Drink driving et cetera - When is enough enough ?

[reohn2]

It ain't going to happen any time soon,what's needed is a policeforce that works.
The Tories reduced policeforce numbers by 20,000 and police support staff by 23,000+ as well a politicising policing by elected( )police commissioners.
The effect is no or very few police on the streets.
Need I remind anyone that when the cat's away the mice will play?

Don't forget that the justice system is pretty much on its last legs so many cases take years to even get heard.

But they've slightly increased a few sentences and introduced a few new criminal offences (when updating the sentencing guidelines would have done) so you know 'tough on crime!!!'

I see where you're coming from and agree.

[Psamathe]

Seems to be cocaine involved as well! , I utterly despair that we have people like this on the roads. If driving bans won't stop someone, then the only solution is for them to spend the driving ban in prison.

To be clear, you would incarcerate someone for the duration of their driving ban?

If someone has a history of drving whilst disqualified then yes, and more so if that person has a history of drink & drug driving - how else can you ensure the safety of other road users. ?

I don't appreciate the issues relating to prison and punishment vs reform (i.e. people come out better than the went in) but in a general (not Ms Price specifically as I don't know the details), driving whilst high on drugs way over the alcohol limit is putting the lives of innocent others at significant risk. Doing this whilst already banned is even worse. So it is a serious offence and one where the individual has already demonstrated that they wont comply with punishment.

Ian

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

can't post a link at the moment but basically the judge has said that a possible Custódial sentence.
But she must seek rehab first straight away.
Will two weeks of that change anything, probably not.
But this will look good of course in summing up

Despite her mental health problems.
Which are simply too numerous to mention connected with people she hooks up with.
I am led to believe that her partner or ex partner along that lines was person guilty or suspected of assaulting her recently in her home?

The judge seriously needs to think about the welfare of her children.

[Bonefishblues]

I think any jail time to stop someone like this, and if it doesn't they have to go back again?

That would be very expensive. What would be the objectives: protection of others during the incarceration, punishment, rehabilitation to reduce the likelihood of future offending... ?

Thanks

Jonathan

Also I believe she has five children not too good for them if she's in jail,though I suppose it could be argued they'd be better off without an alcoholic drug addict mother bringing them up.

To be clear, there is no accusation, nor implication that KP is anything other than a diligent mother with an addiction.

As the parent of an adopted child whose background & history I won't elaborate on, there is a tipping point when removal becomes an (the only) option for the welfare of the child, but this case is, as far as I can determine, way short of that.

[kylecycler]

The only way I can see this being sorted is through technology - to tag someone in such a way that they can't get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive it, but I'm not sure intelligent enough technology exists yet or has been developed. Putting her in jail isn't the answer either, it'll only suspend the inevitable - she'll just come back out and do it again - unless she gets psychiatric help and her behaviour is corrected, but good luck with that. As for losing her licence, that's neither here nor there in a practical sense - she'd have done what she did with or without a licence.

Only practical solution I can think of is to confiscate all the vehicles she owns, prevent her from hiring a vehicle (which she wouldn't be able to do anyway without a licence) and make it a serious offence for anyone to give her the use of a vehicle.

[Bonefishblues]

The only way I can see this being sorted is through technology - to tag someone in such a way that they can't get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive it, but I'm not sure intelligent enough technology exists yet or has been developed. Putting her in jail isn't the answer either, it'll only suspend the inevitable - she'll just come back out and do it again - unless she gets psychiatric help and her behaviour is corrected, but good luck with that. As for losing her licence, that's neither here nor there in a practical sense - she'd have done what she did with or without a licence.

Only practical solution I can think of is to confiscate all the vehicles she owns, prevent her from hiring a vehicle (which she wouldn't be able to do anyway without a licence) and make it a serious offence for anyone to give her the use of a vehicle.

There are many, many people who receive help with addictions & addictive behaviour and go on to lead full & happy lives. She appears to recognise this is the point where she needs help - a good, indeed the key first step. "The Priory" is almost a byword for such treatments, but having worked for the Group for some time in the recent past, their capability and credential is very impressive.

[thirdcrank]

... make it a serious offence for anyone to give her the use of a vehicle. ...

That's already the case, and a common excuse when it's detected is to allege they took it without consent. In a criminal case, it's not either/ or. The owner can say they did not give consent and the driver can say they thought they had (implied) consent or they thought that they would have been given consent if they had asked.

[kylecycler]

There are many, many people who receive help with addictions & addictive behaviour and go on to lead full & happy lives. She appears to recognise this is the point where she needs help - a good, indeed the key first step. "The Priory" is almost a byword for such treatments, but having worked for the Group for some time in the recent past, their capability and credential is very impressive.

I hope you're right. She was in the only series of "I'm a Celebrity..." I ever (kinda sorta) watched, back when I had a TV, and she came across as a relatively down to earth, actually quite likeable character, everything being relative, at least not how's she's portrayed in the tabloids. But then of course it's almost a definition of tabloid newspapers that they don't ever portray anyone even remotely the way they are in reality, and even when we all know that, we still tend to forget, I think (not that I even read the tabloids these days).

[Bonefishblues]

There are many, many people who receive help with addictions & addictive behaviour and go on to lead full & happy lives. She appears to recognise this is the point where she needs help - a good, indeed the key first step. "The Priory" is almost a byword for such treatments, but having worked for the Group for some time in the recent past, their capability and credential is very impressive.

I hope you're right. She was in the only series of "I'm a Celebrity..." I ever (kinda sorta) watched, back when I had a TV, and she came across as a relatively down to earth, actually quite likeable character, everything being relative, at least not how's she's portrayed in the tabloids. But then of course it's almost a definition of tabloid newspapers that they don't ever portray anyone even remotely the way they are in reality, and even when we all know that, we still tend to forget, I think (not that I even read the tabloids these days).

Whisper it quietly, but I watched Celebrity Masterchef and participated in a thread discussion about it on another Forum where there were quite a number of detractors who were noticeably won over by her down to earth, self-deprecatory approach to life. She's a very bright lady indeed and I have no doubt that the 'Media Katie' is a carefully constructed but almost entirely false persona. I wish her success in her rehabilitation.

[kylecycler]

... make it a serious offence for anyone to give her the use of a vehicle. ...

That's already the case, and a common excuse when it's detected is to allege they took it without consent. In a criminal case, it's not either/ or. The owner can say they did not give consent and the driver can say they thought they had (implied) consent or they thought that they would have been given consent if they had asked.

Lawyers can be a corrupt bunch - there's always a loophole, isn't there? I expect it must have frustrated the hell out of you sometimes, as a police officer, although I suppose lawyers can be clever the other way too.

One of the more surreal experiences of my life was when I was a driving instructor and some bright spark on the driving instructors' association committee invited a lawyer to our national conference who specialised in getting offenders off the hook. He came on after a police traffic officer, and to say that the traffic cop had a jaundiced view of the lawyer would be a gross understatement (actually I wish we'd scheduled it the other way around!). But this shyster of a lawyer genuinely thought he was offering a service to our (usually ex-) pupils and therefore to ourselves; it was so bizarre that he was about half way through his presentation before the penny dropped (with me, at least) as to what his game was.

It occurred to me later, however, that the instructor who invited him was an ex- traffic cop himself and most likely did it knowingly just to let us see what he was up against - that passed me by at the time. The lawyer wasn't asked back although it was an enlightening experience if nothing else.

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not sure your use of 'corrupt' is justified in that scenario.

[reohn2]

That would be very expensive. What would be the objectives: protection of others during the incarceration, punishment, rehabilitation to reduce the likelihood of future offending... ?

Thanks

Jonathan

Also I believe she has five children not too good for them if she's in jail,though I suppose it could be argued they'd be better off without an alcoholic drug addict mother bringing them up.

To be clear, there is no accusation, nor implication that KP is anything other than a diligent mother with an addiction.

As the parent of an adopted child whose background & history I won't elaborate on, there is a tipping point when removal becomes an (the only) option for the welfare of the child, but this case is, as far as I can determine, way short of that.

Sorry if I was not being clear,I was just playing DA and putting both sides of a possible argument forward.

[Bonefishblues]

Also I believe she has five children not too good for them if she's in jail,though I suppose it could be argued they'd be better off without an alcoholic drug addict mother bringing them up.

To be clear, there is no accusation, nor implication that KP is anything other than a diligent mother with an addiction.

As the parent of an adopted child whose background & history I won't elaborate on, there is a tipping point when removal becomes an (the only) option for the welfare of the child, but this case is, as far as I can determine, way short of that.

Sorry if I was being clear but I was just playing DA and putting both sides of the argument forward.

I understood R2, but it's something that I can speak with some passion about if given the opportunity (and do )

[reohn2]

I understood R2, but it's something that I can speak with some passion about if given the opportunity (and do )

I won't press you for an explaination unless you want to.

[thirdcrank]

.... Lawyers can be a corrupt bunch - there's always a loophole, isn't there? I expect it must have frustrated the hell out of you sometimes, as a police officer, although I suppose lawyers can be clever the other way too. ....

If any lawyers frustrated me, they tended to be the local authority solicitors who conducted some of the police prosecutions prior to the formation of the CPS. I understand the basic workings of the criminal justice system quite well and I can see we are stuck with it for the foreseeable. I think the problem many people have is the difference between establishing guilt and establishing what happened. AFAIK, the jurisdictions relying on the former tend to have the most severe punishments (eg US) and in the latter the general public seem more relaxed (eg much of Europe)

My comments on the CJ system (criminal justice, not Chris Juden) are intended to give a layman's explanation, as in this case.
===========================================================
PS I can't speak for everybody but during my career my relationships with most lawyers - mainly solicitors - I came into contact with were perfectly cordial. The odd occasions when I fell out with solicitors tended to be when somebody recently qualified tried to get clever - but that seemed to be a sign of inexperience.