RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:The press outdoing itself in this story. Firstly, just to say tragic death and all that but:

Firstly I have an issue with the use of the word killer. We are not talking about Jack the Ripper here. Irresponsible and unlucky, but we don’t see headlines about car drivers of this sort. He was stupid to run but the press coverage sort of explains why.

Secondly, in this age of me too, why is it that the press still talks about the loss of a young woman in the terms of angel etc. Surely we can accept that she is perfectly capable of making her own decisions in life? Do we really need to judge her purely as a helpless victim? What would the coverage be like if it was her boat and he had died?

Numbers wrote:

canta_brian wrote:The press outdoing itself in this story. Firstly, just to say tragic death and all that but:

Firstly I have an issue with the use of the word killer. We are not talking about Jack the Ripper here. Irresponsible and unlucky, but we don’t see headlines about car drivers of this sort. He was stupid to run but the press coverage sort of explains why.

Secondly, in this age of me too, why is it that the press still talks about the loss of a young woman in the terms of angel etc. Surely we can accept that she is perfectly capable of making her own decisions in life? Do we really need to judge her purely as a helpless victim? What would the coverage be like if it was her boat and he had died?

This is exactly what I was thinking about this, the media referring to him as a killer is ridiculous, he wasn't even driving. I'm assuming he will be charged with reckless endangerment but I'm not a legal man so who knows.

morepork wrote:He's got nothing on that Danish guy wot built his own submarine and took a Swedish journalist out for a jolly and cut her head off.

morepork wrote:A feckin submarine man.

canta_brian wrote:

Numbers wrote:

canta_brian wrote:The press outdoing itself in this story. Firstly, just to say tragic death and all that but:

Firstly I have an issue with the use of the word killer. We are not talking about Jack the Ripper here. Irresponsible and unlucky, but we don’t see headlines about car drivers of this sort. He was stupid to run but the press coverage sort of explains why.

Secondly, in this age of me too, why is it that the press still talks about the loss of a young woman in the terms of angel etc. Surely we can accept that she is perfectly capable of making her own decisions in life? Do we really need to judge her purely as a helpless victim? What would the coverage be like if it was her boat and he had died?

This is exactly what I was thinking about this, the media referring to him as a killer is ridiculous, he wasn't even driving. I'm assuming he will be charged with reckless endangerment but I'm not a legal man so who knows.

He got 6 years - tried in his absence. manslaughter by gross negligence.

Edit. Thought this was an interesting comparison
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politi ... -jail.html

canta_brian wrote:

morepork wrote:He's got nothing on that Danish guy wot built his own submarine and took a Swedish journalist out for a jolly and cut her head off.

Indeed. I don’t think even Rowan would have a problem with describing someone who cuts off another person’s head as a killer. Although, even as a write that...

canta_brian wrote:

morepork wrote:He's got nothing on that Danish guy wot built his own submarine and took a Swedish journalist out for a jolly and cut her head off.

Indeed. I don’t think even Rowan would have a problem with describing someone who cuts off another person’s head as a killer. Although, even as a write that...

onlynameleft wrote:Does anybody remember reading about the original trial because my recollection is it has only become particularly noteworthy since he has appealed whilst having absconded? He was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter which does not involve any kind of deliberate act. It is where the court finds he owes a duty of care and his conduct has breached that, leading to or contributing to the death and to such an extent that it can be considered criminal. As far as I know the main breaches were to do with the fact the boat was a deathtrap and the fact that taking it out at night was considered to be madness. Nothing to do with who was driving it.

onlynameleft wrote:

onlynameleft wrote:Does anybody remember reading about the original trial because my recollection is it has only become particularly noteworthy since he has appealed whilst having absconded? He was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter which does not involve any kind of deliberate act. It is where the court finds he owes a duty of care and his conduct has breached that, leading to or contributing to the death and to such an extent that it can be considered criminal. As far as I know the main breaches were to do with the fact the boat was a deathtrap and the fact that taking it out at night was considered to be madness. Nothing to do with who was driving it.

Do boats have to pass a regular mot? I also wonder if driving like a dick in a car that has failed an mot would see the same charges. There appeared to be examples of people getting more lenient sentences when they killed a person in a car they were attempting to steal. Although the source was the telegraph so...

Although as you might expect, the only evidence that she was driving the boat at the time has come from him.