A top dental surgeon has been banned from the wheel after drink-driving in his BMW during morning rush hour.
Paul Beard, 42, was more than two-and-a-half times the legal alcohol limit and speeding when he was stopped by police in Salford, a court heard.
He had been boozing until 2.30am, but got in the car later that morning to help his daughter who had locked herself out of her house.
Beard, of Ellendale Grange, Worsley, admitted drink driving when he appeared before Salford magistrates.
The defendant, a private cosmetic and dental implant specialist in Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, was disqualified for 16 months, and fined £2,500.
Dad-of-three Beard was stopped by police in his BMW M5 on Hilton Lane, Walkden, on February 16.
Joe Allman, prosecuting, told the court: “The defendant was stopped because he was seen to be exceeding the speed limit, at around 8.40am.”
He was breathalysed and had 94 microgrammes of alcohol on his breath – the legal limit is 35mg.
Mr Rogerson, defending, said: “It's a very unfortunate set of circumstances. He sat up with his father and they had a drink. They stayed up until 2.30am.
“He wasn't intending to go anywhere, but his eldest daughter, who's 22, had forgotten her keys.
“Without thinking he got into his car and drove to let her in with his keys. He was stopped on the way, initially for exceeding the speed limit.”
District Judge Jonathan Finestein told Beard: “It's very sad to see you here. You're in a very responsible job. I accept that this is completely out of character and this was a result of a domestic situation.
“Nevertheless, you put at risk other people, people you never knew or are likely to know. I can well understand the implications of this and how it has affected you personally. I have little doubt you have learned your lesson and you will never appear here again.”
Beard, a fellow of the International Congress of Oral Implantologists with 19 years experience in surgical and general dentistry, was also ordered to pay £85 costs.
Showing 1 to 24 of 24 comments | View All
ebble, manchester (15/03/2010 at 07:26)
Officer Dibble, On the lash with Choo-Choo and Benny. (15/03/2010 at 09:08)
hehe
The girl next door , North west (15/03/2010 at 09:13)
thoughtful, East of Manchester (15/03/2010 at 09:23)
Soon it will be impossible to drink at all and drive the following day, and liebor will have introduced another element of Shariah law by the back door.
Your havin a laugh, Tameside (15/03/2010 at 09:24)
Drew Peacock (15/03/2010 at 09:29)
15/03/2010 at 09:08
I am not ebble meant the post as sarcasm, I suspect ebble just meant it! :-)
Clucking Feather (15/03/2010 at 09:38)
Now *hic* open wide *hic*...
Parkey, Worsley (15/03/2010 at 11:59)
Parkey, Worsley (15/03/2010 at 12:05)
Marjorie Howarth (15/03/2010 at 12:23)
Disgruntled, Lancashire Lass.
Chipping in, Manchester (15/03/2010 at 12:38)
Marjorie Howarth
15/03/2010 at 12:23
Rather a sweeping statement Marjorie I must say, unless you know this to be a true fact. I suspect it is just a case of 'one too many' and might serve as a wake up call.
Is It Me? (15/03/2010 at 13:00)
arthur sixpence, wythenshawe (15/03/2010 at 13:30)
Black Flag (15/03/2010 at 14:39)
That's fairly typical of the kind of dreadful ideas which seem to get trotted out regularly. It's simple and appeals to the knee-jerk reactionaries, but it's at odds with the evidence of what makes effective drink driving laws, it's at odds with the basic principles of common sense and proportionality which were once associated with British lawmaking and it would almost certainly be completely counter-productive.
On that basis, you can expect the law to be changed to say that very soon!
Orb, Rochdale (15/03/2010 at 14:46)
I'm loving the "zero alcohol" viewpoint. Do you people have trouble with your shoelaces in the mornings?
blizzard, Midlands (15/03/2010 at 15:16)
arthur sixpence, wythenshawe (15/03/2010 at 15:27)
Black Flag (15/03/2010 at 15:46)
It depends what you mean by that. If you mean turning the entire country dry, then maybe not, but I don't see it being practical. If you mean having zero alcohol in your blood, then of course there would be grey areas. How long before driving would you have to not drink, for example?
"have any of you people laughing at my proposals ever been to a road accident caused by a drunk driver?"
If your concern was to reduce accidents caused by drink driving, you'd want sensible, effective drink driving laws, which is the opposite of what you're proposing.
Orb, Rochdale (15/03/2010 at 16:44)
The law as it stands is perfectly adequate; there isn't a grey area. The law as it stands simply needs to be enforced - it's a hardcore of offenders. The same number will still get caught no matter how low the limit goes. It's the same with these idiotic 20mph zones - the people whose behaviour has caused them to be introduced were probably all doing more than the previous 30mph limits beforehand - and since they couldn't give a monkeys they will continue to do just the same now. The trouble is that because enforcement has been given over to cameras this is seen as a way to reduce patrols of police. Hence in all likeliehood one could get away with driving along at a legal speed but with bald tyres, defective eyesight, high on drugs, drunk, waving a gun around with a dead body in the boot. But hey! he's not speeding and we all know, don't we, that "speed kills". )As an aside - since I reckon you sound like you're the sort of chap that thinks that, black and white, "speed kills": what do you think is more dangerous: someone doing 30mph in the pouring rain in a car with cheap and nasty tyres, or someone doing doing 45mph on quality tyres? It's time people learned to reason and assess things.)
People need to get a grip and use some reason, common sense and judgement before trotting out their opinions that have been fed to them by the press. Tightening up on a perfectly reasonable law simply because there are not enough police to enforce it is not very bright. Evidence of the law being adequate is shown by the fact that the person in this news item has been convicted. What would your ridiculous zero tolerance law do? Criminalise people for having had a couple of pints the night before, that's what!What a daft idea!
arthur sixpence, wythenshawe (15/03/2010 at 16:51)
Black Flag (15/03/2010 at 17:19)
So your "no grey area" has gone straight out of the window.
"( 12 hours is a figure i have heard banded about before - how accurate it is i cannot confirm ) the safe limit that can be drunk whilst driving at present depends on peoples height , weight - whether they have eaten or not , what units have been drunk etc )"
Apart from the fact that the units drunk comment is stating the blindingly obvious, I imagine that the same would apply with a zero limit. The amount of time it takes to get alcohol out of your system will vary between people.
"BTW black flag as you did not answer my question "have you been present at an accident with a drunk driver ""
I didn't answer, because it is a stupid and irrelevant question.
"also please enlighten us as to what these sensible drink drive laws are that you advocate because the current laws obviously do not work because people are still getting caught and banned."
The current laws are perfectly sound and probably as good as they can get. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that there is a particular limit you can set where nobody will drink drive. Even with a zero limit, people will still get caught drink driving.
We have a relatively high alcohol limit compared to some other countries, but a comparatively good record on drink driving. I think the two are probably linked, because it means people have respect for the law. Most view the limit as being a sensible indicator of the point at which you really shouldn't be driving and are happy to see strong penalties handed out for the offence.
Compare that to speeding. We penalise people with fixed penalty notices for slightly breaking the speed limit and far fewer people have respect for that law, because they see it as a cash cow and not really about there being a real danger. Introduce a zero alcohol level and the same will happen, because people won't have the same respect for the law.
J smith (15/03/2010 at 20:01)
Orb, Rochdale (15/03/2010 at 21:59)
Fact: the laws as they are have punished this individual.
Fact: we have amongst the safest roads in the world despite very high vehicle usage. We don't need lower limits. The ones we have are manifestly fine - as are our speed limits. We need proper enforcement of the laws we have. We don't need "diversity advisers" and the like: we need coppers on the streets.
Oh and by the way - and with your hypothetical pint of beer this evening Mr Sixpence you would still be over a zero limit tomorrow morning.
Jetstar, Manchest`oh ! (15/03/2010 at 23:14)