Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

A forty seven year old man has been given a six month jail sentence for a terrible crime..............What did he do...............Did he break into a house................did he rape a woman................did he have child pornography...............did he beat up an old lady..............NO

He was caught speeding at 122mph on his bike with his 14 year old son as a pillion.................What actual damage did he cause?................NONE.............Who actually suffered from what he did............NOBODY

In my opinion a simple 3 points on his license and a speeding fine would have been enough.

Is this another case of Nanny knows best?

Would he have received the same treatment if he had been driving a car?

[Taxi_Driver]

I think he also got a 12/18 month ban.......which i think is fair enough for going that speed.

I dont think imo that he deserved a custodial sentence.

[Martin_1962]

Should have been a shorter ban 3 to 6 months - HE WAS NOT DRINKING, HE WAS IN CONTROL

Not custodial - NO ONE HURT, NOTHING STOLEN

Easy target, steal or mug - they are nice to you - speed - go to prison

[Debs.]

I think (yet again) the law has shown iself to be an Ass!

As Optimist60 points-out; this is a motoring offence...yes, a serious 'driving-ban and fining' matter, because of the speed concerned, but a custodial sentence is surely inappropriate.
I can only assume there was a particularly obtuse J.P sitting on the bench (one with a 'thing' about speed/bikes etc.).

I despair reading the reports on this case; as recidivist-thieves and violent offenders so-often seem 'untouchable' by the law.

[Martin_1962]

Bikers do get victimised like a friend who was riding along being overtaken by loads of cars - he got pulled and fined, and was told it was because he was on a bike!

BTW I know of a pub in that area which is haemoraging customers as the land lord is an extreme anti speed nutter, he has a pretend speed camera and points it at passing customers. There was a Gatso nearby until JCB modified Also has been burnt as well

[webby23]

He did the crime now he will do the time.

No sympathy from me, sorry, and it is only down to luck that he, his son or anyone else wasnt killed by his insanity....

Deserves everything he got, and dont moan on the very first occasion when the justice system penalises somebody severely.....it should be encouraged to do that alot more often......!!!!

[John Lewis]

Yeah, a bit irresponsible taking a minor out, but a bit harsh giving out a custodial sentence!

Its very much the luck of the draw I'd say when it comes to driving penalties. Unfortunately, hardened criminals in more sinister fields probably get preferential treatment because they know the system inside out, and  play the rights card like a fiddle.

[watcher]

122mph in the wet, with a child on the back. How many of you would be supporting him not being locked up if he had come off and killed the child ?

We all no big sports bikes have virtually slick tyres anyway.

And at the end of the day crime is crime, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

He took the chance of killing himself and a child.  :-/

[jereboam]

Would you want one of your children sitting on a bike going at 122mph on a public road? Or in a car for that matter?

Apparently, the child didn't have full protective clothing, but I can't see what good protective clothing would have been if he'd come off at that speed.  

The bloke deserves 6 months, if not more, for sheer irresponsibility in endangering that child's life.  

[Marks DTM Calib]

I have to say, he did a bloody stupid and irresponsible thing and hence he should be punsihed.

But a custodial sentance is wrong, a lengthy ban and a big fat fine would have been more more appropriate as this would have removed him from the road, resulted in higher insurance premiums and would not have deprived his son from seeing his father for 6 months (and the son is the real loser in all this it would appear).

I always think if the pissy sentances and slapped hands that get handed out following massive police chases on the likes of road wars as a comparison.

I suspect he will exit prison having had possibly no endorsements on his license, get back on the same bike and do the same again.

[ians]

While I agree with the last two (edit - Jereboam and watcher's) posts, I can't think that locking him up for 6 months will do his 14 year old son any good.  A good stiff dose of community service would have been more productive in my view.

[Martin_1962]

Still think it is over the top and custodial is wrong.

Nothing did happen.

Harsher punishment than many criminals get and harsher than the majority of drink drivers.

Road user = easy target

Hence I thought a shorter ban was more apt.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I can see that we have a few fans of the "What if" scenario on this thread...................what if this happened.......................what if that happened..
But surely this man should be judged by "what actually did happen"....................which was.......no one killed.......no one injured..............no damage caused.................no alcohol involved...it simply boils down to a mere motoring offence....and nothing more.

To put a man in prison for such a thing............is in my opinion disgraceful.

If we are to give people a custodial sentence for something that "we might do"......or "something that could have happened"...............then the government will have to significantly revise it's prison building plans. :-/

[Mr Skrunts]

I saw a video of it on the news, the clip they showed was on a bend.  Not sure if this was just a TV news report as I didnt see it all.

It was a hand held speed gun, and if it was the actual offence I saw then he certainly didnt look like he was travelling twice the speed of the roads limit other wise the cars he passed would have looked a lot slower.

[watcher]

Still think it is over the top and custodial is wrong.

Nothing did happen.

Harsher punishment than many criminals get and harsher than the majority of drink drivers.

Road user = easy target

Hence I thought a shorter ban was more apt.

Presumably then drinking and driving is acceptable as long as 'nothing happens'