bullet1747 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 By that logic we should ban all guns! Poppy cxxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 By that logic we should ban all guns! I beg to differ. People who own and use guns, do so with the safety of other uppermost in their mind - not true with drink driving, otherwise why would drink driving be a possible problem for grant of SGC/FAC. I havent ever done this and would be happy to see anyone convicted of drink driving to be banned for life. It just isnt necessary and I also have seen the results - innocent people you have to collect from the roadside. Dont get me started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted December 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Poppy cxxx Great answer, adds to the debate. People who own and use guns, do so with the safety of other uppermost in their mind - Are you sure about that? I'll expand on this point, there seem to be a significant number of incidents in fieldsports where safety was clearly not the number one priority. Let's not forget all the shoots that have a boozy lunch and then go out and do a few more drives..... Edited December 22, 2012 by Laird Lugton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet1747 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Great answer, adds to the debate. Are you sure about that? Here is another one and it winds me up smoking while driving , don't smoke never have don't have a problem with any one smoking near me but while driving it's as bad as drink ,and on the phone in my eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaSV10 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Yet where there is a problem area with drinking and driving, it appears the problem is ignored and yes its been reported, They would have a field day at this spot, and don't need any lame excuse to pull them over as their driving is diabolical. Edited December 22, 2012 by BerettaSV10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted December 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) I am dead against drink driving, never have done and I intend never to in the future. I also agree that anyone caught should be banned for life. My issue with it is that there were no grounds for pulling me over and none were offered. As UKPoacher states there needs to be grounds for pulling people over. Had the Police Officers ventured 200m onto the M8 where the average speed was well above the stated speed limit there were plenty of grounds for people being pulled. If as UK Poacher states they were circumventing the rules how can we expect them to uphold the law? When random tests are law I'll be perfectly happy to comply..... Edited December 22, 2012 by Laird Lugton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I do and I don't have a problem with it. On the one hand if I have done nothing wrong they have no right to interrupt my evening. On the other hand drink driving kills and the more nutters put behind bars the better. However I was just curious as to the grounds for administering it. When he saw me in my pilot's uniform he said "guess you haven't had a drink then"! I suppose they are waiting for all the people who have been down south at social functions for Christmas.... Just as a matter of interest whats the policy re breath screening at start of duty ( pilot ) and what is the limit ? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted December 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Just as a matter of interest whats the policy re breath screening at start of duty ( pilot ) and what is the limit ? Thanks There is no random breath testing in the UK, (some european countries have it), it has to be done on suspicion (same as driving). The limit is 0.2 milligrams per millilitre. However some UK companies have random tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 There is no random breath testing in the UK, (some european countries have it), it has to be done on suspicion (same as driving). The limit is 0.2 milligrams per millilitre. However some UK companies have random tests. Thanks for reply . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I think that this is where you and I are just having to differ on opinions my friend. I do not claim to know the legal standing of random breath tests but if it takes any these irresponsible idiots off the road that think it is fine to risk other peoples lives by drinking and driving then I say good luck to the police for doing it. You never know, it might even be your life or the life of one of your loved ones that the police who carry out these random breath tests are unknowingly saving! Whether you agree with random testing or not the fact remains that the law does not allow it. If a police officer pulls you at random and asks for a breath test then in law that test is invalid. Whether you would win in court is another matter as others have said the officer(s) would likely invent a reason for having suspicion. If the police are not happy with the current situation they should lobby to have the law changed. Not flout it. As to what happened; I told the Sergeant that in three hours I had only stopped three cars all for faulty headlights and not carried out any tests because I had no suspicion of the drivers having consumed any alcohol at all. Because there was a drive to get the figures up, i.e. inter departmental competition, they replaced me with someone more willing to break the law. It was the same with arrests and fixed penalty tickets. They put officers under pressure to achieve at least five arrests and five FPNs per month. So, that's why all the beat cars were circling town centre after midday waiting for shop lifters to be caught by store detectives, so they could step in and boost their arrest figures. The same officers would wait in strategic locations for decent people who had forgotten to fasten their seat belts or were using a mobile phone to go past. These motorists would then be given a ticket and also used to justify the officer's stop &search statistics. This is the sort of policing you get when you employ lazy idiots as senior officers. Targets for arrests and stop & search are also unlawful by the way. Just in case you are wondering; I finished my last three months just as I had started my career, as top of the league table for arrests, detected crimes and FPNs without resorting to anything other than good honest bobbying. The only FPNs I issued were for dangerous driving such as running red lights (about four in 25 years), crossing solid white lines, or parking like a twit (as in blocking the road or causing a genuine obstruction). The rest were Vehicle Defect Rectifications issued to drivers with obvious and potentially dangerous faults on their vehicles. No fine, no points, just 14 days to get it fixed and £10 payable to the MOT centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillmouse Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I got stopped at 9-15am last Saturday morning. "Routine lighting check". Car in front got to blow in the bag, one in front of him went on a recovery lorry, possibly no insurance. Police were polite and courteous, swift and efficient. Face in window, asked a few pointless questions and when did I last have a drink, 15th August as it happens, so "Thank you very much Sir" and on my way. If it gets one Pee head off the road then its worth the inconvenience in my opinion. Never did see them check my lights though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 They can go to it for me, if it stops the idiots from driving drunk, they can stop me every mile, as long as they are courteous and quick! Before I retired, I spent time dealing with the human debris, and friend were at the roadside clearing up the remains. People who make comments about "catching real criminals" just don't get it - if you drink and drive, you ARE a real criminal, and a potential killer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I havent been actual breath tested in probably 25 years (which i was clear). However,couple years back i was taking the dogs for a walk upto a farm one sunday morning when the Police had the road blocked off.The copper stuck his head in my window and asked if i had been drinking last night (to see if i smelled of alcohol) and at that point one of my dogs curled his lip at him then let out a deep growl. By that time he was standing upright telling me to move on! and no i hadnt been drinking so didnt smell of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastlincs Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 they have started doing it around where i live now in early mornings to catch people driving to work the next day over the limit, good on them only got yourself to blame if your over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Police should have 'reasonable suspicion' to ask you to give a breath test. So, if they stop you for a dodgy light and smell alcohol then that is 'reasonable suspicion'. But, what happens at this time of year is an organised campaign where officers are tasked to and put under pressure to stop and test as many motorists as possible. No reasonable suspicion required, just stop everything. I refused to do it, not because I am anti-drink driving, far from it, but because it is breaking the law to stop motorists and ask them to give a sample without 'reasonable suspicion'. If the police can't obey the law then they have no right to prosecute others. Agreed. The police are not a law unto themselves but some of them act like they are. Perhaps random testing is a good idea but it is not up to the police to decide that. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 It's like stop and search though. If the Chief Constable has deemed it relevant, they can increase the frequency and lower the suspicion threshold. It's reasonable to suspect that at this time of year, anyone leaving an establishment with an alcohol licence may have had a drink, even if it's "just the one". Few years ago in Bangor the reasonable suspicion was "leaving town in a car" and every road out had a Police checkpoint. Having a suspicion that someone has had a drink is not sufficient though. They have to have suspicion that you have comitted the offence of driving with excess alcohol. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I think that this is where you and I are just having to differ on opinions my friend. I do not claim to know the legal standing of random breath tests but if it takes any these irresponsible idiots off the road that think it is fine to risk other peoples lives by drinking and driving then I say good luck to the police for doing it. You never know, it might even be your life or the life of one of your loved ones that the police who carry out these random breath tests are unknowingly saving! You can use that argument to justify absolutely anything though. It stands to reason that if there are no legally possessed firearms then no one will ever be shot by a legally held firearm. Hence, by your logic, it would be reasonable for the police to never issue a single SGC or FAC. Parliament has seen fit to require the police to have reasonable suspicion before they breathalyse someone and that is what should happen. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 i wish they'd do more in poringland, one of the local pubs is full of pee heads who drive off home after a skinful, boils my piddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I use to get pulled all the time in Leeds as was driving home from work between 3am and 6am...14 times in two weeks with 3 times in one night.....by the 3rd time that night I was annoyed... I admit to having drove 3 times when I was over in over 8 years of driving and to me thats 3 times too many and they were stupid mistakes...ok I "got away" with it but thats not the point....its something I will not do again I am in two minds about the "random" stops...I am in favour if it stops people drink driving and taking that car off the road...100 yards down the road it could crash into someone etc....on the other hand it tarring all drivers with the same brush You are having a laugh mate! Three times in eight years? You need to assess whether you should be on the roads or whether you should stop drinking completely. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I had a meeting with a contractor last week at 10.00am in N Wales. He was late, because he had been pulled for a random BT. We did not complain and he was negative. It is the time of year. Keep drink of the roads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 There is no random breath testing in the UK, (some european countries have it), it has to be done on suspicion (same as driving). The limit is 0.2 milligrams per millilitre. However some UK companies have random tests. It's 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath, J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I am afraid to say, whatever the law may be, I am totally in favour of it even if it saves one life its worth it. I believe DD is so stupid its worth bending the law for. Certain patterns of behaviour should be enough to justify reasonable suspicion. Being out after 10.30pm for example. I have seen a lot of drink driving in my lifetime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I am afraid to say, whatever the law may be, I am totally in favour of it even if it saves one life its worth it. I believe DD is so stupid its worth bending the law for. Certain patterns of behaviour should be enough to justify reasonable suspicion. Being out after 10.30pm for example. I have seen a lot of drink driving in my lifetime It isn't worth 'bending' (you actually mean breaking) the law for. If it's a good thing to do then Parliament can change the law to allow it. The ends do not automatically justify the means. If this is worth 'bending' the law for then what else is and what is the justification for not doing so? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Having a suspicion that someone has had a drink is not sufficient though. They have to have suspicion that you have comitted the offence of driving with excess alcohol. J. That is not correct. Suspicion someone has had a drink IS enough. 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres is for driving. They were on about flying which is much lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I am afraid to say, whatever the law may be, I am totally in favour of it even if it saves one life its worth it. I believe DD is so stupid its worth bending the law for. Certain patterns of behaviour should be enough to justify reasonable suspicion. Being out after 10.30pm for example. I have seen a lot of drink driving in my lifetime I can't quite agree that it's reasonable to suspect a person just because they are out after 10.30pm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.