Bitch should have got life....

[clippedgull]

She will be out well before her sentence finishes, I think a life ban from driving is in order too.



A teenage driver who caused the death of a woman in a crash as she sent a mobile phone text message has been sent to a young offenders' institute.

Rachel Begg, 19, of Whinbank in Ponteland, admitted sending the message shortly before the collision on the A696, near Newcastle Airport.

Maureen Waites, 64, from Wellfield Road North in Wingate died in the crash.

Begg had earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving and received a four-year sentence.

She was also disqualified from driving for five years.

'Lives devastated'

Newcastle Crown Court heard that she had used her phone nine times during a 15-minute journey.

Her VW Golf collided with a Citroen driven by Mrs Waites who was on the way to pick up a relative from the airport.

Sgt Ian Dey, a motor patrol officer with Newcastle Area Command, said: "This crash has devastated the lives of two families and will have a major impact on them for the rest of their lives.

"One family has lost a much loved wife, mother and grandmother. The other has to face the consequences of a young woman spending four years in a young offenders' institute.

"Using your mobile while driving is inexcusable and those who do so are simply not appreciating the consequences of their actions.

He added that motorists should be aware that police carry out inquiries to see if a mobile was in use prior to a serious or fatal crash.

 

[Goodfella]

Too many people are doing the same thing day in day out, the law should be tougher with anyone caught using a mobile whilst driving.
I was walking home from work the other day and decided to count how many people were using their phones, during a 1 mile walk an incredible 14 people were flouting the law.

f***ing disgrace i say.

 

[GUNTER]

Should certainly be a tougher penalty to deter people but at the end of the day, it was a tragic accident.

 

[The Large One]

I'm not generally one of the 'hang em and flog em' brigade, but use of mobile phones while driving sends me f***ing spare. As for texting while driving - how f***ing stupidly dense is this fuckwit?

Some legal expert on here please tell me how this could not be perceived as manslaughter, maybe even on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and if so, why only four years inside?

An accident, maybe, but a totally avoidable one.

 

[British Bulldog]

I've got no problem with the ban on using mobile's while driving, But when are they going to do something about people fiddling with the settings on their sat-navs while their driving? or are they gonna wait until everybody's got one ( like mobile phones ) before they decide when you can and cant use them?

 

[Spunk Bubble]

They should be banned from driving for at least 10 years just for using one !!. It f*cking winds me up that people are more concerned about the smoking ban.

 

[Stevie Boy]

4 years inside and a 5 year ban,

 

[Robot Chicken]

Just saw a bloke using a mobile phone while he was driving alongside me.

What are we supposed to do with people like that?? Report them??

 

[readingstockport]

Should certainly be a tougher penalty to deter people but at the end of the day, it was a tragic accident.

No it f***ing wasn't. It was a silly cow who use her sodding phone 9 times in 15 minutes while driving. That's not a f***ing accident, it gross negligence and pig-headed stupidity.

No-one, NO_ONE, has a social or business life so busy that they need to use their mobile phone 9 times in 15 minutes while driving.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

She is a nineteen year old girl, with no sense of context and consequence. and brought up thinking that texting is a function of life. If it was your daughter you would see it differently. End of.

 

[Frank Inkerman]

She is a nineteen year old girl, with no sense of context and consequence. and brought up thinking that texting is a function of life. If it was your daughter you would see it differently. End of.

I understand your point but if it was my daughter I would be utterly ashamed of her - because she should have a sense of context & consequence based on the way that I bought her up - and I would be very relieved that she only got a minimal punishment.
Now if the dead person had been my wife or my mum ..................

 

[British Bulldog]

She is a nineteen year old girl, with no sense of context and consequence. and brought up thinking that texting is a function of life. If it was your daughter you would see it differently. End of.

Same as lots of things in this country they advertise and advertise until they get you hooked, Then when there's enough people hooked they make more money out of you when they start banning it.

 

[dougdeep]

I thought young offenders were under 18's.

 

[NMH]

She is a nineteen year old girl, with no sense of context and consequence. and brought up thinking that texting is a function of life. If it was your daughter you would see it differently. End of.

She wants her head kicking in. End of

 

[British Bulldog]

She wants her head kicking in. End of

Why not just stone her to death and have done with it?

 

[Rangdo]

She is a nineteen year old girl, with no sense of context and consequence. and brought up thinking that texting is a function of life. If it was your daughter you would see it differently. End of.

How on earth could anyone consider not having a sense of context and consequence as any type of explanation or excuse She's nineteen not five.

 

[Frank Inkerman]

How on earth could anyone consider not having a sense of context and consequence as any type of explanation or excuse She's nineteen not five.

 

[Robot Chicken]

She was texting a "male friend" so the various articles tell us. This is obviously vitally important.

 

[Albion Rob]

She was texting a "male friend" so the various articles tell us. This is obviously vitally important.

By the looks of her she would need to be keeping her man happy through texts because there's no way he could be that keen on her in the flesh.

In all seriousness though, the sentence looks about right. There's no way syhe intended to hurt anyone but what she did was incredivly negligent and criminal.

Also, if our justice system is about realisng what has gone wrong and looking to prevent it happening again then surely four years to think about what she did and five years ban means she'll be 28/29 by the time she is allowed to sit her (extended) driving test again and she should be a compltetly different person by then.

Won't bring someone's mother/grandma/aunt/sister back though, sadly.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Some legal expert on here please tell me how this could not be perceived as manslaughter, maybe even on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and if so, why only four years inside?

An accident, maybe, but a totally avoidable one.

Not exactly a legal expert, but I did A-level law ten years ago... manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility is what you get when there's been a murder, but the murderer was in some way "not of sound mind", or mentally ill.

To prove manslaughter in a driving case is VERY difficult and rarely happens... I think you'd have to prove that the girl drove into the other car and was grossly negligent as to whether the driver was seriously hurt. Sounds simple but, as in almost everything to do with the law, it ain't.