Arguing For Protection

7 November 2014

Amazingly, an MP has stood up in the House of Commons and argued the case for lifetime driving bans as protection from particularly dangerous drivers.

The speech

Let’s look at the speech that was made in favour of lifetime bans:

At 2.47 in the afternoon of 1 March this year, two days before his 20th birthday, [the victim] was killed when his Renault Clio was hit by a heavy goods vehicle on the A162 between Ledsham and Fairburn, just outside my constituency. The driver of that heavy goods vehicle was found to be under the influence of alcohol. He was jailed for just seven years, but is likely to serve only half that sentence, and was banned from driving for 10 years. Let me put that in context. In 2024, when [the victim] should have been celebrating his 30th birthday—perhaps with a family of his own, and a good career—his killer could be driving again, enjoying all the freedoms of life that his reckless actions took away from [the victim].

… for reasons that I have discussed, my constituents believe a review of sentencing of convicted drivers is desperately needed. I do not believe that stricter custodial sentencing is enough to deter others from driving while drunk. For convicted drivers such as [the driver], driving is their livelihood. Sentencing guidelines mean that there is no reason why [the victim]’s killer cannot be back driving his HGV in 10 years’ time. We need to send a strong message to those who choose to ignore, or plead ignorance of, drink-drive laws. My constituents therefore ask Ministers to consider, when they review sentencing guidelines, imposing a lifetime ban on driving for those convicted of causing death while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Oh, sorry—did I mention there was a catch?

The real speech

Here’s what was actually said, with real names used, and some missing words restored and underlined:

At 2.47 in the afternoon of 1 March this year, two days before his 20th birthday, Callum was killed when his Renault Clio was hit by a heavy goods vehicle on the A162 between Ledsham and Fairburn, just outside my constituency. The driver of that heavy goods vehicle, a Bulgarian national called Stoyan Andonov Stoyanov, was found to be under the influence of alcohol. He was jailed for just seven years, but is likely to serve only half that sentence, and was banned from driving in the UK for 10 years. Let me put that in context. In 2024, when Callum should have been celebrating his 30th birthday—perhaps with a family of his own, and a good career—his killer could be driving on UK roads again, enjoying all the freedoms of life that his reckless actions took away from Callum.

… for reasons that I have discussed, my constituents believe a review of sentencing of convicted foreign drivers is desperately needed. I do not believe that stricter custodial sentencing in the UK is enough to deter others from driving while drunk. For convicted foreign drivers such as Mr Stoyanov, driving is their livelihood. Sentencing guidelines, together with the absence of restrictions preventing those subject to a deportation order from one day reapplying for entry to the UK, mean that there is no reason why Callum’s killer cannot be back driving his HGV on UK roads in 10 years’ time. The United Kingdom needs to send a strong message to foreign nationals who choose to ignore, or plead ignorance of, our drink-drive laws. My constituents therefore ask Ministers to consider, when they review sentencing guidelines, imposing a lifetime ban on driving in the UK for foreign nationals convicted of causing death while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Ah… So that’s the catch.

(By the way, you can read the full speech here. It was given by Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke.)

Our killers are a better type of killer

Clearly people are prepared to stand up and propose lifetime bans for foreigners. But, apparently, not for British drivers.

The speech is, as you would expect from any xenophobic rhetoric, utterly hypocritical.

For instance, here’s what Shelbrooke says of the equivalence of killer drivers from either side of the EU border:

For the purposes of protecting British citizens at home, what is the difference between a foreign national offender from Bulgaria and, for example, a foreign national offender from a few miles over the border in Turkey? Is a criminal from Burgas any less of a criminal than one from Dereköy? Does membership of the European economic area suddenly make a member state’s criminals a lesser threat to UK citizens than those from another country? I think not.

Killers from the EU are no more and no less dangerous than those from outside it. Correct.

Yet, of course, there’s no mention of equivalence across the English Channel. Why propose a lifetime ban for a Bulgarian, but not for a Bristolian?

On the threat to Britons, Shelbrooke says:

In short, despite a 10-year ban from driving on UK roads, in three years’ time Mr Stoyanov could return to Bulgaria and resume driving anywhere within the European economic area. With 1.8 million Britons living and working in Europe, he will remain a threat to British citizens abroad, despite a 10-year driving ban in the UK.

Of course, it’s absolutely fair to point out, and to criticise, the fact that the driving ban is not applicable EU-wide.

But, whilst Shelbrooke xenophobically dismisses foreign victims (foreign criminals are more important than British criminals, but foreign victims less) and mentions the 1.8 million Britons living abroad—bloody immigrants!—surely his focus should be on the many more millions of Britons still in the UK? Yes, they’re theoretically protected for longer than Our Dear Britons Abroad, but Shelbrooke wants Our Dear Britons Generally to have protection for Stoyanov’s lifetime.

Shelbrooke does not seem to take up the case of Stewart Rosoman, who was banned for eight years—two years fewer than Stoyanov—after killing a man when driving whilst drunk, and the only plausible explanation for this is that Rosoman is British.

British drivers who kill are, Shelbrook firmly implies, less dangerous that Bulgarians who kill: Britons only need protecting from British killer drivers for eight years; they need protecting from Bulgarian killer drivers permanently.

Logic is quite evidently wholly absent; as are even a basic understanding of danger and any real demand for increased protection from it. This is no more than xenophobic peacocking.

How sad that an opportunity to argue for protection from danger was wholly wasted by arguing for protection from foreigners.

Mr Shelbrooke, UKIP awaits you with open arms.

Comments

  1. David 8 November 2014 12:01pm #

    There is currently an e-petition asking for permanent licence revocations for anyone convicted of ‘Death by Careless/Dangerous Driving’. I don’t hold out much help but it is worth a try. The link is below

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/68675

    If enough people sign then politicians might start to take note. After all, there is an election next year!

Leave a Reply to David Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *