Discussion
seabod91 said:
Thought this was due to some politically correct bull s
t. But a drink driving charge historic or not would surly send the wrong message. Right decision IMHO.
It’s 30 years ago ... he blew over the limit, there by the grace of god I think we can all say .. especially those of us that were driving in the 80’s when 5 and drive was socially acceptable and pretty much the norm t. But a drink driving charge historic or not would surly send the wrong message. Right decision IMHO. It’s not dishonesty ... it’s a road traffic offence that is well and truly spent
If he’d been convicted of theft, burglary, fraud etc fair enough
But at what point can someone be considered of good character ?
So as a young man he failed a breathalyser now as a middle aged man it blights his life, is that proportionate ?
Yes, in very extreme cases it’s imprisonable on a first offence but that is incredibly rare
According to the story, he did mention this before standing for PCC so was open and above board only to shot down just before he might have crossed the line and publically humiliated as well.
I think it makes a mockery of letting people move on after making a mistake and paying their dues. It is not as if this was a recent offence and has kept his nose clean for 30 years, doesn't send a good message 'once a criminal, always a criminal' to those trying get back on the right track.
I think it makes a mockery of letting people move on after making a mistake and paying their dues. It is not as if this was a recent offence and has kept his nose clean for 30 years, doesn't send a good message 'once a criminal, always a criminal' to those trying get back on the right track.
Says he mentioned it and thought it was all ok.
“ Mr Seed, a Wiltshire councillor, said he had been advised by his party that a 30-year-old drink driving offence would not affect his application and that he had believed he was eligible.”
Drink driving was viewed very differently 30 years ago than now. Seems unnecessary to disallow him to me.
“ Mr Seed, a Wiltshire councillor, said he had been advised by his party that a 30-year-old drink driving offence would not affect his application and that he had believed he was eligible.”
Drink driving was viewed very differently 30 years ago than now. Seems unnecessary to disallow him to me.
gottans said:
According to the story, he did mention this before standing for PCC so was open and above board only to shot down just before he might have crossed the line and publically humiliated as well.
I think it makes a mockery of letting people move on after making a mistake and paying their dues. It is not as if this was a recent offence and has kept his nose clean for 30 years, doesn't send a good message 'once a criminal, always a criminal' to those trying get back on the right track.
Agreed.I think it makes a mockery of letting people move on after making a mistake and paying their dues. It is not as if this was a recent offence and has kept his nose clean for 30 years, doesn't send a good message 'once a criminal, always a criminal' to those trying get back on the right track.
Earthdweller said:
seabod91 said:
Thought this was due to some politically correct bull st. But a drink driving charge historic or not would surly send the wrong message. Right decision IMHO.
It’s 30 years ago ... he blew over the limit, there by the grace of god I think we can all say .. especially those of us that were driving in the 80’s when 5 and drive was socially acceptable and pretty much the norm t. But a drink driving charge historic or not would surly send the wrong message. Right decision IMHO. It’s not dishonesty ... it’s a road traffic offence that is well and truly spent
If he’d been convicted of theft, burglary, fraud etc fair enough
But at what point can someone be considered of good character ?
So as a young man he failed a breathalyser now as a middle aged man it blights his life, is that proportionate ?
Yes, in very extreme cases it’s imprisonable on a first offence but that is incredibly rare
I wonder where the line is drawn in these things? If as a lad he was stopped on his paper round for having no lights would that rule him out? I wonder if there is a written definition of what is or isn't acceptable.
Earthdweller said:
It’s 30 years ago ... he blew over the limit, there by the grace of god I think we can all say .. especially those of us that were driving in the 80’s when 5 and drive was socially acceptable and pretty much the norm
It’s not dishonesty ... it’s a road traffic offence that is well and truly spent
If he’d been convicted of theft, burglary, fraud etc fair enough
But at what point can someone be considered of good character ?
So as a young man he failed a breathalyser now as a middle aged man it blights his life, is that proportionate ?
Yes, in very extreme cases it’s imprisonable on a first offence but that is incredibly rare
Previous convictions are never spent for certain occupations. I would imagine Police and Crime Commissioner is one of them.It’s not dishonesty ... it’s a road traffic offence that is well and truly spent
If he’d been convicted of theft, burglary, fraud etc fair enough
But at what point can someone be considered of good character ?
So as a young man he failed a breathalyser now as a middle aged man it blights his life, is that proportionate ?
Yes, in very extreme cases it’s imprisonable on a first offence but that is incredibly rare
carinaman said:
Weren't the Anti-Foxhunting lobby on his case too? I think there's photos of him in a red jacket astride a horse.
Yes, there is a local idiot who has waged a campaign against this guy on Facebook for weeks.Any and every local FB page has the poster of the guy in his red jacket and on Thursday, I noticed posters had been but up all around out village.
The guy has certainly been on the receiving end of a orchestrated campaign against him.
The Electoral Commission guidance says you are disqualified if:
You have ever been convicted of an imprisonable
offence. This disqualification applies even if you were
not actually imprisoned for that offence, or the
conviction has been spent
Seems pretty black and white........one questions how he or his staff did not realise he was ineligible.
I do agree its harsh but there is probably a black and white rules to avoid questions over what is serious enough to disqualify you.
You have ever been convicted of an imprisonable
offence. This disqualification applies even if you were
not actually imprisoned for that offence, or the
conviction has been spent
Seems pretty black and white........one questions how he or his staff did not realise he was ineligible.
I do agree its harsh but there is probably a black and white rules to avoid questions over what is serious enough to disqualify you.
Well, he won, and now the county is facing a new vote.
The Labour party candidate is calling for the conservatives to offer to pay the entire cost of a re-run, including media and volunteer's time.
There's also calls for the full time line of events to be released.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-57...
The Labour party candidate is calling for the conservatives to offer to pay the entire cost of a re-run, including media and volunteer's time.
There's also calls for the full time line of events to be released.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-57...
worsy said:
The conviction was in 1993. It is wrong to say that this was when attitudes to DD were lax; in the early 90s opinion had shifted drastically from the early 80s and it was not considered alright to have a few pints and drive.
When did drink driving become an offence you could be sent to prison for?Lotus 50 said:
Vanden Saab said:
When did drink driving become an offence you could be sent to prison for?
In 1925 apparently (that was when the ‘drunk in charge’ offence came in) although drink drive limits came in in 1967.Edited by Lotus 50 on Tuesday 11th May 07:56
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff