Shackelele charged with Drink Driving

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Obviously goes without saying that if he want drink driving, well he is a bit of a bellend really isn’t he.

But, suppose he hadn’t and was in fact innocently sat in the car for whatever other various reason? The Vehicle wasn’t actually running therefore wasn’t being driven, in fact theoretically he could have had the keys in to power in up for the music whilst enjoying time with a loved one or friends at the nature reserve…

I am not making excuses for him in the slightest, however the earlier comment about how being caught in this situation can’t be argued I disagree with. Cars are media systems and the keys could have been in for that reason alone…. If the engine had been running then even if sat stationary you are bang to rights, but I don’t feel it to be a conclusive ‘collar’ on this occasion.
Did he drive his car to the nature reserve and leave it there, then walk to the pub, have four pints, then walk back to it, to sit down and listen to some music? Possible I suppose.
 

I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have read the original article and picked up on the real story here.

The BBC amended this article six weeks before the alleged event happened. Clearly our license fees are being wasted persuing time travel technology while the public are left to suffer substandard TV programming. We must demand answers.

1737017177265.webp
 
There's a difference between drink driving and drunk in charge of a vehicle. If you are over the limit and in the car where there is a realistic potential that you could drive that car whilst under the influence then you commit the offence.

In Shackleton's case he was over the legal limit ✅

Given that he was allegedly in a country park where there is nowhere to go it's highly likely that he would've driven the car whilst over the limit. It would be for him to convince the court and prove that he either intended for someone else to pick him uo or get an Uber home. Even if he said he was going to sleep in the car until he sobered up he would still commit the offence.

In a nutshell, he's probably screwed on this one. Most plead not guilty to keep their driving licence for longer as you don't get banned until you're found guilty in court. So most plead not guilty at the initial hearing then plead guilty when the trial goes ahead months later.
 
Obviously goes without saying that if he want drink driving, well he is a bit of a bellend really isn’t he.

But, suppose he hadn’t and was in fact innocently sat in the car for whatever other various reason? The Vehicle wasn’t actually running therefore wasn’t being driven, in fact theoretically he could have had the keys in to power in up for the music whilst enjoying time with a loved one or friends at the nature reserve…

I am not making excuses for him in the slightest, however the earlier comment about how being caught in this situation can’t be argued I disagree with. Cars are media systems and the keys could have been in for that reason alone…. If the engine had been running then even if sat stationary you are bang to rights, but I don’t feel it to be a conclusive ‘collar’ on this occasion.
I hope he doesn't hire you as his brief, what a load of codswallop...
 
She might have been getting double teamed in a nearby Vauxhall viva while shakelele watched and rattled one out against the passenger door before getting back in the car to warm up.
That's frankly his best defence " my missus was getting a good rogering and I was in the drivers seat as that gave me the best view" :)

Obviously, he'd need her to give evidence...
 
There's a difference between drink driving and drunk in charge of a vehicle. If you are over the limit and in the car where there is a realistic potential that you could drive that car whilst under the influence then you commit the offence.

In Shackleton's case he was over the legal limit ✅

Given that he was allegedly in a country park where there is nowhere to go it's highly likely that he would've driven the car whilst over the limit. It would be for him to convince the court and prove that he either intended for someone else to pick him uo or get an Uber home. Even if he said he was going to sleep in the car until he sobered up he would still commit the offence.

In a nutshell, he's probably screwed on this one. Most plead not guilty to keep their driving licence for longer as you don't get banned until you're found guilty in court. So most plead not guilty at the initial hearing then plead guilty when the trial goes ahead months later.
Most people charged with the offence actually plead guilty at the initial hearing.

And you don’t necessarily get banned even if you plead guilty or are found guilty after trial. The magistrates have the option of simply endorsing the licence (with ten points) rather than disqualifying. A ban is certainly the more likely outcome of the two.
 

Why on earth would you plead not guilty when you're bang to rights?

The CPS will look at probability of winning and cost associated

The case may be dropped if there is a risk they could lose and costs would outweigh cost recovered etc

A good barrister will advise his client to be a pain in the arse in the hope it gets dropped
 
I’ve been up that way before, was a pretty good night. Depending on the time of year you might see quite a few Blue Tits. Not the bird variety, mind. Just that it’s fucking freezing
 
Shackleton Shackleton running down the wing

Shackleton Shackleton caught at Fairburn Ings

He is fucking shite
But he loves a dogging site

Shackleton Shackleton Shackletoooon
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom