Daily Mail article here.
Ye gods. You, sir, are an utter scumbag. I hope the judge sends you down for the full 14 years, with the instruction that you serve the sentence in full. You are no longer a youth, for whom a moment of idiocy could be understood. You are a full adult, and, if the article is accurate, thoroughly deserve the severest penalty that can be applied.
Even so, you’ll still be out before you’re 40. She’ll still be dead.
Details of the offence here.
Not enough information. The artice states that he knew she was in there but see no supporting information for that.
There’s plenty of reason for him to believe that she wasn’t in the car. He could have been in shock from the crash, disoriented from drinking etc.
I’m not saying that the guy wasn’t a scumbag for drinking and driving. A 24 year old dating a 17 year old is stretching it a bit while getting incredibly drunk with her and then driving is a pretty scumbag move.
But I still see no strong evidence that he was blatantly lying about her being in the car.
I’ve been at accident scenes where people who weren’t seriously hurt were still very disoriented about what car they were in, who was with them, who was driving etc and these people weren’t under the influence. They were just in shock from the violence of the collision.
Unless he admits that he lied I don’t see how they could factor that in to his sentence. It sounds like he’s going to serve on the drinking, driving, manslaughter. Proving he *knowingly * lied would be much harder.
Hey, Bubba, don’t brain on his tirade.
Sweet.
It doesn’t provide any sort of foundation for why he said there was no-one in the car, so the story is pretty fucking useless. I’ll withold my O, R or otherwise.
I see no dead or mutilated children here. How can this be RO, then?
The insidious hands of jazz and cubism.
She was 17.
Full 14 years? THat’s all?
I thought the Daily Mail was one step below The National Enquirer as far as credibility goes?
17 is not a child
That really is a dreadful article. Awful situation, but (as usual) they went for twelve heartwrenching photos and quotes over one line of facts.
I can’t even guess why he’d do this, except drugs and/or being worried about getting in trouble for being out drunk/on drugs/with a teenager.
You’re likely thinking of News of the World. Certain UK Dopers despise the Daily Mail because it’s politically right-wing. I don’t have a problem with that: I can adjust for the bias. Same as I adjust for the bias of the BBC or the Guardian.
It’s not that the Daily Mail is politically right-wing. It’s that it’s full of shit and lies. Adjusting for political bias would be fine if it actually gave any facts at all. Taking it you’re a reader, is there a story about Diana in there this weekend? There is every time I see the rag. Literally every time. Newspaper? The bitch has been dead for 11 years!
He isn’t charged with murder or even manslaughter, but with death by dangerous driving.
One step above… but it’s a short step.
I mean, you can see the normal quality of its reporting right there in the linked story.
I don’t rate its journalism very highly but then I’m not its target market; equally I don’t recall it being sued recently.
I’m not a regular reader; I got the link from another messageboard. When I was employed, I used to get it for the puzzles - they nicely filled my lunchtime hour. Someone else in the office got the Sun, another the Times, etc, and we all used to share them. I try and read widely: BBC, bits of the Telegraph (I go there principally for the Alex cartoon but look to see if anything else is of interest), the Guardian. I’ve stopped going to the Times since they stopped Andrew Robson’s Bridge column.
Wrong paper, matey. It’s the Express which has the Diana fixation.
Kate Winslet’s reportedly suing for libel.
Andrew Robson’s bridge column stopped? Grim news if correct - his column is in the online edition today so maybe it started again? He is a great Bridge writer.
They brought it back! Excellent! When they cancelled it at the end of April(?), I wrote to complain. I checked for a week or so and it was still absent so I stopped looking.
This particular scumbag was charged with the offence, during which time he was double the drink drive limit. He was asked twice if there were other people in the car, which he denied both times.
That was in January, and he was released on bail pending the actual trial. In the meantime, in February he was caught again, drink driving, no licence, no insurance.
The trial took place in March, he was found guilty and will be sentenced on June 19, its not exactly a new story, he will be inside enjoying the hospitality of Her Royal Highness QEII.
When he gets his jail term it will be in the news again, and we can hate him all over again.