Well look at that. Charlston Hughes will not play this week.
This is a personal, private matter.
Nothing to see here. Move on.
Isn’t this how it works?
Not really. The discussion of whether or not the team suspends him or whether or not he plays is not personal nor private.
The team has commented. Issued multiple statements, etc.
He’s been removed from the active roster.
Fully paid too.
They could have layed charges against the whole Ticat squad for Impersonating a CFL Football Team, last night.
Ouch that smarts, funny but still stings!
8)Yep, it is on here "hendy77", You are so right !! :
Just for select individuals though :-[ :-[
Huh?! Where did I say or even imply that I don’t like our DUI laws?
Whoever owns the roads has the right to make the rules for their usage. In Canada it’s the government that owns the roads. (While I may not necessarily agree that the government should own the roads, that’s a different question.)
With respect to the other options:
- Taxi - The last time I can remember taking a taxi is 2014.
- Uber - Is that some kind of a fan chant? Ti-Cats über alles?
- Walking - My preferred option! I’m a big time walker and like to arrange things so that my preferred destinations are within easy walking distance, e.g. less than two miles.
- Don’t drink to excess. - I don’t drink. I never took up the habit as a teen, and I’ve saved myself mega $'s and grief over the past half century. Not that I’m a goody-goody or a “nice person” in general, but drink I don’t.
Nonetheless I resent your unwanted advice. Rest assured though that I’ll keep it in mind the next time we have some difference of opinion.
If it is “innocent until convicted in a court of law”,
Why is it if you are charged with a DUI, you must prove your innocence to have the charge dropped.
It seems it is more like Guilty until you prove your innocence, and IMHO as it should be.
In a thread about DUI, you said “I value and jealously protect my freedom and we have far too many rules, laws and regulations governing every facet of our lives already.” Not a big stretch to draw an inference from that.
The alternatives I presented are applicable to any and all, not you specifically. I don’t think it is so difficult to avoid driving drunk, and those are just some of the obvious ways to avoid it. Society has reached a clear consensus that the rights of everyone to continue to live their lives outweighs the rights of drunks to randomly kill them. Those who feel we have too many rules, laws and regulations will just have to deal with it.
Fortunately, one cannot avoid the charges simply by saying, “You know officer, I would prefer not to provide a breathalyser right now. Have a nice day.” It is fairly obvious to me why such a stance results in a presumption of guilt.
A person is still “innocent until proven guilty”.
Unfortunately for the accused, there is invariably strong evidence which would at least at first glance indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was indeed driving under the influence.
Consider. The officer testifies that he noticed the accused driving erratically or unusually slowly. When he therefore pulled the accused over, he noticed that the accused appeared to have been drinking, e.g. he was flushed, bleary-eyed, somewhat disoriented, smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, etc. When asked to leave the car, the accused staggered or at least wasn’t walking normally in a straight line. When given the opportunity to demonstrate sobriety with a breathalyzer, the accused either failed the test or rather curiously refused the opportunity. Why did he refuse the opportunity when it was proferred?
Strong evidence for the guilt of the accused is therefore presented at court. It’s therefore contingent upon the accused to undermine the evidence to demonstrate that it was all a mistake and that he wasn’t impaired. It’s not as if the accused must demonstrate that he wasn’t drunk in a vacuum/at random/for no reason; there’s very compelling evidence that he was impaired.
In general once evidence for an offence is presented against an accused, it becomes contingent upon this accused to call the evidence into question, assuming of course that he’s disputing the charge. It’s the old concept about the ball being now in your court. That’s the way our system works, and I’m fine with that.
Nonetheless, the accused is still innocent UNTIL proven guilty which occurs only when the verdict of guilty is read/spoken in court.
And there damned bloody well are! Not so much the DUI laws specifically though. Like I say, it's their roads so they can call the shots.
Of course. Like I say, when there's strong evidence against you, you better have something to say in your defence or any prudent man will bring a guilty verdict down upon your head after assessing the evidence. But nonetheless you ARE innocent until the guilty verdict comes down.