Re: Ashley Barnes arrested
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:21 am
He made a mistake and he’s taken the punishment. I’m sure he’s learnt from it. Time to move on for me.
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54985
I clearly said I wasn’t condoning it. There are different levels of punishment in law for a reason. Therefore, had he killed someone there would have been severe consequences.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:03 amSo if you kill somebody whilst drink driving I guess it's some sort of consolation to the family - well he was only just over the limit, remember he was also higher when he initially embarked upon his journey prior to getting pulled, it just happens when the reading got taken it had dropped.
You are right, it’s not acceptable.Silkyskills1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:17 amThere really aren't any 'levels' of acceptability for drink-driving. The whole sorry episode is utterly deplorable and always will be. Some offences are without doubt inexcusable and this is one of them.
Had he killed someone he'd have been charged with a different offence, not just given a longer ban for drink driving
It’s ok if you’re only marginally tranquilised though eh…Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:03 amSo if you kill somebody whilst drink driving I guess it's some sort of consolation to the family - well he was only just over the limit, remember he was also higher when he initially embarked upon his journey prior to getting pulled, it just happens when the reading got taken it had dropped.
Most drunk drivers don’t kill people, by that weird logic I guess it’s only the unlucky 1s that do & the lucky 1s aren’t a problem, you say you aren’t condoning something but making the distinction between the amount, you are either for drinking driving or against it, it’s not something you can really sit on the fence about.
If it can be proven that certain drugs help minimise road accidents & improve safety, it’s not just tranquillisers for anxious drivers I think amphetamines in moderation could help fatigued drivers such as long distanced HGV drivers. If certain prescribed drugs can reduce road accidents I think it should be allowed. If you want a serious debate about this, crack on.
I’m against drink driving. I am for tailoring the punishment according to the severity of the offence. That’s my view and it aligns to the law. Shouldn’t be too difficult to follow...mind you, your interpretation of criminal law and justice has proven to be completely off the wall on here in past.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:36 amMost drunk drivers don’t kill people, by that weird logic I guess it’s only the unlucky 1s that do & the lucky 1s aren’t a problem, you say you aren’t condoning something but making the distinction between the amount, you are either for drinking driving or against it, it’s not something you can really sit on the fence about.
Or subscribing to the balance of fortune & misfortune, if you happen to be slightly over & fortunate it’s ok but if you happen to be slightly over & misfortunate it’s bad. Most drink drivers don’t intend on having accident it’s circumstantial.taio wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:45 amI’m against drink driving. I am for tailoring the punishment according to the severity of the offence. That’s my view and it aligns to the law. Shouldn’t be too difficult to follow...mind you, your interpretation of criminal law and justice has proven to be completely off the wall on here in past.
Where did I say it was ok? Don’t put words into my mouth please.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:50 amOr subscribing to the balance of fortune & misfortune, if you happen to be slightly over & fortunate it’s ok but if you happen to be slightly over & misfortunate it’s bad. Most drink drivers don’t intend on having accident it’s circumstantial.
I think 12 months is the minimum ban which means he was just over the limit. Like you, I’m not condoning it but it’s better than him being two or three time over the limit.
The serious debate was a few weeks ago on this thread and I still believe that if anyone needs any form of chemical intervention to be able to drive, they shouldn’t drive. There you go, not difficult to understand.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:42 amIf it can be proven that certain drugs help minimise road accidents & improve safety, it’s not just tranquillisers for anxious drivers I think amphetamines in moderation could help fatigued drivers such as long distanced HGV drivers. If certain prescribed drugs can reduce road accidents I think it should be allowed. If you want a serious debate about this, crack on.
Clearly someone who is just over the legal limit is less of a danger than someone who is 10 times over the legal limit. The potential outcome may be the same but the likelihood of it happening is vastly different.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:59 amI think 12 months is the minimum ban which means he was just over the limit. Like you, I’m not condoning it but it’s better than him being two or three time over the limit.
How can anything be better? Drink driving is drink driving, you are making justifications for acceptability regarding the amounts, you can be slightly over the limit & kill somebody just as easily as somebody who is way over the limit, it’s purely down to luck & the victim being in the wrong place at the wrong time!
You are twisting my view and words. I think being just over the limit is unacceptable but I think being two or three times over the limit is more unacceptable because the risks are greater. This view corresponds with the law, not only in this country but across the world. If some kills somebody while drink driving they will rightly be charged with a more serious offence and receive significant punishment.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:59 amI think 12 months is the minimum ban which means he was just over the limit. Like you, I’m not condoning it but it’s better than him being two or three time over the limit.
How can anything be better? Drink driving is drink driving, you are making justifications for acceptability regarding the amounts, you can be slightly over the limit & kill somebody just as easily as somebody who is way over the limit, it’s purely down to luck & the victim being in the wrong place at the wrong time!
& how do we account for the people that need to drive & it’s essential, Fred is a poorly old man with no relatives & needs support, sue freds carer as a few issues of her own, she suffers from a mild form of GAD & isn’t the most confident driver especially in peak time traffic & needs something to relax her nerves & she’s fine, Fred also lives in a area where no public transport is nearby & needs care 24/7. Sod Fred & sue shall we?
No, refer Fred to social services if he has 24/7 care needs so he can get a care package and his needs met.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:07 pm& how do we account for the people that need to drive & it’s essential, Fred is a poorly old man with no relatives & needs support, sue freds carer as a few issues of her own, she suffers from a mild form of GAD & isn’t the most confident driver especially in peak time traffic & needs something to relax her nerves & she’s fine, Fred also lives in a area where no public transport is nearby & needs care 24/7. Sod Fred & sue shall we?
That’s already happened, the care sector are always recruiting due to a shortage in labour, Fred is in private care & as built up a solid stable relationship with sue which as been forged over the course over a number of years & wouldn’t really like any other carer apart from sue? Sue is fine apart from she isn’t the most confident driver & needs to take a mild prescribed tranquilliser before she gets in her vehicle?
I think you should raise a safeguarding alert because Sue is not fit to drive and in doing so is putting Fred at risk of harm.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:19 pmThat’s already happened, the care sector are always recruiting due to a shortage in labour, Fred is in private care & as built up a solid stable relationship with sue which as been forged over the course over a number of years & wouldn’t really like any other carer apart from sue? Sue is fine apart from she isn’t the most confident driver & needs to take a mild prescribed tranquilliser before she gets in her vehicle?
Why isn’t sue fit to drive? Sue doesn’t have a problem with driving the only time sues driving is affected is when she’s really anxious but since the doctor prescribed her tranquillisers she’s been fine driving, Fred is perfectly fine with sue he needs sue & nobody else? Why is Fred at “risk of harm” with sue? she’s been looking after him for the last decade without any problems.
Do the instructions that come with Sue’s tranquillisers state that she should not drive when under the influence of them?Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:34 pmWhy isn’t sue fit to drive? Sue doesn’t have a problem with driving the only time sues driving is affected is when she’s really anxious but since the doctor prescribed her tranquillisers she’s been fine driving, Fred is perfectly fine with sue he needs sue & nobody else? Why is Fred at “risk of harm” with sue? she’s been looking after him for the last decade without any problems.
Because if it’s the same Sue and Fred I know the instructions for Sue’s tranquillisers and her GP made it clear not to drive while affected by those drugs. It’s not for you to judge whether Fred is at risk of harm - that’s for the local authority that has statutory responsibility.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:34 pmWhy isn’t sue fit to drive? Sue doesn’t have a problem with driving the only time sues driving is affected is when she’s really anxious but since the doctor prescribed her tranquillisers she’s been fine driving, Fred is perfectly fine with sue he needs sue & nobody else? Why is Fred at “risk of harm” with sue? she’s been looking after him for the last decade without any problems.