Two women and one man first to be charged in Christmas drink and drug driving campaign

Bournemouth Echo: Two women and one man first to be charged in Christmas drink and drug driving campaign Two women and one man first to be charged in Christmas drink and drug driving campaign

THE first three people have been charged as a result of the Dorset Police campaign against drink and drug driving this Christmas.

Two women and one man are due to appear at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court later this month and those convicted will be named and shamed in the Daily Echo.

The campaign forms part of the police’s Countdown to Christmas and will see an increase in traffic patrols and roadside checks until the New Year.

Every driver involved in a collision during the campaign will automatically be breathalysed.

“I have seen far too many lives lost on the roads due to drink driving,” said Inspector Matt Butler, from the Dorset Police Traffic Unit.

“Research has shown that even one drink can impair the ability to drive so please don’t get behind the wheel after drinking any alcohol at all.”

Anyone convicted will face a minimum driving ban of 12 months, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000.

They will also have a criminal record. Last year around 100 people were arrested in Dorset for drink or drug driving over Christmas and New Year.

Comments (72)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:28am Wed 4 Dec 13

High Treason says...

Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups.
To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.
Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice. High Treason

8:30am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

“Research has shown that even one drink can impair the ability to drive so please don’t get behind the wheel after drinking any alcohol at all.” .
.
So about time it was zero rated then instead of encouraging people to drink and drive by allowing them a certain limit before prosecution.
“Research has shown that even one drink can impair the ability to drive so please don’t get behind the wheel after drinking any alcohol at all.” . . So about time it was zero rated then instead of encouraging people to drink and drive by allowing them a certain limit before prosecution. Hessenford

9:11am Wed 4 Dec 13

Poppet87 says...

Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some.
For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show.
I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.
Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some. For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show. I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted. Poppet87

9:15am Wed 4 Dec 13

contric says...

up to 6 months in prison and a fine up to £5000 the reality is completely different as i have said so often you get fined 3 or 4 times as much for having no tv license
up to 6 months in prison and a fine up to £5000 the reality is completely different as i have said so often you get fined 3 or 4 times as much for having no tv license contric

9:21am Wed 4 Dec 13

funkyferret says...

I think the statutory 12 month ban is a good idea & is robustly enforced.
The fines need increasing from a typical £200 to £800/£900 to send the message that this behaviour is absolutely NOT tolerated in our moderate society.
I think the statutory 12 month ban is a good idea & is robustly enforced. The fines need increasing from a typical £200 to £800/£900 to send the message that this behaviour is absolutely NOT tolerated in our moderate society. funkyferret

9:24am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Poppet87 wrote:
Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some.
For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show.
I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.
Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive.
I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.
[quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some. For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show. I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.[/p][/quote]Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive. I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive. Hessenford

9:29am Wed 4 Dec 13

Poppet87 says...

Hessenford wrote:
Poppet87 wrote:
Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some.
For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show.
I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.
Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive.
I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.
What I'm saying is that 1 unit doesn't affect everyone uniformly... Agreeing with you!?
I have known someone who has had a substantial amount to drink and got in his car... I would've definitely said he was over - Not according to the breathalyser which really shocked me.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some. For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show. I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.[/p][/quote]Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive. I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.[/p][/quote]What I'm saying is that 1 unit doesn't affect everyone uniformly... Agreeing with you!? I have known someone who has had a substantial amount to drink and got in his car... I would've definitely said he was over - Not according to the breathalyser which really shocked me. Poppet87

9:37am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Poppet87 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Poppet87 wrote:
Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some.
For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show.
I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.
Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive.
I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.
What I'm saying is that 1 unit doesn't affect everyone uniformly... Agreeing with you!?
I have known someone who has had a substantial amount to drink and got in his car... I would've definitely said he was over - Not according to the breathalyser which really shocked me.
And my point is, if drink affects everyone differently then the allowable limit should be removed in favor of zero.
Your other point about in car breathalysers, who will calibrate them every day to make sure they are working properly, how many people would take the manufacturers to court after being caught over the limit when the breathalyser said they were under the limit, how many drink drivers would use this as an excuse for driving while drunk, wont work, cant work and too expensive, insurance is high enough as it is without this added expense.
[quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some. For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show. I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.[/p][/quote]Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive. I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.[/p][/quote]What I'm saying is that 1 unit doesn't affect everyone uniformly... Agreeing with you!? I have known someone who has had a substantial amount to drink and got in his car... I would've definitely said he was over - Not according to the breathalyser which really shocked me.[/p][/quote]And my point is, if drink affects everyone differently then the allowable limit should be removed in favor of zero. Your other point about in car breathalysers, who will calibrate them every day to make sure they are working properly, how many people would take the manufacturers to court after being caught over the limit when the breathalyser said they were under the limit, how many drink drivers would use this as an excuse for driving while drunk, wont work, cant work and too expensive, insurance is high enough as it is without this added expense. Hessenford

9:40am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock. Dorset Logic

9:41am Wed 4 Dec 13

Poppet87 says...

Hessenford wrote:
Poppet87 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Poppet87 wrote:
Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some.
For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show.
I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.
Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive.
I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.
What I'm saying is that 1 unit doesn't affect everyone uniformly... Agreeing with you!?
I have known someone who has had a substantial amount to drink and got in his car... I would've definitely said he was over - Not according to the breathalyser which really shocked me.
And my point is, if drink affects everyone differently then the allowable limit should be removed in favor of zero.
Your other point about in car breathalysers, who will calibrate them every day to make sure they are working properly, how many people would take the manufacturers to court after being caught over the limit when the breathalyser said they were under the limit, how many drink drivers would use this as an excuse for driving while drunk, wont work, cant work and too expensive, insurance is high enough as it is without this added expense.
It's only an idea. I'm not a prototype developer! I think we should all follow in the footsteps of this Worcestershire pub...
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-her
eford-worcester-2519
9639
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some. For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show. I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.[/p][/quote]Cobblers, if that were the case drink drive limits would be judged on a persons build or fitness, drinking affects every bodies driving and the simple message is don't drink and drive. I get fed up with the common excuse " I only had four pints and didn't think it would put me over the limit", well if the limit was removed there would be no excuse to fall back on, it would be very simple, if anyone has one drink then they must not drive.[/p][/quote]What I'm saying is that 1 unit doesn't affect everyone uniformly... Agreeing with you!? I have known someone who has had a substantial amount to drink and got in his car... I would've definitely said he was over - Not according to the breathalyser which really shocked me.[/p][/quote]And my point is, if drink affects everyone differently then the allowable limit should be removed in favor of zero. Your other point about in car breathalysers, who will calibrate them every day to make sure they are working properly, how many people would take the manufacturers to court after being caught over the limit when the breathalyser said they were under the limit, how many drink drivers would use this as an excuse for driving while drunk, wont work, cant work and too expensive, insurance is high enough as it is without this added expense.[/p][/quote]It's only an idea. I'm not a prototype developer! I think we should all follow in the footsteps of this Worcestershire pub... http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-her eford-worcester-2519 9639 Poppet87

9:43am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse. Hessenford

9:51am Wed 4 Dec 13

QwertyWerty says...

Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles* QwertyWerty

9:53am Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

High Treason wrote:
Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.
I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse".

Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong. scrumpyjack

9:55am Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

contric wrote:
up to 6 months in prison and a fine up to £5000 the reality is completely different as i have said so often you get fined 3 or 4 times as much for having no tv license
Really? Again sounds like made up rubbish to me - but I know I am not always right so look forward to seeing some examples of what you mean.
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: up to 6 months in prison and a fine up to £5000 the reality is completely different as i have said so often you get fined 3 or 4 times as much for having no tv license[/p][/quote]Really? Again sounds like made up rubbish to me - but I know I am not always right so look forward to seeing some examples of what you mean. scrumpyjack

9:59am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
contric wrote:
up to 6 months in prison and a fine up to £5000 the reality is completely different as i have said so often you get fined 3 or 4 times as much for having no tv license
Really? Again sounds like made up rubbish to me - but I know I am not always right so look forward to seeing some examples of what you mean.
Up to £1000 for not having a tv licence, although I have never seen such a large fine imposed.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: up to 6 months in prison and a fine up to £5000 the reality is completely different as i have said so often you get fined 3 or 4 times as much for having no tv license[/p][/quote]Really? Again sounds like made up rubbish to me - but I know I am not always right so look forward to seeing some examples of what you mean.[/p][/quote]Up to £1000 for not having a tv licence, although I have never seen such a large fine imposed. Hessenford

10:01am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.
[quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles*[/p][/quote]It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense. Hessenford

10:04am Wed 4 Dec 13

contric says...

this week in the court cases drink driving fined £110 5 weeks ago a young lady in three x fined £600 for no tv license check it out scrumpyjack and then you will realise the reality of what happens
this week in the court cases drink driving fined £110 5 weeks ago a young lady in three x fined £600 for no tv license check it out scrumpyjack and then you will realise the reality of what happens contric

10:05am Wed 4 Dec 13

QwertyWerty says...

Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.
Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it.
Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced?
Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles*[/p][/quote]It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.[/p][/quote]Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it. Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced? Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go. QwertyWerty

10:08am Wed 4 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Why does there need to be a 'campaign' each Christmas? Does this not imply that the rest of the year, the Police couldn't give a fig about the issue? Road safety should not need to be stepped up at any time of the year, it should always be a top priority, as evidenced by the absurd number of headlines each week about yet another accident in the area!
Why does there need to be a 'campaign' each Christmas? Does this not imply that the rest of the year, the Police couldn't give a fig about the issue? Road safety should not need to be stepped up at any time of the year, it should always be a top priority, as evidenced by the absurd number of headlines each week about yet another accident in the area! speedy231278

10:10am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.
Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it.
Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced?
Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.
Touched a nerve it seems, you may like to see the roads filled with pi55ed up drivers this Christmas but I don't, random breath testing all year not just Christmas.
[quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles*[/p][/quote]It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.[/p][/quote]Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it. Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced? Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve it seems, you may like to see the roads filled with pi55ed up drivers this Christmas but I don't, random breath testing all year not just Christmas. Hessenford

10:13am Wed 4 Dec 13

QwertyWerty says...

Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.
Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it.
Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced?
Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.
Touched a nerve it seems, you may like to see the roads filled with pi55ed up drivers this Christmas but I don't, random breath testing all year not just Christmas.
Haven't touched a nerve at all.
I'm just curious... I agree it should be done all year round and not just the festive period but unless you suggest employing a shed load of new officers (when budgets are being cut) I don't see how you can possibly make this enforceable!?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles*[/p][/quote]It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.[/p][/quote]Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it. Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced? Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve it seems, you may like to see the roads filled with pi55ed up drivers this Christmas but I don't, random breath testing all year not just Christmas.[/p][/quote]Haven't touched a nerve at all. I'm just curious... I agree it should be done all year round and not just the festive period but unless you suggest employing a shed load of new officers (when budgets are being cut) I don't see how you can possibly make this enforceable!? QwertyWerty

10:14am Wed 4 Dec 13

High Treason says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.
I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse".

Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/news
/8850408/Drink-drive
rs-escape-ban.html
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html High Treason

10:24am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.
Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it.
Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced?
Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.
Touched a nerve it seems, you may like to see the roads filled with pi55ed up drivers this Christmas but I don't, random breath testing all year not just Christmas.
Haven't touched a nerve at all.
I'm just curious... I agree it should be done all year round and not just the festive period but unless you suggest employing a shed load of new officers (when budgets are being cut) I don't see how you can possibly make this enforceable!?
I take your point on enforcement , the same excuse was muted when the drink drive limit was lowered years ago, at least with the lower limit there are less truly smashed drivers on the roads, with a zero limit there would be even less drivers on the roads whose skills have been impaired by booze because the law would be a lot more clear, don't drink and drive at all, that way less people would take the risk of having even one drink lessening the risk of having too much to drink while driving .
[quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles*[/p][/quote]It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.[/p][/quote]Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it. Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced? Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve it seems, you may like to see the roads filled with pi55ed up drivers this Christmas but I don't, random breath testing all year not just Christmas.[/p][/quote]Haven't touched a nerve at all. I'm just curious... I agree it should be done all year round and not just the festive period but unless you suggest employing a shed load of new officers (when budgets are being cut) I don't see how you can possibly make this enforceable!?[/p][/quote]I take your point on enforcement , the same excuse was muted when the drink drive limit was lowered years ago, at least with the lower limit there are less truly smashed drivers on the roads, with a zero limit there would be even less drivers on the roads whose skills have been impaired by booze because the law would be a lot more clear, don't drink and drive at all, that way less people would take the risk of having even one drink lessening the risk of having too much to drink while driving . Hessenford

10:31am Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

contric wrote:
this week in the court cases drink driving fined £110 5 weeks ago a young lady in three x fined £600 for no tv license check it out scrumpyjack and then you will realise the reality of what happens
From In the Dock…

(bear in mind the limit is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath - so about 17 microgrammes is about 1 pint – QED 15 microgrammes over equals about 1 pint over, give or take)

Admitted driving an Audi on Barrack Road, Christchurch, with 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £300. To pay victim surcharge of £30. Costs £85. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

Admitted driving a BMW on Magdalen Lane, Christchurch with 58 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £440. To pay victim surcharge of £44. Costs £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 16 months

Admitted driving a Honda Accord on Wimborne Road, with 76 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £400. To pay victim surcharge of £40. Costs £85. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for three years.


CHRISTINA CLARK aged 45 of Poole Lane, Bournemouth. Admitted using a television without a licence. Fined £55. To pay victim surcharge of £20.

ANITA DU FEU aged 20 of Nutley Way, Bournemouth. Admitted using a television without a licence. Fined £75. To pay victim surcharge of £20.

KELLIE GODDARD aged 31 of Murley Road, Bournemouth. Admitted using a television without a licence. Fined £85. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £90.

There can be big fines on both sides - but only in the extreme cases. It is clear the drink driver is more heavily penalised.

But then I just tend to go with facts to help me "realise".
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: this week in the court cases drink driving fined £110 5 weeks ago a young lady in three x fined £600 for no tv license check it out scrumpyjack and then you will realise the reality of what happens[/p][/quote]From In the Dock… (bear in mind the limit is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath - so about 17 microgrammes is about 1 pint – QED 15 microgrammes over equals about 1 pint over, give or take) Admitted driving an Audi on Barrack Road, Christchurch, with 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £300. To pay victim surcharge of £30. Costs £85. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. Admitted driving a BMW on Magdalen Lane, Christchurch with 58 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £440. To pay victim surcharge of £44. Costs £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 16 months Admitted driving a Honda Accord on Wimborne Road, with 76 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £400. To pay victim surcharge of £40. Costs £85. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for three years. CHRISTINA CLARK aged 45 of Poole Lane, Bournemouth. Admitted using a television without a licence. Fined £55. To pay victim surcharge of £20. ANITA DU FEU aged 20 of Nutley Way, Bournemouth. Admitted using a television without a licence. Fined £75. To pay victim surcharge of £20. KELLIE GODDARD aged 31 of Murley Road, Bournemouth. Admitted using a television without a licence. Fined £85. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £90. There can be big fines on both sides - but only in the extreme cases. It is clear the drink driver is more heavily penalised. But then I just tend to go with facts to help me "realise". scrumpyjack

10:32am Wed 4 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto
look no further
I have solved your search you know
Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto look no further I have solved your search you know nickynoodah

10:34am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban. Dorset Logic

10:36am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

nickynoodah wrote:
Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto
look no further
I have solved your search you know
Don't recall anyone else calling people pigs?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto look no further I have solved your search you know[/p][/quote]Don't recall anyone else calling people pigs? Dorset Logic

10:39am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto
look no further
I have solved your search you know
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAH was there a pig in Snow White and the seven dwarfs ?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto look no further I have solved your search you know[/p][/quote]WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAH was there a pig in Snow White and the seven dwarfs ? retry69

10:41am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense.
Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year.
A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately Hessenford

10:42am Wed 4 Dec 13

Ash_69 says...

Expanding on above - There is already a list of who is committing these crimes. Why not make them more prominent so we can all see who these people are. From some of the last "In the Dock"s

JOHN JOSEPH GREENWOOD aged 60 of Chichester Walk, Wimborne. Admitted driving a Fiat Punto on Hanham Road with 51 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £110. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 15 months. To be reduced by 114 days of the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.

MAGDALENA DYKA aged 36 of Barns Road, Ferndown. Admitted driving a Vauxhall Insignia at Charminster Road with 61 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £360. To pay victim surcharge of £36. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 17 months. To be reduced if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.

CHARLES GILBERT MURGATROYD aged 60 of Marshfield, Wimborne. Admitted driving a BMW at Wimborne Road West with 51 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £110. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 12 months. To be reduced by 91 days if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.

JAMIE ALEX LIDDIARD aged 26 of Glyndebourne Close, Salisbury. Admitted driving a Vauxhall Corsa on Old Christchurch Road/Richmond Hill with 81 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Also admitted driving without a licence and driving without insurance. Fined a total of £220. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 36 months. To be reduced by 273 days of the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.

IAN JAMES BRAVINGTON aged 30 of Shelton Street, Tamworth. Admitted at Bournemouth, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. Fined £250. To pay victim surcharge of £25. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 20 months. To be reduced by 150 days of the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. Also admitted driving a Nissan Note at Holdenhurst Road without a licence. Fined £50. Also admitted driving without insurance. Fined £200.

FERNANDES DE MATOS SUSA aged 23 of Parley Close, Bournemouth. Admitted driving a Volkswagen Golf at Heron Court Road with 46 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £200. To pay victim surcharge of £15. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 12 months. To be reduced by 91 days if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.
Expanding on above - There is already a list of who is committing these crimes. Why not make them more prominent so we can all see who these people are. From some of the last "In the Dock"s JOHN JOSEPH GREENWOOD aged 60 of Chichester Walk, Wimborne. Admitted driving a Fiat Punto on Hanham Road with 51 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £110. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 15 months. To be reduced by 114 days of the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. MAGDALENA DYKA aged 36 of Barns Road, Ferndown. Admitted driving a Vauxhall Insignia at Charminster Road with 61 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £360. To pay victim surcharge of £36. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 17 months. To be reduced if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. CHARLES GILBERT MURGATROYD aged 60 of Marshfield, Wimborne. Admitted driving a BMW at Wimborne Road West with 51 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £110. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 12 months. To be reduced by 91 days if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. JAMIE ALEX LIDDIARD aged 26 of Glyndebourne Close, Salisbury. Admitted driving a Vauxhall Corsa on Old Christchurch Road/Richmond Hill with 81 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Also admitted driving without a licence and driving without insurance. Fined a total of £220. To pay victim surcharge of £20. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 36 months. To be reduced by 273 days of the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. IAN JAMES BRAVINGTON aged 30 of Shelton Street, Tamworth. Admitted at Bournemouth, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. Fined £250. To pay victim surcharge of £25. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 20 months. To be reduced by 150 days of the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. Also admitted driving a Nissan Note at Holdenhurst Road without a licence. Fined £50. Also admitted driving without insurance. Fined £200. FERNANDES DE MATOS SUSA aged 23 of Parley Close, Bournemouth. Admitted driving a Volkswagen Golf at Heron Court Road with 46 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Fined £200. To pay victim surcharge of £15. Costs of £85. Disqualified from holding a driving licence for 12 months. To be reduced by 91 days if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State. Ash_69

10:45am Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

High Treason wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
High Treason wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.
I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html
So less than 2% and we know nothing about the facts?
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html[/p][/quote]So less than 2% and we know nothing about the facts? scrumpyjack

10:46am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense.
Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year.
A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
hyperbole in the extreme, a drunk driver using a phone and speeding while spinning plates is much more dangerous
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately[/p][/quote]hyperbole in the extreme, a drunk driver using a phone and speeding while spinning plates is much more dangerous Dorset Logic

10:47am Wed 4 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

maybe there was
maybe there wasn't
there is now
bacon sandwiches for all
maybe there was maybe there wasn't there is now bacon sandwiches for all nickynoodah

10:49am Wed 4 Dec 13

contric says...

as i said scrumpyjack several people have been fined £600 for no tv license over the last six months in the echo and this week someone was fined £110 for driving over the limit perhaps you could tell me why one person is fined £55 and someone is fined £600 for the same offence
as i said scrumpyjack several people have been fined £600 for no tv license over the last six months in the echo and this week someone was fined £110 for driving over the limit perhaps you could tell me why one person is fined £55 and someone is fined £600 for the same offence contric

10:51am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

nickynoodah wrote:
maybe there was
maybe there wasn't
there is now
bacon sandwiches for all
yawn
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: maybe there was maybe there wasn't there is now bacon sandwiches for all[/p][/quote]yawn Dorset Logic

11:14am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
maybe there was
maybe there wasn't
there is now
bacon sandwiches for all
yawn
You should change your name,to have it ending in "Logic" is very misleading.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: maybe there was maybe there wasn't there is now bacon sandwiches for all[/p][/quote]yawn[/p][/quote]You should change your name,to have it ending in "Logic" is very misleading. Hessenford

11:18am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
maybe there was
maybe there wasn't
there is now
bacon sandwiches for all
Are you sure we are not related?you did say you lived in Bere didn't you ?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: maybe there was maybe there wasn't there is now bacon sandwiches for all[/p][/quote]Are you sure we are not related?you did say you lived in Bere didn't you ? retry69

11:20am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
maybe there was
maybe there wasn't
there is now
bacon sandwiches for all
yawn
You should change your name,to have it ending in "Logic" is very misleading.
You should try not to get personal if you run out of arguement
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: maybe there was maybe there wasn't there is now bacon sandwiches for all[/p][/quote]yawn[/p][/quote]You should change your name,to have it ending in "Logic" is very misleading.[/p][/quote]You should try not to get personal if you run out of arguement Dorset Logic

11:22am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
maybe there was
maybe there wasn't
there is now
bacon sandwiches for all
yawn
You should change your name,to have it ending in "Logic" is very misleading.
You should try not to get personal if you run out of arguement
Its the norm im afraid best stay away and ignore :)
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: maybe there was maybe there wasn't there is now bacon sandwiches for all[/p][/quote]yawn[/p][/quote]You should change your name,to have it ending in "Logic" is very misleading.[/p][/quote]You should try not to get personal if you run out of arguement[/p][/quote]Its the norm im afraid best stay away and ignore :) retry69

11:23am Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject.

There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz.

The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round.

I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases:

EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs.

SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit

Hardly ignoring the problem are they?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately[/p][/quote]You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject. There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz. The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round. I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases: EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs. SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit Hardly ignoring the problem are they? scrumpyjack

11:26am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject.

There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz.

The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round.

I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases:

EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs.

SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit

Hardly ignoring the problem are they?
Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately[/p][/quote]You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject. There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz. The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round. I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases: EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs. SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit Hardly ignoring the problem are they?[/p][/quote]Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :) retry69

11:31am Wed 4 Dec 13

High Treason says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
High Treason wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
High Treason wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.
I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html
So less than 2% and we know nothing about the facts?
Fact is they were convicted of drink driving. Isn't that enough or do you believe in a good barister instead of accepting the ban. Thought so.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html[/p][/quote]So less than 2% and we know nothing about the facts?[/p][/quote]Fact is they were convicted of drink driving. Isn't that enough or do you believe in a good barister instead of accepting the ban. Thought so. High Treason

11:39am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested.

They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg.
They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day.

All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled.

The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so,
It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons.

The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.
In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero. Dorset Logic

11:52am Wed 4 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

retry69 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject.

There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz.

The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round.

I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases:

EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs.

SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit

Hardly ignoring the problem are they?
Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)
Scrumpyjack & Retry, two of a kind, at least I work for a living, both seem to support driving and drinking but go on and on about drivers going a little over the speed limit, which is more dangerous, driving at 35 mph while sober or driving at 35 mph while rat faced.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately[/p][/quote]You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject. There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz. The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round. I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases: EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs. SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit Hardly ignoring the problem are they?[/p][/quote]Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)[/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack & Retry, two of a kind, at least I work for a living, both seem to support driving and drinking but go on and on about drivers going a little over the speed limit, which is more dangerous, driving at 35 mph while sober or driving at 35 mph while rat faced. Hessenford

11:58am Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

contric wrote:
as i said scrumpyjack several people have been fined £600 for no tv license over the last six months in the echo and this week someone was fined £110 for driving over the limit perhaps you could tell me why one person is fined £55 and someone is fined £600 for the same offence
How long had they not had a TV licence? 1yr? 5yrs? 10yrs?

How much over was the drink driver? half a pint? a pint? 10 pints?

If you cannot answer that then your point is worse than irrelevant.

I suggest to you that based on the "average" the TV fine of £600 would have been based on them not having a TV license for years and years , whilst the drink driver you talk of was ‘only’ (I know) over by 16 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath (so about a pint).

And Courts have to take into account the income of the person being prosecuted – the drink drivers may have been on benefits/small pension and the courts are restricted as to what they can impose.

Again, I like to deal in facts and the actual reality rather than clichés and hyperbole.
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: as i said scrumpyjack several people have been fined £600 for no tv license over the last six months in the echo and this week someone was fined £110 for driving over the limit perhaps you could tell me why one person is fined £55 and someone is fined £600 for the same offence[/p][/quote]How long had they not had a TV licence? 1yr? 5yrs? 10yrs? How much over was the drink driver? half a pint? a pint? 10 pints? If you cannot answer that then your point is worse than irrelevant. I suggest to you that based on the "average" the TV fine of £600 would have been based on them not having a TV license for years and years , whilst the drink driver you talk of was ‘only’ (I know) over by 16 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath (so about a pint). And Courts have to take into account the income of the person being prosecuted – the drink drivers may have been on benefits/small pension and the courts are restricted as to what they can impose. Again, I like to deal in facts and the actual reality rather than clichés and hyperbole. scrumpyjack

11:59am Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject.

There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz.

The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round.

I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases:

EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs.

SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit

Hardly ignoring the problem are they?
Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)
Scrumpyjack & Retry, two of a kind, at least I work for a living, both seem to support driving and drinking but go on and on about drivers going a little over the speed limit, which is more dangerous, driving at 35 mph while sober or driving at 35 mph while rat faced.
Troll Lite
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately[/p][/quote]You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject. There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz. The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round. I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases: EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs. SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit Hardly ignoring the problem are they?[/p][/quote]Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)[/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack & Retry, two of a kind, at least I work for a living, both seem to support driving and drinking but go on and on about drivers going a little over the speed limit, which is more dangerous, driving at 35 mph while sober or driving at 35 mph while rat faced.[/p][/quote]Troll Lite Dorset Logic

12:00pm Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Are we reading from the same script here ? Let me share it with the others and get back to you.
Are we reading from the same script here ? Let me share it with the others and get back to you. retry69

12:01pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Wackerone says...

contric wrote:
as i said scrumpyjack several people have been fined £600 for no tv license over the last six months in the echo and this week someone was fined £110 for driving over the limit perhaps you could tell me why one person is fined £55 and someone is fined £600 for the same offence
May be wrong, but I think it's based on people's ability to pay which again is an enigma as crime is crime. There again, you can't get blood out of a stone. In the case of TV licence evasion it's based on how long the person is deemed to have evaded payment according to the records on the basis of probability.
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: as i said scrumpyjack several people have been fined £600 for no tv license over the last six months in the echo and this week someone was fined £110 for driving over the limit perhaps you could tell me why one person is fined £55 and someone is fined £600 for the same offence[/p][/quote]May be wrong, but I think it's based on people's ability to pay which again is an enigma as crime is crime. There again, you can't get blood out of a stone. In the case of TV licence evasion it's based on how long the person is deemed to have evaded payment according to the records on the basis of probability. Wackerone

12:04pm Wed 4 Dec 13

downmoor-ch63 says...

IF YOU HAVE HAVE BEEN DRINKING IN A PUB, GIVE THE CAR KEYS TO THE BARMAN, AND TAKE A TAXI HOME, ITS A LOT CHEAPER THAN EITHER KILLING SOMEONE, OR GOING TO COURT, OR TAKE A NON DRINKER WITH YOU!.
IF YOU HAVE HAVE BEEN DRINKING IN A PUB, GIVE THE CAR KEYS TO THE BARMAN, AND TAKE A TAXI HOME, ITS A LOT CHEAPER THAN EITHER KILLING SOMEONE, OR GOING TO COURT, OR TAKE A NON DRINKER WITH YOU!. downmoor-ch63

12:05pm Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Sorry not a 100% input some are asleep at their desks,not surprising but our survey says from those that are awake it seems some of us are not paying attention before opening gobs :)
Sorry not a 100% input some are asleep at their desks,not surprising but our survey says from those that are awake it seems some of us are not paying attention before opening gobs :) retry69

12:11pm Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

downmoor-ch63 wrote:
IF YOU HAVE HAVE BEEN DRINKING IN A PUB, GIVE THE CAR KEYS TO THE BARMAN, AND TAKE A TAXI HOME, ITS A LOT CHEAPER THAN EITHER KILLING SOMEONE, OR GOING TO COURT, OR TAKE A NON DRINKER WITH YOU!.
Yes exactly, someone has just pointed out that there was a guy being interviewed this morning who was 3 times over the limit and at the time he was stopped and said he felt comfortable driving that night, not so comfortable now as it had a big impact on his career capabilities.Saying that I suppose anyone with that much alcohol inside them would probably feel comfortable cutting their own arm off.
[quote][p][bold]downmoor-ch63[/bold] wrote: IF YOU HAVE HAVE BEEN DRINKING IN A PUB, GIVE THE CAR KEYS TO THE BARMAN, AND TAKE A TAXI HOME, ITS A LOT CHEAPER THAN EITHER KILLING SOMEONE, OR GOING TO COURT, OR TAKE A NON DRINKER WITH YOU!.[/p][/quote]Yes exactly, someone has just pointed out that there was a guy being interviewed this morning who was 3 times over the limit and at the time he was stopped and said he felt comfortable driving that night, not so comfortable now as it had a big impact on his career capabilities.Saying that I suppose anyone with that much alcohol inside them would probably feel comfortable cutting their own arm off. retry69

12:14pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

if I SHOUT !!!!!!! will that wake us all up?
if I SHOUT !!!!!!! will that wake us all up? Dorset Logic

12:17pm Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
if I SHOUT !!!!!!! will that wake us all up?
It wont wake this lot here im afraid,but they will wake for lunch :)
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: if I SHOUT !!!!!!! will that wake us all up?[/p][/quote]It wont wake this lot here im afraid,but they will wake for lunch :) retry69

12:21pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

The echo comments section does show why Chinese business is taking over the world in productivity terms, and yes I know that points at me as well.
The echo comments section does show why Chinese business is taking over the world in productivity terms, and yes I know that points at me as well. Dorset Logic

12:23pm Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

High Treason wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
High Treason wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
High Treason wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.
I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html
So less than 2% and we know nothing about the facts?
Fact is they were convicted of drink driving. Isn't that enough or do you believe in a good barister instead of accepting the ban. Thought so.
What was the reason for there not being a ban?

One case I seem to remember reading and stuck in my head about was that a surgeon who was unwittingly over because the restaurant served a very "tipsy" pudding - they confirmed in court he had not drunk more than one drink during the evening (they had the bill as well I think) and that they had not warned him of the high alcohol content of the pudding.

(For example a Chardonnay jelly contains 1.32 units of alcohol per serving).

The reason there is a court is so the facts can be assessed to decide the appropriate sentence in light of the evidence in the particular case.

Again, I point out that over 98% (so 9.8 out of every 10 cases the driver is banned).

Want to throw another condescending "thought so" in there?
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Lets see if they get a 12 month ban and hefty fine or will they use some excuse that they need the car to take their disabled mother to hospital for check ups. To bad if they lose their jobs, tough if they can't afford the fine. it is only when the law dishes out severe punishments will the likes of drink drivers, speeders, mobile phone users etc take any notice.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested to learn of any examples where drunk drivers have been left off after using "some excuse". Personally I think you're talking crap, but I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /8850408/Drink-drive rs-escape-ban.html[/p][/quote]So less than 2% and we know nothing about the facts?[/p][/quote]Fact is they were convicted of drink driving. Isn't that enough or do you believe in a good barister instead of accepting the ban. Thought so.[/p][/quote]What was the reason for there not being a ban? One case I seem to remember reading and stuck in my head about was that a surgeon who was unwittingly over because the restaurant served a very "tipsy" pudding - they confirmed in court he had not drunk more than one drink during the evening (they had the bill as well I think) and that they had not warned him of the high alcohol content of the pudding. (For example a Chardonnay jelly contains 1.32 units of alcohol per serving). The reason there is a court is so the facts can be assessed to decide the appropriate sentence in light of the evidence in the particular case. Again, I point out that over 98% (so 9.8 out of every 10 cases the driver is banned). Want to throw another condescending "thought so" in there? scrumpyjack

12:29pm Wed 4 Dec 13

thatguyyouknow says...

"To be reduced by 91 days if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State." This is why most people are sat here laughing at how ineffective the policing in the UK is - Do the crime but not the time if you're a good little boy or girl.
Saying you get a 12 month ban at minimum is a lie - you can get away with a 3 month ban. This isn't zero tolerance - it is a joke.

As for Ian Bravington:
Driving without a licence - £50 - joke
Driving when uninsured - £200 - joke.
150 day ban for drink driving- big joke as he doesn't even have a licence!
What does this person, who is going to kill someone - have to do to get jail time?! He didn't even get community service for driving drunk, without a licence or insurance. A friend of mine get charged £300 and 6 points for driving without insurance - how the hell did Mr Bravington get away with this?!?
"To be reduced by 91 days if the defendant satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State." This is why most people are sat here laughing at how ineffective the policing in the UK is - Do the crime but not the time if you're a good little boy or girl. Saying you get a 12 month ban at minimum is a lie - you can get away with a 3 month ban. This isn't zero tolerance - it is a joke. As for Ian Bravington: Driving without a licence - £50 - joke Driving when uninsured - £200 - joke. 150 day ban for drink driving- big joke as he doesn't even have a licence! What does this person, who is going to kill someone - have to do to get jail time?! He didn't even get community service for driving drunk, without a licence or insurance. A friend of mine get charged £300 and 6 points for driving without insurance - how the hell did Mr Bravington get away with this?!? thatguyyouknow

12:31pm Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.
Completely agree on all points.

Even a blooming christmas pudding with brandy cream would register as alcohol in your system.

Not sure about Wine Gums and Shandy Bass mind.

I do not 'drink and drive' and will not drive over the limit.

I am however perfectly happy to have one pint with a roast out in the forest though (maybe even 1.5 / 2 if over a long enough period ) - and even then if the pub is close to home I would rather walk 'in case'.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.[/p][/quote]Completely agree on all points. Even a blooming christmas pudding with brandy cream would register as alcohol in your system. Not sure about Wine Gums and Shandy Bass mind. I do not 'drink and drive' and will not drive over the limit. I am however perfectly happy to have one pint with a roast out in the forest though (maybe even 1.5 / 2 if over a long enough period ) - and even then if the pub is close to home I would rather walk 'in case'. scrumpyjack

12:34pm Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.
I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately
You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject. There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz. The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round. I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases: EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs. SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit Hardly ignoring the problem are they?
Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)
Scrumpyjack & Retry, two of a kind, at least I work for a living, both seem to support driving and drinking but go on and on about drivers going a little over the speed limit, which is more dangerous, driving at 35 mph while sober or driving at 35 mph while rat faced.
Oh so being grown up enough to understand and work within the law and to have a reality check as to what happens in our courts is now supporting the pi55ed up driver is it???

Give ONE example of where i have done such a thing?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I stick to common sense if its all the same to the rule makers of generation ban.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you stick to common sense. Speeding drivers are targeted every day on the roads and in this paper, mobile phone use while driving as well, its a pity drunk drivers are not targeted with the same vigilance every day all through the year. A drunk driver is even more dangerous when speeding and using a mobile phone, something that no camera will pick up unfortunately[/p][/quote]You don't half spout some crap - and impressivley just about on every subject. There is a 'Christmas and New Year' campaign because this (and like their Summer campaign) is when there is a much higher chance for people to be tempted to drink and drive (f'g obvious) and so there is more of a need for policing, but also i am sure because there will be a higher success rate and the people they catch will be banned from 1 year to 5 years or even longer. Taking them off the roads for more than just the period of the lastest (expensive) blitz. The Police do not ignore it for the rest of the year, which is why all RTC's require the drivers to be breathlised, which is why cars are pulled over if their driving seems 'not quite right', or they have a light out etc - it then allows the officer to smell the alcohol. It is policed all year round. I picked my birthday as it is 2nd Oct and not a lot happens at that time of year and did a quick check of 'In the Dock'. They weren't busy but did include these cases: EMMA THOMPSON, also known as EMMA HOPGOOD, aged 32, of Burstock, Beaminster. Admitted failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether you had committed an offence. Fined £400 and ordered to pay £85 costs. SUZANNE MARY FITZGERALD, aged 44, of Oakfield Street, Blandford. Admitted failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence. Fined £110. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. aged 68, of Orchard Avenue, Bridport. Admitted driving a vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in breath, namely 60 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit Hardly ignoring the problem are they?[/p][/quote]Be kind, don't upset him he wont get his sleep before his nightshift HO HO HO :)[/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack & Retry, two of a kind, at least I work for a living, both seem to support driving and drinking but go on and on about drivers going a little over the speed limit, which is more dangerous, driving at 35 mph while sober or driving at 35 mph while rat faced.[/p][/quote]Oh so being grown up enough to understand and work within the law and to have a reality check as to what happens in our courts is now supporting the pi55ed up driver is it??? Give ONE example of where i have done such a thing? scrumpyjack

12:47pm Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
The echo comments section does show why Chinese business is taking over the world in productivity terms, and yes I know that points at me as well.
Guilty as charged.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: The echo comments section does show why Chinese business is taking over the world in productivity terms, and yes I know that points at me as well.[/p][/quote]Guilty as charged. scrumpyjack

12:49pm Wed 4 Dec 13

kingstonpaul says...

My hunch is that drink driving doesn't actually increase at Christmas. The reason that the incidence goes up is that the police put huge resources into catching drunk drivers at this time of year. Indeed most drivers are so aware of being caught, the extra police prsence is an effective deterrent.
This kind of campaign should be year round. I suspect the real high risk months are mid-Summer, where long warm days, lunchtime barbecues etc are a catalyst for drinking and driving (e.g. late afternoons on summer Sundays).
My hunch is that drink driving doesn't actually increase at Christmas. The reason that the incidence goes up is that the police put huge resources into catching drunk drivers at this time of year. Indeed most drivers are so aware of being caught, the extra police prsence is an effective deterrent. This kind of campaign should be year round. I suspect the real high risk months are mid-Summer, where long warm days, lunchtime barbecues etc are a catalyst for drinking and driving (e.g. late afternoons on summer Sundays). kingstonpaul

12:51pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.
Completely agree on all points.

Even a blooming christmas pudding with brandy cream would register as alcohol in your system.

Not sure about Wine Gums and Shandy Bass mind.

I do not 'drink and drive' and will not drive over the limit.

I am however perfectly happy to have one pint with a roast out in the forest though (maybe even 1.5 / 2 if over a long enough period ) - and even then if the pub is close to home I would rather walk 'in case'.
Its why Top Deck was banned in the 80's
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.[/p][/quote]Completely agree on all points. Even a blooming christmas pudding with brandy cream would register as alcohol in your system. Not sure about Wine Gums and Shandy Bass mind. I do not 'drink and drive' and will not drive over the limit. I am however perfectly happy to have one pint with a roast out in the forest though (maybe even 1.5 / 2 if over a long enough period ) - and even then if the pub is close to home I would rather walk 'in case'.[/p][/quote]Its why Top Deck was banned in the 80's Dorset Logic

1:17pm Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Top Deck!!

The decadance when you're aged 10.

It was all down hill for me when I discovered Top Deck Cider Shandy (having dabbled in the Top Deck Lager and Lime for some years).
Top Deck!! The decadance when you're aged 10. It was all down hill for me when I discovered Top Deck Cider Shandy (having dabbled in the Top Deck Lager and Lime for some years). scrumpyjack

1:17pm Wed 4 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

I like staying here in me dads 6 roomed farm house
you like slithering under your rock
that's fine by me you know , good on yer
happy xmas george
I like staying here in me dads 6 roomed farm house you like slithering under your rock that's fine by me you know , good on yer happy xmas george nickynoodah

1:23pm Wed 4 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
My hunch is that drink driving doesn't actually increase at Christmas. The reason that the incidence goes up is that the police put huge resources into catching drunk drivers at this time of year. Indeed most drivers are so aware of being caught, the extra police prsence is an effective deterrent. This kind of campaign should be year round. I suspect the real high risk months are mid-Summer, where long warm days, lunchtime barbecues etc are a catalyst for drinking and driving (e.g. late afternoons on summer Sundays).
I disagree - I think all the Christmas parties and lunches and the "meeting for a Christmas drink" does prove an added temptation for some. Especially the 20 something’s. Throw in the 'morning after's' on a weekday going into work rather than sleeping it off.

And they do have a Summer Campaign as publicised as the Christmas one.

They do police all year round but a sustained campaign would just mean other areas would be neglected even more.
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: My hunch is that drink driving doesn't actually increase at Christmas. The reason that the incidence goes up is that the police put huge resources into catching drunk drivers at this time of year. Indeed most drivers are so aware of being caught, the extra police prsence is an effective deterrent. This kind of campaign should be year round. I suspect the real high risk months are mid-Summer, where long warm days, lunchtime barbecues etc are a catalyst for drinking and driving (e.g. late afternoons on summer Sundays).[/p][/quote]I disagree - I think all the Christmas parties and lunches and the "meeting for a Christmas drink" does prove an added temptation for some. Especially the 20 something’s. Throw in the 'morning after's' on a weekday going into work rather than sleeping it off. And they do have a Summer Campaign as publicised as the Christmas one. They do police all year round but a sustained campaign would just mean other areas would be neglected even more. scrumpyjack

1:25pm Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
I like staying here in me dads 6 roomed farm house
you like slithering under your rock
that's fine by me you know , good on yer
happy xmas george
Nicky answer me :)
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I like staying here in me dads 6 roomed farm house you like slithering under your rock that's fine by me you know , good on yer happy xmas george[/p][/quote]Nicky answer me :) retry69

1:29pm Wed 4 Dec 13

mgibbs says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.
Completely agree on all points.

Even a blooming christmas pudding with brandy cream would register as alcohol in your system.

Not sure about Wine Gums and Shandy Bass mind.

I do not 'drink and drive' and will not drive over the limit.

I am however perfectly happy to have one pint with a roast out in the forest though (maybe even 1.5 / 2 if over a long enough period ) - and even then if the pub is close to home I would rather walk 'in case'.
Its why Top Deck was banned in the 80's
The other problem with a 0% tolerance is something called Endogenous ethanol production. This is a process where the body produces a certain amount of alcohol naturally. This is particularly common in diabetics. In fact, someone with diabetes who is mildly hypoglycaemic can fail a breath test without consuming any alcohol, due to the high levels of acetone in their blood.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: In a couple of Nordic countries they have 20mg not 0mg or a total ban as suggested. They know that even mouthwash can put above 0mg. They also know that you should be allowed to have a night out and have a few glasses and not be in danger of losing your licence on your way to work the next day. All this nonsense about drink driving while speeding on a mobile phone e.t.c. I want to live in a reasonable place where being able to have a pint with a Sunday lunch is not controlled. The fact is, if your over the current limit you will get done and rightly so, It doesn't need to change to a zero tolerance ban for the above reasons. The real truth is, those that drink and drive over the limit and either get caught, or worse, Will still drink and drive if the limit is zero.[/p][/quote]Completely agree on all points. Even a blooming christmas pudding with brandy cream would register as alcohol in your system. Not sure about Wine Gums and Shandy Bass mind. I do not 'drink and drive' and will not drive over the limit. I am however perfectly happy to have one pint with a roast out in the forest though (maybe even 1.5 / 2 if over a long enough period ) - and even then if the pub is close to home I would rather walk 'in case'.[/p][/quote]Its why Top Deck was banned in the 80's[/p][/quote]The other problem with a 0% tolerance is something called Endogenous ethanol production. This is a process where the body produces a certain amount of alcohol naturally. This is particularly common in diabetics. In fact, someone with diabetes who is mildly hypoglycaemic can fail a breath test without consuming any alcohol, due to the high levels of acetone in their blood. mgibbs

1:45pm Wed 4 Dec 13

rayc says...

Are there any records kept of breath test taken in the aftermath of accidents where those tested have passed the breath test ? Did they have any indication or none?
I doubt very much if lowering the threshold is very high on the Governments agenda and unless Inspector Butler can convince them and his superiors in ACPO that "“Research has shown that even one drink can impair the ability to drive ” then it will stay as it is.
Are there any records kept of breath test taken in the aftermath of accidents where those tested have passed the breath test ? Did they have any indication or none? I doubt very much if lowering the threshold is very high on the Governments agenda and unless Inspector Butler can convince them and his superiors in ACPO that "“Research has shown that even one drink can impair the ability to drive ” then it will stay as it is. rayc

1:57pm Wed 4 Dec 13

seaviews says...

As with all fines if they are not collected then they make no difference. Automatic payment straight out of salary or benefits regardless of circumstances would ensure recognition of wrong doing.
As with all fines if they are not collected then they make no difference. Automatic payment straight out of salary or benefits regardless of circumstances would ensure recognition of wrong doing. seaviews

2:08pm Wed 4 Dec 13

happybee1 says...

Poppet87 wrote:
Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some.
For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show.
I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.
exactly, I hadly drink and get pretty tipsy from one drink. I wont risk one drink and drive. if I hurt someone I couldn't live with myself!
[quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Every person is affected differently by alcohol. There are no 'set limits'. 1 unit might affect one person completely differently to another and one bottle of wine may not even touch the sides for some. For example. My friend is a rugby player and on a strict training regime. He has one pint and he's absolutely smashed. Another friend, drinks regularly and wouldn't say that 2/3 pints affected how he behaves and it certainly doesn't show. I believe that people should have in car breathalysers provided by insurance companies (at the policy holders expense) - It should be compulsory for those who have been convicted.[/p][/quote]exactly, I hadly drink and get pretty tipsy from one drink. I wont risk one drink and drive. if I hurt someone I couldn't live with myself! happybee1

8:27pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

nickynoodah wrote:
I like staying here in me dads 6 roomed farm house
you like slithering under your rock
that's fine by me you know , good on yer
happy xmas george
my underpants can sometime be red by the moonkins
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I like staying here in me dads 6 roomed farm house you like slithering under your rock that's fine by me you know , good on yer happy xmas george[/p][/quote]my underpants can sometime be red by the moonkins Dorset Logic

8:33pm Wed 4 Dec 13

spooki says...

QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Dorset Logic wrote:
If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.
Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.
There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree.
*whistles*
It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.
Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it.
Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced?
Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.
They could enforce it in the same way they enforce everything else - once you catch 'em doing it, it's enforced.
If you're driving, go without drinking alcohol.
If you can't go without drinking alcohol for one night out (day out, whatever) when you're driving, you have a problem.
I don't see why anyone needs to have a drink to have a good time! They even sell alcohol at places like Farmer Palmers farm park and at the Meyrick Park family day. WHY?
Like they said, common sense.
Ok fine, if you want to drink then drive, it's up to you isn't it? What about the accident you either cause or get involved in? YOU will get the blame if you've got alcohol in your system. Why should I or anyone else pay for YOUR stupidity?
[quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: If you fancy a pint with your sunday pub meal, have a pint, This lot would have you in bed for 7 o'clock.[/p][/quote]Have a pint by all means and then get a taxi home, no need to be in bed by 7pm, drinking is bad enough, drinking and driving is even worse.[/p][/quote]There are always going to be drinkers and tee-totallers who disagree. *whistles*[/p][/quote]It's noting to do with teetotalers, its to do with common sense.[/p][/quote]Get down off your high horse. There are some people who will never drink drive, there are some that will consider it and there are some that do it. Unless there is a crash or the police suspect foul play with driving... How do you propose your 'zero limit' to be enforced? Just for the record, i'm tee-total before you start having a go.[/p][/quote]They could enforce it in the same way they enforce everything else - once you catch 'em doing it, it's enforced. If you're driving, go without drinking alcohol. If you can't go without drinking alcohol for one night out (day out, whatever) when you're driving, you have a problem. I don't see why anyone needs to have a drink to have a good time! They even sell alcohol at places like Farmer Palmers farm park and at the Meyrick Park family day. WHY? Like they said, common sense. Ok fine, if you want to drink then drive, it's up to you isn't it? What about the accident you either cause or get involved in? YOU will get the blame if you've got alcohol in your system. Why should I or anyone else pay for YOUR stupidity? spooki

8:34pm Wed 4 Dec 13

spooki says...

nickynoodah wrote:
Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto
look no further
I have solved your search you know
What the hell are you on about?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Any body still looking for a pig for the xmas panto look no further I have solved your search you know[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about? spooki

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree