The Price of life
 

It was a terrible tragedy that SEVEN people are killed in a road accident, that the strong beliefs are that, the accident was caused by a drink driver, my condolences to the families, we have to all remember that when you get behind the wheel of any vehicle, you are behind a killing machine, in the wrong hands, you only need to look away from the windscreen, for a split second, and bang, my wife was nearly killed in a road accident last year, so the fear is there, but if it was drink driving, then the laws, must be toughened up, that if you are out drinking, leave the keys at the pub, pubs should have somewhere, where you can place the keys, or leave the car at home and catch a cab, there was an news item on Sky, that they spoke to someone, who helps in these situations, where each year 3.000 people are killed a year due to drink drivers, so something has to be done, to prevent this. if you are caught drink driving, then it must be an instant prison sentence, and banned for say ten years, from driving.

Re: The Price of life
 

Not quite accurate - 3000 people are killed or seriously injured (vague) in 'drink drive' collissions. That means someone involved in that accident had had a drink - that doesnt mean they were over the limit nor the cause of the accident.

You dont get prison sentence for most violent crimes or serious theft these days. Would be a poor state of affairs if a drink driver got a mandatory custodial sentence, with that in mind

Re: The Price of life
 

Thank you 'Whistled' for getting a fact right, and l apologise if l got it wrong, but my belief is, that some people, will try there luck, with driving, with too much booze inside the, but that ' luck' could end up causing an accident, l feel that the courts must get tough on this matter, l live near the 316 in Middlesex, and the amount of accidents l have seen, where the driver has been arrested for drink driving, after blowing into the box, life is the most precious gift there is, and we must do all we can to look after it, if you drive, knowing full well, you are unfit through drink, then you should get the most severe punishment going, remember is a death, worth the price of a pint, l don't think so.

Re: The Price of life
 

not that i am condoning dd but he had a previous conviction for dd, they don't know he had been drinking in this instance.

Re: The Price of life
 

I agree in principal but a good portion of those people arrested for drink driving or in that 3000 are the morning after... They had no idea they were over the limit, I wouldnt like to see them getting a custodial sentence.

Re: The Price of life
 

in my mind if you are prepared to spend a lot of money over the counter buying booze you should also be prepared to spend a few quid on a taxi,also you could enjoy your bevvy with peace of mind knowing that your not driving.

Re: The Price of life
 

Well said. :tu:

Defending the indefensible?
 

Well according to a radio report I heard this morning the driver of the Peugeot had 3 previous bans from drink driving, the 2nd of which should have resulted in a custodial sentence apparently but didn't :confused: Quiite why that didn't happen then or after the 3rd ban isn't yet clear. Whilst being interviewed, the Lawyer - Nick "Mr Fixit" Freeman - was explaining how this tragedy was in no way relevant to the cases he defends in which he seeks to ensure his clients (who are being prosecuted for offences such as drink/dangerous driving) are acquitted due to procedural errors made by the authorities. Based on the available information, he argued that in this case the man in question didn't appear to have been punished in accordance with normal procedure and had he been he may well have learned his lesson some time ago and changed his habits. I can see his point except for the fact that every time he gets someone off on what may be a relatively minor technicality, that person may well not learn the lesson they would have had they felt the full weight of the law at that point and go on to repeat the sort of behaviour that in this case resulted in so many deaths.

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 ----------

Surely anyone who's old enough to drink and drive a car must know that alcohol stays in the system for some so if they drink the night before there's a real risk of them still being over the limit the next morning. As they say, ignorance isn't a defence.....

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

I think you're getting him mixed up with Jimmy Saville.

In any case "Mr Loophole" is right, he goes after procedure faults rather than getting off a charge someone is clearly guilty of.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

It was put to him today that he defends those who have been guilty of offences and all too often secures their acquittal due to technicalities, often irregularities in the paperwork etc. All he would say was that his job was to ensure the correct procedures were followed at no point did he say he ever refused to defend someone he knew to be guilty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5279672.stm

Quote "He also admits that he defends people on drink-driving charges even when they are undeniably over the legal limit of alcohol."

Re: The Price of life
 

Speaking as someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver albeit many years ago it is one more instance where drinking seems to merit different standards. As far as i am concerned it's the responsibility of a driver not to be over the limit and if in doubt don't drive. If you get in a car over the limit and kill or seriously injure someone to me the punishment and the treatment should be no different then for someone that use's a gun or a knife.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Pity he can't be done for Attempting to pervert the course of justice. He's hiding behind the procedure side of things when it's clear he's just in it for the money.

I do have some sympathy for people caught the following morning but for the ones that go out, get tanked up and drive home deserve all they get.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Yes I too think there needs to be a distinction made in law in the same way that is done in the case of manslaughter and murder.

As regards the likes of Mr Freeman, where a procedural error is significant then I think there should be some form of defence possible but when it comes down to what might amount to a minor clerical error on a form I think a much tougher stance should be applied.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

A tougher stance against the person responsible for filling in the form, of course. With so much at stake, you would think they would be a bit more careful.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Well that is of course true but simple mistakes happen all the time and it's hard to justify someone getting off a serious charge just because of one.