BIGTYM2010 (12-05-11), City Gent (12-05-11), TiffanyTees (12-05-11)
sorry 4 changin the subject but this has been n my mind a while now.sumtin similar to this really.if a person with a provisional licence purchases a 2nd hand or new sports car,,,subaru b4 legacy turbo charge or honda integra type r and rings up a few insurance companys and one of them decide to insure him for a nice price of around 4-5k ..later the person crashes the car killing a few others or seriously injuring others,,who shud be held responsible?? the driver??? or the insurance company for insuring the person giving him or her the green light to hit the roads in such a fast high powered car knowing they wer not qualifeid to handle???
“Once Everton has touched you nothing will be the same”
Alan Ball
Justice For The 96
It's a terrible case a man lost his life will things change I don't think so a publican will always put profit before people unless the law is changed in some way to make the publican and barstaff reasonable which I can't see happening it would just be a legal minefield.
the insurance company will insure the person on the condition that he/she has a full licence holder beside them in the car at all time and are abiding by the rules of the road. If they are not doing both of these things their insurance is null and void, as such they are not covered and we all know when you have no insurance you can not drive. So IMO it's the persons fault not the companies.
The same law has been in place for a fair few years now in England mate and an excellent law it is. The law is there because when you are pissed you don't always make your best decisions, so the bar staff should be there to make sure you don't order and drink a half pint of spirits in one go.
Just let me ask the posters that think the two guys shouldn't have been charged one thing, if it was your brother doing the same what would your opinion of the barman that served him the drink that killed him be?
CG
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
Wise men talk because they have something to say;
fools talk because they have to say something: Plato
TiffanyTees (12-05-11)
that makes no sense. surely if someone is charged with rape and they are found not guilty then the conclusion is that they did not commit the crime in the first place
i think what BIGTYm is saying that here a precedent has been created. this arguement could be made in a similar case.
btw, it was found that neither manager or barman had any specific training to deal with such a situation, so maybe it is the hotels fault for not having adequaely trained their staff?
see you next tuesday
BIGTYM2010 (12-05-11)
The licensing laws in the UK changed a few years back, putting some responsibility in the hands of the barman & the licencee, both of whom could be fined or face jail if they knowily served a drunk more alcholol resulting in death, knowily allowing a drunk person to drive from the premises or serve a lethal amount of alcholol to a person.
However, I do think that they is also a degree of personal responsibility that should be taken into account. The guy went out to get drunk, he would've known he was drunk, his mates would've known he was drunk, his mates were probably all in on it aswell, as the saying goes 'they've all got blood on all their hands'. A tragic story that will hopefully serve as a lesson to some, but I doubt it, it's not the first such death & I'm sorry to say I doubt it will be the last, we, as a society have encouraged a 'drink culture' & it will continue.
Sandy x
Last edited by Sexy Sandy 69; 12-05-11 at 15:16.
bhoywonder (12-05-11), Morpheus (12-05-11)
i think personal responsibility is a big issue here. he might have had a few drinks before hand but im sure he still knew what he was doing. and this was a bet too. i betcha he had done this many times before. very unlikey that it was his first time doing it.
see you next tuesday
Justice done, I am glad the two men were acquited. The DPP should have known full well that the case was never going to stick. I know there is a law there that they were supposed to have broken, but I don't think it can ever be proven in a court of law whether or not a person was fit to be served drink. We all have different tolerance levels - I know a man who drank over half a dozen whiskeys and still passed the breathalizer test. The same amount of drink would put someone else in a coma. There is no legal definition of drunkenness, it's all a matter of opinion whether any of us think someone can or can't handle more.
All the attention has focused on the barmen. What about the dead man's friends who were content to leave him in a heap on the floor of a pub? Should they not have seen to it that he was taken home and put into his own bed? Should they not have told him that slamming 8 shots on his head after a heap of pints was not a good idea in the first place?
When all is said and done, personal responsibility has to come into it. People know the potential effects on their behaviour of too much drink and should accept the potential consequences. Some who goes out and gets shitfaced with full prior knowledge of what they are about to do can't really blame others for the fallout.