Debate over drink drive 'shame file' heats up
THE Drink Drive "shame file" in the QT has created plenty of debate over the past year.
That continues to be the case.
One QT liker wrote: "Please keep the weekly Drink Drive 'shame file'. It may be and probably is embarrassing for those who feature, but there is no excuse for drink-driving and if all newspapers followed your lead that would surely keep chipping away to reduce such irresponsible behaviour."
The QT asked the question on Facebook recently what users felt about the issue.
Megan Moulds had a very strong argument why the shame file should continue.
"My step daughter was killed by an irresponsible drunk," she posted.
"She was eight.
"They make the decision. They deserve what they get."
Carmel Bogdan was less impressed with the shame file and wrote that it "does not impact the number of drink drivers at all".
"Waste of time being printed," she posted.
Shane Adamson suggested extending the shame file to include other offenders.
"If you're going to have a name and shame for drink drivers then have one for sex offenders and pedophiles as well," he said.
Robert Braddick reckoned the drink drivers were beyond shame.
"If getting into a car and driving drunk doesn't bother them, then what makes you think that having their name printed in a local rag will bother them?"
Lynda Bennett Stone articulated her views in this way: "Some people wouldn't care, others would be totally humiliated for a wrong call, as would their families.
"Drink drivers have already been judged by a judge, it's not up to us to do it again.
"So no, I'm against shaming files."
Earlier on Facebook, a QT liker had said: "It is time to replace the drink drivers section in the paper with some feel good community based stories."
Cate Carter had a well thought out response to this statement.
"The question is, since the QT has started publishing the names of the court list regarding drink driving charges has Ipswich had less drink drivers?" she asked.
"Why should the paper be all 'feel good' stories? The reality is, that's not the society we live in."
Vic Haselich wants the section to continue.
"No!!! Continue! Name them and shame them!!! Their victims don't get that chance."
Mark Davis agreed.
"That's my favourite part, and besides which, if the people didn't do it they wouldn't be in the paper," he wrote.
Adrian Leech reckoned the shame file should be extended to include members of the judiciary and legal fraternity.
"Even better, name and shame judges that don't penalise repeat offenders to the full extent of the law... and the lawyers that defend them," he posted.
The site of Julie Little Spud Romaine had this to say: "If the courts took a more realistic stance on drink driving then you wouldn't need to name and shame them, but since that's not likely to happen any time soon, please continue to list them."
Anne South reckoned more positive yarns could be increased, but stopped short of calling for an end to the file.
"Yes we need to keep up the awareness of the repercussions of drink driving but the news is full of the bad things in life, it's depressing.
"Add some more good community stories and show everyone what we fight for."
Kris Ryan reckoned the drink drivers should not be protected.
"Keep it going, they deserve nothing less," he said.
Steve Auld had this take on the issue: "You could name local liberals so we can run 'em out of town."