My vague recollection is that he was dealt with at Crown Court rather than a mags, making it automatically more serious? I don't know why.
He was (at least?) four times over the limit. Although reported everywhere that he went away for DD, again my vague recollection is that the main part of Tony's sentence was for another driving offence - reckless? * - with the time for DD being concurrent.
It remains to be seen whether Ant's indictment will be loaded up with other offences and kicked up to the higher court.
*Tony may have been lucky as a few months after his episode, reckless driving got ratcheted up to dangerous driving.
I am not sure anybody is arguing there is any defence of the act of drink driving.
Society has established its perceived punishments in law for any such transgressions.
It somewhat bizarrely links the punishment to the outcome of the transgression.
It is bizarre because the outcome in reality is almost entirely down to events outside of the transgression itself.
Whether you drink drive and hit a lamppost or kill someone is entirely a matter beyond the control of the transgressor driving on the public highway.
The personality or the profession of the individual is entirely irrelevant. I am never quite sure why people try to hold people in the public eye to a higher standard of law than anyone else.
In my limited experience in working in the West End with a number of "well known" customers they are all just human beings with their own challenges no matter their "fame" or "wealth".
We all face our demons in life. You will be very fortunate if on occasion they do not derail some aspect of your work or family life.
Unless and until I have walked in their shoes will always be my approach.
Ant & Dec have established themselves as "legends" in U.K.TV land or just maybe the TV company anointed them as such as per Willoughby & Scofield or Simon Cowell.
It has carried huge rewards but there is always a price to pay. I personally am no great fan but I respect they have "stayed at the top" for over a decade. A decade of acclaim but also a decade pressure to stay there and a decade of having your life on display.
I understand his drug and drink dependency arose from taking painkillers in respect of an accidental personal injury. He is not alone on such a journey. The over prescription of increasing pain medication has created all too many dependencies.
As the dependency increases so comes the pressure of failing work and life partners. He has loyalties to his work partner, contractual obligations to meet and responsibilities to his family. As those things start to fail before breaking down irretrievably the guilt and self loathing will kick in.
Some people drink to excess for pleasure some drink to excess to forget.
Does such a life journey excuse climbing into the drivers seat of any vehicle whilst inebriated? Never. He should and no doubt will pay a heavy price. The law will takes its course and rightly so.
We have now seen the fall from grace, the rehab and now we have apparently a relapse. The demons appear to still be in play.
He has earned his money. He needs to walk away and build a life away from the public gaze for a couple of years. His work partner and the TV companies need to let him go.
Ultimately it is one person who has been fortunate in that this incident has not killed anyone or seemingly involved life changing injury.
He has a price to pay, another chance to recover from his demons and change his life. Whether he takes such opportunity is entirely down to him. Due his now former career he would seemingly be better positioned than most to do just that.
I am not sure he is deserving of any greater opprobrium or sympathy than anyone else. Let us not delude ourselves there are not still far too many in society who will climb into a vehicle in an unfit state to drive.
Is zero tolerance the answer and is it easily enforceable on a nationwide basis is a question beyond my little grey cells. Do you fit every vehicle with a breath test & DNA device linked to the ignition?
Even then I am sure someone would find a way around that. Ultimately we live in a human society and humans are a very flawed species. Some will always neglect their responsibilities to their fellow man/ woman.
What pisses me off is that the rich and powerful are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. If you can afford a decent lawyer you will invariably get a better outcome.
Don't let such fictitious nonsense piss you off. Everyone is treated equally at a mags' court. By way of illustration: did you notice Rooney not getting let off recently?
Assuming the original breath test is confirmed by a further test back at the nick, (and the fact he has checked himself back into re-hab suggests it will), the quality of his lawyer in this instance is unlikely to have any major impact other than, just possibly, for mitigation. Indeed, if he was to pitch up with a highly paid QC in the Mags' Court, the chances are the magistrates, particularly if it's a stipendary sitting alone, would just get pissed off and hand down a heftier sentence.
I think he should get a short custodial sentence if he was way over the limit. He could have killed somebody and that is all there should be to it!
As ever, sentencing guidelines are complex and certain factors increase a penalty: crucially whether the blood/alcohol reading was high, but also whether there was an accident and whether anybody was KSI or whether the driver was in charge of an HGV or taxi for example. While others, like medical conditions and a guilty plea will reduce the penalty.
Of course no one yet knows what the blood/alcohol reading was but with there being an accident and a young girl injured, if his reading was high, he might, just, get a custodial. My guess is a 28 months ban plus a DVLA medical to get his licence back and a community order.
Perhaps we should run a sweepstake?
Would it be guaranteed to be a magistrates court? If it isn't a magistrates court then the lawyer will play a role.
He’s not a stupid man but a stupid decision. Knows the possible consequences and still decided to jump behind the wheel. Absolutely irresponsible and unforgivable.
he was driving his Mum, you would have thought she would have said something?
Do we even know the full story? Genuine question as i haven't looked.
I find it hard to believe that his mum would get in the car if he had been boozing all day. Is it possible he'd had a few the night before, felt ok to drive the next day but was still over the limit?
Obviously it's not ok as he failed a breath test, but a lot of people (including i'm sure many on this forum including me) probably drive the day after drinking the night before. His mum might not even have known he'd been drinking?
Although as it was mid afternoon when he crashed i'd guess he must've been out on an all night bender to still be over the limit!
Having seen the video i would like to retract this post. He's absolutely fucked getting out of that car. How on earth did his mum let him drive in that state?!!
Yeah, I originally thought it was maybe residual alcohol the following day but that video makes it look like he's had about 10 pints that morning!
I am not sure anybody is arguing there is any defence of the act of drink driving.
Society has established its perceived punishments in law for any such transgressions.
It somewhat bizarrely links the punishment to the outcome of the transgression.
It is bizarre because the outcome in reality is almost entirely down to events outside of the transgression itself.
Whether you drink drive and hit a lamppost or kill someone is entirely a matter beyond the control of the transgressor driving on the public highway.
The personality or the profession of the individual is entirely irrelevant. I am never quite sure why people try to hold people in the public eye to a higher standard of law than anyone else.
In my limited experience in working in the West End with a number of "well known" customers they are all just human beings with their own challenges no matter their "fame" or "wealth".
We all face our demons in life. You will be very fortunate if on occasion they do not derail some aspect of your work or family life.
Unless and until I have walked in their shoes will always be my approach.
Ant & Dec have established themselves as "legends" in U.K.TV land or just maybe the TV company anointed them as such as per Willoughby & Scofield or Simon Cowell.
It has carried huge rewards but there is always a price to pay. I personally am no great fan but I respect they have "stayed at the top" for over a decade. A decade of acclaim but also a decade pressure to stay there and a decade of having your life on display.
I understand his drug and drink dependency arose from taking painkillers in respect of an accidental personal injury. He is not alone on such a journey. The over prescription of increasing pain medication has created all too many dependencies.
As the dependency increases so comes the pressure of failing work and life partners. He has loyalties to his work partner, contractual obligations to meet and responsibilities to his family. As those things start to fail before breaking down irretrievably the guilt and self loathing will kick in.
Some people drink to excess for pleasure some drink to excess to forget.
Does such a life journey excuse climbing into the drivers seat of any vehicle whilst inebriated? Never. He should and no doubt will pay a heavy price. The law will takes its course and rightly so.
We have now seen the fall from grace, the rehab and now we have apparently a relapse. The demons appear to still be in play.
He has earned his money. He needs to walk away and build a life away from the public gaze for a couple of years. His work partner and the TV companies need to let him go.
Ultimately it is one person who has been fortunate in that this incident has not killed anyone or seemingly involved life changing injury.
He has a price to pay, another chance to recover from his demons and change his life. Whether he takes such opportunity is entirely down to him. Due his now former career he would seemingly be better positioned than most to do just that.
I am not sure he is deserving of any greater opprobrium or sympathy than anyone else. Let us not delude ourselves there are not still far too many in society who will climb into a vehicle in an unfit state to drive.
Is zero tolerance the answer and is it easily enforceable on a nationwide basis is a question beyond my little grey cells. Do you fit every vehicle with a breath test & DNA device linked to the ignition?
Even then I am sure someone would find a way around that. Ultimately we live in a human society and humans are a very flawed species. Some will always neglect their responsibilities to their fellow man/ woman.
What pisses me off is that the rich and powerful are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. If you can afford a decent lawyer you will invariably get a better outcome.
Don't let such fictitious nonsense piss you off. Everyone is treated equally at a mags' court. By way of illustration: did you notice Rooney not getting let off recently?
Assuming the original breath test is confirmed by a further test back at the nick, (and the fact he has checked himself back into re-hab suggests it will), the quality of his lawyer in this instance is unlikely to have any major impact other than, just possibly, for mitigation. Indeed, if he was to pitch up with a highly paid QC in the Mags' Court, the chances are the magistrates, particularly if it's a stipendary sitting alone, would just get pissed off and hand down a heftier sentence.
I think he should get a short custodial sentence if he was way over the limit. He could have killed somebody and that is all there should be to it!
As ever, sentencing guidelines are complex and certain factors increase a penalty: crucially whether the blood/alcohol reading was high, but also whether there was an accident and whether anybody was KSI or whether the driver was in charge of an HGV or taxi for example. While others, like medical conditions and a guilty plea will reduce the penalty.
Of course no one yet knows what the blood/alcohol reading was but with there being an accident and a young girl injured, if his reading was high, he might, just, get a custodial. My guess is a 28 months ban plus a DVLA medical to get his licence back and a community order.
Perhaps we should run a sweepstake?
Would it be guaranteed to be a magistrates court? If it isn't a magistrates court then the lawyer will play a role.
Depends entirely on the charges. It is possible for some motoring offences to be tried "either way" but only if any of the following are involved; dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving, causing death by driving when unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured and aggravated vehicle taking. In which case the matter would be kicked up to Crown Court by the magistrates if they deemed the case to be too serious to be dealt with in a Magistrates' Court. It is also possible for the Mags to decide on guilt but send the case up to Crown Court for sentencing. In "each way" cases the defendant can also elect for trial by jury in the Crown Court. (That would be a big gamble for a defendant, I'd have thought.)
To give you a flavour: over 95% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates.
Just a quick thought, and let me make it clear this isn’t a defence...
After I had a smash that wasn’t my fault I staggered around a bit with the shock after the collision, I was breathalysed and came up clean obviously but I could definitely have appeared drunk immediately afterwards as I was quite delirious.
Not saying he wasn’t hammered, but the way he looks I’d have expected the media to have said things like “he was five times over the limit” etc. They usually have that information from the police early doors.
I am not sure anybody is arguing there is any defence of the act of drink driving.
Society has established its perceived punishments in law for any such transgressions.
It somewhat bizarrely links the punishment to the outcome of the transgression.
It is bizarre because the outcome in reality is almost entirely down to events outside of the transgression itself.
Whether you drink drive and hit a lamppost or kill someone is entirely a matter beyond the control of the transgressor driving on the public highway.
The personality or the profession of the individual is entirely irrelevant. I am never quite sure why people try to hold people in the public eye to a higher standard of law than anyone else.
In my limited experience in working in the West End with a number of "well known" customers they are all just human beings with their own challenges no matter their "fame" or "wealth".
We all face our demons in life. You will be very fortunate if on occasion they do not derail some aspect of your work or family life.
Unless and until I have walked in their shoes will always be my approach.
Ant & Dec have established themselves as "legends" in U.K.TV land or just maybe the TV company anointed them as such as per Willoughby & Scofield or Simon Cowell.
It has carried huge rewards but there is always a price to pay. I personally am no great fan but I respect they have "stayed at the top" for over a decade. A decade of acclaim but also a decade pressure to stay there and a decade of having your life on display.
I understand his drug and drink dependency arose from taking painkillers in respect of an accidental personal injury. He is not alone on such a journey. The over prescription of increasing pain medication has created all too many dependencies.
As the dependency increases so comes the pressure of failing work and life partners. He has loyalties to his work partner, contractual obligations to meet and responsibilities to his family. As those things start to fail before breaking down irretrievably the guilt and self loathing will kick in.
Some people drink to excess for pleasure some drink to excess to forget.
Does such a life journey excuse climbing into the drivers seat of any vehicle whilst inebriated? Never. He should and no doubt will pay a heavy price. The law will takes its course and rightly so.
We have now seen the fall from grace, the rehab and now we have apparently a relapse. The demons appear to still be in play.
He has earned his money. He needs to walk away and build a life away from the public gaze for a couple of years. His work partner and the TV companies need to let him go.
Ultimately it is one person who has been fortunate in that this incident has not killed anyone or seemingly involved life changing injury.
He has a price to pay, another chance to recover from his demons and change his life. Whether he takes such opportunity is entirely down to him. Due his now former career he would seemingly be better positioned than most to do just that.
I am not sure he is deserving of any greater opprobrium or sympathy than anyone else. Let us not delude ourselves there are not still far too many in society who will climb into a vehicle in an unfit state to drive.
Is zero tolerance the answer and is it easily enforceable on a nationwide basis is a question beyond my little grey cells. Do you fit every vehicle with a breath test & DNA device linked to the ignition?
Even then I am sure someone would find a way around that. Ultimately we live in a human society and humans are a very flawed species. Some will always neglect their responsibilities to their fellow man/ woman.
What pisses me off is that the rich and powerful are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. If you can afford a decent lawyer you will invariably get a better outcome.
Don't let such fictitious nonsense piss you off. Everyone is treated equally at a mags' court. By way of illustration: did you notice Rooney not getting let off recently?
Assuming the original breath test is confirmed by a further test back at the nick, (and the fact he has checked himself back into re-hab suggests it will), the quality of his lawyer in this instance is unlikely to have any major impact other than, just possibly, for mitigation. Indeed, if he was to pitch up with a highly paid QC in the Mags' Court, the chances are the magistrates, particularly if it's a stipendary sitting alone, would just get pissed off and hand down a heftier sentence.
I think he should get a short custodial sentence if he was way over the limit. He could have killed somebody and that is all there should be to it!
As ever, sentencing guidelines are complex and certain factors increase a penalty: crucially whether the blood/alcohol reading was high, but also whether there was an accident and whether anybody was KSI or whether the driver was in charge of an HGV or taxi for example. While others, like medical conditions and a guilty plea will reduce the penalty.
Of course no one yet knows what the blood/alcohol reading was but with there being an accident and a young girl injured, if his reading was high, he might, just, get a custodial. My guess is a 28 months ban plus a DVLA medical to get his licence back and a community order.
Perhaps we should run a sweepstake?
Would it be guaranteed to be a magistrates court? If it isn't a magistrates court then the lawyer will play a role.
Depends entirely on the charges. It is possible for some motoring offences to be tried "either way" but only if any of the following are involved; dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving, causing death by driving when unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured and aggravated vehicle taking. In which case the matter would be kicked up to Crown Court by the magistrates if they deemed the case to be too serious to be dealt with in a Magistrates' Court. It is also possible for the Mags to decide on guilt but send the case up to Crown Court for sentencing. In "each way" cases the defendant can also elect for trial by jury in the Crown Court. (That would be a big gamble for a defendant, I'd have thought.)
To give you a flavour: over 95% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates.
Very tough to tell people they can't have a pint and drive though, especially the next morning when the influence of that alcohol is all but gone.
I understand what you are saying. But if we have zero tolerance then everyone knows where they stand. The morning after is a strong debate. I know loads who drive the next morning after a session. But we will never stop it. Same as driving while on the phone or no seat belt or speeding let’s be honest most of us on here have done at least two of the above. I just don’t know what the answer is.
Driverless cars, that's the answer. In twenty years time we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
It's an entirely separate debate and I don't want to derail the thread or anything but...
I agree driverless cars are the way forward. But I think our entire road system (at least in cities) needs a complete rethink if it is to be a success. We shouldn't try and fit driverless cars into our current road system. We should redesign a road system that works for driverless cars.
I've watched quite a few programs about driverless cars and the technology is a long way off from solving all the problems. It would need a government to completely rethink the transport system and keep all the various transport lobbies happy. All I can see is that things will be implemented in a half-arsed and dangerous way.
That's exactly my point. If not done properly it will be dangerous. If they don't completely redesign the system at least in cities it won't work. Bolting 2 systems together will be chaos.
Just a quick thought, and let me make it clear this isn’t a defence...
After I had a smash that wasn’t my fault I staggered around a bit with the shock after the collision, I was breathalysed and came up clean obviously but I could definitely have appeared drunk immediately afterwards as I was quite delirious.
Not saying he wasn’t hammered, but the way he looks I’d have expected the media to have said things like “he was five times over the limit” etc. They usually have that information from the police early doors.
I was a sober passenger stopped at traffic lights when a car smashed in to us ( a mother looking round at her baby instead of the road ffs ) at about 30mph and after the initial shock I got out of my friends (eventually) written off car and staggered around like a drunk in a bit of a daze . The people a couple of cars back thought I was hammered But I suppose I didn’t look as bleary eyed as Ant
Why instead of paying 50k for a session at the Priory, didn't Ant pay a taxi to be available 24/7 who he could trust to be discreet and get him home without the chance of his career going down the toilet. Being a multi millionaire doesn't stop you being an idiot but I'm amazed that team ant + dec didn't have the foresight to see this coming.
Comments
He was (at least?) four times over the limit. Although reported everywhere that he went away for DD, again my vague recollection is that the main part of Tony's sentence was for another driving offence - reckless? * - with the time for DD being concurrent.
It remains to be seen whether Ant's indictment will be loaded up with other offences and kicked up to the higher court.
*Tony may have been lucky as a few months after his episode, reckless driving got ratcheted up to dangerous driving.
To give you a flavour: over 95% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates.
After I had a smash that wasn’t my fault I staggered around a bit with the shock after the collision, I was breathalysed and came up clean obviously but I could definitely have appeared drunk immediately afterwards as I was quite delirious.
Not saying he wasn’t hammered, but the way he looks I’d have expected the media to have said things like “he was five times over the limit” etc. They usually have that information from the police early doors.
Although my Mrs had one and I don't rate em at all.
Especially in go kart mode
The people a couple of cars back thought I was hammered
But I suppose I didn’t look as bleary eyed as Ant
Being a multi millionaire doesn't stop you being an idiot but I'm amazed that team ant + dec didn't have the foresight to see this coming.
Ernie without Eric back in the day, that just wouldn't have been a wise decision.