And there is more.
"The prosecutor added that the Crown's case was based upon alleged mechanical defects to the Land Rover's braking, steering and suspension."
I think we should reserve judgement until full details are given in the trial.
Mike
So who/what is being prosecuted? The driver or the vehicle? Define totally and unroadworthy?
In message , Austin Shackles writes
Maybe we've just got to wait and see what evidence they do bring.
In message , news.btinternet.com writes
Presumably the other driver will be called as a witness if the case for the prosecution revolves around Mr Gresham's driving. I don't think it's normal for the CPS to list witness names prior to the case is it? An open invitation for our high minded press to go waving their cheque books.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:30:08 +0100, "Andy" wrote this gibberish:
I read something in a paper earlier, 'metro' I think, referring to him (Mr Gresham) being charged with dangerous driving or some such.
On or around Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:09:58 +0100, "Muddymike" enlightened us thusly:
doubtless we should.
However, all I will say is that I don't see how it's taken getting on for a year to decide whether or not the vehicle has major defects. It's not as if it's only just been recovered.
On or around Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:52:32 +0200, Matt M enlightened us thusly:
As far as I know it's fine if they're your children. If you take other people's children on "organised journeys" it's a whole nother ballgame.
They don't even have to wear belts[1]. Although note my comment WRT strapped in kids in an underwater situation.
[1] they must wear restraints if such can be used. They can't, on sideways seats. Also, you can probably only fit 2 in a 110 middle row. Otherwise, they should (if not "small children") be wearing adult belts if these are available. depending on the age of the defender, it might not have had even middle-row belts, as the legislation requiring "rear" belts to be fitted post-dates 110s.I can give you chapter and verse on this... but I won't.
If you look at some of the pictures which are on the internet post recovery of the vehicle from the river, you can see seat belts all over the place - the ones in the rearmost area for the bench seats appear to be rally type harnesses belts - potentially its these that caused the kids to be unable to free themselves particularly bearing in mind that the vehicle appears to have rolled. Those types of belt would be an asset in almost any situation except the one that this family suffered.
"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Almost certainly the delay has been caused by the time taken to decide to prosecute.
They say they don't usually prosecute in such cases so the decision to prosecute 'goes against the set policy' and so the people who decided to prosecute will be at a very senior level.
To get to that level it will have been looked at by all the intervening levels, all who will have had the chance to kill it but decided not to...
In simple terms, the file has spent most of the time sitting in someone's 'in-tray' after being kicked upstairs because this one's too hot to handle...
(Can't you just tell I was in the public service for years...)
That'll be just one of the factors, add in all the other delays, e.g. getting the vehicle out, it sitting around in a yard somewhere, being transported to the right place, sitting around in a queue there, a quick once-over, reports being written, it sitting around while the rest of the process grinds on, someone asks for more inspections, that filtering down, it being put in the queue for that, it being done, the reports being written, report sent upstream, sittign around in the queue to be read, action being proposed, checked, discussed, all with waits added and so on.
Some people seem to think that the state just sits there with nothing whatsoever to do, then a case like this comes along and it can all be handled in a week, even in a complicated case.
Can't you tell I do business with the government a lot ;-)
Mind you big business is no better, small businesses tend to make decisions quickly, but they're more often the wrong ones and much more highly dependent on individual failings and strengths, which isn't what you want from a government. Hasty decisions help no-one.
In message , Austin Shackles writes
It hasn't. It's taken this period of time to bring all the issues together to make a decision to prosecute. Personally I don't see it as an unduly long time given the level at which the decision will have been taken. No doubt everything will have checked and doubled checked.
On or around Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:51:56 +0100, "David J. Button" enlightened us thusly:
There's talk of defective steering/brakes/suspension. Now, we've all driven a vehicle knowing that part of it was a bit dodgy, but I for one would be surprised if Gresh did knowing that he had the whole family on board, especially, I'd be surprised if it had defective steering, brakes AND suspension. One fault, maybe....
we'll see what transpires.
I get the impression that there may have been some manoeuvring behind the scenes and people casting allegations around, maybe out of spite or other such motive. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's something that sadly does happen. *If* that's the case, then we hope that justice will prevail.
I agree Austin - I think everybody saying anything should hold off until the complete story comes out - and preferably by reading it about it by official reports not via rephrased newspaper articles. Since the man appears to be going through a messy divorce since the accident - and the ex wife now appears to have the children since the verdict i'm sure that cant have helped with anything and all the vague reports and allegations that are now being hinted at.
All the the articles I have seen also seem to have missed the fact that the kids died because they were too well strapped in! That doesn't strike me as the actions of an irresponsible parent/badly maintained vehicle owner (obviously misinformed about seatbelts - but i have never thought that being held in to well could be a bad thing until after all this, so i might have used the same approach as I had never considered this aspect of child belts before.)
In message , Austin Shackles writes
What I do disagree with is the leaking of information regarding the results of the vehicle examination. This should be first disclosed to the jury in court.
One other comment. Headline in today's Guardian - "Father Charged over girl's death on quad bike." (He is a RR owner) Charged with manslaughter by gross neglect. Allegedly took his two young kids out on to a country road, he in his RR, them following on behind on their quad bikes.
At least the CPS are being consistent.
So my question is should he be prosecuted or has he too suffered enough? If you think so, where do you draw the line?
In article , Austin Shackles writes
I suspect Mr. Gresham, with whom my sympathies undoubtedly lie, is being prosecuted for ultimately political reasons.
The government hates our sort of Land Rovers: we're eco-friendly, we're stubbornly independently-minded, and they get proportionately little revenue from our sort of motoring (fuel tax notwithstanding!).
We also represent a celebration of _British_ achievement, when these days we must all be good little Europeans. Our vehicles, being the safest on the roads (or off them!), give the lie to the airbags/speed cameras/traffic management thought police.
In short, if you are of a certain mindset (which many in local and national administration are), we represent a threat. Any opportunity to present Land Rover enthusiasts as irresponsible and dangerous, and thus attack the very existence of our vehicles "... which should be taken off the road for the public good" (you can hear it coming), will not be passed over.
I predict Mr.Gresham will have the book thrown at him, as it suits too many in authority for them not to do so.
I think it's unfair and certainly not natural justice, but such is the country we now live in.
Regards,
S.
PS: If you want concrete examples of this type of thinking, I refer you to any statements on road safety by the Chief Constable of North Wales, and, even more chillingly, to the former EU Transport Commissioner, Martin Bangemann, who famously expressed a wish for all motorcycles to be banned permanently from EU roads, and campaigned for 1930s-style leg protectors to be compulsory.
Regards,
Simonm.
I posted the CPS's thinking on this fairly on in the thread, normally they don't prosecute when the accused has suffered badly but they do on serious cases when the driver was particularly at fault, especially when drink or drugs were involved. If it really is down to vehicle condition then it must have been a real basket-case.
One worry is that my landy some time ago had defective brakes and steering that was about to come apart, this was caught in a routine service, but had been done a few months prior to that during a hard off-roading session when I still bashed the truck around on off-road courses like it was some kind of tank (I was very inexperienced with cars and off-roading at the time), the swan-neck on the steering drop link was hanging off. It may have been the off-roading he did in the truck that put it into a dangerous state, and I think that may well be very relevant to the group as a whole. In a separate incident I cut my tyres so badly they were dangerous and one blew out at speed, again that was off-road damage, the kind of thing I do check for now I'm more experienced. So basically be bloody careful with your off-road truck particularly if you're going to load it up with your entire family.
Bloody idiot.
You seriously believe a politician had some sort of involvement in the decision to prosecute?
If any politician did so it would be instant death for their career if it came out, and in the current climate the Civil Service is leaking stuff like this at every oportunity...
Don't be daft.
Bangemann and his leg protectors have been history for well over a decade now.
Do try and keep up...
In article , William Black writes
The CPS is nothing if not a political creature.
It may be the sum of many little conversations, or perhaps political aides ringing-up and asking direct questions (I concede that's unlikely). I doubt very much it's a straight directive from the Home Office, but I would be surprised if ears haven't been whispered into.
"I asked the CPS to take a very thorough look at this case, because of the number of such vehicles on the roads and the danger they pose to the public. An example must be made, to ensure such a tragedy doesn't happen again."
Come on, you were in the CS, you could write it yourself!
Indeed so (although according to Wikipedia he's still active in German national politics), but the attitude of 'we know what's best for you, so just do it" prevails, particularly in the marble halls of the EU.
Regards,
Simonm.
If anyone was daft enough to write the words 'an example must...' they fully deserve to get the sack.
Those sort of terms are reserved for judges.
A real Civil Servant would write 'It would be unfortunate if someone was thought to have been made an example of at this time and care must be taken to ensure that any prosecution of such a case is sucessful'.
The real decision will have been made after the meeting by the chair of the meeting.
But no career politician will have been involved in any provable way.
They'll also need a cast iron case to convict a man whose children are dead, the jury may just refuse to convict if his defence is adequate.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.