Another p#ssed system player ?

[anonymous-user]

Don't think it's up yet but

'Friend of Prince William claims police breathalyser which found him over drink drive limit is wrong because his mobile signal interfered with the reading'
http://dailym.ai/MXZLn0

Just out of interest how far do people generally go to bend the truth or get off with stuff ?

Rather than just hold their hands up and admit to being over ?

[anonymous-user]

The case law on drink-driving is comical. Just about everything has been tried. A top defence lawyer can have a fair go at introducing reasonable doubt even if everything is done perfectly. It sound like some real bullst questions were asked like what frequency adjacent police radios were on etc.

I don't understand how it's not clear cut whether or not he had his phone on him or not. Surely that would be on camera?

[anonymous-user]

agtlaw said:

There must be more to it than reported.

Like what
Namedropping and implied threats ?

Hopefully if the person concerned is honourable they wouldn't use those sorts of things to try to 'influence' an outcome would they?

Maybe I'm just cynical nowadays and not very politically astute when I see and have heard 1st hand some of the things that go on.

[anonymous-user]

ferrariF50lover said:

Snowboy said:

It'll be the lawyers making up the silly stories - not the drunk toff.

Lawyers act on instruction, they don't tell the client what happened, the client tells them, then they apply that story to the law. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Simon.

I didn't want to say that Snowboy.

Maybe the lawyer 'advises' the client on what to say before being instructed rather than after, perish the thought.

TBC may have a point but it may not have been picked up by the press or have no interest if it was Joe public.