Getting a license after a ban for drink driving - what forms etc?

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

OP, I was not having a dig personally at you, but was merely trying to show you the affects of drink driving however a number of other members decided to attack my posts on this thread giving there in correct advice, as they only 'stand' by you if you agree with them, disagree and they hate it!

I hope you have learned drink driving is not worth it, to the public's safety or yours.

Good luck driving again

Wasn't it you that was quoting incorrect statistics and when challenged posted a link that further discredited your facts.

sassy_one

dacouch wrote: »

Wasn't it you that was quoting incorrect statistics and when challenged posted a link that further discredited your facts.

Do you have proof the statistics I posted I did not read somewhere online, which I did state at the time? - which I clearly said was a few months again, which could have changed and/or be outdated/incorrect.

Yawns........

vaio

sassy-one wrote: »

Do you have proof the statistics I posted I did not read somewhere online, which I did state at the time? - which I clearly said was a few months again, which could have changed and/or be outdated/incorrect.....

Good answer

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Good answer

If I did not know better I would have thought her sentence had come out of John Prescotts mouth

vaio

She is a he but I agree about the sentence coming out of JPs mouth

Or one of his orifices anyway

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

Do you have proof the statistics I posted I did not read somewhere online, which I did state at the time? - which I clearly said was a few months again, which could have changed and/or be outdated/incorrect.

Yawns........

You stated that 60% of drink drivers go onto reoffend by drink driving again which you used as justification for you opinion that drink drivers should be banned for life.

You were asked to provide a link to back this up and provided this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/6906321/Nearly-one-in-four-drink-drive-motorists-guilty-for-a-second-time.html and stated in post 30 that it was actually 50% that reoffend.

If you had actually read your link you would see that it states that the reoffend rate was 16.1% in the year 2000 but in the year 2009 it was up to 24.35%. The newspaper article noted that this was an increase from 2000 to 2009 of nearly 50%. (Note this is a 50% increase not the rate of reoffeding is 50%).They are using figures published by the Ministry of Justice who you would expect to have accurate figures.

As the article was published in January this year and refers to the previous years figures these are the up to date annual figures as the figures for 2010 will not be out until the end of the year. Unless you expect us to believe that the reoffend rate has suddenly jumped by 100% to an offend rate of 50% since the end of 2009 and this article you read somewhere recently. If you had read an article stating the current reoffend rate is 60% that would mean it has increased by 140% since the end of year figures for 2009.

Feel free to post a link to the article you have that substantiates your figures of 50% or 60%.

sassy_one

dacouch wrote: »

You stated that 60% of drink drivers go onto reoffend by drink driving again which you used as justification for you opinion that drink drivers should be banned for life.

You were asked to provide a link to back this up and provided this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/6906321/Nearly-one-in-four-drink-drive-motorists-guilty-for-a-second-time.html and stated in post 30 that it was actually 50% that reoffend.

If you had actually read your link you would see that it states that the reoffend rate was 16.1% in the year 2000 but in the year 2009 it was up to 24.35%. The newspaper article noted that this was an increase from 2000 to 2009 of nearly 50%. (Note this is a 50% increase not the rate of reoffeding is 50%).They are using figures published by the Ministry of Justice who you would expect to have accurate figures.

As the article was published in January this year and refers to the previous years figures these are the up to date annual figures as the figures for 2010 will not be out until the end of the year. Unless you expect us to believe that the reoffend rate has suddenly jumped by 100% to an offend rate of 50% since the end of 2009 and this article you read somewhere recently. If you had read an article stating the current reoffend rate is 60% that would mean it has increased by 140% since the end of year figures for 2009.

Feel free to post a link to the article you have that substantiates your figures of 50% or 60%.

I have already stated, and I will one more time, that 'I had read the figures on a website, some months ago, please read my later posts to see such, as I did say that, and as it was a number of months ago, I do not have the link, I also said I would TRY and find it again, as such I have not yet, this was months ago, but should I, I will post it.

Roll on when Summer holidays finish - may be a little peace and quite will avail......................:T

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

I have already stated, and I will one more time, that 'I had read the figures on a website, some months ago, please read my later posts to see such, as I did say that, and as it was a number of months ago, I do not have the link, I also said I would TRY and find it again, as such I have not yet, this was months ago, but should I, I will post it.

Roll on when Summer holidays finish - may be a little peace and quite will avail......................:T

So do you expect us to believe that you read something on a website that had figures that had jumped by 100% or more since the most up to date annual figures as per the end of 2009. Surely even you can't believe this.

Take time to read the link you posted, read the data and the dates, the increase over nearly a decade was only 50% and you expect us to believe it has increased by 100% (or 140% based on your 60% figure) in the space of a few months.

Rolandtheroadie

sassy-one wrote: »

I have already stated, and I will one more time, that 'I had read the figures on a website, some months ago, please read my later posts to see such, as I did say that, and as it was a number of months ago, I do not have the link, I also said I would TRY and find it again, as such I have not yet, this was months ago, but should I, I will post it.

Roll on when Summer holidays finish - may be a little peace and quite will avail......................:T

No, you MIS read these figures on a website. The figures have not changed, it's just you were wrong.
This is just the usual sassy-smokescreen.
Rule 1, make it up.
Rule 2, defend the lies.
Rule 3, provide a link that doesnt prove nothing.
Rule 4, backtrack and try to confuse the issue.
Rule 5, Make it up again.

Oh, and £210 for fully comp on a v6 mondeo? My !!!!.

sassy_one

scotsman4th wrote: »

No, you MIS read these figures on a website. The figures have not changed, it's just you were wrong.
This is just the usual sassy-smokescreen.
Rule 1, make it up.
Rule 2, defend the lies.
Rule 3, provide a link that doesnt prove nothing.
Rule 4, backtrack and try to confuse the issue.
Rule 5, Make it up again.

Oh, and £210 for fully comp on a v6 mondeo? My !!!!.

Think you will find that's what I paid for my years insurance upfront, I have the paper work and know how much came from my bank, so please do not tell me what my business is and isn't, thank you.

Keep on attacking my posts though, you might have got others to leave the forum by doing just that (I use to read this forum A LOT before joining) and I will not be leaving this forum, it's a open one and I am allowed to have my view and provide my advice, like it or simply, lump it