Dean Saunders jailed for ten weeks
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:47 am
Failing to provide roadside breath test
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41546
Is there a driving ban as well?ClaretTony wrote:Failing to provide roadside breath test
30 Months.Leisure wrote:Is there a driving ban as well?
think he might have irritated the judge during appearance at trial:BennyD wrote:That’s rather harsh, it’s normally just a 12 month ban.
That's when a DD isn't excessively over the limit and they cooperate by providing a breath test or blood sample. HTH.BennyD wrote:That’s rather harsh, it’s normally just a 12 month ban.
That's Talkshite for you. Terrible station. It's the pondlife of radio. Say what you want about BBC, but R5 is great. And so is 6Music.Devils_Advocate wrote:I hope they allow him to still do his radio as behind Parlour he's probably Brazil's best co-presenter
Dont care about the rest but Alan Brazil and his breakfast show is legendaryBilly Balfour wrote:That's Talkshite for you. Terrible station. It's the pondlife of radio. Say what you want about BBC, but R5 is great. And so is 6Music.
Someone nearly wiped me out the other week. They were on the wrong side of the road while jabbering on a mobile phone. The law is too lenient. It should be a three month ban because the current sanction isn't working.cricketfieldclarets wrote:Driving on a phone is a much bigger issue though. Can’t believe how common it is.
30 months indicates previousAlargeClaret wrote:Insane refusing a breath test unless he thought he’d be below a couple of hours later when they offer blood test ?
Perhaps he was truly steaming or some previous
The point is that failure to provide has to be a worse punishment than drink driving otherwise everyone would refuse to give a sample and take the lesser punishment.Claretforever wrote:Is the punishment too lenient? Maybe. The person who wrote my car off, was well over the limit and could hardly stand up, received a ban and small fine.
Surely that is worse that failure to provide? Why no jail term? Why isn’t there a consistency in sentencing?
I think the point may be that most burglars and petty thieves don't normally do physical harm whereas drink driving can cause death, and usually to someone other than the drunk. Not defending burglars (far from it) but I do believe drink driving is far more dangerous and therefore should be treated as such.ClaretFelix wrote:The comments from the judge is exactly why the Judicial system in this country is pathetic.
Because he is in the public eye means he should expect a "deterrent sentence"?
What about the burglars, thieves and idiots who are constantly before the bench, but who receive no such custodial sentance? Surely a sentence to deter them from committing crime, and making the lives a misery of members of the public should also be imposed?
** By no means am I arguing the case of Saunders, drink driving is abhorrent, and if you play with feathers, you get you're arse tickled.
Awaiting international clearancetybfc wrote:Will the Welsh FA not overturn the ruling and set him free?
Just a "tool"IWOODLOVETT wrote:Not the brightest spanner in the toolbox !!
The story at the link?bfcjg wrote:So him at a sportsmans dinner a couple of years ago he was brilliant. Told the p1ssed Brian Clough story again.
Judges have said many times that a car, can be said to be a lethal weapon particularly when the driver has been drinking. If someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs ran around with a knife in his hand, you would expect him to be arrested, charged and possibly be imprisoned. Drink driving kills or badly injures people and drivers take a chance of not being caught. I've absolutely no sympathy for anyone who gets behind the wheel of a car when they have been drinking - in this case I think the District Judge was right in his sentencing of Saunders.houseboy wrote:I think the point may be that most burglars and petty thieves don't normally do physical harm whereas drink driving can cause death, and usually to someone other than the drunk. Not defending burglars (far from it) but I do believe drink driving is far more dangerous and therefore should be treated as such.
I prefer my own story about him, how he ripped off a non-league club for £750 back in 1982 when they were desperate for money. I've never told it at a dinner though but I was there and he did have his green top on.agreenwood wrote:The story at the link?
Top bullshit.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... ham-forest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How can you tell when someone isn’t excessively over the limit if they don’t provide samples? Failing to provide a breath specimen and/or blood or urine sample is a legislated 12 month ban, as there isn’t any actual evidence to present to the court that an offence was committed.Billy Balfour wrote:That's when a DD isn't excessively over the limit and they cooperate by providing a breath test or blood sample. HTH.
I'm at a loss as to what you are getting at here, Benny. You said the sentence was 'rather harsh' and I pointed out that he refused to cooperate with the police. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I just can't be bothered to keep pointing out the bleeding obvious.BennyD wrote:How can you tell when someone isn’t excessively over the limit if they don’t provide samples?
Clough had taken his side to the FA Cup final that year, one of six Wembley visits in four seasons. He obviously rated Saunders – who has been informed that his story is disputed and chosen not to commentagreenwood wrote:The story at the link?
Top bullshit.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... ham-forest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Please allow me to then; if you don’t get a breath test result or blood sample, how do you know if the driver is excessively over the limit? To cover this situation of non-compliance, there is an offence of ‘failing to provide’ a specimen which has a mandatory 12 month + ban. I said I thought it was rather harsh because I haven’t heard of anyone getting a custodial sentence for ‘failing to provide’ as well as a lengthy ban from driving.Billy Balfour wrote:I'm at a loss as to what you are getting at here, Benny. You said the sentence was 'rather harsh' and I pointed out that he refused to cooperate with the police. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I just can't be bothered to keep pointing out the bleeding obvious.
I’ve been to quite a lot of ex clough player sportsman’s dinners, I’m board of them now and like you say I feel the majority is massively exaggerated and unfair at timesBilly Balfour wrote:Clough had taken his side to the FA Cup final that year, one of six Wembley visits in four seasons. He obviously rated Saunders – who has been informed that his story is disputed and chosen not to comment
Chosen not to comment when pulled up about making stuff up about a dead man. He's rather classy, isn't he.
Mama!! Mama!!middleton claret wrote:Released after just 1 day in jail pending an appeal to be heard in October.
Understand that he's not appealing the guilty verdict but the length of his sentence. If his appeal is turned down he should be given an even longer sentence!thelaughingclaret wrote:He pleaded guilty yet is appealing he verdict. What a certain. The judge who sent him down for 10 weeks says he acted like he was above the law and you can see why. If he gets let off then it’ll prove him right to be like that.
Radio 5 is good and has had a lot of consistently good presenters other than this Nihal guy who is on in the afternoons who is dreadful imo.Billy Balfour wrote:That's Talkshite for you. Terrible station. It's the pondlife of radio. Say what you want about BBC, but R5 is great. And so is 6Music.
I put 6Music on. I can't be doing with his long rambling monologues.Blackrod wrote:Radio 5 is good and has had a lot of consistently good presenters other than this Nihal guy who is on in the afternoons who is dreadful imo.
He only had one pint. I wouldn't like to see what he's like when he's had two.agreenwood wrote:Idiot...