Re: Rugby twat banned for drink-driving



"5016" <huwgareth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:9b31cb71-993a-47af-ad2b-515acbcb7f29@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 8, 11:22 am, johnmhill <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:56 pm, Charles <j...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:27:52 -0000, "Simon S-B" <baitt...@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

> ><bjlong...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:a8042bfe-afc8-4ccb-9c60-45b27ff2505d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> On 8 Jan, 12:11, Jean Le Hookeur <michaelnewp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090108/tuk-rugby-star-banned-for-drink-...

> >> I'm not condoning drink driving - but reading this it seems to me > >> like
> >> he's been treated quite harshly given that the reports say he was > >> just
> >> 10% over the limit, and it was the morning after. 3 years seems like > >> a
> >> lot. The sentencing guidelines are 12 months for a similar offence.

> >> When you think that Liam Plunkett (the cricketer) got 20 months for
> >> being more than double the limit or that a Polish chef who was > >> double
> >> the limit and smacked his car into a house got just 22 months.

> >> Unless the news organisations are reporting it wrong, of course, and
> >> mixing up results from a breath (limit 35mg) and a blood test (80mg)
> >> when they're saying what his alcohol reading was (91mg). If they > >> are -
> >> and if any lawyers are reading then I should emphasise this is
> >> hypothetical - then he would be 3 times over the limit.

> >Holding my hands up - I am currently banned. I got two years and I was
> >substantially more over the limit than Tindall. They're making an > >example of
> >him, as they do with anyone who isn't pond scum. I was moving my car > >from an
> >expensive area of the car park to a cheap one, and didn't think that a > >car
> >park counted as public roads (how very wrong).

> >Anyone that wants to get pious on me can *** right off as like > >everyone
> >else I've been punished enough. I like most lost my job, then lost the > >one I
> >got to replace it as you can't rely on public transport. On the rehab > >course
> >I went on (knocks 25% off), nearly 40% of the people there had lost > >their
> >home as a result, and quite a few their partner as well. A lot of them > >were
> >morning after breathtests, and I'm sure most of you would have failed > >one of
> >them at one time or another.

> >I'm fortunate in that some loyal customers gave me their business, and > >I set
> >up a company which is doing well. I work from home and I employ a > >driver
> >when I need one. Not everyone has the skills or financial backing to > >do
> >that, and for them it must be an extremely difficult time. There are > >far
> >more serious crimes going on that are given far less painful sentences > >for
> >sure.

> As you so rightly say, there but for the grace of God go any number of
> us. However, gone are the days when to be breathalysed was considered
> unlucky. The liberal-left hardliners have no sympathy and would
> cheerfully have 'drink-drivers' put up against a wall and shot - so
> much for cuddly woolly liberalism.

> I wouldn't give the bastards the satisfaction and in our family for
> the past 15 years or so, it's been strictly no booze on the day if
> you're driving, and no driving the day after a piss-up.

> That's not being holier than thou Simon, it's just reluctant
> resignation to the forces that control all our lives, because there is
> no alternative - particularly politically. You will know that I give
> the bastards that want to control our every thought word and deed, as
> much stick as I can at every opportunity.

> Concerning Tindall, this is his second offence so you could say he was
> asking for trouble, particularly as he more than most has countless
> other alternatives to 'taking a chance'!!

> I'm pleased you managed to overcome your potential problems, as ruin
> for life is too severe a punishment for a first offence, particularly
> when you consider the tame penalties for much more serious offences.

Charles I am anything but a wooly liberal and I despise the PC spoil
our fun brigade.But alcohol is a drug. There is no "grace of god",
just don't drink and drive.

Well, I am a liberal and proud of it. And I believe that we are far
too harsh on drunk drivers. There are many reasons why people drive
poorly, alcohol is only one of them. And I don't believe the typical
drunk-driving statistics, which typical attribute every death in which
the driver was over the limit to alcohol when:
- the driver might just be a crappy driver anyway
- the accident might not have been the drivers fault
- the pedestrian might have drunkenly cause the accident
- there are more accidents at night, when people are more likely to
be drunk

At the moment, if a driver who has 3 pints and drives home at 30mph
accidently runs over a drunk lying in the middle of the road, then
that accident is attributed to drunk-driving.

The UK has the harshest enforcement of this in the world, I think.
Most European countries and the US are much more lenient. In truly
civilized countries, like Haiti, you can still bomb around in a
convertible while drinking rum out of the bottle.

While I'm sure that there are deaths caused by drunken driving, there
are also deaths caused by speeding. And we don't take people's lives
and livelihoods from them for driving at 35 in a 30-zone. And people
don't get all uppity and holier-than-thou when discussing speeding.

I've often thought that we should designate certain hours for drunk
driving. For instance, you could be allowed to drive as drunk as you
wanted between, say 12 and 1am. That way the sober people who didn't
want to take the risk could just avoid this window.


JH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On the course I did they demonstrated that speeding was far more dangerous and kills vastly more people than drink driving. They also demonstrated that someone my age (38) with 4 pints in them has better reactions than a 70 yr old, and nobody is screaming about taking them off the road despite the number of accidents they cause. The biggest single killer is incorrect tyre pressure, yet you don't see any campaigns about that or police stopping cars for it.

It's funny how those whose job it is to rehabilitate people, and who come into contact with it all the time (they were police accident investigators) are far more realistic about the dangers, and far less judgemental. They are the first ones to say that of all the dangerous ways to drive, it's simply the easiest to prosecute. As well as that, it's a criminal not a civil conviction, so it makes their figures look better. I guess some people are just easily swayed by what the government want us to think is the 'hot topic' of the moment. I agree it was a dumb thing to do and shan't be doing it again, but then I also think the overly pious are poorly informed and should perhaps do the course themselves.



.