[Politics] Just 4.5 years in prison for killing 2 boys by drug driving

[Weststander]

Rupert Brown from Coventry, with 30 previous driving convictions, wiped out the lives of brothers age 2 and 6. He was driving at 60 in a 30 zone, was high on cocaine and drove off after the killings.

With good behaviour he'll be out in 4 and a half years.

Way too short in my opinion, based on all the above. An utter selfish scummer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43926623

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Up to the 'Family' members to make sure he has a motoring accident the day he gets out.

Personally I would make sure he wouldn't live to a ripe old age

The Judge should be retired in disgrace.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Just shows you how wrong the maximum sentences for driving offences are.

 

[Weststander]

Just shows you how wrong the maximum sentences for driving offences are.

Over time they'll probably get longer still, but too late for this piece of shit.

I hope this sentence gets referred for being unduly lenient.

 

[raymondo]

This type of lenient sentencing just disgusts me. Given his record we all know he'll do the same or similar the week he gets out. The only way to prevent him would be to lock him away for life.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I posted on this on the other drink driving thread. So how many times can you get done for driving offences with never having passed your test or been insured before they lock you away and throw away the key? More than 30 it would appear.

You can moan about law breaking till you are blue in the face but there seems to be a special thing going on for drivers. They have a licence to kill that would enfanchise every reject as James Bond's successor. Get behind the wheel and they will let you do offence after offence and only after you kill some kids will you get a moderate gaol term.

Rob a bank, however and you get 25 years.

It is plain and simply wrong, and the government don't see enough votes in it to bother with changing the law.

After all, 'we all speed and sometimes drive after drinking, don't we? Make it tough for the nutters and we all suffer'.

FFS.

 

[Weststander]

I posted on this on the other drink driving thread. So how many times can you get done for driving offences with never having passed your test or been insured before they lock you away and throw away the key? More than 30 it would appear.

You can moan about law breaking till you are blue in the face but there seems to be a special thing going on for drivers. They have a licence to kill that would enfanchise every reject as James Bond's successor. Get behind the wheel and they will let you do offence after offence and only after you kill some kids will you get a moderate gaol term.

Rob a bank, however and you get 25 years.

It is pain and simlply wrong, and the gvernment don't see enough votes in it to bother with changing the law.

After all, 'we all speed and sometimes drive after drinking, don't we? Make it tough for the nutters and we all suffer'.

FFS.

It's always been the way. There seems an inherent perception separating the weapon (the vehicle) from the person driving it, making it in law not as bad as other means of snuffing out innocent lives. In addition, because literally anyone as a one-off could be the perpetrator ranging from a judge, MP, GP, celeb etc; lawmakers and some NSC posters deem it harsh to put someone behind bars for a very long time for ONLY causing death through their driving.

 

[raymondo]

I posted on this on the other drink driving thread. So how many times can you get done for driving offences with never having passed your test or been insured before they lock you away and throw away the key? More than 30 it would appear.

You can moan about law breaking till you are blue in the face but there seems to be a special thing going on for drivers. They have a licence to kill that would enfanchise every reject as James Bond's successor. Get behind the wheel and they will let you do offence after offence and only after you kill some kids will you get a moderate gaol term.

Rob a bank, however and you get 25 years.

It is pain and simlply wrong, and the gvernment don't see enough votes in it to bother with changing the law.

After all, 'we all speed and sometimes drive after drinking, don't we? Make it tough for the nutters and we all suffer'.

FFS.

Yes its just dumb. And the woman caught speeding and swerving by her own dash cam whilst drunk (on the news this a.m.) got errr banned for 2 years I think?? Ban her for life or lock her up for a couple of years. I know she didnt kill anyone but FFS what deterrent is a little 2 year ban?
Oh yeah and loads of offenders even escape a ban because they need their car to get to work. Oh for goodness sake, i wish this country would get serious about the safety and the rights of the law abiding citizens for a change.

 

[Brian Parsons]

As usual the punishment fails dismally to fit the offence. Until this or future Governments build extra prisons so that there are cells that can be occupied for longer sentences. This individual is a serial offender who has no respect for the law and those that enforce it. It's a shame that science can't come up with an implant that activates when a person starts up a car, make them vomit all over the dash for example. A bit sci fi I know.


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[A mex eyecan]

just mind blowing, two little kids wiped out by a repeat offending low life, who by his actions demonstrates he has absolutely not a smidgen of thought for anyone apart from himself.

Kill himself while driving ? well that's up to him, but it never seems to work that way does it, it's always always some innocent that pays the price for scum like him.

 

[Gwylan]

The Judge should be retired in disgrace.

Not sure what you think the judge has done wrong. The maximum sentence is ten years but the bloke pleaded guilty so he'll get a reduction for that (if judges don't give a reduction for guilty pleas, no-one will do it and the courts will get massively clogged up). He only took a year off the sentence, so the guy has pretty much got the full works.

The real problem is the ludicrously light sentences for driving offences but any attempts to do anything about will get the likes of the Mail talking about "war on motorists" - so, nothing happens.

 

[Pevenseagull]

**** should die in a shit prison.

 

[Weststander]

Yes its just dumb. And the woman caught speeding and swerving by her own dash cam whilst drunk (on the news this a.m.) got errr banned for 2 years I think?? Ban her for life or lock her up for a couple of years. I know she didnt kill anyone but FFS what deterrent is a little 2 year ban?
Oh yeah and loads of offenders even escape a ban because they need their car to get to work. Oh for goodness sake, i wish this country would get serious about the safety and the rights of the law abiding citizens for a change.

The getting to work let-off for those on 12 or more points, given by magistates to 10,000 drivers on UK roads is astoniishing. One driver is on 62 points.

There should be no leeway. If points were accumulated quickly, hard lines. Mandatory bans would be sharp lesson, and for those who would then continue to drive whilst banned, more fool them with the criminal consequences.

There should

 

[martin tyler]

Disgusting act done by 2 disgusting people including his partner who was also sentenced today. Anyone taking a life no matter whose due to dangerous driving to this degree deserves to a much stronger sentence.
Not the judges fault today he gave the maximum sentence he could due to giving a third off for a guilty plea. However I feel they should be allowed some discretion at times not to give the 3rd off. Even 14 years is not long enough for this man.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

What do you expect with this shithouse govenment

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

Not sure what you think the judge has done wrong. The maximum sentence is ten years but the bloke pleaded guilty so he'll get a reduction for that (if judges don't give a reduction for guilty pleas, no-one will do it and the courts will get massively clogged up). He only took a year off the sentence, so the guy has pretty much got the full works.

The real problem is the ludicrously light sentences for driving offences but any attempts to do anything about will get the likes of the Mail talking about "war on motorists" - so, nothing happens.

The maximum for this offence alone is 14 years, let alone his other fresh offences including the hit n run.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Not sure what you think the judge has done wrong. The maximum sentence is ten years but the bloke pleaded guilty so he'll get a reduction for that (if judges don't give a reduction for guilty pleas, no-one will do it and the courts will get massively clogged up). He only took a year off the sentence, so the guy has pretty much got the full works.

The real problem is the ludicrously light sentences for driving offences but any attempts to do anything about will get the likes of the Mail talking about "war on motorists" - so, nothing happens.

Gwylan you are the reason why this shit happens.

GET A FECKING GRIP he will serve 4 1/2 years

 

[GT49er]

He has committed several offences - dangerous driving, death by dangerous driving, driving (apparently) without insurance, etc, drug driving - and I'm sure the PPS could have had a go at manslaughter if they'd really wanted to. All of these have maximum sentences - I don't know what they are, but I can't remember the last time I've read about a judge awarding them consecutively, instead of concurrently, which basically means you get off the lesser offences.

 

[Weststander]

He has committed several offences - dangerous driving, death by dangerous driving, driving (apparently) without insurance, etc, drug driving - and I'm sure the PPS could have had a go at manslaughter if they'd really wanted to. All of these have maximum sentences - I don't know what they are, but I can't remember the last time I've read about a judge awarding them consecutively, instead of concurrently, which basically means you get off the lesser offences.

Very rare. Whereas the yanks do sentencing consecutively.

I assume it's a means in the UK to get offenders to confess to all their crimes and to give lovely blokes such as Rupert Brown light at the end of an all-too-short tunnel in prison, so that he comes out prompto a reformed character. A fantasy.

 

[happypig]

Yes its just dumb. And the woman caught speeding and swerving by her own dash cam whilst drunk (on the news this a.m.) got errr banned for 2 years I think?? Ban her for life or lock her up for a couple of years. I know she didnt kill anyone but FFS what deterrent is a little 2 year ban?
Oh yeah and loads of offenders even escape a ban because they need their car to get to work. Oh for goodness sake, i wish this country would get serious about the safety and the rights of the law abiding citizens for a change.

You will not get off a drink driving disqualification because you need the car for work; losing your job because of a disqualification is NOT considered exceptional hardship in itself, it's an unfortunate consequence of your actions.

He has committed several offences - dangerous driving, death by dangerous driving, driving (apparently) without insurance, etc, drug driving - and I'm sure the PPS could have had a go at manslaughter if they'd really wanted to. All of these have maximum sentences - I don't know what they are, but I can't remember the last time I've read about a judge awarding them consecutively, instead of concurrently, which basically means you get off the lesser offences.

Concurrent sentences are usually awarded when the offences are all committed at the same time ; If, for example, someone was sentenced for crimes committed on two separate occasions then consecutive sentences are possible.