http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Killer-driver-back-in-prison.3308388.jp
Just read this from tonights Star, i feel so angry at our so called criminal justice system, letting down the victims family. For this guy to be out on the streets in such a short time, to be able to offend again. I just hope for the sake of the victims family they throw the book at him, and he gets the sentence he deserves.

What a piece of useless scum he is.

What a piece of useless scum he is.

my thoughts exactly

utterly disgusting.

That is gratifying to know. I thought his original sentence was obscenely short, considering what he'd done.

Just goes to show how little regard he has for the law, doesn't it?

What's that, sooty? He's back in gaol? Well, as Sgt Major Williams of Deolali, 1945 might have put it.

"Oh dear.... How sad.... Never mind!"

my opinion? let him languish away!

He ran the child over deliberately, having planned beforehand to do so, did he?

if he was given `life` and i mean `life` for the first time he would not have been around to take another poor childs life...bring back proper punishments ,,,a life for a life.(hanging,execution etc)..this would stop them and save others lifes and tax-payers money............

if he was given `life` and i mean `life` for the first time he would not have been around to take another poor childs life...


Er, he hasn't done. Have you tried reading the article?

Er, he hasn't done. Have you tried reading the article?

but if he had have done he would not be driving around while he is banned for killing someone...even if it was only for a few minutes..

He ran the child over deliberately, having planned beforehand to do so, did he?

Get in the real world Heyesey.

..this is one of those difficult social/emotional questions.

We all feel utter abhorrence at what he did and I think our feelings are aggravated by the fact he subsequentely lied about his involvement and left the scene after the collision.

I'm not sure of the facts, but were there any features about his driving that implied this was more than an accident?

We still feel anger and the boy's parents must be grief stricken, but accidents do happen and we often find ourselves in a position where we need to blame someone entirely in order to make sense of such a tragic waste of a young life.

In the article in the Star the blokes lawyer Ged Hall said the offence is an isolated incident of driving for 5 minute. I bet this lawyer still believes there is a tooth fairy. You can bet people like this will have driven a car a few times before he got caught. Scum like this have no respect for the law. I hope they throw the key away

He ran the child over deliberately, having planned beforehand to do so, did he?

Probably not, but the low life filth DID deliberately scurry from the scene and tried to cover up his invlovement.

Top bloke in your eyes then. :loopy:

Five months for a hit and run killing :gag:

EDN:- not just "only sentenced to 5 months", for what he did, but because of "time served" on remand, he was released after serving just five weeks!!!!. As I said earlier, it was obscenely short, and in no way served any justice.

Probably not, but the low life filth DID deliberately scurry from the scene and tried to cover up his invlovement.


Do you think a 5 month sentence is inadequate for leaving the scene of an accident and lying to the police? This is a genuine question by the way and not a criticism of what you posted.

5 months, makes ya feel sick to be British, I could probably understand that if it was a complete accident, the kid run out and he couldn't stop kinda thing....but we're talking HIT & RUN, isn't that pretty much the same as manslaughter? Then he covers it up and lies about it, so loads of remorse then?

Think I might go on a murdering spree tonight, might see my family again for christmas...:huh:

This country makes me sick...burn the union jack and hand the place over to immigrants, I'm outta here.

He ran the child over deliberately, having planned beforehand to do so, did he?

Just for you. (http://www.thedaddy.copperstream.co.uk/troll2.jpg)

Do you think a 5 month sentence is inadequate for leaving the scene of an accident and lying to the police? This is a genuine question by the way and not a criticism of what you posted.

Obviously you have not understood the intent of my post.

I think the words 'low life filth' should have given you a clue. :rolleyes:

As for your question no yes I do, I think it should have been 10 years minimum.

Obviously you have not understood the intent of my post.

I think the words 'low life filth' should have given you a clue. :rolleyes:

As for your question no yes I do, I think it should have been 10 years minimum.

Oh I understood the intent of your post, so the sarcastic eye rolling is unneccesary. I also think he's 'low life filth', but the prisons would be bursting at the seams if everyone who lied to the police and left the scene of an accident were given 10 year jail terms.

This country makes me sick...burn the union jack and hand the place over to immigrants, I'm outta here.

Why are you hijacking a serious thread by bringing immigrants into it?

Five months for a hit and run killing :gag:

Well I'm still trying to establish what sort of a killing it was. Nobody seems willing to answer me.

Case in point.



So, in the absence of any information about how the death occurred, I can't pass any sensible judgment on what sort of sentence the guy deserved.

Of course, neither can anybody else, but that isn't stopping them.

Case in point.



So, in the absence of any information about how the death occurred, I can't pass any sensible judgment on what sort of sentence the guy deserved.

Of course, neither can anybody else, but that isn't stopping them.

The original incident had a thread when he got his 'sentence'.
I seem to remember you asking similar stupid questions in that one.
I could be wrong about that though cos you do speak a lot of rubbish so its hard to tell.

Found it (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=244361)

The original incident had a thread when he got his 'sentence'.
I seem to remember you asking similar stupid questions in that one.


Why is asking for details of the death such a stupid question?

Why is asking for details of the death such a stupid question?

Im not getting drawn into this with you.
Go fish in another river Heyesey:wave:

Okay ... one person refuses even to explain what the guy's done, that he deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

Anyone else want to enlighten us?

Okay ... one person refuses even to explain what the guy's done, that he deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

Anyone else want to enlighten us?

Seein as you are having difficulty following a few links,
Heres what he did (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news?articleid=3088768)
Remember now do we?

Thanks.



Well, failing to stop is a minor offence, driving without due care is an even more minor offence.

Intending to pervert the course of justice? He should be inside for another four years yet.

Thanks.



Well, failing to stop is a minor offence, driving without due care is an even more minor offence.

Intending to pervert the course of justice? He should be inside for another four years yet.

Let me refere you to .......


Im not getting drawn into this with you.
Go fish in another river Heyesey:wave:

Seein as you are having difficulty following a few links,
Heres what he did (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news?articleid=3088768)
Remember now do we?So, after reading that, it seems he didnt receive a sentence for the actual death :huh:

So, after reading that, it seems he didnt receive a sentence for the actual death :huh:

Makes you sick dosent it:(..
Good ol British justice:loopy:.

He ran the child over deliberately, having planned beforehand to do so, did he?

**** stirring again Heysey??:shakes::huh:

**** stirring again Heysey??:shakes::huh:

No, he was making a perfectly reasonable point about intent, (or the lack of it) in this case.

Wind your neck in Halibut, you're both as bad as each other! Please don't bother replying.

Wind your neck in Halibut, you're both as bad as each other! Please don't bother replying.

What's bad about trying to clarify the facts about a case before passing comment on it?

I'll reply to anything I choose, thankyou.

Intent or not, if you run into a young boy and don't stop, you deserve more than five months in jail.

I can't believe what I'm reading from some people here. Unbelievable.

If he stopped and got an ambulance, maybe he could have saved that boys life. At the very, very least it's manslaughter.

Now he's back out and breaking the law within a week.

As for not being enough space in jail, doesn't matter. He's not learned his lesson, he's no use to man or beast.

Throw him in the ****ing sea for all I care.

Well we're not in possession of all the evidence, and whilst the consequences of this accident had tragic consequences for Kyle & his family, if it were an accident then how can someone be accused of murder, and penalised accordingly, if that were not the case.

Of course it's frustrating and we want to find someone wholly responsible, but that's no reason to lose faith with the justice system which would have taken into account of lots of factors including the style of driving and where Kyle was riding.

Well we're not in possession of all the evidence, and whilst the consequences of this accident had tragic consequences for Kyle & his family, if it were an accident then how can someone be accused of murder, and penalised accordingly, if that were not the case.

Of course it's frustrating and we want to find someone wholly responsible, but that's no reason to lose faith with the justice system which would have taken into account of lots of factors including the style of driving and where Kyle was riding.How about manslaughter or death by dangerous driving ?

Well we're not in possession of all the evidence, and whilst the consequences of this accident had tragic consequences for Kyle & his family, if it were an accident then how can someone be accused of murder, and penalised accordingly, if that were not the case.

Of course it's frustrating and we want to find someone wholly responsible, but that's no reason to lose faith with the justice system which would have taken into account of lots of factors including the style of driving and where Kyle was riding.

The relevant point is that he DID NOT STOP! It's unforgivable. And if it were, lying about it when caught isn't.

Well we're not in possession of all the evidence, and whilst the consequences of this accident had tragic consequences for Kyle & his family, if it were an accident then how can someone be accused of murder, and penalised accordingly, if that were not the case.

Of course it's frustrating and we want to find someone wholly responsible, but that's no reason to lose faith with the justice system which would have taken into account of lots of factors including the style of driving and where Kyle was riding.

I'm afraid I already have in many circumstances !:mad:

I'm afraid I already have in many circumstances !:mad:

Sadly im in full agreement with you on that one Minesadouble.

The issue in this latest bit of news is that a criminal on parole has been caught driving without a license or insurance which is in breach of his parole conditions and so he has been sent back to prison to serve out the rest of his sentence. The reason he was in prison is irrelevant at this point.

For the record however, I do think that his original sentence was pitifully short.

So, after reading that, it seems he didnt receive a sentence for the actual death :huh:

When making a charging decision on this case, the CPS clearly considered there was not enough evidence to suggest that the death was caused by dangerous driving. There are two factors to be considered in this charge: was the driving dangerous? (as per the guidance given in s.1 Road Traffic Act) and, if so, did the dangerous driving cause the death of the victim? The fact that the defendant was charged with the lesser charge of due care and attention shows that one or both of these factors were not met.

if he was given `life` and i mean `life` for the first time he would not have been around to take another poor childs life...bring back proper punishments ,,,a life for a life.(hanging,execution etc)..this would stop them and save others lifes and tax-payers money............

a life sentence is not a sentencing option for the offences he was charged with.

we're talking HIT & RUN, isn't that pretty much the same as manslaughter?

No, its nothing like manslaughter. For a start, there is no such offence as "hit and run" and, secondly, there are 4 types of manslaughter - which one in particular are you suggesting is "pretty much the same" as the non-offence of hit and run?

Well excuse me for not being a jumped up law student, I couldn't care less what the charge was, but the fact is, it was a hit & run, whether he was or wasn't charged with that, or whether or not it is an offence, I really couldn't care...fact is, it was a hit and run, therefore if he killed someone, not intentionally, else that would be murder (I don't need a debate on all the types of murder) but it wasn't intentional therefore it is pretty much the same as 1 of the types of manslaughter????

Is it not....:loopy:

Obviously you are a jumped up student, either that or an even more jumped up solicitor / barrister...which one of the types of wrong am I:

not at all
definately not
couldn't possibly be
Nope, definately not


IMHO, you law students, come solicitors are the lowest form of life on earth, how could you class earning top dollar for ones lifestyle above justice for victims...you all make me sick, defend someone who is truly guilty, just to line your pocket :rant:

Well excuse me for not being a jumped up law student, I couldn't care less what the charge was, but the fact is, it was a hit & run, whether he was or wasn't charged with that, or whether or not it is an offence, I really couldn't care...fact is, it was a hit and run, therefore if he killed someone, not intentionally, else that would be murder (I don't need a debate on all the types of murder) but it wasn't intentional therefore it is pretty much the same as 1 of the types of manslaughter????

Is it not....:loopy:

Obviously you are a jumped up student, either that or an even more jumped up solicitor / barrister...which one of the types of wrong am I:

not at all
definately not
couldn't possibly be
Nope, definately not


IMHO, you law students, come solicitors are the lowest form of life on earth, how could you class earning top dollar for ones lifestyle above justice for victims...you all make me sick, defend someone who is truly guilty, just to line your pocket :rant:
:clap:Well said:clap:

... (I don't need a debate on all the types of murder) but it wasn't intentional therefore it is pretty much the same as 1 of the types of manslaughter????

Is it not....:loopy:



There's no need for us to debate all the types of murder as there is only one type of murder. To say that manslaughter is merely un-intentional killing is grossly over simplifying a complex offence which is not even relevant to this case. If the CPS had believed that the nature of this man's driving was dangerous and caused the death of the victim, the charge would have been Death by Dangerous Driving.

So in answer to Is it not....:loopy:, - ahem, NO.

Regardless of whether or not you care what the charge was, the reason we operate a judicial system in this country is so that points of law can be applied to facts in a case. As I have said previously, the CPS clearly did not find from the facts that this case amounted to Death by Dangerous Driving as per s.1 RTA. Therefore the court could only sentence for the offences which the CPS had charged him with. So although you couldnt care less what the charge was (or whether or not it is an offence) the courts quite clearly do.

Regardless of your views on defence lawyers, in this case it was the PROSECUTION who afforded the defendant the benefit of a light sentence when they made their charging decision. Even if he had been undefended at court, it is unlikely the outcome would have been much different.

With regards to your personal attack of me, I do not hold any of the titles you have guessed at but if you wish to call me "the lowest form of life on earth", you are entitled to your view. You are clearly highly talented in that you can sum up someone's entire character from reading a few facts which that person has posted on an Internet forum.

Well excuse me for not being a jumped up law student, I couldn't care less what the charge was, but the fact is, it was a hit & run, whether he was or wasn't charged with that, or whether or not it is an offence, I really couldn't care...fact is, it was a hit and run


If there is no such thing as a hit-and-run, how can it have been a hit-and-run?

Was this argument really supposed to make sense?



To get back to the real world, his crimes appear to be:

1) Driving without due care. Minor traffic offence.
2) Leaving the scene of an accident. Slightly less minor.
3) Attemptin to pervert the course of justice. Major offence.


I'm not sure for which of these offences people are saying he should've got a life sentence. They seem blinded by the fact that a child was accidentally killed in the process, and refuse to accept that the accident was in fact an accident.

Well excuse me for not being a jumped up law student, I couldn't care less what the charge was, but the fact is, it was a hit & run, whether he was or wasn't charged with that, or whether or not it is an offence, I really couldn't care...fact is, it was a hit and run, therefore if he killed someone, not intentionally, else that would be murder (I don't need a debate on all the types of murder) but it wasn't intentional therefore it is pretty much the same as 1 of the types of manslaughter????

Is it not....:loopy:

Obviously you are a jumped up student, either that or an even more jumped up solicitor / barrister...which one of the types of wrong am I:

not at all
definately not
couldn't possibly be
Nope, definately not


IMHO, you law students, come solicitors are the lowest form of life on earth, how could you class earning top dollar for ones lifestyle above justice for victims...you all make me sick, defend someone who is truly guilty, just to line your pocket :rant:

I think I find your absolute ignorance of the legal and justice system as depressing as the shortness of the sentence in the case. The lawyers aren't personally involved. They don't make up the law. They don't do it out of a belief in child murder.Everybody has a right to a fair trial, and a fair hearing. Everybody has the right to have their case argued by a legal professional. Even Neanderthals who have no idea how lucky we are to have the system we do have, flawed though it is.

It's their profession so they get paid. Who do you suggest would do it for free? Criminals on day release? And the lawyers who defend common or garden criminals are not the ones making the obscene amounts of money.

Intent or not, if you run into a young boy and don't stop, you deserve more than five months in jail.If he stopped and got an ambulance, maybe he could have saved that boys life.
Now he's back out and breaking the law within a week.

As for not being enough space in jail, doesn't matter. He's not learned his lesson, he's no use to man or beast.

Throw him in the ****ing sea for all I care.
With slight editting , I'm with you on this one. Especially the first line.
I posted all my comments about the original case on the last thread so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Well excuse me for not being a jumped up law student, I couldn't care less what the charge was, but the fact is, it was a hit & run, whether he was or wasn't charged with that, or whether or not it is an offence, I really couldn't care...fact is, it was a hit and run, therefore if he killed someone, not intentionally, else that would be murder (I don't need a debate on all the types of murder) but it wasn't intentional therefore it is pretty much the same as 1 of the types of manslaughter????

Is it not....:loopy:

Obviously you are a jumped up student, either that or an even more jumped up solicitor / barrister...which one of the types of wrong am I:

not at all
definately not
couldn't possibly be
Nope, definately not


IMHO, you law students, come solicitors are the lowest form of life on earth, how could you class earning top dollar for ones lifestyle above justice for victims...you all make me sick, defend someone who is truly guilty, just to line your pocket :rant:

Definitely, not for turning! As Mike Gatting once said whilst on a rebel tour: "Thank you for your comments."

[QUOTE=RICON;2717784]Well excuse me for not being a jumped up law student, I couldn't care less what the charge was, but the fact is, it was a hit & run, whether he was or wasn't charged with that, or whether or not it is an offence, I really couldn't care...fact is, it was a hit and run, therefore if he killed someone, not intentionally, else that would be murder (I don't need a debate on all the types of murder) but it wasn't intentional therefore it is pretty much the same as 1 of the types of manslaughter????

Is it not....:loopy:

Obviously you are a jumped up student, either that or an even more jumped up solicitor / barrister...which one of the types of wrong am I:
[LIST=1]
not at all

So what would you prefer? A system which did not provide any defence for people who commited crimes and some kind of dictatorship military run state? What if you accidently knocked someone over whilst distracted and unforutnatly they died and you were allowed no defence and sent to prison for the rest of your life? Or someone broke into your house and whilst defending your family and property you pushed this person down the stairs and they died from a broken neck are you saying you would not be entitled to a deffence? The work of solicitors is part of a wider justice system that may deserve some critism however most solicitors spend 7 years qualifying and get into thousands of pounds worth of debt and criminal solicitors are not amongst the best paid but are still providing and extremely important service. Which i hope you never need to use whether it be for Family Law, Conveyancing, or personal Injury if we are as you say the lowest form of life on earth??? your response is short sighted, uninformed and based on irrational emotion!

QUOTE This country makes me sick...burn the union jack and hand the place over to immigrants, I'm outta here…."QUOTE you probably call yourself a Nationalist but can't think of any constructive way to make this country better. So instead just bitch and moans, If your "outta here" where you off? Costa del crime? To be an immigrant yourself probably!

If you want to talk about money for nothing go see one of the many cowboy sparkies or plasterers, or even decorators or whoever owns service stations and charges £6 a flippin sandwich! Just as there are con artists in the trades who charge for naff all, there are also con artist in our profession, but to generalise like this just exposes your ignorance.

As for having a go at students…what would you rather your children do…better themselves by getting an education and learn to think critically about things or sit about reading the Sport and never questioning anything? That is not to say that going to university makes you better than someone else, of course it doesn't, but would you prefer it if there were no students in Sheffield? See how soon the city would slump into a recession without the injection of cash and therefore jobs that having 2 universities gives us.

[QUOTE=purdyamos;2718417]I think I find your absolute ignorance of the legal and justice system as depressing as the shortness of the sentence in the case. The lawyers aren't personally involved. They don't make up the law. They don't do it out of a belief in child murder.Everybody has a right to a fair trial, and a fair hearing. Everybody has the right to have their case argued by a legal professional. Even Neanderthals who have no idea how lucky we are to have the system we do have, flawed though it is.

It's their profession so they get paid. Who do you suggest would do it for free? Criminals on day release? And the lawyers who defend common or garden criminals are not the ones making the obscene amounts of money.[/QUOTE

Well said

:clap:Well said:clap:

Really- which bit? no one else seems to think so :loopy::loopy:

Really- which bit? no one else seems to think so :loopy::loopy:

Well thats very mature.
Whats with the :loopy:?

Silence Ricon??? Whys that then? You seemed full of answers on your previous post?Well im off home now, so if you do decided to respond to any of the above posts I will respond in the morning.

:clap:Well said:clap:

Mmmmm. Celebrating someone else's ignorance of the law. Useful response.

Probably not, but the low life filth DID deliberately scurry from the scene and tried to cover up his invlovement.

Top bloke in your eyes then. :loopy:Sounds like he'd been to the Prince Nazeem finishing school!

I have heard he got 4 months inside now for driving while banned, lets hope he does the full term

I have heard he got 4 months inside now for driving while banned, lets hope he does the full term

That sounds about right - DWD carries a 6 month sentence which would be reduced to 4 on a guilty plea. To answer the last part of your statement - he will probably serve 2.

MOD NOTE I appreciate that this is an emotive subject but please keep posts on topic and avoid posting personal or abusive insults.

If there is no such thing as a hit-and-run, how can it have been a hit-and-run?

Was this argument really supposed to make sense?


Obviously you are one of those really clever people that need things spelling out to you...:loopy:

Here goes nothing:

Hit & run, we'll go with mels mum for now as she certainly seems to know what she's talking about is not an offence for which you can be charged as it doesn't stand up as a charge: However running someone over and then failing to top in slang is called:

HIT AND RUN....

Are we on the same planet now :huh:

Right, in case we are still miles apart, a child sex offender (Paedophile) abuses young children right? therefore he is a kiddy-fiddler, you try getting the police to charge someone with being a kiddy-fiddler....not gonna happen, therefore there is such a thing as a hit and run and yes the sentence did make sense, maybe your just to thick to realise...:loopy::loopy:

Silence Ricon??? Whys that then? You seemed full of answers on your previous post?Well im off home now, so if you do decided to respond to any of the above posts I will respond in the morning.

Silence, no sorry, it's just a strange coincidence that we were not online at the same time...obviously the forum is getting maxed out with people that fail to use their grey matter....it's gonna be a bumpy ride in years to come.

Hit & run, we'll go with mels mum for now as she certainly seems to know what she's talking about is not an offence for which you can be charged as it doesn't stand up as a charge: However running someone over and then failing to top in slang is called:

HIT AND RUN....


If that's your argument, why did you post that you don't care what it's called?

You make less sense as you go on. At least try to be consistent.

If that's your argument, why did you post that you don't care what it's called?

You make less sense as you go on. At least try to be consistent.

Hmmmmmmmmnnnnn...you've got a point there. Oh I know sir, it's because it's a fact, am I right sir, am I sir?

Just because I don't really care makes no difference to the outcome, does it really :loopy:

Obviously you are one of those really clever people that need things spelling out to you...:loopy:

Here goes nothing:

Hit & run, we'll go with mels mum for now as she certainly seems to know what she's talking about is not an offence for which you can be charged as it doesn't stand up as a charge: However running someone over and then failing to top in slang is called:

HIT AND RUN....

Are we on the same planet now :huh:

Right, in case we are still miles apart, a child sex offender (Paedophile) abuses young children right? therefore he is a kiddy-fiddler, you try getting the police to charge someone with being a kiddy-fiddler....not gonna happen, therefore there is such a thing as a hit and run and yes the sentence did make sense, maybe your just to thick to realise...:loopy::loopy:



Gosh, this is so much fun. how much back peddling can you do in one thread? Whilst I'm happy you've accepted my advice, why are you now turning it round on heyesey by saying that he is too thick to realise that there is no such thing as hit and run or that the sentence made sense? He has never said anything to the contrary all the way through the thread. He established his position on the first page.

The DADDY and Halibut, yes both of you, this is your one and only warning, please stop baiting and biting at each other now.

and everyone, can we please stop the personal sniping and get back to the original topic