Good Old Kits

[Archies Volley]

Not saying it is right - but it is only here that Kitson arrested is a big story. Currently on both Football365 and BBC Sport you have to go to their respective sections on Reading FC before you find the story which was only posted around 8pm last night when it broke on SSN.

In fact it seems to me a sad comment on the media and professional football that manipulated quotes from Kitson recently were major news for a whole weekend but a footballer arrested in conection with cars and possible booze is considered a non-story so quickly.

[Stranded]

How many of those defending Kitson for failing to provide a sample were pleased that Ferdinand was banned for the same sort of offence?

And I don't think Rio was ever in any way going to endanger the public by refusing to pee in a jar.

I like Kits. But in this instance he has made an error and if he is severely punished it will be fair.

TBH I hope he does NOT wriggle off the hook as a result of a cute legal argument - whilst if there is a clear reason for being cleared then that would be great. Though he will need to think carefully in future before referring to how he never goes out for a drink as he is a supreme athlete.... [at the time Lita was in trouble so it was presumably a veiled barb at him].

Again, we don't know the situation so it's unfair to make any suggestion.

The only error we can say he made at this point is not taking the test and the public reaction that has caused.

But as I've said we do not know the situation in which he was asked for the test and whether it had validity within law.

People are jumping to potentially incorrect conclusions due to emotive subject of drink driving.

Ferdinand's ban was as a result of failing to undergo a know valid test under the rules of the game and punished accordingly. If Kitson is shown to have done the same in court then so will he and his actions would be indefensible.

[Skin]

Unless of course he was over the limit and didn't want it showing up.

Which, lets face it, is odds on.

[Schards#2]

Kitson has a criminal record.

Not yet, though. I mean, its more than possible but he has to be found guilty first.

He'll almost certainly plead guilty. Can't defend the undefendable. Don't take a test = automatic fail.

Not if you can prove that the police had no good reason to ask for the test.

Nothing to hide then take the test.

Very simplistic view not taking into account the situation of Kitson being pulled over or his knowledge of the law.

If he was asked to take the test in a situation where he knew he was not obligied to do so then he had the right to say no - he may have felt that saying yes was implying a possible guilt. If this turns out to be the case then he will be acquitted, if not found quilty and punished accordingly.

It's a very simplistic but correct view. They would have had some reason to ask him to take a test, there would have been some reasoning, more than likely erratic driving. If he's got nothing to hide then take the test, he can't use the Rio 'I forgot' line. Just take it and if your fine then it'll say so. By not taking it and by all accounts acting a complete arse he's now landed himself in all this bother.

Unless of course he was over the limit and didn't want it showing up.

You don't know the circumstances and shouldn't sit in judgement until you do.

What if he's been stopped by the same copper every day for the last month and given a negative breath test? Do you see why he might just tell him to f**k off eventually? Would you see that as a valid reason?

[Ian Royal]

That'll teach me to read to the end of a thread before posting, sorry.

I wasn't including the reprint.

Being bottled - involved in a fight
headbutting a friend in the face - involved in a fight
chucked out of a night club for being rowdy - thats pretty close to being in a fight.

But then all I'm saying is Lita can't be compared to Kitson for this. I've stated my opinions on Lita elsewhere and I don't see the need to go into it here other than to say it's completely different

No. What Kitsons alegedly done is much worse and simply can't compare. Its damn right irresponsible for one if he is found to be gulity of committing drink driving offences.

Ian Royal is completely right, it's totally different. Kitson has a criminal record.

No he doesn't. Kitson may get a criminal record. But then so could whoever passed you the information and I don't see you slating them.

[Alan Partridge]

That'll teach me to read to the end of a thread before posting, sorry.

I wasn't including the reprint.

Being bottled - involved in a fight
headbutting a friend in the face - involved in a fight
chucked out of a night club for being rowdy - thats pretty close to being in a fight.

But then all I'm saying is Lita can't be compared to Kitson for this. I've stated my opinions on Lita elsewhere and I don't see the need to go into it here other than to say it's completely different

No. What Kitsons alegedly done is much worse and simply can't compare. Its damn right irresponsible for one if he is found to be gulity of committing drink driving offences.

Ian Royal is completely right, it's totally different. Kitson has a criminal record.

No he doesn't. Kitson may get a criminal record. But then so could whoever passed you the information and I don't see you slating them.

It was Leroy.

[Alan Partridge]

Kitson has a criminal record.

Not yet, though. I mean, its more than possible but he has to be found guilty first.

He'll almost certainly plead guilty. Can't defend the undefendable. Don't take a test = automatic fail.

Not if you can prove that the police had no good reason to ask for the test.

Nothing to hide then take the test.

Very simplistic view not taking into account the situation of Kitson being pulled over or his knowledge of the law.

If he was asked to take the test in a situation where he knew he was not obligied to do so then he had the right to say no - he may have felt that saying yes was implying a possible guilt. If this turns out to be the case then he will be acquitted, if not found quilty and punished accordingly.

It's a very simplistic but correct view. They would have had some reason to ask him to take a test, there would have been some reasoning, more than likely erratic driving. If he's got nothing to hide then take the test, he can't use the Rio 'I forgot' line. Just take it and if your fine then it'll say so. By not taking it and by all accounts acting a complete arse he's now landed himself in all this bother.

Unless of course he was over the limit and didn't want it showing up.

You don't know the circumstances and shouldn't sit in judgement until you do.

What if he's been stopped by the same copper every day for the last month and given a negative breath test? Do you see why he might just tell him to f**k off eventually? Would you see that as a valid reason?

scraping the barreLOL

[Schards#2]

The point is, until you know the full circumstances, you have no right to sit in judgement.

[Alan Partridge]

The point is, until you know the full circumstances, you have no right to sit in judgement.

Fair do's.

Heard a rumour - passed it on - was mocked - the rumour was correct. We'll now let it take it's course and see what happens.

My final comment on the matter.

Cheers.

Fanks and cya.

[AF1]

The point is, until you know the full circumstances, you have no right to sit in judgement.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT? WHAT ABOUT OUT POST COUNTS?????

[Ian Royal]

I've known several people stopped by the police and asked to take breathalyser tests when they haven't had a drink.

Drive the wrong car at the wrong time and they'll do it. AP you're being a total prick, as are all the other people passing judgement (either way) before anything is known other than a charge has been made.

[When Hicks went up...]

Kitson has a criminal record.

Not yet, though. I mean, its more than possible but he has to be found guilty first.

He'll almost certainly plead guilty. Can't defend the undefendable. Don't take a test = automatic fail.

You don't need to plead not guilty to avoid a criminal record. Kitson could plead guilty, but mitigate on circumstances and receive an absolute discharge. Not uncommon with this kind of offence.

[working class hero]

The point is, until you know the full circumstances, you have no right to sit in judgement.

Do I take it you will now cease posting your interminable points of view about the proposed / cancelled / on hold [depending on the stance of the poster] stadium expansion? After all you do not know the full circumstances.....

Or are you prepared to be self righteous in different ways depending on your mood?

[Stranded]

Surely his views on a building and judging a person guilty before their trial cannot be compared?

[Fezza]

Unless of course he was over the limit and didn't want it showing up.

Which, lets face it, is odds on.

Or worse drugs????

[readingbedding]

Unless of course he was over the limit and didn't want it showing up.

Which, lets face it, is odds on.

Or worse drugs????

Or worse, two dead children in the boot.

[Fezza]

I've known several people stopped by the police and asked to take breathalyser tests when they haven't had a drink.

Drive the wrong car at the wrong time and they'll do it. AP you're being a total prick, as are all the other people passing judgement (either way) before anything is known other than a charge has been made.

Did they refuse to take the test?

Smacks of guilt. I really hope he is innocent and the TVP have f*cked up but I have to say I reckon thats quite unlikely.

Either way my view is he's a complete tool for not having the test done unless he had drugs in his system in which case he should be thrown out the game.

I am praying it's all a big missunderstanding!

[Fezza]

Unless of course he was over the limit and didn't want it showing up.

Which, lets face it, is odds on.

Or worse drugs????

Or worse, two dead children in the boot.

It's not Portugal you know!!

[Dirk Gently]

I got stopped a few months ago simply for driving a car out of a pub car park. I took the test and passed it easily, but when I did some investigation it turns out that these days just driving away from a pub is considered sufficient grounds to stop a person on suspicion of drink driving.

[Royal Lady]

I understand what Schards is getting at here, but I still cannot see why anyone, esp if they knew they were totally innocent, would not take the test - when it proves negative and they've proved they've not been drinking, then is the time to complain to the police that they've been harrassing him, as has been the case I believe with someone that we know of. If he's never been stopped before, and he knows he's not been drinking, what is he so scared of? I've never been asked to provide a sample before, but if I ever am, I'll know I've not been drinking and so it wouldn't enter my head to refuse.