|
Post by Peacock on Jul 5, 2008 23:35:30 GMT
Surely the old "der-der" tones were better. They were louder, so you could start to make way sooner. I thought the new (and varied) tones used these days were supposed to be more audible. Our local fire appliances have tremendous low frequency air horns fitted which nigh on shake the house foundations when they use them approaching the road junctions! Given the volume levels some people play their in car hi-fis at, it's debatable whether even these can be heard at times. The multi tonal sirens are more effective than the old stylr nee-nah ones. They work because the low freq notes are very audible but non-directional (you can hear it, but don't know where it is coming from) . To solve this they add the high pitched bit so you can tell where the noise is coming from.
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jul 6, 2008 13:50:41 GMT
I was in the car the other day, stereo not too loud and a fire engine was literally right on me before I even heard or saw it. Fully can see how people dont hear them.
Dont they use white noise as well so you can better hear them? Or is that ambulances?
|
|
Rich
Paul Adey
Go hard or go home
Posts: 6,691
|
Post by Rich on Jul 10, 2008 10:15:38 GMT
I was in the car the other day, stereo not too loud and a fire engine was literally right on me before I even heard or saw it. Fully can see how people dont hear them. Dont they use white noise as well so you can better hear them? Or is that ambulances? Thats because you drive round with your eyes closed I guess getting sent to court for speeding makes you check your mirrors more but I really cant understand how people can not see/hear them coming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 10:18:34 GMT
According to the star yesterday, the lad concerned claimed he was "bored" as an excuse! Time to make an example WTF give him 10 years in a young offenders institute , no early release
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jul 10, 2008 10:55:32 GMT
Where I work one of the main excuses is the kids are neglected, oh kiss my....
|
|
|
Post by blackandgold73 on Jul 21, 2008 19:44:43 GMT
Case has come to court: He got a 3-year ASBO. The judge complained it wasn't in his power to jail the offender (though he wanted to) because he was under 18: Judge's fury as hoax call teen walks freeA TEEN who made a hoax 999 call to the fire service which led to the death of a Sheffield mother-of-two has walked free from court after a judge said he didn't have the power to jail him. Ian Paterson, aged 17, was slapped with a three year antisocial behaviour order because of age but was told had he been two months older he would have faced a jail term. full story
|
|
|
Post by ottawa on Jul 21, 2008 20:17:43 GMT
My brother in law works in a emergency call centre, & some of the stories he tells me about hoax calls are both shocking & unbelieveable. The latest one was for some people that wanted the number of a Pizza delivery service. Working @ the QMC, it used to be a regular thing for people to fake injuries, just so they could get a ride to the QMC in an ambulance. The doors to the ambulance would open, & they'd sprint off home - simply coz they couldn't/wouldn't pay for a taxi/bus fare. The people in my bro-in-laws call centre will now see a MASSIVE rise on hoax calls, now that the kids have broken up. With call boxes slowly fading away from our streets - it's easier to put a CCTV camera on them & hopefully this will deter the little gits.
|
|
|
Post by ottawa on Jul 21, 2008 20:25:12 GMT
Case has come to court: He got a 3-year ASBO. The judge complained it wasn't in his power to jail the offender (though he wanted to) because he was under 18: Judge's fury as hoax call teen walks freeA TEEN who made a hoax 999 call to the fire service which led to the death of a Sheffield mother-of-two has walked free from court after a judge said he didn't have the power to jail him. Ian Paterson, aged 17, was slapped with a three year antisocial behaviour order because of age but was told had he been two months older he would have faced a jail term. full storyThat's outrageous - the law in this country is officially an ass. We wonder why we seemingly have a constant decline in behaviour & standards in this country - waaaaaaaaay to go in sorting them out. Those in charge should be ashamed. He'll still be getting his Giro, housing benefit & every other benefit going. I'd withdraw his right to them all & the right to NHS treatment. This country is a laughing stock.
|
|
oldman
Simon Hunt
The World is full of experts
Posts: 1,111
|
Post by oldman on Jul 21, 2008 20:28:33 GMT
mind you he did name him, how often do we get so an so scumbag cannot be named because of their age , especially lately with the stabbings in london!
|
|
sunbeam
David Clarke
The Panthers don't do league titles. Not even Carlsberg can manage that!
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by sunbeam on Jul 22, 2008 12:41:11 GMT
Hoax calls, generally prosecuted under the Telecommunications legislation, carry a maximum of 6 months imprisonment for an adult. A 17 year old would be dealt with in the Youth Court, and the sentence depends on a variety of criteria, but a Detention and Training Order is a possibility. A prosecution for murder is out of the question. A successful prosecution for manslaughter is, in my view, unlikely. Manslaughter can be committed in a number of ways; "Illegal Act" manslaughter requires the death to be a result of the illegal act, and the unlawful act must be one which "all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to, at least the risk of some harm resulting therefrom...". I think the word "inevitable" scuppers a prosecution for manslaughter. There is a clear break in the chain of causation as well. More serious cases of hoax calls can be prosecuted as being a public nuisance, which carries much longer sentences. Research suggests there are some 75000 hoax calls per annum, so it is a big problem, but the consequences are rarely as extreme as in this case. I suppose a law could be introduced so that a hoax caller's sentence can be increased if it can be shown to have caused harm. The most common harm would be if it can be shown that an emergency vehicle was delayed because it was elsewhere dealing with a hoax call. If the Daily Mail calls for a law change you can expect Mr Brown's government to announce something fast.............. ....... and then announce it again 6 months later................. ................ and then do a U-turn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2008 15:45:59 GMT
Case has come to court: He got a 3-year ASBO. The judge complained it wasn't in his power to jail the offender (though he wanted to) because he was under 18: Judge's fury as hoax call teen walks freeA TEEN who made a hoax 999 call to the fire service which led to the death of a Sheffield mother-of-two has walked free from court after a judge said he didn't have the power to jail him. Ian Paterson, aged 17, was slapped with a three year antisocial behaviour order because of age but was told had he been two months older he would have faced a jail term. full storyThat's outrageous - the law in this country is officially an ass. We wonder why we seemingly have a constant decline in behaviour & standards in this country - waaaaaaaaay to go in sorting them out. Those in charge should be ashamed. He'll still be getting his Giro, housing benefit & every other benefit going. I'd withdraw his right to them all & the right to NHS treatment. This country is a laughing stock. All the decent people should make a effort to move away from this country and make a better life for ourselves somewhere else, then we should put a huge wall up around the coast and turn this place into a massive prison (a la Escape from New York) and leave the scum to rot in it. Otherwise, we are just going to be taxed to high heaven every which way we turn paying for the dreggs of humaity to continue sitting on their AR$E drinking, smoking and watching Jeremy Kyle to see their relatives on it as we try to make a decent life for ourselves................ oh, wait hang on a minute
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jul 22, 2008 18:44:54 GMT
In regards to having shown it caused harm... youve got to have the chain of causibility.
Im not in any way defending his actions but to put it in place for one offence opens the gates and precendent to many thousands of other possibilities meaning you get the nanny state where you can move for fear of being sued/jailed.
In this case you can argue the chain of causibility was broken when the car or fire engine ran a red light or whichever and killedthat poor woman. Whichever way you argue it, it would be nigh on impossible to say he intended to harm someone when he made that call.
Unfortunately judges dont have much in the way of discretionary powers for the fear of setting bad precedent which can take a helluvva long time to over turn.
(in this example, Police respond to a burglar alarm going off at a shop, it turns out to a be false alarm but they killed someone crossing the street on the way there, the shop keeper was negligent i nthat he knew the alarm was faulty but should he punished for the person killed? If you convicted this guy for the murder or death of the young woman here you would HAVE to say yes)
Im not saying I agree with it, not one bit.... just what I remember from Law classes!
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Jul 22, 2008 19:30:07 GMT
I think the judge has been very clever here actualy. Make no mistake, by lifting ALL reporting restrictions which is very unusual he has virtualy guaranteed that this scumbag has a bloody good hiding coming....
|
|
|
Post by kilner on Jul 22, 2008 20:12:58 GMT
Whichever way you argue it, it would be nigh on impossible to say he intended to harm someone when he made that call. That dont mean jack. Whether he intended for someone to get hurt or not, his actions resulted in someone being killed, even if he didnt mean for it to happen. That alone is manslaughter and therefore should recieve the correct punishment. The fact that he got a 3 year long asbo is diabolical.
|
|
Rich
Paul Adey
Go hard or go home
Posts: 6,691
|
Post by Rich on Jul 23, 2008 9:25:17 GMT
I think the judge has been very clever here actualy. Make no mistake, by lifting ALL reporting restrictions which is very unusual he has virtualy guaranteed that this scumbag has a bloody good hiding coming.... That was my first thought! For those who havnt seen the junction, if you knew where it was you would see why they didnt see each other. There is a big hedge in the way so naturally if your lights turn to green you just go and it would be difficult to see anything coming down the main road so I take it all back about her missing the lights etc
|
|
|
Post by buster on Jul 23, 2008 9:50:35 GMT
yeah, i drive past the junction on the way home from the stix, surely wouldnt this prompt the council to do something about visibility there?
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jul 23, 2008 11:01:26 GMT
Whichever way you argue it, it would be nigh on impossible to say he intended to harm someone when he made that call. That dont mean jack. Whether he intended for someone to get hurt or not, his actions resulted in someone being killed, even if he didnt mean for it to happen. That alone is manslaughter and therefore should recieve the correct punishment. The fact that he got a 3 year long asbo is diabolical. Yes it does..... its not manslaughter for the reasons I stated. There is no way he could have predicted his stupid prank call would have done this.... thats not my opinion... that is how the law of the land actually works. As you would have found out if you had actually read my post instead of cherry picking one single sentence to reply to. I didnt say it was right, and I also posted WHY judges cant be discretionary, even in cases like this. Theres not much more I could put really to explain it.... As for the junction.... I know the one visibility is BAD to say the least, I fully see why she didnt/couldnt see it and viser versa
|
|
|
Post by kilner on Jul 23, 2008 13:13:43 GMT
manslaughter the unlawful killing of a human being without malice
As you said, (and i agree with), he wasn't to know that what he was doing was going to kill someone. But his actions did result in someone getting killed.
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Jul 23, 2008 13:20:42 GMT
As far as I can tell the Stir article doesn't actually say what the lad was found guilty of. Have I missed something? Was it reported anywhere else?
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Jul 23, 2008 13:21:28 GMT
manslaughter the unlawful killing of a human being without maliceAs you said, (and i agree with), he wasn't to know that what he was doing was going to kill someone. But his actions did result in someone getting killed. I think you're missing the point. Have a read of Rumpole's post on page 2 for a clearer explanation.
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jul 23, 2008 13:39:18 GMT
manslaughter the unlawful killing of a human being without maliceAs you said, (and i agree with), he wasn't to know that what he was doing was going to kill someone. But his actions did result in someone getting killed. I think you're missing the point. Have a read of Rumpole's post on page 2 for a clearer explanation. agreed. The legal definition is much more in depth than that. Like I mentioned the chain of causibility. He did not actually kill the woman, it could be argued that the driver of the fire engine unlawfully killed her, breaking the chain of causibility in whatever way.
|
|
|
Post by kilner on Jul 23, 2008 14:44:29 GMT
Ok then, say the fire engine driver wasn't found guilty of dangerous driving and everything was above board where he (or she) was concerned. Wouldn't this surely 'cancel out' any chain of causation or what ever it is you keep harping on about?
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jul 23, 2008 15:06:11 GMT
In short.... no.
Im not arguing for the sake of arguing. Im not saying I disagree that this guy is ultimately responsible for her death. People are asking (or saying) the guy should be held for manslaughter. I am saying why that isnt the case.
|
|
|
Post by kilner on Jul 23, 2008 15:21:24 GMT
In short.... no. Im not arguing for the sake of arguing. Im not saying I disagree that this guy is ultimately responsible for her death. People are asking (or saying) the guy should be held for manslaughter. I am saying why that isnt the case. Fair enough. Do you believe hes recieved the correct punishment? (no particular reason why im asking, just curious thats all).
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jul 23, 2008 16:02:00 GMT
No, not at all. I think judges should have much greater discrestionary powers to jail people in cases like this. This kid really didnt realise the gravity of what he was doing but even so it was pretty stupid and making an example of him would serve as a deterrant to others. (weather or not you say jail should be a deterrant or a way of keeping scum off the streets is a different argument ) The reason they dont is like I said, they cant been seen to set bad precedent. (bad in the sense of the law, morals aside)
|
|