Taxi driver freed after killing Bournemouth University student

First published in News

A TAXI driver who killed a Bournemouth University student has walked free from court with a fine of just £35.

Tom Ridgway, 20, was carried on the bonnet of the taxi for 90 metres after he was struck as he cycled along a street in the suburbs of Birmingham.

Ichhapel Bhamra, 54, pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention and received three points on his licence. Prosecutor Malcolm Stoddart told Birmingham Magistrates Court how student Ridgway was flung onto the bonnet of the Toyota Previa.

The driver hurtled down the road for 90 metres after the collision, smashing into traffic signs and finally colliding with a tree.

Mr Ridgway was later taken to hospital, where he died shortly after.

His mother, who lives in Birmingham, said: “We miss Tom dreadfully. It’s ruined our lives and taken Tom’s. Family and friends miss him so badly – he was a special person.

“Neither the charge nor the sentence reflect the enormous tragedy of a young man’s death when he was simply cycling along next to the pavement.”

She said her son was popular at university and was a talented artist.

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:24pm Sat 19 Jan 13

paulthefish says...

what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night? paulthefish
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Sat 19 Jan 13

retry69 says...

The lack of comments would suggest most people are speechless and i dont know where to begin.No Justice,Rough Justice?????
The lack of comments would suggest most people are speechless and i dont know where to begin.No Justice,Rough Justice????? retry69
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Sat 19 Jan 13

mmmmmmm says...

The cheeky chappy who drove up Snowdon was jailed for 22 months..
The cheeky chappy who drove up Snowdon was jailed for 22 months.. mmmmmmm
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Sat 19 Jan 13

paulthefish says...

mmmmmmm wrote:
The cheeky chappy who drove up Snowdon was jailed for 22 months..
yes. and that is just one example of the corrupt judges in this country being out of touch with reality!!!!
[quote][p][bold]mmmmmmm[/bold] wrote: The cheeky chappy who drove up Snowdon was jailed for 22 months..[/p][/quote]yes. and that is just one example of the corrupt judges in this country being out of touch with reality!!!! paulthefish
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Mikeyunibournemouth says...

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
[quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion. Mikeyunibournemouth
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Ivan Opinion says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
whilst you would normally be entirely justified in your response - in this case I belive you have missed an important details in-so-far as guilt was admitted ( driving without due care). Clearly this is trajic - but of someone admits liability 3points and a negligable fine is quite literally a travesty of justice.
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]whilst you would normally be entirely justified in your response - in this case I belive you have missed an important details in-so-far as guilt was admitted ( driving without due care). Clearly this is trajic - but of someone admits liability 3points and a negligable fine is quite literally a travesty of justice. Ivan Opinion
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Sat 19 Jan 13

retry69 says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
The offender hurtled on for 90 m demolished traffic signs and ended up against a tree,sufficient evidence to show the offender was driving in a dangerous manner me thinks
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]The offender hurtled on for 90 m demolished traffic signs and ended up against a tree,sufficient evidence to show the offender was driving in a dangerous manner me thinks retry69
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Sat 19 Jan 13

monkeyville says...

Unbelievable verdict. You get 3 points & £60 fine for speeding.
Utterly speakless!
Unbelievable verdict. You get 3 points & £60 fine for speeding. Utterly speakless! monkeyville
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Sat 19 Jan 13

beachcomber1 says...

if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot? beachcomber1
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Ashley Miller says...

Disgusting verdict. It makes me feel ashamed to be a taxi driver but was the driver actually a Hackney Carriage driver as in Birmingham they have to be LTI black cabs & this guy was driving a saloon car which makes me think that he could well have been a Private Hire driver or even unlicensed.
Personally l think the latter as he seemed determined to drive away after the initial accident.
What are your thoughts? Sadly the media always tarnishes Private Hire & unlicensed cabs as TAXIS.
One day the media might just get it right!!!
Disgusting verdict. It makes me feel ashamed to be a taxi driver but was the driver actually a Hackney Carriage driver as in Birmingham they have to be LTI black cabs & this guy was driving a saloon car which makes me think that he could well have been a Private Hire driver or even unlicensed. Personally l think the latter as he seemed determined to drive away after the initial accident. What are your thoughts? Sadly the media always tarnishes Private Hire & unlicensed cabs as TAXIS. One day the media might just get it right!!! Ashley Miller
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Capricorn 1 says...

Firstly, I am so sorry for the family of this student, and having a daughter who is studying away from home cannot imagine what they are going through.

Secondly, how did it take 90 metres to stop, and then by hitting a tree?

I don't know what the speed limit was where this incident occurred was, neither do I know what speed the taxi was travellling at.

The Government website suggests that the total braking distance at 40mph is 36 metres and even at 60mph is 73 metres.

The driver was not charged with speeding, only undue care and attention.

The law surrounding such incidents needs to be reviewed.

Sorry if all this sounds too analytical but it's a disgrace that someone can cause so much misery and mayhem and walk away with such a pathetic 'punishment'.
Firstly, I am so sorry for the family of this student, and having a daughter who is studying away from home cannot imagine what they are going through. Secondly, how did it take 90 metres to stop, and then by hitting a tree? I don't know what the speed limit was where this incident occurred was, neither do I know what speed the taxi was travellling at. The Government website suggests that the total braking distance at 40mph is 36 metres and even at 60mph is 73 metres. The driver was not charged with speeding, only undue care and attention. The law surrounding such incidents needs to be reviewed. Sorry if all this sounds too analytical but it's a disgrace that someone can cause so much misery and mayhem and walk away with such a pathetic 'punishment'. Capricorn 1
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Sat 19 Jan 13

ShuttleX says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?
And that comment makes you a racist.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?[/p][/quote]And that comment makes you a racist. ShuttleX
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Sat 19 Jan 13

lelbel says...

well said beachcomber1
well said beachcomber1 lelbel
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Sat 19 Jan 13

paulthefish says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident? paulthefish
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Sat 19 Jan 13

paulthefish says...

paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
sorry. i read the story wrong. he did not carry the lad on his bonnet. however i still say it cannot be called an accident because it does not take that sort of distance to stop after hitting someone! it is death by dangerous driving by definition of the law.
[quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]sorry. i read the story wrong. he did not carry the lad on his bonnet. however i still say it cannot be called an accident because it does not take that sort of distance to stop after hitting someone! it is death by dangerous driving by definition of the law. paulthefish
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Sat 19 Jan 13

mike in florida says...

Ichhapel Bhamra
you are a disgrace to this country and your own
please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome
same apply s to those 7 from oxford
Ichhapel Bhamra you are a disgrace to this country and your own please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome same apply s to those 7 from oxford mike in florida
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Old Colonial says...

Here's the full article from Birmingham with more facts than the Echo seemed fit to print. Yes, he was carried on the bonnet for 90 metres. He handed in his taxi licence; oh good!

http://www.birmingha
mmail.co.uk/news/tax
i-driver-fined-35-fo
r-killing-1218497
Here's the full article from Birmingham with more facts than the Echo seemed fit to print. Yes, he was carried on the bonnet for 90 metres. He handed in his taxi licence; oh good! http://www.birmingha mmail.co.uk/news/tax i-driver-fined-35-fo r-killing-1218497 Old Colonial
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Mikeyunibournemouth says...

paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
[quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying. Mikeyunibournemouth
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Sat 19 Jan 13

retry69 says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand? retry69
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Mikeyunibournemouth says...

retry69 wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?
Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?[/p][/quote]Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred. Mikeyunibournemouth
  • Score: 0

1:27am Sun 20 Jan 13

Hunter1234 says...

I am lost 4 words how the hell did he get away from it any 1 can get taxi liecence Bournemouth town got lot to answer 4 check all the taxi drivers 4 visa
I am lost 4 words how the hell did he get away from it any 1 can get taxi liecence Bournemouth town got lot to answer 4 check all the taxi drivers 4 visa Hunter1234
  • Score: 0

7:13am Sun 20 Jan 13

EGHH says...

Any deaths caused by a road traffic incident (the police no longer all them accidents as all accidents are preventable) should be classed as manslaughter and carry the same sentence plus a life-time driving ban.
Any deaths caused by a road traffic incident (the police no longer all them accidents as all accidents are preventable) should be classed as manslaughter and carry the same sentence plus a life-time driving ban. EGHH
  • Score: 0

8:02am Sun 20 Jan 13

retry69 says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?
Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.
I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?[/p][/quote]Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.[/p][/quote]I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni? retry69
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sun 20 Jan 13

Glashen says...

There are quite a few uninformed comments above, EGHH seems to think you should be guilty before trial if you have an accident, whatever the circumstances, Hunter 1234 appears to believe Bournemouth Council are responsible for Birmingham "Taxi" Drivers and a number of others border on racist.
-
I wonder if their is much point in charging a driver with Careless Driving in cases where death results, the sentence is usually a derisory fine and certainly in cases such as this one, which on the face of it stand a chance of a successful conviction for Death by Dangerous Driving should for the sake of justice be tested by the courts.
-
That would in all probability mean long and expensive trials for persons who would eventually be found not guilty through lack of evidence, but it would be more apparent that the justice process had been fully used.
There are quite a few uninformed comments above, EGHH seems to think you should be guilty before trial if you have an accident, whatever the circumstances, Hunter 1234 appears to believe Bournemouth Council are responsible for Birmingham "Taxi" Drivers and a number of others border on racist. - I wonder if their is much point in charging a driver with Careless Driving in cases where death results, the sentence is usually a derisory fine and certainly in cases such as this one, which on the face of it stand a chance of a successful conviction for Death by Dangerous Driving should for the sake of justice be tested by the courts. - That would in all probability mean long and expensive trials for persons who would eventually be found not guilty through lack of evidence, but it would be more apparent that the justice process had been fully used. Glashen
  • Score: 0

11:37am Sun 20 Jan 13

FNS-man says...

I am unsure whether he should go to jail. However, I am sure that he should never be allowed to drive again. People can drive on the roads under licence: it is not a right. And this person clearly is not fit to be in charge of a vehicle.

I personally would be in favour of anyone killing someone else in a road "accident" to be banned for life.
I am unsure whether he should go to jail. However, I am sure that he should never be allowed to drive again. People can drive on the roads under licence: it is not a right. And this person clearly is not fit to be in charge of a vehicle. I personally would be in favour of anyone killing someone else in a road "accident" to be banned for life. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

11:40am Sun 20 Jan 13

retry69 says...

FNS-man wrote:
I am unsure whether he should go to jail. However, I am sure that he should never be allowed to drive again. People can drive on the roads under licence: it is not a right. And this person clearly is not fit to be in charge of a vehicle.

I personally would be in favour of anyone killing someone else in a road "accident" to be banned for life.
About time you showed up, even though i am a little confused by your comment as you are usually more explicit in cases such as this
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: I am unsure whether he should go to jail. However, I am sure that he should never be allowed to drive again. People can drive on the roads under licence: it is not a right. And this person clearly is not fit to be in charge of a vehicle. I personally would be in favour of anyone killing someone else in a road "accident" to be banned for life.[/p][/quote]About time you showed up, even though i am a little confused by your comment as you are usually more explicit in cases such as this retry69
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sun 20 Jan 13

polblagger says...

Interesting that I can't find a single report naming the magistrates involved.

I'd be interested to know the ethnicity and religion of the magistrates in this case.
Interesting that I can't find a single report naming the magistrates involved. I'd be interested to know the ethnicity and religion of the magistrates in this case. polblagger
  • Score: 0

11:59am Sun 20 Jan 13

Hessenford says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
So if I unintentionally stray over the speed limit and get flashed by a speed camera does that mean I have a defence against paying the fine and points on my licence.
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]So if I unintentionally stray over the speed limit and get flashed by a speed camera does that mean I have a defence against paying the fine and points on my licence. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sun 20 Jan 13

polblagger says...

At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban.

No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.
At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban. No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads. polblagger
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Tripod says...

Must have been a very crowded Court Room, so many people who obviously know far more than was given in the very brief Echo write-up.
Must have been a very crowded Court Room, so many people who obviously know far more than was given in the very brief Echo write-up. Tripod
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Sun 20 Jan 13

paulthefish says...

polblagger wrote:
At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban.

No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.
100% correct. and if he claimed he did not realise he hit someone, then even more reason to get him off the roads!
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban. No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.[/p][/quote]100% correct. and if he claimed he did not realise he hit someone, then even more reason to get him off the roads! paulthefish
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Sun 20 Jan 13

guisselle says...

Cyclists are so vulnerable and especially
when colliding with a speeding taxi!
Cyclists are so vulnerable and especially when colliding with a speeding taxi! guisselle
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Baywolf says...

So is this the worth of a human life just£35 and 3 points on a license...the judge should hang...along with the driver.
So is this the worth of a human life just£35 and 3 points on a license...the judge should hang...along with the driver. Baywolf
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Sun 20 Jan 13

cycletourer says...

And a cyclist would be fined by a court the sum of £30 for cycling on the pavement regardless of wether or not he put a pedestrians life at risk.
And a cyclist would be fined by a court the sum of £30 for cycling on the pavement regardless of wether or not he put a pedestrians life at risk. cycletourer
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Mikeyunibournemouth says...

retry69 wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?
Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.
I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?
Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth.

Mohandas Ghandi
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?[/p][/quote]Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.[/p][/quote]I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?[/p][/quote]Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth. Mohandas Ghandi Mikeyunibournemouth
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Sun 20 Jan 13

retry69 says...

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:
paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?
Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.
the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?
If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.
A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?
Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.
I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?
Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth.

Mohandas Ghandi
A uni friend?
[quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mikeyunibournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?[/p][/quote]Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.[/p][/quote]the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?[/p][/quote]If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?[/p][/quote]Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.[/p][/quote]I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?[/p][/quote]Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth. Mohandas Ghandi[/p][/quote]A uni friend? retry69
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Kinzy says...

ShuttleX wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?
And that comment makes you a racist.
How on earth is that even remotely racist?
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?[/p][/quote]And that comment makes you a racist.[/p][/quote]How on earth is that even remotely racist? Kinzy
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Marksimmo says...

I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision.
Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another.
Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen.
Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care.
During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I.
Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence.
I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable.
All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention.
So too must cyclists.
The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault.
But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.
I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision. Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another. Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen. Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care. During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I. Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence. I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable. All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention. So too must cyclists. The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault. But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can. Marksimmo
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Sun 20 Jan 13

TerreHaute says...

paulthefish wrote:
polblagger wrote:
At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban.

No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.
100% correct. and if he claimed he did not realise he hit someone, then even more reason to get him off the roads!
Were they going at speed and was there a truck behind? Did he make a judgement call(?!?) that it was safer for the majority to drive for a distance rather than stop dead?

Tragic to have a loss of life BUT none of those commenting know any/many of the actual facts because of the poor reporting of something which should (by now) be a matter of public record.

Shame the Echo didn't report with full facts and that some of the commenters didn't insist on those before passing judgement.
[quote][p][bold]paulthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban. No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.[/p][/quote]100% correct. and if he claimed he did not realise he hit someone, then even more reason to get him off the roads![/p][/quote]Were they going at speed and was there a truck behind? Did he make a judgement call(?!?) that it was safer for the majority to drive for a distance rather than stop dead? Tragic to have a loss of life BUT none of those commenting know any/many of the actual facts because of the poor reporting of something which should (by now) be a matter of public record. Shame the Echo didn't report with full facts and that some of the commenters didn't insist on those before passing judgement. TerreHaute
  • Score: 0

11:45pm Sun 20 Jan 13

s-pb2 says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?
Yes, whats the difference?
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?[/p][/quote]Yes, whats the difference? s-pb2
  • Score: 0

9:37am Mon 21 Jan 13

Redgolfer says...

Marksimmo wrote:
I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision.
Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another.
Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen.
Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care.
During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I.
Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence.
I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable.
All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention.
So too must cyclists.
The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault.
But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.
Anybody else you would like to have a moan at, or have you covered the whole WORLD, look into the mirror you SAD person.
[quote][p][bold]Marksimmo[/bold] wrote: I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision. Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another. Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen. Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care. During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I. Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence. I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable. All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention. So too must cyclists. The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault. But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.[/p][/quote]Anybody else you would like to have a moan at, or have you covered the whole WORLD, look into the mirror you SAD person. Redgolfer
  • Score: 0

9:50am Mon 21 Jan 13

mikey2gorgeous says...

mike in florida wrote:
Ichhapel Bhamra
you are a disgrace to this country and your own
please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome
same apply s to those 7 from oxford
No reporting of this story mentions that he was not British.
[quote][p][bold]mike in florida[/bold] wrote: Ichhapel Bhamra you are a disgrace to this country and your own please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome same apply s to those 7 from oxford[/p][/quote]No reporting of this story mentions that he was not British. mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 0

10:04am Mon 21 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
mike in florida wrote:
Ichhapel Bhamra
you are a disgrace to this country and your own
please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome
same apply s to those 7 from oxford
No reporting of this story mentions that he was not British.
Really is that the best we can expect from the Chairperson of a bournemouth cycling forum?
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mike in florida[/bold] wrote: Ichhapel Bhamra you are a disgrace to this country and your own please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome same apply s to those 7 from oxford[/p][/quote]No reporting of this story mentions that he was not British.[/p][/quote]Really is that the best we can expect from the Chairperson of a bournemouth cycling forum? nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

10:57am Mon 21 Jan 13

suzigirl says...

Marksimmo wrote:
I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision. Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another. Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen. Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care. During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I. Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence. I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable. All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention. So too must cyclists. The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault. But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.
The idiot that drove off and left my son to die after a RTC got six weeks imprisonment - he was a disqualified driver and only got jailed because he was caught driving whilst disqualified again before the last Hearing - muppet - what goes around comes around!
[quote][p][bold]Marksimmo[/bold] wrote: I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision. Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another. Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen. Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care. During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I. Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence. I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable. All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention. So too must cyclists. The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault. But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.[/p][/quote]The idiot that drove off and left my son to die after a RTC got six weeks imprisonment - he was a disqualified driver and only got jailed because he was caught driving whilst disqualified again before the last Hearing - muppet - what goes around comes around! suzigirl
  • Score: 0

11:46am Mon 21 Jan 13

scrumpyjack says...

lelbel wrote:
well said beachcomber1
Why is it well said?
[quote][p][bold]lelbel[/bold] wrote: well said beachcomber1[/p][/quote]Why is it well said? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Mon 21 Jan 13

grazzer says...

As none of us know the full details of this tragic accident none of us are qualified to pass judgement
As none of us know the full details of this tragic accident none of us are qualified to pass judgement grazzer
  • Score: 0

2:26am Tue 22 Jan 13

williamrobinson says...

A 35 pound fee is what a White man's life is worth to this gov?

Noted. You ready for when it's your son?
You'll get enough to pay an overdraft fee on your credit card.

Anti-racist is nothing but a code for Anti-White.
A 35 pound fee is what a White man's life is worth to this gov? Noted. You ready for when it's your son? You'll get enough to pay an overdraft fee on your credit card. Anti-racist is nothing but a code for Anti-White. williamrobinson
  • Score: 0

8:58am Tue 22 Jan 13

polblagger says...

grazzer wrote:
As none of us know the full details of this tragic accident none of us are qualified to pass judgement
Unless this person had a gun at his head, there is absolutely no reason on gods earth for driving 300 feet down the road after you've hit someone.

There are only two reasons for doing so, indecision about fleeing the scene or unawareness that you've just killed someone.

Either way this person has no right to be in charge of any vehicle on UK roads.
[quote][p][bold]grazzer[/bold] wrote: As none of us know the full details of this tragic accident none of us are qualified to pass judgement[/p][/quote]Unless this person had a gun at his head, there is absolutely no reason on gods earth for driving 300 feet down the road after you've hit someone. There are only two reasons for doing so, indecision about fleeing the scene or unawareness that you've just killed someone. Either way this person has no right to be in charge of any vehicle on UK roads. polblagger
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree