http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.


--
Adam

On 15/02/2014 15:34, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.


It wouldn't have helped, but the fact that he should have been aware of
the risk of death or serious injury from his act and the fact that
several days had passed without any attempt to fit even a temporary
barrier would both have been factors in the sentencing.

Colin Bignell

On 15/02/2014 16:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2014 15:34, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.


It wouldn't have helped, but the fact that he should have been aware of
the risk of death or serious injury from his act and the fact that
several days had passed without any attempt to fit even a temporary
barrier would both have been factors in the sentencing.

Words fail me! This was a safety barrier 60 feet up, and he
deliberately took out a panel from it and left it open for several days.
Surely, that is more than negligent?

It is just as well that I am not a judge, as I would have given him life.

On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:26 GB wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 15/02/2014 16:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2014 15:34, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.


It wouldn't have helped, but the fact that he should have been aware
of the risk of death or serious injury from his act and the fact that
several days had passed without any attempt to fit even a temporary
barrier would both have been factors in the sentencing.

Words fail me! This was a safety barrier 60 feet up, and he
deliberately took out a panel from it and left it open for several
days.
Surely, that is more than negligent?

It is just as well that I am not a judge, as I would have given him
life.

Yes. Negligence is when you take the glass out and put a bit of MDF in
place as a stopgap because you had it in the van. It then gets rain on
and falls to bits.

What he did is so ****ing clueless as to defy words.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage

On 15/02/2014 16:26, GB wrote:
On 15/02/2014 16:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2014 15:34, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.


It wouldn't have helped, but the fact that he should have been aware of
the risk of death or serious injury from his act and the fact that
several days had passed without any attempt to fit even a temporary
barrier would both have been factors in the sentencing.

Words fail me! This was a safety barrier 60 feet up, and he
deliberately took out a panel from it and left it open for several days.
Surely, that is more than negligent?

It is just as well that I am not a judge, as I would have given him life.

It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. An accident waiting to happen.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 02/15/2014 04:42 PM, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Words fail me! This was a safety barrier 60 feet up, and he
deliberately took out a panel from it and left it open for several days.
Surely, that is more than negligent?

It is just as well that I am not a judge, as I would have given him life.

It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. An accident waiting to happen.


More like criminal negligence.

On 15/02/2014 16:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.


If that is true, 'for monetary gain' is another factor that will
increase the sentence.

Colin Bignell

It kind of makes me wonder why people do not take road builders to court
when they design stupid shared surfaces which usually end up with a cyclist
or pedestrian being killed or injured due to nobody quite knowing who has
right of way.

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2014 16:44, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.


If that is true, 'for monetary gain' is another factor that will increase
the sentence.

Colin Bignell

On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:44 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.


If that's true, it should be manslughter and he should be inside for a
VERY long time.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage

ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

'that long'? - it should have been ten years for the fact that it was a
child that died - indeed, it was only ever likely to be a child that fell,
an adult wouldn't have gone through a gap so low down.
What the **** was he thinking? - although judging by his photo, the gormless
**** looks like he's never had an intelligent thought in his life

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:47:28 -0000, Phil L wrote:

'that long'? - it should have been ten years for the fact that it was a
child that died ...

When his fellow cons find out that he's a "kiddie killer" his life
inside won't be a happy one...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:44 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.

If that's true, it should be manslughter and he should be inside for a
VERY long time.

He *was* convicted of manslaughter.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Saturday 15 February 2014 21:39 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:44 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.

If that's true, it should be manslughter and he should be inside for
a VERY long time.

He *was* convicted of manslaughter.


Somehow the "4 years" seemed to negate that.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage

"Brian Gaff" wrote:
It kind of makes me wonder why people do not take road builders to court
when they design stupid shared surfaces which usually end up with a cyclist
or pedestrian being killed or injured due to nobody quite knowing who has
right of way.

Brian

Usually? Just how often Brian?

Shared surfaces are all about mutual respect for ALL users with no group
having priority. Creating rights of way creates intolerance.

Tim

"Brian Gaff" wrote:
It kind of makes me wonder why people do not take road builders to court
when they design stupid shared surfaces which usually...

end up with a cyclist
or pedestrian being killed or injured due to nobody quite knowing who has
right of way.

Brian

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:03:02 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On Saturday 15 February 2014 21:39 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:44 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.

If that's true, it should be manslughter and he should be inside for
a VERY long time.

He *was* convicted of manslaughter.


Somehow the "4 years" seemed to negate that.


I have found the judges sentencing remarks.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...r-v-warner.pdf

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:47:28 -0000, Phil L wrote:

'that long'? - it should have been ten years for the fact that it was a
child that died ...

When his fellow cons find out that he's a "kiddie killer" his life
inside won't be a happy one...


On the other hand if he has practical skills (and enough social sense to
exploit them) he will be in constant demand.

Bill

"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:03:02 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On Saturday 15 February 2014 21:39 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:44 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.

If that's true, it should be manslughter and he should be inside for
a VERY long time.

He *was* convicted of manslaughter.


Somehow the "4 years" seemed to negate that.


I have found the judges sentencing remarks.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...r-v-warner.pdf


Thanks for that.

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment about the 4
year sentence.


--
Adam

In article ,
Graham. writes:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:03:02 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On Saturday 15 February 2014 21:39 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On Saturday 15 February 2014 16:44 Andrew Gabriel wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-26192841

I wonder if he got that long behind bars because he pleaded not
guilty.

Something I read in one of the earlier reports was that he told
his employer he had bought a replacement piece of glass and
claimed the money back. Actually, he just took a different panel
out which he thought they wouldn't see. If that was the case, it
goes well beyond even gross negligence.

If that's true, it should be manslughter and he should be inside for
a VERY long time.

He *was* convicted of manslaughter.


Somehow the "4 years" seemed to negate that.


I have found the judges sentencing remarks.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...r-v-warner.pdf

This does not make reference to having not bought a replacement panel,
but instead refers to a replacement panel not fitting, so it seems more
likely he bought a replacement panel which turned out not to fit. Given
the character references, it seems likely the earlier report isn't true.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , ARW
writes

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment about
the 4 year sentence.

It is a terrible case both for the family and the guy who has ended up
in gaol. No, of course he should not have left the gap, but interesting
to read that his hours had been cut, and he was extremely busy.
Doubtless his workload was not reduced to reflect the reduction in
hours. Either he just forgot, or, more likely, it was part of a long
list of jobs he knew were outstanding, and intended to deal with
'eventually'. Very, very sad for all concerned.
--
Graeme

On 16/02/2014 10:27, News wrote:
In message , ARW
writes

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment about
the 4 year sentence.

It is a terrible case both for the family and the guy who has ended up
in gaol. No, of course he should not have left the gap, but interesting
to read that his hours had been cut, and he was extremely busy.
Doubtless his workload was not reduced to reflect the reduction in
hours. Either he just forgot, or, more likely, it was part of a long
list of jobs he knew were outstanding, and intended to deal with
'eventually'. Very, very sad for all concerned.


Having read the Judge's remarks, I feel more sympathetic towards the
maintenance guy. Nevertheless, to create a hazard like that is pretty
amazing. Why he pleaded not guilty is beyond me, unless he genuinely did
not remove that panel. Leaving the gap for even 5 minutes was stupid
beyond belief, let alone sticking it on the bottom of his mental to-do list.

On 15/02/2014 23:29, Graham. wrote:


I have found the judges sentencing remarks.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...r-v-warner.pdf


This throws up a few questions.

The panel had been damaged for about 14 days. Why did no one report it?
It was "a place where people frequently went to smoke" after all.

And why didn't he notice it?

I have a few regular jobs & part of my remit (from the client) is to
walk the site & look for stuff that needs doing.

As the judge says, why didn't he board the gap up? Or close down the
whole area? Or even cover the gap with warning tape?

And the greatest tragedy is that the parents didn't notice it. They
must be going through hell.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:42:23 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. An accident waiting to happen.

Cor blimey wot a plonker!

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:29:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:47:28 -0000, Phil L wrote:

'that long'? - it should have been ten years for the fact that it was a
child that died ...

When his fellow cons find out that he's a "kiddie killer" his life
inside won't be a happy one...

Depends where he ends up, may get some National Front or English
Defence league types to protect him as his actions caused the death
of the child of a Muslim immigrant .

G.Harman

In message

rnal-september.org, Tim+ writes
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
It kind of makes me wonder why people do not take road builders to court
when they design stupid shared surfaces which usually end up with a cyclist
or pedestrian being killed or injured due to nobody quite knowing who has
right of way.

Brian

Usually? Just how often Brian?

Shared surfaces are all about mutual respect for ALL users with no group
having priority. Creating rights of way creates intolerance.

Tim
Pedestrians always have right of way though sometimes it's prudent not
to claim it.
--
bert

on 16/02/2014, GB supposed :
On 16/02/2014 10:27, News wrote:
In message , ARW
writes

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment about
the 4 year sentence.

It is a terrible case both for the family and the guy who has ended up
in gaol. No, of course he should not have left the gap, but interesting
to read that his hours had been cut, and he was extremely busy.
Doubtless his workload was not reduced to reflect the reduction in
hours. Either he just forgot, or, more likely, it was part of a long
list of jobs he knew were outstanding, and intended to deal with
'eventually'. Very, very sad for all concerned.


Having read the Judge's remarks, I feel more sympathetic towards the
maintenance guy. Nevertheless, to create a hazard like that is pretty
amazing. Why he pleaded not guilty is beyond me, unless he genuinely did not
remove that panel. Leaving the gap for even 5 minutes was stupid beyond
belief, let alone sticking it on the bottom of his mental to-do list.

I feel the company which employed had some responsibility in this - you
cannot expect to cut the hours so severally and still expect work to be
done as before. Being able to do work effectively and safely, relies
upon having enough working time available to do that. Reduce hours down
from what already sounded like it needed a full working week and
something has to suffer/ corners have to be cut.

The judge made no mention of him falsely claiming the cost of the glass
at all.

I now have a great deal of sympathy for this guy and his situation,
obviously the judge also had sympathy too, hence the short sentence.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

on 16/02/2014, The Medway Handyman supposed :
This throws up a few questions.

The panel had been damaged for about 14 days. Why did no one report it? It
was "a place where people frequently went to smoke" after all.

And why didn't he notice it?

Perhaps he had originally had time to walk around and inspect, they cut
his working hours down massively, which likely meant he no longer had
time to cope.

It sounds as if he borrowed a panel from what might have been a less
dangerous/ less used place. The panel he had claimed for didn't fit, so
had not falsely claimed for it after all - it sounds as if he had so
much to do, he simply could not cope, easy to make such mistakes under
such pressure.

Building users, generally don't notice anything unless it jumps out and
bites them. Had they even noticed, they would have just assumed it was
a work in progress.

So far as the lack of boarding up goes, who knows. Perhaps it was a two
handed job, to be able to do it safely. I appreciate he had managed to
move the glass panels about, but that struggle might have frightened
him off attempting the boarding up on his own.



--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
on 16/02/2014, GB supposed :
On 16/02/2014 10:27, News wrote:
In message , ARW
writes

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment about
the 4 year sentence.

It is a terrible case both for the family and the guy who has ended up
in gaol. No, of course he should not have left the gap, but interesting
to read that his hours had been cut, and he was extremely busy.
Doubtless his workload was not reduced to reflect the reduction in
hours. Either he just forgot, or, more likely, it was part of a long
list of jobs he knew were outstanding, and intended to deal with
'eventually'. Very, very sad for all concerned.


Having read the Judge's remarks, I feel more sympathetic towards the
maintenance guy. Nevertheless, to create a hazard like that is pretty
amazing. Why he pleaded not guilty is beyond me, unless he genuinely did
not remove that panel. Leaving the gap for even 5 minutes was stupid
beyond belief, let alone sticking it on the bottom of his mental to-do
list.

I feel the company which employed had some responsibility in this - you
cannot expect to cut the hours so severally and still expect work to be
done as before. Being able to do work effectively and safely, relies upon
having enough working time available to do that. Reduce hours down from
what already sounded like it needed a full working week and something has
to suffer/ corners have to be cut.

Doesn't mean that they have to be cut where public safety is so important.

He should have done it in other areas which are just a nuisance instead.

The judge made no mention of him falsely claiming the cost of the glass at
all.

I now have a great deal of sympathy for this guy and his situation,

I don't. It was completely stupid to not put something in place
of the panel he borrowed when the replacement didn't fit.

obviously the judge also had sympathy too, hence the short sentence.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
on 16/02/2014, The Medway Handyman supposed :
This throws up a few questions.

The panel had been damaged for about 14 days. Why did no one report it?
It was "a place where people frequently went to smoke" after all.

And why didn't he notice it?

Perhaps he had originally had time to walk around and inspect, they cut
his working hours down massively, which likely meant he no longer had time
to cope.

He should still have done the most important safety checks like that.

It sounds as if he borrowed a panel from what might have been a less
dangerous/ less used place.

Yes, but it was completely stupid to leave a gaping hole there and to
not at least put something there to stop some child falling thru it.

The panel he had claimed for didn't fit, so
had not falsely claimed for it after all - it sounds as if he had so much
to do, he simply could not cope, easy to make such mistakes under such
pressure.

That is a completely stupid mistake to make, regardless of the pressure.

Building users, generally don't notice anything unless it jumps out and
bites them. Had they even noticed, they would have just assumed it was a
work in progress.

So far as the lack of boarding up goes, who knows. Perhaps it was a two
handed job, to be able to do it safely.

It clearly wasn't moving that panel.

I appreciate he had managed to
move the glass panels about, but that struggle might have frightened him
off attempting the boarding up on his own.

Then he should have gotten someone to help him instead of doing nothing.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
on 16/02/2014, GB supposed :
On 16/02/2014 10:27, News wrote:
In message , ARW
writes

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment about
the 4 year sentence.

It is a terrible case both for the family and the guy who has ended up
in gaol. No, of course he should not have left the gap, but
interesting
to read that his hours had been cut, and he was extremely busy.
Doubtless his workload was not reduced to reflect the reduction in
hours. Either he just forgot, or, more likely, it was part of a long
list of jobs he knew were outstanding, and intended to deal with
'eventually'. Very, very sad for all concerned.


Having read the Judge's remarks, I feel more sympathetic towards the
maintenance guy. Nevertheless, to create a hazard like that is pretty
amazing. Why he pleaded not guilty is beyond me, unless he genuinely did
not remove that panel. Leaving the gap for even 5 minutes was stupid
beyond belief, let alone sticking it on the bottom of his mental to-do
list.

I feel the company which employed had some responsibility in this - you
cannot expect to cut the hours so severally and still expect work to be
done as before. Being able to do work effectively and safely, relies upon
having enough working time available to do that. Reduce hours down from
what already sounded like it needed a full working week and something has
to suffer/ corners have to be cut.

Doesn't mean that they have to be cut where public safety is so important.

He should have done it in other areas which are just a nuisance instead.

The judge made no mention of him falsely claiming the cost of the glass
at all.

I now have a great deal of sympathy for this guy and his situation,

I don't. It was completely stupid to not put something in place
of the panel he borrowed when the replacement didn't fit.



But you cannot just jail poeple for being stupid.

That would give you a life sentence

--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
on 16/02/2014, GB supposed :
On 16/02/2014 10:27, News wrote:
In message , ARW
writes

It's a sad case for everyone involved and I am making no comment
about
the 4 year sentence.

It is a terrible case both for the family and the guy who has ended up
in gaol. No, of course he should not have left the gap, but
interesting
to read that his hours had been cut, and he was extremely busy.
Doubtless his workload was not reduced to reflect the reduction in
hours. Either he just forgot, or, more likely, it was part of a long
list of jobs he knew were outstanding, and intended to deal with
'eventually'. Very, very sad for all concerned.


Having read the Judge's remarks, I feel more sympathetic towards the
maintenance guy. Nevertheless, to create a hazard like that is pretty
amazing. Why he pleaded not guilty is beyond me, unless he genuinely
did not remove that panel. Leaving the gap for even 5 minutes was
stupid beyond belief, let alone sticking it on the bottom of his mental
to-do list.

I feel the company which employed had some responsibility in this - you
cannot expect to cut the hours so severally and still expect work to be
done as before. Being able to do work effectively and safely, relies
upon having enough working time available to do that. Reduce hours down
from what already sounded like it needed a full working week and
something has to suffer/ corners have to be cut.

Doesn't mean that they have to be cut where public safety is so
important.

He should have done it in other areas which are just a nuisance instead.

The judge made no mention of him falsely claiming the cost of the glass
at all.

I now have a great deal of sympathy for this guy and his situation,

I don't. It was completely stupid to not put something in place
of the panel he borrowed when the replacement didn't fit.



But you cannot just jail poeple for being stupid.

But you can jail them when something
stupid they do ends up with a dead kid.

On 22/02/2014 05:07, Rod Speed wrote:




But you cannot just jail poeple for being stupid.

But you can jail them when something
stupid they do ends up with a dead kid.



Its no different to speeding.. you get a fine, until you kill someone.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 22/02/2014 05:07, Rod Speed wrote:




But you cannot just jail poeple for being stupid.

But you can jail them when something
stupid they do ends up with a dead kid.



Its no different to speeding.. you get a fine, until you kill someone.



But you seldom get 4 years in jail for that.

--
Adam

On 23/02/2014 10:19, ARW wrote:

Its no different to speeding.. you get a fine, until you kill someone.



But you seldom get 4 years in jail for that.


The guy who fell asleep at the wheel and derailed a train got 10 years.