Crap driving
First let me thank W. who took the trouble to comment on my previous post in which I posted a question concerning Telephone Etiquette. All comments, including those telling me to get a life are welcome. I'll still think I'm right, but your comments are welcome.
Apart from the Sudden Death By Dangerous Animal of Steve Irwin who was Australia's real life Crocodile Hunter the news here has been dominated today by Iraq, Israel, the murder of one Brit in Jordan, the start of the new school year under the new Good Food regimen and the release of a pugilistic has-been called (Prince) Something Or Other.
Now Steve Irwin did not rise to prominence until after I left home; and when I finally, accidentally stumbled across him I was quite horrified by the way in which (a) he was being given airtime and (b) he was being embraced by the Poms about me as the epitome of an Australian. Sorry, but whatever Irwin's credentials as a wild life conservator and custodian he was also several parts show-man with his eye on the main chance and for any opportunity for commercial exploitation. He got that, as much as his taste for and talent with animals, from his parents.
He was swimming with an animal that does have a track record for inflicting fatal wounds; not a long rap sheet, but a rap sheet all the same. Suggestions are already being made that link Irwin's notorious buffoonery with his proximity with this animal and drawing the inevitable conclusion. On the other hand Steve Irwin has died leaving behind a wife and young children and my sympathies are with them tonight.
Early today I had to endure a visit by the local radio station I to a grammar school somewhere oop noth and pompous Year 12s attempts to argue that because they're so much older they can safely consume deep fried foods and soft drinks (and other forms of gastronomic crap) every school day of the year ... and even if they can't then what about freedom of choice?
What happened to 'sit down and eat what's on your plate'? The French don't get everything right, but every day of the school year French students taking a school midday meal eat from a set menu that is chosen by their parents and not by a school board, a local government committee or worst of all some commercial organisation brought in to cut costs. The French spend four times what the Brits do on food for their children.
As a result their children don't eat economy sausages and burgers made from mechanically covered meat and God alone knows what else. The accompaniments don't come out of a freezer or a can or a deep fryer. Nor are they boiled to buggery during preparation. And if Mademoiselle doesn't like it, she can lump it. They don't get a choice but then they're not being offered a choice of Crap.
Right now over the airwaves a tide of agitation at the 'early' release of this pugilist is flooding. Fact though is he's being released in accordance with the sentencing guidelines which quite properly take no account of the fact that he's a clapped out, gaudy, ostentatious, exhibitionist twat of the highest order.
They also take no account of the fact that when his '£One Third of A Million' high performance sports vehicle, being driven in excess of the speed limit and in which the driver (The Twat) was attempting a highly illegal as well has highly inadvisable manoeuvre collided with the bog standard, run of the mill and thoroughly ordinary vehicle travelling in the opposite direction every major bone in the body of the driver of the on-coming car was broken. He will never be the same man again. He will always be in pain. He will never be properly mobile. He will live with what happened every moment of his life. It will never go away.
So what is the appropriate punishment for such an act? The answer to that question hinges, as it happens, on the answer to another question which is 'what sort of act did he (The Twat) actually commit? Is this a case of reckless driving or driving without due care and attention? Or is this rather a case of dangerous driving?
The law takes no account of consequences in determining the act and therefore the offence and the sentencing guidelines to be followed if a conviction is secured.
I was struck some years ago by an something said in an early episode of The West Wing. A young gay kid was killed and CJ was all gung ho for using the murder as a platform for a Hate Crimes bill. Others within the administration were wary of such a course on the grounds that it smacked of (and I can't remember precisely how it as put) legislating against thought. In other words it didn't matter why, it only matter that it had happened and who 'dunnit'.
Those who believe The Twat should still be behind bars can safely be ignored since they clearly have no understanding of the sentencing guidelines which in fact caution against early release of prominent prisoners. In otherwords it is more difficult rather than easier for a 'celebrity' to secure early release.
But the bigger problem is with those who believe that just because The Twat severely disabled someone he should be locked up for years and years and never be allowed to drive again. The Twat is actually guilty of driving too fast and attempting an overtaking manoeuvre on a stretch of road whereon said manoeuvre was either reckless or dangerous. And that's it.
Except it isn't. Because the Twat has form. The Twat's lost his driving licence previously for driving in a manner that contravened the laws which govern driving. He's been punished previously for excessive speed. If he hadn't acquired an appreciation through those convictions of the basis for the law then is he not too stupid to drive?
Let us explore an hypothetical Twat who likes to show off with a knife rather than a car. He performs stunts with his knife for his mates and a wider audience though there are laws covering concealed weapons and specifically knives. He's punished for being caught with the knife and warned that it is something with which he could hurt someone, that it is by definition, a dangerous object; perfect when used for the purpose for which it was intended but potentially lethal.
He subsequently in performing a knife stunt misjudges things and wounds someone seriously. Is this nothing more than careless / reckless knife-stunt-performing, or even dangerous-knife-stunt-performing?
To make the analogy clearer (and for the purposes of my argument) it might be better to presuppose that the driver and the knife stunt victim die. Is this an accidental death, is this death by misadventure? Or is the wielder of the knife/car somehow culpable? If so, of what? And does sure knowledge that the wielder was aware of the potential consequences of his actions as well as their specific illegality a significant factor in determining what happened, as opposed to what consequences should flow from the actions? And should that have any bearing on the sentence imposed upon conviction?
All this is too tortuous for talk back radio, of course.
Those clamouring for Hamed's longer term incarceration over look the fact as observed earlier that all he did was what countless Brits do every day of the year, albeit in slightly posher car.
Not one of them has had the good grace to add "there, but for the grace of God", to the clarion call that Something Must Be Done.
Not one of them has recognised that only when the common and garden domestic motor vehicle is recognised in law as a lethal weapon will the punishment fit the crime this tawdry ex-boxer is perceived to have committed.
Apart from the Sudden Death By Dangerous Animal of Steve Irwin who was Australia's real life Crocodile Hunter the news here has been dominated today by Iraq, Israel, the murder of one Brit in Jordan, the start of the new school year under the new Good Food regimen and the release of a pugilistic has-been called (Prince) Something Or Other.
Now Steve Irwin did not rise to prominence until after I left home; and when I finally, accidentally stumbled across him I was quite horrified by the way in which (a) he was being given airtime and (b) he was being embraced by the Poms about me as the epitome of an Australian. Sorry, but whatever Irwin's credentials as a wild life conservator and custodian he was also several parts show-man with his eye on the main chance and for any opportunity for commercial exploitation. He got that, as much as his taste for and talent with animals, from his parents.
He was swimming with an animal that does have a track record for inflicting fatal wounds; not a long rap sheet, but a rap sheet all the same. Suggestions are already being made that link Irwin's notorious buffoonery with his proximity with this animal and drawing the inevitable conclusion. On the other hand Steve Irwin has died leaving behind a wife and young children and my sympathies are with them tonight.
Early today I had to endure a visit by the local radio station I to a grammar school somewhere oop noth and pompous Year 12s attempts to argue that because they're so much older they can safely consume deep fried foods and soft drinks (and other forms of gastronomic crap) every school day of the year ... and even if they can't then what about freedom of choice?
What happened to 'sit down and eat what's on your plate'? The French don't get everything right, but every day of the school year French students taking a school midday meal eat from a set menu that is chosen by their parents and not by a school board, a local government committee or worst of all some commercial organisation brought in to cut costs. The French spend four times what the Brits do on food for their children.
As a result their children don't eat economy sausages and burgers made from mechanically covered meat and God alone knows what else. The accompaniments don't come out of a freezer or a can or a deep fryer. Nor are they boiled to buggery during preparation. And if Mademoiselle doesn't like it, she can lump it. They don't get a choice but then they're not being offered a choice of Crap.
Right now over the airwaves a tide of agitation at the 'early' release of this pugilist is flooding. Fact though is he's being released in accordance with the sentencing guidelines which quite properly take no account of the fact that he's a clapped out, gaudy, ostentatious, exhibitionist twat of the highest order.
They also take no account of the fact that when his '£One Third of A Million' high performance sports vehicle, being driven in excess of the speed limit and in which the driver (The Twat) was attempting a highly illegal as well has highly inadvisable manoeuvre collided with the bog standard, run of the mill and thoroughly ordinary vehicle travelling in the opposite direction every major bone in the body of the driver of the on-coming car was broken. He will never be the same man again. He will always be in pain. He will never be properly mobile. He will live with what happened every moment of his life. It will never go away.
So what is the appropriate punishment for such an act? The answer to that question hinges, as it happens, on the answer to another question which is 'what sort of act did he (The Twat) actually commit? Is this a case of reckless driving or driving without due care and attention? Or is this rather a case of dangerous driving?
The law takes no account of consequences in determining the act and therefore the offence and the sentencing guidelines to be followed if a conviction is secured.
I was struck some years ago by an something said in an early episode of The West Wing. A young gay kid was killed and CJ was all gung ho for using the murder as a platform for a Hate Crimes bill. Others within the administration were wary of such a course on the grounds that it smacked of (and I can't remember precisely how it as put) legislating against thought. In other words it didn't matter why, it only matter that it had happened and who 'dunnit'.
Those who believe The Twat should still be behind bars can safely be ignored since they clearly have no understanding of the sentencing guidelines which in fact caution against early release of prominent prisoners. In otherwords it is more difficult rather than easier for a 'celebrity' to secure early release.
But the bigger problem is with those who believe that just because The Twat severely disabled someone he should be locked up for years and years and never be allowed to drive again. The Twat is actually guilty of driving too fast and attempting an overtaking manoeuvre on a stretch of road whereon said manoeuvre was either reckless or dangerous. And that's it.
Except it isn't. Because the Twat has form. The Twat's lost his driving licence previously for driving in a manner that contravened the laws which govern driving. He's been punished previously for excessive speed. If he hadn't acquired an appreciation through those convictions of the basis for the law then is he not too stupid to drive?
Let us explore an hypothetical Twat who likes to show off with a knife rather than a car. He performs stunts with his knife for his mates and a wider audience though there are laws covering concealed weapons and specifically knives. He's punished for being caught with the knife and warned that it is something with which he could hurt someone, that it is by definition, a dangerous object; perfect when used for the purpose for which it was intended but potentially lethal.
He subsequently in performing a knife stunt misjudges things and wounds someone seriously. Is this nothing more than careless / reckless knife-stunt-performing, or even dangerous-knife-stunt-performing?
To make the analogy clearer (and for the purposes of my argument) it might be better to presuppose that the driver and the knife stunt victim die. Is this an accidental death, is this death by misadventure? Or is the wielder of the knife/car somehow culpable? If so, of what? And does sure knowledge that the wielder was aware of the potential consequences of his actions as well as their specific illegality a significant factor in determining what happened, as opposed to what consequences should flow from the actions? And should that have any bearing on the sentence imposed upon conviction?
All this is too tortuous for talk back radio, of course.
Those clamouring for Hamed's longer term incarceration over look the fact as observed earlier that all he did was what countless Brits do every day of the year, albeit in slightly posher car.
Not one of them has had the good grace to add "there, but for the grace of God", to the clarion call that Something Must Be Done.
Not one of them has recognised that only when the common and garden domestic motor vehicle is recognised in law as a lethal weapon will the punishment fit the crime this tawdry ex-boxer is perceived to have committed.
posted by Enyo @ 10:27 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home