I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
The breathalyser on the side of the road doesn’t give any reading except over/ under the limit, the breathalyser at the station does. Blood/urine are only used if you fail to give a breath reading at the station
I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
Fair enough, I had in my head that it used to be 50.
20 months ban is higher than normal for that reading in breath. The fine appears high but relative to his weekly income is less than normal. Custody is very rare for a first offence of drink driving.
I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
The breathalyser on the side of the road doesn’t give any reading except over/ under the limit, the breathalyser at the station does. Blood/urine are only used if you fail to give a breath reading at the station
No, you only get charged on blood level. Yes you take another breathalyzer on the big machine at the station and if you fail that then you have a blood test. Believe me I've been there.
20 months ban is higher than normal for that reading in breath. The fine appears high but relative to his weekly income is less than normal. Custody is very rare for a first offence of drink driving.
But we don't know what his breath result was! Only his blood level was read out in court.
I don’t think 2 times the blood alcohol level means he only had 4 pints though. I think it means he’d had a lot more than that.
2 pints over the limit 4 pints twice over the limit Seems right to me
Absolute rubbish. Everybody is different. Every circumstance is different. Readings are affected by many things and there is no uniform rule for how much alcohol you have consumed to what your reading will be.
20 months ban is higher than normal for that reading in breath. The fine appears high but relative to his weekly income is less than normal. Custody is very rare for a first offence of drink driving.
But we don't know what his breath result was! Only his blood level was read out in court.
I don’t think 2 times the blood alcohol level means he only had 4 pints though. I think it means he’d had a lot more than that.
2 pints over the limit 4 pints twice over the limit Seems right to me
Absolute rubbish. Everybody is different. Every circumstance is different. Readings are affected by many things and there is no uniform rule for how much alcohol you have consumed to what your reading will be.
Spot on.
My mate's brother-in-law was a traffic copper and he stopped by at a party we were at one Saturday night and he tested a group of us on their kit - I was absolutely amazed by the results.
In the group of us - who had all been drinking pretty much the same amount of time - the results were really varied with some people well over the .05 limit and others still below it even though they thought they'd have been over given they'd been drinking for 2-3 hours.
I don’t think 2 times the blood alcohol level means he only had 4 pints though. I think it means he’d had a lot more than that.
2 pints over the limit 4 pints twice over the limit Seems right to me
Absolute rubbish. Everybody is different. Every circumstance is different. Readings are affected by many things and there is no uniform rule for how much alcohol you have consumed to what your reading will be.
Spot on.
My mate's brother-in-law was a traffic copper and he stopped by at a party we were at one Saturday night and he tested a group of us on their kit - I was absolutely amazed by the results.
In the group of us - who had all been drinking pretty much the same amount of time - the results were really varied with some people well over the .05 limit and others still below it even though they thought they'd have been over given they'd been drinking for 2-3 hours.
It’s all about metabolism, weight, if you have eaten, and your regular drinking habits, if I took a mate of mine who doesn’t drink much at all to a home game where your drinking from 12-1pm, at the game and after, then he would be smashed by kick off, I probably wouldn’t start feeling the affects until after the game, so, due to Ants alleged regular drinking habits, he must have been hitting it pretty hard that day/morning
I don’t think 2 times the blood alcohol level means he only had 4 pints though. I think it means he’d had a lot more than that.
2 pints over the limit 4 pints twice over the limit Seems right to me
Absolute rubbish. Everybody is different. Every circumstance is different. Readings are affected by many things and there is no uniform rule for how much alcohol you have consumed to what your reading will be.
Spot on.
My mate's brother-in-law was a traffic copper and he stopped by at a party we were at one Saturday night and he tested a group of us on their kit - I was absolutely amazed by the results.
In the group of us - who had all been drinking pretty much the same amount of time - the results were really varied with some people well over the .05 limit and others still below it even though they thought they'd have been over given they'd been drinking for 2-3 hours.
When I was a young lad a lad I knew was breathalyzed after drinking 5-6 pints and was still under the limit (other lads in the car confirmed this). Personally don't touch a drop when driving....probably why we only do a fairly low mileage annually.
Apparently earns £150,000 a week so the fine is meaningless yes.
It's not the fine It's the fact that he's banned for such a short period of time and that a more severe sentence wasn't available.
Driving offences are not taken seriously it seems?
I'm really sick to death of him and his lawyer bleating on about his problems. Nobody forced him to drive while over the limit and he had no reason to do so. I wonder how long he'd been doing this?
If he'd killed someone I'm sure even then the focus would have been on his problems.
magistrate court can give up to 6 months inside or refer it to crown if they think longer is warranted.
could have given him a longer ban an community service on top of his fine if they had wanted to.
The fine is meaningless so why on earth didn't he get a meaningful sentence? It does suggest that driving offences aren't taken seriously and that possibly his celebrity status got him special treatment?
It would have really sent out a strong message re drink driving if he'd gone to jail. I imagine he'll soon be back on our screens doing his dated 'cheeky chappy' act.
I have sympathy for people with mental health problems but you can't use this as an excuse to drink drive and endanger others. He's not a gormless teenager....
Our law is not really designed to "send out a strong message" even of someone is in the public domain. The central principle is that the law treats people equally. The Magistrate will have followed the sentencing guidelines as laid down. They are bound to do that too.
He was well over the limit and driving dangerously and caused an accident - regardless of who he is I would have hoped for a higher sentence if available. What would he have to have done to merit it?
The sentence is unduly lenient whatever the reason is. Treating people equally and leniently over driving offences is not a winning argument.
As a comparison, last year Roberto Firmino was fined 20k and banned from driving for a year. He was found to have 46 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
Yaya Toure got a 54k fine and an 18 month ban for 75mccg of alcohol.
McPartlin got 86k and a 20 month ban for 75mcg.
Based on that the fine/ban for McPartlin seems ok, although Toure and Firmino didn't actually crash their car.
Apparently earns £150,000 a week so the fine is meaningless yes.
It's not the fine It's the fact that he's banned for such a short period of time and that a more severe sentence wasn't available.
Driving offences are not taken seriously it seems?
I'm really sick to death of him and his lawyer bleating on about his problems. Nobody forced him to drive while over the limit and he had no reason to do so. I wonder how long he'd been doing this?
If he'd killed someone I'm sure even then the focus would have been on his problems.
magistrate court can give up to 6 months inside or refer it to crown if they think longer is warranted.
could have given him a longer ban an community service on top of his fine if they had wanted to.
The fine is meaningless so why on earth didn't he get a meaningful sentence? It does suggest that driving offences aren't taken seriously and that possibly his celebrity status got him special treatment?
It would have really sent out a strong message re drink driving if he'd gone to jail. I imagine he'll soon be back on our screens doing his dated 'cheeky chappy' act.
I have sympathy for people with mental health problems but you can't use this as an excuse to drink drive and endanger others. He's not a gormless teenager....
Our law is not really designed to "send out a strong message" even of someone is in the public domain. The central principle is that the law treats people equally. The Magistrate will have followed the sentencing guidelines as laid down. They are bound to do that too.
He was well over the limit and driving dangerously and caused an accident - regardless of who he is I would have hoped for a higher sentence if available. What would he have to have done to merit it?
The sentence is unduly lenient whatever the reason is. Treating people equally and leniently over driving offences is not a winning argument.
I have no sympathy for him or anyone else who breaks our laws and puts others at risk but I can’t agree with your reasoning that it was lenient. He got exactly what he should of from the court and he has also been publicly shamed to an extent that very few are. He’s on all the front pages of newspapers, top news on the telly and I would think he’s been further shamed on social media. Hopefully his behaviour has highlighted the problem of drink drivers and maybe it will change a few people’s attitudes, although I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.
The British drink driving limit is pretty lenient too!
different in Scotland
What are the Drink Drive limits in Scotland? As of 5th December 2014 the drink driving limits in Scotland have been reduced. Before the change if a person was breathalysed the limit was 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath – that figure has now been reduced to 22 micrograms per 100 ml. Blood samples are sometimes taken instead of breath and for such readings the limit was 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – that figure has now been reduced to 50 milligrams per 100 ml.
I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
The breathalyser on the side of the road doesn’t give any reading except over/ under the limit, the breathalyser at the station does. Blood/urine are only used if you fail to give a breath reading at the station
That's incorrect the breathaliser does give a reading at the side of the road. I have been breathalised and talked through the numbers despite getting a 0.0 reading.
I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
The breathalyser on the side of the road doesn’t give any reading except over/ under the limit, the breathalyser at the station does. Blood/urine are only used if you fail to give a breath reading at the station
No, you only get charged on blood level. Yes you take another breathalyzer on the big machine at the station and if you fail that then you have a blood test. Believe me I've been there.
And passed.
Incorrect. There must have been some particular reason you had a blood test. In London if you have a reading just over the limit you get the option of having a blood sample as well. Other forces don’t give you the option they just charge you. Blood is also taken if there is a problem with the machine or someone can’t do the breathalyser. There is absolutely no requirement for a blood sample to be used. Indeed using a blood sample for drink drive is the exception not the rule.
I wonder what Tony Adams thinks of the sentence...
Adams was more than FOUR times the limit though, so more than double what Ant was.
And back then the limit was higher I believe!
No it wasn't. It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
The breathalyser on the side of the road doesn’t give any reading except over/ under the limit, the breathalyser at the station does. Blood/urine are only used if you fail to give a breath reading at the station
Blood or urine is only used if you are UNABLE to use the breathalyser for a valid reason. If you FAIL to then it’s just a straight charge for failing to provide. The Police do not have to take blood/urine instead.
Apparently earns £150,000 a week so the fine is meaningless yes.
It's not the fine It's the fact that he's banned for such a short period of time and that a more severe sentence wasn't available.
Driving offences are not taken seriously it seems?
I'm really sick to death of him and his lawyer bleating on about his problems. Nobody forced him to drive while over the limit and he had no reason to do so. I wonder how long he'd been doing this?
If he'd killed someone I'm sure even then the focus would have been on his problems.
magistrate court can give up to 6 months inside or refer it to crown if they think longer is warranted.
could have given him a longer ban an community service on top of his fine if they had wanted to.
The fine is meaningless so why on earth didn't he get a meaningful sentence? It does suggest that driving offences aren't taken seriously and that possibly his celebrity status got him special treatment?
It would have really sent out a strong message re drink driving if he'd gone to jail. I imagine he'll soon be back on our screens doing his dated 'cheeky chappy' act.
I have sympathy for people with mental health problems but you can't use this as an excuse to drink drive and endanger others. He's not a gormless teenager....
Our law is not really designed to "send out a strong message" even of someone is in the public domain. The central principle is that the law treats people equally. The Magistrate will have followed the sentencing guidelines as laid down. They are bound to do that too.
He was well over the limit and driving dangerously and caused an accident - regardless of who he is I would have hoped for a higher sentence if available. What would he have to have done to merit it?
The sentence is unduly lenient whatever the reason is. Treating people equally and leniently over driving offences is not a winning argument.
The sentencing guidelines are here via this link. The magistrate must ( as I understand it ) operate within the guidelines. IE The Law. Its not an unreasonable argument to believe that sentences for DD are unduly lenient though the idea that all offences should lead to a custodial sentence to me seem somewhat harsh. The judge or magistrate has the power and indeed under some circumstances must impose a custodial sentence if the circumstances demand it. In the case of AP, his offence, the detailed circumstances were beneath the threshold for a custodial sentence.
2. There are more then enough people on the road. If you drink, drive and crash your car, you should have your license taken away and completely abolished. Good bye, f*ck off.
3. Point number 2 would be a good proven lesson to anyone else that wants to break the law in such a dangerous selfish negligent way.
Forgetting about the readings, we saw the disturbing video footage of him getting out of his car. He was rat-arsed! He could have killed somebody! I suppose the biggest damage to him hasn't been imposed on him by the courts. There will of course be an attempt to resurrect his career but it remains to be seen if the jobs dry up now or not!
Apparently earns £150,000 a week so the fine is meaningless yes.
It's not the fine It's the fact that he's banned for such a short period of time and that a more severe sentence wasn't available.
Driving offences are not taken seriously it seems?
I'm really sick to death of him and his lawyer bleating on about his problems. Nobody forced him to drive while over the limit and he had no reason to do so. I wonder how long he'd been doing this?
If he'd killed someone I'm sure even then the focus would have been on his problems.
magistrate court can give up to 6 months inside or refer it to crown if they think longer is warranted.
could have given him a longer ban an community service on top of his fine if they had wanted to.
The fine is meaningless so why on earth didn't he get a meaningful sentence? It does suggest that driving offences aren't taken seriously and that possibly his celebrity status got him special treatment?
It would have really sent out a strong message re drink driving if he'd gone to jail. I imagine he'll soon be back on our screens doing his dated 'cheeky chappy' act.
I have sympathy for people with mental health problems but you can't use this as an excuse to drink drive and endanger others. He's not a gormless teenager....
Our law is not really designed to "send out a strong message" even of someone is in the public domain. The central principle is that the law treats people equally. The Magistrate will have followed the sentencing guidelines as laid down. They are bound to do that too.
He was well over the limit and driving dangerously and caused an accident - regardless of who he is I would have hoped for a higher sentence if available. What would he have to have done to merit it?
The sentence is unduly lenient whatever the reason is. Treating people equally and leniently over driving offences is not a winning argument.
The sentencing guidelines are here via this link. The magistrate must ( as I understand it ) operate within the guidelines. IE The Law. Its not an unreasonable argument to believe that sentences for DD are unduly lenient though the idea that all offences should lead to a custodial sentence to me seem somewhat harsh. The judge or magistrate has the power and indeed under some circumstances must impose a custodial sentence if the circumstances demand it. In the case of AP, his offence, the detailed circumstances were beneath the threshold for a custodial sentence.
It wasn't just a case of drink driving as he was also driving dangerously and his sentence seems very lenient. He could easily have killed someone - he knew he was over the limit and on top of that drove dangerously. I doubt it was the first time he'd done this.
Driving offences don't seem to be taken seriously in this country - they're not policed effectively and offenders are rarely caught. If McPartlin hasn't crashed he'd still think it was okay to drive recklessly when drunk.
Community service would surely be the best option as it would at least enable the offender to give something back to the community.
The legal system as a whole fails to deal effectively with driving offences.
Rooney was 3 times over the limit and judge didn't impose a fine He was banned for 2 years and made to do 120 hours of unpaid community service. It seems community service is down to the judge unless this has changed since last year
Apparently earns £150,000 a week so the fine is meaningless yes.
It's not the fine It's the fact that he's banned for such a short period of time and that a more severe sentence wasn't available.
Driving offences are not taken seriously it seems?
I'm really sick to death of him and his lawyer bleating on about his problems. Nobody forced him to drive while over the limit and he had no reason to do so. I wonder how long he'd been doing this?
If he'd killed someone I'm sure even then the focus would have been on his problems.
magistrate court can give up to 6 months inside or refer it to crown if they think longer is warranted.
could have given him a longer ban an community service on top of his fine if they had wanted to.
The fine is meaningless so why on earth didn't he get a meaningful sentence? It does suggest that driving offences aren't taken seriously and that possibly his celebrity status got him special treatment?
It would have really sent out a strong message re drink driving if he'd gone to jail. I imagine he'll soon be back on our screens doing his dated 'cheeky chappy' act.
I have sympathy for people with mental health problems but you can't use this as an excuse to drink drive and endanger others. He's not a gormless teenager....
Our law is not really designed to "send out a strong message" even of someone is in the public domain. The central principle is that the law treats people equally. The Magistrate will have followed the sentencing guidelines as laid down. They are bound to do that too.
He was well over the limit and driving dangerously and caused an accident - regardless of who he is I would have hoped for a higher sentence if available. What would he have to have done to merit it?
The sentence is unduly lenient whatever the reason is. Treating people equally and leniently over driving offences is not a winning argument.
The sentencing guidelines are here via this link. The magistrate must ( as I understand it ) operate within the guidelines. IE The Law. Its not an unreasonable argument to believe that sentences for DD are unduly lenient though the idea that all offences should lead to a custodial sentence to me seem somewhat harsh. The judge or magistrate has the power and indeed under some circumstances must impose a custodial sentence if the circumstances demand it. In the case of AP, his offence, the detailed circumstances were beneath the threshold for a custodial sentence.
It wasn't just a case of drink driving as he was also driving dangerously and his sentence seems very lenient. He could easily have killed someone - he knew he was over the limit and on top of that drove dangerously. I doubt it was the first time he'd done this.
Driving offences don't seem to be taken seriously in this country - they're not policed effectively and offenders are rarely caught. If McPartlin hasn't crashed he'd still think it was okay to drive recklessly when drunk.
Community service would surely be the best option as it would at least enable the offender to give something back to the community.
The legal system as a whole fails to deal effectively with driving offences.
Without wishing to be a pedant - I assume that on the balance of the evidence the police decided that there was not a "dangerous driving" element to the offence otherwise they would have charged him with it. It may seem puzzling that a crash whilst driving with excess alcohol might not yield a charge of dangerous driving but I guess its conceivable that one might be involved in an accident that is not ones fault whilst driving over the limit. I know this likely is not the case in the AP scenario but nonetheless the principle still holds.
Comments
It has never changed since it was introduced. Ant's published reading in court was his blood level at over 2 times the limit. His breath sample would have been considerably higher than 2 times but his people have cleverley kept that out of the news. You get arrested on your breathalyzer reading but only charged on your blood (or urine) level.
4 pints twice over the limit
Seems right to me
And passed.
Everybody is different. Every circumstance is different. Readings are affected by many things and there is no uniform rule for how much alcohol you have consumed to what your reading will be.
My mate's brother-in-law was a traffic copper and he stopped by at a party we were at one Saturday night and he tested a group of us on their kit - I was absolutely amazed by the results.
In the group of us - who had all been drinking pretty much the same amount of time - the results were really varied with some people well over the .05 limit and others still below it even though they thought they'd have been over given they'd been drinking for 2-3 hours.
The sentence is unduly lenient whatever the reason is. Treating people equally and leniently over driving offences is not a winning argument.
Yaya Toure got a 54k fine and an 18 month ban for 75mccg of alcohol.
McPartlin got 86k and a 20 month ban for 75mcg.
Based on that the fine/ban for McPartlin seems ok, although Toure and Firmino didn't actually crash their car.
Hopefully his behaviour has highlighted the problem of drink drivers and maybe it will change a few people’s attitudes, although I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.
What are the Drink Drive limits in Scotland?
As of 5th December 2014 the drink driving limits in Scotland have been reduced. Before the change if a person was breathalysed the limit was 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath – that figure has now been reduced to 22 micrograms per 100 ml. Blood samples are sometimes taken instead of breath and for such readings the limit was 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – that figure has now been reduced to 50 milligrams per 100 ml.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
2. There are more then enough people on the road. If you drink, drive and crash your car, you should have your license taken away and completely abolished. Good bye, f*ck off.
3. Point number 2 would be a good proven lesson to anyone else that wants to break the law in such a dangerous selfish negligent way.
Driving offences don't seem to be taken seriously in this country - they're not policed effectively and offenders are rarely caught. If McPartlin hasn't crashed he'd still think it was okay to drive recklessly when drunk.
Community service would surely be the best option as it would at least enable the offender to give something back to the community.
The legal system as a whole fails to deal effectively with driving offences.