Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

One rule for them...

A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers

Rooster - What do you think will happen

He'll b convicted and punished appropriately just like any other member of the general public would be & quite rightly so.
18
55%
Oh he'll get let off on some feeble technicality argued by his smart and extremely expensive legal team.
15
45%
 
Total votes: 33

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8064
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2845 times
Been thanked: 3938 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78544

Postby bungeejumper » September 2nd, 2017, 8:46 am

I don't think it's quite as easy to do a Tyndall when it's alcohol rather than speeding, but it'll hardly touch him all the same. A three month ban, during which time he'll have to employ a driver. Which I imagine he's already got. ;)

BJ

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8910
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3665 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78547

Postby redsturgeon » September 2nd, 2017, 8:55 am

Not great role model behaviour for a recent England captain...he would surely have had to have lost the captaincy if this had happened a couple of years ago.

As has been said, no real hardship for him though.

John

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78553

Postby swill453 » September 2nd, 2017, 9:17 am

Snorvey wrote:
bungeejumper wrote:I don't think it's quite as easy to do a Tyndall when it's alcohol rather than speeding, but it'll hardly touch him all the same. A three month ban, during which time he'll have to employ a driver. Which I imagine he's already got. ;)

BJ


Now I always thought a DD conviction was a mandatory 12 month ban?

Yes, minimum 1 year ban. It'll be fun if he hires a lawyer like "Mr Loophole" and tries to get off on a technicality. This one is so high profile the backlash would be huge.

Scott.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78577

Postby UncleEbenezer » September 2nd, 2017, 10:30 am

swill453 wrote:Yes, minimum 1 year ban. It'll be fun if he hires a lawyer like "Mr Loophole" and tries to get off on a technicality. This one is so high profile the backlash would be huge.

Scott.

Sounds a bit unfair to me. Given the courts' (and chattering classes') attitude to motoring offences[1], anyone with a bit of a story and/or a lawyer can expect to get off, often even after killing someone. Whether on a technicality or a "lose my job" or "can't take johnny to school" sob story. Why should this character - whoever it is - be any different?

[1] attitudes obviously dominated by "there but for the grace of ..."

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78581

Postby swill453 » September 2nd, 2017, 10:38 am

UncleEbenezer wrote:Given the courts' (and chattering classes') attitude to motoring offences[1], anyone with a bit of a story and/or a lawyer can expect to get off, often even after killing someone. Whether on a technicality or a "lose my job" or "can't take johnny to school" sob story. Why should this character - whoever it is - be any different?

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. For a drink driving conviction, you absolutely cannot avoid the ban for reasons of a "lose my job" or "can't take johnny to school" sob story, that only works for lesser offences.

So a technicality is it then.

Scott.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78587

Postby UncleEbenezer » September 2nd, 2017, 10:49 am

swill453 wrote:I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. For a drink driving conviction, you absolutely cannot avoid the ban for reasons of a "lose my job" or "can't take johnny to school" sob story, that only works for lesser offences.
Scott.

Lesser offences like killing a kid on the school approach? Or when did that law change?

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78590

Postby swill453 » September 2nd, 2017, 10:59 am

UncleEbenezer wrote:Lesser offences like killing a kid on the school approach? Or when did that law change?

What specific law/offence are you talking about?

Scott.

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8064
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2845 times
Been thanked: 3938 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78592

Postby bungeejumper » September 2nd, 2017, 11:08 am

Six years ago, but the Telegraph says there's plenty of scope for avoiding a ban.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... e-ban.html.

Indeed, the government's own advice seems to me to contain a fair bit of wiggle room ("could", "may"): https://www.gov.uk/drink-driving-penalties

BJ

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78651

Postby swill453 » September 2nd, 2017, 2:45 pm

Some drink-related offences have discretionary bans, such as being "In charge with excess alcohol". But the standard "Driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol" offence has an obligatory 12-36 month ban. If he is convicted for this offence he will be banned for at least 12 months.

See http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_driving_penalties_punishments.htm

Scott.

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8064
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2845 times
Been thanked: 3938 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78654

Postby bungeejumper » September 2nd, 2017, 2:52 pm

swill453 wrote:Some drink-related offences have discretionary bans, such as being "In charge with excess alcohol". But the standard "Driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol" offence has an obligatory 12-36 month ban. If he is convicted for this offence he will be banned for at least 12 months. See http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_driving_penalties_punishments.htm


Agreed, that's certainly how it should be, but it still doesn't square with http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... e-ban.html. "Information provided to LV Insurance by the Ministry of Justice showed that 1,480 of the 55,539 motorists convicted of drink driving were not banned.... Although a ban is regarded as an automatic penalty for drink driving, the penalty is not mandatory and courts are still allowed to exercise some discretion....A driver brought before the courts in the City of London and Suffolk are three times more likely to escape a ban than those in Cumbria and Warwickshire.".

BJ

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78655

Postby swill453 » September 2nd, 2017, 2:56 pm

bungeejumper wrote:Agreed, that's certainly how it should be, but it still doesn't square with http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... e-ban.html. "Information provided to LV Insurance by the Ministry of Justice showed that 1,480 of the 55,539 motorists convicted of drink driving were not banned.... Although a ban is regarded as an automatic penalty for drink driving, the penalty is not mandatory and courts are still allowed to exercise some discretion....A driver brought before the courts in the City of London and Suffolk are three times more likely to escape a ban than those in Cumbria and Warwickshire.".

I agree it doesn't square with it, but the article is short on specific detail.

Their "convicted of drink driving" is maybe a catch-all which includes other related offences like "Failing to co-operate with a preliminary test" etc. as per my link, which have a discretionary ban.

Scott.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78658

Postby Lootman » September 2nd, 2017, 3:07 pm

bungeejumper wrote:Information provided to LV Insurance by the Ministry of Justice showed that 1,480 of the 55,539 motorists convicted of drink driving were not banned...

That's 2.66% of the cases. So one convicted drunk driver in 40 is not getting a ban.

Then there are all the cases where the driver is charged but then found not guilty and/or pleads to a lessor charge that doesn't involve a ban. A defence can be mounted on procedural grounds or take aim at the equipment used. It would be interesting to see how many drivers get away with it because they spend a lot on a very aggressive lawyer. Surely worth a try for someone with Roo's means.

I almost got caught 30 years ago in Muswell Hill. Was being followed by a cop car but luckily I was very close to my house, and managed to get out of my car and into my house as the police car pulled up. I was all ready to answer the door with a big, fat drink in my hand, but they decided not to bother and left.

Haven't done it since. Lesson learned; bullet dodged.

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8064
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2845 times
Been thanked: 3938 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78660

Postby bungeejumper » September 2nd, 2017, 3:13 pm

swill453 wrote:[I agree it doesn't square with it, but the article is short on specific detail.

Their "convicted of drink driving" is maybe a catch-all which includes other related offences like "Failing to co-operate with a preliminary test" etc. as per my link, which have a discretionary ban.

Oh well, perhaps we'll never get to the bottom of it. In the meantime, here's the horse's mouth: https://www.lv.com/about-us/press/artic ... nk-drivers

A quick Google for "footballer driving ban alcohol" confirms that very few footballers get off without a year's ban, although they can be very ingenious in their defence arguments. ISTR that Yaya Toure said it would be impossible for him to have been over the limit, since he's a good Muslim - except that unfortunately somebody had spiked his Diet Coke with brandy. Yeah, right. :lol:

BJ

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8064
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2845 times
Been thanked: 3938 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78670

Postby bungeejumper » September 2nd, 2017, 3:48 pm

Gentlemen, that reminds me.....

Rooney used to own a racehorse which he tried (unsuccessfully) to register with the Jockey Club under the name Norfolk Enchants. What goes around comes around, eh?

BJ

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1880 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: One rule for them...

#78676

Postby AleisterCrowley » September 2nd, 2017, 4:33 pm

bungeejumper wrote:Gentlemen, that reminds me.....

Rooney used to own a racehorse which he tried (unsuccessfully) to register with the Jockey Club under the name Norfolk Enchants. What goes around comes around, eh?

BJ


Better than "Hoof Hearted"..

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#79109

Postby swill453 » September 4th, 2017, 2:28 pm

No loopholes for this "celeb" - 2 year driving ban http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41146248

Scott.

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1880 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: One rule for them...

#79113

Postby AleisterCrowley » September 4th, 2017, 2:56 pm

I should have popped up the court and done some celeb spotting. I was almost certainly in Eton on the 12th.
Bit puzzled why she was nicked in Eton as you can't drive to Windsor castle that way (the bridge has been pedestrians only since the 1970s)

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: One rule for them...

#79115

Postby swill453 » September 4th, 2017, 3:04 pm

AleisterCrowley wrote:Bit puzzled why she was nicked in Eton as you can't drive to Windsor castle that way (the bridge has been pedestrians only since the 1970s)

At 3 times the limit at 11am the morning after, maybe the thought didn't occur.

Scott.

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1880 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: One rule for them...

#79141

Postby AleisterCrowley » September 4th, 2017, 4:58 pm

3 x over at 11am -That takes some doing... even if you pass out at 4am

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: One rule for them...

#79154

Postby Lootman » September 4th, 2017, 5:46 pm

AleisterCrowley wrote:3 x over at 11am -That takes some doing... even if you pass out at 4am

Brunch with bottomless Bloody Marys?


Return to “Beerpig's Snug”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests