Mum Deborah Poulton given two year ban after being caught drink driving while baby was in the car

Mum who drive with baby in the car while nearly three times over the limit given two year ban

Mum who drive with baby in the car while nearly three times over the limit given two year ban

First published in News
Last updated
by

A Poole mum who drove while nearly three times the drink drive limit with her baby on the front seat has been banned from driving for two years.

Deborah Anne Poulton was also given a 12-month community order with supervision and a six month alcohol rehabilitation requirement at Bournemouth Magistrates Court.

The magistrates heard the 38-year-old, from Cynthia Road, was pulled over in Wroxham Road on April 29 after another driver saw her Fiat Seicento weaving dangerously across the road, mounting the kerb and almost colliding with a cyclist.

Her 13-month-old daughter was alongside her in the car.

She had an alcohol level of 103 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath – the legal limit is 35.

In mitigation, Mark Proctor said the incident had been a “wake-up call” for Poulton, who was “committed to dealing with her alcohol issues”.

“At the time she got into the vehicle she did not appreciate she was over the limit, as a result of how over the limit she was,” he said.

“She was extremely distressed at the police interview at the thought of the danger she had put her child in. She was extremely apologetic.”

He said Poulton, who had taken to hiding alcohol from her partner in her car, had already attended treatment for her alcoholism.

The court heard that since her child was involved in the incident, social services had inspected her home but expressed no concerns.

Poulton was also ordered to pay a £75 fine, £85 costs and a victim surcharge of £60. A separate charge of being drunk in charge of a child was dropped.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:00am Tue 10 Jun 14

Controversial But True says...

A two year ban and a laughable fine! Ridiculous!

Now if she'd missed a couple of council tax payments and had no TV Licence, then things would be serious!!
A two year ban and a laughable fine! Ridiculous! Now if she'd missed a couple of council tax payments and had no TV Licence, then things would be serious!! Controversial But True
  • Score: 54

11:11am Tue 10 Jun 14

Isosceles says...

Why was the charge of being drunk in charge of a child dropped?
Why was the charge of being drunk in charge of a child dropped? Isosceles
  • Score: 40

11:15am Tue 10 Jun 14

ol'bag lady says...

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

WHY?
"A separate charge of being drunk in charge of a child was dropped." WHY? ol'bag lady
  • Score: 35

11:17am Tue 10 Jun 14

BournemouthMum says...

What exactly is a 'community order with supervision'? Genuine question. She really should have been jailed. My views are normally quite liberal, but there's no reasonable excuse for what she did and it seems that she has got off with a very light sentence, she could easily have killed someone.
What exactly is a 'community order with supervision'? Genuine question. She really should have been jailed. My views are normally quite liberal, but there's no reasonable excuse for what she did and it seems that she has got off with a very light sentence, she could easily have killed someone. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 37

11:19am Tue 10 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Isosceles wrote:
Why was the charge of being drunk in charge of a child dropped?
It turned out to be a small monkey dressed in kids clothing.
[quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: Why was the charge of being drunk in charge of a child dropped?[/p][/quote]It turned out to be a small monkey dressed in kids clothing. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -28

11:26am Tue 10 Jun 14

muscliffman says...

Driving basically safely and sober but a bit over the speed limit on an empty night time motorway = £10,000 fine.

Driving when incapably drunk on busy town streets with your baby on the front seat during the day = £75 fine.

UK justice 2014....
Driving basically safely and sober but a bit over the speed limit on an empty night time motorway = £10,000 fine. Driving when incapably drunk on busy town streets with your baby on the front seat during the day = £75 fine. UK justice 2014.... muscliffman
  • Score: 72

11:59am Tue 10 Jun 14

iseestupidpeople says...

She deliberately endangered her childs life. Vile excuse for a mother!
She deliberately endangered her childs life. Vile excuse for a mother! iseestupidpeople
  • Score: 0

11:59am Tue 10 Jun 14

Jo__Go says...

Who gets the £60 victim surcharge?
Who gets the £60 victim surcharge? Jo__Go
  • Score: 10

12:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Old Colonial says...

Probably going off to have a few drinks to celebrate.
Probably going off to have a few drinks to celebrate. Old Colonial
  • Score: 11

12:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Old Colonial says...

Probably going off to have a few drinks to celebrate.
Probably going off to have a few drinks to celebrate. Old Colonial
  • Score: 6

12:09pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Old Colonial says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Who gets the £60 victim surcharge?
"Revenue raised from the Victim Surcharge is used to fund victim services through the Victim and Witness General Fund ". So basically another tax revenue stream.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Who gets the £60 victim surcharge?[/p][/quote]"Revenue raised from the Victim Surcharge is used to fund victim services through the Victim and Witness General Fund ". So basically another tax revenue stream. Old Colonial
  • Score: 11

1:00pm Tue 10 Jun 14

bogtrotter says...

I love the way they point out she was 'extremely apologetic'. Who was she apologising to, her child?
I love the way they point out she was 'extremely apologetic'. Who was she apologising to, her child? bogtrotter
  • Score: 16

1:20pm Tue 10 Jun 14

jumper11 says...

Can we start a petition to get a review of this sentence? Having followed this woman from Springdale Road to where she was finally stopped, I can tell you that I have never seen such dangerous driving. This woman didn't have her lights on in pitch black until the Darbys Corner roundabout, she almost hit many cars head on, she mounted several curbs and nearly took out a cyclist. It was good to see a swift response from the police who only managed to arrive just as she stopped the car.

The punishment for speeding is worse than what this woman has received and she was 3 times over the limit with a child in the front seat. I genuinely believe the child would have been seriously injured or died if she had crashed.

Despicable.
Can we start a petition to get a review of this sentence? Having followed this woman from Springdale Road to where she was finally stopped, I can tell you that I have never seen such dangerous driving. This woman didn't have her lights on in pitch black until the Darbys Corner roundabout, she almost hit many cars head on, she mounted several curbs and nearly took out a cyclist. It was good to see a swift response from the police who only managed to arrive just as she stopped the car. The punishment for speeding is worse than what this woman has received and she was 3 times over the limit with a child in the front seat. I genuinely believe the child would have been seriously injured or died if she had crashed. Despicable. jumper11
  • Score: 31

1:37pm Tue 10 Jun 14

nickynoodah says...

What are you talking about 1 20
when has it been against the law to have no tights on
What are you talking about 1 20 when has it been against the law to have no tights on nickynoodah
  • Score: -12

1:44pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Adrian XX says...

jumper11 wrote:
Can we start a petition to get a review of this sentence? Having followed this woman from Springdale Road to where she was finally stopped, I can tell you that I have never seen such dangerous driving. This woman didn't have her lights on in pitch black until the Darbys Corner roundabout, she almost hit many cars head on, she mounted several curbs and nearly took out a cyclist. It was good to see a swift response from the police who only managed to arrive just as she stopped the car.

The punishment for speeding is worse than what this woman has received and she was 3 times over the limit with a child in the front seat. I genuinely believe the child would have been seriously injured or died if she had crashed.

Despicable.
Start one. There are petition websites.

However, the sentence will not be reviewed, since the law only allows reviews of sentences for certain offences.
[quote][p][bold]jumper11[/bold] wrote: Can we start a petition to get a review of this sentence? Having followed this woman from Springdale Road to where she was finally stopped, I can tell you that I have never seen such dangerous driving. This woman didn't have her lights on in pitch black until the Darbys Corner roundabout, she almost hit many cars head on, she mounted several curbs and nearly took out a cyclist. It was good to see a swift response from the police who only managed to arrive just as she stopped the car. The punishment for speeding is worse than what this woman has received and she was 3 times over the limit with a child in the front seat. I genuinely believe the child would have been seriously injured or died if she had crashed. Despicable.[/p][/quote]Start one. There are petition websites. However, the sentence will not be reviewed, since the law only allows reviews of sentences for certain offences. Adrian XX
  • Score: 7

2:25pm Tue 10 Jun 14

pokesdown1 says...

Always time for a fag though.
Always time for a fag though. pokesdown1
  • Score: 6

2:26pm Tue 10 Jun 14

60plus says...

If the person was following her and seen the way she was driving why did she not phone the police earlier ?
If the person was following her and seen the way she was driving why did she not phone the police earlier ? 60plus
  • Score: -9

2:46pm Tue 10 Jun 14

justsayithowitis says...

Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it justsayithowitis
  • Score: 9

5:51pm Tue 10 Jun 14

s-pb2 says...

justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio
n
[quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n s-pb2
  • Score: -1

6:07pm Tue 10 Jun 14

mikeymagic says...

s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio

n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent. mikeymagic
  • Score: 4

6:10pm Tue 10 Jun 14

crazybird says...

s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio

n
Social services don't want to get involved in anything until it's too late. Classic cases - Baby P and Victoria Climbie where social services were disgustingly at fault. Anyone who endangers their child's life in such a stupid and **** irresponsible way does not deserve to be a parent! There are so many people desperate for children and useless idiots like this have no regard for their child's life!!!! If the family and extended family were so concerned then this wouldn't have happened and they would have gotten the women the correct health! You should all be ashamed!
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]Social services don't want to get involved in anything until it's too late. Classic cases - Baby P and Victoria Climbie where social services were disgustingly at fault. Anyone who endangers their child's life in such a stupid and **** irresponsible way does not deserve to be a parent! There are so many people desperate for children and useless idiots like this have no regard for their child's life!!!! If the family and extended family were so concerned then this wouldn't have happened and they would have gotten the women the correct health! You should all be ashamed! crazybird
  • Score: 4

6:14pm Tue 10 Jun 14

s-pb2 says...

mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio


n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
[quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well. s-pb2
  • Score: 3

6:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

s-pb2 says...

crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio


n
Social services don't want to get involved in anything until it's too late. Classic cases - Baby P and Victoria Climbie where social services were disgustingly at fault. Anyone who endangers their child's life in such a stupid and **** irresponsible way does not deserve to be a parent! There are so many people desperate for children and useless idiots like this have no regard for their child's life!!!! If the family and extended family were so concerned then this wouldn't have happened and they would have gotten the women the correct health! You should all be ashamed!
And other than this newspaper report what do you know about this case? Another idiot ready with their pitchfork and torch.
[quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]Social services don't want to get involved in anything until it's too late. Classic cases - Baby P and Victoria Climbie where social services were disgustingly at fault. Anyone who endangers their child's life in such a stupid and **** irresponsible way does not deserve to be a parent! There are so many people desperate for children and useless idiots like this have no regard for their child's life!!!! If the family and extended family were so concerned then this wouldn't have happened and they would have gotten the women the correct health! You should all be ashamed![/p][/quote]And other than this newspaper report what do you know about this case? Another idiot ready with their pitchfork and torch. s-pb2
  • Score: 2

6:18pm Tue 10 Jun 14

crazybird says...

s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio



n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible! crazybird
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Tue 10 Jun 14

s-pb2 says...

crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio




n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
Well done the prize idiots are out this afternoon ready with their pitchforks and torches.

So what do you know about this case other than whats here in this report? Yet you think you know more than trained workers who have deal with this kind of thing every day, who actually went to the home, who dealt with the parents. Are you really that arrogant?
[quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible![/p][/quote]Well done the prize idiots are out this afternoon ready with their pitchforks and torches. So what do you know about this case other than whats here in this report? Yet you think you know more than trained workers who have deal with this kind of thing every day, who actually went to the home, who dealt with the parents. Are you really that arrogant? s-pb2
  • Score: 2

6:40pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Hobad1 says...

crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio




n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible.

Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.
[quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible![/p][/quote]Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible. Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind. Hobad1
  • Score: 2

6:57pm Tue 10 Jun 14

justsayithowitis says...

s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio

n
I haven't made any decision about the child's future. I have simply said that looking round the home doesn't mean there is not a problem so I don't really know what you are ranting about. Do you know the parents?
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]I haven't made any decision about the child's future. I have simply said that looking round the home doesn't mean there is not a problem so I don't really know what you are ranting about. Do you know the parents? justsayithowitis
  • Score: -1

7:00pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Dennis Neal says...

There are laws about driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, exceeding the speed limits, and child seating in moving vehicles, parkng on pavements and on white lines, drop off zones at schools and dangerous parking at or near road junctions. none of which seem to attract the attention of the police, with the exception of obvious speeding or undertaking on major roads.

I regularly drove as many as 60,000 to 70,000 miles every year when in sales management, always drove within the speed limits and would wager that my journeys would be no slower than the driver who was constantly pushing ahead and having to brake and swing in at the same time disrupting my attempts to maintain a safe braking distance whatever the road conditions.

I never ran into the back of another vehicle but was shunted several times by others who were simply too close to stop.

I personally believe that drink driving should attract a lifetime ban.
There are laws about driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, exceeding the speed limits, and child seating in moving vehicles, parkng on pavements and on white lines, drop off zones at schools and dangerous parking at or near road junctions. none of which seem to attract the attention of the police, with the exception of obvious speeding or undertaking on major roads. I regularly drove as many as 60,000 to 70,000 miles every year when in sales management, always drove within the speed limits and would wager that my journeys would be no slower than the driver who was constantly pushing ahead and having to brake and swing in at the same time disrupting my attempts to maintain a safe braking distance whatever the road conditions. I never ran into the back of another vehicle but was shunted several times by others who were simply too close to stop. I personally believe that drink driving should attract a lifetime ban. Dennis Neal
  • Score: 3

7:02pm Tue 10 Jun 14

crazybird says...

Hobad1 wrote:
crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio





n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible.

Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.
Normal rational people don't suddenly decide to go and drink themselves to oblivion and get in their car with a 13 month old in the front and drive erratically at best and dangerously, mounting the kerb and causing hazards to other drivers. It's not only completely selfish but a complete disregard to other people! I guess we are all just very lucky that this selfish individual didn't kill or maim someone - I'm sure if there had been an accident and one of your family had my killed or injured you'd be just as positive about her 'demons' - she made a choice! A choice to get drunk, a choice to get in her car, a choice to take her child with her and a choice to drive and put other people in danger! People like that don't deserve to be able to make choices! I have had a very young relative(18 months old) killed by an irresponsible drink driver - I hope you never have to go through the same!
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible![/p][/quote]Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible. Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.[/p][/quote]Normal rational people don't suddenly decide to go and drink themselves to oblivion and get in their car with a 13 month old in the front and drive erratically at best and dangerously, mounting the kerb and causing hazards to other drivers. It's not only completely selfish but a complete disregard to other people! I guess we are all just very lucky that this selfish individual didn't kill or maim someone - I'm sure if there had been an accident and one of your family had my killed or injured you'd be just as positive about her 'demons' - she made a choice! A choice to get drunk, a choice to get in her car, a choice to take her child with her and a choice to drive and put other people in danger! People like that don't deserve to be able to make choices! I have had a very young relative(18 months old) killed by an irresponsible drink driver - I hope you never have to go through the same! crazybird
  • Score: 3

7:14pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Hobad1 says...

crazybird wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio






n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible.

Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.
Normal rational people don't suddenly decide to go and drink themselves to oblivion and get in their car with a 13 month old in the front and drive erratically at best and dangerously, mounting the kerb and causing hazards to other drivers. It's not only completely selfish but a complete disregard to other people! I guess we are all just very lucky that this selfish individual didn't kill or maim someone - I'm sure if there had been an accident and one of your family had my killed or injured you'd be just as positive about her 'demons' - she made a choice! A choice to get drunk, a choice to get in her car, a choice to take her child with her and a choice to drive and put other people in danger! People like that don't deserve to be able to make choices! I have had a very young relative(18 months old) killed by an irresponsible drink driver - I hope you never have to go through the same!
I'm speaking as someone who has lost a loved one through a drink driver.
[quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible![/p][/quote]Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible. Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.[/p][/quote]Normal rational people don't suddenly decide to go and drink themselves to oblivion and get in their car with a 13 month old in the front and drive erratically at best and dangerously, mounting the kerb and causing hazards to other drivers. It's not only completely selfish but a complete disregard to other people! I guess we are all just very lucky that this selfish individual didn't kill or maim someone - I'm sure if there had been an accident and one of your family had my killed or injured you'd be just as positive about her 'demons' - she made a choice! A choice to get drunk, a choice to get in her car, a choice to take her child with her and a choice to drive and put other people in danger! People like that don't deserve to be able to make choices! I have had a very young relative(18 months old) killed by an irresponsible drink driver - I hope you never have to go through the same![/p][/quote]I'm speaking as someone who has lost a loved one through a drink driver. Hobad1
  • Score: 3

8:00pm Tue 10 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

nickynoodah wrote:
What are you talking about 1 20
when has it been against the law to have no tights on
Ho ho ho. You're the only person I'm aware of on this planet whose IQ would go up if you were to have a full frontal lobotomy.
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: What are you talking about 1 20 when has it been against the law to have no tights on[/p][/quote]Ho ho ho. You're the only person I'm aware of on this planet whose IQ would go up if you were to have a full frontal lobotomy. breamoreboy
  • Score: -3

8:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Adrian XX wrote:
jumper11 wrote:
Can we start a petition to get a review of this sentence? Having followed this woman from Springdale Road to where she was finally stopped, I can tell you that I have never seen such dangerous driving. This woman didn't have her lights on in pitch black until the Darbys Corner roundabout, she almost hit many cars head on, she mounted several curbs and nearly took out a cyclist. It was good to see a swift response from the police who only managed to arrive just as she stopped the car.

The punishment for speeding is worse than what this woman has received and she was 3 times over the limit with a child in the front seat. I genuinely believe the child would have been seriously injured or died if she had crashed.

Despicable.
Start one. There are petition websites.

However, the sentence will not be reviewed, since the law only allows reviews of sentences for certain offences.
A relatively recent change in the law as well, albeit one for the better. Helped by a petition started in my home village and assisted by the Bournemouth Echo that got (IIRC) 250,000 signatures. Not bad as that was late 70s, no internet then for you younger readers!!!
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jumper11[/bold] wrote: Can we start a petition to get a review of this sentence? Having followed this woman from Springdale Road to where she was finally stopped, I can tell you that I have never seen such dangerous driving. This woman didn't have her lights on in pitch black until the Darbys Corner roundabout, she almost hit many cars head on, she mounted several curbs and nearly took out a cyclist. It was good to see a swift response from the police who only managed to arrive just as she stopped the car. The punishment for speeding is worse than what this woman has received and she was 3 times over the limit with a child in the front seat. I genuinely believe the child would have been seriously injured or died if she had crashed. Despicable.[/p][/quote]Start one. There are petition websites. However, the sentence will not be reviewed, since the law only allows reviews of sentences for certain offences.[/p][/quote]A relatively recent change in the law as well, albeit one for the better. Helped by a petition started in my home village and assisted by the Bournemouth Echo that got (IIRC) 250,000 signatures. Not bad as that was late 70s, no internet then for you younger readers!!! breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

8:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

hamworthygirl says...

pokesdown1 wrote:
Always time for a fag though.
Hope she drops it £400 fine for that, seriously i hope social services are being kept informed and the child is under their "umbrella".
[quote][p][bold]pokesdown1[/bold] wrote: Always time for a fag though.[/p][/quote]Hope she drops it £400 fine for that, seriously i hope social services are being kept informed and the child is under their "umbrella". hamworthygirl
  • Score: 3

9:08pm Tue 10 Jun 14

GAHmusic says...

Hobad1 wrote:
crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio





n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible.

Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.
I agree. I don't understand why so many people here think putting the child in care is the best for its future instead of actually trying to help the family to get over it. Instead of using all the usual coulda shoulda woulda nonsense people come out with to condone it should be a used as a lesson in this instance to change the future for the better, remember no one was hurt this time, pure luck, nothing less and maybe next time some one could be killed if this chance to change is not grasped fully but don't destroy the family as punishment it only hurts the inocent.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible![/p][/quote]Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible. Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.[/p][/quote]I agree. I don't understand why so many people here think putting the child in care is the best for its future instead of actually trying to help the family to get over it. Instead of using all the usual coulda shoulda woulda nonsense people come out with to condone it should be a used as a lesson in this instance to change the future for the better, remember no one was hurt this time, pure luck, nothing less and maybe next time some one could be killed if this chance to change is not grasped fully but don't destroy the family as punishment it only hurts the inocent. GAHmusic
  • Score: 2

10:30pm Tue 10 Jun 14

justsayithowitis says...

GAHmusic wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
crazybird wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
mikeymagic wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it
So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS.

Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio






n
No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.
Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association?

People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.
If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible!
Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible.

Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.
I agree. I don't understand why so many people here think putting the child in care is the best for its future instead of actually trying to help the family to get over it. Instead of using all the usual coulda shoulda woulda nonsense people come out with to condone it should be a used as a lesson in this instance to change the future for the better, remember no one was hurt this time, pure luck, nothing less and maybe next time some one could be killed if this chance to change is not grasped fully but don't destroy the family as punishment it only hurts the inocent.
How many people on here have said the child should be put in care. I didn't. Saying there is a problem is not saying that the child should be taken away from the parents.
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeymagic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Social services need to learn how to look after children. Just because they inspected the home and people would have made sure the mother was sober at the time does not mean there is not a problem. There is definitely a problem if a mother puts her child in danger and doesn't even know or care that she is doing it[/p][/quote]So you think you are in a better position to make a decision about the child's future based on a short report by a journalist in a local paper, then social services who would have spoken to the family and extended family, police and had years of experience, qualified with a relevant degree and available support from managers and the NHS. Should change your name to makeupawildassumptio n[/p][/quote]No, you're right, she is obviously a cracking parent.[/p][/quote]Does the dad not get a say then, or should he have his child moved by association? People here make me laugh, because the same people will criticise SS for removing children without knowing a single fact as well.[/p][/quote]If the Dad had a say then where was he when the mother was driving around drunk as a hand cart with the little one in the car?!?!! Go on, tell us he was at work earning money to support them all - shouldn't of been left in charge of a toddler when she has a drink issue and they should be equally responsible![/p][/quote]Well Crazybird, unless you can prove that the dad was not at work and was aware his partner had a drinking problem, then your comment is pointless at best. Maybe he was at work, and not posting on the Echos website throughout the working day as so many of the commenters here seem to do so. Maybe he is a good guy, maybe he was unaware, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be, quote, equally responsible. Hopefully for the woman in question, this will push her to tackle her demons, as I'm sure no-one would willingly endanger their own child if they had a clear mind.[/p][/quote]I agree. I don't understand why so many people here think putting the child in care is the best for its future instead of actually trying to help the family to get over it. Instead of using all the usual coulda shoulda woulda nonsense people come out with to condone it should be a used as a lesson in this instance to change the future for the better, remember no one was hurt this time, pure luck, nothing less and maybe next time some one could be killed if this chance to change is not grasped fully but don't destroy the family as punishment it only hurts the inocent.[/p][/quote]How many people on here have said the child should be put in care. I didn't. Saying there is a problem is not saying that the child should be taken away from the parents. justsayithowitis
  • Score: 3

1:39am Wed 11 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Dennis Neal wrote:
There are laws about driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, exceeding the speed limits, and child seating in moving vehicles, parkng on pavements and on white lines, drop off zones at schools and dangerous parking at or near road junctions. none of which seem to attract the attention of the police, with the exception of obvious speeding or undertaking on major roads.

I regularly drove as many as 60,000 to 70,000 miles every year when in sales management, always drove within the speed limits and would wager that my journeys would be no slower than the driver who was constantly pushing ahead and having to brake and swing in at the same time disrupting my attempts to maintain a safe braking distance whatever the road conditions.

I never ran into the back of another vehicle but was shunted several times by others who were simply too close to stop.

I personally believe that drink driving should attract a lifetime ban.
Certainly one option. Another might be that the ban extends until you can prove via testing that you haven't touched alcohol or any other drugs for several years.
[quote][p][bold]Dennis Neal[/bold] wrote: There are laws about driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, exceeding the speed limits, and child seating in moving vehicles, parkng on pavements and on white lines, drop off zones at schools and dangerous parking at or near road junctions. none of which seem to attract the attention of the police, with the exception of obvious speeding or undertaking on major roads. I regularly drove as many as 60,000 to 70,000 miles every year when in sales management, always drove within the speed limits and would wager that my journeys would be no slower than the driver who was constantly pushing ahead and having to brake and swing in at the same time disrupting my attempts to maintain a safe braking distance whatever the road conditions. I never ran into the back of another vehicle but was shunted several times by others who were simply too close to stop. I personally believe that drink driving should attract a lifetime ban.[/p][/quote]Certainly one option. Another might be that the ban extends until you can prove via testing that you haven't touched alcohol or any other drugs for several years. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

1:51pm Wed 11 Jun 14

jumper11 says...

60plus wrote:
If the person was following her and seen the way she was driving why did she not phone the police earlier ?
We called the police halfway down Lower Blandford Road, towards the Darbys Corner Roundabout. We then continued to follow her whilst on the phone to the police giving direct locations. It took them till the other side of Branksome to arrive.

And to the person who mistook 'lights' for 'tights' this was around 10pm in the evening when it was dark, so yehhh....
[quote][p][bold]60plus[/bold] wrote: If the person was following her and seen the way she was driving why did she not phone the police earlier ?[/p][/quote]We called the police halfway down Lower Blandford Road, towards the Darbys Corner Roundabout. We then continued to follow her whilst on the phone to the police giving direct locations. It took them till the other side of Branksome to arrive. And to the person who mistook 'lights' for 'tights' this was around 10pm in the evening when it was dark, so yehhh.... jumper11
  • Score: 3

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