lou Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Christ Ive read some utter bollocks in my time but this thread has reached new levels
Houdini Logic Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 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? Actually that very much isn't what I asked for - it would be nice for you to answer the one question I asked (denoted by a question mark) but I'm not holding any hope of that. Here it is again in case you change your mind - '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?' For someone who seems to hate politicians you sure seem to be turning into one with your responses. I've already explained that we should look at other dangers on the road once we have established thoughts on drink driving, so if you could keep your comparisons to your self for the time being. a) So you believe that people who drink and are dangerous on the road should be punished - how would you regulate this? Would you let them decide themselves if they were dangerous? Would you let people drink as much as they feel happy with and when they crash their cars only prosecute the people who are actually over the limit? Or would you want to impose a limit? Genuine question and look forward to your answer response
Houdini Logic Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 As an aside...Anyone who drinks and drives is a complete moron and deserves anything that comes to them as a result. Only one person to blame, Lou...
Finnegan Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Only one person to blame Yeah, Lou, what you playing at?!
Thracian Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Thracian, who gets to decide who is safe or isn't safe to drive? The courts when something happens and charges are made in consequence. When nothing happens it is entirely subjective and doesn't need a decision. Have you really thought about who is the more dangerous - the crawling middle-lane hogger I mentioned or the guy who's in the inside lane driving normally at, say, 65 mph after a meal and a couple of pints? It's impossible to monitor who's truly safe to drive but irresponsibility can go way beyond drinkers so why the one sould be persecuted whether dangerous or not while the other is ignored I just can't understand and I doubt that you'll want to. Do we ban pedestrians from the market because they are big, aggressive and known to be drugs takers? Or schitzo's because they are unsafe without their medication? Or people from town centre shops because they've been convicted of shoplifting? We are so selective on who we pick on and you know why. Because it's easy income from the mainly working car owners. And far less contentious than many other forms of persecution.
Guest Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 So you believe then, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the driver should be able to decide if he, or she, is fit to drive. Isn't that what happens already?
Thracian Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 So you believe then, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the driver should be able to decide if he, or she, is fit to drive.Isn't that what happens already? Yes it is, and in all the other circumstances I mentioned. It's just that the guy who's had a drink is the only one realistically likely to be stopped for the purpose of having his fitness tested whether he's driven in any way erratically/carelessly/dangerously or not. Didn't answer my question though, did you? I might ask another one too. Should you one day finally become a judge how will you, with your demonstrably passionate and perhaps undstandable views on any sort of drink driving (did you not once advocate a total ban?) ever be able to act impartially in any case where drink might be considered a factor in the decision process? Or would you not judge such cases? I say that bearing in mind that over many years I've come across some right pissheads in the legal professional, judges, solicitors, magistrates et al.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Actually, if we're talking miscarriages of justice, then it's this guy we should feel sorry for. Okay, so it's only a £60 fine, but what are we supposed to do if this sets a precedent, drive around with snot hanging from our chins? I only hope he gets a sensible judge (I'm not holding my breath on that one either!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/8484978.stm
Daggers Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Thank got it's still not illegal to knock one out while driving.
Thracian Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Thank got it's still not illegal to knock one out while driving. What a relief!
Edmund Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 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.
Guest Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Yes it is, and in all the other circumstances I mentioned. It's just that the guy who's had a drink is the only one realistically likely to be stopped for the purpose of having his fitness tested whether he's driven in any way erratically/carelessly/dangerously or not. Didn't answer my question though, did you? I might ask another one too. Should you one day finally become a judge how will you, with your demonstrably passionate and perhaps undstandable views on any sort of drink driving (did you not once advocate a total ban?) ever be able to act impartially in any case where drink might be considered a factor in the decision process? Or would you not judge such cases? I say that bearing in mind that over many years I've come across some right pissheads in the legal professional, judges, solicitors, magistrates et al. Firstly, what question? Secondly, whilst it is illegal to drive whilst over the limit, you have to come to the attention of the police in order to be stopped by them. That means, if you've had a few, and you drive perfectly, and you don't get into any scrapes, the police have no reason to stop you. So in effect, you can take that risk, and get away with it. Not that I would condone such behaviour, as I believe that drink driving is wrong. Full stop. Thirdly, judges are not the arbiters in the Crown Court (I assume you are talking about Crown Court judges). It is the jury who decides. I would have to determine the sentence, and there are guidelines for that, which I would follow. Fourthly, I like a drink. But I use public transport or Shank's pony to get about. I don't use my car. This isn't something that is going to change as my career progresses.
BoneDog Posted 30 January 2010 Posted 30 January 2010 Did the lads have a bit of a protest today or not in the end? 2 years does sound harsh to me but I suppose it all depends on previous convictions. They do start to come down hard on you once you've been in nick once or twice. If there was no previous I would say 2 years is way too harsh cos nobody was hurt or anything The best and probably only thing you can do for a relative inside is make sure you write to them regular to help keep their chin up and send a bit of cash when you can so they can treat themselves now and then.
Guest Posted 4 March 2010 Posted 4 March 2010 Appeal turned down. Turns out it wasn't a spur of the moment occurrence, and he is already acquainted with the CJS.
Webbo Posted 4 March 2010 Posted 4 March 2010 I think I knew his dad. If it's who I'm thinking of then it's no surprise.
Daggers Posted 4 March 2010 Posted 4 March 2010 Turns out it wasn't a spur of the moment occurrence, and he is already acquainted with the CJS. Not another manufactured X-Factor band? God, I hate them
coale39 Posted 4 March 2010 Posted 4 March 2010 Firstly, what question?Secondly, whilst it is illegal to drive whilst over the limit, you have to come to the attention of the police in order to be stopped by them. That means, if you've had a few, and you drive perfectly, and you don't get into any scrapes, the police have no reason to stop you. So in effect, you can take that risk, and get away with it. Not that I would condone such behaviour, as I believe that drink driving is wrong. Full stop. Thirdly, judges are not the arbiters in the Crown Court (I assume you are talking about Crown Court judges). It is the jury who decides. I would have to determine the sentence, and there are guidelines for that, which I would follow. Fourthly, I like a drink. But I use public transport or Shank's pony to get about. I don't use my car. This isn't something that is going to change as my career progresses. Thank god for rational people. Also, would Thrac change his stance if someone close to him was injured/killed due to a driver slightly under the limit thinking he was fine to drive?
Thracian Posted 6 March 2010 Posted 6 March 2010 Thank god for rational people. Also, would Thrac change his stance if someone close to him was injured/killed due to a driver slightly under the limit thinking he was fine to drive? Why would the one be any less harrowing than the other? By what possible logic would it be worse because a driver had downed the two units of alcohol you suggest than if, say, he had just been kicked out of house and home by his missus. Or if he was mentalily preparing a lesson for school and not concentrating. Why? Go on. Tell me.
coale39 Posted 7 March 2010 Posted 7 March 2010 Why would the one be any less harrowing than the other?By what possible logic would it be worse because a driver had downed the two units of alcohol you suggest than if, say, he had just been kicked out of house and home by his missus. Or if he was mentalily preparing a lesson for school and not concentrating. Why? Go on. Tell me. Im not sure im understanding you. Are you applying equal weighting to someone that drinks then drives bad and someone who is peed off and drives bad?
AoWW Posted 7 March 2010 Posted 7 March 2010 Im not sure im understanding you. Are you applying equal weighting to someone that drinks then drives bad and someone who is peed off and drives bad? I think he is, yes.
Flynny Posted 7 March 2010 Posted 7 March 2010 Not strictly related, but I was reading an article the other day about how substantially more children are killed on the roads than by mistakes by social services, which I thought was interesting given the media's focus lately. I suppose I'll have to move this to General Chat now. (Oh it already has been)
coale39 Posted 7 March 2010 Posted 7 March 2010 I think he is, yes. I wonder if any mind altering drugs is fair game IF you drive ok? Or think your driving ok? Crazy.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.