You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
probalby start with a toast to absent friends.
oh no wait....
yes, because he has a lot to be depressed about.
I`m no expert, but I am pretty sure that's not how it works.
When ever a celebrity's "issues" are being described as dependency on prescription drugs I think of this. This is a small cut n paste, email in profile if you want to read the whole article.
The Clean Kill
Ready to do some entirely hypothetical imagining?
Let’s pretend that you are a famous media personality. The exact particulars of your job are unimportant for our purposes, so let’s just say you are well known – both as a name and as a face. You enjoy your job, the public seems to like you and your bosses are extremely happy with your annual performance. You’re not overexposed, you’re not under-utilised. You work your niche perfectly and you look, pretty much, to be set for life.
The only problem is you’re mad into coke.
This isn’t a little weekends-and-high-holidays habit. It’s not really that you take a connoisseur’s interest in it either. You just love the stuff, plain and simple. With friends. Alone. With drinks. Without. Afternoon. Evening. Night. You can’t get enough of it.
It’s a problem. Not just in terms of your own well-being, but in terms of your career prospects too – because guess what? You’ve got sloppy. The press have been tipped off to your prodigious intake and they’ve had people staked outside your flat for weeks now, documenting every time your dealer arrives.
They have pictures. They have people prepared to offer up quotes. They have all the evidence they need to get this past their in-house lawyers, and they’re ready to print.
If they push the button on this, it will cause you some serious headaches. There are very few brands or companies that can afford to keep their ties to a documented drug user unsevered – and the bigger and brighter a star you are, the greater the pressure they’ll be under to distance themselves from you, for even the most minor transgression.
So what do you do? You can’t afford another injunction. You can’t cross your fingers and hope it’ll go away. What other choice do you have?
Your best bet in this sort of situation is to confront the people who have a gun to your head – and offer to slit your own throat instead.
This is how the Clean Kill work.
You agree to go on the record. You agree to give quotes, and pictures, and, most importantly, your word that this will all stay exclusive. This is really all that they’re after – so, in exchange for that, the journalists will then afford you some artistic control on the direction their story takes.
For example, rather than framing the story around drugs that are illegal to obtain, you might be able to persuade them to focus more keenly on the sorts of drugs you can legally possess instead. Like alcohol, for instance. Or prescription painkillers. Or bath salts.
This will prevent anyone dwelling too much on the potential criminality of your behaviour, and it gives any companies, charities or other organisations with whom you do business the leeway to spare your contract.
It will also save the tabloids from having to take too moralistic a stand about cocaine – the way they would have to when the story hinges around Kate Moss taking it, or Tulisa trying to procure some for someone else.
I just don’t “get” drink driving. If I’m driving, I don’t drink anything alcoholic at all. It’s safer that way.
If I decide to have a drink, then I’ll get the bus or a taxi. Neither are particularly inconvenient nor expensive.
But the consequences of driving after a drink are massive.
Bit of a no-brainer really.
All true, but you're thinking like a person who drinks alcohol socially. I used to know an alcoholic who was done more than once for drink driving. He had a very responsible job and lived in a rural area and like most of us was dependent on his car. Unlike most of us however he wasn't just over the limit when out for a night down the pub, or that much publicised "morning-after" when you are still a bit light-headed and your system is full of alcohol. For that sort of alcoholic it's almost the normal state and they lose perspective. This isn't a justification, but an explanation of why such a person doesn't have the same perspective as you, or me.
I long ago gave up drinking at lunchtime as I found it ruined my afternoon. Then I did a dry January this year and started drinking non-aloholic beer. After a few weeks of this (I over-ran into February then March, in my enthusiasm) I realised I could now drink beer at lunch, or even breakfast, without any effects, yet apart from a couple of Saturday lunchtimes it just didn't seem right. Weird eh?
And from today's Popbitch...
One interesting thing to emerge from the wreckage of Ant McPartlin's drink-driving this week is just how damaging PR can end up being for people.
Reporters at the Sun had taken a serious look into Ant's various personal problems, and they knew how deep-rooted his lifestyle issues were. None of that reporting saw the light of day though, as it was all jettisoned in favour of a bunch of relatively soft-soap tell-all interviews so as to try to preserve the Ant and Dec brand (and, by extension, ITV's share price).
Now it's clear that Ant's problems weren't just a blip caused by knee surgery, will any of the bad actors in this whole sorry episode pause for thought?
Will the friends and colleagues who always piled back to Ant's for his legendarily generous after-show parties consider their part in it? What about the handlers who spun those semi-fictional stories to keep their commissions intact? The hacks who helped it along to further their careers? What about the execs who dragged him back on air to meet their ratings targets?
It's ironic that there's going to be no Takeaway this week. Because that's what this situation requires.
Of course nobody's saying he's a massive drugs dustbin, but - as mentioned by Alexander above - it's funny how many celebs develop prescription painkiller problems innit?
The thing with prescription painkillers is that it is a genuine problem in the states, where far more powerful painkillers are prescribed routinely for all sorts of problems. They have a massive problem with oxycodone which is often prescribed as a fix all (especially to the lower strata of society who don't have the health insurance for proper treatment).
In the UK and much of Europe though, there is a vastly different regimen to the administration of painkillers, partly because the health service provides more adequate and correct treatments, partly because there is a greater understanding and want to not prescribe addictive drugs, and partly because doctors don't get kickbacks and commission on the drugs they prescribe.
So I can kind of understand how an American celeb, or even a brit who spends a lot of time in the states, can fall down the trap of addiction to prescription painkillers as that is a problem there for everyone not just the celebs. But when it happens to a UK celeb I generally call bullshit.
Well, here were go, he's in court. I hope he does the right thing and pleads guilty, gets a long ban and offers up some charity work.
I hope he does the right thing and pleads guilty
He has.
£86,000 fine and 20 month ban apparently. Shame that money couldn't be put to good use somewhere.
and a car crash live on BBC as they are reporting it
That's quite a fine. Assume drink driving fines are now a factor of your weekly earnings but without the limit like the speeding fines.
I'm not sure I've ever watched a whole Ant and Dec TV show but assume from the snipits I've seen that his USP as a presenter is jovial and care-free scamp. Not sure how you'd carry that off to the general public with that as your calling card.
£86,000 is a lot of black cabs/Ubers/chauffeured limos gormless ****ing tight fisted idiot! Why anyone feels the need to drink and drive in London is beyond me.
£86,000 fine and 20 month ban apparently. Shame that money couldn't be put to good use somewhere.
Not a bad result for him all things considered, it's a big lump of cash (which will end up in the public purse eventually) but I doubt it'll put a dent in him, he's worth a fortune (£30m+ apparently) so the fine and getting a driver isn't going to break him, his divorce will cost him a LOT more.
The like of the Sun and for that matter Pop Bitch will do okay out of it. At this point I'm not sure which is more full of shit.
If he can get clean and sort his head out he'll be back on our screens with another £10m contract in his back pockets by the end of 2019. All things considered no one who matters seems to have the knives out for him and he seems to be as beloved by his industry as ITV viewers.
For a man of his wealth the fine is fairly small and not really much of a penalty. I would have thought something that takes his time, probably a lot of community service would be more appropriate.
£86,000 fine
In perspective, 5 days pay.
In perspective, 5 days pay.
I wonder how that is calculated - he only works 1 day a week for 3 months and then 7 days a week for 3 weeks of the year. 😉
I would have thought something that takes his time, probably a lot of community service would be more appropriate.
This. Sentence (fine rather than community service) seems lenient considering the nature of the accident.
As an aside, his income (presumably mainly from shows - and he says it's nett) gives a bit of perspective to BBC salaries.
as ever. the sentencing council guidelines are useful to see how he got what he did:
75 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath puts him in the third division, with a 17-22mth ban range and a Band C fine.
Band C fine starting point of 150% of weekly income +/- 25% based on mitigation/aggravation.
However, in the definition of relevant weekly income, there is no help in calculating what that would be if you have very lumpy income, so one must assume that his legal advisors submitted something based on 1/52 of his yearly contract income.
Interestingly:
High income offenders
Where the offender is in receipt of very high income, a fine based on a proportion of relevant weekly income may be disproportionately high when compared with the seriousness of the offence. In such cases, the court should adjust the fine to an appropriate level; as a general indication, in most cases the fine for a first time offender pleading not guilty should not exceed 75 per cent of the maximum fine. In the case of fines which are unlimited the court should decide the appropriate level with the guidance of the legal adviser.
But it's not clear whether there was any adjustment in this case.
note that the sentencing guideline is for a "low level community order"
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/droppable/item/community-orders-table/
Offences only just cross community order threshold, where the seriousness of the offence or the nature of the offender’s record means that a discharge or fine is inappropriate
In general, only one requirement will be appropriate and the length may be curtailed if additional requirements are necessary
Suitable requirements might include:
Any appropriate rehabilitative requirement(s)
40 – 80 hours of unpaid work
Curfew requirement for example up to 16 hours per day for a few weeks
Exclusion requirement, for a few months
Prohibited activity requirement
Attendance centre requirement (where available)
I imagine the judge accepted some kind of promise/demonstration of attendance at a drink problem program under the "rehabilitative requirements" label.
oh look! the post editor machine can't handle urls without *********-up the thread?! There's a surprise. 🙄
Seems like a decent fine, the idiots who drink drive won’t understand the method of calculation so they’ll be under the impression the fine amount is based on the judges attitude at the time.. hope it’s reported that way.. the ban length is the important piece of information here though. That’s lengthy, not disproportionate IMO, whether he lives in London or not that’s quite a long time to be unable to pop in the car to go shopping or pick your mother up.
Using a driver will be a PITA, assume he will be relying on Uber or Black Cabs too, waiting for someone to come pick you up is proper annoying and time consuming.. delays in achieving destination too. Which all things considered will make him think twice when he returns to driving.
Community service, well that would have lead to the media following him around taking pictures of him with kids or picking litter and that’s not fair. He’s been hounded already, pleaded guilty, taken the fine and ban and is now back in rehabilitation and that IMO should be the last we hear of his sorrows.
I’m not a huge fan of him or his sidekick, but when on the telly they do bring a lot of joy to the home bound and bored families of this island.
If he renounces publicly his actions and accepts his sentence then I’d have a lot more respect for him, and I hope he does indeed stand up and make some official comment. Maybe then the media will get off his back and let him deal with his personal issues in private.
£86,000 is a lot of black cabs/Ubers/chauffeured limos gormless **** tight fisted idiot! Why anyone feels the need to drink and drive in London is beyond me.
It wasn't the money, he was supposedly in recovery and his Mum wanted him to drive somewhere and he didn't want to admit to her he was drinking again. They had a massive barney after the crash.
Using a driver will be a PITA,
It's not really going to be a PITA though is it when your worth or earning millions.
I had to do a 2 month job just off Oxford Street Last year, the small road round the back of the building always had a que of Rolls Royces sat on the double yellows with the drivers in them 'waiting' for their employers who were presumably shopping or working. If you can afford a full time driver (which I don't imagine is the best paid job in the world anyway) then it's definitely going to be less hassle than actually having to walk from Fortnum and Mason to the NCP.
gives a bit of perspective to BBC salaries.
They work for ITV.
If he renounces publicly his actions and accepts his sentence then I’d have a lot more respect for him, and I hope he does indeed stand up and make some official comment.
He already did.
I’ve been chauffeured in a previous job I had whilst in another country, it’s a proper PITA calling them up and waiting or them just not being where they said they would be.
YMMV
he was supposedly in recovery and his Mum wanted him to drive somewhere and he didn’t want to admit to her he was drinking again
Spineless and stupid. What a class act.
He already did.
Good for him, shows just how much I take notice of anything he says.
They work for ITV.
I think you missed my point.
Well, Ants salary has no bearing on a BBC salary, or yours, or mine so please enlighten me to your point or just admit you got a fact wrong.
I may have just missed your point i admit, but i re read your post 3 times now and maybe im just thick but i still dont see it.
Well, Ants salary has no bearing on a BBC salary, or yours, or mine so please enlighten me to your point or just admit you got a fact wrong.
Eh? What fact wrong? Just saying that after the fuss about overpaid BBC presenters a while back, that the earnings in the commercial light entertainment sector seem a lot higher, possible multiples of. Which kind of puts things in perspective.
What's my salary got to do with it?
He earns as much as they are producers too some of the shows they do are done by their own production company, he’s not just the presented. Still doesn’t do any BBC work though.
vinnyeh - Your post cam across you were having a pop at the BBC salarys whereby implication is of Ant's salary which is paid by ITV - or at least that's how it cam across to me. It could just be me though!
What’s my salary got to do with it?
My point here is that Ant's salary isn't paid by the public purse, so his salary is no more your business as mine is to you, or your salary is to me. If Ant's earning in excess of £80k pw on average I'd say well done & well negotiated by his management team, its a great success story.
Anyway, oh come on Sky news, you faked this photo, surely...
Apologies I have Energy Gel on my "e" key, gone now.
vinnyeh – Your post cam across you were having a pop at the BBC salarys whereby implication is of Ant’s salary which is paid by ITV –
No it didn’t.
He said it puts BBC salaries into perspective
Meaning they aren’t as big as people make them out to be, when you compare them to non BBC salaries, like Ant’s.
Pretty obvious what he meant I reckon
.or at least that’s how it cam across to me
.... too quick to try and pick fault maybe. ?
So, one of the biggest fines on record and still people on here aren't satisfied?
…. too quick to try and pick fault maybe. ?
Maybe. Don't start having a bash at me though or put words in my mouth, I've made several attempts to downplay his comment into my interpretation of it. How I read it is how I understand it, I'm not saying I'm not wrong.
...or just admit you got a fact wrong.
😂 👍
[i]Stoner wrote:[/i]
High income offenders
Where the offender is in receipt of very high income, a fine based on a proportion of relevant weekly income may be disproportionately high when compared with the seriousness of the offence. In such cases, the court should adjust the fine to an appropriate level; as a general indication, in most cases the fine for a first time offender pleading not guilty should not exceed 75 per cent of the maximum fine. In the case of fines which are unlimited the court should decide the appropriate level with the guidance of the legal adviser.
What a load of balls. With high income offenders, a fine based on a proportion of relevant weekly income hurts them far less than it does somebody on a normal income. The fine should be adjusted up, not down, that would make things more proportionate. Though I suspect any fine the court could get away with would just be pocket change to him.
[i]MoreCashThanDash wrote:[/i]
So, one of the biggest fines on record and still people on here aren’t satisfied?
As above, I'm not sure of the relevance of it being one of the biggest fines on record - he's doubtless one of the highest earners to be sentenced for this. I don't know what would be satisfying, but whilst it's a whopping big headline figure I doubt he will be counting the pennies to pay for it - he probably spent more on his lawyers.
It's tricky, because I don't know what the appropriate punishment is - ultimately he will be hurt far more by how it has affected his life outside the courtroom. I'm not particularly after severe punishment either - if he's properly remorseful and won't do it again then job done - it's just that the sentence will ultimately affect his life far less than the sentence handed out to most people who've done a similar offence.
He will probably get his money back many times as he sells his sad story to the tabloods and the glossy crap mags.
He did wrong, he got upset, he got banned, end of story, its not like hes a workmate or freind,he was just an overapaid, media celebrity.
agreed aracer
So, one of the biggest fines on record and still people on here aren’t satisfied?
If you look at ability to pay, it wont even make the top 50,000- many people take years to pay of their court fines and many cannot afford to. Ant will barely notice this payment as he has a disposable income that measures millions [ and wealth of a similar magnitude]