Crosswords2 mins ago
Ant Mcpartlin Arrested On Suspicion Of Drink-Driving.
361 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
kvalidir - // I have zero tolerance of drink driving, and just because someone is anxious or depressed, that does not absolve them from personal responsibility for their actions. No-one is so depressed that they don't realise that drink driving is wrong and life endangering not just to themselves but to other people. //
He is not 'depressed', he has Depression, and with that illness, people do move towards self-harming and damaging behaviour because it's part of the condition. Rational thought about consequences is out of the window most of the time.
He is not 'depressed', he has Depression, and with that illness, people do move towards self-harming and damaging behaviour because it's part of the condition. Rational thought about consequences is out of the window most of the time.
"Jack, it is usual to ask for a blood sample following a positive breathalyser test..."
No it isn't, danny. In fact it's very unusual. The usual procedure following a positive roadside breath test is to arrest the suspect and require him to provide two samples of breath on an evidential breath test machine back at the nick. Up to a few years ago the suspect had a right to request that a blood or urine sample be taken for analysis if he recorded a breath reading of between 36 and 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath (the limit is 35). This "statutory option" was abolished in April 2015. Now a blood or urine sample is only taken where:
- A police officer believes that for medical reasons, a specimen of breath cannot be taken
- A reliable breath testing device is unavailable
- The breath reading appears to the police officer to be unreliable
Because of this restriction I should think that at least 95% (and possibly more) or Excess Alcohol convictions rely solely on breath analysis.
No it isn't, danny. In fact it's very unusual. The usual procedure following a positive roadside breath test is to arrest the suspect and require him to provide two samples of breath on an evidential breath test machine back at the nick. Up to a few years ago the suspect had a right to request that a blood or urine sample be taken for analysis if he recorded a breath reading of between 36 and 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath (the limit is 35). This "statutory option" was abolished in April 2015. Now a blood or urine sample is only taken where:
- A police officer believes that for medical reasons, a specimen of breath cannot be taken
- A reliable breath testing device is unavailable
- The breath reading appears to the police officer to be unreliable
Because of this restriction I should think that at least 95% (and possibly more) or Excess Alcohol convictions rely solely on breath analysis.
bhg481 - // andy - if that's the case should people with depression be banned from driving? //
That would be impossible to monitor and implement because like a lot of conditions, Depression is vastly variable in terms of its effects.
A parallel would be sight - because there is a visual impairment level beyond which you are unsafe to drive, do you ban everyone who wears glasses which corrects their individual impairment?
That is impractical, as is monitoring Depression patients because the condition changes constantly for a lot of people.
That would be impossible to monitor and implement because like a lot of conditions, Depression is vastly variable in terms of its effects.
A parallel would be sight - because there is a visual impairment level beyond which you are unsafe to drive, do you ban everyone who wears glasses which corrects their individual impairment?
That is impractical, as is monitoring Depression patients because the condition changes constantly for a lot of people.
-- answer removed --
andy - I don't understand your parallel with eyesight. With eyesight the onus is on you to meet the requirements, wearing specs/lenses as appropriate. If your eyesight cannot be corrected sufficiently to meet the requirements you must not drive. There are lots of other health conditions which also must be declared with the possibility of having your licence withdrawn; if depression can cause you to be unsafe to drive why shouldn't it be declarable?
Thanks for the link, Mamy.
I wonder if the Standard has it right. There seems to have been little physically wrong with him as he was seen arguing with police officers and resisting their efforts to get him into their car. I have read three other newspaper reports of the incident as well as the BBC’s offering (not that this should be any more reliable) and none mentions him being carted off to hospital.
I wonder if the Standard has it right. There seems to have been little physically wrong with him as he was seen arguing with police officers and resisting their efforts to get him into their car. I have read three other newspaper reports of the incident as well as the BBC’s offering (not that this should be any more reliable) and none mentions him being carted off to hospital.
Andy, being someone who has first hand knowledge of depression in family members myself please try not to be so patronising. Clearly as many have pointed out the law does not recognise depression as a declarable illness regarding fitness to drive, the reason being that although depression is indeed a terrible and very serious illness it does not take away one personal culpability, and THAT was my point. Self destructive behaviour is entirely different to willfully deciding you are above the law both of the land of common decency.
Very Very stupid man.He has had problems but we all get them.He has the money to get the help needed.He should just get a driver.Cannot understand how he got into this situation when his mum was with him.Or is she as bad.Does he realise he is also impacting on his pals career .Dec is affected by all his actions.He needs to get himself sorted nobody else can do it for him.Many people would love to have his money life etc.
-- answer removed --
spath - if you've been diagnosed with depression I would assume that your doctor should tell you whether or not you should give up driving; it is then up to you to "cough" to the DVLA. Because of patient confidentiality the doctor cannot tell the DVLA.
As an aside, the last time I had my eyes tested the optician (quite young) was telling me she'd tested someones eyes and told her she needed glasses. The woman said she didn't want them or lenses and proceeded to pick up her car keys and head for the door. The optician stopped her and said, politely, that she really shouldn't drive with her eyes in that condition which resulted in the optician being reported to the branch manager for being rude. There was nothing the optician could do to stop her driving even though she would be dangerous.
As an aside, the last time I had my eyes tested the optician (quite young) was telling me she'd tested someones eyes and told her she needed glasses. The woman said she didn't want them or lenses and proceeded to pick up her car keys and head for the door. The optician stopped her and said, politely, that she really shouldn't drive with her eyes in that condition which resulted in the optician being reported to the branch manager for being rude. There was nothing the optician could do to stop her driving even though she would be dangerous.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.