You want us to copy that hugely successful (irony alert) system?

Politicians make the law!

Sadly the judiciary have to apply it.

Says it all really

Perhaps you'd like half day closing on a Wednesday as well? Whilst you ponder the good old days, and those beastly conniving Union Officials who sold out your Birthright, look up ROTA. That should explain where you're going wrong re the doctors.

Yes. A drunken scrote locked up for 42 years as opposed to 4 means the roads and general population are a lot safer by a factor of 10.

If you're happy to pay for him to be locked up for 42 years, go for it.

Unfortunately, not just very expensive equipment stands idle at the weekend, so does entire operating theatres. It is good to see that Prof Bruce Keogh, and many Doctors to be fair, has recognised there is a long overdue need for working practices to change.

In your case, Doctor Rumples proscribes; rlREADrl....inwardly digest....repeat until you understand....with attention being focussed on the final two paragraphs.

The prognosis for enlightenment is mildly encouraging......

I think the fact that hospitals basically don't do doctors at a weekend is a true scandal.

But I don't see anyone persuading consultants to start doing routine operations on night shifts on a regular basis. You may sneer and diss them for that, but I express no opinion at all, save to say that it just ain't gonna happen any time soon.

A consultant does what he is obliged to do under his NHS contract, and then he goes off to earn some serious money in his private work, you know, private ops, consultations, medical reports etc. If you are going to oblige him to work nights say one week in three then he plainly cannot work in his private business that week and again, for just that reason, it can't be done.

Also if you are going to operate theatres for an extra 100 hours per week, where the feck is the money to do that coming from?

I am aware there are guidelines to follow, but to my mind the guidelines must be awry to result in sometimes lax and seemingly inconsistent sentences.

It's not just the sentencing. Someone who is jailed and later found to be innocent have no help from the system when they are let go in the same way a convicted fellon get's a parole officer, accomodation and help adjusting to life. The innocent person then get's slapped with a nice hefty bill for their board whilst in jail, whoever legislated that is frankly evil.

What I was highlighting with that example is the disparity between the two. How one justice system appears much tougher on sentencing.

Both acted recklessly, both caused a road traffic accident resulting in death. One caused one death, the other caused two. You can't really quantify the difference between the 2 incidents and the extra fatality in terms of years in jail. The simple point is, someone who acts recklessly and causes a fatality should be serving much longer than 5 years in jail. That's the bottom line.

Can't we have a system like Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Would having insurance have prevented the man's death?

You're missing the point. Not having insurance is a behavioural pattern. A lack of regard for the law in the same way he showed a lack of regard by driving off.

It showed he was acting recklessly. A reckless act resulting in the death of a human carries 5 years? He'll probably be out in less on good behaviour. Imagine that was your father, your son...your brother. Dead. 5 years?

How can we trust, respect........have faith in a system which shows such an abhorrent disreguard for human life?

It's disgusting.

Agreed


But, the last people that can sentence the criminal fairly and dispassionately are of course the victim's family. It isn't therefore at all helpful to "imagine it was your father "etc. It is always somebody's father. It should not make a jot of difference to sentence that it was YOUR father.


This is just your opinion. The system shows no such thing. The sentencing guidelines are meticulously thorough and whilst i don't question your right to believe that 42 years or whatever would be more just, I think most would say that you are conflating the degree of evilness/ wrongdoing with unforeseen and unintended consequences (which, incidentally, DO ramp up the sentence very considerably)

Here are the rlsentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous drivingrl. The range of sentences is in fact 2 - 14 years. The courts rightly do and should take into account all the individual circumstances of any given case.

I'm aware of that.

However, why not consider a system such as that in Scandinavia, which to our eyes might seem incredibly liberal, but which has far better outcomes than the UK has in terms of recidivism?

The other point is that the apparent severity of the US system appears to do nothing to lower crime levels by acting as a deterrent.

Unless you've seen the court papers on each case, all you're going on is media reports, so sentences may appear inconsistent. Until all the facts are known, via the court papers, we (the general public) are just ranting for no reason because we (you) don't know the ins and outs of the case.