14 more motorists named and shamed in police drink driving crackdown

14 more motorists named and shamed in police drink driving crackdown

14 more motorists named and shamed in police drink driving crackdown

First published in News
Last updated
by

THESE drink drivers have faced the courts as part of Dorset Police’s summer clampdown.

Between June 1 and July 17, 69 people have been charged with drink or drug driving-related offences in connection with the force’s annual campaign.

Working together with the police, the Daily Echo will name and shame those who are convicted of the crime, and already 12 of those caught and charged have appeared in the paper.

Offenders are given fines of varying amounts, and most received driving bans.

Sergeant Stuart Pitman, of Dorset Police’s Traffic Unit, warned that even one drink can impair the ability to drive.

“I would like to remind motorists that officers will be continuing to target those who think they are above the law and are willing to risk their life and the lives of others by drinking and driving,” he said.

Anyone caught driving while impaired by alcohol or drug use will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000.

If you suspect someone is driving under the influence, call 999 immediately so police can intercept, or call 101 with non-urgent information.

The initiative will continue until July 31.

See the first 12 drink drivers caught in Dorset Police's summer crackdown here

Bournemouth Echo:

Jemma Dore, 21, of Morant Arms, Brockenhurst, Hampshire, was charged on June 14 with driving a Citroen C3 in Somerford Road, Christchurch, while over the limit (50 microgrammes in 100ml breath). She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on June 30 and was fined £200 and disqualified from driving for 12 months. Dore was also ordered to pay a £20 victim surcharge and £85 costs.

Bournemouth Echo:

Russell Lawrence, 25, of Kitchener Crescent, Poole, was charged on June 15 with driving a BMW 3 Series in Blandford Road, Poole, while over the limit (89 microgrammes in 100ml breath). He appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on June 30. He was fined £300 and disqualified from driving for three years. Lawrence was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £30 and costs of £85.

 

Emanuel Freitas, 34, of Washington Avenue, Bournemouth, was charged on June 16 with driving a BMW VRM in Old Christchurch Road, Bournemouth, while over the limit (62 microgrammes in 100ml breath). He appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on June 30 and was fined £250 and disqualified from driving for 17 months. Freitas was also ordered to pay a £25 victim surcharge and costs of £85. 

Bournemouth Echo:

Guillermo Santana (Above), 37, of Richmond Park Road, Bournemouth, appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates Court on July 7 charged with driving a Fiat Punto in Wimborne Road, Bournemouth, while over the limit (81 microgrammes in 100ml breath) on June 20. He received a £160 fine, £20 victim surcharge, £85 costs and a three year driving ban.

Bournemouth Echo:

Bartosz Polanski, 28, of Wharfdale Road, Bournemouth, appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates Court on July 7 charged with driving a Vauxhall Corsa in Suffolk Road, Bournemouth, while over the limit (72 microgrammes in 100ml breath) on June 22. He received a £260 fine, £26 victim surcharge, £85 costs and an 18 month driving ban.

Bournemouth Echo:

Harry Evison, 22, of Florence Road, Poole appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates Court on July 7 charged with driving a Fiat Bravo in Fernside Road, Poole, while over the limit (55 microgrammes in 100ml breath) on June 22. He received a £220 fine, £37 victim surcharge, £85 costs and a 12 month driving ban.

Bournemouth Echo:

Karen Davies, 58, of Weston Street, Portland, was charged on June 21 with driving a Ford Fiesta in Southwell Road, Portland on June 20 while over the limit (90 microgrammes in 100ml breath) and appeared at Weymouth Magistrates' Court on July 7. She pleaded guilty and received a £450 fine, £45 victim surcharge, £85 costs and a 23 month driving ban.

Shirley Scott, 55, of Rossmore Lodge, Bere Regis, Wareham, was charged on June 21 with driving a Peugeot 307 on the A354 near Winterbourne Monkton while over the limit (59 microgrammes in 100ml breath) and appeared at Weymouth Magistrates' Court on July 7. She pleaded guilty and received a £110 fine, £20 victim surcharge, £85 costs and a 16 month driving ban.

Bournemouth Echo:

Dale Ellard, 30, of Southview Road, Weymouth, was charged on June 1 with driving a Vauxhall Vectra in Radipole Lane, Weymouth, while over the limit (68 microgrammes in 100 ml breath) and appeared at Weymouth Magistrates’ Court on June 20. He pleaded guilty and was banned from driving for 18 months, £240 fine, £24 victim surcharge, £85 costs.

Bournemouth Echo:

Robert Isaac, 33, of Cheviot Way, Verwood, drove a Vauxhall Astra in Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth, on June 16 while over the limit (77 microgrammes in 100ml breath) and appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on July 3. He pleaded guilty and was fined £120, and ordered to pay £50 and the £20 victim surcharge. He was banned from driving for 17 months.

Bournemouth Echo:

Matthew Walker, 29, of Deverel Road, Charlton Down, Dorchester, was charged on June 21 with driving a BMW in The Grove, Dorchester, while over the limit (90 microgrammes in 100ml breath) and appeared at Weymouth Magistrates’ Court on July 9. He pleaded guilty and was fined £150, with £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge, and was banned from driving for 24 months.

Bournemouth Echo:

James Billings, 58, of Privet Road, Bournemouth, was charged on June 25 with failing to provide specimen of breath for analysis and appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on July 10. He pleaded guilty and was fined £110, with £85 costs and £20 victim surcharge, and was banned from driving for 12 months. He also pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis on the same date and received a six month conditional discharge.

Joanna Golightly, 32, of Chetwood Road, Tadworth, Epsom, was charged on June 15 with failing to provide a specimen for analysis in Quarr Lane, Sherborne, on June 14, and appeared at Weymouth Magistrates’ Court on July 4. She pleaded guilty and was fined £100, with a £20 victim surcharge, and was banned from driving for 12 months.

Bournemouth Echo:

Michael Darcy, 30, of Bournemouth, pleaded guilty to failing to provide a specimen for analysis in Poole on June 7. He appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on July 14 and was sentenced to a one year community order with a curfew and Building Skills for Recovery programme requirement. He was ordered to pay £85 and a £60 victim surcharge, and banned from driving for 36 months. Darcy also pleaded guilty to damaging a car wing mirror and was ordered to pay £50 compensation.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:24am Wed 23 Jul 14

High Treason says...

Obviously the sentencing is not acting as a deterrent because we still get those who flout the law. Only takes one mistake by a drunk driver to kill an innocent person. Up the fines and bans and a retake of the driving test.
Obviously the sentencing is not acting as a deterrent because we still get those who flout the law. Only takes one mistake by a drunk driver to kill an innocent person. Up the fines and bans and a retake of the driving test. High Treason
  • Score: 58

7:30am Wed 23 Jul 14

skydriver says...

Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .
Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course . skydriver
  • Score: 31

7:36am Wed 23 Jul 14

alasdair1967 says...

I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement
I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement alasdair1967
  • Score: 32

7:57am Wed 23 Jul 14

alasdair1967 says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement
Why the negative votes it's not science fiction it's fact !
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement[/p][/quote]Why the negative votes it's not science fiction it's fact ! alasdair1967
  • Score: 12

8:19am Wed 23 Jul 14

Stereotyped says...

"Anyone caught driving while impaired by alcohol or drug use will face a minimum 12 month driving ban"

"Offenders are given fines of varying amounts, and most received driving bans. "

Most? Why most... it clearly says that ANYONE caught will face a minimum 12 month ban.

What is the criteria to not get a ban?
"Anyone caught driving while impaired by alcohol or drug use will face a minimum 12 month driving ban" "Offenders are given fines of varying amounts, and most received driving bans. " Most? Why most... it clearly says that ANYONE caught will face a minimum 12 month ban. What is the criteria to not get a ban? Stereotyped
  • Score: 22

8:26am Wed 23 Jul 14

Frank28 says...

I was involved in a crash with a drunk driver, who spent his money on drink, instead of insuring his car, and making sure it was road-legal. Don't take your car for a drink.
I was involved in a crash with a drunk driver, who spent his money on drink, instead of insuring his car, and making sure it was road-legal. Don't take your car for a drink. Frank28
  • Score: 19

8:29am Wed 23 Jul 14

Ginny nz says...

Well done for naming and shaming . These idiots need to be shown as they are potential murders !!
Well done for naming and shaming . These idiots need to be shown as they are potential murders !! Ginny nz
  • Score: 26

9:03am Wed 23 Jul 14

Ralph Horris says...

Why single out drink drivers ? Surely the mug shots and addresses of shop lifters, public drunks, wife beaters, violent thugs, drug dealers, car thieves, those driving without car tax or insurance and anyone else caught wrongdoing should be published. I'm not being glib, but why should drink drivers be singled out for this treatment ?
Why single out drink drivers ? Surely the mug shots and addresses of shop lifters, public drunks, wife beaters, violent thugs, drug dealers, car thieves, those driving without car tax or insurance and anyone else caught wrongdoing should be published. I'm not being glib, but why should drink drivers be singled out for this treatment ? Ralph Horris
  • Score: 74

9:30am Wed 23 Jul 14

Huey says...

Nice one putting full addresses and in some cases dates of birth on the pictures.
One of em lives just round the corner from me
Nice one putting full addresses and in some cases dates of birth on the pictures. One of em lives just round the corner from me Huey
  • Score: -1

10:27am Wed 23 Jul 14

The Liberal says...

I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?
I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks? The Liberal
  • Score: 18

10:44am Wed 23 Jul 14

melting pot says...

That first one lives on the site of a pub that was knocked down years ago in Brockenhurst........
.....How ironic
That first one lives on the site of a pub that was knocked down years ago in Brockenhurst........ .....How ironic melting pot
  • Score: 2

10:46am Wed 23 Jul 14

Huey says...

The Liberal wrote:
I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?
Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?[/p][/quote]Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch Huey
  • Score: 7

10:48am Wed 23 Jul 14

maverick34 says...

Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue. maverick34
  • Score: 8

10:58am Wed 23 Jul 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

The Liberal wrote:
I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?
Thats right. Let he who throws the first rotten tomato be prepared to have the same done to him/her or a family member in the future.

The only people who will never be in the lineup are the police and echo staff. Not because they are squeaky clean, just selective editing.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?[/p][/quote]Thats right. Let he who throws the first rotten tomato be prepared to have the same done to him/her or a family member in the future. The only people who will never be in the lineup are the police and echo staff. Not because they are squeaky clean, just selective editing. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 15

11:41am Wed 23 Jul 14

Broomers2003 says...

Ralph Horris wrote:
Why single out drink drivers ? Surely the mug shots and addresses of shop lifters, public drunks, wife beaters, violent thugs, drug dealers, car thieves, those driving without car tax or insurance and anyone else caught wrongdoing should be published. I'm not being glib, but why should drink drivers be singled out for this treatment ?
The Echo regularly publish the names of such offenders, in the 'In The Courts' articles....
[quote][p][bold]Ralph Horris[/bold] wrote: Why single out drink drivers ? Surely the mug shots and addresses of shop lifters, public drunks, wife beaters, violent thugs, drug dealers, car thieves, those driving without car tax or insurance and anyone else caught wrongdoing should be published. I'm not being glib, but why should drink drivers be singled out for this treatment ?[/p][/quote]The Echo regularly publish the names of such offenders, in the 'In The Courts' articles.... Broomers2003
  • Score: 2

11:52am Wed 23 Jul 14

ReservoirFrogs says...

Wow - lots of judgemental people awake early today. Whilst NOT condoning the offences here, surely the same banning rules should apply to people who cause accidents and are not under the influence of substances as they are(in my opinion) a greater danger to the public. And I don't really get the legal levels for people either. Different people absorb alcohol at different rates to others so they may be over the limit but still have better control of their senses than people who are under the limit.
Wow - lots of judgemental people awake early today. Whilst NOT condoning the offences here, surely the same banning rules should apply to people who cause accidents and are not under the influence of substances as they are(in my opinion) a greater danger to the public. And I don't really get the legal levels for people either. Different people absorb alcohol at different rates to others so they may be over the limit but still have better control of their senses than people who are under the limit. ReservoirFrogs
  • Score: 12

12:12pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Branksome snail says...

maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
[quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria. Branksome snail
  • Score: 12

1:32pm Wed 23 Jul 14

padeye says...

Stereotyped wrote:
"Anyone caught driving while impaired by alcohol or drug use will face a minimum 12 month driving ban"

"Offenders are given fines of varying amounts, and most received driving bans. "

Most? Why most... it clearly says that ANYONE caught will face a minimum 12 month ban.

What is the criteria to not get a ban?
Everyone thinks they know the law when it comes to drink drive law, the thing is, they don't. Did you know that possession of motor vehicle keys whilst over the prescribed limit is an offence if you are out and about and the motor vehicle in question is nearby? Why should this person be banned?
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: "Anyone caught driving while impaired by alcohol or drug use will face a minimum 12 month driving ban" "Offenders are given fines of varying amounts, and most received driving bans. " Most? Why most... it clearly says that ANYONE caught will face a minimum 12 month ban. What is the criteria to not get a ban?[/p][/quote]Everyone thinks they know the law when it comes to drink drive law, the thing is, they don't. Did you know that possession of motor vehicle keys whilst over the prescribed limit is an offence if you are out and about and the motor vehicle in question is nearby? Why should this person be banned? padeye
  • Score: 3

1:52pm Wed 23 Jul 14

padeye says...

skydriver wrote:
Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .
Not that simple, what is the law? Think about it!! What does the law say about drinking and driving? Is it against the law to drink and drive in the UK, like it is in Sweden? NO, it's perfectly legal. The thing is Alcohol is a drug mate, it makes the users confidence raise considerably, take the 21 year old female, convicted for drinking, lets say. a glass and a half of wine (50mg) I wonder if she felt confident that she was okay to drive? She now has a criminal conviction which will show up on DBS (CRB) forever and may stop her traveling abroad.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .[/p][/quote]Not that simple, what is the law? Think about it!! What does the law say about drinking and driving? Is it against the law to drink and drive in the UK, like it is in Sweden? NO, it's perfectly legal. The thing is Alcohol is a drug mate, it makes the users confidence raise considerably, take the 21 year old female, convicted for drinking, lets say. a glass and a half of wine (50mg) I wonder if she felt confident that she was okay to drive? She now has a criminal conviction which will show up on DBS (CRB) forever and may stop her traveling abroad. padeye
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Wed 23 Jul 14

maverick34 says...

Branksome snail wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
I totally agree that a 0 limit is the way forward.

Not sure I accused everyone or anyone of being a crim, rather I suggested that I thought the specific approach to a punishment didn't necessarily address the cause.

No walking stick here, I'm normally on my bicycle and it's hard to carry.
[quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.[/p][/quote]I totally agree that a 0 limit is the way forward. Not sure I accused everyone or anyone of being a crim, rather I suggested that I thought the specific approach to a punishment didn't necessarily address the cause. No walking stick here, I'm normally on my bicycle and it's hard to carry. maverick34
  • Score: 3

2:25pm Wed 23 Jul 14

padeye says...

Ginny nz wrote:
Well done for naming and shaming . These idiots need to be shown as they are potential murders !!
They are potential killers, agreed, but do you check your tyre's daily? I hope so, if not you also are a potential killer, same goes for breaking the speed limit, which of course you don't do either...do you
[quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Well done for naming and shaming . These idiots need to be shown as they are potential murders !![/p][/quote]They are potential killers, agreed, but do you check your tyre's daily? I hope so, if not you also are a potential killer, same goes for breaking the speed limit, which of course you don't do either...do you padeye
  • Score: 11

3:10pm Wed 23 Jul 14

jpwf says...

About time they applied the same fines and bans to those using mobile phones in cars - in many ways they are more dangerous.
About time they applied the same fines and bans to those using mobile phones in cars - in many ways they are more dangerous. jpwf
  • Score: 13

4:25pm Wed 23 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

skydriver wrote:
Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .
They might know the law, but does anybody think straight after taking a drug such as alcohol?
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .[/p][/quote]They might know the law, but does anybody think straight after taking a drug such as alcohol? breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

4:29pm Wed 23 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
That is one of the most sensible comments I've read here in months.
[quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]That is one of the most sensible comments I've read here in months. breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

5:55pm Wed 23 Jul 14

padeye says...

breamoreboy wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
That is one of the most sensible comments I've read here in months.
For a start, 2 pints can get you to the baseline 35 breath, So, if 2 pints is all that is needs to get convicted of drink driving, I disagree that 'These people have a drink problem' However, if some provides a very high reading of over a hundred say. not only are the made to do a 15 week alcohol awareness course, they face prison if they don't. It's called the D.I.D course and is run by probation services, Everyone else is offered an 18 hour course and if it is successfully completed they get their licence back early..
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]That is one of the most sensible comments I've read here in months.[/p][/quote]For a start, 2 pints can get you to the baseline 35 breath, So, if 2 pints is all that is needs to get convicted of drink driving, I disagree that 'These people have a drink problem' However, if some provides a very high reading of over a hundred say. not only are the made to do a 15 week alcohol awareness course, they face prison if they don't. It's called the D.I.D course and is run by probation services, Everyone else is offered an 18 hour course and if it is successfully completed they get their licence back early.. padeye
  • Score: 1

7:03pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Branksome snail says...

breamoreboy wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
That is one of the most sensible comments I've read here in months.
Really?
same person different name?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]That is one of the most sensible comments I've read here in months.[/p][/quote]Really? same person different name? Branksome snail
  • Score: 3

7:17pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Peroni says...

Branksome snail wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
I agree some are quite low ,were they offerd the chance of blood test ,as this sometimes would reveal a negative test as it's so close.
It's not getting away with the fact it's wrong !
I bet some of these key board warriors type away about drink driving and some of these could be the ones I see ..... On the mobile phone !
I see a lot of that.....and it includes the police !!!
[quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.[/p][/quote]I agree some are quite low ,were they offerd the chance of blood test ,as this sometimes would reveal a negative test as it's so close. It's not getting away with the fact it's wrong ! I bet some of these key board warriors type away about drink driving and some of these could be the ones I see ..... On the mobile phone ! I see a lot of that.....and it includes the police !!! Peroni
  • Score: 3

8:05pm Wed 23 Jul 14

justme20092009 says...

ban em for life scum
ban em for life scum justme20092009
  • Score: -5

9:35pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
In some cases - but I suspect most are "I'll never get caught, it'll be fine"
[quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]In some cases - but I suspect most are "I'll never get caught, it'll be fine" scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

9:41pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Branksome snail wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
Whooa. Are you really suggesting that 1 unit of alcohol in some people will register as the same as 4 units in others?

Think you might need to have a little think about that......
[quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.[/p][/quote]Whooa. Are you really suggesting that 1 unit of alcohol in some people will register as the same as 4 units in others? Think you might need to have a little think about that...... scrumpyjack
  • Score: -2

10:02pm Wed 23 Jul 14

holdinkæft says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement
so you mean I could make money in a pub car park.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement[/p][/quote]so you mean I could make money in a pub car park. holdinkæft
  • Score: 1

10:08pm Wed 23 Jul 14

holdinkæft says...

Huey wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?
Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch
3 items will stop them.
car tyre, petrol and lighter.
it works in africa for a number of crimes
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?[/p][/quote]Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch[/p][/quote]3 items will stop them. car tyre, petrol and lighter. it works in africa for a number of crimes holdinkæft
  • Score: -8

10:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

holdinkæft says...

padeye wrote:
skydriver wrote:
Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .
Not that simple, what is the law? Think about it!! What does the law say about drinking and driving? Is it against the law to drink and drive in the UK, like it is in Sweden? NO, it's perfectly legal. The thing is Alcohol is a drug mate, it makes the users confidence raise considerably, take the 21 year old female, convicted for drinking, lets say. a glass and a half of wine (50mg) I wonder if she felt confident that she was okay to drive? She now has a criminal conviction which will show up on DBS (CRB) forever and may stop her traveling abroad.
a bigger fine might stop her travelling too.
[quote][p][bold]padeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: Some people are just simple, they know the law, still the increase in their insurance will make them think, if they can get any of course .[/p][/quote]Not that simple, what is the law? Think about it!! What does the law say about drinking and driving? Is it against the law to drink and drive in the UK, like it is in Sweden? NO, it's perfectly legal. The thing is Alcohol is a drug mate, it makes the users confidence raise considerably, take the 21 year old female, convicted for drinking, lets say. a glass and a half of wine (50mg) I wonder if she felt confident that she was okay to drive? She now has a criminal conviction which will show up on DBS (CRB) forever and may stop her traveling abroad.[/p][/quote]a bigger fine might stop her travelling too. holdinkæft
  • Score: -1

10:34pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

holdinkæft wrote:
Huey wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?
Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch
3 items will stop them.
car tyre, petrol and lighter.
it works in africa for a number of crimes
slow hand clap for the person thinking we should put a tire around someones neck, fill it with petrol and burn them alive.

The day that happens in this country is the day we go back 500 years (or become the dark side of Africa).
[quote][p][bold]holdinkæft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?[/p][/quote]Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch[/p][/quote]3 items will stop them. car tyre, petrol and lighter. it works in africa for a number of crimes[/p][/quote]slow hand clap for the person thinking we should put a tire around someones neck, fill it with petrol and burn them alive. The day that happens in this country is the day we go back 500 years (or become the dark side of Africa). scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

10:43pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Peroni wrote:
Branksome snail wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
I agree some are quite low ,were they offerd the chance of blood test ,as this sometimes would reveal a negative test as it's so close.
It's not getting away with the fact it's wrong !
I bet some of these key board warriors type away about drink driving and some of these could be the ones I see ..... On the mobile phone !
I see a lot of that.....and it includes the police !!!
Your point about the mobile phone is extremely important as every single study shows this to be much, much more dangerous than drink driving but we see people every day doing it and it is visible but nobosy says a word.

No one calls for them to be burned alive, or to be banned for life, or a re-test before getting their licence back and so on and on
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.[/p][/quote]I agree some are quite low ,were they offerd the chance of blood test ,as this sometimes would reveal a negative test as it's so close. It's not getting away with the fact it's wrong ! I bet some of these key board warriors type away about drink driving and some of these could be the ones I see ..... On the mobile phone ! I see a lot of that.....and it includes the police !!![/p][/quote]Your point about the mobile phone is extremely important as every single study shows this to be much, much more dangerous than drink driving but we see people every day doing it and it is visible but nobosy says a word. No one calls for them to be burned alive, or to be banned for life, or a re-test before getting their licence back and so on and on scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

1:46am Thu 24 Jul 14

caz maz says...

The only thing this list goes to prove is that if you fail to give a sample you get a much lighter ban and you do not have to tell the insurance company you was drink driving! Its is about time both offences carried a 3 year ban and retest. Make both offences carry the same sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only thing this list goes to prove is that if you fail to give a sample you get a much lighter ban and you do not have to tell the insurance company you was drink driving! Its is about time both offences carried a 3 year ban and retest. Make both offences carry the same sentence!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! caz maz
  • Score: 2

8:54am Thu 24 Jul 14

Branksome snail says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Branksome snail wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
Whooa. Are you really suggesting that 1 unit of alcohol in some people will register as the same as 4 units in others?

Think you might need to have a little think about that......
well its not a direct relation but one unit of alcohol for say a large male can register as higher for perhaps a small female, or small male. Its not an exact science, but no two people are the same
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.[/p][/quote]Whooa. Are you really suggesting that 1 unit of alcohol in some people will register as the same as 4 units in others? Think you might need to have a little think about that......[/p][/quote]well its not a direct relation but one unit of alcohol for say a large male can register as higher for perhaps a small female, or small male. Its not an exact science, but no two people are the same Branksome snail
  • Score: 2

12:40pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Branksome snail wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Branksome snail wrote:
maverick34 wrote:
Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.
drinking habits? Do you just drink water?

People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals.

I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.
Whooa. Are you really suggesting that 1 unit of alcohol in some people will register as the same as 4 units in others?

Think you might need to have a little think about that......
well its not a direct relation but one unit of alcohol for say a large male can register as higher for perhaps a small female, or small male. Its not an exact science, but no two people are the same
No it doesn't.

The larger person may be less affected by it (unless the smaller person is more used to alcohol) but the amount of alcohol is the same so will register as such.
[quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Branksome snail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maverick34[/bold] wrote: Although I agree that a ban from driving is fine, I have never understood why these people aren't forced to attend some kind of course that addresses their drinking habits, because that is the real issue.[/p][/quote]drinking habits? Do you just drink water? People will have a drink, and 50- 80mg is the legal limit which is about 1.5 to 2 pints of beer or perhaps a large wine. Its hardly doing hard methadone, but the fact is that for some people even half a beer will put someone over. Some people above are very borderline, It just shows that no alcohol is good policy. However I cant stand people that sit in their arm chair waving their walking stick around accusing everyone of being habitual criminals. I have never drank and then driven but I too am uncomfortable with this approach. I don't think this reporting is particularly helpful and is only meant for whipping up hysteria.[/p][/quote]Whooa. Are you really suggesting that 1 unit of alcohol in some people will register as the same as 4 units in others? Think you might need to have a little think about that......[/p][/quote]well its not a direct relation but one unit of alcohol for say a large male can register as higher for perhaps a small female, or small male. Its not an exact science, but no two people are the same[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. The larger person may be less affected by it (unless the smaller person is more used to alcohol) but the amount of alcohol is the same so will register as such. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

3:00pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Mike Pickering says...

I've only recently started driving, and I'm shocked to read that for someone about my size (bigger than it used to be!), it could be as much as two pints before I approach the blood or breath/alcohol limit..
Two pints ! I'd be wellied and in no position to drive well before I was near the end of the second pint.
Any responsible person knows that you owe those also on the road your entire, unimpinged concentration - you need to be able to respond within a fraction of a second at a moment's notice to potentially save someone else from death or disfigurement. Why you would ever think it's alright to drink anything and set out on the open road is beyond me... The clock is ticking on a zero limit, and I can't wait. Then, when people who are so daft they think they can drive around half-cut get caught, they can be banned instantly, and jailed thereafter.
I've only recently started driving, and I'm shocked to read that for someone about my size (bigger than it used to be!), it could be as much as two pints before I approach the blood or breath/alcohol limit.. Two pints ! I'd be wellied and in no position to drive well before I was near the end of the second pint. Any responsible person knows that you owe those also on the road your entire, unimpinged concentration - you need to be able to respond within a fraction of a second at a moment's notice to potentially save someone else from death or disfigurement. Why you would ever think it's alright to drink anything and set out on the open road is beyond me... The clock is ticking on a zero limit, and I can't wait. Then, when people who are so daft they think they can drive around half-cut get caught, they can be banned instantly, and jailed thereafter. Mike Pickering
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Molecatcher says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement
GPS data... Sent from the control room... A neat trick if you can do it. GPS data comes from satellites . Did you mean GPRS data?
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I know for a fact that there are vehicle start inhibitors on the market ,all new national express coaches are fitted with a breathilizer as part of the starting sequence the driver must blow into the device if he or she has any alcohol on there breath the coach cannot start instant dismissal for driver and the system then has to be reset via GPS data sent by the control room yes it can be argued that the system is flawed ie a sober person could blow into it but what sober person in there right mind would do this ,yes the logistics are huge these devices have to be regularly calibrated but if all new vehicles where fitted with this device and it was made compulsory for all other vehicles to be retro fitted drink driving could become a thing of the past ,as I said could the logistics and costs would make it impossible to implement[/p][/quote]GPS data... Sent from the control room... A neat trick if you can do it. GPS data comes from satellites . Did you mean GPRS data? Molecatcher
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Thu 24 Jul 14

geoffro says...

you know when you get in your car/van that you are going to drink or not if you get caught you loose your licence for LIFE and your vehicle crushed that maybe will make them think twice about driving to the pub in the first place the same with mobile phones if your caught loose your licence for life and stop **** footing about with the less minded
you know when you get in your car/van that you are going to drink or not if you get caught you loose your licence for LIFE and your vehicle crushed that maybe will make them think twice about driving to the pub in the first place the same with mobile phones if your caught loose your licence for life and stop **** footing about with the less minded geoffro
  • Score: 0

8:04am Fri 25 Jul 14

Ginny nz says...

padeye wrote:
Ginny nz wrote:
Well done for naming and shaming . These idiots need to be shown as they are potential murders !!
They are potential killers, agreed, but do you check your tyre's daily? I hope so, if not you also are a potential killer, same goes for breaking the speed limit, which of course you don't do either...do you
I don't drive - and not because I'm a drunk . Go ahead and attack me some more !!
[quote][p][bold]padeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Well done for naming and shaming . These idiots need to be shown as they are potential murders !![/p][/quote]They are potential killers, agreed, but do you check your tyre's daily? I hope so, if not you also are a potential killer, same goes for breaking the speed limit, which of course you don't do either...do you[/p][/quote]I don't drive - and not because I'm a drunk . Go ahead and attack me some more !! Ginny nz
  • Score: 0

5:44am Thu 31 Jul 14

u.c.k.o.f.f. says...

holdinkæft wrote:
Huey wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?
Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch
3 items will stop them.
car tyre, petrol and lighter.
it works in africa for a number of crimes
your a f.upin knob
[quote][p][bold]holdinkæft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I hate drink driving, but am a bit uncomfortable about this kind of public humiliation. What next, put them in the stocks?[/p][/quote]Yes I think that is a great idea. There are some in Christchurch[/p][/quote]3 items will stop them. car tyre, petrol and lighter. it works in africa for a number of crimes[/p][/quote]your a f.upin knob u.c.k.o.f.f.
  • Score: 0

10:09am Tue 5 Aug 14

The Barrel says...

I am glad to see that finally these idiots are being named and shamed for all to see. My mother was killed by a drunken motorcyclist and no justice for ending her innocent life so cruelly was ever given. The murderer got clean away with it, being given a measely £200 fine and a "don't do it again" slap on the wrist. So the police and justice system clearly thought that £200 was all my dear mothers life was worth?? What an insult to her memory and a further cruel devastating further blow to our family. We have never got over it, nor the being let down by the police or ustice system. I have never trusted the law and police since and NEVER WILL DO.
So bring it on - name and shame them all. If they cant put up with the shame, don't do the crime. I have absolutely no sympathy with them at all. None whatsoever. They know exactly what they are doing the moment they put the alcohol to their lips. If you want to drive, leave the car keys behind. Its not rocket science. Just some idiots believe they are above the law. I think a driving ban is the most effective punishment, putting inconvenience their way, but I do think that a re-test should be mandatory in all cases.
I am glad to see that finally these idiots are being named and shamed for all to see. My mother was killed by a drunken motorcyclist and no justice for ending her innocent life so cruelly was ever given. The murderer got clean away with it, being given a measely £200 fine and a "don't do it again" slap on the wrist. So the police and justice system clearly thought that £200 was all my dear mothers life was worth?? What an insult to her memory and a further cruel devastating further blow to our family. We have never got over it, nor the being let down by the police or ustice system. I have never trusted the law and police since and NEVER WILL DO. So bring it on - name and shame them all. If they cant put up with the shame, don't do the crime. I have absolutely no sympathy with them at all. None whatsoever. They know exactly what they are doing the moment they put the alcohol to their lips. If you want to drive, leave the car keys behind. Its not rocket science. Just some idiots believe they are above the law. I think a driving ban is the most effective punishment, putting inconvenience their way, but I do think that a re-test should be mandatory in all cases. The Barrel
  • Score: 0

8:35am Wed 6 Aug 14

Branksome Boy says...

I believe it should be zero tolerance but I also think that if you are found to have been drinking then your car should be crushed! Then leave it with a sign on so that other motorists can see what happens to idiots who drink and drive!
I believe it should be zero tolerance but I also think that if you are found to have been drinking then your car should be crushed! Then leave it with a sign on so that other motorists can see what happens to idiots who drink and drive! Branksome Boy
  • Score: 1

10:16am Wed 6 Aug 14

The Barrel says...

Excellent comment Branksome Boy Wed 6 Aug. Couldn't agree more, but perhaps only if car belongs to them? If car registered to innocent person who is not driving and not in car, think this is too harsh, as its not their doing.
Excellent comment Branksome Boy Wed 6 Aug. Couldn't agree more, but perhaps only if car belongs to them? If car registered to innocent person who is not driving and not in car, think this is too harsh, as its not their doing. The Barrel
  • Score: 0

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