Quote from: Evil Genius on July 07, 2011, 02:51:36 PM
Quote from: AQMP on July 07, 2011, 02:48:46 PMApostrophe Police!!!...
Don't you mean "Apostacy Police"? ;)
Boom Boom...or
Aaaaaaaaaaah f**k, it's the police!
I would love to know what the 'special reasons' were for not imposing the mandatory 12 months disqualification. 4 times over the limit would get your average joe 18 months disqualification on a first time offence. Bloody joke >:(
used to be our pp a fair few years back; a "character" to say the least, and ive little doubt i know about 1% of the stories!
Probably blessed too much altar wine and had to drink it all or he would burn in hell for all eternity!!
Priests above the law - what a shock!
There is probably no upper limit on drink driving in canon law so its ok for authorities to turn a blind eye.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on July 07, 2011, 03:00:07 PM
I would love to know what the 'special reasons' were for not imposing the mandatory 12 months disqualification. 4 times over the limit would get your average joe 18 months disqualification on a first time offence. Bloody joke >:(
I'd guess they'd no proof of him driving?
He pleaded guilty, though.
Quote from: Hardy on July 07, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
He pleaded guilty, though.
Did he though? From what I'm reading he pleaded guilty to 'being in charge under the influence' not "driving under the influence". One carries a mandatory ban the other doesn't.
OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.
Priest's are above the law!
Next thread from mournerambler;
"Bears s**t in the Woods!" ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJYHD3gjXo
(http://images.45cat.com/judas-priest-breaking-the-law-cbs.jpg)
"You Don't know what its Liiiiiiiiiiike!!!"
*Does 'Breaking the Law' on Air Guitar like Beavis and Butthead!*
Quote from: ExcellentDriver on July 07, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Priest's are above the law!
Next thread from mournerambler;
"Bears s**t in the Woods!" ;)
Hilarious, you should be on the stage.
Not an unusual sentence for the offence and as I have said before I always take BBC reports on cases with a pinch of salt.
Quote from: ExcellentDriver on July 07, 2011, 06:16:34 PM
*Does 'Breaking the Law' on Air Guitar like Beavis and Butthead!*
Classic - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad1Umj6hxMw
or even this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhtgGGpVqDc
I blame God.
Quote from: q ;)uit yo jibbajabba on July 07, 2011, 03:05:10 PM
used to be our pp a fair few years back; a "character" to say the least, and ive little doubt i know about 1% of the stories!
Is he from Donegal originally? If so I know him also, I was on a pub about twenty years ago (after hours) when the guards raided the pub, I was sitting beside the priest, we were the only ones not to get our names taken.
Father McGuinness, henceforth known as Skullin' McGuinness, or some such. :)
Quote from: FL/MAYO on July 07, 2011, 07:36:20 PM
Quote from: q ;)uit yo jibbajabba on July 07, 2011, 03:05:10 PM
used to be our pp a fair few years back; a "character" to say the least, and ive little doubt i know about 1% of the stories!
Is he from Donegal originally? If so I know him also, I was on a pub about twenty years ago (after hours) when the guards raided the pub, I was sitting beside the priest, we were the only ones not to get our names taken.
Yes
How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?
Quote from: Main Street on July 08, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?
MS you are assuming that he was alone in the car.
Quote from: Hardy on July 07, 2011, 05:08:34 PM
OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.
It appears that there is two different levels of charge:
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php)
and while the "being charge" is a lesser offence it is supposed to have a mandatory traffic ban.
Quote from: Main Street on July 08, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?
I would guess that unless the prosecution had a witness to the crash and roundabout incident they would only go for how he was found (ie in charge of the vehicle). There is a heavy burden of proof in these cases so there only has to be a
possibility (not likelihood) that the accident happened without his involvement for the charges to fall through.
A lucky lad all the same.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 08, 2011, 11:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hardy on July 07, 2011, 05:08:34 PM
OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.
It appears that there is two different levels of charge:
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php)
and while the "being charge" is a lesser offence it is supposed to have a mandatory traffic ban.Quote from: Main Street on July 08, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?
I would guess that unless the prosecution had a witness to the crash and roundabout incident they would only go for how he was found (ie in charge of the vehicle). There is a heavy burden of proof in these cases so there only has to be a possibility (not likelihood) that the accident happened without his involvement for the charges to fall through.
A lucky lad all the same.
/Jim.
You see it actually doesn't have a mandatory disqualification. I was wrong in my initial posting as I had read it as he was caught drink driving which does have a mandatory one. I would say though that with the level of alcohol in his blood that a ban should have been imposed and it sends out the completely wrong message to people. He crashed his car into a roundabout and was a serious risk to others at that level of drunkeness. Coupled with the fact he was only fined £300 I think it stinks.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on July 08, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 08, 2011, 11:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hardy on July 07, 2011, 05:08:34 PM
OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.
It appears that there is two different levels of charge:
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php)
and while the "being charge" is a lesser offence it is supposed to have a mandatory traffic ban.Quote from: Main Street on July 08, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?
I would guess that unless the prosecution had a witness to the crash and roundabout incident they would only go for how he was found (ie in charge of the vehicle). There is a heavy burden of proof in these cases so there only has to be a possibility (not likelihood) that the accident happened without his involvement for the charges to fall through.
A lucky lad all the same.
/Jim.
You see it actually doesn't have a mandatory disqualification. I was wrong in my initial posting as I had read it as he was caught drink driving which does have a mandatory one. I would say though that with the level of alcohol in his blood that a ban should have been imposed and it sends out the completely wrong message to people. He crashed his car into a roundabout and was a serious risk to others at that level of drunkeness. Coupled with the fact he was only fined £300 I think it stinks.
Looking at that link :
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php)
I read it as :
QuoteObligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.
even for being in charge.
/Jim.
Drunk in charge simply does not have a mandatory driving ban. The imposition of 10 penalty points is a relatively common disposal for a first time offender of good character.
BCB you say that he "crashed his car into a roundabout" but this clearly hasn't been proven. If it had been, he would have been banned from driving, possibly for more than a year.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 08, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Looking at that link :
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php)
I read it as :
QuoteObligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.
even for being in charge.
/Jim.
Jim, from the link, I'm reading the ban for drunk in charge as 'discretionary':
In charge while unfit, 3 months, £5,000,
Discretionary, 10, DR50 (drink), DR90 (drugs)
Quote from: Ulick on July 08, 2011, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 08, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Looking at that link :
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php)
I read it as :
QuoteObligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.
even for being in charge.
/Jim.
Jim, from the link, I'm reading the ban for drunk in charge as 'discretionary':
In charge while unfit, 3 months, £5,000, Discretionary, 10, DR50 (drink), DR90 (drugs)
On the main page it reads as such but when you click the link it uses the term Obligatory which confused me.
I still maintain he's a lucky chap given the circumstancial evidence. I don't know how things are in up there but down south a collar would still be regarded as an asset in such a situation......
/Jim
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 08, 2011, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: Ulick on July 08, 2011, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 08, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Looking at that link :
http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php)
I read it as :
QuoteObligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.
even for being in charge.
/Jim.
Jim, from the link, I'm reading the ban for drunk in charge as 'discretionary':
In charge while unfit, 3 months, £5,000, Discretionary, 10, DR50 (drink), DR90 (drugs)
On the main page it reads as such but when you click the link it uses the term Obligatory which confused me.
I still maintain he's a lucky chap given the circumstancial evidence. I don't know how things are in up there but down south a collar would still be regarded as an asset in such a situation......
/Jim
Don't think a "collar" would work in his favour up here Jim ;)
Quote from: Main Street on July 08, 2011, 11:38:02 AMHow did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?
Have I got this right?
A car, belonging to the Priest, was found crashed at a roundabout. The Priest was in attendance at the scene, and when breathylised, he was found to be four times over the limit.
I imagine the Peelers' first question was: "What's happened here, Father?" We must assume that had someone else been driving, but left the scene, the Priest would have been honour-bound, eager even, to say so, and it would have been recorded in Court. But since that was not reported, it seems unlikely.
Therefore the cops' next question will likely have been: "Were you driving the car, Father?". And since he was not charged with Drunk Driving, he must either have replied: "No", or declined to answer the question.
Either way, he was hardly discharging his civic duty in a manner befitting a 'man of the cloth'.
sc**bag. >:(