Ladbrokes have bets on Nigel Farage, to be honest none of them very attractive, sadly there’s no market on Farage becoming Donald Trump’s personal proctologist in the next year or going back on I’m A Celebrity to eat a kangaroo’s bung hole.
Nigel Farage to become LOTO after the next general election would probably be the likeliest bet although if he was ever going to that do 2024 was probably his best chance and he missed it
I expect Reform to have largely faded from the scene by the next GE
Reform certainly doesn't have long to turn a Farage vehicle into an actual political party. Even if he doesn't get bored or greedy, he's only really got one more election in him.
Nigel Farage to become LOTO after the next general election would probably be the likeliest bet although if he was ever going to that do 2024 was probably his best chance and he missed it
So you are predicting both a Labour win and Reform in second place or a Farage reverse takeover of the Tory Party. All plausible HY. All plausible!
Nigel isn't a busted flush yet. The assumption amongst the Tories is as follows: Starmer has been revealed to all as a useless twerp, and the second our new leader is in place the Labgretful masses will return, pleading with us to lead them again. When this doesn't happen, I expect panic to set in and talk of a Reform merger and/or getting Farage as leader will be back with a vengeance.
Nigel Farage to become LOTO after the next general election would probably be the likeliest bet although if he was ever going to that do 2024 was probably his best chance and he missed it
So you are predicting both a Labour win and Reform in second place or a Farage reverse takeover of the Tory Party. All plausible HY. All plausible!
No I am predicting neither just saying it would be the best Farage bet, you could of course get a hung parliament with Farage LOTO to a Labour/LD coalition government but Labour losing its majority and Reform overtaking the Tories. As I said though if he was going to overtake the Tories this year was his best bet and he failed to do so
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
"Le Figaro asked the centre-right Republicans MP Xavier Bertrand in 2015 why he thought the migrants saw England as a utopia. ‘Because there’s work there, and above all, you can work there without identity papers,’ he replied. ‘England needs to change its rules on working with illegals’. Much of the work was illicit, added the newspaper, citing the then prime minister David Cameron. ‘It’s still too easy to work illegally in this country,’ he said, shortly after his re-election that year."
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
I don't know what the term of imprisonment should be for that ^ but I think imprisonment is a morally correct outcome. You don't, Why?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
(Gun ownership tends to be higher in rural states, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and West Virginia.)
Down at individual level, I’d guess that the correlation between owning a gun and having shot someone dead is quite high?
All your statistic points up is that, if the US had the UK system, where guns are strictly licensed and available on the basis of need, responsible ownership would be concentrated in the rural states. And you’d have more living schoolchildren.
Doesn’t somebody get shot dead in the US on average every ten minutes or so?
Much of the off-top discussion sounds very strange to some one who grew up on a farm in the Western US, decades ago. Restrictions on guns were looser then, to say the least. I bought a .22 rifle when I was 14 or 15, as I recall. I didn't even need my parents permission, much less anything from law enforcement. During harvest season, I sometimes used it, or the family shotgun, to discourage birds from eating our cherries.
We kept a cat for very practical reasons, to control the mice in our house. We also had to protect our trees from mice*, but a single cat could not do that job.
We kept a dog, for companionship, and as a watch dog.
(*In the winter, the mice would often chew the bark on trees, under the snow cover. Since they were chewing at about the same level, they could kill a young tree by chewing the bark, going around the tree. We put screens around the trees to protect the trees.)
This kind of confirms a thought I have. Most UK people think of American gun owners as urban gangstas or cap-wearing enthusiasts who carry whilst shopping in Walmart, but a large proportion of the whole appear to be a man/woman in the country who use it for pest control or for defence against wild animals or bad people in areas where law is few and far between.
There is pretty good evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to higher rates of gun suicide, accidental deaths from gunshots, gun homicides and police homicides.
Worth noting that half of US gun deaths are suicides. Having guns in the house is dangerous. Many of these suicides are impulsive.
One positive from the fallout of the recent incident is the arrest of the father who gave his teenage son the gun to play about with. If it gets other US parents thinking a bit more responsibly about their potential liability, it won’t be a bad thing.
As mentioned, it"s really quite striking how much places like Sicily, or rural Greece, are awash with "stray", or wild cats.
But, as also mentioned, it's also unclear to me as to whether their origins are stray or wild. The Romans and Greeks seem to have had a major role with these animals in the southern half if Europe, but they probably left quite a lot of the local ones undomesticated, too.
For cats in particular, the culture of pet ownership means that a cat that is stray - lost, or its owner has died or chucked it out - is going to find someone else to feed it, and be adopted as a pet, and continue to get veterinary treatment including neutering. There certainly isn’t the local government resource to go round dealing with stray animals any more.
If we didn’t have that culture, cats and dogs would become vermin as they effectively are in North Africa and parts of southern Europe.
There are attempts to change this, in Itajy and Greece at least, at the same time.
I've heard of new shelters and animal welfare organisations in both Sicily and Crete, for instance, and they are trying to change the culture on that ,here.
Yes, but there are still rescue organisations (charities) in Spain and Romania and Greece that capture stray animals and then try to find Northern European homes for them. It’s an ongoing challenge, and a problem that will likely never be resolved, until people in those areas start wanting to keep animals as pets. So, as usual, our site’s own pet twat is wrong in that pet culture is more likely to be the solution than the problem.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
(Gun ownership tends to be higher in rural states, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and West Virginia.)
Down at individual level, I’d guess that the correlation between owning a gun and having shot someone dead is quite high?
All your statistic points up is that, if the US had the UK system, where guns are strictly licensed and available on the basis of need, responsible ownership would be concentrated in the rural states. And you’d have more living schoolchildren.
Doesn’t somebody get shot dead in the US on average every ten minutes or so?
Much of the off-top discussion sounds very strange to some one who grew up on a farm in the Western US, decades ago. Restrictions on guns were looser then, to say the least. I bought a .22 rifle when I was 14 or 15, as I recall. I didn't even need my parents permission, much less anything from law enforcement. During harvest season, I sometimes used it, or the family shotgun, to discourage birds from eating our cherries.
We kept a cat for very practical reasons, to control the mice in our house. We also had to protect our trees from mice*, but a single cat could not do that job.
We kept a dog, for companionship, and as a watch dog.
(*In the winter, the mice would often chew the bark on trees, under the snow cover. Since they were chewing at about the same level, they could kill a young tree by chewing the bark, going around the tree. We put screens around the trees to protect the trees.)
This kind of confirms a thought I have. Most UK people think of American gun owners as urban gangstas or cap-wearing enthusiasts who carry whilst shopping in Walmart, but a large proportion of the whole appear to be a man/woman in the country who use it for pest control or for defence against wild animals or bad people in areas where law is few and far between.
There is pretty good evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to higher rates of gun suicide, accidental deaths from gunshots, gun homicides and police homicides.
Worth noting that half of US gun deaths are suicides. Having guns in the house is dangerous. Many of these suicides are impulsive.
One positive from the fallout of the recent incident is the arrest of the father who gave his teenage son the gun to play about with. If it gets other US parents thinking a bit more responsibly about their potential liability, it won’t be a bad thing.
It is legal for a child to possess a rifle or shotgun in 30 US states
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
There’s history between those two over the sacking of Gray and Keys by Sky.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
I'm not trying to make out that the driver was evil, or anything, and credit to him for stopping. Actually, no credit for stopping. It's what people who live in a society do. We just do it, don't we?
As mentioned, it"s really quite striking how much places like Sicily, or rural Greece, are awash with "stray", or wild cats.
But, as also mentioned, it's also unclear to me as to whether their origins are stray or wild. The Romans and Greeks seem to have had a major role with these animals in the southern half if Europe, but they probably left quite a lot of the local ones undomesticated, too.
For cats in particular, the culture of pet ownership means that a cat that is stray - lost, or its owner has died or chucked it out - is going to find someone else to feed it, and be adopted as a pet, and continue to get veterinary treatment including neutering. There certainly isn’t the local government resource to go round dealing with stray animals any more.
If we didn’t have that culture, cats and dogs would become vermin as they effectively are in North Africa and parts of southern Europe.
There are attempts to change this, in Itajy and Greece at least, at the same time.
I've heard of new shelters and animal welfare organisations in both Sicily and Crete, for instance, and they are trying to change the culture on that ,here.
Yes, but there are still rescue organisations (charities) in Spain and Romania and Greece that capture stray animals and then try to find Northern European homes for them. It’s an ongoing challenge, and a problem that will likely never be resolved, until people in those areas start wanting to keep animals as pets. So, as usual, our site’s own pet twat is wrong in that pet culture is more likely to be the solution than the problem.
I see that Rome sees its stray cats as part of the "bio-cultural heritage of the city". I guess that's probably accurate, right back to classical times, but probably also a convenient get-out for that fairly anti-pet culture to continue.
As mentioned, it"s really quite striking how much places like Sicily, or rural Greece, are awash with "stray", or wild cats.
But, as also mentioned, it's also unclear to me as to whether their origins are stray or wild. The Romans and Greeks seem to have had a major role with these animals in the southern half if Europe, but they probably left quite a lot of the local ones undomesticated, too.
For cats in particular, the culture of pet ownership means that a cat that is stray - lost, or its owner has died or chucked it out - is going to find someone else to feed it, and be adopted as a pet, and continue to get veterinary treatment including neutering. There certainly isn’t the local government resource to go round dealing with stray animals any more.
If we didn’t have that culture, cats and dogs would become vermin as they effectively are in North Africa and parts of southern Europe.
There are attempts to change this, in Itajy and Greece at least, at the same time.
I've heard of new shelters and animal welfare organisations in both Sicily and Crete, for instance, and they are trying to change the culture on that ,here.
Yes, but there are still rescue organisations (charities) in Spain and Romania and Greece that capture stray animals and then try to find Northern European homes for them. It’s an ongoing challenge, and a problem that will likely never be resolved, until people in those areas start wanting to keep animals as pets. So, as usual, our site’s own pet twat is wrong in that pet culture is more likely to be the solution than the problem.
I see that Rome sees its stray cats as part of the "bio-cultural heritage of the city". I guess that's probably accurate, right back to classical times, but probably also a convenient get-out for that fairly anti-pet culture to continue.
Italians keep a lot of dogs, but often just left out in a fenced garden or yard, for security, or carried about in handbags by ladies living in city centre apartments. The culture of having a pet dog and doing things with it is growing, especially in the north, but has some way to go in southern Italy. That said, Italy is a very pet friendly place to visit, whereas that is less true of other places where the pet culture has yet to fully embed, like Turkey or Morocco or even rural Ireland.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Dumb to build a restaurant on a slope like that in the first place. You can see he’s struggling to sit upright.
And what's wrong with Malvern water - instead of that furrin muck....
Me and the dog went to see where San Pellegrino came from last year, and while the town itself is quite pleasant with the river tumbling through, the humongous factory just downstream, with a ginormous loading yard full of lorries taking the water off all over the world, isn’t a sight for sore eyes. I had a half finished bottle of San Pell in the car, brought as refreshment all the way from the UK, and tipped the last bit back into the river for, well, just because. Well travelled, that little bit of river water.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
As mentioned, it"s really quite striking how much places like Sicily, or rural Greece, are awash with "stray", or wild cats.
But, as also mentioned, it's also unclear to me as to whether their origins are stray or wild. The Romans and Greeks seem to have had a major role with these animals in the southern half if Europe, but they probably left quite a lot of the local ones undomesticated, too.
For cats in particular, the culture of pet ownership means that a cat that is stray - lost, or its owner has died or chucked it out - is going to find someone else to feed it, and be adopted as a pet, and continue to get veterinary treatment including neutering. There certainly isn’t the local government resource to go round dealing with stray animals any more.
If we didn’t have that culture, cats and dogs would become vermin as they effectively are in North Africa and parts of southern Europe.
There are attempts to change this, in Itajy and Greece at least, at the same time.
I've heard of new shelters and animal welfare organisations in both Sicily and Crete, for instance, and they are trying to change the culture on that ,here.
Yes, but there are still rescue organisations (charities) in Spain and Romania and Greece that capture stray animals and then try to find Northern European homes for them. It’s an ongoing challenge, and a problem that will likely never be resolved, until people in those areas start wanting to keep animals as pets. So, as usual, our site’s own pet twat is wrong in that pet culture is more likely to be the solution than the problem.
I see that Rome sees its stray cats as part of the "bio-cultural heritage of the city". I guess that's probably accurate, right back to classical times, but probably also a convenient get-out for that fairly anti-pet culture to continue.
Italians keep a lot of dogs, but often just left out in a fenced garden or yard, for security, or carried about in handbags by ladies living in city centre apartments. The culture of having a pet dog and doing things with it is growing, especially in the north, but has some way to go in southern Italy. That said, Italy is a very pet friendly place to visit, whereas that is less true of other places where the pet culture has yet to fully embed, like Turkey or Morocco or even rural Ireland.
Stray dogs in Athens , Madrid and Dublin I've found almost always to be naively, touchingly friendly, as if desperate for attention.
"Le Figaro asked the centre-right Republicans MP Xavier Bertrand in 2015 why he thought the migrants saw England as a utopia. ‘Because there’s work there, and above all, you can work there without identity papers,’ he replied. ‘England needs to change its rules on working with illegals’. Much of the work was illicit, added the newspaper, citing the then prime minister David Cameron. ‘It’s still too easy to work illegally in this country,’ he said, shortly after his re-election that year."
Bertrand went on to say "in France, to deter these migrants, we have implemented a simple solution: a weak economy. Migrants simply cannot find work, because there are no jobs for them, or anyone else for that matter."
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
There’s history between those two over the sacking of Gray and Keys by Sky.
I did wonder because Jamie Redknapp always seems a pleasant guy. Carragher OTOH..
As mentioned, it"s really quite striking how much places like Sicily, or rural Greece, are awash with "stray", or wild cats.
But, as also mentioned, it's also unclear to me as to whether their origins are stray or wild. The Romans and Greeks seem to have had a major role with these animals in the southern half if Europe, but they probably left quite a lot of the local ones undomesticated, too.
For cats in particular, the culture of pet ownership means that a cat that is stray - lost, or its owner has died or chucked it out - is going to find someone else to feed it, and be adopted as a pet, and continue to get veterinary treatment including neutering. There certainly isn’t the local government resource to go round dealing with stray animals any more.
If we didn’t have that culture, cats and dogs would become vermin as they effectively are in North Africa and parts of southern Europe.
There are attempts to change this, in Itajy and Greece at least, at the same time.
I've heard of new shelters and animal welfare organisations in both Sicily and Crete, for instance, and they are trying to change the culture on that ,here.
Yes, but there are still rescue organisations (charities) in Spain and Romania and Greece that capture stray animals and then try to find Northern European homes for them. It’s an ongoing challenge, and a problem that will likely never be resolved, until people in those areas start wanting to keep animals as pets. So, as usual, our site’s own pet twat is wrong in that pet culture is more likely to be the solution than the problem.
I see that Rome sees its stray cats as part of the "bio-cultural heritage of the city". I guess that's probably accurate, right back to classical times, but probably also a convenient get-out for that fairly anti-pet culture to continue.
Italians keep a lot of dogs, but often just left out in a fenced garden or yard, for security, or carried about in handbags by ladies living in city centre apartments. The culture of having a pet dog and doing things with it is growing, especially in the north, but has some way to go in southern Italy. That said, Italy is a very pet friendly place to visit, whereas that is less true of other places where the pet culture has yet to fully embed, like Turkey or Morocco or even rural Ireland.
Stray dogs in Athens , Madrid and Dublin I've found almost always to be naively, touchingly friendly, as if desperate for attention.
There are also tons of stray dogs, so often with that same heart-rending desperation for attention, in Portugal. Thar whole latitude, including Souuthern Italy, seems quite similar on this.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Do you drive?
From what I saw on the video the cyclist was riding fast and it's as though the driver saw a cyclist coming and thought "No worries, I can get across. It only a bike." Without appreciating that cyclist was going quickly. Or he just didn't see the cyclist.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
There’s history between those two over the sacking of Gray and Keys by Sky.
I did wonder because Jamie Redknapp always seems a pleasant guy. Carragher OTOH..
Stems from this.
The woman at the centre of the sexism row involving former Sky Sports pundits Richard Keys and Andy Gray has launched a legal action against parent company BSkyB.
Louise Glass, the former partner of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp, filed legal papers at the high court in London on Thursday, 17 months after Keys and Gray lost their jobs over the controversial comments.
Glass said in January last year she planned to sue the broadcaster for breach of privacy and defamation.
Keys resigned and his co-host Andy Gray was sacked by Sky in January 2011 after leaked footage appeared on YouTube of them making sexist remarks about women.
Keys, now a TalkSport presenter, referred to Glass as "it" and twice asked the former Liverpool footballer Redknapp whether he had "smashed it".
In the leaked footage, a conversation begins with someone off camera mentioning a former girlfriend of Redknapp called Louise. Keys asks Redknapp whether he "smashed it" and the former player replies that he "used to go out with her".
Although Sky Sports did not originally air the footage, BSkyB-owned Sky News replayed the comments after they appeared on YouTube.
Glass told the Sunday Mirror in January last year that the remarks made her feel "awful". "Richard Keys spoke of me like I was some old whore, like I was nothing. I'm not a prude, I've got a sense of humour, but the level of aggression in there was awful," she said. "I wasn't even a whore. I was an 'it'. My life has turned upside down and now I'm paying the price for their slapstick."
She added: "I just feel that if so many people are talking about me I should tell them I'm not an 'it', that it's not 'banter', it's very detrimental to my character and whoever leaked that should be punished."
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
I'm not trying to make out that the driver was evil, or anything, and credit to him for stopping. Actually, no credit for stopping. It's what people who live in a society do. We just do it, don't we?
Maybe as a cyclist I’m biased but the driver deserved his punishment. I cannot see what the cyclist did that was wrong and the driver was lucky it was not dangerous.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Do you drive?
From what I saw on the video the cyclist was riding fast and it's as though the driver saw a cyclist coming and thought "No worries, I can get across. It only a bike." Without appreciating that cyclist was going quickly. Or he just didn't see the cyclist.
Indeed, it was an accident. Yes drivers should take extra care for more vulnerable users like cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians but cyclists and motorcyclists too should also be aware if they choose to ride a bike or motorcycle they will be more vulnerable on the road than those in cars or lorries and also need to take care
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
There’s history between those two over the sacking of Gray and Keys by Sky.
I did wonder because Jamie Redknapp always seems a pleasant guy. Carragher OTOH..
Stems from this.
The woman at the centre of the sexism row involving former Sky Sports pundits Richard Keys and Andy Gray has launched a legal action against parent company BSkyB.
Louise Glass, the former partner of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp, filed legal papers at the high court in London on Thursday, 17 months after Keys and Gray lost their jobs over the controversial comments.
Glass said in January last year she planned to sue the broadcaster for breach of privacy and defamation.
Keys resigned and his co-host Andy Gray was sacked by Sky in January 2011 after leaked footage appeared on YouTube of them making sexist remarks about women.
Keys, now a TalkSport presenter, referred to Glass as "it" and twice asked the former Liverpool footballer Redknapp whether he had "smashed it".
In the leaked footage, a conversation begins with someone off camera mentioning a former girlfriend of Redknapp called Louise. Keys asks Redknapp whether he "smashed it" and the former player replies that he "used to go out with her".
Although Sky Sports did not originally air the footage, BSkyB-owned Sky News replayed the comments after they appeared on YouTube.
Glass told the Sunday Mirror in January last year that the remarks made her feel "awful". "Richard Keys spoke of me like I was some old whore, like I was nothing. I'm not a prude, I've got a sense of humour, but the level of aggression in there was awful," she said. "I wasn't even a whore. I was an 'it'. My life has turned upside down and now I'm paying the price for their slapstick."
She added: "I just feel that if so many people are talking about me I should tell them I'm not an 'it', that it's not 'banter', it's very detrimental to my character and whoever leaked that should be punished."
On the point about Dublin and animals, it has to be said that was years and years ago, so I'm assuming it's more like the UK on that, now. That whole strip of countries from Portugal to Cyprus are not, though.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Yes. There's no particular evidence the driver needs to be kept away from society as a whole. Just kept away from a car and required to do some extra training before being allowed back in.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
There’s history between those two over the sacking of Gray and Keys by Sky.
I did wonder because Jamie Redknapp always seems a pleasant guy. Carragher OTOH..
Stems from this.
The woman at the centre of the sexism row involving former Sky Sports pundits Richard Keys and Andy Gray has launched a legal action against parent company BSkyB.
Louise Glass, the former partner of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp, filed legal papers at the high court in London on Thursday, 17 months after Keys and Gray lost their jobs over the controversial comments.
Glass said in January last year she planned to sue the broadcaster for breach of privacy and defamation.
Keys resigned and his co-host Andy Gray was sacked by Sky in January 2011 after leaked footage appeared on YouTube of them making sexist remarks about women.
Keys, now a TalkSport presenter, referred to Glass as "it" and twice asked the former Liverpool footballer Redknapp whether he had "smashed it".
In the leaked footage, a conversation begins with someone off camera mentioning a former girlfriend of Redknapp called Louise. Keys asks Redknapp whether he "smashed it" and the former player replies that he "used to go out with her".
Although Sky Sports did not originally air the footage, BSkyB-owned Sky News replayed the comments after they appeared on YouTube.
Glass told the Sunday Mirror in January last year that the remarks made her feel "awful". "Richard Keys spoke of me like I was some old whore, like I was nothing. I'm not a prude, I've got a sense of humour, but the level of aggression in there was awful," she said. "I wasn't even a whore. I was an 'it'. My life has turned upside down and now I'm paying the price for their slapstick."
She added: "I just feel that if so many people are talking about me I should tell them I'm not an 'it', that it's not 'banter', it's very detrimental to my character and whoever leaked that should be punished."
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
Unless the cyclist was going faster than the (car) speed limit, it's hard to argue that the cyclist was excessively fast. Even then, not an offence per se given the limits don't apply to cyclists, but maybe an argument for not cycling to the conditions/road/situation.
Again, if a pedestrian had wandered out in front of a car to adapt your example, you'd not be blaming the driver if they were within the speed limit, not on drugs or drunk and stopped.
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
There’s history between those two over the sacking of Gray and Keys by Sky.
I did wonder because Jamie Redknapp always seems a pleasant guy. Carragher OTOH..
Stems from this.
The woman at the centre of the sexism row involving former Sky Sports pundits Richard Keys and Andy Gray has launched a legal action against parent company BSkyB.
Louise Glass, the former partner of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp, filed legal papers at the high court in London on Thursday, 17 months after Keys and Gray lost their jobs over the controversial comments.
Glass said in January last year she planned to sue the broadcaster for breach of privacy and defamation.
Keys resigned and his co-host Andy Gray was sacked by Sky in January 2011 after leaked footage appeared on YouTube of them making sexist remarks about women.
Keys, now a TalkSport presenter, referred to Glass as "it" and twice asked the former Liverpool footballer Redknapp whether he had "smashed it".
In the leaked footage, a conversation begins with someone off camera mentioning a former girlfriend of Redknapp called Louise. Keys asks Redknapp whether he "smashed it" and the former player replies that he "used to go out with her".
Although Sky Sports did not originally air the footage, BSkyB-owned Sky News replayed the comments after they appeared on YouTube.
Glass told the Sunday Mirror in January last year that the remarks made her feel "awful". "Richard Keys spoke of me like I was some old whore, like I was nothing. I'm not a prude, I've got a sense of humour, but the level of aggression in there was awful," she said. "I wasn't even a whore. I was an 'it'. My life has turned upside down and now I'm paying the price for their slapstick."
She added: "I just feel that if so many people are talking about me I should tell them I'm not an 'it', that it's not 'banter', it's very detrimental to my character and whoever leaked that should be punished."
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
Unless the cyclist was going faster than the (car) speed limit, it's hard to argue that the cyclist was excessively fast. Even then, not an offence per se given the limits don't apply to cyclists, but maybe an argument for not cycling to the conditions/road/situation.
Again, if a pedestrian had wandered out in front of a car to adapt your example, you'd not be blaming the driver if they were within the speed limit, not on drugs or drunk and stopped.
Yeah as a just about daily cyclist I am usually anti-cyclist but this was the car's fault all day long. Cyclists will know those "please don't" moments when you spot a car doing something it shouldn't and hope that it doesn't continue doing it.
If it does then you are helpless, as we see here.
Sentence about right imo. But what about that silver people carrier, did it actually stop? Looks like perhaps not.
As for Farage, no surer way of making him sympathetic than to hijack him at "vulnerable" moments ie eating in a private capacity. Who would like a camera stuck up your nose when you are trying to debone a partridge leg.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
Speed limits damn well should apply to bikes!!!!!
Most cyclists would never be able to go more than 20mph anyway. It's only semi-professional cyclists in big cities who tend to go faster than that, such as the ones in Regent Park who were in a news report recently for almost knocking someone over.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
The cyclist had right of way. Do you drive or cycle or e-bike or scoot or tricycle? Do you understand how the rules of the road work.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
Speed limits damn well should apply to bikes!!!!!
I have no disagreement in principle. In practice, you need to fit all bikes with speedometers and have - probably - an annual check that they work. Or require that and nick people when they exceed the limit. But absent number plates on bikes, how would you enforce those speeding penalties?
FWIW, I never overtake free-flowing traffic, so if I'm in a 20 I'll be sticking to 20 if the cars are. I don't tend to trouble 30mph unless going downhill and it's pretty flat around here (there was one part of an old route for my commute where I often cleared 30mph down a long hill, but that was a 40mph stretch of road anyway)
(Gun ownership tends to be higher in rural states, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and West Virginia.)
Down at individual level, I’d guess that the correlation between owning a gun and having shot someone dead is quite high?
All your statistic points up is that, if the US had the UK system, where guns are strictly licensed and available on the basis of need, responsible ownership would be concentrated in the rural states. And you’d have more living schoolchildren.
Doesn’t somebody get shot dead in the US on average every ten minutes or so?
Much of the off-top discussion sounds very strange to some one who grew up on a farm in the Western US, decades ago. Restrictions on guns were looser then, to say the least. I bought a .22 rifle when I was 14 or 15, as I recall. I didn't even need my parents permission, much less anything from law enforcement. During harvest season, I sometimes used it, or the family shotgun, to discourage birds from eating our cherries.
We kept a cat for very practical reasons, to control the mice in our house. We also had to protect our trees from mice*, but a single cat could not do that job.
We kept a dog, for companionship, and as a watch dog.
(*In the winter, the mice would often chew the bark on trees, under the snow cover. Since they were chewing at about the same level, they could kill a young tree by chewing the bark, going around the tree. We put screens around the trees to protect the trees.)
This kind of confirms a thought I have. Most UK people think of American gun owners as urban gangstas or cap-wearing enthusiasts who carry whilst shopping in Walmart, but a large proportion of the whole appear to be a man/woman in the country who use it for pest control or for defence against wild animals or bad people in areas where law is few and far between.
There is pretty good evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to higher rates of gun suicide, accidental deaths from gunshots, gun homicides and police homicides.
Worth noting that half of US gun deaths are suicides. Having guns in the house is dangerous. Many of these suicides are impulsive.
One positive from the fallout of the recent incident is the arrest of the father who gave his teenage son the gun to play about with. If it gets other US parents thinking a bit more responsibly about their potential liability, it won’t be a bad thing.
It is legal for a child to possess a rifle or shotgun in 30 US states
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
The cyclist had right of way. Do you drive or cycle or e-bike or scoot or tricycle? Do you understand how the rules of the road work.
Even if a cyclist had right of way if they were going over 30mph or even over 20mph where that was the limit or driving too fast for the conditions if it was heavy rain say and hit and injured a pedestrian, they could be liable and charged with 'wanton and furious cycling'
(Gun ownership tends to be higher in rural states, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and West Virginia.)
Down at individual level, I’d guess that the correlation between owning a gun and having shot someone dead is quite high?
All your statistic points up is that, if the US had the UK system, where guns are strictly licensed and available on the basis of need, responsible ownership would be concentrated in the rural states. And you’d have more living schoolchildren.
Doesn’t somebody get shot dead in the US on average every ten minutes or so?
Much of the off-top discussion sounds very strange to some one who grew up on a farm in the Western US, decades ago. Restrictions on guns were looser then, to say the least. I bought a .22 rifle when I was 14 or 15, as I recall. I didn't even need my parents permission, much less anything from law enforcement. During harvest season, I sometimes used it, or the family shotgun, to discourage birds from eating our cherries.
We kept a cat for very practical reasons, to control the mice in our house. We also had to protect our trees from mice*, but a single cat could not do that job.
We kept a dog, for companionship, and as a watch dog.
(*In the winter, the mice would often chew the bark on trees, under the snow cover. Since they were chewing at about the same level, they could kill a young tree by chewing the bark, going around the tree. We put screens around the trees to protect the trees.)
This kind of confirms a thought I have. Most UK people think of American gun owners as urban gangstas or cap-wearing enthusiasts who carry whilst shopping in Walmart, but a large proportion of the whole appear to be a man/woman in the country who use it for pest control or for defence against wild animals or bad people in areas where law is few and far between.
There is pretty good evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to higher rates of gun suicide, accidental deaths from gunshots, gun homicides and police homicides.
Worth noting that half of US gun deaths are suicides. Having guns in the house is dangerous. Many of these suicides are impulsive.
One positive from the fallout of the recent incident is the arrest of the father who gave his teenage son the gun to play about with. If it gets other US parents thinking a bit more responsibly about their potential liability, it won’t be a bad thing.
It is legal for a child to possess a rifle or shotgun in 30 US states
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
Speed limits damn well should apply to bikes!!!!!
I have no disagreement in principle. In practice, you need to fit all bikes with speedometers and have - probably - an annual check that they work. Or require that and nick people when they exceed the limit. But absent number plates on bikes, how would you enforce those speeding penalties?
FWIW, I never overtake free-flowing traffic, so if I'm in a 20 I'll be sticking to 20 if the cars are. I don't tend to trouble 30mph unless going downhill and it's pretty flat around here (there was one part of an old route for my commute where I often cleared 30mph down a long hill, but that was a 40mph stretch of road anyway)
Plates on bikes and speedometers should be mandatory now
(Gun ownership tends to be higher in rural states, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and West Virginia.)
Down at individual level, I’d guess that the correlation between owning a gun and having shot someone dead is quite high?
All your statistic points up is that, if the US had the UK system, where guns are strictly licensed and available on the basis of need, responsible ownership would be concentrated in the rural states. And you’d have more living schoolchildren.
Doesn’t somebody get shot dead in the US on average every ten minutes or so?
Much of the off-top discussion sounds very strange to some one who grew up on a farm in the Western US, decades ago. Restrictions on guns were looser then, to say the least. I bought a .22 rifle when I was 14 or 15, as I recall. I didn't even need my parents permission, much less anything from law enforcement. During harvest season, I sometimes used it, or the family shotgun, to discourage birds from eating our cherries.
We kept a cat for very practical reasons, to control the mice in our house. We also had to protect our trees from mice*, but a single cat could not do that job.
We kept a dog, for companionship, and as a watch dog.
(*In the winter, the mice would often chew the bark on trees, under the snow cover. Since they were chewing at about the same level, they could kill a young tree by chewing the bark, going around the tree. We put screens around the trees to protect the trees.)
This kind of confirms a thought I have. Most UK people think of American gun owners as urban gangstas or cap-wearing enthusiasts who carry whilst shopping in Walmart, but a large proportion of the whole appear to be a man/woman in the country who use it for pest control or for defence against wild animals or bad people in areas where law is few and far between.
There is pretty good evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to higher rates of gun suicide, accidental deaths from gunshots, gun homicides and police homicides.
Worth noting that half of US gun deaths are suicides. Having guns in the house is dangerous. Many of these suicides are impulsive.
One positive from the fallout of the recent incident is the arrest of the father who gave his teenage son the gun to play about with. If it gets other US parents thinking a bit more responsibly about their potential liability, it won’t be a bad thing.
It is legal for a child to possess a rifle or shotgun in 30 US states
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
The cyclist had right of way. Do you drive or cycle or e-bike or scoot or tricycle? Do you understand how the rules of the road work.
Even if a cyclist had right of way if they were going over 30mph or even over 20mph where that was the limit or driving too fast for the conditions if it was heavy rain say and hit and injured a pedestrian, they could be liable and charged with 'wanton and furious cycling'
Not the case. You're not a driver or cyclist are you.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
The cyclist had right of way. Do you drive or cycle or e-bike or scoot or tricycle? Do you understand how the rules of the road work.
Even if a cyclist had right of way if they were going over 30mph or even over 20mph where that was the limit or driving too fast for the conditions if it was heavy rain say and hit and injured a pedestrian, they could be liable and charged with 'wanton and furious cycling'
I've just watched the video. Good grief. 100% the driver's fault. I can't see any blame attaches itself to the cyclist whatsoever. Looking at the driver's reaction, I think it a simple case of "didn't see". It happens, usually without serious consequence. But I can't see any respect in which this is in any way the cyclist's fault.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
The cyclist had right of way. Do you drive or cycle or e-bike or scoot or tricycle? Do you understand how the rules of the road work.
Even if a cyclist had right of way if they were going over 30mph or even over 20mph where that was the limit or driving too fast for the conditions if it was heavy rain say and hit and injured a pedestrian, they could be liable and charged with 'wanton and furious cycling'
Not the case. You're not a driver or cyclist are you.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Comments
Edit: Bugger!
https://x.com/daithaigilbert/status/1832016542629830922
Australia v Scotland in Edinburgh on iPlayer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c5y5z04gkndt
catparty?And if you remove Nigel... what's left?
I also expect they won't allow me to put much money on what is an 8% return in 16 months.
(Unless anybody annoys me or insults David Cameron, then I will deploy it)
https://x.com/richardajkeys/status/1831668295348449648
Every day is a school day on PB So you are predicting both a Labour win and Reform in second place or a Farage reverse takeover of the Tory Party. All plausible HY. All plausible!
If so, I will agree to revise my opinion of him ,slightly. upwards
However, Boris Johnson likes cats.
Richard Keys
@richardajkeys
·
19h
What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
I'm Hitler
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-france-blames-britain-for-the-channel-migrant-crisis/
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
I don't know what the term of imprisonment should be for that ^ but I think imprisonment is a morally correct outcome. You don't, Why?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Here are the murder numbers for the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ Most, but not all, are committed by guns, so you would have to correct for that.
Possibly true, even so, at the crime peak around 1980. Not true, now, assuming my arithmetic is correct.
(Currently, fentanyl is about three times as big a problem as murders: https://www.statista.com/statistics/895945/fentanyl-overdose-deaths-us/
To some extent, I blame the Biden administration, just as to some extent I blame the Loser for some COVID deaths.)
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/27/in-30-states-a-child-can-still-legally-own-a-rife-or-shotgun/
Ricky Jones pleads not guilty after video emerged in which he appeared to call for far-right protesters’ throats to be ‘cut’"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/06/suspended-labour-councillor-ricky-jones-denies-encouraging-violent-disorder
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
I'm not trying to make out that the driver was evil, or anything, and credit to him for stopping. Actually, no credit for stopping. It's what people who live in a society do. We just do it, don't we?
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
In the last two months I've had seven days off
I think that makes my average "week" equal eight and a half days including the one day weekend
Can't wait for my holiday in just over a fortnight..
The woman at the centre of the sexism row involving former Sky Sports pundits Richard Keys and Andy Gray has launched a legal action against parent company BSkyB.
Louise Glass, the former partner of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp, filed legal papers at the high court in London on Thursday, 17 months after Keys and Gray lost their jobs over the controversial comments.
Glass said in January last year she planned to sue the broadcaster for breach of privacy and defamation.
Keys resigned and his co-host Andy Gray was sacked by Sky in January 2011 after leaked footage appeared on YouTube of them making sexist remarks about women.
Keys, now a TalkSport presenter, referred to Glass as "it" and twice asked the former Liverpool footballer Redknapp whether he had "smashed it".
In the leaked footage, a conversation begins with someone off camera mentioning a former girlfriend of Redknapp called Louise. Keys asks Redknapp whether he "smashed it" and the former player replies that he "used to go out with her".
Although Sky Sports did not originally air the footage, BSkyB-owned Sky News replayed the comments after they appeared on YouTube.
Glass told the Sunday Mirror in January last year that the remarks made her feel "awful". "Richard Keys spoke of me like I was some old whore, like I was nothing. I'm not a prude, I've got a sense of humour, but the level of aggression in there was awful," she said. "I wasn't even a whore. I was an 'it'. My life has turned upside down and now I'm paying the price for their slapstick."
She added: "I just feel that if so many people are talking about me I should tell them I'm not an 'it', that it's not 'banter', it's very detrimental to my character and whoever leaked that should be punished."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jun/18/redknapp-bskyb-legal-action
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
What a piece of work that man is
I'm having baguette with butter, bacon, brie and balsamic blueberries
I'm going to bake the bacon, and boil the balsamic and blueberries before, and then build a bulging brown bread baguette
I thought about adding basil, but there must be barriers to barminess
There's a lot of good food in England, but the difference in the distribution is interesting.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Its not particularly funny but there seems a rather hopeless attempt at humour there. I certainly don't get her impression.
Again, if a pedestrian had wandered out in front of a car to adapt your example, you'd not be blaming the driver if they were within the speed limit, not on drugs or drunk and stopped.
The rest of your perspective, I find odd.
If it does then you are helpless, as we see here.
Sentence about right imo. But what about that silver people carrier, did it actually stop? Looks like perhaps not.
FWIW, I never overtake free-flowing traffic, so if I'm in a 20 I'll be sticking to 20 if the cars are. I don't tend to trouble 30mph unless going downhill and it's pretty flat around here (there was one part of an old route for my commute where I often cleared 30mph down a long hill, but that was a 40mph stretch of road anyway)
But Putin's a lot more desperate now. As is Trump.
Looking at the driver's reaction, I think it a simple case of "didn't see". It happens, usually without serious consequence. But I can't see any respect in which this is in any way the cyclist's fault.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.