessed from his age alone) but still managed to cajole
his GP to say he was fit.
A GP doesn't have to. It's a process of self-certification every 3 years.
Post by Pamela
Seems he was reckless in attempting to drive at all at his advanced age.
Congratulations on your 20:20 hindsight.

What age do *you* say is the maximium at which anyone should be allowed
to drive?
Post by Pamela
If it turns out he was truly fit to drive then he has no excuse at all for
his manslaughter.
Again, what wonderful hindsight.
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
Did he die from the medical condition foretold by the barrister's medical
evidence (from the already negligent GP) or is the heart attack unrelated
to his illness?
As I read what was said in court, he probably just had a dodgy hip:

"the court has before it medical evidence strongly suggesting in the
words of a GP that incarceration in a new environment could result in
hospital admission for a life threatening illness"

i.e. he might fall over and hurt himself.

So, nothing to do with his heart attack at all.
Post by Pamela
After all, anyone at 87 or even 77 could have a heart
attack at any time but that doesn't make for an automatic get out of jail
card for a serious offence.
Exactly. Pleas in mitigation are full of half-truths and emotive
manipulation. All should be, and this one clearly was, taken with a
huge pinch of salt.
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
The decision to imprison him is harsh but appropriate as it serves
to discourage other 87 year old from blagging a driving licence and then
killing others.
They don't 'blag' anything, and they certainly don't self-certify in
order to be able to go out with a proper licence to kill others. None
will be discouraged until they are involved in some sort of incident
that persuades them that they aren't perhaps as capable as they were.
Post by Pamela
I'm sure the family of the 64 year old woman he killed
don't see prison as harsh.
They do actually. The bereaved husband said:

"I take no pleasure from seeing Mr Heagren jailed. What needs to happen
now is a change in the law on older drivers."
Pancho
2019-12-29 11:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the
time. >
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
He reversed 100 feet, shortly after having another crash in a seperate
incident. Reversing a 100 feet, by accident, is not a momentary mistake.
Only someone with significantly impaired judgement would do that.

This kind of thing is quite common, normally old people are just let
off. The truth is that these people almost certainly realise that they
are no longer safe to drive. So I think this guy is easily blameworthy
enough for a prison sentence.

However, I'm less convinced that the jail sentence is effective at
reducing this type of accident. Mandatory retesting would be good, but I
guess that would be expensive and unpopular. In a few years time we will
have self driving cars, so it is probably easiest for the politicians to
wait and do nothing beyond a few token gestures.

On the bright side, his dying in prison increases the publicity and may
encourage a few old people consider if they are still safe to drive.
Jethro_uk
2019-12-29 12:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
n the bright side, his dying in prison increases the publicity and may
encourage a few old people consider if they are still safe to drive.
Only if dying in prison is perceived as a worse fate than dying free. For
many elderly the optics might be radically different than for a younger
generation.
Pancho
2019-12-29 13:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Pancho
n the bright side, his dying in prison increases the publicity and may
encourage a few old people consider if they are still safe to drive.
Only if dying in prison is perceived as a worse fate than dying free. For
many elderly the optics might be radically different than for a younger
generation.
My point was just that it raised the profile of the story, so more
people saw it.

I wasn't commenting on it being a more severe punishment. FWIW I suspect
that increasing the probability of mild/moderate punishment is a more
effective deterrent that an extremely unlikely severe punishment.

i.e. I support more fines and bans, rather than a few prison sentences.
Norman Wells
2019-12-29 13:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
He reversed 100 feet, shortly after having another crash in a seperate
incident. Reversing a 100 feet, by accident, is not a momentary mistake.
Only someone with significantly impaired judgement would do that.
This kind of thing is quite common, normally old people are just let
off. The truth is that these people almost certainly realise that they
are no longer safe to drive.
Only after soomething goes wrong. Until then, they think they are
perfectly capable, and there is nothing to make them think otherwise.
Post by Pancho
So I think this guy is easily blameworthy
enough for a prison sentence.
There's no doubt he's to blame. The question is whether he should be
punished with a jail sentence for something the judge said he didn't do
deliberately, and what purpose any jail sentence would serve either as
regards him directly or anyone else.
Post by Pancho
However, I'm less convinced that the jail sentence is effective at
reducing this type of accident. Mandatory retesting would be good, but I
guess that would be expensive and unpopular.
I'm sure it would.
Post by Pancho
In a few years time we will
have self driving cars, so it is probably easiest for the politicians to
wait and do nothing beyond a few token gestures.
On the bright side, his dying in prison increases the publicity and may
encourage a few old people consider if they are still safe to drive.
I don't think it will until something like that happens to them personally.
The Todal
2019-12-29 15:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
It seems very wrong to imprison such a man. But I think I'd want to read
the judge's sentencing remarks before writing the judge off as a fool.

One wonders whether this man had any past form. Or whether he had
previously been warned that his driving was far below the required standard.
Byker
2019-12-29 15:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at Wormwood
Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that judges
are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
SHE was not persuaded?


CheeseySock
2019-12-29 19:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
Though it was bad luck, not just bad luck... a case for reaction-time
competence testing at a certain age. ?

(Though as a cyclist I am aware of the potential danger of a car
reversing out of a slot where actual vision of the driver may be impaired
by the nature of the vehicles parked next to them, those arseholes with
blacked out tinted windows eh!)

Was an accident (waiting to happen) wrongly treated as a crime, sounds
quite possibly so.

Given that you did not actually reference any article showing details of
the case. Nor even any details in your summary that might enable
searching for reference to the case...

so in conclusion... without the detail means making lots of assumptions...
Fredxx
2019-12-29 20:21:05 UTC
Permalink
On 29/12/2019 19:42:56, CheeseySock wrote:

<snip>
Post by CheeseySock
Given that you did not actually reference any article showing details of
the case.
Have you not heard of Google?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7833247/Driver-87-dies-heart-attack-prison-nine-days-jailed-killing-woman.html
CheeseySock
2019-12-31 00:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by CheeseySock
Given that you did not actually reference any article showing details
of the case.
Have you not heard of Google?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7833247/Driver-87-dies-heart-
attack-prison-nine-days-jailed-killing-woman.html

ok, thanks, could not be bothered fucking around with testing search
terms...

still a tricksy one...

one aspect he seems too old to drive competently, yet no-one told him
so... nor tested him for competence....

another aspect, he got a harsher sentence than all sorts of utter cunts!

(judge absolutely not worried he nor his "legal crew" was going to track
her down for "justice" eh! nor that she might be accused of racism eh!...)
Keema's Nan
2019-12-31 14:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
An 87-year-old man who was sentenced to 27-months in prison on Dec 14th
has died from a heart attack just nine days into his sentence at
Wormwood Scrubs.
He had reversed his car on a Sainsbury's car park in May last year into
two women shoppers, killing one and severely injuring the other. He
apparently hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal at the time.
This of course was an incredibly tragic accident, devastating for all
concerned, but was a prison sentence entirely appropriate?
The judge had been warned by the man's barrister that medical evidence
showed that he would probably have life-threatening medical issues if he
was imprisoned. However, she was not persuaded and even refused to allow
bail while the sentence was appealed.
I think this decision was not just wrong, but lacked any kind of common
sense or compassion, and is further evidence - if any were needed - that
there is a serious case for a more detailed look into the way that
judges are selected - and into the sort of people who become judges.
What do others think?
I think he ought to have fucked off to the USA and pretended he had
diplomatic immunity....

Seemed to work for that yank tart.
Loading...