The ArgusShoreham pensioner believed to be oldest drink driver in the country (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Shoreham pensioner believed to be oldest drink driver in the country

The Argus: Shoreham pensioner believed to be oldest drink driver in the country Shoreham pensioner believed to be oldest drink driver in the country

An 85-year-old pensioner is believed to have become the oldest female drink driver in the country.

Betty Teague has been banned from driving for a year and left with a £178 bill to pay after failing a breath test.

Mrs Teague, of The Burrells in Shoreham, was arrested at 8.40pm on April 12 after officers found her driving slowly westbound on the A27 with no lights.

She failed a breath test which revealed she had 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – above the legal limit of 80 milligrammes.

Mrs Teague pleaded guilty to drink-driving at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on Thursday July 3 although details of the case were only released today by Sussex Police.

She was fined £73, ordered to pay victim surcharge of £20 and court costs of £85 as well as being banned from driving for 12 months.

Sussex Police said a total of 100 people have been charged with offences after being stopped in June as part of Operation Dragonfly, the force's crackdown on drink and drug-driving on the roads.

Superintendent Jane Derrick said the case proved that there was no such thing as a “typical drink-driver”.

She said: “We are catching people of all ages, of both sexes and of a range of backgrounds and occupations who think it is ok to risk their lives and the lives of other road users by having a drink and then getting behind the wheel.

"Teague could have easily caused an accident by the way she was driving but luckily we were able to stop her before that could happen and she is now banned from the roads for the next year.

"It is totally unacceptable to drink and drive. As far as we are concerned, one drink is one drink too many."

People in Sussex can text officers on 65999 with the details of people they suspect of drink or drug driving or visit www.operationcrackdown.co.uk.

If you know someone is driving while over the limit or after taking drugs call 999.

 

See the latest crime figures in your area with our street-level crime map

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:24pm Sun 13 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"Superintendent Jane Derrick said the case proved that there was no such thing as a “typical drink-driver”. "

Er......yes there is.

It's a person who is driving whilst drunk.
"Superintendent Jane Derrick said the case proved that there was no such thing as a “typical drink-driver”. " Er......yes there is. It's a person who is driving whilst drunk. stevo!!
  • Score: 19

1:48pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

Disgraceful. I blame the parents.
Disgraceful. I blame the parents. Quiterie
  • Score: 32

2:03pm Sun 13 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

I hope this disgraceful old bag now gives up driving completely.
I hope this disgraceful old bag now gives up driving completely. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 2

2:17pm Sun 13 Jul 14

unbias1 says...

Quiterie wrote:
Disgraceful. I blame the parents.
hahaha class reply ;).
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: Disgraceful. I blame the parents.[/p][/quote]hahaha class reply ;). unbias1
  • Score: 14

2:19pm Sun 13 Jul 14

rolivan says...

She might be the oldest that has been caught.
She might be the oldest that has been caught. rolivan
  • Score: 16

3:10pm Sun 13 Jul 14

sussexram40 says...

stevo!! wrote:
"Superintendent Jane Derrick said the case proved that there was no such thing as a “typical drink-driver”. "

Er......yes there is.

It's a person who is driving whilst drunk.
Not drunk - has some alcohol in system. If you drank 2.5 pints of average strength brew you would be over the limit but you might well not be drunk. That is the problem.

The answer is simple - no alcohol. If you have had even 1 drink in the last 24 hours - you can't drive. Simples. Anyone caught with any alcohol in their system while at the wheel gets a lengthy ban.

We need to get tougher like other countries - with a much lower legal limit and much stiffer penalties. I favour a LIFETIME ban from driving. Even that is hardly enough considering the thousands of lives that have been ruined by these selfish drink drivers.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "Superintendent Jane Derrick said the case proved that there was no such thing as a “typical drink-driver”. " Er......yes there is. It's a person who is driving whilst drunk.[/p][/quote]Not drunk - has some alcohol in system. If you drank 2.5 pints of average strength brew you would be over the limit but you might well not be drunk. That is the problem. The answer is simple - no alcohol. If you have had even 1 drink in the last 24 hours - you can't drive. Simples. Anyone caught with any alcohol in their system while at the wheel gets a lengthy ban. We need to get tougher like other countries - with a much lower legal limit and much stiffer penalties. I favour a LIFETIME ban from driving. Even that is hardly enough considering the thousands of lives that have been ruined by these selfish drink drivers. sussexram40
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Yet again there is an article on here about travellers but the Argus refuses to allow comments so I'll put mine on here. The MP has no chance of the current Council taking a firm stance over illegal traveller encampments, especially not after Kitcat, during his traveller Q&A suggested that Brighton allow urban spaces to become traveller friendly areas wher they could set up camp without interference. And the current 'Traveller Liaison Officer' certainly won't lift a finger to evict the encampments when you consider that last year, when they were eventually evicted from one area she actually led them to Woodingdean and allowed them to set up another illegal encampment. It will be interesting to see how long it takes our Council to evict the travellers who have bulldozed an earthen embankment and torn down a hedge to set up a camp at the top of Wilson Avenue next to the allotments.
Yet again there is an article on here about travellers but the Argus refuses to allow comments so I'll put mine on here. The MP has no chance of the current Council taking a firm stance over illegal traveller encampments, especially not after Kitcat, during his traveller Q&A suggested that Brighton allow urban spaces to become traveller friendly areas wher they could set up camp without interference. And the current 'Traveller Liaison Officer' certainly won't lift a finger to evict the encampments when you consider that last year, when they were eventually evicted from one area she actually led them to Woodingdean and allowed them to set up another illegal encampment. It will be interesting to see how long it takes our Council to evict the travellers who have bulldozed an earthen embankment and torn down a hedge to set up a camp at the top of Wilson Avenue next to the allotments. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 10

8:38pm Sun 13 Jul 14

applecore says...

Headline is inaccurate. The sun story this is taken from says there is a chap who is older. sort it out!
Headline is inaccurate. The sun story this is taken from says there is a chap who is older. sort it out! applecore
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Sun 13 Jul 14

FatherTed11 says...

bloody greens
bloody greens FatherTed11
  • Score: 2

10:14pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Charlie Oscar says...

i thought the limit was 35mg in every 100 and prosecuted after 40mg or over.

100mg would be nearly 3 times the limit ??????


am I correct ?
i thought the limit was 35mg in every 100 and prosecuted after 40mg or over. 100mg would be nearly 3 times the limit ?????? am I correct ? Charlie Oscar
  • Score: 4

11:08pm Sun 13 Jul 14

MikeTheKnight says...

Charlie Oscar wrote:
i thought the limit was 35mg in every 100 and prosecuted after 40mg or over.

100mg would be nearly 3 times the limit ??????


am I correct ?
Breath test yes. Blood is different limit
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Oscar[/bold] wrote: i thought the limit was 35mg in every 100 and prosecuted after 40mg or over. 100mg would be nearly 3 times the limit ?????? am I correct ?[/p][/quote]Breath test yes. Blood is different limit MikeTheKnight
  • Score: 1

11:13pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Charlie Oscar says...

nope argus is correct its blood level not breath
nope argus is correct its blood level not breath Charlie Oscar
  • Score: 0

11:27pm Sun 13 Jul 14

NathanAdler says...

"She failed a breath test which revealed she had 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – above the legal limit of 80 milligrammes. "

There is so much wrong with this statement.

This reads she has pure alcohol for blood!!

Anyway, poor reporting but the silly old bag should burn in hell!!
"She failed a breath test which revealed she had 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – above the legal limit of 80 milligrammes. " There is so much wrong with this statement. This reads she has pure alcohol for blood!! Anyway, poor reporting but the silly old bag should burn in hell!! NathanAdler
  • Score: -6

12:06am Mon 14 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

NathanAdler wrote:
"She failed a breath test which revealed she had 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – above the legal limit of 80 milligrammes. "

There is so much wrong with this statement.

This reads she has pure alcohol for blood!!

Anyway, poor reporting but the silly old bag should burn in hell!!
Lol....they are times when I have too little blood in my alcohol stream.
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: "She failed a breath test which revealed she had 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood – above the legal limit of 80 milligrammes. " There is so much wrong with this statement. This reads she has pure alcohol for blood!! Anyway, poor reporting but the silly old bag should burn in hell!![/p][/quote]Lol....they are times when I have too little blood in my alcohol stream. stevo!!
  • Score: -1

7:42am Mon 14 Jul 14

Martin999 says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
Yet again there is an article on here about travellers but the Argus refuses to allow comments so I'll put mine on here. The MP has no chance of the current Council taking a firm stance over illegal traveller encampments, especially not after Kitcat, during his traveller Q&A suggested that Brighton allow urban spaces to become traveller friendly areas wher they could set up camp without interference. And the current 'Traveller Liaison Officer' certainly won't lift a finger to evict the encampments when you consider that last year, when they were eventually evicted from one area she actually led them to Woodingdean and allowed them to set up another illegal encampment. It will be interesting to see how long it takes our Council to evict the travellers who have bulldozed an earthen embankment and torn down a hedge to set up a camp at the top of Wilson Avenue next to the allotments.
Quite right, next May I will vote for anyone that promises to take a firm stance against these parasites.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: Yet again there is an article on here about travellers but the Argus refuses to allow comments so I'll put mine on here. The MP has no chance of the current Council taking a firm stance over illegal traveller encampments, especially not after Kitcat, during his traveller Q&A suggested that Brighton allow urban spaces to become traveller friendly areas wher they could set up camp without interference. And the current 'Traveller Liaison Officer' certainly won't lift a finger to evict the encampments when you consider that last year, when they were eventually evicted from one area she actually led them to Woodingdean and allowed them to set up another illegal encampment. It will be interesting to see how long it takes our Council to evict the travellers who have bulldozed an earthen embankment and torn down a hedge to set up a camp at the top of Wilson Avenue next to the allotments.[/p][/quote]Quite right, next May I will vote for anyone that promises to take a firm stance against these parasites. Martin999
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree