Mr Chips
If this was a predominantly army website, there might be lots of objections to that thread title although , as I rmember it, the alllegation was that he was drunk. (No offence of being over a prescribed limit applies to pax.) That said, I agree some of the comments about passengers who've allegedly misbehaved (drunk or sober) are sometimes completely OTT.
You're right about one of the pilots jailed being over the driving limit - I represented him - but I don't think that's inconsistent with anything I said in my previous post.
Other than in a professional sense, I wouldn't try to defend any pilot over the limit. What I've tried to do since before the current law came into force, and since, is to warn pilots that the new law is far stricter than the old and that the chances of being caught are far higher.
However, I can understand pilots' irritation at the melodramatic over-reaction of the tabloids on the very rare occasions a pilot is found to be over the limit. I find it irritating, and I'm not even a professional pilot! I think it's entirely understandable that other pilots feel the need to point out there's no reason whatsoever for passengers to be alarmed - and point out there's no evidence of alcohol causing or contributing to accidents.
Reporting people to the police often generates strong feelings. I suppose much depends upon whether the person reporting was motivated by a sense of public responsibility or by a grudge. There's reason to suspect the Heathrow case, and the recent Manchester PIA case, fall into the latter category.
That said, the risk of being reported makes it even more important for pilots to be even more careful.
Tudor
(Edit)
bjcc
I agree it's "understandable that people will leap to the defence of others in their own occupation" - or even previous occupation.
I'm always happy to be learn, and be corrected if I've got something wrong. You say
"Yes there is evidence of alcohol being related to at least one accident int he UK. What is the evidence?