A very serious post...

[chainsaw_masochist]

If i'm taking the moral high ground as stated then so be it, does that mean the rest are taking the moral low ground then?
Someone has to on here as there are a lot of comments being made on here that very nearly cross the line or indeed do of decency and normality.

Well frankly we do not really know Simon, or anybody else on this forum, do we? Over some period of time, depending on the frequency of posts we can form some sort of impression perhaps. We know that he has made a pretty candid post of events but this will have no legal impact - perhaps some might hold that justice will be served. To answer your question, yes, I suppose there are some who do take what I (and maybe you) would refer to as the moral low ground and perhaps sad that there does not exist an immoral valley but the greater body of folk perhaps occupy a more even spread up the side of the moral mountain.

If you wsh to appoint yourself as the high-priest of decency and morality, Kendor, then that's your lookout. Remember one thing about the guardians of sententiousness - Lord Longford, Victoria Killick, Mary Whitehouse, Malcolm Mugeridge - they were a tedious bunch of f***ers!

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

 

[Thermo]

kendor,
the breathalyser is a screening device which gives a very good gauge of the alcohol level in the body, however for court purposes a further test is taken at the police station on an extremly accurate machine.

Ninebob,
as i said i dont condone it, but i will give you the same advice i used to give those i dealt with in your situation.
1: get a solicitor
2: be honest, meek and mild and smart in court
3: dont go turning your life upside down on the basis of what might happen at court, wait until you find out at court. I dont know what the level you blew was and how long ago your last conviction was but you may be surprised at court with what happens

 

[david and julie]

Well said Thermo, ninebob don't do anything harsh until the outcome of the case. This will have happened to others at the Hilton you are not the first. I would strongly reconsider your position and I think you may be acting out of personal guilt. Use Thermo's experience and advice for the positive and try to think forwards. Have a chat to your manager, like you have with us. Your are obviously good at your job, this is a private matter and they won't want to loose you. Having a steady job also looks better in court too. If (and you probably will) get a fine you will be more able to pay if working. Please give it some thought, you will have much more chance of rebuilding your life whilst in work. Even a less prominent post would be better than none.

kendor, get a life. You openly support mass immigration of people you don't know, but are against ninebob here. Get real and get a grip, you are definately loosing the plot with your ridiculous waffling.

 

[planenut]

Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs is illegal, we know that, yet, as with burglary, people break the law. Burglaries not right either.
More people are killed on the roads every day, by people (pra*ts) who have not had a drop, than people who have, and Kendor, that doesn't make it right either way.

 

[kendor]

If i'm taking the moral high ground as stated then so be it, does that mean the rest are taking the moral low ground then?
Someone has to on here as there are a lot of comments being made on here that very nearly cross the line or indeed do of decency and normality.

Well frankly we do not really know Simon, or anybody else on this forum, do we? Over some period of time, depending on the frequency of posts we can form some sort of impression perhaps. We know that he has made a pretty candid post of events but this will have no legal impact - perhaps some might hold that justice will be served. To answer your question, yes, I suppose there are some who do take what I (and maybe you) would refer to as the moral low ground and perhaps sad that there does not exist an immoral valley but the greater body of folk perhaps occupy a more even spread up the side of the moral mountain.

If you wsh to appoint yourself as the high-priest of decency and morality, Kendor, then that's your lookout. Remember one thing about the guardians of sententiousness - Lord Longford, Victoria Killick, Mary Whitehouse, Malcolm Mugeridge - they were a tedious bunch of f***ers!

Oh how wrong you are when you put me in the same league as those people, I have not appointed myself as anything it's you that seems to know my mind better than myself? i feel i have a very middle of the road view and i'm having a go at the extremeists on here who paint all that don't fit in with their point of view as the scum of society. now ill say it again for those who read the posts and totally ignore what was written, i have never taken the side of any wrong-doer but i will stand up for those that i feel are being picked on who i believe don't warrant it.
The Gypsies is a post that springs to mind, where i stuck up for the honest people they are and not to blame them all for a few wrong-doers in their folds same as i don't go round saying all white people are drunken, womanising rapists and murderers just because of the few.

 

[AdamW]

Let's be practical here. Resigning your job is pretty extreme... you must have been given some idea of what the maximum sentence would be if they DO lock you up (aren't they more fond of suspended sentences now anyway?). Perhaps a sabbatical would be more appropriate, don't burn your bridges!

Remember, your current employers already know you. If you are locked up or given a full criminal record, getting a job with a new company might prove difficult. Even if you do explain it was drink-driving rather than a crime that makes you inherently unsuitable for such a job (e.g. burglary, fraud, GBH etc.)

If you ARE unable to continue your employment at Hilton, this would only be after some quiet discussion between yourself and your bosses. I don't know your bosses, but I would imagine they would offer you the chance to resign rather than sacking you. And this is by no means certain. You'll probably find at least one of them has been convicted DD before.

What I am saying is, it is better to be a hotel manager with an embarassing past than unemployed with an uncertain future.

 

[kendor]

kendor,
the breathalyser is a screening device which gives a very good gauge of the alcohol level in the body, however for court purposes a further test is taken at the police station on an extremly accurate machine.

Thats the bit i'm questioning, how can a breath test tell how much alchohol has been absorbed it is down to the blood or urine test at the station by which time it is too late!

 

[kendor]

kendor, get a life. You openly support mass immigration of people you don't know, but are against ninebob here. Get real and get a grip, you are definately loosing the plot with your ridiculous waffling.

You are the master of Mis-quoting aren't you! Where in any of my posts do i condone mass immigration? Open your eyes whilst you read this as i will say this only once more:the post regarding the immigration and the tories was about michael howard no-one else just old michael "i'll tell the electorate anything they wish to hear" howard and how he was hypocritical about what he said, whether i was right or wrong that is what i said, nothing about letting in loads of immigrants like what you have invented(not for the first time either)so get your facts right before you post again!

 

[Thermo]

kendor,
there are 3 ways of measuring the alcohol rate:-
1: breath in the lungs (the prefered and accepted legal way, which is very accurate)
2: blood
3: urine

the easiest and quickest is breath. In cases where the person is above the limit but very close to it then a blood or urine test is carried out in order to give a confirmation of the level of alcohol.
You are right in a way. As the body metabolises the alcohol the level of it in your system changes. It is a very slow process however. It can mean that you fail a roadside breath test and that by the time you get to the station to give the more accurate sample it has reduced and you pass it. It can also mean that you could be driving up the m1, get stopped and pass a breath test. you could then get stopped 30 mins later and be fail the test.

Hope that makes sense

 

[pipme]

Must get me rod and line -- biting well today !!

 

[AdamW]

kendor,
the breathalyser is a screening device which gives a very good gauge of the alcohol level in the body, however for court purposes a further test is taken at the police station on an extremly accurate machine.

Thats the bit i'm questioning, how can a breath test tell how much alchohol has been absorbed it is down to the blood or urine test at the station by which time it is too late!

Can they extrapolate back to the time you were stopped, or are they only allowed to use the evidence they gathered then?

I knew a guy who reckoned he escaped a conviction because the breathalyser at the station was down and they had to wait until morning for a doctor to come and take a blood sample.

Can they test with urine? I wouldn't have thought that would be very accurate at all, kidneys far too variable.

 

[Thermo]

getting a bit technical here, but yes they can extroplate back. Its done for what they call the hip flask defence, when someone claims to have had a bottle after theyve been driving. That is done by taking a blood sample. Urine can be tested but its the last option that is used, but is still accurate.

 

[pipme]

Giving up job at this stage is wrong, if the worst comes to the worst, well it will not matter anyway -- Self chastisment not necessary.
This was no big crime, just a foolish action ... No one hurt except 45p his motor, licence and good (?) name... Just think of some people in our great capital, playing with their babes in arms whilst being partly responsible for the deaths of thousands men, women and kids --- deliberate action.
Don't beat yourself up about that which DID NOT happen ...
I have driven 15 miles today, I watched 3 vehicles overtake blatantly on double continuous whites ... total of at least 4 skin the several sets of lights on the R of red ... 12 overtook me on 50 limited dual C I was at 55 ... they did not crawl past !!
What were they, mass murderers or potentially so ? Or more socially acceptable ?
Let he who has never partaken then driven, policeman and others (I had several mates in the force when younger) cast the first stone !!! ...
P

 

[david and julie]

Kendor wrote,

i said, nothing about letting in loads of immigrants like what you have invented(not for the first time either)so get your facts right before you post again!

I will leave it to the others to see this for the nonsense it is.

You also said this,

The argument is not the moral of whether he was right or wrong but the fact that people on here can argue so vehemently against a wrong-doer who they don't know anything more about apart from what they read in a paper or saw on the news and yet give support and sympathy to someone who in their own words has presented evidence of their own wrong doing.

What does this mean in plain speaking terms?