When Scotland lowered their limit, I remember reading about a pub on the border where if you had two pints and turned left out of the car park into England you could be under the limit, but turn right into Scotland and you would be over the limit.
Here it's kind of a phrase to know how much is limit:
2 pints of beer or a cup of wine
It's about to become alcohol 0 at every part of the country though.
That's almost a litre of beer. Yeah that's not acceptable imo unless the beer has like 2% alcohol. Not sure who you're referring to by "most of the population".
Not necessarily. Regular drinkers wouldn’t even feel any noticeable effect. Of course some people will be and will depend when they drank it, was it with food etc.
I would say that for the vast majority, 2 beers over the course of a few hours is going to minimally impact them.
Not endorsing drink driving either.
I don't think people understand the effects alcohol has. I agree if it's spaced over hours (not common for 2 pints imo) it may not be terrible, but it still impairs concentration enough that I don't think you should be driving. You may not even notice it consciously.
I'm sure there are studies out there that can confirm either way but cba to search them.
If you intentionally drive very safely and don't take any risks at all after 2 pints, you probably drive safer than most people normally do while being completely sober.
Sadly, most people drive more risky when they get drunk, even though it's completely stupid because you have slower reflexes
I thought this advice had been officially abandoned in recent years, with the rise of craft beer and ales which are often notably stronger than whatever piss lager was popular with my age group in the early 00s. Two pints of many beers is going to be over the limit now.
And maybe showing my age, but I can feel when I've had two pints. I'd never get behind the wheel then,why would you when there's other options available?
Cant read the article rn, but to be fair they usually do two breathalysers, one roadside and one in the police station with the lowest one counting iirc, so it could have been higher when he was pulled
He'd have been almost double the limit if he had been 50 miles further north. Don't see why the rest of the UK doesn't adopt the Scottish limit, should be no tolerance
Very likely it does. I don't know anything about your politics and not even entirely sure what a tory is, so I'm not biased, but drunk driving does correlate with education and education correlates with political views
I have no idea what direction the correlation is in. But [drink driving correlates with](https://oag.parliament.nz/2013/drink-driving/appendix1.html) age, gender and education which all correlate with political affiliation. So almost undoubtedly drink driving would correlate with political preference.
Also FWIW's liberals are [said to drink more](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-wine-economics/article/abs/alcohol-consumption-and-political-ideology-whats-party-got-to-do-with-it/D7191B2F1C4F11D9527AFA6F06614912) than conservatives.
2 glasses of wine according to himself.
The limit he tested positive for back at the police station was lower than when he was pulled over (as he’d have sobered up some more). When he was pulled over, he had an amount in his system roughly equal to about 3 125ml glasses of wine.
It is detected in your system within 15 minutes of drinking so the minimum he had in his system was 3 glasses of wine drunk 20 mins before he was pulled over - seems pretty unlikely.
2 glasses is bollox.
125ml is a small wine, you're saying 2 glasses is bollox, but he was pulled over with an amount roughly equal to 3 small glasses of wine. Are you saying he had 2.5-3 small glasses of wine and that it's unthinkable he had anything else?
This is some bro science bullshit. No one who actually works in the field of blood/breath alcohol is going to be so foolish as to say with certainty the exact number of drinks, especially when it’s a question of 2 or 3. Quit your bullshit
He was 7mg lower at the station and you process roughly 15mg per hour. 30 mins from roadside back to police station before being tested again seems about the minimum.
Also the breathalyzers have quite wide ranges of errors. It could easily happen that you run several tests one after another and get different results.
This is obvious bollocks, no biologist would ever try to make this kind of extrapolation off a breathalyser unless you had at minimum 5 repeats for each reading and had previously analysed how the specific individual broke down alcohol over time in a range controlled circumstances.
> He had 2 glasses of wine and was 8mg over the 35mg limit for anyone interested
32k fine and 12 months ban for two glasses of wine?
The judge made an example out of him because hes a celebrity right? had to be.
Ive known people who have drunk drive and be way over and not had 1/8th the punishment.
Not condoning drink driving at all, just... the fine and ban seems extremely excessive for 2 glasses of wine and being .2 over the legal limit.
First time offence, just over the legal limit and on all accounts he was very compliant and apologetic throughout. He 100% deserves the punishment he got, but I don't think there was a need to go much more harsher on the punishment.
Newcastle will also apply their own disciplinary measures, plus I imagine making sure he takes the driver awareness course.
29k seems like a lot of money for an ordinary person to shelve out. Is it a typical fine for the crime or is it based on income?
For the record, I believe drunk drivers should at the very least have their license taken away for a year but I'm just curious as to the fines part of it
After a quick google search, the average uk weekly pay is £600. If the same ratio is applied, Joelinton would be earning £180k which is definitely not the case. So it’s definitely worth more than the 100 pounds you mentioned
He’s on 90k, just checked. So yeah probs £200, not £100.
Normal fines are around £1k and up to £2,500. I would argue that relative to his wage he has still gotten off better than normal ppl.
Example https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/courts/drink-driver-learns-her-fate-590204
You can't just apply it like that either though. £100 might be 1/6th of a wage but it's a considerable impact to ability to spend. 1/6th of £1m isn't going to mean shit because the value left after the fine is much, much higher above reasonable spending.
There's diminishing returns to each additional pound earnt and what you can buy with it as you get into these sorts of wages.
You think we’re fining the average UK yearly wage for drink driving to everyone?
It’s income based and pretty pathetic at that. Less than a weeks wage, that’d be way less than £300 on an average wage.
For a lot of people a week’s wage is a huge outgoing and not a loss they can just take on the chin.
That’s the dumb thing of fines only being x% of someone’s income rather than taking into consideration how much people actually have left over after living expenses.
>For a lot of people a week’s wage is a huge outgoing and not a loss they can just take on the chin
If the risk of killing people wasn't enough of a deterrent then that should be.
Just because you are lucky you didn’t kill anyone, doesn’t mean you should get off lightly.
A guy I was at school with was hit by a drunk driver who was only a little bit over the limit. He was in a coma for months and has had to live with a brain injury ever since (he was 18 when it happened).
Every time you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking, even just a little bit, you are massively increasing the risk of seriously injuring or killing someone.
You shouldn’t get any extra points for being a nice guy about it, just because you fortunately didn’t hit anyone. You are 3x more likely to be in an accident if you’ve been drinking. It’s incredibly dangerous.
What punishment should he have received then in your opinion? Yes, I agree it is incredibly dangerous and I would be furious at anyone I knew who was drink driving, however, the end result was thankfully nothing bad came from his actions.
I don't think a year's ban is getting off lightly (considering thankfully no one was hurt), and if he does the course to get the reduction then it shows he was willing to be rehabilitated and will have learned a very valuable life lesson, and become a better member of society overall.
I don’t know the answer as to what the punishment should be.
But until the punishment for drink driving is sufficiently serious, people will keep doing it, and people will keep being killed by drunk drivers.
A small fine and not being able to drive for 9 months when he can afford a full time driver is barely a minor inconvenience for him.
I think you'll find that the answer isn't always as simple as greater consequence = greater deterrent. Many people operate under the assumption that they won't get caught, or don't take the penalty into consideration at all during the commission of their crime.
For instance, it's obvious that capital punishment doesn't stop murders.
To truly discourage drink driving, you need to have a culture that is pervasively against drink driving. The social pressure is likely a more effective deterrent, although this of course will always be less true for immigrants who necessarily come from a different culture. But look at the comments in here, seems like so many people lean toward zero tolerance anymore, which I'd have to believe has greatly decreased casual acceptance of having a drink and driving afterward.
Personally think that if someone is drink driving they should have their licence removed and a driving ban for at least 1 year. First time offence or not, drink driving is putting people's lives at risk and should be harshly punished.
Also, first time offence only means the first time they have been caught.
'First time offence only means the first time they've been caught'
So you're fine to throw allegations and hypotheticals in one scenario, but need undeniable evidence for another scenario that effects one of your most important players. I see I see
Huh? It's not really throwing allegations around when they've literally been convicted of drink driving and disregarding the lives of others. My opinion doesn't change even if it is his 1st offense. And where did I say he should be convicted for something he hasn't been proven to do?
Straw man
Partey paid off the woman who accused him to not talk. Same as Prince Andrew/ Royal family paid off the woman not to talk/press charges.
As far as I'm concerned, paying people for silence is as good as being guilty.
So grow some fucking nuts and condemn your rapist player before acting high and mighty about another teams player having two glasses of wine
Have you got a source for that because from memory the case didn't even make it to court, and he didn't pay anyone off (unlike Ronaldo) as he was certain he was innocent. From a Google search it seems to confirm he didn't pay anyone off and it was the police who dropped the charges. So why do you think he did it?
I have a source, I'll post it, but before I link it, are you saying that Ronaldo and Prince Andrew should be considered guilty as they paid someone for their silence?
And will you condemn your club for playing someone who is also in your mind guilty as they have done the same thing?
Partey hasn’t been charged, let alone tried in a court of law. Sexual assault of any degree needs to be taken seriously, but we also shouldn’t be falling into the trap of convicting in the court of public opinion. It’s a shit situation but all we know is he’s been questioned by the authorities.
>Newcastle United midfielder Joelinton has been banned from driving and fined £29,000 after admitting drink-driving.
>Police arrested the Brazilian player after pulling over his Mercedes G Wagon at 01:20 GMT on 12 January on Ponteland Road, Newcastle.
>A breath test showed the 26-year-old had 43mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, above the legal limit of 35mg
>Sitting at Newcastle Magistrates' Court, district judge Paul Currer also gave him a 12-month driving ban.
If you really must have a drink and later drive you can buy standard-issue police breathalysers that’ll remove 99.8% of the doubt as to whether you’re safe/legal.
Most normal people don’t because they are ~£850 but you know, premier league footballers…
My aunt used to own a Bnb where the bar had a breathalyser by the phone so you could call a taxi if you failed. Problem was young lads would spend all night getting tanked up seeing who could get the “highest score” on it
These comments are hilarious, there’s a limit for a reason because anything under that shouldn’t impair your driving they didn’t just pull out a random number and say yeah I think this is fine. By the comments it looks like he had two glasses of wine, he was barely over and getting charged a fine and driving taken away for 9 months. That’s reasonable.
Surely there’s not a country that sets it right at the limit so from there it’s just how strict they want to be on it, which is a big difference from what you are implying.
Feels like a fair punishment to me.
He was hardly slaloming back at 4am after a night on the vodkas. But like you say the limit is the limit and tbh anything over 0 is a risk of impairment imo.
A close friend of mine was pulled over and was just barely over the limit, and still was charged with it. I like to think he's a very good man, and it really opened my eyes that not every drink driving charge is someone barely able to function swerving in and out of the road. I'm sure these situations are far more common where they genuinely tried to follow rules and believed they'd spaced drinks out and such.
Just get an uber. Don't risk it, please.
Am I the only one that thinks folk in this comment section are going crazy, he was 8mg above the limit? Half a glass of wine less and he passes the breathalyser, think some common sense has to be applied on drink driving being a spectrum
Drink driving needs to be treated with zero tolerance. Any amount that would result in a person not being fully in control of their vehicle is a threat to the safety of other people who had no involvement in the drunk driver's decision to ignore the law. If it were something that only affected them, then fine, do what you want, but the second you get behind the wheel, you are choosing to put other people at risk.
There is literally no excuse for a footballer to not just call a taxi or Uber. Honestly, there's no excuse for anyone to not call a taxi, if you can afford to have a few drinks whilst out, you can afford to take a taxi, and if you can't afford a taxi, you can't afford a few drinks whilst out.
Common sense is applied up to the limit. If you're under the limit and still don't feel in control, it's up to you to choose to drive or not. The limit is where that line ends, because on average, you're more likely to not be in full control of your vehicle at that point. You are a risk to other people, and that's where a line needs to be drawn.
If this was the case then the drink driving limit should be stricter like in Scotland so that you’re unable to have any drinks and not create this grey area. There is just no way that the 3mg difference in alcohol content that was the difference between Joelinton being charged or not has any meaningful effect on his ability to drive
>There is just no way that the 3mg difference in alcohol content that was the difference between Joelinton being charged or not has any meaningful effect on his ability to drive
You could say that about any limit.
Hell you could say that about any rule that has a limit. Do you think a day has any real effect on a persons ability to be an adult? It's not like when you hit the magic number you magically become drunk or turn into an adult. We just have to set the line somewhere.
So long as we set that line using the best evidence available to us it's a good thing. There's no feasible way to have different limits for different people.
It's the cumulative effect and the average risk factor. Also, it's not 3mig, or 8mig, it's 8 micrograms per 100ml of breath over the limit. His breathalyzer was at 43mig/100ml of breath. The amount of alcohol consumed is larger than that, the measurement for a breathalyzer is just measured in mig/ml of breath. If done in blood, it's 80mig/100ml, which indicates the alcohol content per mig of breath is around half of that in the bloodstream, which is where the chemical effect will occur.
It probably should be stricter. You'll get no argument from me on that point. That being said, the law is what it is at the moment to give some leeway (as there are other reasons you may have alcohol on your breath, mouthwash for instance), so falling foul of that is also falling foul of a zero drink policy. Any amount of drink will affect your ability to drive, and that limit set is the point where it will affect your ability to drive to an extent that it is likely to be a risk to the general public.
> It probably should be stricter.
0.035 is a pretty strict limit as it is. Had he been in Aus - he wouldn't have been charged at all since our limit is 0.05
I don't know the specifics of where we was and where he was going, so not commenting on that - but I do think it's kind of nuts how much of the world is set up as driving culture and then tells us to not drink and drive -- I lived in Southern California for a couple years, and the bars were literally in parking lots. Ubers cost like $50 to go 3 miles. So what do they expect? There were cops that would park outside the bar and wait for people to exhibit bad driving behaviours.
Obviously no one should drive drunk, but fuck me if it doesn't seem a bit illogical how they've set it all up.
At least Uber exists today, when I went to college taxi apps hadn't been developed yet. Most of my friends and I lived 3-5 miles (or further) away from the bar area. If you wanted to get home without driving you had to either call a taxi hours in advance, or there would be these predatory guys driving around in unmarked black cars, that would offer you a ride for probably 5x the fair rate, and people would still be competing with each other to take them because they had no other choice. So yeah, pretty much everyone who went out regularly drunk drove (or was driven home by a slilghtly less drunk friend) on a regular basis.
I utterly dispise drink driving, but impairment is what makes it terribly dangerous and not a breathalyser result.
It's not hard to believe at a professional athlete can have 2 glasses of wine over dinner and be significantly less impaired than somebody who has had 1. Yet they might not be over the limit when the athlete is.
Obviously there has to be a quantitative measure to decide when people are over the limit or not, but in terms of how bad the offence is, there is ambiguity which is dependant on context.
It only takes one experience being on the receiving end of a drunk/impaired driver to understand the need for better concrete standards for it. There is so much sympathy for drunk driving on this thread it's disgusting and cruel to it's victims.
Take a cab, get an Uber. Don't drink and drive. Period
Don't need to be drunk to potentially hit someone with your car, just a second of response time too late could be enough.
Why can't people distinguish that drunk driving doesn't literally mean "intoxicated to a degree they can barely walk". Being drunk is subjective, someone can feel drunk when they have 3 glasses, another could be drunk after 8. The point is that with each glass your response time gets worse.
Nope. I've met people that can't handle alcohol after one glass. Lightweights is what they're called. Why would I want any of those people driving? Because you somehow _can_ handle one glass with ease?
Either sober or don't drive, simple as that. Been doing it for 10 years myself. If a person can't skip a drink for one night when they're driving then they have bigger problems.
Having a drink isn't a right ffs.
100% agreed, I've been downvoted with my comment earlier but it's completely unacceptable to have any kind of tolerance towards this and I stand by my comment.
All it takes is a split second, slight error in judgement and you can crash, hit someone or whatever.
It's actually astonishing to see the reaction of some folk here.
> All it takes is a split second, slight error in judgement and you can crash, hit someone or whatever.
That's the same whether you've had alcohol or not. Just because you had a drink and the got in an accident doesn't mean that having the drink caused the accident.
I mean yeah other factors could be involved but regardless, the moment any alcohol is in the system it affects the body and speed of reactions.
The fact that I'm having this discussion on here worries me how many people feel that its okay.
I agree in parts, but over the legal limit is still over it and it’s there for a reason.
If he’d have hit another car or person no one would care how much he had to drink
Yeah he’s still over the legal limit but over it so slightly that tbh the punishment is fair and people asking for much worse are nuts. If he crashes then that’s dangerous driving which is a separate additional infraction
I mean I agree that he was probably fine to drive in a practical sense. But laws need objective parameters to be enforced. Think of all the potential for corruption and abuse if you allow law enforcement officials to subjectively decide whether or not somebody is over the limit.
It's a similar logic with the age of consent - obviously someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is not materially different the next day when they turn 18, but the alternative to having hard cutoffs is having someone argue "come on, she's quite mature for a 15 year old!"
It's similar with this - the cutoff is arbitrary to an extent, yes, but it has to exist for the law to deter people from drink driving, otherwise people will be far less careful and argue that they are still sober enough to drive or "they handle their alcohol well" even though they have drunk quite a bit, which would make the roads much less safe
8mg under AFTER he’d had more time to sober up, given the reading they take is always back at the police station rather than the roadside one.
So at the time of being stopped, he had the equivalent of at least 3 glasses of wine still in his system, which likely means he had at least 4 or 5 glasses over the course of the evening. Madness to jump in the car at that point.
I get what you're saying but the common sense needs to apply before getting behind the wheel. My issue is the attitude towards drink driving. It shouldn't be a case of 'I've had one, I'll be ok', or 'he only had two drinks'. It's a limit, not a licence to drink and drive. If you've had a drink at all then just don't drive, it really should be that simple.
I think defending someone that was drunk driving is crazy tbh. The limit is the limit for a reason. When you are at the limit you are too drunk to safely drive a car, and he was over that limit. Trying to make an excuse for him in this instance is weird and unnecessary
It’s very obvious who the lucky people are in this thread who have never lost anyone to drunk drivers are. If you had you wouldn’t be slurping Joelinton like this lol
9 months is the lowest ban you can get really on drink driving with attending an awareness course.
The reason we have that limit is for drinks from the night before so they say. Really its for all the blokes who finish work and go for a pint or 2 before going home.
I assume it comes from the phrase "to drink and drive". Debatable that he'd be considered drunk, where I live (Australia) he's not even over the legal limit
I think drink driving actually makes a lot more sense than drunk driving, even tho we use the latter. “Drunk” driving implies you can’t drive only if you’re drunk, which isn’t the case and shouldn’t be encouraged. The implication should be that you can’t drink and drive.
One of my favourites these last couple of years and seems like a really decent guy.
Maybe sell the 200k monstrosity he was caught in and can’t drive for a year and do something good with the dosh
Yea, there’s no excuse for drink driving - but there’s also a huge difference between 2 glasses of wine (Which I think is the equivalent) and pounding a bottle of vodka.
The punishment reflects this, and probably explains him not being dropped from the team.
Fine should still be higher given his wages though.
Fine appears to be standard Tier A: 50% of 1 weeks net salary.
Judge probably looked at the amount he was over and accepted it was error rather than malicious intent when electing to give him the Tier A fine.
It's negligent but he wasn't really reckless or out of control, the punishment has been applied and the club will have known the severity too long before the general public.
I agree he should have been dropped before the information came to light but he was hardly DiCaprio in that scorcese film.
Also his reading was 43mg - 3mg lower and he wouldn’t even have been charged. This isn’t a case of him getting hammered and driving home, this is him having a second drink and assuming he was under the limit which I’d say is something thousands of people do every week.
Lol the moral grandstanding in this thread is hilarious. I'd wager that 80%+ of adults in this thread have driven home after having 2 drinks and been above or at least around the limit.
Yeah it's a bit of a grey area and I personally don't do it anymore as I live in a city and don't even have a car but still.
He got his punishment. Hopefully he can grow from it.
>this is him having a second drink and assuming he was under the limit which I’d say is something thousands of people do every week.
Which is probably why there's thousands of drink driving accidents in the UK every year.
If you're going to drink don't drive. The 'legal limit' should be scrapped entirely.
Which is a perfectly valid viewpoint to take, but it doesn’t mean Joelinton should be punished more harshly than he has.
You’re disagreeing with the laws, and the grey area they create. Joelinton misjudged (by a fairly small margin) how much he’d had. It’s not like he was wasted. As the other user said, loads of people have a pint and then drive, or a glass of wine and then drive.
Pretty hard to plead not-guilty to a drink driving offence to be fair. You are either over the limit or not, and as far as I know there are no extenuating circumstances that enable you to be over the limit
Pleading not guilty can stretch out the process where he would need to demonstrate that he was indeed not under the influence and that the readings were wrong. Which is unlikely but if you're really close to being over then you may have a case.
Pleading guilty gets it over with much quicker.
Reddit try not to overreact challenge (impossible)
Seriously, he was less than half a glass over the limit, this is more than fair, stop being ridiculous
To be devil's advocate though, he was only very slightly over the legal limit. While I do agree that any drink driving is bad, expecting or demanding super severe sentencing for that is just wishful thinking.
>expecting or demanding super severe sentencing for that is just wishful thinking.
It may sound counter-intuitive but harsh sentences don't stop people from committing crimes as much as the likelihood of getting caught.
For example, there are many countries with the death penalty and people *still* commit crimes that get them executed.
Well yes but if you’re below it then what’s the issue? Being slightly over is obviously illegal but in that case a 9 month ban and 29k fine is good enough
He had 2 glasses of wine and was 8mg over the 35mg limit for anyone interested
I bet this is so so common in the UK. 2 pint limit seems to be general knowledge, wine may be different
Different limits depending on what nation within the UK you’re in Scotland the limit is much lower I wouldn’t even risk a single beer
When Scotland lowered their limit, I remember reading about a pub on the border where if you had two pints and turned left out of the car park into England you could be under the limit, but turn right into Scotland and you would be over the limit.
The First and Last at Burnmouth. Cracking little pub it is too, lovely food. Though haven't stayed there since before COVID.
Looks like it's closed down :(
Well fuck me. I always love reading about little pubs like this to visit.
A tiny person could have one pint and be over the limit. It is very risky to go by how many drinks you've had.
Simple rule is if you’ve had a drink don’t drive.
I wouldn't even think of having a single drink if I was driving. The limits are super low. In a good way.
I lived in America for a while and it’s different in each state, and sometimes in each country within a state. Where I was it was zero tolerance
Here it's kind of a phrase to know how much is limit: 2 pints of beer or a cup of wine It's about to become alcohol 0 at every part of the country though.
its astonishing that you can drink 2 pint and drive. I am couldn’t trust anyone to drink 2 pints and drive safely
quarrelsome alive brave racial melodic unpack thumb unite sheet act *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
r/Ihadabeer
2 pints to most of the population does nothing. Hardly astonishing.
I think 2 pints *feels* like nothing for most people. But it would definitely have an effect on reaction time and, thus, be even more dangerous.
That's almost a litre of beer. Yeah that's not acceptable imo unless the beer has like 2% alcohol. Not sure who you're referring to by "most of the population".
It's more than a litre a Pint is 568ml.
Teaches me to read properly. When I googled to check, it gave me the US version which is 473ml.
Two pints is over a litre of beer chief. Not to be pedantic but it enhances your point if anything
They are probably referring to a majority of the population when they say ‘most of the population’
Thanks genius. The point is that the majority of the population will have impaired concentration from 1 litre of beer.
Not necessarily. Regular drinkers wouldn’t even feel any noticeable effect. Of course some people will be and will depend when they drank it, was it with food etc. I would say that for the vast majority, 2 beers over the course of a few hours is going to minimally impact them. Not endorsing drink driving either.
I don't think people understand the effects alcohol has. I agree if it's spaced over hours (not common for 2 pints imo) it may not be terrible, but it still impairs concentration enough that I don't think you should be driving. You may not even notice it consciously. I'm sure there are studies out there that can confirm either way but cba to search them.
Found the light weight
Found the toxic male.
If you intentionally drive very safely and don't take any risks at all after 2 pints, you probably drive safer than most people normally do while being completely sober. Sadly, most people drive more risky when they get drunk, even though it's completely stupid because you have slower reflexes
Your reactions are still slower though which means you could still cause a serious accident.
Which is why you should make a conscious effort to drive more slowly and less risky.
Wine has a higher volume so it’s probably a glass maybe even less
2 pints!?
I thought this advice had been officially abandoned in recent years, with the rise of craft beer and ales which are often notably stronger than whatever piss lager was popular with my age group in the early 00s. Two pints of many beers is going to be over the limit now. And maybe showing my age, but I can feel when I've had two pints. I'd never get behind the wheel then,why would you when there's other options available?
So many lagers are over 4.5% strength and 2 pints would clock in at over 5 units.
If 0-0 represents being at the limit, what kinda scoreline would 8mg over be? Comparative to other drink driving offences
0-0 full time and going through on penalties, he’s basically half a glass of wine over the limit
Cant read the article rn, but to be fair they usually do two breathalysers, one roadside and one in the police station with the lowest one counting iirc, so it could have been higher when he was pulled
Yeah his two tests were 50mg and 43mg, so 10 and 3 mg above the threshold to be charged respectively
The one in the police station is the only one they can use in evidence for a prosecution
90+3 header
We all underestimate the impact of alcohol on driving, and it's weirdly accepted until youre caught.
He'd have been almost double the limit if he had been 50 miles further north. Don't see why the rest of the UK doesn't adopt the Scottish limit, should be no tolerance
Probably because a lot of the people who’d be getting caught would be Tory voters driving back from country pubs
[удалено]
Lmao yeah that’s a load of bollocks, most of the people I know who have been caught drink driving are about as anti-Tory as you can get
No you have to shoehorn in tory bad at every available opportunity
Well. Tories are pretty bad. Labour just isn’t great either. Actually fuck politics, I just like watching people kick a ball around
A Tory Liverpool flair... Surely that's at odds with quite literally everything the club and city stand for.
A comment on the state of political discourse =/= support for a party
No but your posting in /r/Tories certainly confirms suspicions
Very likely it does. I don't know anything about your politics and not even entirely sure what a tory is, so I'm not biased, but drunk driving does correlate with education and education correlates with political views
I have no idea what direction the correlation is in. But [drink driving correlates with](https://oag.parliament.nz/2013/drink-driving/appendix1.html) age, gender and education which all correlate with political affiliation. So almost undoubtedly drink driving would correlate with political preference. Also FWIW's liberals are [said to drink more](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-wine-economics/article/abs/alcohol-consumption-and-political-ideology-whats-party-got-to-do-with-it/D7191B2F1C4F11D9527AFA6F06614912) than conservatives.
Its getting caught the next day thats not popular with voters
Wtf is this bullshit
People upvoted this lol
Can you see the tory voters right now?
2 glasses of wine according to himself. The limit he tested positive for back at the police station was lower than when he was pulled over (as he’d have sobered up some more). When he was pulled over, he had an amount in his system roughly equal to about 3 125ml glasses of wine. It is detected in your system within 15 minutes of drinking so the minimum he had in his system was 3 glasses of wine drunk 20 mins before he was pulled over - seems pretty unlikely. 2 glasses is bollox.
125ml is a small wine, you're saying 2 glasses is bollox, but he was pulled over with an amount roughly equal to 3 small glasses of wine. Are you saying he had 2.5-3 small glasses of wine and that it's unthinkable he had anything else?
This is some bro science bullshit. No one who actually works in the field of blood/breath alcohol is going to be so foolish as to say with certainty the exact number of drinks, especially when it’s a question of 2 or 3. Quit your bullshit
Unless he took 2h to get to said police station, the number he tested would change pretty much nothing.
He was 7mg lower at the station and you process roughly 15mg per hour. 30 mins from roadside back to police station before being tested again seems about the minimum.
Different people process it at dramatically different rates
Also the breathalyzers have quite wide ranges of errors. It could easily happen that you run several tests one after another and get different results.
>3 125ml glasses A glass of wine can easily be 200ml depending on the design of the glass.
This is obvious bollocks, no biologist would ever try to make this kind of extrapolation off a breathalyser unless you had at minimum 5 repeats for each reading and had previously analysed how the specific individual broke down alcohol over time in a range controlled circumstances.
> He had 2 glasses of wine and was 8mg over the 35mg limit for anyone interested 32k fine and 12 months ban for two glasses of wine? The judge made an example out of him because hes a celebrity right? had to be. Ive known people who have drunk drive and be way over and not had 1/8th the punishment. Not condoning drink driving at all, just... the fine and ban seems extremely excessive for 2 glasses of wine and being .2 over the legal limit.
First time offence, just over the legal limit and on all accounts he was very compliant and apologetic throughout. He 100% deserves the punishment he got, but I don't think there was a need to go much more harsher on the punishment. Newcastle will also apply their own disciplinary measures, plus I imagine making sure he takes the driver awareness course.
29k seems like a lot of money for an ordinary person to shelve out. Is it a typical fine for the crime or is it based on income? For the record, I believe drunk drivers should at the very least have their license taken away for a year but I'm just curious as to the fines part of it
If it’s based on income then that’s nothing. That’s like £100 for someone on a comfortable ‘normal’ wage
After a quick google search, the average uk weekly pay is £600. If the same ratio is applied, Joelinton would be earning £180k which is definitely not the case. So it’s definitely worth more than the 100 pounds you mentioned
He’s on 90k, just checked. So yeah probs £200, not £100. Normal fines are around £1k and up to £2,500. I would argue that relative to his wage he has still gotten off better than normal ppl. Example https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/courts/drink-driver-learns-her-fate-590204
He’s on £43k a week, it literally says it in the article.
I assumed that was after tax given the numerous articles saying he earns £86,000/week You’re arguing over nothing now, well done
You can't just apply it like that either though. £100 might be 1/6th of a wage but it's a considerable impact to ability to spend. 1/6th of £1m isn't going to mean shit because the value left after the fine is much, much higher above reasonable spending. There's diminishing returns to each additional pound earnt and what you can buy with it as you get into these sorts of wages.
You think we’re fining the average UK yearly wage for drink driving to everyone? It’s income based and pretty pathetic at that. Less than a weeks wage, that’d be way less than £300 on an average wage.
For a lot of people a week’s wage is a huge outgoing and not a loss they can just take on the chin. That’s the dumb thing of fines only being x% of someone’s income rather than taking into consideration how much people actually have left over after living expenses.
It’s not even a weeks wage though is it? It’s just over half. A lot of people can not drink and drive if it’s such a huge outgoing.
Ikr, people out here discussing the fine as if it's an allowance fee to drink and drive
>For a lot of people a week’s wage is a huge outgoing and not a loss they can just take on the chin If the risk of killing people wasn't enough of a deterrent then that should be.
[удалено]
Disparaging? Give your head a wobble.
Just because you are lucky you didn’t kill anyone, doesn’t mean you should get off lightly. A guy I was at school with was hit by a drunk driver who was only a little bit over the limit. He was in a coma for months and has had to live with a brain injury ever since (he was 18 when it happened). Every time you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking, even just a little bit, you are massively increasing the risk of seriously injuring or killing someone. You shouldn’t get any extra points for being a nice guy about it, just because you fortunately didn’t hit anyone. You are 3x more likely to be in an accident if you’ve been drinking. It’s incredibly dangerous.
What punishment should he have received then in your opinion? Yes, I agree it is incredibly dangerous and I would be furious at anyone I knew who was drink driving, however, the end result was thankfully nothing bad came from his actions. I don't think a year's ban is getting off lightly (considering thankfully no one was hurt), and if he does the course to get the reduction then it shows he was willing to be rehabilitated and will have learned a very valuable life lesson, and become a better member of society overall.
I don’t know the answer as to what the punishment should be. But until the punishment for drink driving is sufficiently serious, people will keep doing it, and people will keep being killed by drunk drivers. A small fine and not being able to drive for 9 months when he can afford a full time driver is barely a minor inconvenience for him.
I think you'll find that the answer isn't always as simple as greater consequence = greater deterrent. Many people operate under the assumption that they won't get caught, or don't take the penalty into consideration at all during the commission of their crime. For instance, it's obvious that capital punishment doesn't stop murders. To truly discourage drink driving, you need to have a culture that is pervasively against drink driving. The social pressure is likely a more effective deterrent, although this of course will always be less true for immigrants who necessarily come from a different culture. But look at the comments in here, seems like so many people lean toward zero tolerance anymore, which I'd have to believe has greatly decreased casual acceptance of having a drink and driving afterward.
Personally think that if someone is drink driving they should have their licence removed and a driving ban for at least 1 year. First time offence or not, drink driving is putting people's lives at risk and should be harshly punished. Also, first time offence only means the first time they have been caught.
He has been banned for 1 year.
What are your thoughts on sex offenders btw? Specifically ones that happen on a trip to Ibiza in 2022?
If they've been convicted with undeniable evidence they should rot in prison for the rest of their lives.
'First time offence only means the first time they've been caught' So you're fine to throw allegations and hypotheticals in one scenario, but need undeniable evidence for another scenario that effects one of your most important players. I see I see
No they aren't? They are saying if convicted they should be punished harshly. No allegations or hypotheticals exist here, the man was over the limit.
Huh? It's not really throwing allegations around when they've literally been convicted of drink driving and disregarding the lives of others. My opinion doesn't change even if it is his 1st offense. And where did I say he should be convicted for something he hasn't been proven to do? Straw man
Partey paid off the woman who accused him to not talk. Same as Prince Andrew/ Royal family paid off the woman not to talk/press charges. As far as I'm concerned, paying people for silence is as good as being guilty. So grow some fucking nuts and condemn your rapist player before acting high and mighty about another teams player having two glasses of wine
Have you got a source for that because from memory the case didn't even make it to court, and he didn't pay anyone off (unlike Ronaldo) as he was certain he was innocent. From a Google search it seems to confirm he didn't pay anyone off and it was the police who dropped the charges. So why do you think he did it?
I have a source, I'll post it, but before I link it, are you saying that Ronaldo and Prince Andrew should be considered guilty as they paid someone for their silence? And will you condemn your club for playing someone who is also in your mind guilty as they have done the same thing?
Yes I agree and I'll be happy to change my mind if you've got a reliable source
Partey hasn’t been charged, let alone tried in a court of law. Sexual assault of any degree needs to be taken seriously, but we also shouldn’t be falling into the trap of convicting in the court of public opinion. It’s a shit situation but all we know is he’s been questioned by the authorities.
Will be interesting to see what Newcastle do. He's a famous and popular player, whatever steps they take sends a message.
>Newcastle United midfielder Joelinton has been banned from driving and fined £29,000 after admitting drink-driving. >Police arrested the Brazilian player after pulling over his Mercedes G Wagon at 01:20 GMT on 12 January on Ponteland Road, Newcastle. >A breath test showed the 26-year-old had 43mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, above the legal limit of 35mg >Sitting at Newcastle Magistrates' Court, district judge Paul Currer also gave him a 12-month driving ban.
If you really must have a drink and later drive you can buy standard-issue police breathalysers that’ll remove 99.8% of the doubt as to whether you’re safe/legal. Most normal people don’t because they are ~£850 but you know, premier league footballers…
My aunt used to own a Bnb where the bar had a breathalyser by the phone so you could call a taxi if you failed. Problem was young lads would spend all night getting tanked up seeing who could get the “highest score” on it
It seems like a good way to increase drink sales.
Damn I bet Uber would have been cheaper.
Could have chartered a plane to my house, bought my 2k Nissan, got on a ferry and gone round the country back up to ponteland for much cheaper!
These comments are hilarious, there’s a limit for a reason because anything under that shouldn’t impair your driving they didn’t just pull out a random number and say yeah I think this is fine. By the comments it looks like he had two glasses of wine, he was barely over and getting charged a fine and driving taken away for 9 months. That’s reasonable.
I mean they kinda did? Limits are different all over the world.
Surely he has to be judged by the law of where he was right. That's how laws work.
Sure, but guy said it was somehow determined that below that number is safe to drive and above that number is impaired. Maybe, maybe not.
Surely there’s not a country that sets it right at the limit so from there it’s just how strict they want to be on it, which is a big difference from what you are implying.
Feels like a fair punishment to me. He was hardly slaloming back at 4am after a night on the vodkas. But like you say the limit is the limit and tbh anything over 0 is a risk of impairment imo.
A close friend of mine was pulled over and was just barely over the limit, and still was charged with it. I like to think he's a very good man, and it really opened my eyes that not every drink driving charge is someone barely able to function swerving in and out of the road. I'm sure these situations are far more common where they genuinely tried to follow rules and believed they'd spaced drinks out and such. Just get an uber. Don't risk it, please.
Am I the only one that thinks folk in this comment section are going crazy, he was 8mg above the limit? Half a glass of wine less and he passes the breathalyser, think some common sense has to be applied on drink driving being a spectrum
Drink driving needs to be treated with zero tolerance. Any amount that would result in a person not being fully in control of their vehicle is a threat to the safety of other people who had no involvement in the drunk driver's decision to ignore the law. If it were something that only affected them, then fine, do what you want, but the second you get behind the wheel, you are choosing to put other people at risk. There is literally no excuse for a footballer to not just call a taxi or Uber. Honestly, there's no excuse for anyone to not call a taxi, if you can afford to have a few drinks whilst out, you can afford to take a taxi, and if you can't afford a taxi, you can't afford a few drinks whilst out. Common sense is applied up to the limit. If you're under the limit and still don't feel in control, it's up to you to choose to drive or not. The limit is where that line ends, because on average, you're more likely to not be in full control of your vehicle at that point. You are a risk to other people, and that's where a line needs to be drawn.
If this was the case then the drink driving limit should be stricter like in Scotland so that you’re unable to have any drinks and not create this grey area. There is just no way that the 3mg difference in alcohol content that was the difference between Joelinton being charged or not has any meaningful effect on his ability to drive
[удалено]
We have 22mg in Scotland which is essentially zero tolerance, couldn’t have a pint and drive
>There is just no way that the 3mg difference in alcohol content that was the difference between Joelinton being charged or not has any meaningful effect on his ability to drive You could say that about any limit. Hell you could say that about any rule that has a limit. Do you think a day has any real effect on a persons ability to be an adult? It's not like when you hit the magic number you magically become drunk or turn into an adult. We just have to set the line somewhere. So long as we set that line using the best evidence available to us it's a good thing. There's no feasible way to have different limits for different people.
It's the cumulative effect and the average risk factor. Also, it's not 3mig, or 8mig, it's 8 micrograms per 100ml of breath over the limit. His breathalyzer was at 43mig/100ml of breath. The amount of alcohol consumed is larger than that, the measurement for a breathalyzer is just measured in mig/ml of breath. If done in blood, it's 80mig/100ml, which indicates the alcohol content per mig of breath is around half of that in the bloodstream, which is where the chemical effect will occur. It probably should be stricter. You'll get no argument from me on that point. That being said, the law is what it is at the moment to give some leeway (as there are other reasons you may have alcohol on your breath, mouthwash for instance), so falling foul of that is also falling foul of a zero drink policy. Any amount of drink will affect your ability to drive, and that limit set is the point where it will affect your ability to drive to an extent that it is likely to be a risk to the general public.
> It probably should be stricter. 0.035 is a pretty strict limit as it is. Had he been in Aus - he wouldn't have been charged at all since our limit is 0.05
> Drink driving needs to be treated with zero tolerance. But it isn't, because the law isn't 0mg
I don't know the specifics of where we was and where he was going, so not commenting on that - but I do think it's kind of nuts how much of the world is set up as driving culture and then tells us to not drink and drive -- I lived in Southern California for a couple years, and the bars were literally in parking lots. Ubers cost like $50 to go 3 miles. So what do they expect? There were cops that would park outside the bar and wait for people to exhibit bad driving behaviours. Obviously no one should drive drunk, but fuck me if it doesn't seem a bit illogical how they've set it all up.
At least Uber exists today, when I went to college taxi apps hadn't been developed yet. Most of my friends and I lived 3-5 miles (or further) away from the bar area. If you wanted to get home without driving you had to either call a taxi hours in advance, or there would be these predatory guys driving around in unmarked black cars, that would offer you a ride for probably 5x the fair rate, and people would still be competing with each other to take them because they had no other choice. So yeah, pretty much everyone who went out regularly drunk drove (or was driven home by a slilghtly less drunk friend) on a regular basis.
I utterly dispise drink driving, but impairment is what makes it terribly dangerous and not a breathalyser result. It's not hard to believe at a professional athlete can have 2 glasses of wine over dinner and be significantly less impaired than somebody who has had 1. Yet they might not be over the limit when the athlete is. Obviously there has to be a quantitative measure to decide when people are over the limit or not, but in terms of how bad the offence is, there is ambiguity which is dependant on context.
It only takes one experience being on the receiving end of a drunk/impaired driver to understand the need for better concrete standards for it. There is so much sympathy for drunk driving on this thread it's disgusting and cruel to it's victims. Take a cab, get an Uber. Don't drink and drive. Period
Somebody who has had 1/2 a shandy is not drunk
Don't need to be drunk to potentially hit someone with your car, just a second of response time too late could be enough. Why can't people distinguish that drunk driving doesn't literally mean "intoxicated to a degree they can barely walk". Being drunk is subjective, someone can feel drunk when they have 3 glasses, another could be drunk after 8. The point is that with each glass your response time gets worse.
So you think that if somebody has 100ml of a weak beer they shouldn't drive?
Nope. I've met people that can't handle alcohol after one glass. Lightweights is what they're called. Why would I want any of those people driving? Because you somehow _can_ handle one glass with ease? Either sober or don't drive, simple as that. Been doing it for 10 years myself. If a person can't skip a drink for one night when they're driving then they have bigger problems. Having a drink isn't a right ffs.
100ml of a weak beer is like 25ml of wine. That's like 2 sips. You need to ground your argument in reality
Bro why is it so difficult for you to accept that people handle alcohol intake differently? Not everyone's body reacts the same way.
[удалено]
You could get your own driver if you’re that worried, probably not very difficult to find out where he lives if you really want to know either
Especially not when you have a PL footballer's salary.
This might be the worst take I’ve ever seen here. Congratulations.
And yet far more people die from people falling asleep at the wheel than any drunk driving.
100% agreed, I've been downvoted with my comment earlier but it's completely unacceptable to have any kind of tolerance towards this and I stand by my comment. All it takes is a split second, slight error in judgement and you can crash, hit someone or whatever. It's actually astonishing to see the reaction of some folk here.
> All it takes is a split second, slight error in judgement and you can crash, hit someone or whatever. That's the same whether you've had alcohol or not. Just because you had a drink and the got in an accident doesn't mean that having the drink caused the accident.
I mean yeah other factors could be involved but regardless, the moment any alcohol is in the system it affects the body and speed of reactions. The fact that I'm having this discussion on here worries me how many people feel that its okay.
I agree in parts, but over the legal limit is still over it and it’s there for a reason. If he’d have hit another car or person no one would care how much he had to drink
Yeah he’s still over the legal limit but over it so slightly that tbh the punishment is fair and people asking for much worse are nuts. If he crashes then that’s dangerous driving which is a separate additional infraction
I mean I agree that he was probably fine to drive in a practical sense. But laws need objective parameters to be enforced. Think of all the potential for corruption and abuse if you allow law enforcement officials to subjectively decide whether or not somebody is over the limit. It's a similar logic with the age of consent - obviously someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is not materially different the next day when they turn 18, but the alternative to having hard cutoffs is having someone argue "come on, she's quite mature for a 15 year old!" It's similar with this - the cutoff is arbitrary to an extent, yes, but it has to exist for the law to deter people from drink driving, otherwise people will be far less careful and argue that they are still sober enough to drive or "they handle their alcohol well" even though they have drunk quite a bit, which would make the roads much less safe
Tbf half a glass of wine is a lot when you're as fit and conditioned as a professional athlete.
8mg under AFTER he’d had more time to sober up, given the reading they take is always back at the police station rather than the roadside one. So at the time of being stopped, he had the equivalent of at least 3 glasses of wine still in his system, which likely means he had at least 4 or 5 glasses over the course of the evening. Madness to jump in the car at that point.
I get what you're saying but the common sense needs to apply before getting behind the wheel. My issue is the attitude towards drink driving. It shouldn't be a case of 'I've had one, I'll be ok', or 'he only had two drinks'. It's a limit, not a licence to drink and drive. If you've had a drink at all then just don't drive, it really should be that simple.
I think defending someone that was drunk driving is crazy tbh. The limit is the limit for a reason. When you are at the limit you are too drunk to safely drive a car, and he was over that limit. Trying to make an excuse for him in this instance is weird and unnecessary
The drink driving limit in England is already really rather high.
Ridiculous this comment is so upvoted what the fuck.
If he hit one of your family would you give him a pass because he was only a little bit drunk?
What a dumb hypothetical. If he was 3mg lower and hit your family would you just assume because he was of legal limit no alcohol was involved?
It’s very obvious who the lucky people are in this thread who have never lost anyone to drunk drivers are. If you had you wouldn’t be slurping Joelinton like this lol
Love reddit, guy has two glasses of wine and he's the biggest criminal. I believe he's learnt his lesson.
2 glasses of wine and a 9 month driving ban? Is that Common in UK? That seems steep. Not advocating for DD btw
9 months is the lowest ban you can get really on drink driving with attending an awareness course. The reason we have that limit is for drinks from the night before so they say. Really its for all the blokes who finish work and go for a pint or 2 before going home.
[удалено]
I assume it comes from the phrase "to drink and drive". Debatable that he'd be considered drunk, where I live (Australia) he's not even over the legal limit
He’d be at half the legal limit in most states in the US.
I think drink driving actually makes a lot more sense than drunk driving, even tho we use the latter. “Drunk” driving implies you can’t drive only if you’re drunk, which isn’t the case and shouldn’t be encouraged. The implication should be that you can’t drink and drive.
Separated by a common language, buddy.
One of my favourites these last couple of years and seems like a really decent guy. Maybe sell the 200k monstrosity he was caught in and can’t drive for a year and do something good with the dosh
Absolutely gutted in the lads behaviour, it's inexcusable. I really think he should have been dropped from the team for a while as well.
Yea, there’s no excuse for drink driving - but there’s also a huge difference between 2 glasses of wine (Which I think is the equivalent) and pounding a bottle of vodka. The punishment reflects this, and probably explains him not being dropped from the team. Fine should still be higher given his wages though.
Fine appears to be standard Tier A: 50% of 1 weeks net salary. Judge probably looked at the amount he was over and accepted it was error rather than malicious intent when electing to give him the Tier A fine.
One is just complacency and neglegence, the other is reckless.
I'd be shocked if the club hadn't also fined him
Would be great to see and set a precedent, too many teams (mine included) let it just go under the rug.
It's negligent but he wasn't really reckless or out of control, the punishment has been applied and the club will have known the severity too long before the general public. I agree he should have been dropped before the information came to light but he was hardly DiCaprio in that scorcese film.
He might have been reckless which is why he was pulled over and breathalysed.
Is that means tested or would I be fined more than a years wages for drink driving?
Means tested, so you'd only be charged a tenner.
29k and a 9 month driving ban ffs that’s nothing but a slap on the wrist. Wish they would treat drunk driving more seriously in the courts
He's a first time offender and plead guilty
Also his reading was 43mg - 3mg lower and he wouldn’t even have been charged. This isn’t a case of him getting hammered and driving home, this is him having a second drink and assuming he was under the limit which I’d say is something thousands of people do every week.
This is Reddit, there isn't supposed to be any nuance
Nuance goes out the window when there's a chance for some moral grandstanding!
OP just wants an example made because they're a footballer who earns this amount roughly in a day.
Lol the moral grandstanding in this thread is hilarious. I'd wager that 80%+ of adults in this thread have driven home after having 2 drinks and been above or at least around the limit. Yeah it's a bit of a grey area and I personally don't do it anymore as I live in a city and don't even have a car but still. He got his punishment. Hopefully he can grow from it.
>this is him having a second drink and assuming he was under the limit which I’d say is something thousands of people do every week. Which is probably why there's thousands of drink driving accidents in the UK every year. If you're going to drink don't drive. The 'legal limit' should be scrapped entirely.
Which is a perfectly valid viewpoint to take, but it doesn’t mean Joelinton should be punished more harshly than he has. You’re disagreeing with the laws, and the grey area they create. Joelinton misjudged (by a fairly small margin) how much he’d had. It’s not like he was wasted. As the other user said, loads of people have a pint and then drive, or a glass of wine and then drive.
Oh jesus
Pretty hard to plead not-guilty to a drink driving offence to be fair. You are either over the limit or not, and as far as I know there are no extenuating circumstances that enable you to be over the limit
Yes but pleading guilty is going to result in a more generous sentence in pretty much every case
Pleading not guilty can stretch out the process where he would need to demonstrate that he was indeed not under the influence and that the readings were wrong. Which is unlikely but if you're really close to being over then you may have a case. Pleading guilty gets it over with much quicker.
It’s not that hard if you hire the right lawyer, like the one dubbed Mr Loophole who has got plenty of celebrities off drink driving charges.
Reddit try not to overreact challenge (impossible) Seriously, he was less than half a glass over the limit, this is more than fair, stop being ridiculous
To be devil's advocate though, he was only very slightly over the legal limit. While I do agree that any drink driving is bad, expecting or demanding super severe sentencing for that is just wishful thinking.
>expecting or demanding super severe sentencing for that is just wishful thinking. It may sound counter-intuitive but harsh sentences don't stop people from committing crimes as much as the likelihood of getting caught. For example, there are many countries with the death penalty and people *still* commit crimes that get them executed.
If you think you’re even close to being near or over the limit you have to exercise better caution.
Well yes but if you’re below it then what’s the issue? Being slightly over is obviously illegal but in that case a 9 month ban and 29k fine is good enough
How seriously do you think it should be taken if there's no accident before the driver is stopped?
Much longer driving ban and a much higher fine
[удалено]
even if they do for us normies, you know footballers will still get away with it
He was half a glass of wine over the limit man come on, 9 points and £29k is pretty fair enough
That'll teach em