Three pages per minute: Is the law different regarding the former minister? The former Latvian Minister of Welfare, Reinis Ozolniks, was caught driving with 3.09 ppm of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, lost his position as minister, but kept his driver's license. And he continues to drive calmly! And the police and the prosecutor's office explain that everything is legal. In Latvia, driving with more than 1.5 pages per minute is subject to criminal responsibility and disqualification for five years. Moreover, Section 30 of the Road Traffic Law establishes a driving ban even before a court ruling. But for some reason Ozolniks was not suspended from driving, even though he pleaded guilty. The police did not establish a ban, and the prosecutor's office explained that it would be wrong to limit his rights before the sentencing - the presumption of innocence. I mean, he was drunk, he doesn't deny it, but before the trial he is not guilty. Here people have a question: why are the licenses of regular drunk drivers immediately taken away, while the former minister is allowed to continue driving? What kind of law is this that applies immediately to some, and sometime later to others? Ozolniks himself explained that he had to take his two-year-old child to kindergarten. When the license is taken, the wife will take care of it. I mean, he has a wife and someone to drive the child, but the former minister should definitely get behind the wheel himself. Even after three pages per minute! But the complaints here are not so much against Ozolniks as against those who allowed him to travel. The person does not deny, he understands the danger of his behavior, but the state continues to protect his right to drive a car. And who will protect the rights of other traffic participants? Social networks correctly stated: the higher the position, the greater the responsibility should be. But in Latvia it is the opposite. A politician can break the law, plead guilty, and continue to enjoy rights that ordinary people are denied for the same violation. And it's not even about Ozolnix alone.

Three pages per minute: Is the law different regarding the former minister? The former Latvian Minister of Welfare, Reinis Ozolniks, was caught driving with 3.09 ppm of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, lost his position as minister, but kept his driver's license. And he continues to drive calmly! And the police and the prosecutor's office explain that everything is legal. In Latvia, driving with more than 1.5 pages per minute is subject to criminal responsibility and disqualification for five years. Moreover, Section 30 of the Road Traffic Law establishes a driving ban even before a court ruling. But for some reason Ozolniks was not suspended from driving, even though he pleaded guilty. The police did not establish a ban, and the prosecutor's office explained that it would be wrong to limit his rights before the sentencing - the presumption of innocence. I mean, he was drunk, he doesn't deny it, but before the trial he is not guilty. Here people have a question: why are the licenses of regular drunk drivers immediately taken away, while the former minister is allowed to continue driving? What kind of law is this that applies immediately to some, and sometime later to others? Ozolniks himself explained that he had to take his two-year-old child to kindergarten. When the license is taken, the wife will take care of it. I mean, he has a wife and someone to drive the child, but the former minister should definitely get behind the wheel himself. Even after three pages per minute! But the complaints here are not so much against Ozolniks as against those who allowed him to travel. The person does not deny, he understands the danger of his behavior, but the state continues to protect his right to drive a car. And who will protect the rights of other traffic participants? Social networks correctly stated: the higher the position, the greater the responsibility should be. But in Latvia it is the opposite. A politician can break the law, plead guilty, and continue to enjoy rights that ordinary people are denied for the same violation. And it's not even about Ozolnix alone.