Deborah Poulton caught nearly three times over drink drive limit with baby in the car, court hears

CONVICTED: Deborah Poulton arriving at court

CONVICTED: Deborah Poulton arriving at court

First published in News by

A POOLE mum was nearly three times the drink drive limit when she was pulled over with her baby on the passenger seat, a court heard.

Deborah Anne Poulton, 38, was driving through Poole to her parents’ house on April 29 when another driver reported seeing her Fiat Seicento weaving dangerously across the road, mounting the kerb and almost colliding with a cyclist.

Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court heard that when officers pulled her over in Wroxham Road they discovered her 13-month-old daughter in the car alongside her.

Prosecutor Heather Jackson said: “She went to visit a friend during the day, then left her daughter with her friend to drive to the Co-op to buy cigarette papers and wine.

“In her car was a Lucozade bottle containing vodka from which she was drinking. The police received a call about her demeanour from the store, she had slurred speech.

“She returned to her friend’s address in the car and consumed the bottle of Lucozade and vodka.”

She said Poulton then left with her daughter in the car, and was described as “almost crashing several times”.

The baby was picked up by the child’s father and she was arrested.

Poulton, of Cynthia Road, admitted drink-driving, with a reading of 103 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

A separate charge of being drunk in charge of a child was dropped.

In mitigation, Mark Proctor said she had “turned to alcohol as a means to deal with other issues in her life”.

“She was very forthcoming in her interview with the police and very apologetic for her actions,” he said.

“She hadn’t felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car.”

He said she had taken to hiding alcohol in her car as her partner did not like to have it in the house after her drinking “spiralled out of control”.

The case was adjourned and Poulton was released on unconditional bail to return to the court on June 10 for sentencing.

'Morning after' warning

DORSET Police has carried out a series of roadside checks at the start of its summer campaign against driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

Police are reminding drivers to ensure they are fit to drive the morning after drinking – and are extending this year’s campaign to coincide with late opening hours during the World Cup.

The campaign started on Sunday with a series of checks targeting drivers who might still be over the limit the next day.

Day one saw a man charged after a collision in Wimborne Road, Bournemouth, in which a Mercedes left the road and struck a tree. The driver was uninjured.

A 23-year-old Bournemouth man was charged with driving while over the limit and without insurance.

Sergeant Nikki Burt, from Dorset Police’s Traffic Unit, said: “We don’t want to stop people having a good time but we will do everything we can to make Dorset’s roads safer for everyone using them.

“The morning after can be just as dangerous as the night before so if you have been drinking into the night, there is a strong chance that you may not be fit to drive the morning after, and no amount of cold showers or black coffee will change that.

“Drivers need to be aware that regardless of the time of day they are caught, they will face the same penalties as someone who has chosen to drink heavily in a pub and driven at night.”

Anyone caught drink driving faces a minimum 12-month driving ban up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000, she said.

Details of the cases will also be publicised in the Daily, along with custody pictures.

This year’s campaign runs until July 31, to cover the period when bars and pubs will be opening late to show World Cup football.

Sergeant Burt added: “We are calling on members of the public to call 999 immediately if they suspect someone of drink driving so we can intercept. Non-urgent information can be reported on 101.”

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:54am Thu 5 Jun 14

retry69 says...

Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ? retry69
  • Score: 66

7:20am Thu 5 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

4years for murder,community order for sexually assaulting an 11 year old school girl.stand by for a 2 week ban from the off licence,that will teach you to put your child in mortal danger
4years for murder,community order for sexually assaulting an 11 year old school girl.stand by for a 2 week ban from the off licence,that will teach you to put your child in mortal danger kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 32

7:40am Thu 5 Jun 14

whataboutthat says...

Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er...
scum, life sentence, etc...
Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er... scum, life sentence, etc... whataboutthat
  • Score: -42

7:43am Thu 5 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

retry69 wrote:
Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -3

8:06am Thu 5 Jun 14

crazybird says...

She should be banned for as many years as she was over the drink drive limit (i.e twice over the limit - two years ban) and that should be a minimum. As for driving with her baby in the car she should receive a custodial sentence for that - disgusting and irresponsible. There are many people that are desperate to have a child/children and then people who are flippant with their child's life. This is a very sad world we live in. If the woman has some issues that need to be dealt with there are other ways besides the bottle.
She should be banned for as many years as she was over the drink drive limit (i.e twice over the limit - two years ban) and that should be a minimum. As for driving with her baby in the car she should receive a custodial sentence for that - disgusting and irresponsible. There are many people that are desperate to have a child/children and then people who are flippant with their child's life. This is a very sad world we live in. If the woman has some issues that need to be dealt with there are other ways besides the bottle. crazybird
  • Score: 65

8:08am Thu 5 Jun 14

Controversial But True says...

whataboutthat wrote:
Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er...

scum, life sentence, etc...
Don't worry. You're not alone. One born every minute !!
[quote][p][bold]whataboutthat[/bold] wrote: Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er... scum, life sentence, etc...[/p][/quote]Don't worry. You're not alone. One born every minute !! Controversial But True
  • Score: 9

8:13am Thu 5 Jun 14

retry69 says...

whataboutthat wrote:
Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er...

scum, life sentence, etc...
You are too kind I think you actually mean "troll bait" don't you? :)
[quote][p][bold]whataboutthat[/bold] wrote: Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er... scum, life sentence, etc...[/p][/quote]You are too kind I think you actually mean "troll bait" don't you? :) retry69
  • Score: -3

8:24am Thu 5 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
No, they are paid to try and minimise the sentence passed to their client, and are therefore doing their job, in the same way we all detest traffic wardens and speed camera operatives. They are not stupid, nor liars. Whether or not you think they are morally correct in defending people who are often indefensible is another matter entirely. Not all the accused are guilty, however it appears that this woman is guilty beyond all doubt.

Given the standard of driving in the area, it's a shame that the locals and coppers aren't more vigilant about things like this as the amount of near accidents happening is very high, and it seems a shame that you need to be drunk as well as dangerous in a car before the long arm will do anything.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]No, they are paid to try and minimise the sentence passed to their client, and are therefore doing their job, in the same way we all detest traffic wardens and speed camera operatives. They are not stupid, nor liars. Whether or not you think they are morally correct in defending people who are often indefensible is another matter entirely. Not all the accused are guilty, however it appears that this woman is guilty beyond all doubt. Given the standard of driving in the area, it's a shame that the locals and coppers aren't more vigilant about things like this as the amount of near accidents happening is very high, and it seems a shame that you need to be drunk as well as dangerous in a car before the long arm will do anything. speedy231278
  • Score: 15

8:28am Thu 5 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.
I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other. speedy231278
  • Score: 18

8:30am Thu 5 Jun 14

ritaroo says...

I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?! ritaroo
  • Score: 51

8:32am Thu 5 Jun 14

crazybird says...

ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
Yes, it definitely shouldn't have been dropped. Typical world we live in - don't worry about the children, social services wouldn't have wanted the paperwork for this one. They are too busy interferring where they aren't wanted and ignoring the situations where children really need some help!
[quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]Yes, it definitely shouldn't have been dropped. Typical world we live in - don't worry about the children, social services wouldn't have wanted the paperwork for this one. They are too busy interferring where they aren't wanted and ignoring the situations where children really need some help! crazybird
  • Score: 25

8:36am Thu 5 Jun 14

Stereotyped says...

Despicable excuse for a human being, let alone a mother.
Despicable excuse for a human being, let alone a mother. Stereotyped
  • Score: 39

8:48am Thu 5 Jun 14

High Treason says...

Pity the husband having to cope with her and more pity for the child with a mother like that.
Pity the husband having to cope with her and more pity for the child with a mother like that. High Treason
  • Score: 43

9:02am Thu 5 Jun 14

echor23 says...

What a repulsive woman. She is no mother as a mother loves and cares for their children and never puts them at risk in any shape or form. Her children should be taken away from her to a loving and decent family and she should most certainly get a custodial sentence for not only risking her baby's life but other people's as well. Any mother that drinks whilst driving with their children should have the right to be a mother taken away from them.
It is incredible he amount of parents who have no care for their children whatsoever.
What a repulsive woman. She is no mother as a mother loves and cares for their children and never puts them at risk in any shape or form. Her children should be taken away from her to a loving and decent family and she should most certainly get a custodial sentence for not only risking her baby's life but other people's as well. Any mother that drinks whilst driving with their children should have the right to be a mother taken away from them. It is incredible he amount of parents who have no care for their children whatsoever. echor23
  • Score: 33

9:07am Thu 5 Jun 14

justme20092009 says...

scum,take the child away from her
scum,take the child away from her justme20092009
  • Score: 18

9:07am Thu 5 Jun 14

phill67 says...

Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car
Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car phill67
  • Score: -7

9:23am Thu 5 Jun 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case!

The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances.

I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run. Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 10

9:56am Thu 5 Jun 14

pkhemming says...

I hope she does not smoke in her car or close to her child.
I hope she does not smoke in her car or close to her child. pkhemming
  • Score: 11

9:58am Thu 5 Jun 14

ragj195 says...

ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.
[quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc. ragj195
  • Score: 5

10:25am Thu 5 Jun 14

Frank28 says...

The reckless endangerment of a child like this will mean that Social Services will come knocking at the family's door to assess how unfit the parents are to bring up children... something more frightening than a driving ban.
The reckless endangerment of a child like this will mean that Social Services will come knocking at the family's door to assess how unfit the parents are to bring up children... something more frightening than a driving ban. Frank28
  • Score: 21

10:54am Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

speedy231278 wrote:
I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.
Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with you I would say it is a tad simplistic.

When you look at the 'hit rate' of drivers who fail the breath test to the number of tests taken the ration is very low and very time consuming.

Obviously it is policed all year round, you only need to read 'In the Dock' to know that, but there are times when it is a good use of resource because of the increased number of drink drivers out and about.

If they were to have the same level as during a campaign all year the cost would be astronomical and are people prepared to pay 2 or 3 times what they are already paying?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with you I would say it is a tad simplistic. When you look at the 'hit rate' of drivers who fail the breath test to the number of tests taken the ration is very low and very time consuming. Obviously it is policed all year round, you only need to read 'In the Dock' to know that, but there are times when it is a good use of resource because of the increased number of drink drivers out and about. If they were to have the same level as during a campaign all year the cost would be astronomical and are people prepared to pay 2 or 3 times what they are already paying? scrumpyjack
  • Score: -3

11:07am Thu 5 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

ragj195 wrote:
ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.
Well done for admitting your problem, its the first step....
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.[/p][/quote]Well done for admitting your problem, its the first step.... Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -18

11:10am Thu 5 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

She's still got a fag on the go arriving at court. Dear oh dear women these days !
She's still got a fag on the go arriving at court. Dear oh dear women these days ! Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -6

11:14am Thu 5 Jun 14

ASM says...

poor kid has no chance in life, at a guess her and her partner are both dossers. Clearly she is selfish and only cares about herself. Not just her baby she nearly killed, it could have been anyone. Why did they let this scum off?
poor kid has no chance in life, at a guess her and her partner are both dossers. Clearly she is selfish and only cares about herself. Not just her baby she nearly killed, it could have been anyone. Why did they let this scum off? ASM
  • Score: 3

11:28am Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

As a reformed alcohol drinker this simply confirms to me that alcohol is *THE* most dangerous drug on the planet, as it's cheap, legal and easily available. Please think about this before you reach for the mouse and click on the "thumbs down" symbol.
As a reformed alcohol drinker this simply confirms to me that alcohol is *THE* most dangerous drug on the planet, as it's cheap, legal and easily available. Please think about this before you reach for the mouse and click on the "thumbs down" symbol. breamoreboy
  • Score: 23

11:33am Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

ragj195 wrote:
ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.
A functioning alcoholic, as I used to be. Sadly the biggest problem is admitting that you've got a problem in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.[/p][/quote]A functioning alcoholic, as I used to be. Sadly the biggest problem is admitting that you've got a problem in the first place. breamoreboy
  • Score: 22

11:46am Thu 5 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.
Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with you I would say it is a tad simplistic.

When you look at the 'hit rate' of drivers who fail the breath test to the number of tests taken the ration is very low and very time consuming.

Obviously it is policed all year round, you only need to read 'In the Dock' to know that, but there are times when it is a good use of resource because of the increased number of drink drivers out and about.

If they were to have the same level as during a campaign all year the cost would be astronomical and are people prepared to pay 2 or 3 times what they are already paying?
So, you are saying it's fine for people to DD all year round as long as it doesn't cost you a few more quid on Council Tax? Brilliant. Perhaps we could have a few more fires if it means you can give less towards the Fire Brigade too?
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with you I would say it is a tad simplistic. When you look at the 'hit rate' of drivers who fail the breath test to the number of tests taken the ration is very low and very time consuming. Obviously it is policed all year round, you only need to read 'In the Dock' to know that, but there are times when it is a good use of resource because of the increased number of drink drivers out and about. If they were to have the same level as during a campaign all year the cost would be astronomical and are people prepared to pay 2 or 3 times what they are already paying?[/p][/quote]So, you are saying it's fine for people to DD all year round as long as it doesn't cost you a few more quid on Council Tax? Brilliant. Perhaps we could have a few more fires if it means you can give less towards the Fire Brigade too? speedy231278
  • Score: 0

11:55am Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

speedy231278 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.
Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with you I would say it is a tad simplistic.

When you look at the 'hit rate' of drivers who fail the breath test to the number of tests taken the ration is very low and very time consuming.

Obviously it is policed all year round, you only need to read 'In the Dock' to know that, but there are times when it is a good use of resource because of the increased number of drink drivers out and about.

If they were to have the same level as during a campaign all year the cost would be astronomical and are people prepared to pay 2 or 3 times what they are already paying?
So, you are saying it's fine for people to DD all year round as long as it doesn't cost you a few more quid on Council Tax? Brilliant. Perhaps we could have a few more fires if it means you can give less towards the Fire Brigade too?
Yeah you're right that's exactly what I said.

That's quite some reading skill you have there...
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: I still question why the police have DD 'campaigns'? Surely drink driving is dangerous all year round (as this woman proves) and there should be a year round campaign against it (called policing!) rather than just pick a time where they might have a higher rate of drivers to catch. It does nothing but reinforce the idea that motoring policing is mainly centered on raising revenue rather than actually saving people from themselves and each other.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with you I would say it is a tad simplistic. When you look at the 'hit rate' of drivers who fail the breath test to the number of tests taken the ration is very low and very time consuming. Obviously it is policed all year round, you only need to read 'In the Dock' to know that, but there are times when it is a good use of resource because of the increased number of drink drivers out and about. If they were to have the same level as during a campaign all year the cost would be astronomical and are people prepared to pay 2 or 3 times what they are already paying?[/p][/quote]So, you are saying it's fine for people to DD all year round as long as it doesn't cost you a few more quid on Council Tax? Brilliant. Perhaps we could have a few more fires if it means you can give less towards the Fire Brigade too?[/p][/quote]Yeah you're right that's exactly what I said. That's quite some reading skill you have there... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 10

12:27pm Thu 5 Jun 14

stevobath says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Just a the prosecution make it sound as bad as possible, the defence will try & mitigate. Both are doing their jobs.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Just a the prosecution make it sound as bad as possible, the defence will try & mitigate. Both are doing their jobs. stevobath
  • Score: 1

12:34pm Thu 5 Jun 14

retry69 says...

stevobath wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Just a the prosecution make it sound as bad as possible, the defence will try & mitigate. Both are doing their jobs.
That's ok then it could have been worse couldn't it ?
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Just a the prosecution make it sound as bad as possible, the defence will try & mitigate. Both are doing their jobs.[/p][/quote]That's ok then it could have been worse couldn't it ? retry69
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 5 Jun 14

mungobean says...

If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.
If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt. mungobean
  • Score: 10

1:10pm Thu 5 Jun 14

retry69 says...

mungobean wrote:
If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.
Naive or just plain stupid ?
[quote][p][bold]mungobean[/bold] wrote: If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.[/p][/quote]Naive or just plain stupid ? retry69
  • Score: 4

1:20pm Thu 5 Jun 14

The Liberal says...

ragj195 wrote:
ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.
That may well be, but ‘another driver reported seeing her Fiat Seicento weaving dangerously across the road, mounting the kerb and almost colliding with a cyclist.' Sounds like she was drunk to me.
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]Being over the limit is easy to prove with a breath test. Being "drunk" isn't. I knew an alcoholic a while ago that would drink 1/2 litre of whiskey a day but would never appear "drunk" and managed to hold down a normal job etc.[/p][/quote]That may well be, but ‘another driver reported seeing her Fiat Seicento weaving dangerously across the road, mounting the kerb and almost colliding with a cyclist.' Sounds like she was drunk to me. The Liberal
  • Score: 8

1:25pm Thu 5 Jun 14

O'Reilly says...

Frank28 wrote:
The reckless endangerment of a child like this will mean that Social Services will come knocking at the family's door to assess how unfit the parents are to bring up children... something more frightening than a driving ban.
They pick on the ones who they know won't give them too much grief... i.e. decent people.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: The reckless endangerment of a child like this will mean that Social Services will come knocking at the family's door to assess how unfit the parents are to bring up children... something more frightening than a driving ban.[/p][/quote]They pick on the ones who they know won't give them too much grief... i.e. decent people. O'Reilly
  • Score: 4

1:39pm Thu 5 Jun 14

nickynoodah says...

I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit
he just made it up
thinks it sounds good
thinks its big.
I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit he just made it up thinks it sounds good thinks its big. nickynoodah
  • Score: -11

2:06pm Thu 5 Jun 14

phill67 says...

phill67 wrote:
Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car
The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me
[quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car[/p][/quote]The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me phill67
  • Score: 5

2:26pm Thu 5 Jun 14

mungobean says...

retry69 wrote:
mungobean wrote:
If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.
Naive or just plain stupid ?
I'm neither, i'm looking at this objectively instead of with emotion like everyone else. You should try it instead of reacting the way you do and being rude.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mungobean[/bold] wrote: If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.[/p][/quote]Naive or just plain stupid ?[/p][/quote]I'm neither, i'm looking at this objectively instead of with emotion like everyone else. You should try it instead of reacting the way you do and being rude. mungobean
  • Score: 3

2:40pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

I must say I've never been to Cynthia Road. Is it a bit rough, lots of smokers and drinkers and social housing ?

Is it better or worse than Lagland Street ?
I must say I've never been to Cynthia Road. Is it a bit rough, lots of smokers and drinkers and social housing ? Is it better or worse than Lagland Street ? Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -2

2:51pm Thu 5 Jun 14

whataboutthat says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I must say I've never been to Cynthia Road. Is it a bit rough, lots of smokers and drinkers and social housing ?

Is it better or worse than Lagland Street ?
You are a total snob aren't you.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I must say I've never been to Cynthia Road. Is it a bit rough, lots of smokers and drinkers and social housing ? Is it better or worse than Lagland Street ?[/p][/quote]You are a total snob aren't you. whataboutthat
  • Score: 2

3:58pm Thu 5 Jun 14

retry69 says...

mungobean wrote:
retry69 wrote:
mungobean wrote:
If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.
Naive or just plain stupid ?
I'm neither, i'm looking at this objectively instead of with emotion like everyone else. You should try it instead of reacting the way you do and being rude.
Naïve it is then :)
[quote][p][bold]mungobean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mungobean[/bold] wrote: If I had a partner who I thought had a drinking problem, i'd hide the car keys so they wouldn't be able to drive, ESPECIALLY if they had my child with them. She obviously has problems to be drinking so much in the first place but when you're a mum it's your duty to seek help for the sake of your children. I hope she now gets the help she needs and that the father seeks sole custody of the child until the mother is well enough to continue taking on a parental role. Thank god nobody was hurt.[/p][/quote]Naive or just plain stupid ?[/p][/quote]I'm neither, i'm looking at this objectively instead of with emotion like everyone else. You should try it instead of reacting the way you do and being rude.[/p][/quote]Naïve it is then :) retry69
  • Score: 1

4:09pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Lord Spring says...

ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
It was Fiat not a Morris.
[quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]It was Fiat not a Morris. Lord Spring
  • Score: 3

4:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.
Hear Hear!
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.[/p][/quote]Hear Hear! suzigirl
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

nickynoodah wrote:
I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit
he just made it up
thinks it sounds good
thinks its big.
I know people who can but away three litres of strong cider a day or a couple of bottles of wine. It's what they're used to, they've all day and every day to do it, sadly it's their life. That's a fact. And my knowledge of these drinkers is the same as my knowledge of the Polish 303 squadron. I take it that you remember the latter?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit he just made it up thinks it sounds good thinks its big.[/p][/quote]I know people who can but away three litres of strong cider a day or a couple of bottles of wine. It's what they're used to, they've all day and every day to do it, sadly it's their life. That's a fact. And my knowledge of these drinkers is the same as my knowledge of the Polish 303 squadron. I take it that you remember the latter? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

Lord Spring wrote:
ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
It was Fiat not a Morris.
Brilliant.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]It was Fiat not a Morris.[/p][/quote]Brilliant. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

5:56pm Thu 5 Jun 14

SeafaringMan says...

phill67 wrote:
phill67 wrote:
Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car
The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me
I've never understood why they should suppose I have a greater regard for their brat than for my own skin!
[quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car[/p][/quote]The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me[/p][/quote]I've never understood why they should suppose I have a greater regard for their brat than for my own skin! SeafaringMan
  • Score: 3

5:56pm Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

breamoreboy wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit
he just made it up
thinks it sounds good
thinks its big.
I know people who can but away three litres of strong cider a day or a couple of bottles of wine. It's what they're used to, they've all day and every day to do it, sadly it's their life. That's a fact. And my knowledge of these drinkers is the same as my knowledge of the Polish 303 squadron. I take it that you remember the latter?
I used to do it, so you are right.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit he just made it up thinks it sounds good thinks its big.[/p][/quote]I know people who can but away three litres of strong cider a day or a couple of bottles of wine. It's what they're used to, they've all day and every day to do it, sadly it's their life. That's a fact. And my knowledge of these drinkers is the same as my knowledge of the Polish 303 squadron. I take it that you remember the latter?[/p][/quote]I used to do it, so you are right. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

6:12pm Thu 5 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

suzigirl wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.
Hear Hear!
Might be a step forward if we stopped importing the law breakers
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.[/p][/quote]Hear Hear![/p][/quote]Might be a step forward if we stopped importing the law breakers kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -6

6:24pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.
Hear Hear!
Might be a step forward if we stopped importing the law breakers
And exported a few of our own along with the slackers who won't work to be replaced by those who will.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.[/p][/quote]Hear Hear![/p][/quote]Might be a step forward if we stopped importing the law breakers[/p][/quote]And exported a few of our own along with the slackers who won't work to be replaced by those who will. breamoreboy
  • Score: 6

6:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

kalebmoledirt says...

suzigirl wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.
Hear Hear!
So can we assume that the defence solicitor put the accused through a few basic tests,ie could she strap a child into a child seat ensure the child was safe in front seat given the likelihood of a serious accident did the solicitor or judge concider the impact of killing a mother and child by an innocent driver perhaps I was a little harsh to accuse defence lawyer of being liars And stupid but they do come across as naive if they believe the general public believe some of the exercises they put forward
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.[/p][/quote]Hear Hear![/p][/quote]So can we assume that the defence solicitor put the accused through a few basic tests,ie could she strap a child into a child seat ensure the child was safe in front seat given the likelihood of a serious accident did the solicitor or judge concider the impact of killing a mother and child by an innocent driver perhaps I was a little harsh to accuse defence lawyer of being liars And stupid but they do come across as naive if they believe the general public believe some of the exercises they put forward kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -1

7:56pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Hobad1 says...

phill67 wrote:
phill67 wrote:
Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car
The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me
I believe the reasoning behind a `baby on board' sticker is, in the event of an accident, to alert the medical services attending the accident that there may well be someone trapped in the vehicle who is not immediately visible to the eye, and therefore caution should be taken if cutting devices are required.

Regarding this story, though drink driving is one of the worst things I believe you can do, not knowing the person involved she may have had issues that led her to drink in the first place. Yes it was wrong and yes she should learn a lesson, maybe even attend AA or something, but I've read some comments that target both parents saying they are both "dossers" (comment by "ASM")....if the father was such a person I'm sure the police would not have let him take the child away when contacted after the incident. He may well be a decent guy who has been put in this situation by no fault of his own, and yet some commenters see fit to class him as a "dosser" - I think that is out of order.

The main point is that fortunately the child was not harmed, and hopefully for the woman in question, this might be a wake up call to resolve any issues she has another way, and not turn to drink.
[quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car[/p][/quote]The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me[/p][/quote]I believe the reasoning behind a `baby on board' sticker is, in the event of an accident, to alert the medical services attending the accident that there may well be someone trapped in the vehicle who is not immediately visible to the eye, and therefore caution should be taken if cutting devices are required. Regarding this story, though drink driving is one of the worst things I believe you can do, not knowing the person involved she may have had issues that led her to drink in the first place. Yes it was wrong and yes she should learn a lesson, maybe even attend AA or something, but I've read some comments that target both parents saying they are both "dossers" (comment by "ASM")....if the father was such a person I'm sure the police would not have let him take the child away when contacted after the incident. He may well be a decent guy who has been put in this situation by no fault of his own, and yet some commenters see fit to class him as a "dosser" - I think that is out of order. The main point is that fortunately the child was not harmed, and hopefully for the woman in question, this might be a wake up call to resolve any issues she has another way, and not turn to drink. Hobad1
  • Score: 10

9:14pm Thu 5 Jun 14

stevobath says...

nickynoodah wrote:
I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit
he just made it up
thinks it sounds good
thinks its big.
Never whisky.
I/2 a litre isn't much either.

Get a job or something you sad little ****.
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I don't believe knobdirt/nobath drank I/2 a litre of whisky a day in a bedsit he just made it up thinks it sounds good thinks its big.[/p][/quote]Never whisky. I/2 a litre isn't much either. Get a job or something you sad little ****. stevobath
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

phill67 wrote:
phill67 wrote:
Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car
The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me
The number of "baby on board" stickers should be balanced by the ones reading "Caution - complete idiot behind wheel".
[quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car[/p][/quote]The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me[/p][/quote]The number of "baby on board" stickers should be balanced by the ones reading "Caution - complete idiot behind wheel". breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

9:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
retry69 wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?
As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both
Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.
Hear Hear!
So can we assume that the defence solicitor put the accused through a few basic tests,ie could she strap a child into a child seat ensure the child was safe in front seat given the likelihood of a serious accident did the solicitor or judge concider the impact of killing a mother and child by an innocent driver perhaps I was a little harsh to accuse defence lawyer of being liars And stupid but they do come across as naive if they believe the general public believe some of the exercises they put forward
What should the defence lawyer concentrate on, chin ups, press ups or squat thrusts? It would certainly be a rather unique defence and really give the prosecution something to think about.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Apart from the obvious stupidity of this individual who deserves a custodial sentence in my opinion but will probably not receive one did anyone in the court room really believe the statement "she hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol when she got into the car" apart from the defence solicitor.Nearly times over the limit ?[/p][/quote]As a rule of thumb I always assume that the defence lawyers are liars or stupid or both[/p][/quote]Errrrr...defence lawyers are the same people as prosecution lawyers although not of course on the same case! The defence lawyers are merely doing their job - if you were accused of a crime you would probably want a decent one whether you are guilty or not as in every case there are always arguments that can be made as to mitigating circumstances. I feel the judiciary does come in from unfair treatment on these message boards. Judges can only sentence within the tariff laid down for the offence - they cant bang someone up if custody is not an option for the offence. In any event if we banged up everyone that Joe Public would like to be banged up our taxes would rocket as we would need loads more prisons which cost £60k per prisoner per year to run.[/p][/quote]Hear Hear![/p][/quote]So can we assume that the defence solicitor put the accused through a few basic tests,ie could she strap a child into a child seat ensure the child was safe in front seat given the likelihood of a serious accident did the solicitor or judge concider the impact of killing a mother and child by an innocent driver perhaps I was a little harsh to accuse defence lawyer of being liars And stupid but they do come across as naive if they believe the general public believe some of the exercises they put forward[/p][/quote]What should the defence lawyer concentrate on, chin ups, press ups or squat thrusts? It would certainly be a rather unique defence and really give the prosecution something to think about. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Pablo23 says...

The woman obviously need rehab.
If successful she could be a good mother and person
The woman obviously need rehab. If successful she could be a good mother and person Pablo23
  • Score: 3

10:43pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Minty Fresh says...

This woman needs help to overcome her addiction, but no excuses for driving while hammered, especially with her baby in the car. A custodial sentence is appropriate here and getting her off the streets and away from alcohol may actually be a cure.

As for the Police campaign during the World Cup, it's no different to the one they launch around Christmas. I've never understood why they don't just park a police car outside all the pubs in the town and stop everyone driving out of the car park. I bet plenty are over the limit.
This woman needs help to overcome her addiction, but no excuses for driving while hammered, especially with her baby in the car. A custodial sentence is appropriate here and getting her off the streets and away from alcohol may actually be a cure. As for the Police campaign during the World Cup, it's no different to the one they launch around Christmas. I've never understood why they don't just park a police car outside all the pubs in the town and stop everyone driving out of the car park. I bet plenty are over the limit. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 3

11:35pm Thu 5 Jun 14

bobthedestroyer says...

phill67 wrote:
phill67 wrote:
Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car
The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me
I've never understood them either
[quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phill67[/bold] wrote: Did she have a "baby on board"sticker in the car[/p][/quote]The reason for this post is that i see so many cars with this sticker on whilst they are passing me on the motorway at 90 or pulling out with out looking not using indicators,on the phone etc,etc,what does this sticker mean that i can drive like a prat and you have to look out because i have a small person with me[/p][/quote]I've never understood them either bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 1

11:58pm Thu 5 Jun 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

whataboutthat wrote:
Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er...

scum, life sentence, etc...
Bet she gets less than the guy who dropped the cigarette butt though
[quote][p][bold]whataboutthat[/bold] wrote: Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er... scum, life sentence, etc...[/p][/quote]Bet she gets less than the guy who dropped the cigarette butt though HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -2

8:22am Fri 6 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
whataboutthat wrote:
Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er...


scum, life sentence, etc...
Bet she gets less than the guy who dropped the cigarette butt though
His £50 fixed notice? (that was what he was required to pay for his offense)

I don't think so.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whataboutthat[/bold] wrote: Today's big click bait story off we go commentators...er... scum, life sentence, etc...[/p][/quote]Bet she gets less than the guy who dropped the cigarette butt though[/p][/quote]His £50 fixed notice? (that was what he was required to pay for his offense) I don't think so. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

9:56am Fri 6 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Pablo23 wrote:
The woman obviously need rehab.
If successful she could be a good mother and person
Entirely agree. Longer term it's likely to help her, her family, friends and society overall, whilst saving the taxpayer a fortune compared to the cost of sending somebody to prison.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo23[/bold] wrote: The woman obviously need rehab. If successful she could be a good mother and person[/p][/quote]Entirely agree. Longer term it's likely to help her, her family, friends and society overall, whilst saving the taxpayer a fortune compared to the cost of sending somebody to prison. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

5:03pm Fri 6 Jun 14

s-pb2 says...

crazybird wrote:
ritaroo wrote:
I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?!
Yes, it definitely shouldn't have been dropped. Typical world we live in - don't worry about the children, social services wouldn't have wanted the paperwork for this one. They are too busy interferring where they aren't wanted and ignoring the situations where children really need some help!
You really havent got a clue, have you? Or is it a guilty conscience?
[quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ritaroo[/bold] wrote: I'm concerned & disgusted that she is being prosecuted for drink driving but that the charge of drunk in charge of a minor has been dropped?!?![/p][/quote]Yes, it definitely shouldn't have been dropped. Typical world we live in - don't worry about the children, social services wouldn't have wanted the paperwork for this one. They are too busy interferring where they aren't wanted and ignoring the situations where children really need some help![/p][/quote]You really havent got a clue, have you? Or is it a guilty conscience? s-pb2
  • Score: 2

4:51pm Mon 9 Jun 14

neilj24469 says...

Drinking Driving is bad enough, but Drink Driving with a child in your car? shear stupidity.. she could have got a taxi or even used a Bournemouth company called Car Back to drive her home in her car...
Drinking Driving is bad enough, but Drink Driving with a child in your car? shear stupidity.. she could have got a taxi or even used a Bournemouth company called Car Back to drive her home in her car... neilj24469
  • Score: 1

11:29pm Mon 9 Jun 14

podgie says...

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Take a walk around Asda at Bournemouth railway station.
It is like being in the Star Wars bar .
PS why has Bournemouth got such a high Numb Nuts tattoo count????
Wake up and smell the coffee. Take a walk around Asda at Bournemouth railway station. It is like being in the Star Wars bar . PS why has Bournemouth got such a high Numb Nuts tattoo count???? podgie
  • Score: 1

8:42am Wed 11 Jun 14

skydriver says...

Couldn't have thought too much of her baby.
She is just selfish. Me me me , not fit to be a mother.
Couldn't have thought too much of her baby. She is just selfish. Me me me , not fit to be a mother. skydriver
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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