redfox

That must rank as one the least informed observations I have seen for a long time. I am thankful individuals like you have no influence over such things.

Try this - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/public_guide_totality_for_web.pdf

Don't you mean Consecutive ? It is one incident seriously aggravated by the loss of 2 lives - but a consecutive sentence would not follow - It was tried before in sheffield - remember the motorised pub crawl when a bloke called Noble killed several - You cannot in law exceed the maximum sentence for the offence - and here it is a single piece of conduct.

As long as you pay to keep him in:hihi:

Go on then dimps enlighten us as to your suggestion for sentencing in such cases? remember what the maximum sentence is.

No - the Attorney-General's office make that decision.

the family (anyone can - anyone on SF can) can write to the Attorney General/(local cps usually)and ask that the sentence be reviewed as being unduly lenient. If they do then the CPS will ask for advice from the Prosecutor. There is a specific CPS process for these types of unduly lenient reviews - and very tight time-frames. The advice from the prosecutor has to be considered by the senior crown prosecutor for the area and then the case is sent to the Attorney Generals office who will usually instruct Treasury Counsel (very senior and specially appointed to do the Govt's legal work) or senior barristers to deal with the appeal.

The driver is to blame.

We all hope we would behave better - but none of us know in truth until it happens. There are always those with words that a vulnerable person wants to hear - with a veneer of respectability or authenticity - a law student with a little knowledge and an axe to grind - I can well see how a desperate person looking for help might turn to such an individual - Hayden J has been scathing in his criticism of the advice given to the parents - who are we to criticise the parents for following duff advice?

The child has to have someone to protect its interests / rights. The overriding aim is to act in the best interests of the child - I am afraid parents cannot always be relied upon to do this - the court (not that it wants to be involved) has to step in. You cant ship the child from pillar to post on the basis mum thinks this place has the cure and dad thinks the next place has the cure - In this case it seems the parents have somewhat different views as what is in the child's best interest - How do you sort that out Spill?

So who gets to decide then ? Someone has to don't they? These are truly impossible cases and I wouldn't want to be involved in any capacity - no-one "wins" here. It is a very complex medical situation and unless you are privy to the exact medical position it is hard to follow or understand the position of the hospital/medics. If the courts paramount objective is the child's best interest it is also hard to grasp how it could be in the child's interest to allow them to die. The aggression and hostility directed at the hospital is disgraceful - emotion in these cases leads the way - I cannot imagine the feelings of the parents no-one can unless they have been in such a situation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5647633/Guests-arrive-service-marking-25-years-racist-murder-Stephen-Lawrence.html

Gosh Mel quoting from the Daily Fail - give that man a blue peter badge

Do you honestly think that the US has just 'remnants' of racial problems? If you do you are deluded.

there is still remnants of racial problems in the USA, but it is also obvious, that in the USA, more blacks have done better, and gone further, and more of them have achieved prominent positions in society, than in any of the other white majority countries in the world - by a mile. I wonder what exactly do you mean by 'remnants of racial problems" ? Do you mean that people are still shot by the police because and only because they are black? Do you mean that people are still being convicted of serious crimes because of the colour of their skin? Perhaps look up the definition of remnant and see if it is accurately applied here.

Not too hard - a little effort - https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/dec/03/how-scotland-reduced-knife-deaths-among-young-people https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/met-police-chief-cressida-dickto-visit-scotland-for-ideas-to-reduce-knife https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/chris-marshall-how-glasgow-police-could-help-london-cut-knife-crime-1-4701466

How did your lunch time research go then? Or are you still at it? Anything you would care to share from your analysis of a document we can all read anyway and one that is heavily redacted? I won't be waiting up

Try post 1438 This - "I’m confident there won’t be any penalty clauses. I’ll have a look and see sometime this week" Please point out where that says you will be looking on the internet? It doesn't. You lied. Where does your confidence come from then? Your lying - because you have no basis whatsoever for such an assertion - its made up - as has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum (and you refuse to acknowledge and ignore) whole swathes of the contract have been redacted - just because you are unable to see them (or recognise a clause for being what is actually is) does not mean there are no 'penalty clauses'. Troll and defender of SCC and Amey - Are you being paid to do this on this forum? I suppose a far better question is why are you defending Amey? Why are you defending SCC?

(a) You did not mention a quick look on the website. You lied. (b) Proved me wrong how? You lied. © I am not offended by your posts just that you tell lies. (d) You fill your boots with the redacted contract - and whilst your at it ask why it is only specific parts (and they are partly redacted anyway) you can't view the entire contract. You have been shown to be a defender of SCC and Amey over several weeks of posting. You are incapable of proving that which you seek to prove. When challenged you seek to divert by wanting to know why posters don't ask other posters. A troll if ever there was one. When you get a look at the contract let us all know.

So you are lying then about looking at the contract this week. You are a troll.

Do you actually have access to this contract or is that more smoke and mirrors? You assert that you will have a look this week - If that is an honest statement you either work for Amey or SCC - and posting on here what you have read I would imagine you will be in breach of the confidentiality agreement - or even the terms of your employment. If you work in the legal dept of SCC it wiould explain a lot.

You really can't help yourself. It is plain your not a lawyer but thanks for clearing that up - maybe stop pretending to be one. Your wholly disingenuous approach to this issue is really quite bizarre. I know plenty of people who will argue black is white - but they are lawyers and usually paid to argue on behalf of one side or another - whats your excuse. Please explain how your assertion that the issue as to penalty clauses was "established in this thread" - you won't be able to do it because the view of a poster on here establishes nothing. How can respond to cyclone by telling him there are no penalty clauses - when you don't know because you haven't read the contract. Stop making assertions about which you have no supporting evidence.

No I haven’t read the contract but someone who had stated there were no penalty clauses. Penalty clauses are generally unenforceable and it would be unlikely that they would be included. There may well be provision for damages of some kind. 1. You have not read the contract and have no factual / legal basis for the assertions you make but seem prepared to rely on someone who says they have. In what law school is that taught as a technique as to the interpretation of a contract? 2. You are not a lawyer yet seem additionally prepared to espouse opinion on the 'enforceability or otherwise of penalty clauses. 3. There may be provision for damages of some kind. (a) On whose analysis of the terms of the contract do you base that observation? It cant be yours so whose is it? (b) What kind of damages do you mean ? Financial or a years supply of wood?

There aren’t any penalty clauses - this was established on this same thread a while ago - funnily enough cyclone said there were - but there aren’t. Unless you have read the contract - all of it - and been qualified to understand the implications and recognise a clause containing some 'penalty' - how can you possibly assert this as fact? Direct question - have you read the contract ? A short yes or no would suffice. If you have not, then I would just leave this specific issue because you don't know what you are talking about and have no basis for making such bold statements as this contract has no such clauses.

Why is that funny?