5 Years for bike killer

Quoted message said:

See, they can give out proper sentences after all, even if the victim is on two wheels! Now all we
have to do is convince them that killing someone without an engine is just as bad.

The difference is, possibly and sadly (in the sense of someone dying), the victim was on a
*motor*cycle. I have a feeling that if the vistim had been a non-motorised cyclist, a £60 fine and
three points on the licence might have been the sentence :-(

helen s --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on
fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

Was wondering if the new mobile phone legislation enabled the relatively high sentence to be given?

5 years for killing someone relatively high? Through stupidity, neglect and selfishness. I don't
think so. Loss of licence for life and double that sentence.

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... <snip tragedy>

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions as to what it'll be reduced to when he appeals?

I reckon they'll realise the judge was high on drugs, apologise to the guy, let him out straight
away and give him half a million compensation....but that's just my jaded, cynical view.....

nobody760 said:

Was wondering if the new mobile phone legislation enabled the relatively high sentence to
be given?

5 years for killing someone relatively high? Through stupidity, neglect and selfishness. I don't
think so. Loss of licence for life and double that sentence.

Quite.

The killer will be out in three to wreak further carnage of other innocent road users. It is
sickeningly short.

It doesn't matter who is killed the motorist is rarely given a deserving sentence.

Is it because those setting sentencing and administering the law are all petrolheads themselves and
of course, motorists can never do wrong can they.

John B

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The difference is, possibly and sadly (in the sense of someone dying), the victim was on a
*motor*cycle. I have a feeling that if the vistim had been

a

Quoted message said:

non-motorised cyclist, a £60 fine and three points on the licence might

have

Quoted message said:

been the sentence :-(

Don't exaggerate - the going rate is six points and £250, with no ban if you hit the totting-up
limit obviously. I wish that were a joke, but it isn't.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

*motor*cycle. I have a feeling that if the vistim had been

a

Quoted message said:

non-motorised cyclist, a £60 fine and three points on the licence

As the guy moaning about the removal of the cycle lane in Barnet, it was on that stretch of road that I was knocked off my self-restored concourse condition Lambretta on its first trip since restoration, three years ago.

The driver, who was prosecuted, received a £200 fine and 5 points on his license, despite being blind! (no joke)

I, on the otherhand, received, a severely smashed leg which I still have problems with.

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone see it in the paper the otherday? Idiot on phone, pulling out of a junction he shouldn't
have been using managed not to see the motorbike rider. 1 dead rider and one dangerous driver off
the streets for 5 years (well, I suppose 3ish?). Was wondering if the new mobile phone

legislation

Quoted message said:

enabled the relatively high sentence to be given?

news.independent.co.ukstory.jspOpen ↗

5 years in jail, 5 years ban.

Now 5 years in jail is pretty severe, but why only a five year ban?

Why not a lifetime ban, unlike jail a lifetime ban doesn't cost the tax payer anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

*motor*cycle. I have a feeling that if the vistim had been

a

Quoted message said:

non-motorised cyclist, a £60 fine and three points on the licence

As the guy moaning about the removal of the cycle lane in Barnet, it was on that stretch of road
that I was knocked off my self-restored concourse condition Lambretta on its first trip since
restoration, three years ago.

The driver, who was prosecuted, received a £200 fine and 5 points on his license, despite being
blind! (no joke)

I, on the otherhand, received, a severely smashed leg which I still have problems with.

Sue him. Ok the insurance will pay for it, but he'll lose any no-claims discount he may have had.
Weird how they let legally 'blind' people drive, but demonise talking on the phone... Strange world.

Sue him. Ok the insurance will pay for it, but he'll lose any no-claims discount he may have had.
Weird how they let legally 'blind' people drive, but demonise talking on the phone... Strange world. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, this was my thoughts. however, my solicitor would have nothing to do with it. Wouldnt even advise me. He has now been sacked.

I do not believe that justice has been done, so if anyone knows of a way I can go about it I would be very interested. But, bear in mind, this blind w***er was an immigrant, and as they are allowed to drive however they wish with absolution from Msr. Blair to absolve some white guilt that he possesses, eyesight or not, it was obviously my fault, for being british and in the way.

Quoted message said:

Sue him. Ok the insurance will pay for it, but he'll lose any no-claims discount he may have
had. Weird how they let legally 'blind' people drive, but demonise talking on the phone...
Strange world.

Well, this was my thoughts. however, my solicitor would have nothing to do with it. Wouldnt even
advise me. He has now been sacked.

I do not believe that justice has been done, so if anyone knows of a way I can go about it I would
be very interested.

Most people round here seem to phone the CTC legal helpline, but I presume you're not a member. You
could try a specialist personal injury solicitor thingy. No win no fee dooberry's can make it pretty
much risk free for you (unless you decide you can't be bothered with it all in the middle of the
case), at the expense of taking a little of your compensation should you win the case. Should you go
down that route some of them can be a bit of a con so read the small print and ask questions.
Nowadays they can claim most of their costs from the insurers so not that much needs to be taken
from your winnings.

Since most of your claim for compensation will rest on the long term damge to your leg it'll be
quite involved for you - your expert medical bod will want to examine you and so will the other
sides, possibly more thn once (just to be difficult). The whole thing will take a fair while to do
but at the end of it you'll probably have a reasonable sized cheque at the end of it.

Oh, one other thing. Don't go with any of te companies that market aggressively on TV or by stopping
people in the street. They use several solicitors who have to takeon a certain percentage of cases
that pass over their desks. There is a temptation to take on cases that may be a little dodgy so
they don't lose their contract. Most solicitors will do some form of no win no fee funding and its
bad reputation is pretty much undeserved.

Let us know if you decide to go ahead with it.

Mark

On 10 Dec 2003 05:51:59 +1050, Rabs <[email hidden]>
wrote:

🙂> *motor*cycle. I have a feeling that if the vistim had been )a )> non-motorised cyclist, a £60
:fine and three points on the licence ) )As the guy moaning about the removal of the cycle lane in
:Barnet, it was )on that stretch of road that I was knocked off my self-restored )concourse
:condition Lambretta on its first trip since restoration, three )years ago. ) )The driver, who was
:prosecuted, received a £200 fine and 5 points on his )license, despite being blind! (no joke) ) )I,
:on the otherhand, received, a severely smashed leg which I still have )problems with.

Sue him.
--
Comm again, Mike.

On 10 Dec 2003 11:47:03 +1050, Rabs <[email hidden]>
wrote:

🙂Sue him. Ok the insurance will pay for it, but he'll lose any no-claims )discount he may have had.
:Weird how they let legally 'blind' people )drive, but demonise talking on the phone... Strange
:world. ) )Well, this was my thoughts. however, my solicitor would have nothing to )do with it.
:Wouldnt even advise me. He has now been sacked.

Get another solicitor.
🙂 )I do not believe that justice has been done, so if anyone knows of a way )I can go about it I
:would be very interested. But, bear in mind, this )blind w***er was an immigrant, and as they are
:allowed to drive however )they wish with absolution from Msr. Blair to absolve some white guilt
🙂that he possesses, eyesight or not, it was obviously my fault, for being )british and in the way.

Motor insurance beaureau - or whatever they're called. They don't pay the first £100.
--
Comm again, Mike.