Hamza Choudhury

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, adejo92 said:

Your either over the legal limit or not.

 

Amount over doesn't affect it massively unless your stupidly over, and even then, not always.

I’ve just come back in from pissing in the wind, thanks for trying to take over. 

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Bert said:

So if he’s only slightly over the limit, it’s no biggie yeah? You actually said that you’ll not make any judgement or something until you’ve found out more because of varying severity. 99% of the people are rightly pissed off whether he’s minutely over or way over. 
 

You could be the tiniest amount over the limit and kill someone. You could be 4 times over the limit and not. Again, that’s why the limit is in place. 

yes it’s a punishable event when over the limit a small amount. There are arguments you can TRY and put forward when slightly over the limit to lessen your punishment  but there’s no argument that will be listened to when over the limit by a huge amount, you can’t claim any mitigating circumstances or ignorance when so far over the limit. NOTHING can stand up up to scrutiny in that instance. 
 

im just wanting to know more before going off on him.

[adejo92]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

So if he’s only slightly over the limit, it’s no biggie yeah? You actually said that you’ll not make any judgement or something until you’ve found out more because of varying severity. 99% of the people are rightly pissed off whether he’s minutely over or way over. 
 

You could be the tiniest amount over the limit and kill someone. You could be 4 times over the limit and not. Again, that’s why the limit is in place. 

Not to mention the limit of 35 still means you can have a few beers and be only 'just over'...

 

Some countries have a limit of 0.

 

Even if he blew 36 and was 'just over' that's still a level of drunk Ness you would know about and would have made the selfish and conscious decision to still drive.

 

His charge of driving without due care is almost of as much concern. That says he was driving badly, not just drunk. It's a completely separate offence.

[MPH]

10 minutes ago, adejo92 said:

Your either over the legal limit or not.

 

Amount over doesn't affect it massively unless your stupidly over, and even then, not always.

 

This is the part I disagree. 
 

 

there’s a much higher risk of a catastrophic event when so far over  so punishment can be more severe and rightly so.

[Collymore]

Not providing a specimen is more serious offence than actually being proven drunk at the wheel isn't it?

 

Thing is a driving ban and fine doesn't hit him like it would your average person.  He will probably get a fine which will be a few hours of pay and if he's banned for a year he'll be able to afford comfortable private transport easily. Your average Joe would be on the bus or cycling everywhere.

 

Seems a bit unfair that. 

[Bert]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

yes it’s a punishable event when over the limit a small amount. There are arguments you can TRY and put forward when slightly over the limit to lessen your punishment  but there’s no argument that will be listened to when over the limit by a huge amount, you can’t claim any mitigating circumstances or ignorance when so far over the limit. NOTHING can stand up up to scrutiny in that instance. 
 

im just wanting to know more before going off on him.

Regardless of that. Over the limit. Is over the limit. You cannot claim any mitigating circumstances when you’re over the limit  It’s factual evidence. You know full well even after one drink, you could well be taking a risk that could turn a lot of peoples worlds upside down. You lose all kind of credibility when you get behind the wheel of a car having drank more than one beverage. 
 

As mentioned, numerous times. The limit is there for a reason after being medically proven that after a certain level of alcohol in your blood, your ability to react is at a much lower capacity than if there’s zero alcohol in your blood. 
 

If you’d have lost someone close to you but they were only slightly over the limit, would that be easier to take than if they were 4 times over the limit? I would bet you every last penny in the world that it wouldn’t. 
 

[MPH]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

Regardless of that. Over the limit. Is over the limit. You cannot claim any mitigating circumstances when you’re over the limit  It’s factual evidence. You know full well even after one drink, you could well be taking a risk that could turn a lot of peoples worlds upside down. You lose all kind of credibility when you get behind the wheel of a car having drank more than one beverage. 
 

As mentioned, numerous times. The limit is there for a reason after being medically proven that after a certain level of alcohol in your blood, your ability to react is at a much lower capacity than if there’s zero alcohol in your blood. 
 

If you’d have lost someone close to you but they were only slightly over the limit, would that be easier to take than if they were 4 times over the limit? I would bet you every last penny in the world that it wouldn’t. 
 

 The problem with this is that people DO use any and all kind of excuses. Some of them make you think they are more stupid that  hellbent on endangering others lives.  Hamza doesn’t give me the impression he’s got a willful disdain for human life so I at least want to find out a bit more before going off on him
 

What you say about  wether you lose someone or not is all a bit of conjecture   And what ifs  that hasn’t got anything to do with the point I’m trying to make. I used to work in the pediatric intensive care unit at the Royal for several years and I can promise you I’ve seen the  some awful results of drunk driving, so I’m not trying to excuse it in any way..

[MPH]

20 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Not providing a specimen is more serious offence than actually being proven drunk at the wheel isn't it?

 

Thing is a driving ban and fine doesn't hit him like it would your average person.  He will probably get a fine which will be a few hours of pay and if he's banned for a year he'll be able to afford comfortable private transport easily. Your average Joe would be on the bus or cycling everywhere.

 

Seems a bit unfair that. 

 

id love to know more.. was he slumped at the wheel, did he stink of alcohol…. Slurring his speech.., ect

 

because you know he’ll be able to afford a good legal team..

[tickler28]

The sooner we get rid of dross like Choudhury the better

[Nod.E]

I think @MPH is attempting to excuse him on the assumption that it's possible Hamza may have unknowingly teetered over the edge.  

 

Unknowingly is the key word. Most sensible people know to just not entertain the idea of any drink driving, or perhaps cap it a pint.

 

Others believe (incorrectly), that they can remain below the limit at levels that are actually above the limit. Perhaps this is after 3 drinks, or 2 quick drinks. It'll vary. If this were the case, Hamza would be stupid. Stupid, but perhaps not deserving of widespread disdain and condemning.

 

Killing somebody by catching somebody while waving a knife about is a little different from full on going for someone. Both are ridiculous, but the judgement and punishment would vary and it comes down to intent / awareness.

 

However, given his rap sheet, and given the charge of dangerous driving, I think it's safe to assume that the above set of circumstances do not apply. 

 

And even if they did, I'd have less sympathy for a footballer who should know better. Not because we hold them to higher standards, but because he has the luxury of very easily paying for alternative transport. You'd just get a taxi, wouldn't you?

 

Irrelevant though. We literally know he was driving badly. And you wouldn't refuse to co-operate (at least when back at the station), unless you were fairly certain that you were over the limit.

 

I don't know why anyone would defend him.

[MPH]

31 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I think @MPH is attempting to excuse him on the assumption that it's possible Hamza may have unknowingly teetered over the edge.  

 

Unknowingly is the key word. Most sensible people know to just not entertain the idea of any drink driving, or perhaps cap it a pint.

 

Others believe (incorrectly), that they can remain below the limit at levels that are actually above the limit. Perhaps this is after 3 drinks, or 2 quick drinks. It'll vary. If this were the case, Hamza would be stupid. Stupid, but perhaps not deserving of widespread disdain and condemning.

 

Killing somebody by catching somebody while waving a knife about is a little different from full on going for someone. Both are ridiculous, but the judgement and punishment would vary and it comes down to intent / awareness.

 

However, given his rap sheet, and given the charge of dangerous driving, I think it's safe to assume that the above set of circumstances do not apply. 

 

And even if they did, I'd have less sympathy for a footballer who should know better. Not because we hold them to higher standards, but because he has the luxury of very easily paying for alternative transport. You'd just get a taxi, wouldn't you?

 

Irrelevant though. We literally know he was driving badly. And you wouldn't refuse to co-operate (at least when back at the station), unless you were fairly certain that you were over the limit.

 

I don't know why anyone would defend him.

 

im saying that until we know a bit more, any explanation remains a possibility no matter how slight.. I do not neither will I defend a drunk driver. Personally need to know a bit more before I get as angry as some are getting on here.

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

im saying that until we know a bit more, any explanation remains a possibility no matter how slight.. I do not neither will I defend a drunk driver. Personally need to know a bit more before I get as angry as some are getting on here.

I just don't think you're going to get more information, and it isn't a leap to expect the worst.

[MPH]

30 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I just don't think you're going to get more information, and it isn't a leap to expect the worst.

 

 

. He’s got a court case next month . That should tell us a bit more..

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, MPH said:

 

im saying that until we know a bit more, any explanation remains a possibility no matter how slight.. I do not neither will I defend a drunk driver. Personally need to know a bit more before I get as angry as some are getting on here.

I understand your point.  There is a difference in seriousness of the offence between being 0.37 and 2.5, and the law recognizes this in sentencing.  It is not unreasonable to say we should also take this into account when judging the guy rather than jumping to the worst conclusions.  That said the refusal does suggest he knew he was over the limit, and he was right.

[Bert]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

. He’s got a court case next month . That should tell us a bit more..

You’ll find out the sentence and perhaps how much he was over the limit. But none of these scenarios that you’ve drawn up such as being slumped over the wheel. 

[TamworthFoxes]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

You’ll find out the sentence and perhaps how much he was over the limit. But none of these scenarios that you’ve drawn up such as being slumped over the wheel. 

We won’t find out how much he was over as he refused to give a sample.

 

[Tommy G]

5 hours ago, MPH said:

 

im saying that until we know a bit more, any explanation remains a possibility no matter how slight.. I do not neither will I defend a drunk driver. Personally need to know a bit more before I get as angry as some are getting on here.

Are you his legal rep? 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

We won’t find out how much he was over as he refused to give a sample.

 

For refusing to provide a sample, it’s a minimum 12-month driving ban. You can also get sent to prison, but if it’s his first offence he’ll likely just get a fine. 

[Tommy Fresh]

11 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

We won’t find out how much he was over as he refused to give a sample.

 

Refused to give a roadside (preliminary) sample didn't he, no mention that I can see about him refusing the one they do back at a station. 

[Tommy G]

Given his list as long as your arm of previous misdemeanours it’s no surprise people have gone in 2 footed with him. 
 

Drink driving is just such an imbecilic thing to do, partner that with his fortunate circumstances it’s even more unbelievable.

 

The prat shouldn’t play again this season and review at the end of the season. 

Edited 25 January by Tommy G

[Sly]

10 hours ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Raciest has tickled me man and sexiest how didn't I see that

Oops! 

[TamworthFoxes]

7 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Refused to give a roadside (preliminary) sample didn't he, no mention that I can see about him refusing the one they do back at a station. 

If he had given a sample at the station he wouldn’t have been charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. 
Only the station sample can be used as evidence. You can refuse at the roadside and then provide at the station and it is not classed as failing to provide.

The roadside result is never used as evidence, it’s the machine at the station. 
 

[Tommy Fresh]

5 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

If he had given a sample at the station he wouldn’t have been charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. 
Only the station sample can be used as evidence. You can refuse at the roadside and then provide at the station and it is not classed as failing to provide.

The roadside result is never used as evidence, it’s the machine at the station. 
 

I'm well aware they use the station readings, even if you do co-operate with the roadside test. However, you can be charged with refusing to give a roadside one which he was "'Hamza Choudhury, aged 26, of Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire, has since been charged with driving while over the alcohol limit, driving without due care and attention, and failing to co-operate with a preliminary test." 

Edited 25 January by Tommy Fresh

[bmt]

5 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

If he had given a sample at the station he wouldn’t have been charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. 
Only the station sample can be used as evidence. You can refuse at the roadside and then provide at the station and it is not classed as failing to provide.

The roadside result is never used as evidence, it’s the machine at the station. 
 

And as I said earlier people do it (wrongly and ill-advisedly) if they think they're close to the limit and more likely to be under at the station. Ignorantly people believe that it won't be a problem if they are under at the station

[TamworthFoxes]

5 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

I'm well aware they use the station readings, even if you do co-operate with the roadside test. However, you can be charged with refusing to give a roadside one which he was "'Hamza Choudhury, aged 26, of Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire, has since been charged with driving while over the alcohol limit, driving without due care and attention, and failing to co-operate with a preliminary test." 

Apologies. Seems you are correct.

Every days a school day and all that.