The chap with the speedboat that crashed

FoxEye

FoxEye

FoxEye

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46979066

I have my suspicions that this story is *totally* different had the roles been reversed. Ie her boat, he takes the controls, he dies. He still gets the blame and she's brave for surviving. And it's all very tragic but nobody goes to prison.

It occurs to me that there is no combination of circumstances/ no possible outcome where the bloke doesn't get blamed for the accident, even if he dies and not her.

No matter who's boat, who's been drinking... the bloke gets to carry the can for any possible bad outcome.

I just don't see the woman ever, ever being found to be the culprit.

In before, "You're a horrible racist, FoxEye."
 
I suppose he should be taking responsibility. What if a driver had let someone who had been drinking take controlled who then crashed? Not your main point though...
 
Why would a totally innocent guy go on the run for months ?

Lets face it, he has run out of money and handed himself in for a free plane ticket home.

Not sure where you got sexist from in this case.
 
Two drunk people messing around with something they shouldn’t have been. One causes it to crash the other... hmmm

He shouldn’t have gone on the run though, should have defended himself.
 
He took her out on the boat, she died and he went on the run. How on earth do you manage to read any sort of roll reversal into that?

He should have told his story in court and maintained his not guilty plea if he wasn't being a wreckless showoff.
 
Going on the run was curious, possibly a level of arrogance and certainly isn't going to play well in court. From the few details shared in the BBC report I would agree that on the face of it, a manslaughter charge seems to be a bit strong and unfortunately the deceased should bare some responsibility... but going on the run. Dumb move.
 
JBod said:
<snip>... but going on the run. Dumb move.
Click to expand...
No doubt.

Mr Badger said:
Damn those evil wimenz! Keep the GD incel flag flying!
Click to expand...
Thanks for obliging ;)

I wonder if some people have deliberately downplayed/overlooked that she was driving when the boat crashed, and this isn't being disputed.

Again, if it was her boat and she'd given control to the bloke and he'd crashed, it would be a tragic accident - no way does she end up serving time.
 
Ayahuasca said:
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...
Imagine it was your daughter/sister in her car.

She lets her drunk boyfriend drive and he crashes the car and he subsequently dies.

The police then want to put your daughter/sister in jail for 6 years.

"No way!" you shout. "She wasn't even driving!"

Cue public outrage.

In before, "That's like, totally different. Straw man! Straw man!"
 
It's pretty obvious there's a massive double standard when it comes to the law and men / women

I can't imagine the Guardian allowing a columnist to celebrate a man being allowed to challenge his conviction for bludgeoning his wife to death with a hammer on the principle premise that he had discovered that she was unfaithful and that she was allegedly a bit of a control freak....

I would imagine such an article would start with with the premise that such an incident would be another example of our patriarchal system that tacitly condones violence against women.....

Other reporting closer to the time suggests the woman in questions was more than correctly imprisoned for murder and that the attempts to have her conviction Iver tuned are without merit....

During her trial, jurors were told that Challen attacked the retired businessman in August 2010 as he ate lunch at the kitchen table in their former marital home.

She had believed he was cheating and later said: "If I can't have him, no-one can."
Click to expand...

Asked why she killed him, Challen told the court: "I don't know. I just didn't think that he wanted to be with me."

The couple had been attempting to patch up their marriage after separating and living apart, but Challen became enraged after discovering the former car dealer had phoned another woman.
Click to expand...

She had been living apart from Richard, her husband of 31 years, but she kept a diary of his movements as she became increasingly suspicious he was seeing other women.

On one occasion, she even counted his Viagra tablets to see when they appeared to have been used.
Click to expand...
 
FoxEye said:
Imagine it was your daughter/sister in her car.

She lets her drunk boyfriend drive and he crashes the car and he subsequently dies.

The police then want to put your daughter/sister in jail for 6 years.

"No way!" you shout. "She wasn't even driving!"

Cue public outrage.

In before, "That's like, totally different. Straw man! Straw man!"
Click to expand...

Car is not boat. Boat and car is different.

But let's try it your way:

Your son has never been behind the wheel of a car and does not know how to drive. A woman that likes to show off takes your son out for a meal in her high performance car. They drink alcohol. She is trying to wow your son and encourages him to drive the car. He is excited by this (having never driven a car before) and drives her car at double the speed limit and she does not stop him (she may even be cheering him on with a glass of champagne in her hand). Then it all goes horribly wrong and they crash and he ends up dead. Would you say she had done nothing wrong?
 
Mr Badger said:
Car is not boat. Boat and car is different.

But let's try it your way:

Your son has never been behind the wheel of a car and does not know how to drive. A woman that likes to show off takes your son out for a meal in her high performance car. They drink alcohol. She is trying to wow your son and encourages him to drive the car. He is excited by this (having never driven a car before) and drives her car at double the speed limit and she does not stop him. Then it all goes horribly wrong and they crash and he ends up dead. Would you say she had done nothing wrong?
Click to expand...

Assuming son is a fully grown adult. I wouldn't hold her responsible.
 
Mr Badger said:
Car is not boat. Boat and car is different.

But let's try it your way:

Your son has never been behind the wheel of a car and does not know how to drive. A woman that likes to show off takes your son out for a meal in her high performance car. They drink alcohol. She is trying to wow your son and encourages him to drive the car. He is excited by this (having never driven a car before) and drives her car at double the speed limit and she does not stop him. Then it all goes horribly wrong and they crash he ends up dead. Would you say she had done nothing wrong?
Click to expand...
I feel that the vehicle is almost irrelevant. Yes a car is not a boat. Neither is a motorcycle, or a jet-ski (really), or a snowmobile...

Btw you don't need to pass a test to drive a speedboat. There is no competency exam. Just a license to say you have insurance and the boat itself is safe/seaworthy.

In your example I don't think many people - and this is the point - would attach much if any blame on the woman. Assuming the bloke wasn't a young teenager and she wasn't a lot older (which isn't fair or representative of this case). It would just be a tragic accident.

Hell most people would blame the bloke for reckless driving.

And this isn't just the law - this is attitudes in general. When anything goes wrong pinning the blame on the bloke is soooo soooo much easier that it's practically a given. And even blokes - desperate not to be judged as "sexist" - will accept these double standards; performing the necessary mental gymnastics to believe they aren't double standards at all.
 
Has there been a factually similar case with the roles reversed that ended in an acquittal or is ‘Everyone knows...’ the only basis for this whinge?

He gave the controls of his floating pile of junk to a drunk person who had never steered a boat before and allowed her to pilot it at full speed at night. The police had warned him about speeding on a separate occasion. He has got what he deserves.
 
Brizzles said:
Why would a totally innocent guy go on the run for months ?

Lets face it, he has run out of money and handed himself in for a free plane ticket home.

Not sure where you got sexist from in this case.
Click to expand...

I don't think the fact he went on the run really indicates much unless you believe the law is infallible - he could have been largely innocent but felt he was being fitted up (either intentionally or the evidence was against him) and felt he wouldn't get justice or he might be fully to blame but unrepentant and thought he could outrun the law or probably a few other variants of that.

Personally I don't believe he is blameless but people go on the run for more reasons than they are guilty sometimes they just panic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom