%age Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 From this weeks Courier reporting on last weeks Tynwald meeting. Now I don't condone drink driving whatsoever, and there are many additional costs to the drunk driver such as loss of earnings, future insurance, driving lessons and re-test, stigma etc. In fact, yeah, I would even go as far to say "string 'em up". But there is a principle here and where do we stop with this way of thinking? I agree with Quintin Gill's (MHK Rushen) comments and indeed many of the other comments quoted although: Tim Crookall (MHK Peel) used his extra sensory powers of intelligence to state "if someone could afford to drive a car they could afford to pay £60". (I am sure that that was said in his usual very loud clear and authoritative manner). This mad cap idea was moved by Alan Bell (Treasury Minister and MHK Ramsey) on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs, so I assume the motion got the block vote backing of the Council of Ministers. I wonder who the mMembers of the Legislative Council were who voted for it? Maybe by the time Hansard (the minutes of the meetings) is placed on the internet we won't have forgotten about all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Any additional disincentives for people to drink drive is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 It is a really good idea if the course helps stop them drinking and driving. many people think they ares afe after two pints, they are not. Many local authorities in UK now rum speed awareness courses which are offered as a paying option to 3 penalty points. Prevention is better than cure. These courses may prevent another drunken driver. Disqualification signally fails to do so. There are so many 2nd and third times disqualified about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 Dare I say "wooooshhhh!!!" The course is a lovely wonderful cuddly thing and may save lives. Great, super, fantastic. It is the very principle of this that concerns me and it seems one or two others but not here just now. How about all the druggie bastards that go on rehabs. Make 'em stay in prison until they raise the money to pay for the course, then. Same goes for thieving bastards. etc. etc. Justice yeah, yeah, but when society in the form of half baked ideas from our politicians has the power to set and impose penalties and then force people to pay directly for them, there is something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I kind of see where you're getting at... thin end of the wedge sort of deal? Where do you draw the line, that the Govt decide that regardless of what punishment a court dishes out there will then be flat fines and charges on top of that which won't have anything taken into consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 For once I find - and I mean no offence by this - an intelligent and useful post from the lad from north. Added to say that I also find it amazing that a lawyer has simply strung out a load of platitudinal sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Nobody is forcing these people to take this course you know. It's just a requirement for some people to get their licenses back. Driving is optional, not mandatory. Comparing it to drug rehabilitation is nonsense. These people aren't being counselled for alcoholism, they're being sent on courses to remind them what complete fucking retards they are for driving drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He is over the last Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 From this weeks Courier reporting on last weeks Tynwald meeting. Now I don't condone drink driving whatsoever, and there are many additional costs to the drunk driver such as loss of earnings, future insurance, driving lessons and re-test, stigma etc. In fact, yeah, I would even go as far to say "string 'em up". But there is a principle here and where do we stop with this way of thinking? I agree with Quintin Gill's (MHK Rushen) comments and indeed many of the other comments quoted although: Tim Crookall (MHK Peel) used his extra sensory powers of intelligence to state "if someone could afford to drive a car they could afford to pay £60". (I am sure that that was said in his usual very loud clear and authoritative manner). This mad cap idea was moved by Alan Bell (Treasury Minister and MHK Ramsey) on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs, so I assume the motion got the block vote backing of the Council of Ministers. I wonder who the mMembers of the Legislative Council were who voted for it? Maybe by the time Hansard (the minutes of the meetings) is placed on the internet we won't have forgotten about all this. Yeah That makes perfect sense to me. Fill the new prison full of drink drivers along with those who have nabbed a packet of biscuits from the local store and let all the drug chaps and child molesters go free and rehouse them give them all the benefits they require and keep them happy. Nobody is perfect and some provision and common sense should prevail for a first time drink driving offender, persistent offenders then yes but everybody should be given a second chance as far as DD is concerned if it is a genuine remorseful defendant under the present law. Personally I believe in no drink and drive, and then we would all know where we stood. Tatty Bye He is over the last PS I stongly disbelieve in politically correct. Kindest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinkinghard... Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 I agree that we should just make it no drink at all purely cos its easier for everyone to understand. We were talking about it in the pub the other day and quite a few people thought that you could drink two pints of lager or 2 bottles of say WKD and then drive. One bottle of WKD is 1.4 units and a normal size can of Carling lager is 1.8 or there abouts so clearly not.... Anyway a few days later one of the people in the discussion text me and said that a local licensee (who I won't name)had told her that it was ok to drink two bottles of WKD or two pints and then drive. Well well eh? Come on Heron and Brearley...where is your staff training! Are you going to pay the fines and drive people round when they get banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Since July last year, the Czech Republic has had a zero tolerance approach to drink driving. If you get caught driving with any alcohol in your blood then the minimum fine is more than the average monthly salary and there is a high risk that you may have your licence revoked and face prison time. Unsurprisingly, few people are now prepared to take the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 It is the very principle of this that concerns me and it seems one or two others but not here just now. The very principle of what that concerns you? Of criminals who endanger lives by driving whilst pissed coughing up a few quid to pay for their own rehabilitation? Great I say. Might stop the tossers getting behind the wheel again. In fact I don't see any justification at all for the taxpayers to cover the cost of rehabilitating selfish wankers who should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted July 22, 2007 Author Share Posted July 22, 2007 The principle of enforcing a justice system and then seeing a way of making a few bob out of it. If you would care to read my original post you will my sentiments are not dissimilar to your own hboy, and they were placed there to hopefully prevent this topic being simply about drunk driving. In fact, yeah, I would even go as far to say "string 'em up". If the Isle of Man is getting a wee bit short of pennies then simply increase the fine. Ok, increase it by a £1000 for all I (and you, ans et al) care. For the sake of £60 an offence it hardly seems worthwhile bringing the change in. As shown by this thread drunk drivers are a very easy target - none of us likes them do we? But where does this initiative go from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 If you would care to read my original post you will my sentiments are not dissimilar to your own hboy, I was injured a drink driver a long time ago. I really don't give a shit and I really don't see how this is relevant to your wider argument. I'd like to, but I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted July 22, 2007 Author Share Posted July 22, 2007 I can't see the point of why Tynwald debated and voted on this motion. OK punish drunk drivers by all means but for an extra £60? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 They're going to be made to pay the cost of the rehabilitation course, so it's not born by the taxpayer. It's not an additional fund raising punishment, they're covering their costs so we dont have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.