Grenfell speeder

Reduced speeding sentences on the basis of "Oh I'll lose my job" are fairly common, he's not really received any sort of special treatment. It's a problem in general that we seem happy to reduce the punishment of driving offences for those who rely on driving heavily.
 
I don't drive, but the 70mph limit is stupid these days anyway, when the limit was conceived most cars couldn't even do 70mph, and now we've just arbitrarily left it at 70mph. Speeding can be dangerous, but on a clear motorway in good conditions in a modern car it's absolutely not an issue.
 
Right call imo. Nothing wrong with a bit of leniency when you consider the contribution he makes to society and the saving of people’s lives.
 
Presumably the fact he'll no-doubt have been trained to drive under blue lights will have also been taken into consideration. If anyone deserves lighter sentencing (they didn't "let him off") for a speeding offence it's this sort of person.
 
Just sounds like an excuse to me. It also says he was going through a "messy divorce", so he wasn't necessarily stressed just about work. Lots of people are very stressed. Not keen on this arbitrary rule bending.
 
I'd say the social benefit of allowing him to keep his licence (and therefore his job) is too great to revoke his licence. Good decision by the judge.
 
Fusion said:
Just sounds like an excuse to me. It also says he was going through a "messy divorce", so he wasn't necessarily stressed just about work. Lots of people are very stressed. Not keen on this arbitrary rule bending.
Click to expand...
It's not really arbitrary though, they probably didn't even take the stress into consideration. They DO always consider things like loss of employment or if you have dependents who rely on your driving, so this is just a non story really.
 
Isn’t this precisely what the judiciary are for, exercising judgement? If not, we may as well replace them with a spreadsheet; commit crime ‘x’, receive punishment ‘y’.
 
wolfie138 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...116mph/ar-BBIdfRW?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

i don't give a damn who he is or what he did that night, there's no excuse for that speed or for letting him off.
"A psychotherapist report showed that the exceptional stress that he was under." really? so that's just another reason NOT to be behind the wheel, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Remember that when your kids are dying in a fire and you're unable to help.


EDIT: Nevermind, turns out he was speeding 3 weeks after the fire, I thought it was on the way there. In that case I dunno. On one hand I reckon throw the book at him but on the other the NHS is struggling for staff so maybe we should let him off and show some more appreciation? I dunno.
 
had he been a tad over the speed limit then yea, I could agree with the judgement. but he was doing 116mph with 6 points on his license already. I highly doubt those points were for a dodgy brake light.

as a paramedic he will almost certainly have seen, 1st hand, the carnage caused by speeding so should know better. ridiculous ruling. he will be straight back out on the road and a danger to other road users.
 
Tingle said:
I'd say the social benefit of allowing him to keep his licence (and therefore his job) is too great to revoke his licence. Good decision by the judge.
Click to expand...

Does that mean I can do whatever the heck I want as I'm of huge benefit to society? Laws should apply equally to all.
 
Dis86 said:
Does that mean I can do whatever the heck I want as I'm of huge benefit to society? Laws should apply equally to all.
Click to expand...

You're not really doing anything that's life-saving though, you're a consultant engineer according to your profile. I am sure the driver can't do whatever the heck he wants either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom