Yeah, who cares if he has been stupid enough to get pissed and drive AT LEAST twice eh? Lets imagine he kills someone while being unfit to drive, never mind eh?
And lets not forget that in years gone by, having sex with young boys was considered acceptable. Would you say that was still fine as well?
In message , Grimly Curmudgeon writes
Utter bollox!
When was the limit reduced to the current 80mg? Certainly not in the last 20 years and much longer than that I think.
The message from Paul Giverin contains these words:
And likely to sink to 50mg/100ml in a bit, I expect. That'd bring us into line with much of "proper" Europe.
To be fair, in your part of the world, it's not unusual to sink 8 pints of the black stuff before climbing into a beaten-up MkV Cortina for the drive home ;-)
Why just young boys? There was no age of consent for girls either at one time.
Hope you're not the type who thinks all young girls are begging for it while boys couldn't possibly be.
Yes Finnigan probably is that type
Neil Baker
I thought you`d given up after taking your pathetic, self-pitying bullshit to email. You`re still scum, and I truly, sincerely wish that Darwin would wave his magic wand and remove you from the gene pool - it`d certainly improve the quality for those left in. You can`t defend what you did, you can`t even try and use the excuse that it was a "mistake", as you repeated your drink driving at least once. You`ve been caught twice, so how many times did you drive while being incapable of safely controlling the vehicle?
10? 100?
None mate
Neil Baker
( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Bwahahahahahahahaha...
You *really* think you were in full control of the car whilst twice the drink-drive limit?
Why were you tugged by plod in the first place? What about your perfectly safe and controlled driving gave them sufficient cause to stop *you* (out of all the cars on the road) and breathalyse you?
Or was it an ANPR tug and the fact your car was uninsured raised the flag?
I was guilty as charged and admitted up court
( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Yes, we know. You seem quite proud of the fact.
Now answer the question.
FFS mate I have said I was GUILTY what more do u want?
Neil Baker
I don't recall you ever stating that you wouldn't be drink driving again. Or even that you understand why it is seen as such a problem.
So something like that would be nice. Although it's probably too late now.
The question was "why were you tugged by plod in the first place?" Ie why did they pull you over?
clive
( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I want you to answer the question you've been asked several times.
** Why were you singled out to be tugged by plod? **You say that your driving was fine, despite being twice the drink-drive limit, so it *can't* have been because of that, right?
*snort*
SteveH ( snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I thought it was just booze?
Hmm. Let me try to get the accepted usenet wisdom...
1) The OP drove with a blood alcohol level which exceeded at arbitrary limit. There is no evidence that his driving was inappropriate for the conditions, he wasn't in an accident, and nobody was hurt. He is scum. 2) Many motorists drive at a speed which exceeds an arbitrary limit. There is no evidence that their driving is inappropriate for the conditions, they don't have accidents, and nobody gets hurt. Richard Brunstrom is scum.I've got that right, have I?
Ian
Ian ( snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Twice the limit, the following morning. He'd previously been banned for drink-driving, had no insurance, and tried to bullshit the breath test. He maintains that his driving was impeccable, but refuses to state why - if that was the case - he was stopped by plod in the first place.
Oh, and he's trying to get the legal-minimum ban which he was given reduced by a year, because he thinks he's "served his punishment".
*ding*
One word - "Impaired judgement".
There _may_ be a reason why insurers rarely load premiums for speeding tickets, yet *hammer* the premium for those with convictions for drink- driving. Especially multiple convictions for drink-driving.
Erm ...
My point stands: exceeding a numberonnabreathalyser is no more an indication of danger than exceeding a numberonnastick is. Now, I think people who drive while intoxicated are scum and should never be allowed to drive again (seriously), but I think we need a bit of consistency here. If an arbitrary limit - rather than demonstrable effects - is bad for speeding, why is it acceptable for drink-driving?
Ian
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.