richard_smith237

54 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Nope.

 

If he was legally driving with a licence he would not have been over the limit 

Absolutely - given his readings, the Op was within the Limits of the Full License...  

But, as he had no license at all, it is the lower limit that applied to him, hence he was over.

The dumbest aspect of this is actually driving without a license, it is this that ultimately cost him.

1 hour ago, faraday said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Had he 'blown' 30-60mins later - his body would have already metabolised the alcohol and he'd have been under that lower limit.

 

Not at all.

BAC peaks at 30-70 minutes. 

Fair enough...    had he blown into the breathalyser a couple of hours later then.

The point I wanted to address is how close to being over the 'limit' the Op was.... 

.... some want to see him 'hung-drawn and quartered'... I think going slightly over like this, while absolutely wrong, might also be considered a stupid mistake... Where as being significantly over the limit and knowingly driving while inebriated is something that I'd 'morally' reprehensible.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

In another life - and not so long ago - I had suspension after suspension on TV/AN, for saying what I say now. 14 holidays in all. Now I'm here again, saying my bit. The times, they are a'changing.

I think is fair enough that you, Red and Rattlesnake get to say your thing without being censored - thats a primary facet of debate, but it needs to be carried out in the correct location... 

... this sub-forum itself is designed to give you a place to voice your opinions, whatever they maybe.. but to do so outside of the 'main forum' where such misinformation is inappropriate. 

Anyone reading or posting in this 'sub-forum' knows its the place to discuss conspiracies and other theories.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Thanks for that bit of wisdom Richard.

 

A virus, any viirus, has never been isolated and never been shown to cause disease.

 

Do you Sir, have a problem with the word 'isolation'? For sure virologists do. They follow Enders' 1954 procedures in principle to this day. Get some mucus/snot. Put it a petri dish. Mix in this. Add that. A bit more of this preservative. A little dye. Some molecular metal. Then starve the soup/mix.

Such an unintelligent argument, you make out this is a language issue with world isolation !!.. its nots, its a 'disinformation issue'...    Your information flies in the face of modern virology... 

If your information is so correct - why do you not have your on published papers, why are you not famed for 

'correcting' mainstream biology ?

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

Deterioration occurs!!

 

Ah see! That virus has shown its true self. Put the sample into the PCR and let's have a closer butchers. We have the code Sir; but not all of it. Put it into the computuer to fill in the missing parts. Eureka! a new variant.

 

It's all utter nonsense. 

I'll believe published and peer reviewed experts over a forum troll... 

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

We are told that a person with covid can sneeze out a million viruses in one go. They only go as far as 2 metres however. Then they hit the invisible wall. Would it not be possible to capture some and isolate them? Of course not. Wouldn't want to let the cat out of the bag now would we?! Far better to prove their existence in the traditional Enders way. Keeps us in a job.

Nope - you've made up that 2 meters rubbish - such respiratory viruses can be spread as far as the 'water droplets' carry them...  there is no 'invisible wall'..  

Air samplers: Specialised devices (like bioaerosol samplers or impactors) can literally collect airborne particles - including viruses - when someone sneezes nearby. 

You keep making up these phantom arguments so you can refute them - its stupid.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature has the answers we seek.

You keep quoting that golden droplet of bo!!ox... what answers does nature have ? 

Natural acquired immunity ?...  Sure, that may work over millennia, but at the cost of millions - billions of lives.

4 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Calm down, we are not hurting anybody and 70% of members here also do it regularly without incident.

The law is a bit of over reach, unfortunately a necessary over reach because a small percentage of idiots drive like idiots when having a few.

In the Ops case, driving very slightly over the limit is quite different from driving after 12-14 beers.

It could be argued that there exists a moral "grey area," where being slightly over the limit doesn't necessarily reflect the same socially unacceptable behavior of someone who is undeniably impaired and clearly exceeds the limit....  One is a minor lapse in judgment, perhaps even uncharacteristic, the other is pure idiocy and shows complete disregard for anyone else.

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

You've got to be joking, prison should be like in the Philippines, 38 in one room, with one toilet, not like a 5 star hotel with aircon. Where's the deterrent in that? See a civilized country like Thailand gets this right, only an uncivilized country like Denmark would pamper criminals so they offend again.

 

We show little concern? How much concern did you show for your fellow man, woman and child when you sloshed whiskey and got behind the wheel drunk? You could have killed someone. You're the dark side. Not us. We're the light, making you understand how unacceptable this behaviour is. It's not hatred, it's tough love.

 

I'm also considerably younger than you. And I'm not "spiteful", I sympathise with your suffering, because I too, believe it or not, spent a night in Thai jail. In my case however I was actually innocent. You're guilty as hell.

Looking at this with balance, the suggestion that he was 'sloshed' is a strong exaggeration:

- He registered 'under' the England DUI limit.

- He registered 'under' the Thai full license limit.

- He registered 'slightly over' the Thai Temp license (no license) limit.

Had he 'blown' 30-60mins later - his body would have already metabolised the alcohol and he'd have been under that lower limit.

Its arguable of course, but its likely after that at that 'lower limit' his driving was completely unimpaired...  a little different to being twice over over the full legal limit where your scorn would be wholly valid.

3 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

On 4/22/2025 at 12:25 AM, Hellfire said:

I drank about 70-80 grams of Thai 35% whiskey and got behind the wheel. 

 

70-80 grams is how many shots ?

I'm assuming he means 70-80 ml...  

In which case - 70-80ml of whisky would be 3x standard UK shots (which are 25ml).

Which is about this much: 

6 hours ago, faraday said:

 

You should look again at my comment, dear boy.

 

I did use 'maybe' in my explanation.

 

You're failing: Again, Richard...

 

 

Look at you trying to desperately shoe-horn in an argument - Its rather amusing... 

Whether the comment used 'maybe' or not, it was rather direct, short and to the point, just as your attempts to call me a 'condescending prat' are...   

Are you one of those snowflakes without a spine who pee their panties when a policeman stops them ?

... is that why you're aligning yourself with those who do not understand Mango's comment ?

1 hour ago, faraday said:

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Wrong - it was very direct, no hidden meaning,  nothing snide about it !!

 

Learn your language ! 

 

Wrong again, Dickie.

 

The use of "maybe" is a suggestion, therefore not direct.

 

I explain the difference, as you appear to be somewhat hard of learning.

 

"you are a condescending prat"

vs

"Maybe, you are a condescending prat"

But you didn’t use the word ‘maybe’…. so try again…. 
 

Apologies if you’re upset and think I’m condescending & looking down on you… I am. 

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Too few of those, our ranks are growing. We are a plague and should not exist, so what should the Good People do about us? It's a fundamental issue.

Put you on an island & leave you unvaccinated ???

… you need antibiotics? 

7 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Which cases of arrestees who have to appear in court in the next few hours, i.e. in the morning have not had that process applied?

Those idiots I’m acquainted with though football who’ve been caught & had to go back to the station the following morning & taken to court…. Especially on the weekend when a few of the twits have been caught.  
 

** (m) 

4 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

At least he is consistent.

Welcome back after your ban !! 

… bet you went through a few pairs of incontenence panties while counting down the clock when this thread lit up !!   

10 hours ago, faraday said:

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Maybe you are one of those who does not have a 'spine to stand up for yourself'.

 

 

An indirect & unnecessary snide comment.

Wrong - it was very direct, no hidden meaning,  nothing snide about it !!

Learn your language ! 

26 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

17 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

There was no reason to Jail him - he is married and lives here, he'd already been processed and was obviously not a 'flight risk' and the BiB knew it.

Yes there was, drunk driving and the need tp appear in court the next morning.

In which case every such example results in an overnight stay in jail which is not the case. 
 

Hence, the jail stay was uncharacteristic of the conventional response to such an offence. 

37 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I 'get it' completely - I get that now, instead of admitting that you are wrong, you are now going 50/50 by saying 'there becomes a point' bla bla bla.

 

The actual fact is that you have a choice, you can pay your way out of a situation or you can refuse (if you know you are right).  You cannot say I'm wrong, because I know it to be true. I refuse, others pay.  At the start of your argument you were stating that its reality and claiming its what you have to do if you live in Thailand. Now you say that you do 'stand up' but only to a point. Which is it?

 

You then move on to calling me naive - how can that be correct when I have proved time and time again that you don't have to pay the police - and that's the nub of it - you don't have to if you are sure you've done nothing wrong, That is plain and simple corruption and although you may not think so, you do have a choice.

 

Yes, choosing not to pay may well cost you time, even money but for someone like me who is totally anti corruption, paying the police is out of the question. I'd rather go to court and end up with a bigger fine if I lost.

Stopping for traffic lights, I recall getting pulled over to the side for speeding... the policeman said a police officer with a speed camera caught me further up the road... 

I asked how fast I was going, the officer couldn't tell me.... 

I asked him what the speed limit was - he said 95 kmh (I knew it was 90) - then walked away.

Another officer came to the window, I asked the same questions, he couldn't tell me the speed but told me the limit was 90 kmh. 

...  I knew this game...    I called both officers to come to the door (of my car) and pointed out of if they can't tell me the speed limit, where is the proof...  Show me proof and write me an official ticket. 

Their response... OK.. Please drive carefully... I thanked them for their concern and drove on.

Its perfectly acceptable to challenge things politely when we know we are not in the wrong - the BiB here are humans like everyone else. 

1 minute ago, treetops said:

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thus: The Op hasn't been quite specific in his figures - I went with the % and BAC equivalent but may have been mistaken and his reading was actually 27 micrograms per 100 ml...  in which case he was over even with a standard driving license (but still under the equivalent UK limits).

 

I think you were correct with your original assumptions, my point was that he could also have been locked up in parts of the UK at these levels as what you are quoting as a UK limit is much lower in Scotland.

Agreed -  I was mistaken when quoting the UK level...  I should have written the England and Wales Level. 

The DUI limits for Scotland are less - and the same as Thailand (full licence) at: 22 micrograms per 100 ml / equivalent to 0.05% BAC

3 minutes ago, faraday said:

What happened?

 

I quoted Sungod & the wording was changed. 

 

Yours,

 

confused of isaan 

( been here 90 years)

School of Hard Knocks followed by the University of life  ?????   

7 minutes ago, sungod said:

I'm off for 15 pints and a couple of joints in a titty bar in the Pattaya ghetto, dont worry, I will be taking a taxi home.

 

Catch you all later.

Nothing wrong with that at all - Enjoy !!!...    

8 minutes ago, sungod said:

I just call a spade a spade, nothing about being defensive. Plenty others on here find many of your posts condescending.

I can understand that, people don't like being wrong or called out for their rubbish and take things personally and get defensive.... 

I've called you out for attacking another poster with flawed commentary - naturally you don't like it because you lack the emotional tools to sit back and recognise your commentary was flawed... 

You will probably read MangoKorats latest comment, recognise that you were incorrect -but face and ego will prevent you from openly admitting that. 

14 minutes ago, treetops said:

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

As a comparison - the DUI limit in the UK is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (0.08% BAC equivalent) - the Op was still under the UK DUI limit.

 

Only in parts of the UK.  In others it's 22 micrograms or 0.05% BAC so the OP could have been locked up there too.

Valid point: I may well have been wrong in my initial assesment of the Ops numbers:

It actually depends on the exact units the Op was measured with.

He was given a percentage and a 27 value - which is somewhat contradictory... 

Thus: his value could have been: 

0.027% BAC equivalent...   

..which is under the UK limit (of 0.08% BAC) / 35 micrograms per 100 ml

Or

27 micrograms per 100 ml which as you rightly point out is over The Thailand limit of 22 micrograms per 100 ml / equivalent to 0.05% BAC

Thus: The Op hasn't been quite specific in his figures - I went with the % and BAC equivalent but may have been mistaken and his reading was actually 27 micrograms per 100 ml...  in which case he was over even with a standard driving license (but still under the equivalent UK limits).

8 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Naive?  I think I've explained fairly comprehensively why I'm not and others have also commented that their experiences have been the same.  I would not be stupid enough to state that the police never take a cut - simply because I don't know that.  What I do know is my experiences and those are that you do not have to pay the police. How can my experiences be naive?

 

No, the police are not doing it for the love of their job but by both sides coming to an agreement, their job can often be made much easier - they don't seem to like working or filling in forms very much.

 

Yes, I know very well that people do pay the police, its common knowledge but that's usually because they have been breaking the law - sometimes by drink driving. All I'm saying is that if you are certain you have done nothing wrong, you don't have to pay them.  Get your phone out and start recording - see what they do.

 

Its barstool rubbish and very much like those who claim they've been 'fined' for doing DIY on their home.  They mistake police corruption for the truth, the stories perpetuate and become the truth in many people's eyes..  A member once posted on here that he had been fined by the police for working when all he had done was to drill a hole in the wall of his home.  If that story was true, what he should have done was refuse to pay anything and ask for his day in court.  I discussed that story with my Thai lawyer who stated that it was rubbish - there wasn't a court in the land that would have fined him for doing that and he should have refused.

 

The police have learned that they can squeeze cash out of some foreigners so they try - next time you have a problem and you know they are wrong - grow a pair and refuse.

Again - a perfectly reasonable response and wholly accurate example of normal life in Thailand.

Those who don't see things in a similar manner are either limited in the experiences, perhaps due to only being in certain area's of Thailand (such as central Pattaya) etc... and project from that experience, or they simply have not been here to garner sufficient well informed base of understanding.

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your "the falang is always in the wrong'" argument is also very flawed...  seems you only have 'bar-stool' experience if you believe that tosh... 

 

The continued problem you have with your barstool Richard is that its higher than everyone elses, its why you are always looking down your nose at people who dare challenge you.

I don't... I’m no stranger to sharp, reasoned debate - many here challenge me with arguments of substance and intellect.

You, however, now take offence not because I condescend, but because your flimsy notions collapse under the weight of basic common sense.

It’s not that I’m looking down on you; it’s that you're craning your neck to glimpse the lowest rung of reason and you now get defensive.

1 minute ago, sungod said:

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The reality of being here for well over two decades is good enough thanks...  

 

Always makes me giggle when posters think they can large it up by saying how long they have been here, what you trying to say, you haven't been here as long as me? 🤣

I've been here for long enough to know how things work here...  thats not 'larging it up' ye daftie, its simple fact.

I don't disagree with your comments on corruption - its part of the game we have to get involved with here to make life simpler and avoid delays etc...   but other 'disagreements' you expressed with MangoKorat highlight your flawed opinions...  i.e. you stated he needs to take a reality check, when his driving here is perfectly legal etc... 

... you've only sought to contradict him deliberately avoiding common ground that lengthy experience if being here brings...   This indicates you either live in a very different area of Thailand (i.e. a farang Ghetto in Pattaya) or you are simply inexperienced to the realities of general life in Thailand - particularly when it comes to the interactions with the average policeman etc....