Good Old Kits

[Royal Rother]

Blimey, I know I can keep a discussion going on well past it's "sell-by" but is this one still going round in circles?

I'd have expected you to take an active role in this discussion. It's your sort of thing, isn't it?

Until the circumstances are known there is nothing I could feel comfortable discussing about this particular situation, bar the fact that AP must surely be bricking it now, as will his contact in the TVP who leaked the news in the first place.

[Royal Lady]

I wonder if it's the same contact who also works at the club part-time.

[Alan Partridge]

Blimey, I know I can keep a discussion going on well past it's "sell-by" but is this one still going round in circles?

I'd have expected you to take an active role in this discussion. It's your sort of thing, isn't it?

Until the circumstances are known there is nothing I could feel comfortable discussing about this particular situation, bar the fact that AP must surely be bricking it now, as will his contact in the TVP who leaked the news in the first place.

Not at all. Heard a factual rumour, passed it on.

[southbank1871]

I wonder if it's the same contact who also works at the club part-time.

I thought that but it's apparently not.

[zac naloen]

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.

probably because 90% of drink drivers do so on the way back from pubs.

Quite a few aren't on public transport links and/or public transport isn't always the most "convenient" option anyway.

[Ups and Downs]

In my book driving whilst under the influence is the same as attempted manslaughter (if there was such a thing)!

Your book is dogshit!

[Nick Shorey my Lord!]

I heard a rumour Kitson murdered Maddie and ate her liver for breakfast with a nice bottle of blue nun.

['lista]

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

Which, lets face it, is odds on.

If it was any other player I would agree that this is the likely scenario.

However, Kitson appears to have an inexplicable chip on his shoulder with regard to authority (which seems to have begun when he was a humble supermarket employee) combined with pig-headed stubborness.

This leads me to believe that it is entirely possible that Kitson refused to give a sample as an act of defiance to a perceived injustice (ie getting stopped for no apparent reason) rather than trying to create a smokescreen.

Foolish of course, but that's Kitson.

Bloody good footballer mind.

[Norfolk Royal]

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.

If he pleads guilty it's an auto year ban and hefty fine. That's my understanding.

[Schards#2]

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.

From the little I know about Kitson, he's quite short tempered, very opinionated and has a bit of attitude about being told what to do. I would also guess, teetotal.

Imagine the scenario, it's 2am and Kitson gets stopped

Police - I couldn't help noticing as you drove past, your Dave Kitson

Kitson - What of it

Police - My niece likes Reading, sign this for her would you

Kitson - You stopped me at 2am for that, f**k you

Police - If that's your attitude, breath into this you ginger twat

Kitson - No, get f**ked

Not entirely implausable and to some extent understandable.

[RoyalBlue]

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?

In the case of a very highly paid footballer or professional, no I wouldn't.

He should have used some of his not inconsiderable wealth to use a lawyer and the law to deal with the offending officer, rather than break the law himself.

As for your second scenario, he would have been warned about the consequences of not undertaking a test at which point it would have been a good idea to have curbed his temper/reconsidered his stance.

[readingbedding]

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.

From the little I know about Kitson, he's quite short tempered, very opinionated and has a bit of attitude about being told what to do. I would also guess, teetotal.

Imagine the scenario, it's 2am and Kitson gets stopped

Police - I couldn't help noticing as you drove past, your Dave Kitson

Kitson - What of it

Police - My niece likes Reading, sign this for her would you

Kitson - You stopped me at 2am for that, f**k you

Police - If that's your attitude, breath into this you ginger twat

Kitson - No, get f**ked

Not entirely implausable and to some extent understandable.

I've seen Kitson have an alcoholic drink a few times.

[Baines]

I heard a rumour Kitson murdered Maddie and ate her liver for breakfast with a nice bottle of blue nun.

That's a pretty big slur on his character.

Although Dave did say that old friends drink Lambrusco, and that he doesn't want to go back home lording it all over them with his Chateauneuf-de-Pape. He's not that sort of guy, and never will be.

[Fezza]

I heard a rumour Kitson murdered Maddie and ate her liver for breakfast with a nice bottle of blue nun.

Plainly that's a lie it was Elvis!

[RoyalBlue]

No, not in the slightest. Like Kitson, Lita has never been convicted of anything. And if my memory serves me rightly (it may not!) he has only been charged with one offence (which was dropped). Add to that that some of Lita’s transgressions, like the web incident, are not crimes at all, and I don’t see how Lita’s situation is any different.

Getting in fights week in week out in Bristol is the same as Kitson????

Says who? Has he been convicted of disorder?

Havn't you heard? Leroy can be found filming himself windmilling his way round Bristol town center every weekend laying into anyone who crosses his path. He leaves a tornado like trail of destruction before finishing the act by performing a flying headbutt across the bar at closing time, week in, week out, regular as clockwork.

Fact of the day - Leroy Lita has never been convicted of a criminal offence, and was acquitted of the only charge bought against him.

Wrong! The "friend" he assaulted dropped the charges. completely different from being aquitted. He has also been in at least 2 other fights. Not that this bares any comparison to Kitson at all.

But you can't be acquitted unless you have been charged and given the chance to appear in court to defend yourself. In law Lita is innocent and anyone who publishes something suggesting otherwise could find they have legal problems of their own.

Also, I don't think members of the public can drop charges. They can only suggest to the police that they do not wish for them to press charges and/or that they are not prepared to offer evidence in support of any charges.

[Fezza]

In my book driving whilst under the influence is the same as attempted manslaughter (if there was such a thing)!

Your book is dogshit!

Care to explain your problem with my reasons?

[brendywendy]

In my book driving whilst under the influence is the same as attempted manslaughter (if there was such a thing)!

Your book is dogshit!

Care to explain your problem with my reasons?

he has no problem with your reasons

its just a bad review of your book

get over it and learn to take criticism

the plot was ludicrous and the characters 2 dimensional

[Fezza]

In my book driving whilst under the influence is the same as attempted manslaughter (if there was such a thing)!

Your book is dogshit!

Care to explain your problem with my reasons?

he has no problem with your reasons

its just a bad review of your book

get over it and learn to take criticism

the plot was ludicrous and the characters 2 dimensional

I see your point, it was stupid of me to have the Hero character as being ginger.

However I am writing a new one about a black man who is accused of a number of crimes he there's no proof he committed. I fear this may also flop.

[zac naloen]

In my book driving whilst under the influence is the same as attempted manslaughter (if there was such a thing)!

Your book is dogshit!

Care to explain your problem with my reasons?

he has no problem with your reasons

its just a bad review of your book

get over it and learn to take criticism

the plot was ludicrous and the characters 2 dimensional

I see your point, it was stupid of me to have the Hero character as being ginger.

However I am writing a new one about a black man who is accused of a number of crimes he there's no proof he committed. I fear this may also flop.

There is proof though.... there's a police report and photographic evidence of the injuries caused.

What there isn't is a conviction because the charges were dropped.


Just to add an extra layer to your plot.

[Arch]

I heard a rumour Kitson murdered Maddie and ate her liver for breakfast with a nice bottle of blue nun.

Ugh! That's disgusting! How anyone can touch Blue Nun mystifies me.