Is it me? I thought that news organisations were supposed to report the news, not create or manipulate it.
Channel 5 News recently ran a VT about the proposed changes to the Drink Drive limits.
Now this is effectively Sky News as they supply Channel 5.
This report states that they propose reducing the limit from 80 to 40, which they state would save over 100 lives per year.
I am all for saving lives and reducing incidents of drink driving, but in this same VT they show a case where someone was something like 4 times the limit and drove the wrong way down a duel carriageway and, sadly, killed someone.
It was wrong on two counts: firstly, even if the limit was 5, this maniac would still have got drunk and driven his car.
Do you really think that by halving the legal limit that this maniac would say to himself 'hm...
the legal limit has now been reduced so I better not drink and drive'.
NO, of course he would not, but more of this later.
They say 100 lives would be saved.
The only way they could confirm this is show that 100 people have been killed, in a year, by drivers who had over 40 but less than 80, does this information exist? No it does not: it is just someone plucking figures out of thin air to support a flawed proposal.
I believe there should be a compulsory 12 months imprisonment for anyone who drinks and drives, with incremental increases in the sentence (say 1 month extra for every 5 over the limit).
If they knew they would go to prison if they get caught, they would not do it.
If they cause an accident then further time should be added on, dependent on the severity of the accident.
Police should be able to breathalyse any driver at any time, without having to have a reason.
This would also reduce the incidents of drink driving.
Sky, please report the news, don't try to make it.
Government: stop messing about: you have the solution, but do you have the courage to use it?
Channel 5 News recently ran a VT about the proposed changes to the Drink Drive limits.
Now this is effectively Sky News as they supply Channel 5.
This report states that they propose reducing the limit from 80 to 40, which they state would save over 100 lives per year.
I am all for saving lives and reducing incidents of drink driving, but in this same VT they show a case where someone was something like 4 times the limit and drove the wrong way down a duel carriageway and, sadly, killed someone.
It was wrong on two counts: firstly, even if the limit was 5, this maniac would still have got drunk and driven his car.
Do you really think that by halving the legal limit that this maniac would say to himself 'hm...
the legal limit has now been reduced so I better not drink and drive'.
NO, of course he would not, but more of this later.
They say 100 lives would be saved.
The only way they could confirm this is show that 100 people have been killed, in a year, by drivers who had over 40 but less than 80, does this information exist? No it does not: it is just someone plucking figures out of thin air to support a flawed proposal.
I believe there should be a compulsory 12 months imprisonment for anyone who drinks and drives, with incremental increases in the sentence (say 1 month extra for every 5 over the limit).
If they knew they would go to prison if they get caught, they would not do it.
If they cause an accident then further time should be added on, dependent on the severity of the accident.
Police should be able to breathalyse any driver at any time, without having to have a reason.
This would also reduce the incidents of drink driving.
Sky, please report the news, don't try to make it.
Government: stop messing about: you have the solution, but do you have the courage to use it?