He is being charged for drink driving. In my opinion that is a pretty much as good indication as you can get that he was caught drink driving.
How is it not black and white?
He’s been charged, until he’s found guilty, and we know what he’s guilty of, it’s not black and white. On the basis of the limited information we currently have available, for it to be black and white we must 1) be certain that he is guilty of the offence, which we won’t know until 11.9.2018 and 2) know exactly how drunk he was- I.e. was it a case of he had just 1 unit but as a light man who’d had a light dinner, that was enough to push uk his blood alcohol level, or was he blind drunk having just down a litre of vodka.It's a black and white situation. There really is no grey area.
Do you have to be an expert now to give an opinion?
While in most cases I would agree with this, this is the one area where you can't really say this. Why? Because when you're arrested for drink driving it's based on machine recorded evidence, and I believe you then have a second test at the police station. So unless the machines are faulty there really isn't much scope for the presumption of innocence.Lloris is, let us not forget, NOT Guilty of drink driving. He has been arrested and charged. Does not imply guilty whatsoever. So, lets wait and see hear the facts....at court. Not the court public opinion.
I'm sure that the club have a policy in place for these eventualitiesHow the hell should I know, I’ve never a) had an employee who committed a crime or b) run a billion £ organisation,
But I like that you’re trying to get me to give you something to argue with, it shows how much you think about me, I feel special.
That's all true but it's still not a defence. If you drink anything and then drive, you're taking a risk, for yourself and on behalf of others.
Are you being serious ? You think they’d charge someone with drink driving who wasn’t over the limit ? Does anyone also know if it’s standard to be held in custody for 7 hours seems a bit excessive.
And there's a massive diffegrence between getting behind the wheel of a car after a drink and ordering a taxi and having a snooze in the back on the way home.Nothing like a drink driving story to bring out the holier than thou attitude of the masses. I'm not down playing the seriousness of it because drink driving costs lives, but do people really feel the need to let everybody know how disgusted they are and how they would never do such a thing? To whoever said it doesn't matter how over the limit he is, I would disagree, there's a massive difference between scraping over the limit and being blind drunk in terms of your impairment.
No. No. And more no.Im not saying this is the case for Hugo at all and drunk driving is obviously bad but how can people say there’s no grey area in drink driving?
What if you’re 0.01 over the limit? Are you then a horrible person but someone who is exactly on the limit is still a good person? Where’s the line?
Yep.Im not saying this is the case for Hugo at all and any drunk driving is obviously bad but how can people say there’s no grey area in drink driving?
What if you’re 0.01 over the limit? Are you then a horrible person but someone who is exactly on the limit is still a good person? Where’s the line? There’s 100% a grey area.
I agree with this. I meant that the crime is the same, regardless of the punishment.It's not a defence at all, but it does affect the seriousness of the offence. A court will treat a person who is just over more leniently than someone who is toasted.
Whilst I agree that the best policy is not to drive if you have had any alcohol, the law (in Australia at least) says that you can. This means that people who drink also have the right to assess their own level of intoxication before they drive. I think that that shows the stupidity of the current legal limit (it should be set at such a low level that only minor residual readings are safe), but there it is.
As a role model, Hugo will have to have some additional punishment from the club, but I think we have to see the circumstances before one can say what that should be.
Or maybe drink driving genuinely angers people. Maybe people on here have been personally affected by it in the past.Nothing like a drink driving story to bring out the holier than thou attitude of the masses. I'm not down playing the seriousness of it because drink driving costs lives, but do people really feel the need to let everybody know how disgusted they are and how they would never do such a thing? To whoever said it doesn't matter how over the limit he is, I would disagree, there's a massive difference between scraping over the limit and being blind drunk in terms of your impairment.
We have a legal system and due process for for a reason.
The simple fact he has been charged does not make him or anyone else guilty. Sorry but if you can't see the difference I can't explain it to you.
The grey area for me is readings between ~10mg and 80mg, which is legal but still proven to substantially increase your likelihood of causing an accident. Legally you get away with it, morally I think it's completely wrong if you know you're in that zone but choose to drive anyway. Over the limit, which is deliberately extremely generous to ensure it's near-impossible without having knowingly drunk, is past the grey area.Im not saying this is the case for Hugo at all and any drunk driving is obviously bad but how can people say there’s no grey area in drink driving?
What if you’re 0.01 over the limit? Are you then a horrible person but someone who is exactly on the limit is still a good person? Where’s the line? There’s 100% a grey area, even though it’s best just to not drink at all.
While in most cases I would agree with this, this is the one area where you can't really say this. Why? Because when you're arrested for drink driving it's based on machine recorded evidence, and I believe you then have a second test at the police station. So unless the machines are faulty there really isn't much scope for the presumption of innocence.
The line is in the Law where it says X amount is acceptable and anything over isn't. It couldn't be more black and white.Im not saying this is the case for Hugo at all and any drunk driving is obviously bad but how can people say there’s no grey area in drink driving?
What if you’re 0.01 over the limit? Are you then a horrible person but someone who is exactly on the limit is still a good person? Where’s the line? There’s 100% a grey area, even though it’s best just to not drink at all.
And there's a massive diffegrence between getting behind the wheel of a car after a drink and ordering a taxi and having a snooze in the back on the way home.