Anyone want to comment on this ?
Discussion
Mansfield local paper said:
Derry told the officer he had drunk only one pint and three small glasses of wines, but when tested was nearly double the limit – the equivalent of half a bottle of vodka.
Half a bottle of vodka is only DOUBLE the limit??(I know it's an approximation)
So what's that, 12 shots is 300ml, so 3 doubles is being reported as "ok"?
By his own admission, this man has had a beer and a few wines - to me that in itself should be enough, he has KNOWINGLY consumed alcohol and then driven. Regardless of how much he thought he had had, that is culpable
recklessness.
Edit: Case of mistaken identity, it's Haslem who's a knobber.
Derry has tried to buy the club on at least one occasion.
Wiki said:
The 2006-07 season also saw the creation of the 'SFFC (Stags Fans for Change)' an organisation aiming for the removal of then owner, Keith Haslam, from the club. The organisation undertook many projects over the year to get their message over in a different and non aggressive way. This included hiring a plane to fly over the local derby match with Notts County towing a banner declaring that the club was for sale and calling for Haslam to leave.On the 29th of november 2007 Keith haslam rejected a bid from Jmaes derrys consortium and the mansfield fans pledged to have a tv protest against Haslam on the 2nd of December against harrogate railway live on bbc ones match of the day.
HASLAM OUT - HALSAM OUT - HASLAM OUT - HASLAM OUT - HASLAM OUT - HALSLAM OUT
HASLAM OUT - HALSAM OUT - HASLAM OUT - HASLAM OUT - HASLAM OUT - HALSLAM OUT
Edited by tigger1 on Friday 21st December 10:22
So he was found guilty of DD, 2x over the limit, but because his drinks "might" have been spiked he was let off with just a fine?
Isn't DD an absolute offence like speeding or going through a red light? We can all think of good reasons why we might do both and plead perfectly valid mitigation, but I'm not sure we would therefore expect to be let off with just a fine (witness those who've got 3pts for getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle at junctions). It seems a strange decision by the magistrate, especially considering the focus on DD.
Isn't DD an absolute offence like speeding or going through a red light? We can all think of good reasons why we might do both and plead perfectly valid mitigation, but I'm not sure we would therefore expect to be let off with just a fine (witness those who've got 3pts for getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle at junctions). It seems a strange decision by the magistrate, especially considering the focus on DD.
Not surprised by this at all. A couple of years back my partner's father was at a social function which was attended by a number of police officers. He told me that at the end of the evening a telephone call was made to advise officers on duty in the town that they were all just about to leave, in order to make sure that no-one was stopped. The message was passed around that everyone would be OK to drive home, but that in the case of an accident they were "on their own"
Just what I was told.
Just what I was told.
TigerK said:
Not surprised by this at all. A couple of years back my partner's father was at a social function which was attended by a number of police officers. He told me that at the end of the evening a telephone call was made to advise officers on duty in the town that they were all just about to leave, in order to make sure that no-one was stopped. The message was passed around that everyone would be OK to drive home, but that in the case of an accident they were "on their own"
Just what I was told.
For all of Crispy's rolling eyes...I know of this happening on more than one occasion - tales of coppers driving home more than slightly over the limit are not unusual...but back O/T, the chap has basically admitted to drinking and driving, and has been "let off" because somebody *might* have spiked his drink????Just what I was told.
FFS.
Phone Book.
Mr Fawkes, G.
I'd like to make a booking please.
Anytime, yes, 5th November is fine.
SLCZ3 said:
Once again a person with "connections" can get away with a serious offence, does anyone think that if you or i had the same defence that we would not be convicted???
My reasoning for original post, I'm pretty dam 100% sure in the same position I would be without a license for 12 months, (not that I would have put myself in that position in the 1st place) What utter bullshit.
anyone admitting drinking a pint of beer and three glasses of wine should in no way be able to claim his drinks were spiked.
he had allready drank enough to put himself over the limit at some stage anyway so no excuse is acceptable.
I think the spiked drinks evidence should have been made inadmissible since he had allready admitted to drinking enough to break the limit himself anyway.
Most wine is 13% proof so he had consumed in effect 4 pints and then whinged about spiking...bo
ocks.
anyone admitting drinking a pint of beer and three glasses of wine should in no way be able to claim his drinks were spiked.
he had allready drank enough to put himself over the limit at some stage anyway so no excuse is acceptable.
I think the spiked drinks evidence should have been made inadmissible since he had allready admitted to drinking enough to break the limit himself anyway.
Most wine is 13% proof so he had consumed in effect 4 pints and then whinged about spiking...bo
ocks.3 small glasses wine = 1/2 bottle = 4.5 units
1 pint beer @5% = 2.5 units
total 7 units which is sufficient to put the majority over the limit
I weigh approx 95kg, bmi 25 [i am tall] 6 units alcohol would give me a blood alcohol of 92 [in theory],
so he would have to be very fat or drink over several hours to get away with drinking that ammount
1 pint beer @5% = 2.5 units
total 7 units which is sufficient to put the majority over the limit
I weigh approx 95kg, bmi 25 [i am tall] 6 units alcohol would give me a blood alcohol of 92 [in theory],
so he would have to be very fat or drink over several hours to get away with drinking that ammount
TigerK said:
Not surprised by this at all. A couple of years back my partner's father was at a social function which was attended by a number of police officers. He told me that at the end of the evening a telephone call was made to advise officers on duty in the town that they were all just about to leave, in order to make sure that no-one was stopped. The message was passed around that everyone would be OK to drive home, but that in the case of an accident they were "on their own"
Just what I was told.
Didn't work for this guy:Just what I was told.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/humber/...
PottyMouth said:
TigerK said:
Not surprised by this at all. A couple of years back my partner's father was at a social function which was attended by a number of police officers. He told me that at the end of the evening a telephone call was made to advise officers on duty in the town that they were all just about to leave, in order to make sure that no-one was stopped. The message was passed around that everyone would be OK to drive home, but that in the case of an accident they were "on their own"
Just what I was told.
Didn't work for this guy:Just what I was told.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/humber/...
This doesn't excuse his actions for a moment, as impairment is impairment, but out of interest, if they had to choose, I wonder whether the average person would rather be driven around by an experienced trafpol who was just over the limit, or a sober driver who was permanently underconfident, underskilled and always looking like they were just about to crash. TBH I think I would go for the former, although I'd try to avoid both altogether. I'm not really trying to make a point, it's just something that I thought of.
[/controversial]
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff