Ant and Wreck

ChrisH said:
I am not defending Dec in any way but if you've never lived with Alcoholism in your lives then you have no idea what it's like to be an alcoholic.

I lost my Big brother at 49 years old and my Partner lost her Father at 50 to the demon drink.

Alcoholism is nothing like smoking, you are in a clear mind when you pick up a packet of fags and spark one up as they say. I used to be a 60 a day smoker so I know, NOTE used to be.

I watched my brother lose everything in life including access to his Daughter to the drink, he started out with a few too many pints and ended up on a later and a half of vodka a day. He drove drunk and with my Mum in the car.

If you think Declans Mum shouldn't have let him drive, then your right but you won't stop an alcoholic getting behind the wheel they will do it regardless of the dangers. Alcohol takes away any common sense and dulls the thoughts, life becomes unclear and they live in a self perpetuating bubble. My Mum got in the car with my brother and his driving was shocking.

Alchohol dulls all the senses and takes away any inhibitions and sense of consequence, just look at the dicks that you see on CCTV acting up on a Saturday night after the pubs in town.

Declan in my opinion should have his licence revoked until he can prove he's been sober for at least 12 months which is unlikely in his present condition.

He needs to be helped to get to the bottom of why he drinks, there is always an underlying reason. There are thousands of alcoholics in remission who live a normal life but have been helped to find the reason to drink. As a public figure he is going to find it difficult to get to a point where he can be left alone to sort out his life, or maybe not but only he can decide and might never do that.

What he has done is unforgivable and needs punishment but if you've never been involved with an alcoholic then you can't really judge.

For those that think that Alcohol problems will never affect them then look around at work, on the street, in the local shop. It's all around us and is very easy to hide. Not every alcoholic stinks of booze they become devious by nature, drink vodka to cover most of the odour and hide that very fact.

Hopefully those doubters will never have to come into contact with it, but it happens from everyone who you think has everything to those that seem to have nothing at all. It's not a mental illness it's an addiction that covers up something else. It's not just a like the taste of, it covers up something that they cant cope with in life.

Declan has a demon that will kill him if he doesn't let that demon out.
Click to expand...

Dec wasn't done for drink driving though..... hell he wasn't even driving the car unless telapathically :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
viv1969 said:
Ant wrecked his car.
Dec did nothing.
Click to expand...
Why are we getting into symantics? The title clearly says Ant and Wreck and as you rightly say Ant wrecked a car, therefore the title is correct. It does not imply at any point that Dec is a wreck
 
viv1969 said:
My brother, a police forensic officer, gives a turnaround of less than 12 hours on request.
Click to expand...
2 days if sent to the local hospital, for the member of the public sample. I've no idea what happens to the police sample.
 
Byker28i said:
2 days if sent to the local hospital, for the member of the public sample. I've no idea what happens to the police sample.
Click to expand...


My OH had a blood test done at a local private hospital, and the result was out late the next day. They had an in house laboratory, and a FBC test (full blood count) can be completed in a matter of hours.
 
Looking into the delay on charging...

Police bail without charge is usually granted to suspects who provide blood/urine samples as opposed to breath samples upon their initial arrest or in cases where a back calculation is to be carried out.
The driver may request a blood test if the breathalyser detects between 35 and 50 micrograms, but not if it detects more than 50.

In cases where a person has provided a blood or urine specimen for analysis they are usually released on bail without charge and will be bailed to attend the police station at a later date when the police laboratory specimen analysis results should be available. They are released without charge because there is insufficient evidence as to their blood alcohol content for charges to be brought against them at the time the specimen was provided.

Once a person returns to the police station on the specified date they will be informed of the blood/urine specimen analysis results, then charged or released.
 
So is he going down like BHS I do hope so miserable weasel
 
Byker28i said:
Looking into the delay on charging...

Police bail without charge is usually granted to suspects who provide blood/urine samples as opposed to breath samples upon their initial arrest or in cases where a back calculation is to be carried out.
The driver may request a blood test if the breathalyser detects between 35 and 50 micrograms, but not if it detects more than 50.

In cases where a person has provided a blood or urine specimen for analysis they are usually released on bail without charge and will be bailed to attend the police station at a later date when the police laboratory specimen analysis results should be available. They are released without charge because there is insufficient evidence as to their blood alcohol content for charges to be brought against them at the time the specimen was provided.

Once a person returns to the police station on the specified date they will be informed of the blood/urine specimen analysis results, then charged or released.
Click to expand...


Ah ignore this, the blood test between 35 and 50 was abolished in April 2015
 
Years ago, when my habitually drun k next door neighbour, tried to write off my car on the road outside my house, he was unable to do the breath test at the time, and it was around six hours later when he was blood tested. No worries though, because he was still three and a half times over the limit. Unfortunately some of the neighbours took a dim view of me "dobbing him in" to the police, simply because they saw him as a poor old man (mid sixties, drunk every day, abused his wife, had hit other cars in the road). Fortunately, one neighbour opposite gave a good witness statement to the police, including the important bits where he drove into the front of my car, then drove down the road and turned around and drove into the rear of my car. He then mounted the footpath and nearly drove through my fence.
He was so drunk, that he stumbled down the steps leading to his front door and had a slight graze on his head. He was also so drunk that he couldn't open his front door, so went back to his vehicle and sat in it, and that is where I directed the police when they turned up.
The neighbour's wife's story which she told to the police, and which she tried to unbelievably convince me (considering I had watched all this taking place, was that he slightly bumped the front of my car (smashed front bumper, dented bonnet), then parked behind me. He wasn't drunk but had taken medication (this story later changed to "he had low salt levels"). He didn't fall down the steps and hit his head. The dog (which he had just taken for a walk) had pulled him down the steps.
Drunk drivers lie. Drunk drivers who have accidents lie even more. Relatives of drunk drivers very often lie and invent incredible stories to make you feel sorry for the drunk driver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, how does it pan out.
Breath test failed, off to the station, next test failed and charged with Drunk Driving (timescale and details abreviatted), is the licence suspended immediately or doesnt that happen until proven guilty some weeks later, thereby allowing said driver to carry on and possibly crash again?
Anyone know?
 
MatBin said:
So, how does it pan out.
Breath test failed, off to the station, next test failed and charged with Drunk Driving (timescale and details abreviatted), is the licence suspended immediately or doesnt that happen until proven guilty some weeks later, thereby allowing said driver to carry on and possibly crash again?
Anyone know?
Click to expand...


It looks as though the driver is free to drive until the result of the court hearing (which IMO is totally ridiculous), and if convicted, the ban starts immediately.
 
andy700 said:
It looks as though the driver is free to drive until the result of the court hearing (which IMO is totally ridiculous), and if convicted, the ban starts immediately.
Click to expand...
Innocent until proven guity
 
maybe some drunk driver will run him over on his way to the pub.
 
When I was 17, I was stopped on my way to play football about 10.00 on a Sunday morning, I blew over.....

Luckily for me, I was under on the blood test. Since that day I have been tee-total if driving, and won't drive the day after a session. That was 39 years ago......

I do not understand why he couldn't get a cab, organise a driver, or whatever. Should we show some sympathy for his mental state? yes, of course we should. But what he did was reckless and selfish; he could have killed somebody. He deserves whatever punishment the courts seem fit, because it could have been my car, or my family.
 
£86,000 fine, surely that's the biggest ever, and a 20 month ban after pleading guilty to drink driving. He blew 75, so just over double the limit
 
Byker28i said:
£86,000 fine, surely that's the biggest ever...
Click to expand...
The media are reporting that it is the biggest ever; the previous record seems to have been £54,000 by Yaya Touré in 2016.

But the court were told that McPartlin earns £130,000 per week, so the fine is two-thirds of a week's income. Two-thirds of a week's income for someone on average UK income (£514 per week) would be about £340. I don't know about you, but if I'd done what he did I'd expect a larger fine than that.
 
StewartR said:
The media are reporting that it is the biggest ever; the previous record seems to have been £54,000 by Yaya Touré in 2016.

But the court were told that McPartlin earns £130,000 per week, so the fine is two-thirds of a week's income. Two-thirds of a week's income for someone on average UK income (£514 per week) would be about £340. I don't know about you, but if I'd done what he did I'd expect a larger fine than that.
Click to expand...
Chances are you wouldn't get one though.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
The media are reporting that it is the biggest ever; the previous record seems to have been £54,000 by Yaya Touré in 2016.

But the court were told that McPartlin earns £130,000 per week, so the fine is two-thirds of a week's income. Two-thirds of a week's income for someone on average UK income (£514 per week) would be about £340. I don't know about you, but if I'd done what he did I'd expect a larger fine than that.
Click to expand...

I heard it on the car radio - away at the moment.
I wasn't aware we'd gone to salary related fines for drink driving. I knew they had for speeding. Looking at the Govt web site, it says unlimited fine...
 
Byker28i said:
I heard it on the car radio - away at the moment.
I wasn't aware we'd gone to salary related fines for drink driving. I knew they had for speeding. Looking at the Govt web site, it says unlimited fine...
Click to expand...

As I'm not working at present, does that mean I can get away scott free ? :D
 
About ten years ago, an aunt of mine (no previous accidents) was pulling onto a roundabout, said she had checked that there was nothing to her right, and a BMW then hit the front of her car. As in this case it was a 30mph limit, and the BMW went out of control and ended up in someones front garden having gone through a brick wall. My aunt was teatotal and stone cold sober. She got 6 points, a year ban and £1000 fine.
In this case, the much loved, alcoholic celeb was over the limit, somehow lost control in a 30 limit (witnesses said he was overtaking another car on the wrong side of the road), hit two cars and caused minor injuries.
I think that he should have gone to prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top