Suspended sentence for manslaughter?

This can't be interpreted as an 'accident'. It was gross negligence on the part of a stupid idiot HGV driver, who failed to see what numerous other car drivers had seen and avoided. No justice for the victim or her family.
When we get behind the wheel of a vehicle, we all accept the responsibilities that come with it.
This heartbreaking death was totally avoidable and may Shirley-Ann RIP
 
Firstly he wasn’t charged with or pleaded guilty to manslaughter, more fabricated nonsense from avftt🙁 secondly nobody knows the facts, it could well be she was driving a banger that should not have been on the motorway.
thirdly I could scroll the news today and find thousands more examples of shit justice before this case.
 
Blackpools finest said:
Firstly he wasn’t charged with or pleaded guilty to manslaughter, more fabricated nonsense from avftt🙁 secondly nobody knows the facts, it could well be she was driving a banger that should not have been on the motorway.
thirdly I could scroll the news today and find thousands more examples of shit justice before this case.
Click to expand...
See post#11
 
Blackpools finest said:
Firstly he wasn’t charged with or pleaded guilty to manslaughter, more fabricated nonsense from avftt🙁 secondly nobody knows the facts, it could well be she was driving a banger that should not have been on the motorway.
thirdly I could scroll the news today and find thousands more examples of shit justice before this case.
Click to expand...
Car was road worthy and in good working order - completely irrelevant to the bell end that wouldn’t have seen it even if it was a brand new car. He was t paying attention to the road, at least twenty cars had gone past the stationary car and seen it. With his previous, he should have served time.
 
AVFTT legal team in fine fettle as usual and wrong as usual. None of you guys were at the hearing and court reporting is always terrible. I know a fair few on here think a prison sentence is always the answer but it almost always isn't in cases like this. Had there been a reason to throw the book at this guy they'd have found it. A tragic case but no miscarriage of justice.
 
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes said:
Car was road worthy and in good working order - completely irrelevant to the bell end that wouldn’t have seen it even if it was a brand new car. He was t paying attention to the road, at least twenty cars had gone past the stationary car and seen it. With his previous, he should have served time.
Click to expand...
Yep.

'In 2016, he was seen by a police officer driving out of a petrol station without wearing a seatbelt. They motioned for him to stop but he failed to do so and a pursuit ensued where he went through a red light and reached speeds of 70mph on a 30mph road.

He was arrested after he failed to negotiate a roundabout and drove through the centre before crashing. He was later found to be over the legal drink drive limit.'
 
bill40 said:
AVFTT legal team in fine fettle as usual and wrong as usual. None of you guys were at the hearing and court reporting is always terrible. I know a fair few on here think a prison sentence is always the answer but it almost always isn't in cases like this. Had there been a reason to throw the book at this guy they'd have found it. A tragic case but no miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

Not helped by the OP claiming he'd been convicted of a far more serious offence than he really was.
 
I don’t really understand from this article where the car was when it was hit? Why wasn’t it on hard shoulder and why would you stay in the car on a busy motorway in rush hour?
 
Killingmesoftly said:
I don’t really understand from this article where the car was when it was hit? Why wasn’t it on hard shoulder and why would you stay in the car on a busy motorway in rush hour?
Click to expand...
Sounds like it was in this area. Nearside or offside you’re getting out very close to traffic.

CABD180D-760D-43D0-A1F0-BE09A67C55E8.jpeg
 
This is tragic accident. I don’t think a jail term was warranted. The driver didn’t do anything blatant. He wasn’t speeding. He wasn’t on his phone. He made a misjudgment of the circumstances.
People who break down on motorways are usually told to exit their vehicles because there is much history of such vehicles being struck into.
It’s due to an optical illusion where the stationery vehicle doesn’t immediately appear stationary.

The previous driving offences don’t seem pertinent. They would if say this was a drink drive accident and there’d been previous drink drive offences. But it isn’t.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top