HenrysCat (U3608)
I don't believe that but even so, fine by me.
It'd be fine with you for the country to grind to a halt? Weird.
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fine with punishing everyone who is guilty.
The country grinding to a halt is just a nonsense comment with no credible basis.
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Ledders' knee surgeon - Football Manager Icon. (U20121)
posted 3 minutes ago
If that's the maximum punishment then it's not the judges fault it's the laws itself. Drink-driving is a serious offence but he shouldn't be punished more severely because he's a footballer. Doesn't matter if he's loaded or not, anyone who can afford to drink can also afford to get a cab, über, tube, train or bus.
Wonder if they'll give Kirsty Gallacher this story at all on sky sports news today
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He definitely hasn't had the maximum sentence for his offense. He apparently can't be sent to jail. However he certainly could have been punished alot harder than he was.
Being rich AND famous gives you more choices so by definition more reason not to commit the crime. That in turn makes you more culpable than the person who had their choices more limited by not being able to finance an abundance of other options.
If some guy stole a tenner off you and you chased him to his house, where you found him and his family starving due to hideous poverty. I am pretty sure you would react very differently compared to catching a thief who stole your tenner and you chased him home to find a plush house with a full fridge and a stack of his own tenner on his coffee table.
Why would you react differently? Because the second thief didn't even need your money. Just took it to be aDifferent crime but same principle. Throw the book at em all IMO. And the rich and famous should get this particular book thrown at them harder than anyone "normally" poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't react any differently whether someone rich or poor stole from me. I've worked to earn my money to pay for what I've got, I'm not going to be more forgiving or slightly less displeased about who stole it depending on their financial situation.
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 7 minutes ago
Pep
Are you advocating (which appears to be the case) legal rights should be taken away from someone due to their wealth? What would (in your opinion) the total net worth cut off point?
Or should rights be determined by celebrity status, and/or a combination of their wealth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just that their wealth be a circumstance taken into account where it could have been a preventing factor. In this case Rooney has committed a worse crime due to having so many more choices.
The poor drunk 50 miles from home with no money has 2 choices, sleep in the car in the middle of nowhere. Or risk driving. Though he's guilty too, his crime is not as bad as the stinking rich man who had 58 choices to his 3 and ignored each one to get in the car.
With this particular crime yes, anyone rich enough to pay for a taxi to anywhere on earth...dude ya DAM RIGHT they should get a heavier sentence than someone who couldn't afford a bus 10 miles. That isn't taking away their legal rights at all it's just holding them accountable for each extra choice they dismissed to get into that motor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the majority of the general public would receive a lesser punishment than the rich.
And you think this would dissuade people from drink driving?
For info sentencing guidelines:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
if he was black or played for Arsenal he'd been in jail...fact
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what if he was black AND played for Arsenal
____________________________________________
death pen
comment by IanWrightWrightWright (U12750)
posted 3 minutes ago
if he was black or played for Arsenal he'd been in jail...fact
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what if he was black AND played for Arsenal
____________________________________________
death pen
--------------
I thought you only get to sudden death if you are level after five penalties.
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Same goes for celebrities.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 7 minutes ago
Pep
Are you advocating (which appears to be the case) legal rights should be taken away from someone due to their wealth? What would (in your opinion) the total net worth cut off point?
Or should rights be determined by celebrity status, and/or a combination of their wealth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just that their wealth be a circumstance taken into account where it could have been a preventing factor. In this case Rooney has committed a worse crime due to having so many more choices.
The poor drunk 50 miles from home with no money has 2 choices, sleep in the car in the middle of nowhere. Or risk driving. Though he's guilty too, his crime is not as bad as the stinking rich man who had 58 choices to his 3 and ignored each one to get in the car.
With this particular crime yes, anyone rich enough to pay for a taxi to anywhere on earth...dude ya DAM RIGHT they should get a heavier sentence than someone who couldn't afford a bus 10 miles. That isn't taking away their legal rights at all it's just holding them accountable for each extra choice they dismissed to get into that motor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the majority of the general public would receive a lesser punishment than the rich.
And you think this would dissuade people from drink driving?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes if the lowest sentence of all is still a doozy of a deterrent.
I don't understand why you think somebody who has 50 reasons not to commit a crime should get the same sentence as somebody with only 1 or 2 reasons. 48 extra options is an awful lot of incentive to not commit the crime. And 48 incentives not afforded to the poor man.
Circumstance surrounding the crime in some cases can be the difference between walking out of court a free man and doing life in jail. The what, when, how, why's and wherefores behind a crime all serve to dictate the degree of crime you're charged with/sentenced for. And it's those which are the decisive factors in sentencing.
Why should financial resource be exempt where it is directly linked to the circumstances of the crime question, when everything else directly linked IS taken into account?
comment by Sunglasses Ron (U16263)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Same goes for celebrities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop disregarding the lives ruined by s who do this and the fact that Rooney could have bought his way out of his situation with ease.
Options and circumstances are direct factors in degree of guilt. That's a fact. One many of you disturbly want to ignore...for this crime.
The saddest thing here is that there isn't one of you currently defending Rooney's bull shlt sentence, who would be singing the same song if your lives had been shattered by some who just "don't give a feck" same as him
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fine with punishing everyone who is guilty.
The country grinding to a halt is just a nonsense comment with no credible basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think there are thousands of people driving whilst over the legal limit, across the country, every single day? What would you imagine would be the impact on the economy if all of those people had either their keys, or their liberty taken away?
HenrysCat (U3608)
Thousands? Maybe. There are millions of drivers, though.
And your simplistic view on life is flawed, because the minute there is a zero tolerance approach, other people stop offending generally.
'their liberty taken away'
Are you trolling?
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sunglasses Ron (U16263)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Same goes for celebrities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop disregarding the lives ruined bys who do this and the fact that Rooney could have bought his way out of his situation with ease.
Options and circumstances are direct factors in degree of guilt. That's a fact. One many of you disturbly want to ignore...for this crime.
The saddest thing here is that there isn't one of you currently defending Rooney's bull shlt sentence, who would be singing the same song if your lives had been shattered by somewho just "don't give a feck" same as him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure no one on this thread is defending Rooney, nor his actions, or indeed the sentence he received.
What most have been defending is that the law *has* to be applied equally.
Stop repeating what has been said spoken or written countless times.
If you are really serious about the courts having the power to dish out appropriate sentences, then petition The Lord Chancellor,The Police, your Local M.P. and any other Bodies who yuou consider have the strength and the power to bring about change. There is no need to go on any more about it on here.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Thousands? Maybe. There are millions of drivers, though.
And your simplistic view on life is flawed, because the minute there is a zero tolerance approach, other people stop offending generally.
'their liberty taken away'
Are you trolling?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really need to read all the words in posts before you start taking the p-ss so much.
The whole point of my original comment was to point out that if everyone who COULD get done was done, and was treated in the way people seem to want Mr Rooney treated we'd be in trouble.
The fact is, most drink drivers are persistent offenders who rely on just never getting caught.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
HenrysCat (U3608)
I know what your point was, and it's nonsense.
Because if there were some magical way of identifying every single person who was guilty, then the zero tolerance issue would virtually eradicate the problem.
The issue exists because enforcement is low and punishment is limited. Same as mobile phone use.
So, you basically agree with me but are just be a about it then. Fine.
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when determining guilt a person’s financial status therefore becomes a factor.
Whether Rooney has or hasn’t money (in this instance to pay for a taxi) is a complete irrelevance.
HenrysCat (U3608)
Unlike you, I have common sense, so didn't feel the need for a ridiculous comment about the country grinding to a halt.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fine with punishing everyone who is guilty.
The country grinding to a halt is just a nonsense comment with no credible basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think there are thousands of people driving whilst over the legal limit, across the country, every single day? What would you imagine would be the impact on the economy if all of those people had either their keys, or their liberty taken away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well pretty dam good after the first 100 highly publicised s were seen to be utterly hammered by the courts for doing it. Since the fear of a hardass sentence would drastically reduce that every single day number you speak of. A bit like seeing people in tv getting 15 to life deters the vast majority of us from committing murder.
Why on earth do you think the ridiculously high numbers would stay as high if everyone doing it knew getting caught would utterly ruin them? The number is only so high because the severity of the punishment is so low.
Oh and the resulting drop in people driving over the limit, according to your rhetoric would also be a drop in people turning up at work under the influence.
Taking the liberty of 100 drivers who never gave a feck about whose life THEY might ruin. To get 60-80% of drink drivers off the road AND an added "Sober workers" economy boost. I can live with that. In comparison to the damage drink drivers do every year. Mate, 100 deadly Selfish s is what I'd call a chump change price to pay.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
Sign in if you want to comment
100 Hours Community Service...
Page 3 of 5
posted on 18/9/17
HenrysCat (U3608)
I don't believe that but even so, fine by me.
posted on 18/9/17
It'd be fine with you for the country to grind to a halt? Weird.
posted on 18/9/17
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fine with punishing everyone who is guilty.
The country grinding to a halt is just a nonsense comment with no credible basis.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Ledders' knee surgeon - Football Manager Icon. (U20121)
posted 3 minutes ago
If that's the maximum punishment then it's not the judges fault it's the laws itself. Drink-driving is a serious offence but he shouldn't be punished more severely because he's a footballer. Doesn't matter if he's loaded or not, anyone who can afford to drink can also afford to get a cab, über, tube, train or bus.
Wonder if they'll give Kirsty Gallacher this story at all on sky sports news today
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He definitely hasn't had the maximum sentence for his offense. He apparently can't be sent to jail. However he certainly could have been punished alot harder than he was.
Being rich AND famous gives you more choices so by definition more reason not to commit the crime. That in turn makes you more culpable than the person who had their choices more limited by not being able to finance an abundance of other options.
If some guy stole a tenner off you and you chased him to his house, where you found him and his family starving due to hideous poverty. I am pretty sure you would react very differently compared to catching a thief who stole your tenner and you chased him home to find a plush house with a full fridge and a stack of his own tenner on his coffee table.
Why would you react differently? Because the second thief didn't even need your money. Just took it to be aDifferent crime but same principle. Throw the book at em all IMO. And the rich and famous should get this particular book thrown at them harder than anyone "normally" poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't react any differently whether someone rich or poor stole from me. I've worked to earn my money to pay for what I've got, I'm not going to be more forgiving or slightly less displeased about who stole it depending on their financial situation.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 7 minutes ago
Pep
Are you advocating (which appears to be the case) legal rights should be taken away from someone due to their wealth? What would (in your opinion) the total net worth cut off point?
Or should rights be determined by celebrity status, and/or a combination of their wealth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just that their wealth be a circumstance taken into account where it could have been a preventing factor. In this case Rooney has committed a worse crime due to having so many more choices.
The poor drunk 50 miles from home with no money has 2 choices, sleep in the car in the middle of nowhere. Or risk driving. Though he's guilty too, his crime is not as bad as the stinking rich man who had 58 choices to his 3 and ignored each one to get in the car.
With this particular crime yes, anyone rich enough to pay for a taxi to anywhere on earth...dude ya DAM RIGHT they should get a heavier sentence than someone who couldn't afford a bus 10 miles. That isn't taking away their legal rights at all it's just holding them accountable for each extra choice they dismissed to get into that motor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the majority of the general public would receive a lesser punishment than the rich.
And you think this would dissuade people from drink driving?
posted on 18/9/17
For info sentencing guidelines:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
posted on 18/9/17
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
posted on 18/9/17
if he was black or played for Arsenal he'd been in jail...fact
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what if he was black AND played for Arsenal
____________________________________________
death pen
posted on 18/9/17
comment by IanWrightWrightWright (U12750)
posted 3 minutes ago
if he was black or played for Arsenal he'd been in jail...fact
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what if he was black AND played for Arsenal
____________________________________________
death pen
--------------
I thought you only get to sudden death if you are level after five penalties.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Same goes for celebrities.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 7 minutes ago
Pep
Are you advocating (which appears to be the case) legal rights should be taken away from someone due to their wealth? What would (in your opinion) the total net worth cut off point?
Or should rights be determined by celebrity status, and/or a combination of their wealth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No just that their wealth be a circumstance taken into account where it could have been a preventing factor. In this case Rooney has committed a worse crime due to having so many more choices.
The poor drunk 50 miles from home with no money has 2 choices, sleep in the car in the middle of nowhere. Or risk driving. Though he's guilty too, his crime is not as bad as the stinking rich man who had 58 choices to his 3 and ignored each one to get in the car.
With this particular crime yes, anyone rich enough to pay for a taxi to anywhere on earth...dude ya DAM RIGHT they should get a heavier sentence than someone who couldn't afford a bus 10 miles. That isn't taking away their legal rights at all it's just holding them accountable for each extra choice they dismissed to get into that motor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the majority of the general public would receive a lesser punishment than the rich.
And you think this would dissuade people from drink driving?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes if the lowest sentence of all is still a doozy of a deterrent.
I don't understand why you think somebody who has 50 reasons not to commit a crime should get the same sentence as somebody with only 1 or 2 reasons. 48 extra options is an awful lot of incentive to not commit the crime. And 48 incentives not afforded to the poor man.
Circumstance surrounding the crime in some cases can be the difference between walking out of court a free man and doing life in jail. The what, when, how, why's and wherefores behind a crime all serve to dictate the degree of crime you're charged with/sentenced for. And it's those which are the decisive factors in sentencing.
Why should financial resource be exempt where it is directly linked to the circumstances of the crime question, when everything else directly linked IS taken into account?
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Sunglasses Ron (U16263)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Same goes for celebrities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop disregarding the lives ruined by s who do this and the fact that Rooney could have bought his way out of his situation with ease.
Options and circumstances are direct factors in degree of guilt. That's a fact. One many of you disturbly want to ignore...for this crime.
The saddest thing here is that there isn't one of you currently defending Rooney's bull shlt sentence, who would be singing the same song if your lives had been shattered by some who just "don't give a feck" same as him
posted on 18/9/17
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fine with punishing everyone who is guilty.
The country grinding to a halt is just a nonsense comment with no credible basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think there are thousands of people driving whilst over the legal limit, across the country, every single day? What would you imagine would be the impact on the economy if all of those people had either their keys, or their liberty taken away?
posted on 18/9/17
HenrysCat (U3608)
Thousands? Maybe. There are millions of drivers, though.
And your simplistic view on life is flawed, because the minute there is a zero tolerance approach, other people stop offending generally.
'their liberty taken away'
Are you trolling?
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sunglasses Ron (U16263)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 13 minutes ago
Stop making footballers your role models, kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Same goes for celebrities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop disregarding the lives ruined bys who do this and the fact that Rooney could have bought his way out of his situation with ease.
Options and circumstances are direct factors in degree of guilt. That's a fact. One many of you disturbly want to ignore...for this crime.
The saddest thing here is that there isn't one of you currently defending Rooney's bull shlt sentence, who would be singing the same song if your lives had been shattered by somewho just "don't give a feck" same as him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure no one on this thread is defending Rooney, nor his actions, or indeed the sentence he received.
What most have been defending is that the law *has* to be applied equally.
posted on 18/9/17
Stop repeating what has been said spoken or written countless times.
If you are really serious about the courts having the power to dish out appropriate sentences, then petition The Lord Chancellor,The Police, your Local M.P. and any other Bodies who yuou consider have the strength and the power to bring about change. There is no need to go on any more about it on here.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Thousands? Maybe. There are millions of drivers, though.
And your simplistic view on life is flawed, because the minute there is a zero tolerance approach, other people stop offending generally.
'their liberty taken away'
Are you trolling?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really need to read all the words in posts before you start taking the p-ss so much.
The whole point of my original comment was to point out that if everyone who COULD get done was done, and was treated in the way people seem to want Mr Rooney treated we'd be in trouble.
The fact is, most drink drivers are persistent offenders who rely on just never getting caught.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
posted on 18/9/17
HenrysCat (U3608)
I know what your point was, and it's nonsense.
Because if there were some magical way of identifying every single person who was guilty, then the zero tolerance issue would virtually eradicate the problem.
The issue exists because enforcement is low and punishment is limited. Same as mobile phone use.
posted on 18/9/17
So, you basically agree with me but are just be a about it then. Fine.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when determining guilt a person’s financial status therefore becomes a factor.
Whether Rooney has or hasn’t money (in this instance to pay for a taxi) is a complete irrelevance.
posted on 18/9/17
HenrysCat (U3608)
Unlike you, I have common sense, so didn't feel the need for a ridiculous comment about the country grinding to a halt.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fine with punishing everyone who is guilty.
The country grinding to a halt is just a nonsense comment with no credible basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think there are thousands of people driving whilst over the legal limit, across the country, every single day? What would you imagine would be the impact on the economy if all of those people had either their keys, or their liberty taken away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well pretty dam good after the first 100 highly publicised s were seen to be utterly hammered by the courts for doing it. Since the fear of a hardass sentence would drastically reduce that every single day number you speak of. A bit like seeing people in tv getting 15 to life deters the vast majority of us from committing murder.
Why on earth do you think the ridiculously high numbers would stay as high if everyone doing it knew getting caught would utterly ruin them? The number is only so high because the severity of the punishment is so low.
Oh and the resulting drop in people driving over the limit, according to your rhetoric would also be a drop in people turning up at work under the influence.
Taking the liberty of 100 drivers who never gave a feck about whose life THEY might ruin. To get 60-80% of drink drivers off the road AND an added "Sober workers" economy boost. I can live with that. In comparison to the damage drink drivers do every year. Mate, 100 deadly Selfish s is what I'd call a chump change price to pay.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
Page 3 of 5