Ant McPartlin

proggy

I think it's a bit daft fining the mega-rich, not exactly punishment is it?

It's laughable more than anything.

randella

proggy said:

I think it's a bit daft fining the mega-rich, not exactly punishment is it?

It's laughable more than anything.

It's about a combination of punishment and rehabilitation.  The fine benefits the Police more than anything - they had to be seen to do it.  The exposure and consequent wake-up are what I should imagine will rehabilitate our Ant and make sure he doesn't do it again.  I'd say that's a decent enough outcome, surely?

scrumhalf

Fretwired said:

If it was you or me we'd be buggered and have to use public transport.

Blimey, sentencing guidelines have changed a bit since I did my law degree.

I cannot understand how the law approaches drunk driving when the offender has either been convicted of it before or has multiples of the permitted alcohol level in his/her bloodstream. Why should they be allowed to drive again?

VimFuego

scrumhalf said:

Fretwired said:

If it was you or me we'd be buggered and have to use public transport.

Blimey, sentencing guidelines have changed a bit since I did my law degree.

I cannot understand how the law approaches drunk driving when the offender has either been convicted of it before or has multiples of the permitted alcohol level in his/her bloodstream. Why should they be allowed to drive again?

I've certainly seen several cases where multiple bans have resulted in a custodial term, though can't recall how many times they are banned before being sent down. IMO, 20 months for a 2nd ban seems lenient, it should be in a multiple of years.

impmann

Its clear he has issues. Yes he should not have got behind that wheel - and that is what the punishment is there for, to ensure he doesn't do it again. Frankly, this concept of kicking someone further when they are down is a little unkind at best. He needs help, not spiteful outbursts.

He's clearly well-liked as an entertainer - and I hope he gets the help he needs to overcome his problems and comes back from it, to INSPIRE people in similar condition that there is a way out and a way back from it. He could become a very important person in helping others to overcome their problems...

As for the money thing? Is it really important? Is that all its about? I think the world is currently too worked up about money and how much others have or haven't got... its kinda irrelevant really and doesn't resolve the underlying problem here.

As an aside - my own father was an alcoholic. It ruined him without anyone's need to punish him. It was a completely self-contained destruction. He went from being a great guy (with some issues) to being a proper full on addict who would do anything for another drink  - thats hard to watch when you are 13 years old, believe me. He died in 1996 in a homeless shelter in Bristol from pneumonia, brought on by sleeping rough -  he'd got to rock bottom in just 12 years from being thrown out by my mum (bear in mind, he still was keeping a job/career going at this point as an Optician). When they found him in the morning the other 'inmates' at the hostel had stripped him naked and stolen *everything* from him - not that there was much in those three carrier bags, aside from a couple of pics of me and my sister and a few keepsakes.
So be not so quick to judge others - you really don't understand what they are dealing with.

Fretwired

scrumhalf said:

Fretwired said:

If it was you or me we'd be buggered and have to use public transport.

Blimey, sentencing guidelines have changed a bit since I did my law degree.

I cannot understand how the law approaches drunk driving when the offender has either been convicted of it before or has multiples of the permitted alcohol level in his/her bloodstream. Why should they be allowed to drive again?

They shouldn't. That's one of the reasons I don't drink and drive. I can't afford to lose my licence. However I worked for guy who was a borderline alcoholic who couldn't care less as he could afford to be chauffeured round. And he got caught and got a 6 month driving ban (1989). When people pointed out he could have done the same when he fancied popping out for a drink. He shrugged and said he was rich. A completely different mindset.

JAYJO

Flanging_Fred 

The drink driving was a dick move, but Ant clearly has a alcohol problem and I wish anyone in that position a speedy road to recovery.

Yeah just not on the same road as me, or in his car with his mum.Or on his own in the morning. Infact i wish him a speedy walk in a hi viz jacket to recovery.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

scrumhalf said:

Fretwired said:

If it was you or me we'd be buggered and have to use public transport.

Blimey, sentencing guidelines have changed a bit since I did my law degree.

I cannot understand how the law approaches drunk driving when the offender has either been convicted of it before or has multiples of the permitted alcohol level in his/her bloodstream. Why should they be allowed to drive again?

They shouldn't. That's one of the reasons I don't drink and drive. I can't afford to lose my licence. However I worked for guy who was a borderline alcoholic who couldn't care less as he could afford to be chauffeured round. And he got caught and got a 6 month driving ban (1989). When people pointed out he could have done the same when he fancied popping out for a drink. He shrugged and said he was rich. A completely different mindset.

Indeed. I knew a guy about 10 years ago who'd think nothing of going to see his girlfriend 50 miles away, having a few pints at the pub and then blasting back up the A1 at 140mph at 2am, and he said the same thing - he could afford a driver if he got caught and banned, so it didn't matter. Insanity.

crunchman

scrumhalf said:

Fretwired said:

If it was you or me we'd be buggered and have to use public transport.

Blimey, sentencing guidelines have changed a bit since I did my law degree.

I cannot understand how the law approaches drunk driving when the offender has either been convicted of it before or has multiples of the permitted alcohol level in his/her bloodstream. Why should they be allowed to drive again?

Would be harsh to say they can never drive again.  I've got a couple of friends who used to have alcohol issues.  As far as I know, neither of them has touched a drop in around 20 years.  If they had got done for drink driving before they had cleaned themselves up, then it wouldn't really be fair on them that they couldn't drive now.

I don't think that those of us who haven't experienced it have any real understanding of alcoholism.  There was a guy at my work who drank himself to death.  We didn't know he even had a real problem with it.  he used to drink at home, and not tell anyone.  He must have known what it was doing to him but he couldn't stop.  People with a genuine alcohol dependency just don't think rationally about it.

I don't know how bad Ant's situation is, but he only lives half a mile or so from me, and by all accounts he spends a lot of time in one or two of the local pubs.  With all he's going through splitting up from his wife, that won't have helped his mental state either.

p90fool

You live on Byker Grove?! Cool!

Grunfeld

randella said:

EricTheWeary said:

...Every chance he would have been able to hide it from or minimise it to his mother. 

In which case he probably did have a drink or three.  As re. hiding it, you're not wrong there.  I've seen it done by professional boozers first-hand, like Paul bloody Daniels.

Yeah but Paul Daniels, as a magician, could hide a rabbit, two pigeons, and half the Dagenham Girl Pipers down his trousers so concealing a bottle of Scotch probably wasn't too challenging!

Blueingreen

It's a difficulty with financial penalties for seriously rich people.  Unless they are ludicrously high they just won't bite or act as a deterrent.

£86,000 will make no difference to this guy.  I think pretty much everyone would agree that a fine big enough to actually hurt him (it'd have to be millions, I guess) would be OTT.  In those circumstances some kind of non-financial penalty should be imposed

crunchman

Blueingreen said:

It's a difficulty with financial penalties for seriously rich people.  Unless they are ludicrously high they just won't bite or act as a deterrent.

£86,000 will make no difference to this guy.  I think pretty much everyone would agree that a fine big enough to actually hurt him (it'd have to be millions, I guess) would be OTT.  In those circumstances some kind of non-financial penalty should be imposed

Maybe a 20 month driving ban?

Octafish

He might have to cut back on the dodgy hair transplants for a bit, but he'll easily make the money back from his inevitable 'my drink hell' stories in the tabloids. He tore the front corner of his car in a built up area, must have been gunning it a bit...

VimFuego

Blueingreen said:

It's a difficulty with financial penalties for seriously rich people.  Unless they are ludicrously high they just won't bite or act as a deterrent.

£86,000 will make no difference to this guy.  I think pretty much everyone would agree that a fine big enough to actually hurt him (it'd have to be millions, I guess) would be OTT.  In those circumstances some kind of non-financial penalty should be imposed

in Finland they have a sliding scale on fines for things like speeding etc. Seems to work OK there.

ICBM

I actually think the system has worked exactly as it should in this case.

He has been fined a significant fraction of his weekly income, which is still a lot of money even though he's clearly very rich and that in practical terms it might not make that much difference to him.

He's been banned from driving for a substantial period, which again although it won't inconvenience him very much, does take away an important element of his freedom and will have a financial cost.

He's been extremely stupid, but he appears to have accepted it was his fault and to be remorseful. I'm sure he's aware that it could have been a lot worse if he'd gone head-on into the first car rather than the second.

I'm not a fan, by the way...

proggy

Grunfeld said:

randella said:

EricTheWeary said:

...Every chance he would have been able to hide it from or minimise it to his mother. 

In which case he probably did have a drink or three.  As re. hiding it, you're not wrong there.  I've seen it done by professional boozers first-hand, like Paul bloody Daniels.

Yeah but Paul Daniels, as a magician, could hide a rabbit, two pigeons, and half the Dagenham Girl Pipers down his trousers so concealing a bottle of Scotch probably wasn't too challenging!

Yet with all those conjuring skills he still wore that ridiculous syrup.

Jalapeno

ICBM said:

I actually think the system has worked exactly as it should in this case.

He has been fined a significant fraction of his weekly income, which is still a lot of money even though he's clearly very rich and that in practical terms it might not make that much difference to him.

He's been banned from driving for a substantial period, which again although it won't inconvenience him very much, does take away an important element of his freedom and will have a financial cost.

He's been extremely stupid, but he appears to have accepted it was his fault and to be remorseful. I'm sure he's aware that it could have been a lot worse if he'd gone head-on into the first car rather than the second.

I'm not a fan, by the way...

Agreed, and those awful photos of him look like he hadn't slept much - possibly he thought he might have to do a stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure - which must have been a sentencing option.

Kilgore

Apparently the crash happened because he was on the wrong side. It's surprising that the police didn't assume he was Dec.

EricTheWeary

Jalapeno said:

ICBM said:

I actually think the system has worked exactly as it should in this case.

He has been fined a significant fraction of his weekly income, which is still a lot of money even though he's clearly very rich and that in practical terms it might not make that much difference to him.

He's been banned from driving for a substantial period, which again although it won't inconvenience him very much, does take away an important element of his freedom and will have a financial cost.

He's been extremely stupid, but he appears to have accepted it was his fault and to be remorseful. I'm sure he's aware that it could have been a lot worse if he'd gone head-on into the first car rather than the second.

I'm not a fan, by the way...

Agreed, and those awful photos of him look like he hadn't slept much - possibly he thought he might have to do a stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure - which must have been a sentencing option.

If you look at the sentencing guide lines for drink driving ( on the sentencing council website) he is quite a long way off custody, conceivably if they thought hitting something was an aggravating enough factor but it was very unlikely. 
Community sentencing  with celebrities brings it's own problems so financial penalty and disqualification was almost certain. As noted above he seems to have shown contrition and all the right responses about seeking help with his alcohol problem. He can pay to do a course to reduce his disqualification down to 15 months as well.