Footballer held after fatal crash

[Brauny Blue]

Financial crimes against the state are the worst crime of all. Mustn't take money away from her maj.

Aye that Dame Edna takes the bloody piss.

 

[Melton Fox]

Aye that Dame Edna takes the bloody piss.

Old Maj must surely be dead now. She was nearly dead in the eighties.

 

[Brauny Blue]

Old Maj must surely be dead now. She was nearly dead in the eighties.

And that little baldy guy that Benny Hill used to slap.

 

[Hazzman]

And more to the point, the people who allowed him to leave in that state, indeed letting him borrow a car should be held accountable.

Apparently he was three times over the limit. So let's say three pints he had all day. How many times do you see 'normal' people doing exactly the same - drink 2 or 3 pints and then driving. The majority of the public ignore it normally unless it's a close family member or close friend.

 

[Boy Genius]

Apparently he was three times over the limit. So let's say three pints he had all day. How many times do you see 'normal' people doing exactly the same - drink 2 or 3 pints and then driving. The majority of the public ignore it normally unless it's a close family member or close friend.

I think you will find it would have been more than 3 pints.

 

[Brauny Blue]

Apparently he was three times over the limit. So let's say three pints he had all day. How many times do you see 'normal' people doing exactly the same - drink 2 or 3 pints and then driving. The majority of the public ignore it normally unless it's a close family member or close friend.

Cameras showed him with his car almost veering off the right hand side of the 3rd lane towards the barrier before the accident. Pity big brother didnt notice at the time that his driving was eratic

 

[Hazzman]

Ahh, well. Dismissed my point - either way I still think at a wedding. People aren't going to keep a close eye on what someone else is drinking.

 

[Jeff]

Apparently he was three times over the limit.

He was one and a bit times over the limit.

 

[Boy Genius]

He was one and a bit times over the limit.

Not according to this in the telegraph he wasn't


When breathalysed McCormick, who was a highly rated player tipped to play in the Premiership, was found to have 74 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, twice over the legal limit of 35 micrograms

 

[Jeff]

Not according to this in the telegraph he wasn't


When breathalysed McCormick, who was a highly rated player tipped to play in the Premiership, was found to have 74 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, twice over the legal limit of 35 micrograms

It's not twice 'over' the limit, it's twice the limit. Once over the limit would be double the limit. Twice over the limit would be three times the limit.

I realise most people, including newspaper reporters, find it difficult to under basic maths and logic, so this kind of mistake seems to be acceptable these days. But I'm too pedantic to let it go without commenting.

 

[bocadillo]

It's not twice 'over' the limit, it's twice the limit. Once over the limit would be double the limit. Twice over the limit would be three times the limit.

I realise most people, including newspaper reporters, find it difficult to under basic maths and logic, so this kind of mistake seems to be acceptable these days. But I'm too pedantic to let it go without commenting.

It's this kind of sloppiness that leads to misunderstanding and it has never been more clearly shown here.

First we have the Telegraph reporter writing "twice over the limit" when he meant 'twice the limit'. As Jeff points out, if he had been 'twice over the limit', he would have been measured at three times the limit.

Hazzman seems to have some recognition of this correlation, but then he comes to this forum and reports not that the driver was 'twice over the limit' (wrong, but what the Telegraph had reported) nor that he was 'three times the limit' (wrong, but effectively what the Telegraph had reported), but that he was 'three times over the limit' - another leap of exaggeration which to be true would have required a measurement of 140 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, rather than the 74 that was actually recorded.

 

[Matt_B]

It's not twice 'over' the limit, it's twice the limit. Once over the limit would be double the limit. Twice over the limit would be three times the limit.

I realise most people, including newspaper reporters, find it difficult to under basic maths and logic, so this kind of mistake seems to be acceptable these days. But I'm too pedantic to let it go without commenting.

As am I for that mistake :icon_wink

 

[Hector]

It's this kind of sloppiness that leads to misunderstanding and it has never been more clearly shown here.

First we have the Telegraph reporter writing "twice over the limit" when he meant 'twice the limit'. As Jeff points out, if he had been 'twice over the limit', he would have been measured at three times the limit.

Hazzman seems to have some recognition of this correlation, but then he comes to this forum and reports not that the driver was 'twice over the limit' (wrong, but what the Telegraph had reported) nor that he was 'three times the limit' (wrong, but effectively what the Telegraph had reported), but that he was 'three times over the limit' - another leap of exaggeration which to be true would have required a measurement of 140 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, rather than the 74 that was actually recorded.

I don't think even that is true. "twice over the the limit" does not mean three times the limit. Grammatically it is just a sloppy and meaningless statement. If used in a different context it could perhaps mean over the limit on two separate occasions.

I share the concern over this frequent lazy and inaccurate use of language by the media; even the BBC is not immune to it.

 

[bocadillo]

I don't think even that is true. "twice over the the limit" does not mean three times the limit. Grammatically it is just a sloppy and meaningless statement. If used in a different context it could perhaps mean over the limit on two separate occasions.

I share the concern over this frequent lazy and inaccurate use of language by the media; even the BBC is not immune to it.

You're probably correct in saying that it is simply a meaningless statement, or probably, more correctly, it is a statement which has an unclear meaning. It was nevertheless the statement which encouraged Hazzman to further increase the degree of the transgression to "three times over the limit".

 

[Chuck T Masala]

I think I want to self harm. :icon_cry:

 

[ashmeister08]

I think it was a fair outcome.

On another note, I do think the whole justice system needs to be re-looked at. McCormick killed someone and got 7 years. That canoeist bloke who pretended he was dead, and his wife, both got a similar period. What they did was wrong, yes, but IMO nowhere near to the extent of McCormick.

in US this would have been 3rd degree

no intent, just recklessness

10 years????

here death by dangerous driving carries 4 years

 

[homer]

in US this would have been 3rd degree

no intent, just recklessness

10 years????

here death by dangerous driving carries 4 years

He got 7 years 4 months

 

[ashmeister08]

He got 7 years 4 months

but under manslaughter

why has the charge gone up??

 

[homer]

but under manslaughter

why has the charge gone up??

He was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving

A manslaughter charge was never even mentioned

 

[ashmeister08]

He was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving

A manslaughter charge was never even mentioned

right all very confusing

i think it's not harsh but if any of us had above the sentance time we'd be upset