Spike gets the hump

I don’t normally indulge in meta-blogging (blogging about bloggers) on the grounds that it could easily lead to disappearing up my own (rather sizeable) fundament. But I’ll make an exception this once, just to call out the hypocrisy in Spike, of HongkieTown, since he seems to have got upset with me doing it on his site and now declines to post any more comments from me. He has also removed the link to my site from his, believing perhaps, but wrongly, that I share his need to have blog hits to massage my ego.

The facts of the case are simple: this week he posted an article decrying the fact that a driver who killed someone whilst under the influence of alcohol got a relatively light sentence. And yet less than 3 weeks earlier he posted quite happily about his own drinking and then driving home from Wanchai (“I only had two” – tell that to the judge!).

As far as I, and, I think, most other people today are concerned, there’s only one acceptable level of drinking and driving, and that’s zero. But until people like Spike believe that too we’d better be careful on the streets between Wanchai and Sai Kung – you never know when he might be out there having “only had a couple”.

Advertisements

17 Responses to Spike gets the hump

  1. Spike says:

    I have never admitted to driving under the influence and I have not done so since I was a teenager. In the post that you mention, in a reply to your comment I wrote, “I walked around, got some air, drank some water and then drove home. I was stone cold sober before I started the engine.” But you have for some reason chosen to ignore that. I consider your accusation baseless and verging on libel. If you are going to accuse me of driving under the influence and over the legal limit, let’s see your proof. I think it’s sad that this is what you have to stoop to in order to feel better about yourself.

    If it does not bother you that I removed the link to your blog, then why do you bother to mention it? I removed the link because you were in the section of HK bloggers who link to me and I noticed that you removed your links section. As for why I didn’t move the link to another section, I just couldn’t be arsed given your current attitude.

  2. smog says:

    I didn’t realise the links section was gone – that wasn’t intended, and it’s back now.

    I’m not accusing you of doing anything illegal – obviously I don’t have the data for that. What I am suggesting is that what you do is socially unacceptable. But I’m curious to hear others’ opinions on this question of whether “having a walk around and some water” after a couple of drinks and before driving is regarded as OK. Maybe I’m out of touch with current norms; it wouldn’t be the first time. Having said that, the only other comment I’ve seen is in Gweipo’s comment on your blog, and she seems to be of the same mind as me.

  3. Spike says:

    On the contrary, you have accused me of driving drunk. And you have accused me of being a hypocrite and a liar. “He posted quite happily about his own drinking and then driving.” I specifically replied to your comment saying that I was stone cold sober before starting the engine and you have ignored that. You have no proof that what I say is anything other than the truth.

    I have not been behind the wheel of a car involved in an automobile accident in 32 years (except for two incidents in Hong Kong when people rear-ended me – once when I was stopped at a red light). This is not luck. I have never received a citation or a ticket anywhere in the world for driving under the influence because I don’t do it.

    When I said I took a walk around for air, how long was that walk? Tell me. How do you know it wasn’t long enough? How do you know what state I was in when I got behind the wheel? Tell me.

    Clearly you are hoping to accomplish something with this post, but I don’t know what it is. I am assuming that you are not a policeman or a judge and that you have no connection to the people in the incident that I wrote about. So there is no personal connection in this back to you and given our cordial relationship in the past, there is no reason for you to suddenly decide that it is your place in the world to expose me as a drunk and a liar and a public menace (“we’d better be careful on the streets”)

    As I am currently searching for a new job and have recently been quite public about my real identity, there is every chance that a potential employer will find this blog post if they do a search on my name. Rest assured that I will be consulting a lawyer about this on Monday.

  4. smog says:

    Again, I’m not suggesting you did anything illegal. I’m simply saying that I regard what you do as socially unacceptable. To me, and I suspect others – I await further comments – any number of drinks followed by driving the same day, is socially unacceptable. It’s as simple as that. The days of it being acceptable to say “I know my limits”, “I can tell when I’m sober enough to drive” and so on are long gone.

  5. Spike says:

    Thank you in advance for funding my early retirement.

  6. Boots says:

    Not trying to fan the flames here but you mentioned you were tired before going for your ‘sobering’ walk, therefore after the 2 hours or so it took to get to a zero blood alcohol level, you must have been pretty knackered.

    Hardly the best state to be driving in, is it?

  7. smog says:

    I’ve just been reminded of this:
    http://laowai.blogspot.com/2009/04/do-you-know-this-person.html
    So it seems to me that Spike can hardly complain about people identifying his own anti-social behaviour.

  8. Spike says:

    I’ve given this a little bit of thought, probably more than it deserves, and life’s too short to be concerned with what some twerp I barely know thinks of me. You may not believe this, but I am not the least bit concerned about whether I measure up to your social standards or not. Since we do know each other casually, you might have chosen to address me directly and we might have had an intelligent discussion about it, but this is the course you have chosen and I’m sure you have your reasons for it.

    From my perspective, to spend any more time on this would be to grant you some measure of authority or respectability that you neither merit nor deserve. I continue to believe that I have done nothing wrong and there is nothing you have written to make me feel otherwise.

    But if this is what you need to do to make you feel good about yourself, I don’t want to rob you of that special glow you are doubtlessly enjoying right now. If you want to consider this a victory, feel free to do so, it’s no skin off my back.

  9. smog says:

    It will only be a victory if it stops people like you drinking and driving. And as to who’s right or wrong on what is socially acceptable I’ll leave that to the court of public opinion. At the moment Unacceptable has it by 23 to 4.

  10. Duncs says:

    It takes roughly an hour for the body to rid itself of the initial effects of half a unit of alcohol. How long were you walking for, Spike?

  11. smog says:

    It gets worse. Now Spike tells us over at HKExpats that even his girlfriend who was with him at the time suggested that they got a taxi home, but that he managed to persuade her that he was OK to drive!

  12. Chris says:

    I had Drink driving education whilst I was in school and I was given the following rules.

    1. 1 unit of alcohol takes 1 hour to process
    2. You will only start processing the alcohol after you stop drinking entirely
    3. In UK driving law (where I was educated) approx 2 pints will but you over the limit (80mg blood alcohol)

    Therefore if you have say 2 pints about 2-3 hours after you finish your 2nd pint you will probably be back to a baseline level even though you may have been in a suitable condition (by the definition of the law) to drive directly after your 2nd pint.

    In HK the limit is actually 37mg blood alcohol level so therefore even having 1 pint and then driving is illegal.

    I believe it would be considered unacceptable to drink and then drive within the same day dependent on the level of alcohol consumed. For example if you were to have 1 pint at lunch and then wish to drive at 10pm the same day I think you would probably be in a good condition to do so. However in a heavier drinking scenario (say a typical Sat night) then you should not be thinking about driving probably even the next day as you are not likely to be in a suitable condition to do so.

    Spike is in my opinion very wrong to have done any kind of driving no matter how long a walk he went for especially considering he was having someone else in the car for whom he was responsible.

  13. smog says:

    When the bell went over at Geoexpat the result was Unacceptable 39 – Acceptable 9. Not a big sample, but enough to suggest that my perception of it being “socially unacceptable” was accurate I feel. And maybe enough exposure to persuade one or two drink-drivers to think twice in future, which can’t be a bad thing.

  14. Chris says:

    I will drink to that… and catch the MTR or a taxi home 😉 If you can convince even 1 person that what they are doing is foolhardy then I think that this whole discussion was very worthwhile.

  15. Uncovery says:

    I do not even think it matters is he was drunk, completely drunk or sober. If an article you write as a person with a certain size of audience gives the majority of readers the opinion that you were drunk, the facts become irrelevant. You left an impression and that’s what counts. Finally you can write whatever you want and claim it’s the truth – or fiction. The readers impression is the only thing that matters not what actually happened.

  16. wesmcl says:

    Hey Smog, I saw your comment on Libertines Pub (I’m one of the bloggers on the Pub) today and decided to check out your blog. Your tiff with Spike caught my eye. So when I saw him blogging about how much he respects the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I decided he needed another lecture for his hypocrisy. Below is what I wrote in my comment on his blog, let’s see if he publishes it. Cheers!

    As a fellow American, I applaud your stance on the Mosque issue (though it’s basically a no-brainer in my opinion).
    When it comes to freedom of speech, however, you seem to prefer the UK standard where any speech that someone finds personally insulting is threatened by libel suits, since you have threatened to sue a fellow blogger for saying things you don’t like about you. These libel laws have an enormous chilling effect on speech in the UK. I would assume you are against them in principle, but it appears you are perfectly happy to use these silly laws (or threaten to use them) to try to silence people who say things you don’t like. Not cool.
    The link to your baseless libel threats is below.
    https://smogsblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/spike-gets-the-hump/#more-782
    Since I’m guessing you won’t like my comments, I assume you will now ban further comments from me, like you did to the author of smogsblog.

  17. smog says:

    No surprise to see that your comment has not appeared on (or has been removed from) Spike’s blog. A mutual acquaintance who is more familiar with American vernacular than me described him as “so far up his own ass it was painful to watch”, which, insofar as I understand the phrase, seems a fair assessment to me.

    EDIT – well now it has appeared in an edited form, without the link back to my blog. You can find it here: http://hongkietown.com/2010/08/sometimes-obama-does-the-right-thing.html#comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: