You invite somebody to dinner. He drinks obviously more than will be legal. He drives home.
1. Are you culpable?
2. What would you do? (Public transport is not an option, this is the countryside, the nearest cab is 50 miles away and wouldn't come anyway even if you could get him out on a Saturday night, and drunk is another 50 miles from home.)
3. What would you do given this isn't somebody whom you know well, but have some sort of business relationship with, and he clearly is senior to you.
|
1) why would you be? he made the choice to drink. same as if he was drinking in his own house and got into his car and went somewhere.
|
Did you invite him to sleep it off on the sofa?
For me, the aspects you write of in points 2 and 3 are irrelevant. I'd stop anyone from driving drunk if I could as it may cost a third party their life. I couldn't live with that. If he insisted on driving and I couldn't stop him, it's grass time. Call the police. Whoever it was.
Never mind business relationships, or "seniority" what's right and what's wrong are more important than that. Relationships can be rebuilt/replaced, someone's life can never be restored.
|
>>>I'd stop anyone from driving drunk if I could as it may cost a third party their life. I couldn't live with that.
Been in that situation. A contact used to visit with a partner that was often obviously drunk in the day and half the time the partner would be the one that drove away from the place. I asked my contact never to come here again with that partner if they were going to drive home... I commented in going back through this village they could be responsible for the death of our own children playing down the road.
|
>>Did you invite him
It's not actually happened. Just contemplation following a discussion.
|
|
Well then, my approach would be to offer him to stay the night should he wish to drink beyond the legal limit, before we tuck in to the vino.
|
It's probably possible to aid and abet a drink driver, but I think in Mapmaker's example there is sufficient distance between the host and the drunk.
Might be different if the host lent his car to the drunk to drive home.
|
As is often the case when drink driving is discussed, the above response from Iffy is one of what could be defended in court.
Which is to ignore the more important issue of right and wrong.
|
|
Why not buy some alchohol-free wine in and tell him that's all you've got ?
|
>> You invite somebody to dinner.
Assuming the invite was to your home?
>>He drinks obviously more than will be legal. He drives
>> home.
>>
>> 1. Are you culpable?
Given the assumption above, yes you are culpable as you supplied the booze, Not sure about the legal aspect of culpability but certainly morally as charged.
>> 2. What would you do? (Public transport is not an option, this is the countryside,
>> the nearest cab is 50 miles away and wouldn't come anyway even if you could
>> get him out on a Saturday night, and drunk is another 50 miles from home.)
>> 3. What would you do given this isn't somebody whom you know well, but have
>> some sort of business relationship with, and he clearly is senior to you.
Two options.
1/ You put him up on the sofa insisting he cant drive home.
or
2. If you don't trust him in your home with your wife, daughter, dog or booze cabinet, you shove him in the car and take away his keys.
If he cuts up rough and physically wont let you do 1 or 2, you let him drive and call the police as he is a complete D.H and needs to be slapped. He wont know you shopped him so it matters not if he is your boss.
|
|
In my circle there is always a kind of shuffling of responsibilities round the table as the first bottle is broached, as we all establish who is driving and who is drinking. After that's been settled 50% of us get stuck in.
|
Suppose someone came to dinner whom you knew to be a dangerously incompetent driver (there are many such after all). Would you then be justified in taking their keys away or ringing the fuzz to urge them to pull the person on the road?
Drink has damn all to do with accidents except in a small minority of cases. Crap driving is what causes them. It wouldn't occur to me to try to interfere with anyone I knew who had perhaps strayed over the limit and chose to drive home. If they seemed very drunk I might remind them of the fact and remind them of the possibility that they could get into trouble for it and lose their licence. But I probably wouldn't even do that unless they were young and inexperienced. It simply wouldn't seem to me to be my business.
|
I suppose if they mounted the pavement and ran over a close relative of yours on the way home it would then become your business AC?
Equally, everyone is someone's close relative and the concerns would be justified.
Alcohol does slow down reactions considerably but more dangerously the person is totally unaware of it and feels fine.
To mapmaker, I would avoid the situation like the plague.
That way I keep the job and the colleague!
Many years ago when I was a sales rep the MD used to take us for a weeks conference in Sheffield. His speciality was getting all the reps drunk at dinner.
I made it known I didn't drink at all (I did!) and that way I could always face him at breakfast.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Tue 6 Sep 11 at 14:49
|
>> if they mounted the pavement and ran over a close relative of yours on the way home it would then become your business
I don't agree with the majority view here on this subject (and quite a few others actually).
I simply don't know the sort of person who gets that plastered and then drives.
A lot of drink does slow people's reactions, but the legal limit or even quite a lot more doesn't slow them sufficiently to make a person's driving dangerous, unless of course it is to start with. As I have often said here, driving isn't brain surgery and doesn't involve very fine locomotor ability. If you need fast reactions often when you are driving, you are quite simply a dangerous driver. You just may need them once in a blue moon when some fool tries to involve you in their crash. Good drivers know when to back off, keep their distance and so on. And (as I have also often said) a slightly slower correct reaction is good, while a jumpy double-take brothers panicky one is dangerous.
Of course this won't be news to you Pat. But frankly I see this faffing about drink driving as caused by vertigo about the regulations or the British hyper-respectability reflex, both of which seem childish to me.
Of course people shouldn't drive shickered. I don't even do it myself although I can, without being noticed or dangerous come to that. But they shouldn't drive badly either. What are all you brothers' keepers doing about that? Damn all.
|
>>even quite a lot more doesn't slow them sufficiently to make a person's driving
>>dangerous, unless of course it is to start with.
That's quite interesting of course. The only people whom I know who have been "done" are dreadful drivers even when sober. I also know somebody who is a "granny driver" who probably drove home trolleyed every day for 25 years, without being picked up.
|
|
Ask Chris. Hune's wife for the definitive reply!
|
Alcohol affects different people in different ways but the most dangerous to me are those who insist they are not affected at all.
You forget AC, I come from the era of lorry drivers who used to park up on Canon Park, Middlesborough at 5pm, quick strip wash in the bus station toilets and then into the pub until 11pm for a meal and a few pints.
Having to roll again at 2am meant little sleep and still not entirely sober, but it only took one close call to stop me....and that was many years ago.
Pat
|
>> it only took one close call to stop me....and that was many years ago.
Over the years - mostly long ago - I have had far more close calls sober than even a little bit drunk. It took me ages to become a reasonable driver although I was always very press-on. These days I am much less press-on, very nearly as brisk and I very seldom give myself a fright (although others do it fairly regularly).
And like you Pat, I stopped drinking more than perhaps I should and then driving many years ago. Indeed last night I was out to dinner and just had a couple of bottled beers, not even Leffe, just some 5% rubbish. I was gasping for a proper sticky when I got home.
And my driving wasn't at its best either, a bit jumpy and jerky by my standards. Might well have been better with another drink. But this awful pressure to be bon enfant and respectable gets internalized even by, harrumph, nature's hooligans.
|
>
>> Alcohol does slow down reactions considerably but more dangerously the person is totally unaware of
>> it and feels fine.
>>
>>
>>
I think it's not as straightforward as that and probably varies considerably from person to person.
If I have a few drinks I am very aware of it and know that I not really safe to drive. It's not that I feel my reactions slowed, more that I can sense a kind of dreamlike state, as if the world is passing me by rather than I am navigating through the world.
In fact in some ways my reactions become more acute. A drink or two certainly helps (me) when needing brainpower to attack a problem. I also find my bar football play considerably better, and can intercept a shot with notably fast reaction. But it is probably that that would make it dangerous to drive. As AC says, a good driver takes it easily, too-fast reactions are unsafe.
|
I have driven under ‘the influence’ of LSD, cannabis, and alcohol (not all at once I might add) I’ve never hurt anyone in an accident (except my beloved 240Z)
Looking back though, I don't think it would have been a bad idea to have had someone like Alanovitch as my host!
To a certain extent you are responsible – if you invite someone into your home and let them drive home afterwards, when clearly they should not.
|
Quite so, Dog.
As I've consistenly pointed out to AC, once he's lost someone extremely close to him (first degree family, i.e spouse, parent or child only count) in a road accident, then he can come on here and tell people that drink driving, or any kind of driving behaviour likely to raise the chances of killing someone else, is acceptable.
I may have it wrong, and he may have suffered such a bereavement, and if so I apologise in advance.
But until then he can shut his inexperienced, offensive gob. He does not know everything.
A vehicle can be lethal and can wreck lives. Only this morning my 6 year old son held a picture of his grandfather and wept for him, even though he died 21 years before his birth. "I wish he was still alive, Daddy", he said. My heart broke open as if it had happened today.
Driving is a responsibility, not a right. The drunk need not apply.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 6 Sep 11 at 16:03
|
>> he can shut his inexperienced, offensive gob.
More experienced than yours Alanovic, and less gratuitously offensive, anyway in this thread. I stand by what I think and what I said above. I'm not intimidated by other people's hysteria or their attempts to bully by waving a bereavement about.
It may seem reasonable to you to get a bee in your bonnet about something - drink driving for example - as the result of a bereavement, and to be offensive on that basis. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems childish.
|
I have not driven on more than a glass or so of beer in the last quarter century. I do however occasionally take post pub rides on bikes, either my own or Boris's. Well aware that when I do so I'm taking risks I would not normally, or perhaps taking them in a less calculated way. Only a danger to myself though.
AC- you may have a different metabolism to the rest of us. Certainly your mileage is radically different to most here and to received wisdom. And while I normally take your well written tweaks at the rest of our tails in the spirit they're intended I think you owe Alanovic an apology.
It's tolerably clear from what's written above that at a young age he lost someone close to him in a raod accident. In the circs thats not 'waving a bereavement about' and deserves more courtesy and respect than it has been given.
|
|
Stop picking at AC at least he is honest with his opinions.A lot of us have lost people at a young age thats live I'm afraid.
|
I think I'm thinking about the same as you Alanovic, but I have a far more polite way of putting it.
Pat
|
I see no reason to be polite, on this occasion, to someone who glories in receiving "red gongs", Pat.
Stuff him.
His attitude is gloriously offensive to me on this subject, and I see no reason not to respond in kind.
He cares not what others think, I shall reserve the right also, and I am pleased I seem to have hit the mark.
I refuse to "gong" him on this thread as he enjoys it so. Others have though, I do hope he's not enjoying it but I rather think that's a forlorn hope.
When he's seen with his own 13-year old eyes the corpse of a loved one, destroyed in such a way, let him come back and we'll see if his attitude has shifted.
I take his "more experienced than you" comment not to mean he's been there, but simply the rattling of the "I'm older than you" sabre. Again, if I'm wrong I'll apologise and take every word back.
|
I have driven under ‘the influence’ of LSD, cannabis, and alcohol (not all at once I might add)
Wimp.
Heh heh.
|
...Wimp...Heh heh...
Kicking a man when he's not down, but is out, is neither big nor clever.
|
>> Kicking a man when he's not down, but is out, is neither big nor clever.
What, or who, are you talking about Iffy?
I wasn't kicking Dog, I was teasing him. I'm afraid though that as so often, you are confused.
At least Pat isn't. She admits manfully that when young she drove under the influence of cannabis, LSD and alcohol all at the same time, and got away with it. Chapeau!
|
...I'm afraid though that as so often, you are confused...
And you, as so often, are making the arrogant assumption you have a monopoly on insight.
If people cannot understand your posts, it's a failing on your part, not theirs.
|
>> If people cannot understand your posts, it's a failing on your part, not theirs.
Yes, I forgot to put the little arrow things next to the Dog quote. Terribly sorry my dear fellow, all my fault. It's the sort of thing we arrogant chaps with a monopoly of insight do, thinking people are confused just because they are. Must be awful for you.
|
...Yes, I forgot to put the little arrow things next to the Dog quote...
It's not the arrow things that are the problem, it's the wordy drivel, sorry, text.
Anyway, don't you think you've 'achieved' enough on this thread?
Might be time to withdraw from this one and get your posting kicks on another Route 66.
|
>> Anyway, don't you think you've 'achieved' enough on this thread?
>> Might be time to withdraw from this one and get your posting kicks on another Route 66.
Sanctimonious twit.
|
...Sanctimonious twit...
A two-word post - congratulations.
See, you can do it if you try.
|
AC, most of us of our age have done that.
It's not big and it's not clever and we don't feel the need to continually brag about it either.
Pat
|
Depending on the size of the person and their metabolism you can't know for certain whether they will be under or over the limit. Booze with food takes a lot longer to absorb. Infrequent drinkers will appear drunk and incapable but completely legal to drive.
If you are that concerned about someone having too much then you don't offer them anywhere near enough if they're far from home and out of range of a taxi if you don't want them sleeping on the sofa.
|
Alanovic>>If he insisted on driving and I couldn't stop him, it's grass time. Call the police.
"Hello, is that the police? Somewhere in the county of Norfolk is a drunk driver." Hilarious to suggest their one patrol car will catch him.
And if they do "Good evening 'Sir' we were told about you." That will be the end of lucrative contracts and the cash to put food into your childrens mouths, Alanovic/Z. Given, Z, you'd had an argument with him over this point and told him it was morally wrong, it won't take him long to put two and two together when the police are sitting outside his house waiting for him, will it.
|
>> Alanovic>>If he insisted on driving and I couldn't stop him, it's grass time. Call the
>> police.
>>
>>
>> "Hello, is that the police? Somewhere in the county of Norfolk is a drunk driver."
>> Hilarious to suggest their one patrol car will catch him.
How about, "hello is that police? a drunk driver has just left petunia road, pitsville and is heading for the A14 westbound"
>> And if they do "Good evening 'Sir' we were told about you.
It wouldn't be. It would be "good evening sir we have been following you for x miles and have reason to believe...."
" That will be
>> the end of lucrative contracts and the cash to put food into your childrens mouths,
>> Alanovic/Z. Given, Z, you'd had an argument with him over this point and told him
>> it was morally wrong, it won't take him long to put two and two together
>> when the police are sitting outside his house waiting for him, will it.
If he is that much of a DH, I bet he is pain to do business with and will screw the sh..t out of you. Stuff his contract.
or you could say "I wonder if you would like it known you habitually drive home drunk? Now about that contract and terms"
Anyway, you posed the question, what's your answer?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 6 Sep 11 at 18:07
|
Place I used to work had a twice annual do.
They put us all up in a hotel and had a free bar. The bar bill was horrendous and I suspect that many were significantly over the limit the next morning.
I made a point of taking the train although it was a real pain and took about two hours longer than driving, but at least I wasn't worried about the effects of booze on my driving.
|
>> The bar bill was horrendous and I suspect that many were significantly over the limit the next morning.
Er, a horrendous bar bill might not imply quite the level of consumption one would expect.
Real bar-stewards, some of these people.
:o}
|
>>Real bar-stewards, some of these people
Oh yes, there are a few nights that I can't remember and from what I am told, I am glad that I cannot! ;-)
|
>> it was a real pain and took about two hours longer than driving, but at least I wasn't worried about the effects of booze on my driving.
After speaking at a friend's funeral in Cheshire 15 years ago and attending the wake, I made herself drive back to London, motorway nearly all the way, in the second roughest of my Skoda Estelles, a bright baby-blue 130. She did brilliantly, bless her, but that didn't stop me from gently reminding her in a slurred voice that she was doing 90 down a hill on a crowded M6 without being aware of the fact.
The Jamaican boxer and Trinidadian carnival man in the back of the car, who had come up with us for the obsequies, sprang to her defence and told me rudely to leave her alone. So I did.
|
>>I'm not intimidated by other people's hysteria or their attempts to bully by waving a bereavement about.
What an utterly objectionable remark.
|
...What an utterly objectionable remark...
Probably drunk when he made it - a quick post from his laptop before driving home.
|
>> What an utterly objectionable remark.
Perhaps any reference to the behaviour described, put baldly, will seem objectionable. I often get into that sort of trouble here. But the behaviour is a lot more objectionable than the remark.
I am used to conversing with people who don't mistake vehemence for reasoning.
Alanovic some time ago suffered a traumatic loss as the result (I assume) of some drunken prat's driving. I don't doubt that it was traumatic, that he suffers from it to this day, and that he is quite reasonably highly critical of drunken driving as a result.
But it's a bit of a step from there to giving me cheek and trying to make out that what I say is rubbish. Alanovic wasn't asking for sympathy, he was hitting me round the head with his bereavement. I can object quite strongly to that without feeling remotely callous about the bereavement itself.
But apparently that's a bit difficult for some of you. As I said, I often get into that sot of trouble here.
|
It seems to me there is rational argument and there is emotion. There are words and there are sticks and stones. If we are using the format of a discussion forum then it is beyond me how anyone can ever get actually worked up to anger by little symbols on a computer screen.
Alternatively we could all just go down the pub and shout at each other and have brawl. But if you can't ever think the unthinkable, why think at all?
|
|
That might be a good idear Cliff down to the pub and get it over with.:)I can think of one caracter on here I wouldn't mind giving the Glasgow kiss.
|
You may get a nought for that thought.(o-/-o)
_
M
|
Sigh. You still don't get it, do you AC?
Never mind.
I've said my piece about drink driving often enough now, but when people keep popping up with defences for such behaviour, I'm afraid it has to be challenged.
Cheek indeed.
|
...I've said my piece about drink driving often enough now...
Anyone who defends drink driving is an arrogant fool.
But more than that, we all know Alanovic is understandably touchy on the subject, so why not cut the guy a bit of slack?
|
>> we all know Alanovic is understandably touchy on the subject, so
>> why not cut the guy a bit of slack?
+1
|
>> Cheek indeed.
Yes, damned cheek. You know as well as I do that we live in a country with a thriving booze culture and a drink driving limit that, depending on the individual, ranges from cold sober to thoroughly tipsy; and that quite a lot of drivers on the road drive as if blind drunk when they haven't touched a drop.
Under these circumstances, which are real, there is a fair amount to be said about drink and driving. It isn't anyone's right to terminate all discussion on the ground that they themselves feel very strongly about the matter.
Not everyone here is really capable of making a distinction like that, but I don't count you among those people. You are perfectly capable of civilized discourse and clearly far from thick. So although I can excuse your damned cheek by attributing it to your strong emotion - based on an incident in the past that would move any humane person - I don't think you should excuse it yourself.
So the question is: do you get it?
|
What a delightfully black and white world in which you live.
I don't know what the answer is. Hence the question.
|
I don’t know about the culpability aspect, but my invitation, my drinks, my home; then surely to some degree he must be my responsibility. And, regardless of his seniority, if no suitable transport was available I would insist that he stayed the night, even if I had to tie him to the nearest armchair.
:)
|
>> What a delightfully black and white world in which you live.
>>
>>
>> I don't know what the answer is. Hence the question.
>>
Black and white? Thats because its a black and white question. There are only three possible answers.
1/ you stop him driving
2/ you dont stop him driving
3/ you dont stop him driving and you grass him up or blackmail him.
What could be simpler?
Ok its black, white and one shade of grey.
|
>> >>
>>
>> 1/ you stop him driving
>> 2/ you dont stop him driving
>> 3/ you dont stop him driving and you grass him up or blackmail him.
>>
>
4) You early on make a mild reference to drinking and driving and hope he takes the point
5) You say early on that he is welcome to stay if he wants to drink
6) You suggest that he perhaps ought not to have another, but repeat your offer of staying
7) You warn him that he really shouldn't be driving, and put it more strongly
8) You make a really determined attempt to persuade him not to drive, but say that it is his responsibility if he really insists.
9) You make a big fuss about it, tell him how irresponsible he is, threaten to call the police
10) Ditto but you do call the police
11) You wrestle with him and try to stop him getting into his car
12) You snatch the keys and throw them into a hedgerow
13) You lay him out with a good punch
14) You let his tyres down
15) He knocks you down but as he drives off you take out his tyres with your shotgun
16) You wave him goodbye and then ring the police with a vague description
17) Ditto but you give the police an exact description
There are probably more shades of greyness in between.
|
AC,
Re-reading this the bit that puzzles me is your assertion that:-
'A lot of drink does slow people's reactions, but the legal limit or even quite a lot more doesn't slow them sufficiently to make a person's driving dangerous'
Now if you'd said that about driving stoned I might have sort of agreed. Stuff happens more slowly - Yeah Man.
But for most of us it's not like that with alcohol. Drink, even below the limit, clouds judgment and encourages recklesness. There's plenty of evidence for that otherwise the DD laws would never have been passed. They don't just pop up in the risk averse Anglo/American context; pretty much all of the EU bars DUI - even the French limit is lower than ours
And then there's the anecdotal/personal stuff some of us quote above. Which bit do you have a problem with?
|
>> if you'd said that about driving stoned I might have sort of agreed. Stuff happens more slowly - Yeah Man.
Alcohol is a depressant Bromptonaut. Reactions are slowed, but not significantly for anyone used to alcohol (in reasonable quantities of course). I certainly didn't mean that it gave a perception of things happening slowly. In fact the perception, when you are significantly impaired by alcohol, is that things are happening too fast for you to be able to assess them properly.
>> But for most of us it's not like that with alcohol. Drink, even below the limit, clouds judgment and encourages recklesness.
Sorry if it's like that for you. But it certainly isn't for me. Perhaps it was once, with a lot of booze, much more than the limit. But it hasn't been for years, whether because I am seriously pickled or because I don't often drink to excess - less and less often actually - I wouldn't know.
There's obviously a very great variation in personal responses to alcohol, and I know that my own can vary quite a lot over time, but also in combination with other physical and emotional conditions. Perhaps all generalization is meaningless in this area and that would include legal limits for drivers. In that case those who think zero is the only safe blood alcohol content for drivers may end by prevailing. Politicians love claiming to make life 'safer' because they know a large segment of the population suffers from oppressive, helpless feelings of anxiety and insecurity. Of course they don't care whether the 'safety' is real or illusory, because people will believe practically anything and they also know that, er, crap happens.
Some here would obviously be delighted by Swedish-style driver prohibition, but I would absolutely hate it. And of course crap drivers would continue to mount pavements and mow down pensioners, babies and bus queues virtually as often as they do now. Perhaps more often. Who knows?
|
>> Alcohol is a depressant Bromptonaut. Reactions are slowed, but not significantly for anyone used to
>> alcohol (in reasonable quantities of course)
I know that AC. But one effect of thisd particular depressant is that it loosens inhibitions. That's why we enjoy it socially, it's also presumably why drunks fight or do daft stuff.
The DUI laws are about dealing with disinhibited (and therefor dangerous/reckless) driving at least as much as slowed judgement.
|
...it's also presumably why drunks fight or do daft stuff...
Summed up by a phrase I often hear in court: "Beer in, brains out."
|
>> drunks fight or do daft stuff.
>> The DUI laws are about dealing with disinhibited (and therefor dangerous/reckless) driving at least as much as slowed judgement.
Perhaps the problem in this thread has been a confusion in some minds about the difference between people who drink and 'drunks'.
There are different levels of inhibition. Someone who might let loose an expletive in front of the Vicar if sufficiently annoyed will still stop short of theft, rape or murder.
It's the same with disinhibition. A couple of nice Leffes might make you expansive and chatty, but unless you are very young indeed, and foolish with it, they aren't going to affect your driving in the slightest. Anyway that's how it is with me, and with others I know.
|
>> Perhaps the problem in this thread has been a confusion in some minds about the
>> difference between people who drink and 'drunks'.
>>
I think with some on here AC, it's a case of one drink and the inhibition starts whether the person knows it or not.
Personally I don't never driven within one drink at all, not seen enough research either way, so I'm not really sure.
|
>> And then there's the anecdotal/personal stuff some of us quote above. Which bit do you have a problem with?
What makes you think I have a problem with any of it?
|
>>A vehicle can be lethal and can wreck lives. Only this morning my 6 year old son held a
>>picture of his grandfather and wept for him, even though he died 21 years before his
>>birth. "I wish he was still alive, Daddy", he said.
I have been thinking about this statement. One of my grandfathers died 30 years before my birth and I have never wept for him. Either I'm heartless, or you need to move on, without filling your son with the same bitter rage that you have. I don't doubt for a moment that your father's death was traumatic and devastating at the time, or that it continues to affect you, and I certainly sympathise/whatever word seems better as I mean it, and don't intend to patronise.
However rather than giving you the absolute right to comment on this topic in a way nobody else can - as you suggest - I in fact think this means that it makes it very difficult for you to comment rationally on DUI driving.
|
A thumbs up from me, I think you've just put into wise words what a lot of us thought, mapmaker.
Pat
|
>> or you need
>> to move on, without filling your son with the same bitter rage that you have.
What on earth makes you think I'm filling him with anything? He picked up the photo and asked about it. I gave him the facts of the matter. I told him what had happened and left it at that. He then made the comment I wrote.
How dare you comment on what passed between me and my child - you, nor anyone else was there.
I don't think I like it here any more, it's not good for me to be spoken to like you and AC are doing.
There's only one rational comment to be made about drink driving - no-one should do it under any circumstances. All else is merely serving to legitimise the dangerous practice.
And with that, I shall "flounce". Cheerio.
|
Well, I think that's a pity.
If you are still there, Alanović, do reconsider. Read carefully what I and others have said.
No one is lacking in sympathy for your loss. Things that are not harsh, just straight, can seem harsh when written down. You have the intelligence to see that, and even to be self-critical.
Think again.
|
Don't let the Baa Stewards grind you down tovarish (sticks n' stones remember)
You'll be missed (by me at least)
|
>> Don't let the Baa Stewards grind you down tovarish (sticks n' stones remember)
>>
>> You'll be missed (by me at least)
And Me
|
>> You'll be missed (by me at least)
>>And Me
And me, too.
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Thu 8 Sep 11 at 12:51
|
And me, even though you don't like my car because it's a 4x4 !
:-)
As it happens, my closest ever lifelong friend was killed by a drink driver. I find that hard to this day despite the 20 odd years which have since passed. I couldn't begin to forgive the person who did it or have anything but contempt for those who continue to drive while under the influence. I do though, however grudgingly, accept that my views are emotionally coloured as a result.
|
>> What on earth makes you think I'm filling him with anything? He picked up the
>> photo and asked about it. I gave him the facts of the matter. I told
>> him what had happened and left it at that. He then made the comment I
>> wrote.
I would have thought your son's question and response fairly typical for the age. He probably sees friends doing stuff, particularly 'boy stuff' with their grandfathers and knows he cannot have that experience. And when you're only six death, particulalry sudden and violent death, is a big concept to grasp.
My father died when my son was under two and his mother's father some years before that. Even now at 17 he's prepared to vocalise the fact that he misses having known them. I dont think tears were ever involved but both died of natural causes long after Mrs B and I were adults.
|
>> >> He picked up the
>> photo and asked about it. I gave him the facts of the matter. I told
>> him what had happened and left it at that.
>>
I think it is impossible to convey "facts" without unconsciously adding a slant.
If that were not so then children would be weeping over every single bit of tragic news they ever read about. Adults, doubtless with good intentions, colour, mould and direct their children's emotions. That is one of the rather onerous tasks parents take on.
|
|
Ah, the best intellectual response there is! Bless.
|
...Ah, the best intellectual response there is! Bless...
Alanovic has flounced before.
'Three strikes and you're out' now applies to several criminal offences.
Alanovic has had two strikes, so I reckon he'll be back.
|
>> And with that, I shall "flounce". Cheerio.
I have nothing to add to the thread, but I just thought I would add my post so you can blame me for another contributor leaving.
|
>>I just thought I would add
>> my post so you can blame me for another contributor leaving.
Never in this world. I see your extensive and detailed knowledge of most topics discussed here as one of the reasons many of us stay.
|
>> I see your extensive and detailed knowledge of most topics discussed here as one of the reasons many of us stay.
I assume you're being subtly sarcastic Clk Sec. But if you aren't, let us consider Zero's role as an éminence grise of this site's savage and disagreeable atmosphere, so terrifying to those who are emotionally or intellectually fragile.
His habits of biting passers-by in the leg and barking uncontrollably when everyone is asleep are surely what lie at the root of all that is worst about this site. Only the soft spot I have for him has prevented him from being hounded out years ago by the peace-loving majority. But I fear that I am now tarred with the same brush, and the slightest spark may lead to a double lynching.
Of course my own convoy of Range Rovers laden with concubines, bodyguards and big sacks of banknotes is already waiting warmed up, engines idling, close to the Niger border. Let us hope that Zero is at least bargaining with a camel driver, because there may not be room for him.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 8 Sep 11 at 18:09
|
>> I assume you're being subtly sarcastic Clk Sec. But if you aren't, let us consider
>> Zero's role as an éminence grise of this site's savage and disagreeable atmosphere, so terrifying
>> to those who are emotionally or intellectually fragile.
>>
>> His habits of biting passers-by in the leg and barking uncontrollably when everyone is asleep
.
.
.
>> us hope that Zero is at least bargaining with a camel driver, because there may
>> not be room for him.
You ungrateful old sod, I was throwing you a lifebelt.
|
>> You ungrateful old sod, I was throwing you a lifebelt.
I too can bite passers-by in the leg.
|
>>I just thought I would add my post so you can blame me for another contributor leaving.<<
>>Never in this world. I see your extensive and detailed knowledge of most topics discussed here as one of the reasons many of us stay<<.
>>I assume you're being subtly sarcastic Clk Sec. But if you aren't, let us consider Zero's role as an éminence grise of this site's savage and disagreeable atmosphere, so terrifying to those who are emotionally or intellectually fragile.<<
Only slightly TIC, that’s all. I hold Zero in high esteem; he has a wicked sense of humour, a good understanding of most topics discussed here, and he often keeps the forum afloat during quiet periods.
He doesn’t add a smiley when he has the odd gentle poke at me, so he doesn’t get one when I respond.
So There!
:-)
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Fri 9 Sep 11 at 09:05
|
...I in fact think this means that it makes it very difficult for you to comment rationally on DUI driving...
Agreed, but there's nothing wrong with making irrational comments as well as rational ones.
Most of us make both types.
|
Look - If there is any doubt that drinking does not aid the thought processes, reactions or actions, then here is the proof.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14842999
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 8 Sep 11 at 18:01
|
AC,
Can you please stop being so objectionable to people here - otherwise you'll be booted off - we can't be doing with it any more.
|
>> Can you please stop being so objectionable to people here - otherwise you'll be booted off - we can't be doing with it any more.
If you imagine I was being objectionable to the tiresome Iffy, you are more than welcome to 'boot me out' Rob.
It will be a relief in a way. There are some good people here, but there are also some squealing children and sanctimonious twits.
I will be mildly irritated, but basically I won't give a fish's tit.
So just let me know by email, if you can manage it.
|
|
Same coat rack, different name.
|
|
A Canadian moose is the same as a European elk. Confusingly there is another unrelated animal in Canada known as an elk so both of you are right I guess.
|
>> A Canadian moose is the same as a European elk. Confusingly
Can it really be the same? Anyway thanks for that CGN.
Saw a nice little fallow stag staring at me yesterday. Like a chihuahua by comparison.
|
Am in Vancouver at the moment. Yesterday there were 3 black tailed deer in the the front garden.
I missed the black bear and cubs in the woodland behind the garden fence last week. Apparently the cat saw them, climbed 30 feet up a lodgepole pine before falling off and landing in the undergrowth (it survived ok Pat)
Makes our own wild life look a bit tame!
|
Thanks for letting me know the cat survived CG:)
Life is strange sometimes... I would have worried more about that cat than any of the other comments on this thread.
But then again I think an animal deserves my concern more than people!
Pat
|
Have just put him in the garage for the night Pat. It actually a rather lovely cat, a British short hair with a beautiful gray and white coat called Daisy. It has had an eventful life originally living a quiet suburban life in Bracknell. When my daughter emigrated to Canada they initially shipped it to the inlaws in Nova Scotia and when they found a new house in Vancouver it was off on its travels again flying across Canada. It has clocked up about 6,000 air miles so far!
|
Obviously it's a well loved cat CG:)
It must have cost a fortune to take it with them, but I would have done just the same.
We're off for a long weekend with the caravan now until Monday and although our three will be looked after excellently by Mrs Bouquet next door, she won't bother to bend down and give them a bit of fuss. She's really not an animal person and to be honest, they're not over keen on her either!
It's forecasting gales here so it could be interesting putting an awning up!
No WiFi on either site, just a slow dongle, so I hope by Tuesday Alanovic has returned and AC has stopped pressing the self destruct button!
Pat
|
>>just a slow dongle,
Get him to the Doctor then.....(o)
|
>> >> A Canadian moose is the same as a European elk. Confusingly
>>
>> Can it really be the same?
>>
>>
Sub-species, apparently.
naturetravels.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/what%E2%80%99s-the-difference-between-a-moose-and-an-elk/
|
Whenever I see the word 'moose', I am reminded of the chocolate bar:
www.doyouremember.co.uk/memory.php?memID=5030
|
|
I'm reminded of something else - not pre-watershed though....
|
...I'm reminded of something else - not pre-watershed though...
It's probably mucky, so I don't want to know, even after 9pm.
|
Aiding and abetting a drink driver - Ian (Cape Town)
