FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Drink drive ban..
Drink drive ban..
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I'm a bit confused. If someone best arrested for drink driving, they are 2.5 times over the legal limit then they get released later that day and are allowed to carry on using their car/bike until they are officially charged/go to court? What's that all about?? Surely someone who is found to be drink driving should be banned there and then and then those weeks/months till court date can be taken off as 'ban served already' say it's 2 months and they get a 12 month ban they'd only have 10 months left? It's not like they are gonna go to court and decide that the reading on the breathalyser was wrong? Sending these idiots back out onto the roads just doesn't make sense!! "  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm a bit confused. If someone best arrested for drink driving, they are 2.5 times over the legal limit then they get released later that day and are allowed to carry on using their car/bike until they are officially charged/go to court? " They have been charged but not found guilty. For that due process of law has to be followed. The police simply have to have reasonable belief that the offense was committed and then to collect all relevant evidence they can and present it to the court. "Surely someone who is found to be drink driving should be banned there and then " Do we really want a police force that are also the judges? That is the first step towards a totalitarian state. Government controls police who arrest and then find guilty whoever disagrees with them. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"I'm a bit confused. If someone best arrested for drink driving, they are 2.5 times over the legal limit then they get released later that day and are allowed to carry on using their car/bike until they are officially charged/go to court? They have been charged but not found guilty. For that due process of law has to be followed. The police simply have to have reasonable belief that the offense was committed and then to collect all relevant evidence they can and present it to the court. Surely someone who is found to be drink driving should be banned there and then Do we really want a police force that are also the judges? That is the first step towards a totalitarian state. Government controls police who arrest and then find guilty whoever disagrees with them." Drink Driving is not like most offences, you are guilty once your fail the Station breath test. | |||
| |||
"I thought most had an interim ban before court. The DD who hit us on a Sunday was in court the following Wednesday.. She was 5 times over, £200 fine and 18 month ban. Which I thought was a lame sentence." what would you like? hung drawn and quartered? police no longer have the power to give points (got pulled last weekend and the cop was pretty pissed off with the fact) they have to record the offense, then send the details off to a panel, that over a course of time (a few weeks) will issue a resolution (warning/awareness course/fine/points) its mental lol | |||
"I'm a bit confused. If someone best arrested for drink driving, they are 2.5 times over the legal limit then they get released later that day and are allowed to carry on using their car/bike until they are officially charged/go to court? They have been charged but not found guilty. For that due process of law has to be followed. The police simply have to have reasonable belief that the offense was committed and then to collect all relevant evidence they can and present it to the court. Surely someone who is found to be drink driving should be banned there and then Do we really want a police force that are also the judges? That is the first step towards a totalitarian state. Government controls police who arrest and then find guilty whoever disagrees with them." I understand what you are saying, I just think allowing dangerous people out on the roads (it's already been 4 weeks and I don't think the next visit to the police station is till July no mention of a court date yet) is asking for trouble. Another offence could end up much worse. | |||
"its the same rules that apply for any crime ...eg assault ..nothing is decided until your court appearance ...its how the judicial system works regardless of the crime" Yeah it's how the system works I suppose. Just madness!!! | |||
"I'm a bit confused. If someone best arrested for drink driving, they are 2.5 times over the legal limit then they get released later that day and are allowed to carry on using their car/bike until they are officially charged/go to court? They have been charged but not found guilty. For that due process of law has to be followed. The police simply have to have reasonable belief that the offense was committed and then to collect all relevant evidence they can and present it to the court. Surely someone who is found to be drink driving should be banned there and then Do we really want a police force that are also the judges? That is the first step towards a totalitarian state. Government controls police who arrest and then find guilty whoever disagrees with them. Drink Driving is not like most offences, you are guilty once your fail the Station breath test." Wrong i'm afraid, you will be charged and put in a cell untill deemed to be sober enough to leave, You will then be bailed to appear in court to answer the Charges. Gimp | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"For those who wish policemen to act as judges, please do bear in mind that the odd copper may not be entirely trustworthy. Shock, horror." That's fair enough. But then if people aren't going to be held until their court case in these instances they shouldn't be still driving round over a month later with at least another month left to go. Their court appearance should be almost immediate. | |||
| |||
" Their court appearance should be almost immediate. " At which point they would claim insufficient time to prepare a proper defence, get alternative test results analysed etc. Thousands of people are driving with no valid licence and hence no valid insurance every day. So seizing their licence or even vehicle wouldn't deter those antisocial elements of society who do this. | |||
"You cant have the police being judge ,jury and executioner. Its not like any of them have ever falsified evidence is it. "As Judge Dredd would say...."I am the law".  | |||
"What would I like - Fair Justice. She wrote off my car, gave my wife whiplash. Lame sentence given by a lame judge. A male driver would have been given a harsher sentence." losing the ability to drive for 18 months IS a harsh sentence. when she is able to drive again, hopefully hte lessons will have been learnt. whiplash? well, its hardly a funeral is it? no offence, and im sure she got compensated for it. and you car written off? im guessing her insurance bought and paid for a replacement. so, its not like you were really fucked over by it, is it? so, i ask again? what more do you want other than a fine and a loss of driving privelege? you want a custodial sentence dont you? | |||
"People have been found not guilty so punishment before a trial would be unlawful. Gimp" And yet people can be held on remand prior to a trial. What's the difference between incarcerating someone without a trial and preventing them from driving until their safety to do so has been assessed? | |||
"What would I like - Fair Justice. She wrote off my car, gave my wife whiplash. Lame sentence given by a lame judge. A male driver would have been given a harsher sentence. losing the ability to drive for 18 months IS a harsh sentence. when she is able to drive again, hopefully hte lessons will have been learnt. whiplash? well, its hardly a funeral is it? no offence, and im sure she got compensated for it. and you car written off? im guessing her insurance bought and paid for a replacement. so, its not like you were really fucked over by it, is it? so, i ask again? what more do you want other than a fine and a loss of driving privelege? you want a custodial sentence dont you? " The guy who killed my brother by turning across his carriageway in front of him, simply because he didn't see him, got a 130 hr community order, an 18 month ban and a miniscule fine. He doesn't even need to retake his driving test. That wasn't whiplash, that was a funeral. It took 10 months to come to trial and reach sentencing. Fraud cases get harsher sentences than that. | |||
" whiplash? well, its hardly a funeral is it? no offence, and im sure she got compensated for it." I was "compensated" with about £1500 or so when I suffered whiplash and a back injury when a driver piled into the back of me as I was stationary at a red traffic light. A "specialist" told me in 2 years I'd never know it happened. 10 years later I still get frequent pain and at least a couple of times a year it gets inflamed and starts locking up, leaving me in severe pain, and stuck somewhere between standing and bent over. The NHS throw pain killers and muscle relaxants at me. It settles down after a week or 10 days of me being on cloud cuckoo land, and unable to drive because of the meds, and the pain. In the 10 years I've spent more than the "compensation" on treatment, without mentioning the pain, lost time, time spent unable to drive etc. I'd say I was fucked over, personally. | |||
| |||
"Although I don't disagree that people who have been caught for drink driving shouldn't be allowed to drive before their courtcase, it is innocent until proven guilty in the UK and if found innocent for some reason, then they've been punished illegally and open to claim for compensation. Similarly, by taking their licence or car away, wouldn't stop them driving if they had access to another. Should we consider this for people who get caught for being on their phone too? Ideally, they should somehow fast track their courtcase, although as a previous poster has suggested, this could be problematic too. P " Are people held on remand and then found not guilty considered to have been unjustly punished and paid compensation? Genuine question. I don't know. | |||
"What would I like - Fair Justice. She wrote off my car, gave my wife whiplash. Lame sentence given by a lame judge. A male driver would have been given a harsher sentence. losing the ability to drive for 18 months IS a harsh sentence. when she is able to drive again, hopefully hte lessons will have been learnt. whiplash? well, its hardly a funeral is it? no offence, and im sure she got compensated for it. and you car written off? im guessing her insurance bought and paid for a replacement. so, its not like you were really fucked over by it, is it? so, i ask again? what more do you want other than a fine and a loss of driving privelege? you want a custodial sentence dont you? The guy who killed my brother by turning across his carriageway in front of him, simply because he didn't see him, got a 130 hr community order, an 18 month ban and a miniscule fine. He doesn't even need to retake his driving test. That wasn't whiplash, that was a funeral. It took 10 months to come to trial and reach sentencing. Fraud cases get harsher sentences than that." and if the poster had said similar, i would have been part of the 'hang em high' brigade and, personally, believe death by wreckless driving SHOULD e dealt with in the same manner as manslaughter, or indeed murder, in cases of intentionally getting in your car to kill (which imo is what you are doing whilst drink driving or drug driving) but thats another debate. the vast majority of whiplash claims actually arent anywhere near as bad as made out, and definitely arent as bad as yours has transpired to be, so you are really unlucky. so, i say again, in the instance that the poster put across, a whiplash claim and a written off car, they got what they needed, ie, compensated, and the perpetrator got what they deserved. | |||
"What would I like - Fair Justice. She wrote off my car, gave my wife whiplash. Lame sentence given by a lame judge. A male driver would have been given a harsher sentence. losing the ability to drive for 18 months IS a harsh sentence. when she is able to drive again, hopefully hte lessons will have been learnt. whiplash? well, its hardly a funeral is it? no offence, and im sure she got compensated for it. and you car written off? im guessing her insurance bought and paid for a replacement. so, its not like you were really fucked over by it, is it? so, i ask again? what more do you want other than a fine and a loss of driving privelege? you want a custodial sentence dont you? " In my view, driving d*unk should have a custodial sentence, it would be a deterrent. A d*unk driver who causes a death whilst driving should be dealt with as a person who commits manslaughter. Life sentence should be an option. | |||
"What would I like - Fair Justice. She wrote off my car, gave my wife whiplash. Lame sentence given by a lame judge. A male driver would have been given a harsher sentence. losing the ability to drive for 18 months IS a harsh sentence. when she is able to drive again, hopefully hte lessons will have been learnt. whiplash? well, its hardly a funeral is it? no offence, and im sure she got compensated for it. and you car written off? im guessing her insurance bought and paid for a replacement. so, its not like you were really fucked over by it, is it? so, i ask again? what more do you want other than a fine and a loss of driving privelege? you want a custodial sentence dont you? In my view, driving d*unk should have a custodial sentence, it would be a deterrent. A d*unk driver who causes a death whilst driving should be dealt with as a person who commits manslaughter. Life sentence should be an option." yes, and i agree in the case of loss of life. but for loss of car and a sore neck/back??? give over | |||
| |||
"Luckily for us, your opinion mean very little." and, in the name of justice, yours means equally so | |||
