Chris Tarrant - Drink Drive
Discussion
Justin S said:
Issue 1, He doesn't have a neighbour.............. I ride passed his house along the right of way to know this..............
The Telegraph said:
A neighbour reportedly put in a call to the authorities after seeing him stumble at the bar before driving home. The incident adds to an already tense relationship with local residents after he lodged planning proposals to extend his £2 million home.
The planning dispute is well documented, as is calling those living around you in the local community neighbours. Pedantic. Much?
Nanook said:
yonex said:
Issue number one. Sad and bitter neighbour reports Mr T for drink driving. Issue number two, Mr T was drink driving.
There is no excuse for drink driving and everyone knows both the legal limit and exactly what the consequences can be. The fact remains though that the guy reporting him was a bit of a sad b
d, the call was made for purely personal reasons and I am sure that he/she is the type that of person that most of us would avoid. Obviously he/she could have approached the landlord or Mr T and told either of them what would happen if he stepped into his car, that's if it was a safety concern, which it wasn't.
If I was building this extension I would double it, add a bit and make it well known that it is all down to the lovely neighbour who allowed me the time away from driving to concentrate on planning. What exactly has this all achieved? A well known and wealthy man was fined a pittance and the planning permission has gone ahead? Nobody comes out of this situation looking very clever.
So drink driving is acceptable if you're in a dispute with a neighbour? There is no excuse for drink driving and everyone knows both the legal limit and exactly what the consequences can be. The fact remains though that the guy reporting him was a bit of a sad b
d, the call was made for purely personal reasons and I am sure that he/she is the type that of person that most of us would avoid. Obviously he/she could have approached the landlord or Mr T and told either of them what would happen if he stepped into his car, that's if it was a safety concern, which it wasn't. If I was building this extension I would double it, add a bit and make it well known that it is all down to the lovely neighbour who allowed me the time away from driving to concentrate on planning. What exactly has this all achieved? A well known and wealthy man was fined a pittance and the planning permission has gone ahead? Nobody comes out of this situation looking very clever.
What exactly has this achieved? Another drink driver is off the road. Seems like a result to me.
But this is Pistonheads. Everybody is beyond reproach
The 'grassing' thing is always amusing. Ironically mentioned by someone who then went on to comment on another poster's 'immaturity'...
The police are the public and the public the police. One cannot work without the other. Most police work comes from people giving information - 'grassing' - to the police.
People can cherry pick which information they see as legitimate and which is 'grassing', but that's a reflection on an individual's thresholds and values as opposed to the 'definition' of providing information to an authority.
The police are the public and the public the police. One cannot work without the other. Most police work comes from people giving information - 'grassing' - to the police.
People can cherry pick which information they see as legitimate and which is 'grassing', but that's a reflection on an individual's thresholds and values as opposed to the 'definition' of providing information to an authority.
Nanook said:
The part you seem to be struggling with is that it makes no difference if he's the worst example we can think of. None at all.
You appear to think that it makes any sort of difference whether or not the person that reported him was his friend or had some sort of ongoing dispute? That he's a sad bd for reporting drink driving.
That's stupid. Really very stupid.
Yes, because if it is, like suggested, due to a general dislike of him due to a personal grievance for me it marks out this individual as a bit bitter? I guess you cannot distinguish between 'over the limit' and 'steaming', there are varying degrees of everything and before you continue your personal crusade that anyone with a different opinion of the matter is condoning drink driving, for reference, I do not. You appear to think that it makes any sort of difference whether or not the person that reported him was his friend or had some sort of ongoing dispute? That he's a sad b
d for reporting drink driving.That's stupid. Really very stupid.
I am guessing you would report all offences yourself? Is that something to be proud of, i'm not so sure and I am certainly not going to sit in the ivory towers like some of you and paint myself to be the re-incarnation of Mother Teresa. We all make mistakes, well, apart from a lot of contributors on here
La Liga said:
The 'grassing' thing is always amusing. Ironically mentioned by someone who then went on to comment on another poster's 'immaturity'...
The police are the public and the public the police. One cannot work without the other. Most police work comes from people giving information - 'grassing' - to the police.
People can cherry pick which information they see as legitimate and which is 'grassing', but that's a reflection on an individual's thresholds and values as opposed to the 'definition' of providing information to an authority.
I'm sure everyone has someone they would grass up and other peoole that they wouldn't.The police are the public and the public the police. One cannot work without the other. Most police work comes from people giving information - 'grassing' - to the police.
People can cherry pick which information they see as legitimate and which is 'grassing', but that's a reflection on an individual's thresholds and values as opposed to the 'definition' of providing information to an authority.
Solocle said:
The effect of any drug is inherently variable from person to person. The concept of a "lightweight" may be derogatory, but it is real. Some people get hammered with less alcohol than others. Such a person could still be a danger while under the legal limit. Likewise, people over the limit may pose no danger. It is completely analogous to speeding.
Definitely. If I have one pint of cider it doesn't usually take very long until I can definitely feel an effect.I'm more curious as to people driving the next day as I think attitudes regarding that can set up people for a shafting, especially here in Scotland. The common consensus seems to be by lunch time you'll be fine but I don't buy that at all, not without a fair amount of risk anyway at 22 micrograms per 100 ml.
I was at a friend's wedding recently in Pitlochry and our entire group were drinking pretty steadily from 1pm through to 2am. I had booked a B&B for the next night knowing I wouldn't be going near the car the next day yet all of them drove away at about 12.30pm. How many were under the limit I wonder?
Nanook said:
There is no difference to me, between being over the limit and being steaming.
If you're over the limit, you're drink-driving, you deserve whatever punishment you get.
We all make mistakes, yes. If you get caught making them, expect to be punished for them. You can leave out the 'ivory towers' and 'Mother Teresa' pish.
If I was in the pub and someone was clearly drunk, and about to drive home, would I report it? I'd certainly do something about it, starting with trying to remove said person's car keys from their posession.
I'm guessing you would just let them go, since its not your problem?
Still trying to tar everyone who doesn't agree with the same brush, they don't agree, therefore they must not care etc, it's really quite childish, let alone a bit dim of you to be frank. You've basically backed up everything I have already said and now appear to be just looking for a reason to be outraged? If you're over the limit, you're drink-driving, you deserve whatever punishment you get.
We all make mistakes, yes. If you get caught making them, expect to be punished for them. You can leave out the 'ivory towers' and 'Mother Teresa' pish.
If I was in the pub and someone was clearly drunk, and about to drive home, would I report it? I'd certainly do something about it, starting with trying to remove said person's car keys from their posession.
I'm guessing you would just let them go, since its not your problem?
Nanook said:
We all make mistakes, yes.
Drink driving is not a mistake. Speeding can be a mistake, a moments lack of concentration and judgement. So can going thru a red light. Even driving without insurance can be a misunderstanding. But drink drive takes place over a period of time, and is a pre meditated decision to drive whilst over the limit, because you can't be arsed to walk, get the bus, or are too mean to pay for a taxi. Nanook said:
I'm not tarring anyone with anything. I'm speaking directly to you.
It's quite childish and rather dim of you to try and avoid the question in such a manner. You've basically just backed up everything I've thought about you from this brief discussion, and now you're looking for a way to avoid looking so pathetic.
I'm not outraged at anything, or anyone, at all. I'm expressing my opinion that drink driving is wrong, and trying to make out that the person that reported it is wrong, for any reason whatsoever, is morally wrong to boot.
I'd imagine we're done here now though.
Well, what you think is likely wrong as you have never met me, but thanks for the attention you have been paying and putting forward the negative sweeping generalisations about anyone with an opposing viewpoint as fact? I don't think I have ever said drink driving is anything other than wrong, what I have done is questioned the motive behind the individual reporting Chris Tarrant. As I wasn't there I can only go on what is reported in the press, it's called an opinion and yes, I believe he or she would have reported him no matter how little he had consumed ad that they had an obvious agenda. As for looking pathetic, perhaps you could try and leave the insults out, you'll find the responses stay both on topic and are more adult like. Personally I would not report an offence to the Police in the first instance, the easy way is to talk someone out of the idea or remove their keys, block them in, all are obvious to anyone, but think what you will, it doesn't matter that much to me.It's quite childish and rather dim of you to try and avoid the question in such a manner. You've basically just backed up everything I've thought about you from this brief discussion, and now you're looking for a way to avoid looking so pathetic.
I'm not outraged at anything, or anyone, at all. I'm expressing my opinion that drink driving is wrong, and trying to make out that the person that reported it is wrong, for any reason whatsoever, is morally wrong to boot.
I'd imagine we're done here now though.
Nanook said:
Just want to clarify a couple of things, again, there are no negative sweeping generalisations about anyone with an opposing viewpoint. I'm speaking directly to you. Saying otherwise repeatedly does not change that.
Secondly, if you don't like petty insults, don't dish them out in the first place, no-one likes a hypocrite.
Thirdly, it appears we agree, to a point, but you've suggested more than once in this thread, that if push came to shove, you wouldn't actually report a drink driver. You don't actually seem to want to answer the question though, Why is that?
Because, I have had three occasions which when faced with someone wanting to do that exact thing found a better way to deal with the situation. I stated in the very first instance DD was wrong, but you seem to try and suggest that I don't care etc, the opposite is true, hence why I have had to get physically involved with people who just happened in a certain set of circumstances, whilst fuelled by alcohol, to make stupid decisions. Some of these people are my friends, one was a work colleague, it makes no difference to me and I would do the same again. My dealings with the Police on the whole have been entirely negative. That's just the way it is. Secondly, if you don't like petty insults, don't dish them out in the first place, no-one likes a hypocrite.
Thirdly, it appears we agree, to a point, but you've suggested more than once in this thread, that if push came to shove, you wouldn't actually report a drink driver. You don't actually seem to want to answer the question though, Why is that?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Drink driving is not a mistake. Speeding can be a mistake, a moments lack of concentration and judgement. So can going thru a red light. Even driving without insurance can be a misunderstanding. But drink drive takes place over a period of time, and is a pre meditated decision to drive whilst over the limit, because you can't be arsed to walk, get the bus, or are too mean to pay for a taxi.
And the next day?Agent XXX said:
Nearly but depends from force to force.
Most will operate the following:
35-39 - No further action OR Official caution
40-49 - Option of a blood/urine test
50+ Immediate charge.
The statutory option to provide blood/ urine if you blow 40 - 50 was abolished in 2015.Most will operate the following:
35-39 - No further action OR Official caution
40-49 - Option of a blood/urine test
50+ Immediate charge.
In England and Wales if you blow 40 and above you will be charged.
Nanook said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Drink driving is not a mistake. Speeding can be a mistake, a moments lack of concentration and judgement. So can going thru a red light. Even driving without insurance can be a misunderstanding. But drink drive takes place over a period of time, and is a pre meditated decision to drive whilst over the limit, because you can't be arsed to walk, get the bus, or are too mean to pay for a taxi.
Apologies, I was just using the dictionary definition of the word 'mistake', not the twigthewonderkid definition.As ever Bullshire say it best;
https://mobile.twitter.com/BullshirePolice/status/...
Drink/ drive arrests in my county are up 29% over Christmas 2017 period compared to previous year.
You think the message is getting across ?
https://mobile.twitter.com/BullshirePolice/status/...
Drink/ drive arrests in my county are up 29% over Christmas 2017 period compared to previous year.
You think the message is getting across ?
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 19th January 13:55
Red 4 said:
The statutory option to provide blood/ urine if you blow 40 - 50 was abolished in 2015.
In England and Wales if you blow 40 and above you will be charged.
I believe blowing above 28 in Scotland means you'll be charged. And as far as I know, you don't get offered a drink aware course - you just get fined a percentage of your income - Over £10k in a footballer's case!In England and Wales if you blow 40 and above you will be charged.
What are the actual figure for KSI's with drink driving as a major contributory factor? Then, how do they break down for levels of blood alcohol and and previous they might have?
I'm not going to excuse it, but wonder if there is the carnage on the roads out there caused by drink drivers that is being advertised, a bit like speeding and using the phone.
It must be the only offence where the offender isn't aware whether they are actually committing an offense or not, you would never know if you were over the drink drive limit the following morning or not, because there is now way of knowing with out having a breath test. I've been very dehydrated after a race which gave me the exact same symptoms of being drunk, but I'd not drunk (alcohol) anything for at least a week prior to the race.
I'm not going to excuse it, but wonder if there is the carnage on the roads out there caused by drink drivers that is being advertised, a bit like speeding and using the phone.
It must be the only offence where the offender isn't aware whether they are actually committing an offense or not, you would never know if you were over the drink drive limit the following morning or not, because there is now way of knowing with out having a breath test. I've been very dehydrated after a race which gave me the exact same symptoms of being drunk, but I'd not drunk (alcohol) anything for at least a week prior to the race.
tight fart said:
This is easily sorted out, why not have a driving test to see if you're capable of driving safely after your chosen maximum of drink, easy peasy everyone's happy.
And a nice revenue raiser as well.
Many will pass after 3 pints and many would fail after a glass of shandy.
I'm one of the latter. I rarely drink at all, so my tolerance is pretty low.And a nice revenue raiser as well.
Many will pass after 3 pints and many would fail after a glass of shandy.
If I had one pint of fairly strong lager I'd probably pass a breath test but I'd be unfit to drive, in my own inexpert opinion.
I'm not in favour of absolute zero tolerance levels though, but I would be cautiously in favour of the Scottish levels being rolled out in England and Wales.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff