L & K Saturday protest

[stez]

Is he really sticking his thumb down its throat in an effort to make it sick?

Barbaric sport, fish vomiting.

obviously he's clearing it's stomach, as, one should never drink and dive

[Hullfox]

Does that mean you'll be gone for another six months?

whilst you're here, absolutely.

[Houdini Logic]

obviously he's clearing it's stomach, as, one should never drink and dive

The pair of you worked on that...

[Finnegan]

drink driving is okay because some people are shit drivers sober?

Fantastic, Thrac'. Let's legalize it then. Then those people who are shit drivers whilst sober can go out and get mullered and be even more fantastic additions to a motorway near you.

Dear me.

[Katy]

drink driving is okay because some people are shit drivers sober?

Fantastic, Thrac'. Let's legalize it then. Then those people who are shit drivers whilst sober can go out and get mullered and be even more fantastic additions to a motorway near you.

Dear me.

That's the badger Finners.

[stez]

The pair of you worked on that...

we don't work on it, our comedy is more freestyle.

[Houdini Logic]

we don't work on it, our comedy is more freefall.

[stez]

changing posts is like the ken dodd of comedy

[BoneDog]

Not really a fan of drink driving to be honest, but I did enjoy driving on acid once. It was a real challenge I tell thee.

I wouldn't do it again mind, I was a young whippersnapper at the time who knew no better.

[lou]

This.

Too many tabloids think they know more about justice than judgies or juries. This case looks like another example.

Congratulations on your new post, BTW.

Yes, congratulations.

[Houdini Logic]

changing posts is like the ken dodd of comedy

Thanks

[Thracian]

Tony, sort yourself out. Only total morons with no regard for anyone else but themselves condone driving whilst under the influence.

Of what? Pain, drugs, bad news, marriage breakdown? Or just drink?

And how much pain? What quantity of drugs? What degree of bad news? What quantity of drink?

Other than matters of national security, people should be judged/criminalised on what happens. Not what might happen according to some nanny politician's theory.

And, where driving advice is concerned I'd be as anxious to warn against driving while ill, in pain, under the influence of drugs or while the victim of some mental trauma just as much as I would warn about not driving if judgement is likely to be impaired by drink.

Whoever gets taken to court because they might burgle a house, might fiddle their tax return, might hit someone causing actual bodily harm, might speed because they've got a potentially fast car.?

Who can set themselves up as capable of judging a person's fitness to drive?

If you'd say people shouldn't drive if aware that their action would be considerably impaired by their physical ormental condition in some way then I'd agree wholeheartedly. But who's to fairly judge but the driver? Because we all know that people drive while seriously impaired in all sorts of ways - I even know a bloke who drove with a badly broken ankle.

And I've known stacks of people who've taken to the road in a rage having had a major row. How fit are they to drive? How much more concerned are they about other people than the guy who's had a couple of pints and a steak meal? Probably a lot less I'd say.

[Finnegan]

yes only some daft, nanny politician would conclude that being inebriated and getting behind the wheel is a bad idea.

[Thracian]

yes only some daft, nanny politician would conclude that being inebriated and getting behind the wheel is a bad idea.

Do you ever properly understand anything you read or listen to?

Where have I ever condoned driving while "inebriated"?

I don't think anyone should drive if they are unfit to do so - for any reason be it the effect of alcohol or the pain from a slipped disc.

And the media should be used to encourage people to ask themselves "Am I fit to drive" and to be responsible if they are not. But for whatever reason, not just alcohol.

As I say people have been persuaded to demonise anyone who consumes alcohol and drives a car whether they drive safely or not while completely ignoring the very real dangers of other factors that can seriously affect people's state of mind and physical fitness to drive at the time.

That's not right. It's a form of persecution. Why don't they spend a year persecuting centre-lane road hogs. Or people who cannot read or understand English road signs?

[Finnegan]

You know very well I read and I'm sure you know very well that it's you, very much, being an idiot. You're just fishing for an argument as always. But it's not really an argument, is it? It's just an entire forum full of people telling you you're being an idiot.

You can't have a system of laws that's judged entirely and loosely on the ability, history or capacity of every single individual and the actions they take and the constitution of their body.

Ergo there is a blanket ban on the consumption of anything more than a minimalistic amount of alcohol before driving. Whether or not some people have a higher tolerance is irrelevant. A government can't measure levels of stress or social well-being but it can measure levels of alcohol and thus can moderate how much should be drunk before you drive.

It's hardly "nanny state", is it?

[Thracian]

You know very well I read and I'm sure you know very well that it's you, very much, being an idiot. You're just fishing for an argument as always. But it's not really an argument, is it? It's just an entire forum full of people telling you you're being an idiot.

You can't have a system of laws that's judged entirely and loosely on the ability, history or capacity of every single individual and the actions they take and the constitution of their body.

Ergo there is a blanket ban on the consumption of anything more than a minimalistic amount of alcohol before driving. Whether or not some people have a higher tolerance is irrelevant. A government can't measure levels of stress or social well-being but it can measure levels of alcohol and thus can moderate how much should be drunk before you drive.

It's hardly "nanny state", is it?

How conveniently and typically you evaded answering my question about your reading.

As for your last paragraph it only confirms my point about persecution. One thing can be measured and the other, you say, cannot. So persecute the one they can measure whether or not there's any evidence of excess alcohol or bad driving and ignore the rest.

[Hugo Sanchez]

For god sakes, if they want to fooking protest fooking let them Its called the freedom of fooking speech.

Also Lisa, i'm sorry you haven't never done nothing wrong and never broke any stupid law but we're not all squares.

[stez]

i weep for the future

[Guest]

Also Lisa, i'm sorry you haven't never done nothing wrong and never broke any stupid law but we're not all squares.

And that's based upon?

[MC Prussian]

You CAN drink and drive - as long as you are under the limit.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If you drink too much, there's no one else to blame but yourself for being such a massive twat.

So stop pointing your finger toward the bottle and blaming alcohol for your own irresponsible behaviour.

Who can set themselves up as capable of judging a person's fitness to drive?

Not who, but what:

[Webbo]

Not who, but what:

The police aren't keen on those sort of devices. If people find they're under the limit they'll often think they can have another drink before they go home.

[Bellend Sebastian]

i weep for the future

I find it's best not to think about it

[Houdini Logic]

How conveniently and typically you evaded answering my question about your reading.

As for your last paragraph it only confirms my point about persecution. One thing can be measured and the other, you say, cannot. So persecute the one they can measure whether or not there's any evidence of excess alcohol or bad driving and ignore the rest.

That's rich coming from someone who's selective about what posts they answer.

Reply to number 73 please

[Thracian]

Let's break this down -

a) Yes we should decide whether or not people who drink and drink should be treated in the same way as the above mentioned, so to help us do that let's establish solely what we think should happen to people who drink and drive first.

b) I don't think people should drink any more than the (somewhat reserved) recommended limit because the effect of alcohol can differ greatly from person to person.

Do you agree or disagree?

a) Nothing unless there is evidence that their driving is a danger to others - and then sentences should be more severe according to how irresponsible they've been in making that the case. So if an accident happens in which a driver is found to be the cause then their sentence will reflect any apparently contributing factors such as drink, drugs, limited mobility through injury or illness and a persons state of mind due to other factors. If an individual consumes 2/3 pints over whatever time and perhaps consumes meal what earthly reason is there to prosecute him if he drives safely and responsibly?

b) My answer in (a) is much fairer than having some people unfairly penalised for driving safely having consumed alcohol - just because of a convenient but unjust catch-all law contrived on the basis of the lowest common denominator.

Some people are positively unsafe driving on one unit of alcoholand othersperfectly safe after a meal and three pints over a reasonable period. What matters is how people drive not what they've had or not had to eat and drink.

A driver dawdling along at 40mph in the centre-lane of a motorway might be a much greater danger than someone who's had two pints and a steak and then drives in the appropriate lane and at the same general speed as the other traffic.

There's the answers you asked for. Happy now?

[Guest]

Thracian, who gets to decide who is safe or isn't safe to drive?