Dekers Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 The facts as stated - seem odd. There has got to be far more to this. A couple of drinks before his lunch would not normally put him over the limit. It is also a little more than co-incidence that he gets reported for drink driving - when he had drunk nothing - Police arrive and shock horror, he has in fact drunk enough to fail a breathalizer. Also a couple of live shells just happened to have fallen on the floor of his car. If he has given the OP the full facts, then he should ask for an explanation and get professional advice. I would wager a small amount that the man has given the OP edited highlights of what happened. :yes: 3 pages of speculation and debate so far, what can anyone do here, and it's always my mate, sorry just sceptical old me. Get professional advise or live with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiLisCer Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Not the case actually, I know a few people with an assault charge and a SGC.... The system is flawed - it needs standardised - at the moment it's based on personal opinion of a chief constable which can vary massively. Regards, Gixer That is NOT what I said - try and read it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chady Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I know some one who has a sgc but can't get a door licence(bouncer)!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabery 3 Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 :yes: 3 pages of speculation and debate so far, what can anyone do here, and it's always my mate, sorry just sceptical old me. Get professional advise or live with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alycidon Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 A, Join BASC if not already done so. B, Get their firearms dept to work on his behalf. We are in this country innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Cartridges fall out of peoples pockets all the time. Look under most Landrover seats owned by shooting folk and you will probably find one or two. A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 That is NOT what I said - try and read it again. Exactly what has that got to do with anything - you said it was assault - I commented that a person can still get a cert with an assault charge. What are you bleating about?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 gixer1 - with you on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazed Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 gixer1 - with you on this. Me too regrettably ha ha I do love theses a friend of mine threads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Wasn’t there a very similar thread to this just before Christmas? Along the lines of cert refused or similar? Is this some sort of wind up mission? Edited January 14, 2013 by fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Look, I like a laugh and a joke but a few things come to mind. The first is simples. Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Requires no such actions as putting on a seat belt or even being in a car, simply being drunk and in charge is enough, the title gives it away, a breath test is not necessary, obviously there is massive discretion on this as everyone who has a car and is drunk commits the offence at some point and in the last decade I have know NO ONE to ever be convicted or arrested for it, normally they require you in the vehicle at the very least and to be drunk. 2. Getting a bit shirty. Hmm an interesting expression often used by a drunk person to explain sounding off to someone often with fisty cuffs,, in this case a police officer,not Great idea however sometimes understandable. 3. Carts spent or otherwise in the car. Is not an offence. Will go no where. Ever. There is more to this than meets the eye, neither reason would stop him getting a sgc, someone is not telling the truth and that is that. As a person that is ********** too on an hourly basis my radar has gone nuclear. As much as I like to believe pw members everytime I just can't as its often a load of **. Get your mate to tell you the truth and then report back, that incident is not enough. If however it is gospel and he is holier than thou with no reason for cops to jump out on him when he happens to have had a drunk and got shirty due to some reasonable explanation with no previous history then I suggest he speaks to the basc or similar or just goes to court and gets his sgc. Good luck. Definitely. You almost never get the full story in these situations. On the face of it there would seem to be no real reson to refuse on the 'facts' reported with the exception of the guy getting 'shirty' with the cops. What I suspect is closer to the truth is that he was steaming drunk and was a belligerant moron with the cops. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Plain clothes cops,spitefull nieghbours ,2 whiskys in the house, refusals for no reason...... I think you will find that in the fiction aisle sir .... None of the "story" sounds straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Considering you have to be in uniform to conduct the breath test I find it a bit ..... Odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren m Posted January 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Plain clothes cops,spitefull nieghbours ,2 whiskys in the house, refusals for no reason...... I think you will find that in the fiction aisle sir .... None of the "story" sounds straight. no sorry mate , its totally fact , yep maybe not believable i know , but thats exactley what happened . he as been in touch with police and basc along with a family solicitor and looks hopefull they will accept his appeal . with a condition , but no idea what that is yet, ( but i did find out he had in the past 2 years ago been prescribed antidepressants , after a split from is wife and job loss after going on a bender because of the split , turning up for work at the university where worked and being sacked ). no one knew about this , not even his family until now. anyway its all getting sorted , thanks for all your comments and advice. they really did wind him up LOL Edited January 16, 2013 by darren m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plank06 Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Me too regrettably ha ha I do love theses a friend of mine threads Me three ha ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 yep maybe not believable i know Totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 no sorry mate , its totally fact , yep maybe not believable i know , but thats exactley what happened . he as been in touch with police and basc along with a family solicitor and looks hopefull they will accept his appeal . with a condition , but no idea what that is yet, ( but i did find out he had in the past 2 years ago been prescribed antidepressants , after a split from is wife and job loss after going on a bender because of the split , turning up for work at the university where worked and being sacked ). no one knew about this , not even his family until now. anyway its all getting sorted , thanks for all your comments and advice. they really did wind him up LOL And so more comes out. So, when you add this new information to the original story it begins to make more sense as to why he was refused. You and his family didn't know about it but that isn't to say that the police didn't. From the description they may well have done. The facts we now know now are; Split from the wife fairly recently serious enough to cause problems with deporession (does he still have the condition?); Drinking benders associated with the above; Work related problems resulting in sacking associated with the above. Uni's are almost all run by the Touchy-Feely Liberal Left so it is highly unlikely that he got sacked for one incident unless it was very serious, espceially if a depressive illness was a contributing factor; A report by a neighbour of driving whilst intoxicated. One would presume there was a reason for the report; Shotgun cartridges loose in his car (yes, I know it isn't an offence but may be seen as part of a bigger picture); Getting 'shirty' with the cops when there seems tro be no real reason to do so. Is there anything more to come out, one wonders? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Considering you have to be in uniform to conduct the breath test I find it a bit ..... Odd. No you don't. Not that it's relevant to this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Are you sure? S6 Rta 1988 says you do. With the only exception being collisions where alcohol is suspected. There was no collision in this thread Edited January 16, 2013 by ozzy518 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikaveli Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Are you sure? S6 Rta 1988 says you do. Does it have to be a police uniform? It'd be nice if the fuzz mixed up their routine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Ozzy has an eye for detail. Quite correct. Just trying to correct the sweeping general statements that get dragged out when drink driving is involved. The procedure for evidential specimens under S.7 does not require uniform either with one exception. There is also nothing in legislation to prevent voluntary breath tests for which you may be in any state of undress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) he needs BASC A, Join BASC if not already done so. BASC are the last people he needs. Why does everyone seem to think that BASC are the cureall for all problems when we hear time and time again of their failures to help people at their point of need. BASC are good at what they do but helping an individual with the police when they really need the help (i.e. immediately) is not something they appear to do well at all. Their advice is excellent, as is their political lobbying but that's as far as it goes. Even their once superb insurance package has been equalled and surpassed. What the guy needs is someone who will provide LEGAL insurance on top of the liability insurances, and who will arrange legal representation ASAP as that's when it's needed. Unfortunately if a person isn't already a member, it's unlikely that any organisation will provide anything other than a bit of advice. Edited January 17, 2013 by DaveK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Dave K is correct, it is fair to say that if someone gets themselves into bother with the police, and as a consequence get their licence revoked, and then after the event decides to join BASC with the hope that BASC will be able to overturn the police’s decision will probably be disappointed. The fact is, if you break the basic conditions of being a fit person to hold a firearm, then joining BASC is not going to do much to change that. Being a member of BASC will not wipe your slate clean. And don’t for one moment think that a legal expenses policy is an automatic get out of jail free card either, it’s not. Remember LE policies will only respond IF there is a 50% or better chance of winning the case, AND getting the costs recovered if they win… this is not the case with the vast majority of firearms appeals so you will probably find they will not pay for your appeal. As importantly in most cases you will not be able to choose which lawyer represents you in court, so if it does go to court and you are covered there is no guarantee you will get a brief who is expert in firearms law. Dave I know you have strong feelings that the service BASC delivered in a few specific cases was not up to the mark in the past, fair enough I accept we will not get it spot on 100% of the time but we will try our best and we will keep doing all we can to make the service better For example, we have just strengthened the BASC firearms team by taking on another ex firearms licencing manager and we are investing a LE policy for BASC members where we will be able to choose the lawyers and barristers that take the case, and will be able to make sure they are well versed in firearms law. However, understand this if you have been caught say drink driving, committing assault, threatening someone with your gun, left your guns and or ammo lying around the house, got caught with drugs, and so on, I am sorry there will be little we can do to help. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazed Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Sod it n take up fishing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 David BASC - a very sensible post. :good: :good: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huffhuff Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 No you don't. Not that it's relevant to this thread. I was under the impression only a uniformed officer could take a specimen (unless following an RTC)? However, a plain clothed officer could require it (they just can't take it). 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.