Drink Drivers Named

[Norrin Radd]

One.

do tell Gerry.as i have never known anyone personally get away with it.

 

[ger147]

do tell Gerry.as i have never known anyone personally get away with it.

A family member was caught, failed a breath test and charged but the fiscal dropped the case. I don't know all the details about why the case was dropped, only that it was. And I know she was deffo charged as it was me who picked her up from the Police station.

 

[Norrin Radd]

A family member was caught, failed a breath test and charged but the fiscal dropped the case. I don't know all the details about why the case was dropped, only that it was. And I know she was deffo charged as it was me who picked her up from the Police station.

fair enough my man .
merry christmas.:thup:

 

[ger147]

fair enough my man .
merry christmas.:thup:

And just for the record, I had no sympathy for her as according to her story she knew she'd had a drink. But really don't know what happened or why it was dropped.

My objection to publishing the names is simply the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the Polis want to publish names once convicted, I have no issue with that. IMO it won't make a blind bit of difference but if it doesn't cost anything then they can knock themselves out with their lists. But folks should get their fair trial first before going on a list.

A very merry Christmas to you too Bill.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I also wonder as to the veracity of the bail enquiries undertaken before the names were released, as this is only the charging stage. It wouldn't be the first time that the name and details given were somebody else's but it isn't found out until they fail to appear at court. However in the intervening period, the wrong person has been named & shamed.

For the avoidance of doubt I've absolutely no problem with naming and shaming them AFTER they have been convicted and sentenced, but not before. However that should apply to ALL motoring offences which involve potential danger or loss to others, not just drink driving.

Personally I don't think that naming & shaming will make a blind bit of difference to the way people will behave but if Avon & Somerset do then either do the job properly and name all the offenders or don't do it at all. To select one group over and above others is not in my opinion acceptable.

 

[richart]

Is being named and shamed going to stop anyone from drink driving ? You could drive under the influence, kill someone and go to prison. Surely if you can drive knowing that, you are not suddenly going to stop just because your name is going to be in the local paper.

 

[Imurg]

Personally I don't think that naming & shaming will make a blind bit of difference to the way people will behave but if Avon & Somerset do then either do the job properly and name all the offenders or don't do it at all. To select one group over and above others is not in my opinion acceptable.

+1
Arguably, driving whilst using a mobile device poses as much, if not more, risk to Joe Public than DD does.
I will see 40-50 driving with their phone fastened to their ears.
Although there's no way of knowing, I bet I won't pass 40-50 people who are driving over the limit..
If naming and shaming is going to happen then ALL offences that include a risk to you or me need to be publicised.
DD, drugs, speeding, mobiles, care and attention, dangerous etc etc...
They'd need to produce a whole newspaper for them all....

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So is the general consensus

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?

 

[Norrin Radd]

So is the general consensus

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?

it looks that way Phil.

 

[Imurg]

So is the general consensus

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?

If they're convicted - yes, why not
It happens in many local newspapers anyway.
If the object is to humiliate the offender then it should be done completely across the board..any offence.
But I'm not convinced it would have enough effect to warrant it.

 

[Fyldewhite]

So is the general consensus

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?

Seems that is so. Despite it all being a waste of time. Hey ho.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

A family member was caught, failed a breath test and charged but the fiscal dropped the case. I don't know all the details about why the case was dropped, only that it was. And I know she was deffo charged as it was me who picked her up from the Police station.

So basically, this person drove whilst over the limit, possibly (probably?) knowingly but somehow managed to get out of it. Do you think they should have been named?

 

[ger147]

So basically, this person drove whilst over the limit, possibly (probably?) knowingly but somehow managed to get out of it. Do you think they should have been named?

I have already stated several times above that I don't think anyone should be named and shamed until they have been tried and convicted.

You are of course free to disagree but I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and "naming and shaming" before a trial and conviction flouts this basic tenent of our society IMO.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I have already stated several times above that I don't think anyone should be named and shamed until they have been tried and convicted.

You are of course free to disagree but I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and "naming and shaming" before a trial and conviction flouts this basic tenent of our society IMO.

That's fair enough but it could be construed that you don't think they have done anything wrong because they weren't charged. Just saying.

 

[ger147]

That's fair enough but it could be construed that you don't think they have done anything wrong because they weren't charged. Just saying.

They WERE charged as I stated above. You would have to take it up with the Procurator Fiscal, they dropped the case.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have already stated several times above that I don't think anyone should be named and shamed until they have been tried and convicted.

You are of course free to disagree but I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and "naming and shaming" before a trial and conviction flouts this basic tenent of our society IMO.

We are not always in alignment but I agree 100% with you on this @ger147.

I also find it disappointing the fact that the proponents of this don't actually seem to understand the effect that this sort of 'naming and shaming' could have on family - and that those who have a drink problem are often in total denial of the impact that their actions on those close to them. And if you drink and drive and break the law - well you have a drink problem of one degree or another. Even if guilty do you then also punish the family further through public humiliation?

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

They WERE charged as I stated above. You would have to take it up with the Procurator Fiscal, they dropped the case.

Yes I fully appreciate that but the fact remains they have broken the law in the first case, maybe it was their lucky day. Perhaps let off on a technicality, maybe the rozzer had his belt on upside down or something.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I also find it disappointing the fact that the proponents of this don't actually seem to understand the effect that this sort of 'naming and shaming' could have on family - and that those who have a drink problem are often in total denial of the impact that their actions on those close to them. And if you drink and drive and break the law - well you have a drink problem of one degree or another. Even if guilty do you then also punish the family further through public humiliation?

I agree with your point that the family may be punished to some degree but maybe if the driver thought about that BEFORE having 'one for the road' the situation wouldn't arise in the first place.

Have you ever been the victim of an irresponsible driver? I have, cost me a LOT of money!

 

[Kellfire]

So basically, this person drove whilst over the limit, possibly (probably?) knowingly but somehow managed to get out of it. Do you think they should have been named?

Failing the breath test does not mean they were guilty of a drink driving offence. It means that there is sufficient evidence to arrest the person to take a more accurate sample (blood or urine) to ascertain the true level of alcohol in their system.

The case could be dropped for different reasons eg. incorrect procedures involving the taking of the samples (time of sampling for example), incorrect procedure behind the arrest.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Failing the breath test does not mean they were guilty of a drink driving offence. It means that there is sufficient evidence to arrest the person to take a more accurate sample (blood or urine) to ascertain the true level of alcohol in their system.

The case could be dropped for different reasons eg. incorrect procedures involving the taking of the samples (time of sampling for example), incorrect procedure behind the arrest.

Yes I appreciate all that but it doesn't detract from the fact that they have driven whilst over the limit (or very close to it) in the first place or they wouldn't have got as far as a blood test etc.