MP Banned - only 12 months for failing to provide breath

[hornetrider]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/19/eri...

I thought the courts took a very dim view of refusing to provide breath samples? 12 months seems a very light ban, no?

[ExChrispy Porker]

It looks like he refused to me, but then there is mention of failure to provide. Two different things but 12 months is about the norm.

[mph1977]

hornetrider said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/19/eri...

I thought the courts took a very dim view of refusing to provide breath samples? 12 months seems a very light ban, no?

although from a law and sentencing point of view isn't 'just' treated the same as blowing over ...

[peterguk M500]

hornetrider said:

12 months seems a very light ban, no?

The same as if he failed the test. Seems normal to me.

[14-7]

It annoys me that scum bag solicitors get paid to say that their client was merely tired.

He was pissed and crashed then tried to drive off.

The piece of st deserves a ban and shouldn't be allowed to stand in a position of power as far as I'm concerned.

[NismoGT]

14-7 said:

It annoys me that scum bag solicitors get paid to say that their client was merely tired.

He was pissed and crashed then tried to drive off.

The piece of st deserves a ban and shouldn't be allowed to stand in a position of power as far as I'm concerned.

This!

[hornetrider]

peterguk M500 said:

hornetrider said:

12 months seems a very light ban, no?

The same as if he failed the test. Seems normal to me.

Well... DD bans vary in length according to how far over the limit don't they? I thought that refusing to give a sample would be treated in a similar manner to a high reading. Otherwise you could get totally slaughtered, be 4 times over the limit and still get just 12 months if you refused to give your sample.

[Andy Zarse]

hornetrider said:

peterguk M500 said:

hornetrider said:

12 months seems a very light ban, no?

The same as if he failed the test. Seems normal to me.

Well... DD bans vary in length according to how far over the limit don't they? I thought that refusing to give a sample would be treated in a similar manner to a high reading. Otherwise you could get totally slaughtered, be 4 times over the limit and still get just 12 months if you refused to give your sample.

Which is precisely what happened. They should have made a bloody example of this loathsome lying cheating lump of excrement. Gaol for sue.

[Red Devil]

Andy Zarse said:

hornetrider said:

peterguk M500 said:

hornetrider said:

12 months seems a very light ban, no?

The same as if he failed the test. Seems normal to me.

Well... DD bans vary in length according to how far over the limit don't they? I thought that refusing to give a sample would be treated in a similar manner to a high reading. Otherwise you could get totally slaughtered, be 4 times over the limit and still get just 12 months if you refused to give your sample.

Which is precisely what happened. They should have made a bloody example of this loathsome lying cheating lump of excrement.

They did. Presumably you meant something more draconian.

Andy Zarse said:

Gaol for sue.

A bit harsh. What did she do to deserve that?

[NoNeed]

It would appear that failing to supply was the lesser of two evils in this case. His public position would have been in jeopardy if he was concicted of drink driving.

Now he can say he wasn't drunk and probably claim alot of expenses for travel.

[Andy Zarse]

Red Devil said:

Andy Zarse said:

hornetrider said:

peterguk M500 said:

hornetrider said:

12 months seems a very light ban, no?

The same as if he failed the test. Seems normal to me.

Well... DD bans vary in length according to how far over the limit don't they? I thought that refusing to give a sample would be treated in a similar manner to a high reading. Otherwise you could get totally slaughtered, be 4 times over the limit and still get just 12 months if you refused to give your sample.

Which is precisely what happened. They should have made a bloody example of this loathsome lying cheating lump of excrement.

They did. Presumably you meant something more draconian.

Andy Zarse said:

Gaol for sue.

A bit harsh. What did she do to deserve that?

They didn'tmake an example of him, they gave him pretty much the minimum sanction, so yes he should have been treated more rigorously given his position of power. I listen politicians on Questiontime spouting off about how footballers, for example, should be rolemodels and then contrast it with this behaviour. Do as I say not do as I do...

I like the old fashioned spelling of jail, it conjures images of a chained-up bearded wretch in a dank cell with bread and water! Not some miscreatant tucked up under a cosy duvet watching Sky, which is the reality.

[worsy]

Andy Zarse said:

Red Devil said:

Andy Zarse said:

hornetrider said:

peterguk M500 said:

hornetrider said:

12 months seems a very light ban, no?

The same as if he failed the test. Seems normal to me.

Well... DD bans vary in length according to how far over the limit don't they? I thought that refusing to give a sample would be treated in a similar manner to a high reading. Otherwise you could get totally slaughtered, be 4 times over the limit and still get just 12 months if you refused to give your sample.

Which is precisely what happened. They should have made a bloody example of this loathsome lying cheating lump of excrement.

They did. Presumably you meant something more draconian.

Andy Zarse said:

Gaol for sue.

A bit harsh. What did she do to deserve that?

They didn'tmake an example of him, they gave him pretty much the minimum sanction, so yes he should have been treated more rigorously given his position of power. I listen politicians on Questiontime spouting off about how footballers, for example, should be rolemodels and then contrast it with this behaviour. Do as I say not do as I do...

I like the old fashioned spelling of jail, it conjures images of a chained-up bearded wretch in a dank cell with bread and water! Not some miscreatant tucked up under a cosy duvet watching Sky, which is the reality.

That's prison, jail conjures up images of cowboys and sheriffs!

[Nickyboy]

12 month ban is standard for failing to provide a sample, the only thing being someone obviously waaay over would get away with a lesser sentence if they fail to blow on cue

[neelyp]

NoNeed said:

It would appear that failing to supply was the lesser of two evils in this case. His public position would have been in jeopardy if he was concicted of drink driving.

Now he can say he wasn't drunk and probably claim alot of expenses for travel.

Don't even joke about this god forsaken wkstain of a man and MP's expenses.
2005-2006 Parliamentary session - Top claiming MP with £174,811.
2006-2007 Parliamentary session - Slipped to 11th.
2007-2008 Parliamentary session - Back to number 1 with £187,334.

I hate this tt, it is to my eternal shame that the clowns in my constituency keep voting him in.