how do you feel about this? (Hit & Run Asylum Seeker to stay in UK)

[TW]Fox;18024917 said:
Is this 100% fact? Because if he genuinelly drove along with her on the bonnet, failing to stop, until suchtime as she fell off the bonnet, where he then ran into her, I can see absoluitely no way he wouldnt be charged for an offence relating to that.

The fact he wasn't charged with an offence relating to that makes me think much of it is media exageration, unless it was deemed that she was killed by the initial impact perhaps?

Don't get me wrong, I despise this guy and if news broke tommorrow that somebody had killed him I wouldnt shed a tear.

that what was her father said on the new report i watched on sky new website this evening.

he may well have exagerated, but at the end of the day he is still minus an only child.

he put his trust in our legal system and it has failed him in a truely undescribable way. i defintely would not be as reserved as him, i'd be out for blood.
 
I heard the victims father speak on radio 4 the other evening.

As he pointed out British soldiers have died to make Iraq a free country so people like the guy in this case are no longer persecuted. Time the murdering **** went home... he can take his 2 "get out of jail free card" children with him.
 
I heard the victims father speak on radio 4 the other evening.

As he pointed out British soldiers have died to make Iraq a free country so people like the guy in this case are no longer persecuted. Time the murdering **** went home... he can take his 2 "get out of jail free card" children with him.

don't involve the children ...... but he has involved his children, the messiness ensues, he's played the card, he's mugged us off, we bend over as a nation again and he 'gets away with it'. poor show.
 
I'm just asking how far is it going to go before you draw the line on someone's morals being completely ridiculous.

The general view is akin to the debate on population control, where someone will undoubtedly bring up the classic rhetoric of refusing to discuss it and labelling the policy as 'nazi' as defining how you control it will inevitably infringe someone's morals or rights. But the cold hard truth is that it one day has to be done. Unless it is more moral to allow World War 3 to happen of course.
It isn't someones morals that matter though, it's societies morals.
In the eyes of society this guy did two things wrong, he was driving without a licence while disqualified and he left the scene of an accident.
Both of which under our societies morality based rules he has been charged with, with fairly heavy (within sentencing guidelines) sentences.

If he had driven along with her on the bonnet until she came off I'd find it unlikely that he wouldn't have been charged with her death, however in this case he hasn't been and I think the father is understandably too emotionally involved to say what should happen. Which is fortunate because our legal system is run on the basis of not being emotionally involved.
Emotion is not the same as morality.
 
Driving while disqualified is a more serious offence than the legal system gives credit for.

In England and Wales it carries a maximum sentence of 6 months which is usually less when you take early guilty please and time off for remand.

The sentence doesn't reflect the seriousness and ask many a prolific disqual driver why they continue they will usually say the same thing in that the short sentence doesn't put them off.
 
Lethal injection. In the head.

Headshot!

... Sorry.


On a related note, doesn't this give the message to people seeking asylum in the UK that having children here allows you to effectively dodge being deported from all but the most serious criminal offenses?


Edit:
And the last thing this country, or the planet for that matter, needs is another cause of overpopulation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom