dickyhale Posted 16 June, 2009 Posted 16 June, 2009 FORMER Saints captain Claus Lundekvam has been banned from getting behind the wheel for 28 months after admitting drink driving and failing to stop at the scene of an accident. Lundekvam, 36, was also ordered to do 250 hours unpaid work as part of a 12-month community sentence handed down by Basingstoke Courts. The Norwegian footballer crashed his Audi Quattro Q7 into the back of a van on the northbound M3 near Winchester after driving himself home from a charity golf event more than 2 1/2 times over the legal drink drive limit.
the scud Posted 16 June, 2009 Posted 16 June, 2009 Good! Shouldn't be drink driven in first place, should know better!
Nineteen Canteen Posted 16 June, 2009 Posted 16 June, 2009 Good! Shouldn't be drink driven in first place, should know better! Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? In the news this week we see reports about the case of the drunk Belgian Tanker driver killing a decent hard working man driving his tractor and the courts telling the Belgian driver to expect a custodial sentence. So the fact Lundekvam didn't kill anyone does that lessen the crime? Not unless luck comes into it as surely it was luck that no one was seriously injured or killed. So why is he not serving a custodial sentence?
lee_saint Posted 16 June, 2009 Posted 16 June, 2009 Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? In the news this week we see reports about the case of the drunk Belgian Tanker driver killing a decent hard working man driving his tractor and the courts telling the Belgian driver to expect a custodial sentence. So the fact Lundekvam didn't kill anyone does that lessen the crime? Not unless luck comes into it as surely it was luck that no one was seriously injured or killed. So why is he not serving a custodial sentence? Agreed, on the pitch Claus was a model pro, just a shame he couldn't do the same off it. He should of been put away, even if it was a few weeks, it would shock him into not doing it again.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 16 June, 2009 Posted 16 June, 2009 Golfers eh! But it was for charity and now he has the opportunity to do another few hours for the benefit of the community that hopefully won't include a round of golf. Litter picking along the M3 Winchester would be useful.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 16 June, 2009 Posted 16 June, 2009 We would get worse! FACT Shall we have a testimonial to help him out?
thefuriousb Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? In the news this week we see reports about the case of the drunk Belgian Tanker driver killing a decent hard working man driving his tractor and the courts telling the Belgian driver to expect a custodial sentence. So the fact Lundekvam didn't kill anyone does that lessen the crime? Not unless luck comes into it as surely it was luck that no one was seriously injured or killed. So why is he not serving a custodial sentence? Clearly the 2 examples are nothing like the same. The fact that a life was not taken does lessen the crime. It is a different charge all together. also, what happened to every one being treated equally in the eyes of the law? You can't just put someone in jail because they were once an ex-pro or other "celebrity". You would have to have more than one law for each offence depending on "who you are", and therefore not treated equally.
Saint_clark Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? In the news this week we see reports about the case of the drunk Belgian Tanker driver killing a decent hard working man driving his tractor and the courts telling the Belgian driver to expect a custodial sentence. So the fact Lundekvam didn't kill anyone does that lessen the crime? Not unless luck comes into it as surely it was luck that no one was seriously injured or killed. So why is he not serving a custodial sentence? I suppose it depends on the kind of accident. Lundekvam could have been driving within the speed limit and just nudged someone (which is enough to do some damage to the car and put someone in shock) whereas that Belgian tanker driver, by all accounts, was acting like a bit of a tool.
alpine_saint Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? In the news this week we see reports about the case of the drunk Belgian Tanker driver killing a decent hard working man driving his tractor and the courts telling the Belgian driver to expect a custodial sentence. So the fact Lundekvam didn't kill anyone does that lessen the crime? Not unless luck comes into it as surely it was luck that no one was seriously injured or killed. So why is he not serving a custodial sentence? For once I agree with you. Should have been a custodial sentence, even if suspended.
stuey Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? ? So the severity of the crime depends on the size of the vehicle.....? Interesting......
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 For once I agree with you. Should have been a custodial sentence, even if suspended. But obviousily CL can't be blamed for the sentance he has recieved. The whole legal system and sentancing situation needs to be overhauled. Look at the Baby P case as an example. What sort of sentances were they to pass down. Sentancing seems to remain a lottery with some cases like the girl from southampton that was sent to prison for four years after her collision with a cyclist that resulted in the death of the cyclist. She had been texting but was n't when the accident happened and the cyclist had broken the law by running a red light but she gets four years???? another case of bad luck or fate or whatever you want but a 'mother' (and i don't know why I use that term) who stands by and lets that bastard do what he did gets 5 years as well??????.... and we wonder why the legal system is ****ed!
thefuriousb Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Not sure what most do not understand about the difference in the offence/charge. Had he killed someone by his wrecklessness, the charges and subsequent penalty/sentence would be different. Bit like a charge of affray for hitting someone is not the same if the punch(es) had left to death or serious injury. On some people's thinking we should just have one law, and one punishment.
wild-saint Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Makes me laugh that they failed to mention that he resisted arrest and it needed 7 policemen to restrain him. Apparrently is lawyer told him the only thing that could keep him out of prison was his name / status in soton.
Give it to Ron Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Gotta feel sorry for Claus, poor bloke. :-( Do you use ragworm or lugworm, peeler is costly.
The9 Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Clearly the 2 examples are nothing like the same. The fact that a life was not taken does lessen the crime. It is a different charge all together. also, what happened to every one being treated equally in the eyes of the law? You can't just put someone in jail because they were once an ex-pro or other "celebrity". You would have to have more than one law for each offence depending on "who you are", and therefore not treated equally. There's a lot more benefit to the community of a celeb doing community service than there is more your everyday "normie" though. Depends whether the goal is punishment, finding a way for the criminal to make amends, or rehabilitation.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Agreed, but is it really justice? Leaving the scene of an accident and whilst drinking and driving is heinous in any circumstances when you are driving a tank of a vehicle it's even worse IMO. What would it have taken to lock him up and teach him a proper lesson? In the news this week we see reports about the case of the drunk Belgian Tanker driver killing a decent hard working man driving his tractor and the courts telling the Belgian driver to expect a custodial sentence. So the fact Lundekvam didn't kill anyone does that lessen the crime? Not unless luck comes into it as surely it was luck that no one was seriously injured or killed. So why is he not serving a custodial sentence? Agreed....plus a £43 set of costs is just taking the p1ss...
Doctoroncall Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Agreed....plus a £43 set of costs is just taking the p1ss... That's what struck me. How do the courts determine cost? Cost of what?
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Had he killed someone by his wrecklessness, the charges and subsequent penalty/sentence would be different. You are so wrong. The very idea that crashing a car could be wreckless!!
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Clearly the 2 examples are nothing like the same. The fact that a life was not taken does lessen the crime. It is a different charge all together. also, what happened to every one being treated equally in the eyes of the law? You can't just put someone in jail because they were once an ex-pro or other "celebrity". You would have to have more than one law for each offence depending on "who you are", and therefore not treated equally. I think you are missing the point being made by those who think he's got off lightly. It isn't that he should be punished more severely because he is a "celebrity", but it is just another example of too lenient punishment for what is a serious offence - getting p*ssed up and causing an accident, and leaving the scene, and... Anyone doing all that should be more heavily punished than a ban and £46 quid costs.
saintjay77 Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 I think you are missing the point being made by those who think he's got off lightly. It isn't that he should be punished more severely because he is a "celebrity", but it is just another example of too lenient punishment for what is a serious offence - getting p*ssed up and causing an accident, and leaving the scene, and... Anyone doing all that should be more heavily punished than a ban and £46 quid costs. I think the celebraty bit comes into play when everyday folke like ourselves look at these morons and think our kids look up to them! put that with the fact that the courts seem to give them lesser punishments because they are celebraties and its understandable why it gets our backs up. So in some ways celebraties that fall the wrong side of the law should IMO be more likly to recieve the maximum punishments rather than the lesser ones. If our kids look up to them then they should also see what could happen to them should they also fall the wrong side of the law. As it is they think there hereos can get away with stuff then so can they.
Bartosz Bialkowski Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 fair punishment I would say. 2 and half times the limit could possibly be only 2 pints. Have a look in half the pubs in the country at around 6:30pm and you will see countless people having a couple of beers then driving home. I think (although I cannot prove it) those drivers cause less accidents than the countless number of 70+ year olds stuttering about, or the numerous 17 year olds driving over powered cars. Claus after two pints no doubt has better reactions that thousands of 'dry' drivers. And dont get me on to women...........
saintjay77 Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 fair punishment I would say. 2 and half times the limit could possibly be only 2 pints. Have a look in half the pubs in the country at around 6:30pm and you will see countless people having a couple of beers then driving home. I think (although I cannot prove it) those drivers cause less accidents than the countless number of 70+ year olds stuttering about, or the numerous 17 year olds driving over powered cars. Claus after two pints no doubt has better reactions that thousands of 'dry' drivers. And dont get me on to women........... If he drove away from the accident then I guess he wasnt breathalised straight away. that could have been time for his levels to reduce so it may be that he was further over the limit at the time. And if what Wilde-Saint said is true I would guess that he was a little over 2.5 times the limit. Besides, the legal limit has been reduced over the years for a reason. I wont drive on anything over 1 pint of Shandy as its just not worth the risk of running over a kid or something. Fair enough to put things into perspective but CL made a hatfull of errors and seems to basically have got away with it.
rallyboy Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 The police make no mention of a mass brawl in arresting him, just a breathalyser and a confession, they would have charged him with resisting arrest if they had needed to call all of Hampshire's on-duty officers to one incident. Also I believe in this day and age the police are aware that the passing of time reduces the blood alcohol levels so they do account for that, and I'm not sure that the defence of being able to react quicker than a random sober person is a popular plea, especially when you have just shunted a van onto it's roof. Claus made a mistake, then another, so he was an idiot, and he got what he deserved. Great servant to our club, very poor role model for drivers. He will do his community time and we will all move on, perhaps as a result of his case some people will stop driving under the influence of anything, maybe not. But what we all know is that the first thing the next idiot will say as they get out and start picking bits of pushchair out of their front grille is, 'I only had one pint...' Drink drivers? ******* ******* all of them.
The9 Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Claus made a mistake, then another, so he was an idiot, and he got what he deserved.. I think the point is that most people on here are arguing that he didn't get what he deserved, and the punishment was, if anything, too lenient.
NickG Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 prat. should have had custodial. Worse than Dyer/BWP. Hope not to see him prancing around as an ambassador.
NickG Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 Makes me laugh that they failed to mention that he resisted arrest and it needed 7 policemen to restrain him. Apparrently is lawyer told him the only thing that could keep him out of prison was his name / status in soton. status as a drunken pr!ck?
paulwantsapint Posted 17 June, 2009 Posted 17 June, 2009 I am all up for the rich & famous to be means tested before sentencing bigger the name the bigger the punishment. If Claus is half the man I thought he was when playing for Saints he should offer his probation officer at least another 250 hours of community service
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now