Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to gpadsa,Steffers0,lansdown,Wasron,jfgw, for Donating to support the site
One rule for them...
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8175
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2902 times
- Been thanked: 4003 times
Re: One rule for them...
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
BJ
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8981
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
- Has thanked: 1330 times
- Been thanked: 3712 times
Re: One rule for them...
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
As has been said, no real hardship for him though.
John
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10850
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1477 times
- Been thanked: 3025 times
Re: One rule for them...
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 ..."
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10850
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1477 times
- Been thanked: 3025 times
Re: One rule for them...
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?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8175
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2902 times
- Been thanked: 4003 times
Re: One rule for them...
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
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
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
See http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_driving_penalties_punishments.htm
Scott.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8175
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2902 times
- Been thanked: 4003 times
Re: One rule for them...
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
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 19057
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 643 times
- Been thanked: 6751 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8175
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2902 times
- Been thanked: 4003 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
BJ
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8175
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2902 times
- Been thanked: 4003 times
Re: One rule for them...
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
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
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
- Has thanked: 1882 times
- Been thanked: 2026 times
Re: One rule for them...
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"..
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
No loopholes for this "celeb" - 2 year driving ban http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41146248
Scott.
Scott.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
- Has thanked: 1882 times
- Been thanked: 2026 times
Re: One rule for them...
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)
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)
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7992
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
- Has thanked: 995 times
- Been thanked: 3662 times
Re: One rule for them...
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.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
- Has thanked: 1882 times
- Been thanked: 2026 times
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 19057
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 643 times
- Been thanked: 6751 times
Re: One rule for them...
AleisterCrowley wrote:3 x over at 11am -That takes some doing... even if you pass out at 4am
Brunch with bottomless Bloody Marys?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests