National Traffic

  2011 articles

We, the public, petition the government to introduce a three strikes law. If an offender commits three serious criminal offences, after being given two separate chances to reform by the courts, they should automatically receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the option of parole.
   V O T E        COMMENT    

11 Aug 2011 07:48 pm :slabber

We definitely need a 3 strikes and you're out policy in this country. For too long criminal scum have been sticking 2 fingers up at the justice system. Lock 'em up and throw away the key I say

11 Aug 2011 11:05 pm :Tricky

I agree with it. I did a sentence plan on a prisoner in my previous employment. He had OVER 175 previous convictions. When I ask what he did for a living, his reply was an unemployed burglar. He should have been life'd off.

11 Aug 2011 11:10 pm :XSFX

I agree get tough on criminals they should be the ones living in fear not inoccent law abiding members of public.

Prision should not be as comfortable as they are.

11 Aug 2011 10:39 pm :nick

My "wish list" would definately support this. Though, got to say, the voice on my other shoulder questions the cost of 30 years jail.

12 Aug 2011 02:28 pm :Nighthawk

Of course I'm all for it. This country has been far too soft on scum for far too long!

12 Aug 2011 12:31 pm :Guinness Man

I would support three strikes and your out regardless of crime, but I also think there should be harsh sentences right from the off none of this 8 weeks lark or community service, also if you are in receipt of benifits they disappear full stop. Human rights would also go until sentence has been served.

skip to 2010 articles     

falkorfalkora one hour chat session between falkor and RAC veteran tctopcat in 2011
tctopcattctopcat click here to read the lo-down on the day falkor and tctopcat met for a chin wag

Leading motoring charity, The RAC Foundation has hit out at remarks by an MP who wants police and prosecutors to get tougher with motorists who kill or injure cyclists. The charity described the comments by Cambridge MP Julian Huppert during a commons debate on road safety as “trying to establish a hierarchy of righteousness” among road users and an RAC Foundation spokesperson went on to say that his stance “risks widening the divide” between motorists and cyclists.

Simon_MacMichael - Posted on 24 January 2011
Dr Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge, who is himself a keen cyclist – he is currently recovering from a broken arm sustained while cycling in Australia earlier this month – said: “Driving with a reckless disregard for the safety of fellow road users should be treated very seriously,” in the Commons debate, reports the website Cambridge News.

He added that the introduction in the UK of a rule of “proportionate liability,” as applies in some countries on the Continent and elsewhere, and which places the onus in the event of an accident on the larger vehicle, “would protect cars from trucks, bikes from cars and pedestrians from bikes.”

Dr Huppert said that the implementation of such measures would help eliminate the likelihood of drivers claiming that they hadn’t seen a cyclist, as highlighted last year in national cyclists’ organisation CTC’s Stop SMIDSY campaign.

He also urged that the driving test should include more of a focus on driver awareness of cyclists and pedestrians.

However, a spokesman from the RAC Foundation criticised his remarks, saying: “Mr Huppert’s motives might be honourable, but rather than encouraging harmony between cyclists and drivers he risks widening the divide.

“The reality is there are reckless elements among all groups of road users.

skip to 2010 articles