Mags embarrassing themselves yet again

[Dunder Mifflin]

Win at all costs, **** human rights and ignore the actions of drunk drivers etc etc it seems.

 

[rowley]

Who is talking about “wiggle room”?

Just a simple case of getting all the facts before forming a final view rather than jumping in with both feet and forming a view based on only part of the relevant information. Bad is bad but as with everything there are degrees of bad. As with my example before I would take a much harsher view on someone who is 3 or 4 times the limit than someone who was just over the limit. They are both bad but one is clearly much worse than the other.

I would most definitely not take a more lenient view at all were he " just over" the limit. He has no excuse whatsoever. There is no wriggle room in forming a view on this, none at all.. He's an utter, arrogant and unforgiveable arsehole of the highest order if he hasn't contested the reading.

It is most certainly not a matter of degree, apart from in the sanction potentially applied to him by law. In the eyes of normal people, who have nothing like his access to privileged circumstances, he is beyond the pale. No one needs the "full facts'. The bare ones are sufficiently damming, and I'd be saying that if it was Ross Stewart or any of ours.

 

[Rum & Black for 2]

I would most definitely not take a more lenient view at all were he " just over" the limit. He has no excuse whatsoever. There is no wriggle room in forming a view on this, none at all.. He's an utter, arrogant and unforgiveable arsehole of the highest order if he hasn't contested the reading.

It is most certainly not a matter of degree, apart from in the sanction potentially applied to him by law. In the eyes of normal people, who have nothing like his access to privileged circumstances, he is beyond the pale. No one needs the "full facts'. The bare ones are sufficiently damming, and I'd be saying that if it was Ross Stewart or any of ours.

Each to their own. I’d rather form a view on all the facts (or at least the ones I know I will have access to) rather than just some of them.

 

[Comfy]

OK, let me spell it out as nicely as I can.

This board is a Sunderland board, not a scum unwashed board.

So with respect don't post just cos a few soft arses talk to you on go back on your beheaded board and talk to them thick geordie bastards.

I ****ing hate geordies.

Now that was as polite as I can put it.

Remember the Strawberry, what a day that was.

Now being a geordie I suppose I should be upset with this but you talk so much **** then I'll not bother, seems like you feel that youve got your feet under the table over here cause you've started acting the arse like you did over the road.
Got a screw loose you lad as your salivating about what happened at the strawberry when perhaps you weren't actually there as you would've **** your pants

 

[rowley]

Each to their own. I’d rather form a view on all the facts (or at least the ones I know I will have access to) rather than just some of them.

Aye. If he'd killed someone while he was over just the limit it wouldnt have been nearly so bad would it. He wouldnt have killed quite so badly.

 

[Rum & Black for 2]

Aye. If he'd killed someone while he was over just the limit it wouldnt have been nearly so bad would it. He wouldnt have killed quite so badly.

Funny but that’s why I said the reading AND “what, if anything, else happened eg car crash etc.”

Full picture not just a squint through an opaque window. It helps.

 

[John Wick]

Rules marra Rules. Never reply to the saddo skunks or we'll never get rid of them off our board.

Their should always be rules.

 

[D-K]

I agree.

But I’ll still wait for all the details before I decide, for me, exactly what I think of Joelinton’s behaviour and what punishment I think he should get. Not that my view will affect him or the Club.

In fairness mate, their is only 1 fact or detail that you need and that is that he was tested over the limit. He's old enough and stupid enough and been in this country long enough to know our laws.

Whether it's just over, twice, five times or more, it's irrelevant. The man was over the limit and people have been killed and lives ruined in the aftermath by the same stupidity.

Quick question, if he was 'just over' then would you consider him to still be pretty compos mentis? Because still being in control of your mind and not being absolutely pissed yet still making that decision makes him as much of a c**t as if he was out of his mind drunk and made it... Drink driving is drink driving pal and that's all we need to know.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

In fairness mate, their is only 1 fact or detail that you need and that is that he was tested over the limit. He's old enough and stupid enough and been in this country long enough to know our laws.

Whether it's just over, twice, five times or more, it's irrelevant. The man was over the limit and people have been killed and lives ruined in the aftermath by the same stupidity.

Quick question, if he was 'just over' then would you consider him to still be pretty compos mentis? Because still being in control of your mind and not being absolutely pissed yet still making that decision makes him as much of a c**t as if he was out of his mind drunk and made it... Drink driving is drink driving pal and that's all we need to know.

Good point! End of discussion. Other than to say that he is either one of the the 'unlucky' people to drive a car drunk for the first time and be caught, or he's done it more than once and getting away with it. I know which is the most likely.

 

[rowley]

In fairness mate, their is only 1 fact or detail that you need and that is that he was tested over the limit. He's old enough and stupid enough and been in this country long enough to know our laws.

Whether it's just over, twice, five times or more, it's irrelevant. The man was over the limit and people have been killed and lives ruined in the aftermath by the same stupidity.

Quick question, if he was 'just over' then would you consider him to still be pretty compos mentis? Because still being in control of your mind and not being absolutely pissed yet still making that decision makes him as much of a c**t as if he was out of his mind drunk and made it... Drink driving is drink driving pal and that's all we need to know.

Quite so.

And clearly, he must be aware of this obvious fact.

 

[rooch 3]

Quite so.

And clearly, he must be aware of this obvious fact.

He shouldn’t be missed, they have 5 new players coming in, according to the bbc this morning

 

[gelders pie]

In fairness mate, their is only 1 fact or detail that you need and that is that he was tested over the limit. He's old enough and stupid enough and been in this country long enough to know our laws.

Whether it's just over, twice, five times or more, it's irrelevant. The man was over the limit and people have been killed and lives ruined in the aftermath by the same stupidity.

Quick question, if he was 'just over' then would you consider him to still be pretty compos mentis? Because still being in control of your mind and not being absolutely pissed yet still making that decision makes him as much of a c**t as if he was out of his mind drunk and made it... Drink driving is drink driving pal and that's all we need to know.

Absolutely for me . If he’s totally drunk - that’s very bad. If he’s just over and makes a conscious decision to do it - that’s very bad.

 

[marcusblackcat]

The actual reading and what, if anything, else happened eg car crash etc.

Again, if it’s good enough for the Courts to require that information before punishing someone then it’s good enough for me as well.

I’ve already indicated that it was wrong, stupid and dangerous but I require as much detail as is available before coming to a final view eg sell him, suspend him or whatever etc. It seems fair to me to do that as it avoids over reaction and under reaction. Wouldn’t you agree?

And if, say 2 weeks earlier, a drink driver had knocked over your partner, or child? Would you share that view? A drink driver killed my cousin at 16 years old. The courts should come down hard on everyone who drink drives. No exception or excuse. You drink, and get in the car to drive, you should ge done to the maximum extent of the law

 

[rooch 3]

And if, say 2 weeks earlier, a drink driver had knocked over your partner, or child? Would you share that view? A drink driver killed my cousin at 16 years old. The courts should come down hard on everyone who drink drives. No exception or excuse. You drink, and get in the car to drive, you should ge done to the maximum extent of the law

Would you agree to zero alcohol?

 

[marcusblackcat]

Would you agree to zero alcohol?

Absolutely. But I believe there are certain medications which have alcohol. In which case I’d say you prove you’re on that medication or you get done.

 

[Rum & Black for 2]

And if, say 2 weeks earlier, a drink driver had knocked over your partner, or child? Would you share that view?

Yes. I would still wait for the full facts before forming a view.

A drink driver killed my cousin at 16 years old.

I’m sorry to hear that.

The courts should come down hard on everyone who drink drives. No exception or excuse. You drink, and get in the car to drive, you should ge done to the maximum extent of the law

Totally agree. All I’m saying is I would punish the offender more severely the higher the reading AND subject to what, if anything, occurred.

 

[marcusblackcat]

You’ve quoted in the wrong place but that is utter bullshit mate. If I get in the car drunk, I’m just as likely to kill somebody as the next drunk person is. Just because I don’t, doesn’t mean I couldn’t. This should, therefore, carry an identical punishment. Shouldn’t matter what the outcome is, should ge inside regardless. My cousin was on the pavement when she was killed by a man who was only a little over the limit. Should he not be punished as much as someone who kills someone and is 3 times the limit? Drink driving is unforgivable, whether you do or don’t, you could kill someone and the chances are much higher.

And, as I say, if you’d lost someone, as I did, to a drink driver, I believe you’d feel completely differently about it

 

[samwise_new]

Would you agree to zero alcohol?

agree to it?... i have bleated on about it for many years and honestly believe there should be a zero alcohol policy when driving, simply because when i was a teen (did not drive then) i supped until the cows came home then went home and found some alcohol to keep me going, i reached the point i could walk straight, talk straight etc after a skinful yet other lads i knew would be totally out of it after a couple of steady pints.

everyones body reacts differently to alcohol, a total lightweight can say he has only had one pint but be a complete moron with it...one pint to me (back then) would hardly touch the sides so does anyone say i was 'ok to drive', nope, as i was just as bad as the lightweight.

 

[Iain]

You’ve quoted in the wrong place but that is utter bullshit mate. If I get in the car drunk, I’m just as likely to kill somebody as the next drunk person is. Just because I don’t, doesn’t mean I couldn’t. This should, therefore, carry an identical punishment. Shouldn’t matter what the outcome is, should ge inside regardless. My cousin was on the pavement when she was killed by a man who was only a little over the limit. Should he not be punished as much as someone who kills someone and is 3 times the limit? Drink driving is unforgivable, whether you do or don’t, you could kill someone and the chances are much higher.

And, as I say, if you’d lost someone, as I did, to a drink driver, I believe you’d feel completely differently about it

I've always said that is the biggest problem with the drink driving law, the deterrent is not enough, I don't believe anyone gets in a car drunk intending to run someone over and kill them, however if you have the same person drinks 10 pints drives home and crashes in to a lamppost he will get banned and fined and possibly community service, if the same person does exactly the same thing but this time someone is stood in front of the lamppost and they die he goes to jail.
The bloke in question has done exactly the same thing both times, the first time no-one dies but because of his actions they could have so the sentence should be the same, if it was there would be a lot less drunk drivers on the road.
To me it's like going out with a loaded gun and just firing randomly, you might not intend to hit anyone but there's a good chance you will

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

I've always said that is the biggest problem with the drink driving law, the deterrent is not enough, I don't believe anyone gets in a car drunk intending to run someone over and kill them, however if you have the same person drinks 10 pints drives home and crashes in to a lamppost he will get banned and fined and possibly community service, if the same person does exactly the same thing but this time someone is stood in front of the lamppost and they die he goes to jail.
The bloke in question has done exactly the same thing both times, the first time no-one dies but because of his actions they could have so the sentence should be the same, if it was there would be a lot less drunk drivers on the road.
To me it's like going out with a loaded gun and just firing randomly, you might not intend to hit anyone but there's a good chance you will

Same with people who drive like utter ****s as well, racing eachother etc but putting innocent drivers at risk. A lad i knew for years since school. When I knew him he drove like a ****. Put it down to his youth and lack of experience, showing off etc. Started to see him driving around locally recently. 43 years old and still drives like a ****. He obviously has had no wake up call yet. Hope that when he does and causes a death I hope it is him and not some innocent bystander.