Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

The father of Elizabeth Cooke has been charged with manslaughter

75 replies

wannaBe · 23/07/2008 22:15

here

Not sure what to think about this.

On the one hand I wonder what purpose can be served by bringing charges when he has already paid the ultimate price for his irresponsible actions.

But on the other what he did was irresponsible, and stupid, and maybe it's right that he should be made to take responsibility.

OP posts:
findtheriver · 24/07/2008 14:16

It's ugly and stupid to imply that the driver of the car involved 'must' somehow be implicated. The case was very high profile, the investigation must have been thorough, and I'm sure that if there were any charges to be brought against the driver then they would have been. So clearly she must have been driving within the speed limit and was within any lawful limit for alcohol. If there was evidence that she had been driving without due care and attention then she would presumably be charged. The thing that is clearly evident is that the father chose to act unlawfully and as a direct result of this, a child was killed and another adult has been put through extreme trauma

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 24/07/2008 18:52

I wonder what the mother of Elizabeth thinks?

As for the man who drove into the river, I hadn't been aware it was anything other than a tragic accident

Blu · 24/07/2008 22:58

I would hope that investigation would be thorough no matter how high - or low - profile the case. But all we have togo on is newspaper reports at the time - the police will have all the evidence. No point in speculating.

There was a programme the other night about rural roads being the most dangerous of all - being narrow, windy, unlit, and without pavements or central lines, and lined with trees and other hard immovable objects.

Sazisi · 24/07/2008 23:07

I feel sorry for the dad, it's tragic, but the bottom line is a child lost her life due to his negligence. It's only right for him to be charged for manslaughter.

WendyWeber · 24/07/2008 23:12

I remember this case very well; I was furious at the father at the time & still am.

They live in a house with a very long gated drive of their own - there were photos - there was absolutely no need for him to let the children ride the quad bikes on a public road after dark.

It's totally unfair to put any blame at all on the poor woman whose car collided with the child's quad bike when it veered out from behind her father's car.

oops · 24/07/2008 23:16

Message withdrawn

Mamazon · 24/07/2008 23:18

i also believe the father was negligent. i would imagine that he is being charged so as to set an example to others. cases are only bought to court if they are "in the public interest" which of course it is so as to avoid anyone doing the same.

i would expect he will get a leniant sentance (probably community based) since his punishment has already been more severe than any court could impose.

LittleBella · 24/07/2008 23:26

Frankly I think he deserves prison.

The car driver isn't the only other victim. What about the mother and the brother?

There is a principle that parents can be charged if a child dies or is injured as a result of something that is NOT against the law, like leaving them on their own. When you actually break the law and a child dies, I don't really see how anything less than a prison sentence can be possible.

bossybritches · 24/07/2008 23:34

So Bella......... having lost their sister/ daughter you would condemn the poor mother & brother to losing the husband/father as WELL???

NOBODY can punish the poor man for his stupidity more than he & his family are doing themselves every day. Yes his breaking the law needs addressing & punishing but not with a custodial sentence.....hardly a threat to society is he??

LittleBella · 24/07/2008 23:38

Elizabeth's mother is divorced from him, BB, so she wouldn't be losing her husband.

And he subjected her brother to the same risk, it might equally have been the little boy who was the unfortunate victim of that accident.

I think he is a threat to society actually. Anyone who thinks that they can flout a law that exists to protect society because they know better, is a threat to it.

WendyWeber · 24/07/2008 23:39

There was a younger child in the family too.

Thing is, if he hadn't been her father what would his sentence be? And should he be exempted from that?

ExterminAitch · 24/07/2008 23:41

how is he a threat to society, really?

ExterminAitch · 24/07/2008 23:42

i know WW, poor bastard though. i hope the court case is quick.

Mamazon · 24/07/2008 23:42

and if you believe that you have never broken the law...EVER..then you are either very niave or you have lived a very sheltered life.

most of us have broken several laws at some point in our lives. admitedly few of us will ever be faced with the horrific consequences that this man faced. to tar all law breakers with the same brush is ridiculous.

bossybritches · 24/07/2008 23:42

OK -didn't know they were divorced Bella but it's still the little boys father & no I don't think he would flout the law again because he has already paid the ultimante price.

LittleBella · 24/07/2008 23:46

Oh I spose you'll all agree with my uncle then, who declared how ridiculous it is that they send someone to prison for drink driving repeatedly - after all, no-one got hurt did they, it's a victimless crime, political correctness gone mad...

Really, you don't think someone who is responsible for putting his daughter in a situation where she could be and indeed was, killed, is a threat to society? I must be most awfully conservative then.

Original poster
wannaBe · 24/07/2008 23:47

there's difference though between breaking the law in terms of speeding or illegal parking. He gave a vehicle to a child who legally was not allowed to drive it. He allowed her to drive it, alone (let's not forget they were in the car so not supervising) on a road where you have to be 17 to drive. She was 10 years under the legal age and she was driving, unsupervised, on a public road.

He put her life at risk. And now she is dead.

Really I don't think most people break the law to that extent.

OP posts:
LittleBella · 24/07/2008 23:49

I'm not tarring all lawbreakers with the same brush Mamazon, I'm tarring this one.

What he did, is a piece of lawbreaking I think is a danger to society. Some lawbreaking probably isn't, though I can't think of any of the top of my head, most lawbreaking has some potential threat to society involved in it, that's generally why it's against the law.

Um, I can't think of any law I've ever broken actually, except speeding (which is a threat to society) and cannabis smoking. (Which may be a threat to society in certain circumstances.)

nooka · 24/07/2008 23:50

But you could probably say the same for many people who do stupid things where someone gets hurt. That they are very repentant does make a difference, but the damage has already been caused. Not that we can make a judgement when knowing so little facts, but I am guessing that the police think in this case the father's behaviour was reckless and/or negligent rather than just stupid.

Original poster
wannaBe · 24/07/2008 23:53

I'm also not sure about this argument that he has suffered enough as he lost his child so he shouldn't be punished.

Surely by that argument you could do anything to your child, neglect them, let them roam the streets alone/drive unaccompanied on the roads etc and once they were dead say "my punishment will be the fact I have lost my child" thus avoiding having to take the consequences for your actions?

OP posts:
Mamazon · 24/07/2008 23:53

so you feel you should be imprisoned?

It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to imprison someone. he would be taking the space best saved for a drug dealer/rapist/peadphile/burglar etc.

there is no justic to be served by sending this man to prison. there is nothing more to teach a man who has alreadt learned the lesson

Original poster
wannaBe · 24/07/2008 23:55

and the only law I think I've ever broken is downloading a few songs (10s not hundreds) from file sharing sites. that's it. Hardly comparible to giving a 7 year old a quad bike and letting them loose on a public road, and then failing to get her medical treatment when she was hit by a car.

OP posts:
ExterminAitch · 24/07/2008 23:56

but does having commited a crime that is a threat to society (like your speeding) make you a threat to society? (not that i really understand what you mean by that tbh).

so should you give yourself up to the police, or is he only a threat to society cos he got caught in the worst imaginable way?

Mamazon · 24/07/2008 23:57

im not saying that the father shouldn't be charged. indeed he should be. he behaved in a totally wreckless and irresponsible manner.

i just do not think that it would be in the public interest to give a custodial sentance

LittleBella · 25/07/2008 00:01

No I don't think I should be imprisoned because a) I didn't get caught and b) I haven't killed anyone.

But if I'd killed someone because I'd been doing 80, then yes, I would be profoundly pissed off that I was being sent to prison but in all honesty I couldn't argue that it was unfair, could I? I would be bang to rights, so to speak.

I agree with Nooka, it is a very dodgy argument to say that profound regret is a big enough punishment. I'm sure some of those dreadful people who have mistreated their children to the point where their children have died, regret it profoundly once death hits them and shocks them, but surely we can't say they should therefore not be punished?