|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 18, 2017 23:46:01 GMT
There is, but for some reason, someone at high level decided (with unseemly haste) not to. There was, not surprisingly, a lot of public outcry.
edit: sorry, should explain this is in response to Phil.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 19, 2017 7:38:38 GMT
(edited - as an example of self-moderation. Now, there ya go, Thunderboat is making me a better person ) (sorry guys, you will have to remove those 'likes') You can keep mine, your subsequent edit is worth a thumbs up anyway. Heh, heh, bfg removed his Putting your name down on my list, bfg.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Feb 19, 2017 15:21:39 GMT
Not only him, but also the Scottish legal bods who decided not to charge him with any crime after he mowed all those folk down having lied on his job application and kept his previous "medical events" secret from his new employers. I have to say I don't understand this. Whilst it may not be possible to prosecute for the driving, he did withhold information to gain employment which in England would be covered by the fraud act. I know Scottish law is different but I would have thought there is comparable legislation. If I remember correctly, the Crown Office announced that the driver would not be prosecuted within a couple of days of the accident, and before any information about previous blackouts had come to light (or at least before it had been released.) Bit of an unwise decision, IMO, and the aftermath shows how reluctant the legal profession is to admit it got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 19, 2017 22:18:25 GMT
There is, but for some reason, someone at high level decided (with unseemly haste) not to. There was, not surprisingly, a lot of public outcry. I suppose my essential point would be that 21st Century British justice cannot co-exist alongside a 1920s American-style lynch-mob mentality, and a thread titled "This prick wants a sound kicking" suggests the OP would not necessarily agree.
|
|