Being master of a hovercraft having consumed excess alcohol.
Discussion
Must be a pretty unique conviction to have on your criminal record!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-295...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-295...
Jailing a man who has already lost his career, and his good name. What a great idea. He's an alcoholic, jailing him will not stop other alcoholics doing stupid things. The judge is too stupid to hold that position. Her idiotic decision making has further compounded someone's suffering and cost all tax payers money.
photosnob said:
Jailing a man who has already lost his career, and his good name. What a great idea. He's an alcoholic, jailing him will not stop other alcoholics doing stupid things. The judge is too stupid to hold that position. Her idiotic decision making has further compounded someone's suffering and cost all tax payers money.
It say he has past dependency on alcohol. Not quite the same. You can bet the news of a custodial sentence is doing the rounds with people who command similar positions and making them think. No bad thing.
I expect the passengers are probably happy with the custodial sentence, too. Justice seen to be done and all that.
photosnob said:
Jailing a man who has already lost his career, and his good name. What a great idea. He's an alcoholic, jailing him will not stop other alcoholics doing stupid things. The judge is too stupid to hold that position. Her idiotic decision making has further compounded someone's suffering and cost all tax payers money.
What a strange take on the justice system.Breadvan72 said:
I agree with photosnob that the sentence is harsh. It seems purely exemplary, pour encourager les autres, but drunken handling of commercial marine vessels doesn't seem to be a widespread problem.
Perhaps an element of that is because those handling commercial vessels think there are serious consequences if they do. Mk3Spitfire said:
What a strange take on the justice system.
Agreed. The guys lucky he wasn't facing far more serious charges. Also, I don't think being an alcoholic, drug dependent etc etc should ever be a get out of jail card. He had two responsibilities, one a commercial one to his family, and another one a legal one to stay within the law - he's failed on both.Breadvan72 said:
I agree with photosnob that the sentence is harsh. It seems purely exemplary, pour encourager les autres, but drunken handling of commercial marine vessels doesn't seem to be a widespread problem.
Perhaps because you risk 8 months in the big house if you get caught?I personally don't see a problem, one does not get that drunk by accident, it wasn't a morning after a big night out and being a smidge over type situation, the chap couldn't drive it up the ramp, http://onthewight.com/2014/10/10/video-drunk-drive... and another pilot had to take over, just to park the thing.
Breadvan72 said:
I agree with photosnob that the sentence is harsh. It seems purely exemplary, pour encourager les autres, but drunken handling of commercial marine vessels doesn't seem to be a widespread problem.
What would a coach/bus driver be looking at , given a similar situation??Breadvan72 said:
I agree with photosnob that the sentence is harsh. It seems purely exemplary, pour encourager les autres, but drunken handling of commercial marine vessels doesn't seem to be a widespread problem.
What would a coach/bus driver be looking at , given a similar situation??Breadvan72 said:
I agree with photosnob that the sentence is harsh. It seems purely exemplary, pour encourager les autres, but drunken handling of commercial marine vessels doesn't seem to be a widespread problem.
Last month:http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/sailor-drun...
3x the limit six hours after the event. Not after he consumed the alcohol and this was the return leg of his shift. He either drank a bottle of Vodka before his shift started. Or far more likely was nipping regularly from his own little on board stash, hence having a little "trouble" avoiding an oil tanker. Either way, not a man that appears ideal to safeguard passengers lives
Before were too hard on him lets not forget the sailor on a British nuclear submarine who was so pissed a couple of years ago on guard duty. He shot his commanding officer with the assault rifle he had been issued with (presumably whilst pissed)
Before were too hard on him lets not forget the sailor on a British nuclear submarine who was so pissed a couple of years ago on guard duty. He shot his commanding officer with the assault rifle he had been issued with (presumably whilst pissed)
I don't usually comment on these sorts of events but given the posts above feel I need to say something as there is a fair amount of lunacy and inequality in our legal penalty system. Clearly the pilot is an alcoholic and only got found out because he collapsed - not because he took off and flew the hovercraft (presumably successfully) prior to landing. There are abundant examples of alcoholics holding responsible positions and "getting away with it" for years despite being many times over "the limit" - including surgeons/doctors, airline captains and I have even heard of a commander of a warship. So putting this chap in clink is maybe the wake-up call that he needs to get sober. Lets hope he is able to make a recovery and pick up the threads of his life.
This event could have ended far worse but surely there must have been friends/colleagues who were aware of his drinking beforehand and what action did they take? Is it not the responsibility for all of us to keep an eye out for these difficulties in our friends or work-mates and try to find some way for them to access help, particularly if we know they undertake jobs with public responsibilities. After all it is considered that alcohol or other addictive problems are present in a substantial proportion of the population (?10%) so you all know somebody with a problem. So, my first point is that although the pilot was culpable, the issue is a systems failure and the employers must bear some responsibility.
The second point is the nature of the sentence. Quite apart from the fact that it costs us (you and me) a small fortune to bang these people up, what purpose is served? Maybe there is an element of retribution but sadly the track record of our prisons to rehabilitate offenders is poor. it seems there are few opportunities to impose sentences or penalties that offer realistic scope for someone to regain health and re-enter society without stigma. These boards cite numerous examples where porridge has been meted out to "criminals" for what ultimately are technical offences (like speeding!) but where it must be possible to impose something of a penalty that is more constructive? I personally resent the fact that I (and you) are paying huge amounts of money to keep people locked up who do not pose any obvious threat to society. A major re-think and re-engineering of our justice system seems overdue. End of rant!
This event could have ended far worse but surely there must have been friends/colleagues who were aware of his drinking beforehand and what action did they take? Is it not the responsibility for all of us to keep an eye out for these difficulties in our friends or work-mates and try to find some way for them to access help, particularly if we know they undertake jobs with public responsibilities. After all it is considered that alcohol or other addictive problems are present in a substantial proportion of the population (?10%) so you all know somebody with a problem. So, my first point is that although the pilot was culpable, the issue is a systems failure and the employers must bear some responsibility.
The second point is the nature of the sentence. Quite apart from the fact that it costs us (you and me) a small fortune to bang these people up, what purpose is served? Maybe there is an element of retribution but sadly the track record of our prisons to rehabilitate offenders is poor. it seems there are few opportunities to impose sentences or penalties that offer realistic scope for someone to regain health and re-enter society without stigma. These boards cite numerous examples where porridge has been meted out to "criminals" for what ultimately are technical offences (like speeding!) but where it must be possible to impose something of a penalty that is more constructive? I personally resent the fact that I (and you) are paying huge amounts of money to keep people locked up who do not pose any obvious threat to society. A major re-think and re-engineering of our justice system seems overdue. End of rant!
photosnob said:
Jailing a man who has already lost his career, and his good name. What a great idea. He's an alcoholic, jailing him will not stop other alcoholics doing stupid things. The judge is too stupid to hold that position. Her idiotic decision making has further compounded someone's suffering and cost all tax payers money.
You can't be serious. Spoken like a true alcoholic yourself, what a tool.Can a judge order someone to attend a rehab/addiction clinic in this country? Not just an AA meeting but an actual residential rehab facility? I'd rather see a sentence suspended on the condition that the guilty party goes into one of these facilities. Yes it will cost money but then prison isn't cheap either.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff