• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Libspero

Personal Responsibility.. Dead?

Recommended Posts

I’ll provide a brief summary of the story for anyone who’s not familiar with it..  and I have provided a link to a full article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/02/man-accused-of-killing-his-date-in-speedboat-accident-not-in-court

Basically,  lad takes a girl out on the Thames in his speed boat.  They are both drunk,  doing a bit of night time sight seeing,  she takes the wheel and a short while later they hit a submerged tree trunk and both are catapulted out of the boat.  The girl sadly drowns. Horrible accident.

Anyway, the bloke is up on manslaughter charges. Basically because the girl wasn’t wearing a life jacket.

She was drunk,  she was driving the boat when it crashed.. nobody forced her on to the boat at gun point.  Why can’t things just be an accident any more?  They both took risks,  they are both adults.  Seems a little harsh to me to pin all the blame for her death on him.  

Either way,  the lad has disappeared now and the police are looking for him.  If he has topped himself that will just be double the tragedy and a “result” for our glorious legal system. 

/rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the photo of that lad he is a nervous wreck. He is in Hell. He is suffering to the point of despair and possible suicide.He's innate instincts have said 'run away and hide'.

 

There's a very good chance he will be found dead next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be intrigued to hear the prosecution's case.

Is there more to this - for instance they believe he murdered her and only pretended that drowning was the cause of death because the post mortem revealed something suspicious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't think it's particularly unreasonable. I don't particularly see how the apparent faults with the boat are relevant given the circumstances of the accident, but he had life jackets on board and didn't offer her one, nor did he seem to care about the obvious dangers of driving a boat about late at night in very cold water at well over the speed limit (he had been warned for speeding on previous occasions).

If I encouraged my drunk date to get behind the wheel of my sports car and go tooling about without wearing a seatbelt and they subsequently crashed and died I think there would be a strong argument that I was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, so I don't see why this case is any different. Yes, it was an accident, but it was one that could have been avoided by following basic water safety rules. It's situations like that that the laws on manslaughter are there to discourage.

Edit: That's not to say that he hasn't been badly treated by the press, and indeed by the prosecutors, who have clearly included all the stuff about the faults with the boat and the fact that he admitted to buying it for the purposes of impressing women to make him look bad. There's no reason why he shouldn't be trying to impress a date into bed; he just should have given rather more thought to doing it safely.

Edited by Rave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rave said:

If I encouraged my drunk date to get behind the wheel of my sports car and go tooling about without wearing a seatbelt and they subsequently crashed and died I think there would be an argument to suggest that I was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, so I don't see why this case is any difference. Yes, it was an accident, but it was one that could have been avoided by following basic water safety rules. It's situations like that that the laws on manslaughter are there to discourage.

I struggle to agree.

If you went on a date,  and decided to drive her car while pissed at 100 mph down some back roads,  I would say it was a shame if you killed yourself, but you basically knew the risks and on your own head be it.  I wouldn't particularly see any point in prosecuting your date.  

I'm not really sure the two are comparable either..  on the Thames they were really only endangering themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DTMark said:

I would be intrigued to hear the prosecution's case.

Is there more to this - for instance they believe he murdered her and only pretended that drowning was the cause of death because the post mortem revealed something suspicious?

If they suspected intent to kill then the charge would be murder.

As it is I'm not sure how they can prosecute for "reckless negligence" since she was just as reckless as he was. He wasnt providing a service so had no duty of care.

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I struggle to agree.

If you went on a date,  and decided to drive her car while pissed at 100 mph down some back roads,  I would say it was a shame if you killed yourself, but you basically knew the risks and on your own head be it.  I wouldn't particularly see any point in prosecuting your date.  

I'm not really sure the two are comparable either..  on the Thames they were really only endangering themselves.

The point is that it was his boat, and she would not have been driving it had he not put her in that situation. By allowing her to drive the boat he put her in danger.

If I took it upon myself, without my employer's knowledge, to, say, change a lightbulb at the top of a warehouse using an unsuitable ladder and subsequently fell 30' to my death, that would be entirely my fault. If I asked my boss 'should I shin up that ladder to change that lighbulb?' and they replied 'sure go ahead, I've no problem with that' then they would be culpable. I would also be culpable, of course, but more than one person can share some degree of blame for an avoidable accident.

I certainly think that it would be fair to give this guy a sentence right at the lower end of the scale for manslaughter given the nature of the accident and the fact that the woman who died was a willing participant in the escapade, but he's still guilty IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rave said:

I certainly think that it would be fair to give this guy a sentence right at the lower end of the scale for manslaughter given the nature of the accident and the fact that the woman who died was a willing participant in the escapade, but he's still guilty IMO.

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses..  fair enough.

I'm not sure I would want to conflate this with employment law though,  to me it's quite different. This was just two young people out for a bit of fun and excitement AFAIK.    It went wrong..  one of them died.  Sad story. 

I know people always want someone to blame..  I just don't see how it helps.  They were being young and wild and reckless,  the only ones they hurt were themselves..  You've got to allow young people a little bit of risk and excitement IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rave said:

The point is that it was his boat, and she would not have been driving it had he not put her in that situation. By allowing her to drive the boat he put her in danger.

It probably sounded like a good idea (to him) at the time... It wasn't me she was driving.

Tell me he isn't lying.

He sets it up that they swapped over, but then says they might have swapped over again, just in case some video evidence appears later.

Take a look. It's all there.

https://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2018/07/26/6617228695282666687/640x360_MP4_6617228695282666687.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rave said:

I actually don't think it's particularly unreasonable. I don't particularly see how the apparent faults with the boat are relevant given the circumstances of the accident, but he had life jackets on board and didn't offer her one, nor did he seem to care about the obvious dangers of driving a boat about late at night in very cold water at well over the speed limit (he had been warned for speeding on previous occasions).

If I encouraged my drunk date to get behind the wheel of my sports car and go tooling about without wearing a seatbelt and they subsequently crashed and died I think there would be a strong argument that I was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, so I don't see why this case is any different. Yes, it was an accident, but it was one that could have been avoided by following basic water safety rules. It's situations like that that the laws on manslaughter are there to discourage.

Edit: That's not to say that he hasn't been badly treated by the press, and indeed by the prosecutors, who have clearly included all the stuff about the faults with the boat and the fact that he admitted to buying it for the purposes of impressing women to make him look bad. There's no reason why he shouldn't be trying to impress a date into bed; he just should have given rather more thought to doing it safely.

Just to mention that speeding on rivers seems to be an accepted normal by the boating lot.  I don't have a speed boat, but I've been up and down the Thames by canoe a few times and I'd think every single privately owned motor boat speeds.  So 'warned for speeding on previous occasions' might just be a history that every boat owner has.

My thoughts -- the prosecution goes on about how he used the boat to pick up girls, but it is equally likely that he took them all for a ride on the river and each time the girl begged to have a go at piloting the thing.   Might that be undue pressure?

Also, the driving thing seems like a good analogy -- if you had a fastish car and let a girl drive it who then crashed, she'd be the one losing her license.

Anyway -- 6 years?  That seems a bit steep given the circumstances.  IMO this is another example of the law treating women like weak impressionable things that are led astray by men -- institutional sexism in law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Rave said:

I actually don't think it's particularly unreasonable. I don't particularly see how the apparent faults with the boat are relevant given the circumstances of the accident, but he had life jackets on board and didn't offer her one, nor did he seem to care about the obvious dangers of driving a boat about late at night in very cold water at well over the speed limit (he had been warned for speeding on previous occasions).

If I encouraged my drunk date to get behind the wheel of my sports car and go tooling about without wearing a seatbelt and they subsequently crashed and died I think there would be a strong argument that I was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, so I don't see why this case is any different. Yes, it was an accident, but it was one that could have been avoided by following basic water safety rules. It's situations like that that the laws on manslaughter are there to discourage.

Edit: That's not to say that he hasn't been badly treated by the press, and indeed by the prosecutors, who have clearly included all the stuff about the faults with the boat and the fact that he admitted to buying it for the purposes of impressing women to make him look bad. There's no reason why he shouldn't be trying to impress a date into bed; he just should have given rather more thought to doing it safely.

 

5 hours ago, dgul said:

Just to mention that speeding on rivers seems to be an accepted normal by the boating lot.  I don't have a speed boat, but I've been up and down the Thames by canoe a few times and I'd think every single privately owned motor boat speeds.  So 'warned for speeding on previous occasions' might just be a history that every boat owner has.

My thoughts -- the prosecution goes on about how he used the boat to pick up girls, but it is equally likely that he took them all for a ride on the river and each time the girl begged to have a go at piloting the thing.   Might that be undue pressure?

Also, the driving thing seems like a good analogy -- if you had a fastish car and let a girl drive it who then crashed, she'd be the one losing her license.

Anyway -- 6 years?  That seems a bit steep given the circumstances.  IMO this is another example of the law treating women like weak impressionable things that are led astray by men -- institutional sexism in law?

 

 

Agree with both comments, but speed in the wrong conditions equates with stupidity and ignorance, but not all owners will speed. Boat owning has become too easy, too accessible.

Unfortunately, you don't need to have lessons, pass a test to drive a boat, or have a driving license to use one. It's odd that you don't, especially if you are taking a passenger. At this time of year I see powerboat owners (from Ribs to Gin palaces) unaware of danger or the rules of the sea, every day I go to sea.

Letting or encouraging someone else drive to a boat at speed in the dark while the driver and the person in charge is in a drunken state is stupidity.

 

image.png

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

 

Agree with both comments, but speed in the wrong conditions equates with stupidity and ignorance, but not all owners will speed. Boat owning has become too easy, too accessible.

We can all be holier than thou with hind sight,   but actually the reason they crashed was hitting a submerged log at night.

I imagine even you in your perfectly sober state, going the speed limit and wearing your life jacket could still easily have hit a submerged log, easily have been knocked over board and easily have drowned under the wrong circumstances.  The best guarantee that it would have saved her would probably be that by being so bloody boring she wouldn't have dated him in the first place. 

If they had plowed into another boat I could start to have a bit more sympathy for the prosection.

 

Edited by Libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Libspero said:

We can all be holier than thou with hind sight,   but actually the reason they crashed was hitting a submerged log at night.

I imagine even you in your perfectly sober state, going the speed limit and wearing your life jacket could still easily have hit a submerged log, easily have been knocked over board and easily have drowned under the wrong circumstances.  The best guarantee that it would have saved her would probably be that by being so bloody boring she wouldn't have dated him in the first place. 

If they had plowed into another boat I could start to have a bit more sympathy for the prosection.

 

You can crash though reckless stupidity and I would suggest ignorance/naivety. Add to that aclohol-fuelled bravado.

You really have to pay attention and study the water surface when driving a boat, many don't. I see it all the time with holiday speed boat owners driving fast at sea not paying any attention to the water surface as there can't be any hazards, can there?, driving though pot ropes, smashing buoys with their props etc

You will often see submerged objects from the disturbance on the surface, You should always expect hazards beneath the water from logs to bits of rope, the latter if hit at speed can rip your prop shaft out

Speed limits and you might not fall overboard or sink yourself if kept at those speeds, and at night, in the dark, sense would make you go slower and look more carefully, especially if you had a small boat that wouldn't just push an obstruction out of the way.

I'd go far as to say that some people shouldn't even be allowed near a boat

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

You really have to pay attention and study the water surface when driving a boat, many don't. I see it all the time with holiday speed boat owners driving fast at sea not paying any attention to the water surface as there can't be any hazards, can there?, driving though pot ropes, smashing buoys with their props etc

Personal pet hate there. Pots should have weighted lines..  the number of dangerously placed pots you see is far more of a concern to me than the odd person out on a jolly.

I guess I will just have to trust you on your impressive ability to always spot submerged objects.  I'm sure speed makes it harder,  but that was a risk they were prepared to take..  the only ones they hurt were themselves.  Still really not seeing the case for prosecuting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id hazrd a guess if it was the other way round the female would not be on trial.

But he has pleaded not guilty and then failed up for court and was advising his legal team over the phone .. one way to make yourself look like an arrogant prick.

If he'd turned up and been found guilty the sentence would be far less, usually only 1 or 2 years for this and often suspended if you plead guilty.

Id not fancy being a relatively normal person sitting in one of Englands over crowded jails for 3 years these days

 

Edited by Banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Libspero said:

Personal pet hate there. Pots should have weighted lines..  the number of dangerously placed pots you see is far more of a concern to me than the odd person out on a jolly.

I guess I will just have to trust you on your impressive ability to always spot submerged objects.  I'm sure speed makes it harder,  but that was a risk they were prepared to take..  the only ones they hurt were themselves.  Still really not seeing the case for prosecuting.

My pots do have weighted line, as you'd expect ;)

But you do need a pick up buoy and a float at the surface separated by about 1m floating line (the two buoys indicate the current direction and so the direction of the leaded rope as it sinks under the water) - the buoys are a navigational aid to avoid entanglement. Easy to see by anyone paying attention, but seemingly difficult to miss if you don't.

I'd say a boat owner is responsible for someone who takes control of a boat.

You should always expect something beneath the water, more so if you do not know the water. Drive with due care and attention, no different to being on the roads.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not convinced that she was ever at the helm. With that said I am in agreement with @Libspero. A lot of responsbility falls on herself; she chose to go on the date, she decided to have all that wine and she went on the boat while drunk and at night. Ultimately the buck stops with her. Is there any clue of that she said she can't swim? Or asked for a lifejacket? Did she ask him to slow down because she wasn't comfortable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Libspero said:

I’ll provide a brief summary of the story for anyone who’s not familiar with it..  and I have provided a link to a full article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/02/man-accused-of-killing-his-date-in-speedboat-accident-not-in-court

Basically,  lad takes a girl out on the Thames in his speed boat.  They are both drunk,  doing a bit of night time sight seeing,  she takes the wheel and a short while later they hit a submerged tree trunk and both are catapulted out of the boat.  The girl sadly drowns. Horrible accident.

Anyway, the bloke is up on manslaughter charges. Basically because the girl wasn’t wearing a life jacket.

She was drunk,  she was driving the boat when it crashed.. nobody forced her on to the boat at gun point.  Why can’t things just be an accident any more?  They both took risks,  they are both adults.  Seems a little harsh to me to pin all the blame for her death on him.  

Either way,  the lad has disappeared now and the police are looking for him.  If he has topped himself that will just be double the tragedy and a “result” for our glorious legal system. 

/rant

Sad tale.

As a point of fact the Guardian quotes the cause of death as 'cold water immersion and intoxication' not drowning. She died In hospital not In the water. In that case the absence of a life jacket probably was not the main cause of her death as it would make no difference to your survival time from exposure to cold water (nb  -  the accident was in December). I do think industrial legislation is relevant here because in negligence cases such as this one employers rarely get prosecuted for manslaughter. As intoxication was one of the causes of death and the girl presumably not had the booze forced down her throat I think it is as much death by misadventure as manslaughter. The case looks like the usual waste of taxpayers money we see so frequently from the showboaters  who now invest the CPS and the police.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rave said:

I actually don't think it's particularly unreasonable. I don't particularly see how the apparent faults with the boat are relevant given the circumstances of the accident, but he had life jackets on board and didn't offer her one, nor did he seem to care about the obvious dangers of driving a boat about late at night in very cold water at well over the speed limit (he had been warned for speeding on previous occasions).

If I encouraged my drunk date to get behind the wheel of my sports car and go tooling about without wearing a seatbelt and they subsequently crashed and died I think there would be a strong argument that I was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, so I don't see why this case is any different. Yes, it was an accident, but it was one that could have been avoided by following basic water safety rules. It's situations like that that the laws on manslaughter are there to discourage.

Edit: That's not to say that he hasn't been badly treated by the press, and indeed by the prosecutors, who have clearly included all the stuff about the faults with the boat and the fact that he admitted to buying it for the purposes of impressing women to make him look bad. There's no reason why he shouldn't be trying to impress a date into bed; he just should have given rather more thought to doing it safely.

I've spent a lot of time in the states, particulary the south where it's common and accepted to drink drive on nights out. This tends to be a given considering the distances involved between bars and homes. Numerous times I've had to ask people not to do it, and there have been times I've had to decline getting into the car to the embarrssment of a lot of people. Subsquently leaving me out of pocket requiring taxis or phoning someone sober to come and get me. The buck stops with yourself, no matter the pressure or the encouragement, no matter how safe they think they can drive on 4 beers, when it's your life involved you have the final say. Just my opinion of course.

Edited by Admiral Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me a bit of this case - where with the passenger being a child there is clearly a much higher obligation on the driver to ensure the passenger wears a seatbelt and I think there certainly is some duty of care falling on a boat owner who invites passengers on but it's hard to say how much with adults particularly when it's not framed in law/

In this case the guy got 18 months and a driving ban. The former not really necessary I would say judging by the look on his face and the latter almost irrelevant. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-43539579

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Libspero said:

I’ll provide a brief summary of the story for anyone who’s not familiar with it..  and I have provided a link to a full article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/02/man-accused-of-killing-his-date-in-speedboat-accident-not-in-court

Basically,  lad takes a girl out on the Thames in his speed boat.  They are both drunk,  doing a bit of night time sight seeing,  she takes the wheel and a short while later they hit a submerged tree trunk and both are catapulted out of the boat.  The girl sadly drowns. Horrible accident.

Anyway, the bloke is up on manslaughter charges. Basically because the girl wasn’t wearing a life jacket.

She was drunk,  she was driving the boat when it crashed.. nobody forced her on to the boat at gun point.  Why can’t things just be an accident any more?  They both took risks,  they are both adults.  Seems a little harsh to me to pin all the blame for her death on him.  

Either way,  the lad has disappeared now and the police are looking for him.  If he has topped himself that will just be double the tragedy and a “result” for our glorious legal system. 

/rant

Not sure.

One, the incident happened in 2015. There's something fishy about why its took so long to come to court.

Two, boats are unusual in the yes of the law. Few people have any direct experience. If to own/captain a boat, you are legally obliged to oversea its safe operation. This would include not letting a drunk steer it.

Three, by fucking off and conducting his legal case in a very wierd way hes fucked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Reminds me a bit of this case - where with the passenger being a child there is clearly a much higher obligation on the driver to ensure the passenger wears a seatbelt and I think there certainly is some duty of care falling on a boat owner who invites passengers on but it's hard to say how much with adults particularly when it's not framed in law/

In this case the guy got 18 months and a driving ban. The former not really necessary I would say judging by the look on his face and the latter almost irrelevant. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-43539579

 

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, we can't really comment on his case because:

A. We don't know how drunk he was. And,

B. We don't know how fast they were going in the boat.

If he had 2 pints and went for a sail at 5mph he wasnt reckless IMHO. If he was paralytic and was racing at 30mph in the dark he is guilty IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.