Unbelievable Jeff

I think some will use it for that, and others are in genuine need of them. People like to criticise succesive governments and the economy for the increase in use of food banks - but at the same time there has also been a big increase in cigarette prices over the last few years...

100% this.

I wonder if the Black box is aware?

Got £40 on a United win.

And here is a case where it was applied: “The act of the oncoming driver who was seriously over the drink driving limit for alcohol was gross criminal negligence and amounted to the unlawful killing of the deceased.” And some sentencing guidelines for you: Death by Dangerous Driving Death by dangerous driving Date Updated: January 2012 Title: Road traffic offences Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving Legislation: Road Traffic Act 1988 s.1 Commencement Date: 1 July 1992 Mode of Trial: Indictable only Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 14 years imprisonment with effect from 27/02/2004 (increased from 10 years imprisonment by s.285 Criminal Justice Act 2003) Minimum disqualification of 2 years with compulsory extended re-test. Sentencing Range: See below Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any) The SGC definitive guideline "Causing Death by Driving" applies to all offenders convicted of this offence and sentenced on or after 4 August 2008. The guideline applies to a "first-time offender" aged 18 or over convicted after trial who has not been assessed as a dangerous offender requiring a sentence under ss. 224-228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as amended). Culpability & Harm Levels of seriousness The 3 levels are distinguished by factors related predominantly to the standard of driving; the general description of the degree of risk is complemented by examples of the type of bad driving arising. The presence of aggravated factors or combinations of a small number of determinants of seriousness will increase the starting point within the range. Where there is a larger group of determinants of seriousness and/or aggravating factors, this may justify moving the starting point to the next level. Level 1 - The most serious offence encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others. Such offences are likely to be characterised by: A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving AND/OR Consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment AND/OR A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 2. Level 1 is that for which the increase in maximum penalty was aimed primarily. Where an offence involved both of the determinants of seriousness identified, particularly if accompanied by aggravating factors such as multiple deaths or injuries, or a very bad driving record, this may move an offence towards the top of the sentencing range. The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others Starting point: 8 years custody Sentencing range: 7-14 years custody

But the bottom example is criminal negligence or gross criminal negligence, so you've proved my point. Criminal negligence is recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death. This can be careless, inattentive, neglectful or willfully blind. This becomes gross when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life". How does this not cover what you are saying?

It's criminal negligence, but definitely not attempted murder. You are trying to change the very basis of criminal law, which is intent. Look up Actus Reus, Mens Rea and criminal negligence.

I apologise, I thought the limit was 1 x 4% lager, but just checked and you're right. I've always kept to the one myself.

2 pints is 2.5 times the legal limit? 1 pint is usually over the limit. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your argument. You say people should be allowed to drink 2 pints and drive even though thats more than twice over the limit, yet people who break the legal limit and kill someone should get done for murder?

Drunk, or had a drink? Don't forget you are over the limit having one pint. Important distinction here.

This is a joke isn't it? The same Bony who Liverpool wanted but had to say no to cos he wanted £100k per week? No wonder you were so unhappy in the Summer if these are your expectations.

Well I think we can tell you do one and not the other, which is probably why you are trying to make light of it. Either way, to say that people should be charged with murder when they are even 1mg over the alcohol limit is a frankly ridiculous idea, and the fact that you'd have to change the whole criminal injury section of law to reflect the removal of manslaughter and negligence.

I agree with Hypo, use a crackpipe.

To be fair though, you could say the drink drive limit is also a guideline...

Great news, it should get sorted then. It takes time to develop an opinion on a player, and good that Koeman has decided he is good enough.

Well of course you would. But I'd feel safer in a car with someone who has 100mg of alcohol in their blood doing the speed limit than in a car with someone doing 100mph. The biggest cause of accidents in the UK is from speeding, around 30% more than from drink driving. Hence, I would say that you have to apply the same to those who break the speed limit.

But you're not saying that at all? You're saying you fancy having a drink when you go out, and fancy driving (not condoning this by the way - I find it abhorrent). It's like saying if you drive 71mph on the motorway you don't give a **** if you kill someone, so surely anyone that speeds and kills someone should also be done for murder. So in essence, get the same sentence as someone like Ian Huntley. That's not reasonable and I can't agree with you.

You do realise the main difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, and why the sentence is longer. If you intend to kill someone the chance is you may do it again - hence the (much) longer sentence. Equating it to manslaughter is far more reasonable.

Have to say the car I bought in the Summer is the first with bluetooth - and it's brilliant.

It's not that I want to, although I have heard a few people saying that it's a decent quality - although from what I've seen in the ten minutes of screeching I can take it really isn't.

It's how Adam told him the club is run.

Maybe 'honourable' is the wrong word. Perhaps sensible is the way I should go. The guy turned down higher wages to join us ahead of United when he joined us, to ensure he'd get first team football. Whether he'd go to United now, when they still have Rafael and both Jones and Smalling that they tend to chuck at RB I don't know. Of course, there is a good chance that United aren't interested anyway.

The worst thing I have ever heard (as in offensive to my ears) is the noise of kids and children at a womens football match. ****ing hell, that is awful. It actually means I can't watch womens football. Luckily at men's games you rarely hear women or children.

Or whilst a child is acting up in the back of the car...

That's very funny, fairplay