“There are a lot of anomalies in this case. ”

- Mr. Ploppy

Er – I think you will find that just as in most stories posted on this website, there are a lot of anomalies in the article, rather than in the case itself. A jury who heard all of the facts of the case, presumably in great detail, saw fit to find him guilty.

- Jerry, Salford, 03/2/2010 11:08

Report abuse

Nat, Worcester: The two of them had both had too much to drink, and knew it. It was Nichols’ car, but he let Butres drive because he knew he was well over the limit, and she had not had as much to drink. As it was his car he was quite entitled to tell Butres to slow down, but he never claimed to have done that. On that basis he is just as culpable as she. Whether he let her drive so that there was no danger of him losing his licence if they were stopped is a moot point. Further to that his behaviour at the scene of the accident where he tried to ‘bully’ the police was unacceptable. He has got what he deserved.

- Chris D, Edinburgh, 3/2/2010 10:42

Hang on he should have been commended for not drink driving! If she’s stupid enough to do it she should be prosecuted. I bet he could claim off Mary Butres for any injuries he sustained. Like I said before you can’t be prosecuted for a driving offence if you weren’t driving! Sheer Madness. Does everyone in a speeding car get points????? NO

- Nat, Worcester, 03/2/2010 11:08

Report abuse

The law really has become an ass. John Nichols was in no way qualified or equipped to know whether Mary Butres had drunk too much to drive.

Neither was he in control of the car —- she was — and she should take total responsibility for her actions. This prosecution can’t stand.

What next? Will all passengers on a bus or a train get prosecuted if their driver drives too fast or crashes? …. Because that’s the stupid precedent which has now been set.

- Brian, Wellingborough. UK, 03/2/2010 11:04

Report abuse

Sheer arrogance. As if road traffic law didn’t apply to them and only to us mere mortals.

XJ8, 110mph, wet roads, drunk. Sheer arrogance.

- Ian, Scotland, 03/2/2010 11:04

Report abuse

It’s not speed that kills. Yes, greater speed makes a bigger mess, but it is not because of the speed, that someone dies.

As you see, speed is not the all-deciding factor, and even when “legal”, it could still be too fast. The focus on speed alone does nobody any good.

- Chris, Ireland, 03/2/2010 10:55

Odd comment Chris. Hit a child at 40mph – 80% chance it’ll die. Hit it at 30mph – 80% chance it’ll live. Mind you I suppose you’ll just argue it’s not the speed which causes death it’s the fact the child got in the way

- Stephen Morris, Manchester UK, 03/2/2010 11:03

Report abuse

There are a lot of anomalies in this case. In one report the couple had shared one and a half bottles of wine and the man had drunk “most of it”. If the woman had drunk (say) half a bottle, there is no way she would be over the limit. The woman is guilty for driving at a dangerous speed in the prevailing conditions, the passenger really cannot be found guilty. (Or can he, in this Brave New World of Labour?)

- Mr. Ploppy, Pattaya City, Royal Kingdom of Thailand, 03/2/2010 11:00

Report abuse