Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Rooney banned
FightBack Forums > Discussion > News / Press Articles
ford poplar
Stockport Mags have handed WR a 2 year ban + 100 hr unpaid Community Service for recently driving 3x over the limit at 2am.
superSmiffy
Wayne took his sentence like a man. No wriggling, no celebrity lawyer, no nonsense.

Well done to him.
StuartBu
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 13:53) *
Wayne took his sentence like a man. No wriggling, no celebrity lawyer, no nonsense.

Well done to him.


You make it all sound like he has something to be proud of .!!!!
Fredd
QUOTE (superSmiffy @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 13:53) *
Wayne took his sentence like a man. No wriggling, no celebrity lawyer, no nonsense.

Apart from his lawyer trying to get the punishment limited to a (to him) minuscule fine, with no community service because he's a jolly nice chap (just read this stack of character references - none from his wife, presumably) who's done lots for charity over the years. So yes: wriggling, lawyer, and nonsense.
The Rookie
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 13:32) *
Stockport Mags have handed WR a 2 year ban + 100 hr unpaid Community Service for recently driving 3x over the limit at 2am.

3x the limit not 4x the limit (3x over), even the Torygraph managed that bit right.
glasgow_bhoy
He seems a genuinely likeable guy, and his wife always sounds very down to earth.

However I'm demented opening the paper and having to see the trout he was with the night this happened. If the whole thing wasn't some kind of setup I'm seriously surprised.
The Rookie
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 23:19) *
He seems a genuinely likeable guy,

but not a very likeable husband!

With the granny when engaged
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/rooney-admi...ny-6952363.html

7 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/artic...ife-Coleen.html

A more complete breakdown
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news...tions--11108314

Basically he has problems with his belt keeping his trousers on.
Ocelot
The ban seems consistent with guidelines. I suppose they gave him community service because a derisory fine would mean nothing to him.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Ocelot @ Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 19:48) *
The ban seems consistent with guidelines. I suppose they gave him community service because a derisory fine would mean nothing to him.


That was the point made on TV reports.
Based against the reported "fine" of 2 weeks pay from club, 320K, it's difficult to see what financial penalty magistrates could have imposed that would have been meaningful.

Even the ban, he could have 24/7 chauffers for the 2 years and would cost him less then a week's wages
seank
104 micrograms.
The limit is 35.
That just makes him 69 micrograms over the limit or less than twice over the limit.
Major fail for someone posting to a fightback Forum.
A disgrace, actually.
peterguk
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:37) *
Major fail for someone posting to a fightback Forum.
A disgrace, actually.


Huh?
seank
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:31) *
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:37) *
Major fail for someone posting to a fightback Forum.
A disgrace, actually.


Huh?

Huh what?
Sensationalising the facts has no place in a fightback forum.
We should be telling it as it is.
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.
He was banned, quite rightly, but not for the facts stupidly stated in this thread.
peterguk
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.



Keep up at the back! See post 5 couple of weeks ago...
The Rookie
Sean - covered, besides the people who have been here longer will already know this is a pet hate of mine and one I'll jump on!
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:30) *
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 13:32) *
Stockport Mags have handed WR a 2 year ban + 100 hr unpaid Community Service for recently driving 3x over the limit at 2am.

3x the limit not 4x the limit (3x over), even the Torygraph managed that bit right.

seank
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.



Keep up at the back! See post 5 couple of weeks ago...

Neither post 1 nor post 5 gives the alcohol content, which is why I gave the figures.
Hardly a question of keeping up and more a question of being factually correct.
The Rookie
Its the same principle though WRT
QUOTE
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.
mickR
QUOTE (seank @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 09:27) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.



Keep up at the back! See post 5 couple of weeks ago...

Neither post 1 nor post 5 gives the alcohol content, which is why I gave the figures.
Hardly a question of keeping up and more a question of being factually correct.


I thought rookies post was totally adequate myself. Why is the actual alcohol content required? Being 2x the limit gets a ban as does 3x. the actual reading is irrelevant in my opinion for the purpose of this thread.
DancingDad
Must admit I'm not fussed over the exact details in a case like this, generic descriptors work perfectly well.
For instance....
Just over limit....Ooops, one too many mate!
Twice the limit.... daft twassock.
Three times... WTF were you thinking or had your brain shutdown?
Four times.... Impressed. Not that you were driving but that you could even get to the car.

And we all know that newspapers cannot get it right anyway so why fuss over it.
seank
QUOTE (mickR @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:46) *
QUOTE (seank @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 09:27) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.



Keep up at the back! See post 5 couple of weeks ago...

Neither post 1 nor post 5 gives the alcohol content, which is why I gave the figures.
Hardly a question of keeping up and more a question of being factually correct.


I thought rookies post was totally adequate myself. Why is the actual alcohol content required? Being 2x the limit gets a ban as does 3x. the actual reading is irrelevant in my opinion for the purpose of this thread.

The whole point of the forum is to fight back against incorrect data and decisions.
We see people in the speeding and parking sections who rely on factually incorrect literature and actions by the relevant bodies.
In this thread, the Op's facts were wrong.
Whether or not people think the alcohol content is relevant isn't the issue. It's posting something that said Rooney was 3 times over the limit, when he wasn't even twice over the limit.
Either we stick to the facts or we don't. If we don't, precisely what is the point of the forum?
DancingDad
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 07:48) *
........Whether or not people think the alcohol content is relevant isn't the issue. It's posting something that said Rooney was 3 times over the limit, when he wasn't even twice over the limit.
Either we stick to the facts or we don't. If we don't, precisely what is the point of the forum?


Within a live case where details matter, 100% in agreement.
My experience on this forum says that people, the frequent flyers, are very good about details.

But cannot get excited over an error in a newspaper or post when it makes no difference, such as here.
If it needs correcting, correct it but no need for the song and dance
Fredd
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.


QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 07:48) *
The whole point of the forum is to fight back against incorrect data and decisions.
We see people in the speeding and parking sections who rely on factually incorrect literature and actions by the relevant bodies.
In this thread, the Op's facts were wrong.

Since you're such a stickler for accuracy I expect you'll be wanting to correct the units for alcohol content you gave, and specify whether they're blood or breath readings? A tolerance based on the equipment used would obviously be helpful, and possibly a back calculation to the time he was stopped to give a fuller picture.

Absent all that, "3 times the limit" seems close enough for a news report to me.
seank
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 10:48) *
QUOTE (seank @ Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:40) *
The OP's post and thread title are both factually incorrect and sensationalise Rooney's alcohol content.


QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 07:48) *
The whole point of the forum is to fight back against incorrect data and decisions.
We see people in the speeding and parking sections who rely on factually incorrect literature and actions by the relevant bodies.
In this thread, the Op's facts were wrong.

Since you're such a stickler for accuracy I expect you'll be wanting to correct the units for alcohol content you gave, and specify whether they're blood or breath readings? A tolerance based on the equipment used would obviously be helpful, and possibly a back calculation to the time he was stopped to give a fuller picture.

Absent all that, "3 times the limit" seems close enough for a news report to me.

What would you like me to correct, Fredd?
The UK limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of breath.
"3 times the limit" would have been acceptable, but that was not what the OP wrote.
Fredd
I know what the units are, but you hadn't stated them accurately. It was a somewhat facetious people-in-glass-houses comment. smile.gif

As has been pointed out by others, the "three times over" error had already been flagged up before your post.
seank
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 16:26) *
I know what the units are, but you hadn't stated them accurately. It was a somewhat facetious people-in-glass-houses comment. smile.gif

As has been pointed out by others, the "three times over" error had already been flagged up before your post.

And remained, posted in error, despite the OP having the opportunity to correct his error and request the headline to be corrected.
Readers are attracted to a thread by reading the headline, not by wading through the individual postings.
If I were Rooney, and saw an obviously incorrect statement of the offence, I might consider commencing a claim for defamation.

Who is in a glass house? I accept that you consider your comment may have been facetious, but cannot see anywhere that I've made an erroneous statement in the thread. Maybe you could enlighten me.
southpaw82
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 16:47) *
If I were Rooney, and saw an obviously incorrect statement of the offence, I might consider commencing a claim for defamation.

Are you having a laugh?
seank
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 17:08) *
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 16:47) *
If I were Rooney, and saw an obviously incorrect statement of the offence, I might consider commencing a claim for defamation.

Are you having a laugh?

Facetious, as seen in the post above.
southpaw82
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 17:25) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 17:08) *
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 16:47) *
If I were Rooney, and saw an obviously incorrect statement of the offence, I might consider commencing a claim for defamation.

Are you having a laugh?

Facetious, as seen in the post above.

Ah, ok.
peterguk
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 16:47) *
Who is in a glass house? I accept that you consider your comment may have been facetious, but cannot see anywhere that I've made an erroneous statement in the thread. Maybe you could enlighten me.


Post 10.
seank
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 18:33) *
QUOTE (seank @ Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 16:47) *
Who is in a glass house? I accept that you consider your comment may have been facetious, but cannot see anywhere that I've made an erroneous statement in the thread. Maybe you could enlighten me.


Post 10.

Do give me a clue, please.
I wrote:
104 micrograms.
The limit is 35.
That just makes him 69 micrograms over the limit or less than twice over the limit.
Major fail for someone posting to a fightback Forum.
A disgrace, actually.

What do you think is wrong with that?
mickR
Yes quite! what an absolute disgrace,! the imbecile should be banned from the forum, taken to a public place and flogged with a wet lettuce until his Willy winky drops off.

Ffs get a life jeeeeeeezus
ford poplar
I apologise for my sloppy use of the English language, but I note the Judge, prosecutor and Wayne all made similar statements. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/18...rge-2am-arrest/
AFAIK a roadside breathalyser only indicates whether above/below the legal limit. Only the station intoximeter is evidential and only the lowest of 2 readings taken can be used. Maybe he blew 110 & 90?
The only charge is 'driving above the prescribed limit, so doesn't matter whether he was 2 or 3 times above, except for sentencing.
I prefer a crisp Iceberg to a limp lettuce.
The Rookie
I can't see where Wayne said it in that article, the prosecutors comments aren't in quotes an deven then I wouldn't trust a paper to get it word perfect, if the Judge did say 3x over he would have grounds to appeal the sentence.....
southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 5 Oct 2017 - 04:23) *
if the Judge did say 3x over he would have grounds to appeal the sentence.....

No. The sentencing guidelines work from the numerical reading, not a multiple of the limit. The judge was well aware of the numerical reading and sentenced accordingly. Any appeal based on an irrelevant "three times the limit" remark would be bound to fail.
mickR
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 5 Oct 2017 - 09:23) *
an irrelevant "three times the limit" remark would be bound to fail.


As has all the bit picking about it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.