In the news

Posted on
Page
of 3,705
First Prev
/ 3,705
Last Next
  • In fairness this is convention. And about separation of powers.

    The idea is that if you have a public body opining on a police investigation if could influence or pressure the police.

    Obvs have no doubt that the Johnson government* gives zero fucks about convention or separation of powers. But it is not new.

    *also have no doubt that historically there have been other motives.

  • Thanks for that, makes sense when spelt out

  • Great article but with the parties involved having zero credibility, Hanson’s Razor notwithstanding, the timing of all this can’t be entirely coincidental…..

  • Redact redux

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/28/sue-gray-report-fears-indefinite-delay-met-intervention-partygate

    Edit to add..

    Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader in Westminster said: “No one will accept a Westminster cover-up. If the UK government refuses to publish the full unredacted report it will prove, yet again, that Westminster is utterly corrupt and broken beyond repair. It won’t save Boris Johnson’s skin. It will only add to the calls for him to go.”

  • There’s one of those crossings on my old route to work and a very small fraction of drivers will give way to let cyclists cross. Don’t reckon many people know they’re supposed to.

  • Where is it, if I may ask?

  • https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19882968.jury-clears-a40-lorry-driver-killing-cyclist-dangerous-driving/

    I hope the jury had been presented with rock solid evidence to reach this conclusion, the article doesn't suggest that was the case though. Smidsy wins again?

  • It's fine, his light wasn't attached to his bike and the driver was probably only listening to the TV show on his phone, easy come easy die.

  • The Therac-25 is one of the most-cited examples of where operators killed people but the blame could justifiably be placed on the manufacturer.

    Liability is a complex topic, even if you can convincingly pinpoint the key causes of an incident and especially if the parties involved are companies rather than individuals. Just look at Grenfell.

  • I'd guess the evidence here was simply not enough for the jury to be 'sure' of the guilt. They're directed to say 'not guilty' even if there is evidence of guilt but they can't be sure. I wouldn't doubt that he was actually watching the show, but if that can't be proven in court, then, unfortunately, the jury has no choice but to return this disappointing verdict.

  • The system doesn't work. Transport case jury's might benefit from even representation of users of the transport types involved.

  • Well, obviously I don't know what happened in this case; I was just guessing that the legal point I mention may have played a role. I do think that point is important. That it can be abused is clear, but I really don't think putting 'representatives' (not your word, of course) of particular transport users on juries would solve it. You'd only end up having people at loggerheads over whose interests they're supposed to 'represent'. Everyone's a mixed-mode user, anyway, to whichever degree they may use this or that mode.

    Again guessing, I think it's likely that with all those mobile phone/tablet distraction cases, the main problem is that whether or not someone was distracted by using a device like that becomes a, or the, criterion for 'dangerous driving' or 'careless driving'. This is troublesome because whether or not something was dangerous or careless (a distinction that, as I've said before, I think is a bad distinction that is very much in need of reform) has a much broader meaning, and then homing in on the mobile or tablet narrows it far too much whether something was 'dangerous' or 'careless'. How about that it's dangerous to hit someone on a straight road in good visibility conditions straight ahead? That's dangerous in my book, i.e. 'falling far below the standard expected of a competent driver'. If you tie it to whether the driver was merely listening to a device or watching its screen (when the latter apparently can't be proven), you only make yourself a hostage to fortune. It doesn't matter whether he hit the person out of distraction by a device; 'he hit him, and here's how he fell far below the standard expected of a competent driver'.

    That's not to say that mobiles and the like are not a huge problem, and the fact that some drivers seemingly want to be distracted by them, but unless you have 100% clear evidence that one was being watched, it generally not being considered too much of a distraction to listen to the radio in a car, you should probably not bring it into a case.

  • @Oliver Schick

    Odd question: do you touch type and if so, how quickly?

    I am in the process of learning to and am beginning to wonder if the profusivity of some online posters, versus their less verbose comrades, may be due to the ease with which the former can create prose.

  • No, I've never learned to touch-type. I do a mixture of looking at the keyboard and the screen (I don't have to concentrate much on that as I spot typos and other issues easily), and I've just got faster over the years. In the 90s, I was at about 50+wpm, but now I can do about 100wpm on a good day. Mostly, it's ~85wpm or less, though. It obviously also depends on what type of document/forum post it is.

    My verbosity is everywhere, not just in what I type. :)

  • Without reading the sentencing notes I assume because it might have been a first offence, nobody was harmed and the judge thinks that a two year ban plus community service might be an appropriate punishment, within the sentencing guidelines, in these circumstances. That teenager now has a criminal conviction and driving offence against his name that will affect his career for the rest of his life. It's not a nothing punishment. He'll also find himself banned from entering quite a few countries, including the USA.

    The other thing to mention is that the kid won't get his license back automatically at the end of the ban, he will be required to do the "extended test" for people returning from bans, which is non trivial to pass.

    Opinions will differ, but I don't see that sentence as overly lenient.

  • I don't see that sentence as overly lenient.

    I do. He was in charge of a potentially lethal vehicle, so inebriated that he couldn't stop for a highly illuminated building. Bunch of children at a bus stop, group of cyclists out for a ride, no chance.

    He's a 19 year old, who has been through the driving test, has access to a car and enough money to go out on the piss. He was charged costs of £85.00 - not exactly punitive.

    The thing that got me most though was the overall tone of the article. The jovial title, complete with misspelling - 'He took the drive-thu literally' makes it all seem like a bit of a laugh. At no point do they point out he's a dickhead.

  • What do you think the sentence should have been?

  • Personally, that sort of thing, I'd ban for life.

    We already have enough people that can drive.

  • National Insurance rise.

    Because LOL, you peasants don't really need money anyway.

  • I'd rather a property tax (1% of property value per year perhaps?) but great public services cost money.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

In the news

Posted by Avatar for Platini @Platini

Actions