# Drunk in charge?



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

Buon giorno tutti,
I was a bit concerned to read on another thread that one of our members in the law enforcement profession was going to visit us at Lincoln rally. I had thought of operating an open bar, but :wink: 
If I am sat in a swivel passenger seat, with vehicle stationary, engine off, but keys in the ignition (the only place where I am ever sure I know where they are) with my second or third glass of chateau plonk, am I drunk in charge? :roll: 
saluti,
eddied


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Depends on how strong it is and how much it takes to get you tipsy!


----------



## Alfa_Scud (Sep 27, 2006)

I'm lead to believe generally NOT, thats by a senior bobby down t'local gym. 

It's apparently about intent; now if you're sat in the drivers seat, with the engine running, everything packed away, it'd be a fair assumption that you'd be prepared to have a go & drive away, but with bottle out, friends round, cooker on etc, I think you're fairly safe.

But I'm sure Dougie'll be along to prove me wrong shorlty!


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Probably I'm being over-cautious but I'd find another place to put my keys when I've stopped rather than the ignition. Not that difficult for a thief to pinch them while you're in the loo or, worse, drive off while you're round the back checking the bikes or whatever ?

G


----------



## dcummin (Jan 21, 2008)

I would be careful if you are in a layby or a public car park. I agree that it is unlikely that the police would pursue it...

but in theory its no different to a lorry driver pulling up in a layby and cracking open a six pack before he sleeps in his cab for the night...and that would be an offence.

Also, they keys don't have to be in the ignition or the engine running, the keys just have to be in the vehicle or on the person.


----------



## vardy (Sep 1, 2006)

Well that's everybody st*ffed then :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## ksebruce (Nov 5, 2006)

As you would not be "caught" by a camera I think our bobbies would take a more common sense approach.


----------



## framptoncottrell (Jan 6, 2006)

Have I got this round my neck, but isn't the Lincoln rally on private land? I didn't know that you could be prosecuted for being drunk in charge other than on a public thoroughfare. There are a fair number of shooting parties with hip flasks and quad bikes who might have to think again!

Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

OK everbody, Caffe Chausson will be open as soon as the sun is over the yardarm (when is that anyway?).
saluti,
eddied


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

Midday


----------



## Alfa_Scud (Sep 27, 2006)

framptoncottrell said:


> Have I got this round my neck, but isn't the Lincoln rally on private land? I didn't know that you could be prosecuted for being drunk in charge other than on a public thoroughfare.
> Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


Apparently it's not even as simple as that though. Although it's private land it has access to public road, which was where I was told the intent bit comes in. Keys in ignition, no real problem (well, apart from them being nicked like Grizzly said!), neither is keys being within the confines of the van.

But again, I'm waiting to be shot down in flames!


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

eddied said:


> ...one of our members in the law enforcement profession was going to visit us at Lincoln rally


Just 'cos you're paranoid doesn't mean I'm not out to get you......



eddied said:


> If I am sat in a swivel passenger seat, with vehicle stationary, engine off, but keys in the ignition (the only place where I am ever sure I know where they are) with my second or third glass of chateau plonk, am I drunk in charge?


I recall this was discussed a few months back. Firstly, the Lincolnshire Showground is private land. However, for the purposes of _some_ of the Road Traffic Act, it is a "public place", at least for some of the time. To explain:-

When it's open to the public during the day, it's a place to where the public have right of entry (providing they pay), so some sections of the Road Traffic Act apply (e.g. drink/drive, drunk in charge, careless driving). However, once the gates close for the night, it ceases to be a "public place" and becomes private land on which campers have the right to remain. Those sections of the Road Traffic Act therefore no longer apply, so you could drink as much as you like and drive around like the proverbial newt, and not contravene either Section 4 or 5 of the Act. (You would however still be subject to the laws of the land in terms of manslaughter.....)

So in general terms, you need to ensure whether you're in a "public place" even if on private land. Pub or restaurant car parks are a common misconception. Once the pub closes, the public have no right of access, and the car park reverts to being private. If however you stagger out the pub before closing and into the van, there is some risk that you will have a big problem if the Police require a breath test, as there is a power to require one whilst the public have a right of access to the car park.

Pragmatically, I would assess the likelihood of your driving off, e.g. if your van had hydraulic legs firmly planted in the gravel and you had electric hook-up, and you were in your PJs, I would make an educated guess there was little likelihood of you driving before your alcohol levels subsided enough. I did however breathalyse the driver of a motorhome a few years back when he & his family were parked up in a layby with a BBQ going (the 5-ft flames drew my attention :roll and he was on his 3rd can of lager. He had the keys in his pocket, and there was nothing to indicate they weren't going to continue their journey, apart from him telling me they weren't. He failed the breath test and was arrested & taken to the Police station 10 miles away where he (only just) passed the further intoxilyser test, which is the one that counts. I ran him back to his van where he readily agreed not to drink any more, and go to bed.

Dougie.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Good answer Dougie

I guess as a member of motorhome stopover, which means I will have permission to stay overnight on the pub car park, you would be lenient with me.

I hope


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

Ciao Dougie, if I give you my keys can I open Caffe' Chausson?
arrivederci a Lincoln. eddied


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

sallytrafic said:


> I guess .... you would be lenient with me. I hope


Frank,

You've got two hopes. Bob Hope, & No Hope.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

eddied said:


> Ciao Dougie, if I give you my keys can I open Caffe' Chausson?


No, but if you give me a full glass, you can do wot you like. 

Dougie.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

OK - me and 'er indoors are sat in there blotto ( not that that would ever happen you understand, just a supposition ) - WHO is in charge ?


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

hilldweller said:


> OK - me and 'er indoors are sat in there blotto...WHO is in charge ?


Whoever both of you decide is, in answer to being asked at the time. If you both say the other person is, I'd breath-test both of you (or arrest both of you without one if you were both clearly unfit to drive). If either failed, they'd get arrested. If the other one then said, "Actually, I'm in charge", I'd give you an £80 Fixed Penalty Notice for obstructing me. 

Dougie.


----------



## artona (Jan 19, 2006)

Hi

Always best to leave the wife in charge Brian :lol: :lol: 

stew


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

asprn said:


> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> > I guess .... you would be lenient with me. I hope
> ...


See you in court then (and no Laphroaig for you)


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

sallytrafic said:


> See you in court then (and no Laphroaig for you)


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

asprn said:


> If either failed, they'd get arrested. If the other one then said, "Actually, I'm in charge", I'd give you an £80 Fixed Penalty Notice for obstructing me.
> Dougie.


You are a fine gentleman Effendi, may your camels never wander and all your wives be particularly fertile.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

hilldweller said:


> You are a fine gentleman Effendi, may your camels never wander and all your wives be particularly fertile.


You're very welcome, friend. Can I take it that you won't be at Lincoln then, to ensure your kind and sincere greeting is made in person?

Dougie.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

sallytrafic said:


> I guess as a member of motorhome stopover, which means I will have permission to stay overnight on the pub car park


Sound like the motorhome stopover has no bearing on this.

When the pub shuts, you are on the car park with the landlords permission ( however granted ) or you are trespassing. Either way you don't get breathalised.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

asprn said:


> You're very welcome, friend. Can I take it that you won't be at Lincoln then, to ensure your kind and sincere greeting is made in person?
> Dougie.


No, it's wife's birthday and we'll be on a Jazz cruise on Windermere. If I'd seen this sooner I think we'd have gone for it.

Hey, wait a minute, we couldn't book the weekend, the cruise is on the Wednesday.

See you in Lincoln. I shall select may best sheeps' eyes and personally cut off two testicles from my finest goat to be savoured fresh and raw, Effendi.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

hilldweller said:


> I shall select may best sheeps' eyes and personally cut off two testicles from my finest goat to be savoured fresh and raw, Effendi.


How boring. That's a normal Lincolnshire breakfast.

Dougie.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

It may be of interest bu maximum alcohol in the blood is about...






6-8 hours after the last drink.

so, bear that in mind when you finish the bottle and make an early start in the morning.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

bandaid said:


> make an early start in the morning.


I don't understand.

Surely *any* start in the morning is early and not to be encouraged in polite society.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Early starts are what the common or garden people do.

It may be related to something called work, however, as this is a four letter word, it could be removed by the moderators.

still a point worth considering. Not for nothing do pilots have the 12 hour rule.

its facinating to pitch up at an RTC where the driver of a car has been hit by another, then you see the apparently innocent driver being told he's blown red and is arrested, 

" But my last drink was hours ago...."

Not enough hours ago though....


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

bandaid said:


> Not enough hours ago though....


Strange - I read this current BBC item just after you posted:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7449653.stm

The pilot and his daughter crashed at 15:00 hrs. He was five times over the alcohol flying limit, and his daughter twice over. They were seen drinking at a local restaurant the night before.

Case in point then.

Dougie.


----------



## annetony (May 1, 2005)

Well thats us sorted then

I drink the wine and he is in charge :lol: 

and if he goes out then he is still in charge I cant drive 8O 

Anne


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

bandaid said:


> It may be of interest bu maximum alcohol in the blood is about...
> 
> 6-8 hours after the last drink.


No.

It depends a little bit on how fast you drink and how much you have eaten, but even in a worst-case scenario blood alcohol level reaches its peak _latest_ about 90 minutes after the last drink.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that the average human body breaks down only about 10 mg alcohol per 100 ml blood and per hour ("experienced" drinkers may reach about 15-20 mg). So if you have filled up yourself up to 140 mg, then sleep for 6 hours and then you drive, you are most probably still over the legal limit.

BTW, "drunk in charge" and "intention to drive" are very British (and maybe Irish?) peculiarities. In all other European countries it is only "drunken driving" that counts.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

asprn said:


> He was five times over the alcohol flying limit, and his daughter twice over.
> Case in point then.
> Dougie.


Almost a case in point. The aircraft limit is near zero.

You don't mess with weather in a light plane. Instrument failure at the same time. Someone Up There had declared, "your number is up sunshine".

What killed them was taking off and you could well argue than any alcohol that contributed to "It's not that bad, I can make it" was contributory. Even sober it's a mistake that has killed hundreds of people.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

hilldweller said:


> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> > I guess as a member of motorhome stopover, which means I will have permission to stay overnight on the pub car park
> ...


I don't think that follows, unless you wait for chucking out time as surely I have seen reports of arrests, for drunk in charge, made in pub car parks. Putting the key into the vehicle door lock might even be considered an offence. My point was that by having permission in a documented way you could stand a chance of proving whether or not you intended to drive. You are only 'parked' in these car parks you are not allowed to 'camp.'


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Boff, please yourself what you believe, I dont care enough to argue, but I'll stick to the published information from the BMA and various A&E consultants.


Also there will be a dougie or another legal boffin that will give the absolute, but even if you're in a car park owned by a company or individual, if the public have rights of access by invitation, it becomes a highway. 

something similar anyhoo.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

For the last 18 months i have been fulltiming alone so only i am in charge of my motorhome. I do love wine at dinner and usually finish the bottle into the evening. 

Having lived for several years with a very very senior police officer who incidentally was and still is a habitual drunk driver ( he did by the way eventually after years of prosecuting others caused an accident himself while drunk and had to resign ) he always informed me as a senior officer not a lower ranking PC that if you are not in possesion of the keys to the vehicle ( i hide them in the engine bay ) any case against you dreamed up by overzelous police would be thrown out ( if it was accepted at all by the CPS

One can see comments every week on this site what lengths some police will go to to in order to achieve their goal. and you are a captive audience to frighten. Whilst no one myself included wants to drink drive and i condem the drunk in charge outright,one feels that other offences are not followed up in case the sergeant shouts at the PC as posted on here a week or so ago.

So my advice dont be scared out of your wits by some comments, be sensible, hide the keys dont be bullied, quietly record the officers number if you are bullied and make a FORMAL COMPLAINT. These people are there to serve us not run a police state to frighten us, and overplay their own importance.

Busty By name and nature


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

sallytrafic said:


> I don't think that follows, unless you wait for chucking out time as surely I have seen reports of arrests, for drunk in charge, made in pub car parks. Putting the key into the vehicle door lock might even be considered an offence. My point was that by having permission in a documented way you could stand a chance of proving whether or not you intended to drive. You are only 'parked' in these car parks you are not allowed to 'camp.'


Well it was just my reading of dougie's clear message.

Until the pub is closed it's a public place.
After it's closed it's private land.

This would logically say the arrests on pub car parks took place before closing time. But, to be honest, I don't have the confidence that all police know the law in that detail, and that's no disrespect, there are just so many laws.

So take care, if my simplistic layman's analysis is correct, there is nothing to deter an over zealous ( what never  ) PC breathalising you before closing time. Take care anyway, if the police don't get you a b&^^%$d clamper will be waiting round the corner.

"Innocent 'till proven guilty", when it comes to vehicles it seems to have evolved to "stop whining, it's cheaper to pay a fixed penalty than take your chances in court".


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

bandaid said:


> Boff, please yourself what you believe, I dont care enough to argue, but I'll stick to the published information from the BMA and various A&E consultants.
> 
> clipped


According to these notes from a forensic science college the peak of the Blood Alcohol Curve (BAC) is between 1 and 3 hours after drinking, the reason for the spread is:

" The height of the peak BAC, *the time taken to reach the peak* and the shape of the curve depend depend on numerous factors: sex, size, build, tolerance, amount and type of beverage taken, duration of drinking, presence of food, type of food."

Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Dundee 

Its this department that the BMA often quotes for alcohol related issues.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

well I surrender, I believed what the consultants told whilst in training to be trainers...if thats english and not gibberish.....anyway, whatever, as I said, cant be bothered to be apathetic.... 

anyway, I have a cunning plan, which is. all the money you lot spend on alcofrolic drinks, you could save for a week, and bid for the time in the RV which would achieve 2 things.

(i) Nuke would get loads for his charity

(ii) I wouldnt be giving away something for a worthy charity and the poor bugger that'll end up paying for it will be the same bloke making the appeal in the first place.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Frank quoted:

_Numerous factors: *sex,* size, build, tolerance, amount and type of beverage taken, duration of drinking, presence of food, type of food." _

Is that whether one has had sex or not since drinking?

Too often are the notions of "gender" and "sex" mixed up and used in the wrong context.

GENDER is what one *is*

SEX which is what one *does*!!


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

I can't believe that MHers can still afford to buy both wine and diesel. Maybe you just sit in the MH drowning your sorrows while the fuel gauge stays on empty?

SD


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

SpeedyDux said:


> I can't believe that MHers can still afford to buy both wine and diesel. Maybe you just sit in the MH drowning your sorrows while the fuel gauge stays on empty?
> 
> SD


There was wine in the French supermarkets cheaper then diesel, now I wonder.......


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Busty said:


> Having lived for several years with a very very senior police officer....... is a habitual drunk driver .... caused an accident himself while drunk and had to resign ...he always informed me as a senior officer not a lower ranking PC ...... case against you dreamed up by overzelous police would be thrown out


Well, I can see you've chosen to listen to that good example of one of your servants, so absolutely no point in me adding anything.  We've actually done not bad, lasting three pages of posts until someone takes the traditional pop and vents their spleen.



Busty said:


> you are a captive audience to frighten


How patronising. Perhaps not everyone is incapable of thinking for themselves, and perhaps don't need a busty champion.



Busty said:


> Whilst no one myself included wants to drink drive


Actually, thousands of people want to drink/drive, because it's inconvenient not to do so. That's why hundreds of people are killed every year as a result.



Busty said:


> So my advice dont be scared out of your wits by some comments


Is that what you think is happening here? Perhaps it's more to do with you being angry about something which happened to you?



Busty said:


> dont be bullied, quietly record the officers number if you are bullied and make a FORMAL COMPLAINT. These people are there to serve us not run a police state to frighten us, and overplay their own importance.


Nice. No mention then about "these people" standing between your innocent family and the irresponsible drinkers who choose to take their chances. Or indeed of you supporting those of us who - as you have quickly reminded us - we all pay for. Police state? I doubt you've the slightest notion of a Police state. Sometimes I wish we could have one for a couple of months (or perhaps a war).

So folks - thought for the day. Drink up, hide the keys, don't be bullied by the overzealous police, don't be frightened, don't be scared out your wits, but instead, take the advice of a drunken very, _very_ senior officer who was busted for being a hypocrite, and - most importantly - COMPLAIN when one of these lower-ranking "people" waste their time on you instead of catching real criminals.

Thanks for the informed input. As there's no further need for discussion here, I ... am .... outta here

Dougie.


----------



## loddy (Feb 12, 2007)

Dougie

You don't half get it in the neck, I don't know what you do for a job but I wouldn't want it.

But getting back to the first question ( remember that far back ? ) someone early on said the word INTENT and I have been reliably informed if you go to court if there was no intent to drive allsgood.

Loddy


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

loddy said:


> I don't know what you do for a job


Of course you do:-

Public servant gives innocent poster a good kicking


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Well done Dougie, not for being outahere but for being honest, objective and to the point.

Your sense of fulfillment will come when the smart-ar5e5 make their principled points regarding drink-driving as they stand before the Judge who is sending them down - if not actually reaching under the Bench for his black cap.

We used to call them galley lawyers in the Merchant Navy.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

IN my Ambulance Serive we called them



pedestrians


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

loddy said:


> But getting back to the first question ( remember that far back ? ) someone early on said the word INTENT and I have been reliably informed if you go to court if there was no intent to drive all's good.


How on earth do you *prove* you had no intention of driving.

A wheel clamp supplied and fitted by the publican would work but they can never find one when you need it. Remove the starter battery and put it on the bar, fine. Handcuff you to the barmaid, gets my vote.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

What one has to remember in all the obvious bad feeling in this is if you are innocent and indeed have no intention to drive your vehicle then one deserves the common courtesy of respect which i would expect from an officer of the law of whatever rank.

One realizes that out there there are certain bullies who would wish to enforce their views on law abiding innocent motorists who are responsible and have no intention of driving, but have had a drink, if the keys are not available the intent cannot be there without the means to carry out the intent.

Please Doug dont be so angry with your fellow man everyone is not a criminal drunk driver. Calm down, dont take it so much to heart if you cant control everyones opinions. We have a right surely to express ours without your anger. Im sure if we met we could have a snuggle.

Busty


----------



## artona (Jan 19, 2006)

Hi

Busty, I am going off topic here for a moment since as one fulltimer to another I am concerned about your comment _( i hide them in the engine bay )_. I personally would think about another place for a number of reasons

You really need your keys handy in case you need to get away. If you were suddenly surrounded by thieves trying to break in the best thing is to start up and drive off. Also the engine bays are open to the elements and also now you have mentioned it on the thread it is no longer a hiding place

Hope you don't mind me mentioning my thoughts on this

stew


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

*Drunk in charge? who?me?*

 Buon giorno tutti,
:roll: mamma mia! what ruddy awful weather we're having here - the summer that isn't as it's being called. A bit of a washout for the Rooney wedding, wasn't it?
Feel sorry for the holidaymakers flocking to Italy for the sunshine, to be met by fuel shortages, high prices, and then bad weather to boot. At least it saves me having to water the garden.
:wink: Oh, by the way, this Lincoln open bar thing - I was only kidding because I'm a 'forced to be for medical reasons' teetotaller.  
saluti,
eddied


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Busty said:


> not in possesion of the keys to the vehicle ( i hide them in the engine bay )


You hide them in the engine bay from YOURSELF and so you are not in possession of them.

Well, that's feminine logic if ever I saw it.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: Drunk in charge? who?me?*



eddied said:


> Oh, by the way, this Lincoln open bar thing - I was only kidding because I'm a 'forced to be for medical reasons' teetotaller.


 :lol: And see what you started now! :evil:

And there was I, thinking of making the drive over especially 

Gerald


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Busty,

I dont think Dougie was particularily angry , merely expressing the view that its so easy to make comments about the bad attitude of some Police Officers, it always seems unfair as predominantly, the attitude of Policemen is in direct response to the attitude of the person with whom that officer is dealing.

As a Paramendic, along with all the others on here, i worked closer to the Police Service that possibly anyone else, ( apart from other Police Officers), and I cant count the number of RTC incidents I attended, when Alccohol is a predominant cause of said crash. 

All of the Emergency service people, , would if asked, I think promote a zero alcohol limit. Its ALWAYS, the innocent which sufffer. Either another road user or the family of the drink driver. theres good medical evidence, that any alcohol ( beyond the minute amounts which occur naturally in the body ) impairs the ability to drive safetly, and that impairment manefests in several ways, from the ability to make accurate judgement of ability, to hand/eye/foot coordination, even including the lowering of the social block on aggression when questioned about the incident.

I was, at one point before retirement, involved in the investigation of the death of one of my Paramedics, whom had been involved in a crash with another car, this included the establishment of the welfare system for his widow and 3 year old daughter. My bloke was on a Fully marked Paramedic response motorcycle. The car driver rammed my man, and then ran him over. The driver of the car was found to be over the legal blood alcohol lever, and not by much. His reason for deliberately ramming the bike....he mistook it for a Police Bike.

I will admit that,in my opinion, as a result of my experiences professionally over 26 years, anyone who drinks alcohol within 12 hours of driving a vehicle is irresponsible; and further, I would life ban anyone convicted of drink/driving. no appeal. tough. I say this because nobody forces anyone to drink before driving.

I also know, that my statement will probably cause a backlash of comments on this thread, and others, but frankly, I care not a jot. I've seen the death and destruction, and seen the results thereof in families.
No comments can asuage ( like that word, even not in context,) the grief that drink/driving causes.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

bandaid said:


> I cant count the number of RTC incidents I attended, when Alccohol is a predominant cause of said crash.


Then you certainly can't count the number due to lack of proper driver training.

The useless waste of space that is Westminster will not even think of driver re-test, re-train at 5 year intervals yet that would save more accidents than banning alcohol and drugs completely.

Nothing wrong with both routes though.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

*Then you certainly can't count the number due to lack of proper driver training. *

Dunno, possibly, but thats a bit off topic,

having said that half the post on the thread are off topic.

Its oft said,

you can tell a man hes too fat.
you can tell him hes crip at DIY, you can question his ability in his job, or even tell him hes a lousy lover, but you cannot, cannot tell him his driving is poor.

pretty true I'd say. Wonder what the results of a straw poll would be if asked on the forum.


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

*Caffe' Chausson*

  Ciao tutti, good breaking news!
If I promise not to touch a drop of it, Donna C may well come up with enough limoncello and Chateau Plonk for me to open Caffe' Chausson at Lincoln after all. 
arrivederci a Caffe Chausson - Lincoln.
eddied


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

Good morning Adrian

I refer back to what i said about respect on both sides. I was replying to a way to make sure you were not wrongly arrested when you had no intention to drink drive.

We all see the carnage on our roads caused by sometimes drink driving. It is not my fault i dont drink drive. Is it your fault because presumably you dont drink drive.

Dougie seemed to be Policing the site i was merely saying the law is there keep within it if you havent got the keys you cant be held as a driver with intention to drive.

Busty


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

One small off-topic comment about driver training I think there is too much emphasis about driving up to the speed limit during training and testing. I know its to demonstrate your confidence but I live near a driving test centre and see how they approach two junctions and a roundabout. More emphasis on safe speeds might be a start and drivir to include an element of roads outside of the 30limit (no need to test) just the training would be a start.

The suggestion about retesting is unworkable the network can barely cope with new drivers have you considered how many extra tests would need to happen each year? 

In 2006 there were around 35 million UK driving licences. So that would be 7 million new tests a year assuming they all passed. 
The pass rate for new drivers in just under 50%
Currently there are 2 million tests per year.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

sallytrafic said:


> The suggestion about retesting is unworkable the network can barely cope with new drivers have you considered how many extra tests would need to happen each year?


Oh it won't happen, but it would be an opportunity for more useful jobs and the money they cost would be saved in the NHS and insurance industries.

I was a passionate pilot ( finally, UK weather has put paid to that ), I had to prove, every 13 months that I was up to scratch with an examiner. If you cocked anything up then it was a case of "do it this way" "Yeh, that's OK" and get signed off. Nothing draconian but it stops bad habits building up.

And as I mentioned earlier, *anyone* working on an airfield now has to have virtually zero alcohol.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

@ bandaid:

I am fully on your side regarding a "zero-tolerance" policy against drunken driving. (And, would it be introduced, I would _not_ have to change my behaviour in any way.)

I have however my doubts whether the British approach to prosecute not only drunken *driving*, but also drunken *in charge* without driving, really makes sense.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

More contentiousness from me possibly,

I must admit that I view, with very limited expert knowledge, that drunk in charge is a " non driving " offence. what I mean is, the vehicle isn't moving, or is parked. 

I appreciate this is actually alot more involved that it seems, i.e. vehicle isnt moving because the driver has passed out on the road or, drivers in a layby and asleep due to the 56 pints of tia maria he drank. Having accepted the complications, I would hazard to suggest that Drunk in charge is a slightly lesser offence, and should, in view of this, be treated as a matter of fact and degree. So not as an absolute offence.

I can see there would be mitigation for instance, if the driver, realising his impairment, pulled into the layby/car park/ off the road somewhere and dossed down for the night rather than drive, but as I type this, I realise that in order for this to happen, the initial recklessness of driving under the affluence of alcofrol would need to occur.

So, I dunno. innit?

8O :?


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Boff said:


> I have however my doubts whether the British approach to prosecute not only drunken *driving*, but also drunken *in charge* without driving, really makes sense.


You have to realise the mentality of the law makers of old - British public schoolboys where authority is all.

Changing now, the lawmakers are the tabloid press influencing the voter.


----------



## gazza333 (Aug 1, 2007)

this is a strange one . Whilst Im the biggest advocate of a zero tolerance in drink driving, I cannot understand one example given on here. A campervan parked in a laybye with the occupants outside having a bbq and having a drink - whilst they may be breaking the law regarding stopping in a lay bye or maybe BBqing in a laybye, I see they are absolutely no harm at this moment to the general public regarding drink driving so why the heavy handed approach?. 

If im in the pub having a drink and i leave and its raining so i go to fetch my coat out of the back of my car to walk home, are you saying I can be done for drink driving ?? I have the keys, I have the car but i have no intention of driving, just purely intend to get me coat. If so what is the result if my wife goes to get my coat who has no driving licence and cant drive. I suspect the two answers are different but why ? we are doing nothing different
If the answer is as i suspect this just shows the ludicrous state of our country and government at the moment.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

artona said:


> Hi
> 
> Busty, I am going off topic here for a moment since as one fulltimer to another I am concerned about your comment _( i hide them in the engine bay )_. I personally would think about another place for a number of reasons
> 
> ...


Good Afternoon Stew.

I am on a dingle dongle ( Vodaphone ) can be patchy at times so am late replying.

Yes i take your point thank you. I must find a new place to hide them. Does one think a policeman would search ones bra, i wonder.

Hildweller
Men are from Mars. Ladies are Ladies. I was hiding the keys from Mr Policeman so he couldnt say i was in charge Thicko  :lol:


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Busty said:


> Hildweller
> Men are from Mars. Ladies are Ladies. I was hiding the keys from Mr Policeman so he couldnt say i was in charge Thicko  :lol:


I think that goes beyond female logic.

Far beyond any logic in fact.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

hilldweller said:


> Busty said:
> 
> 
> > Hildweller
> ...


Dear Hilldweller Brian

Apologies for the Thicko  :lol: Quote it was a light hearted poke thats all. I am so sorry if i hurt your feeling in any way. I was just returning your observation about Ladies in general with a tongue in cheek poke i hope you have not taken offence, and by your posts i can see that you are intelligent.

It was not meant personally.

Busty


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Busty - I am not a policeman, but can I please search for your keys inside your bra?


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

pippin said:


> Busty - I am not a policeman, but can I please search for your keys inside your bra?


Pippin You are now going off topic, try to keep your mind on the subject. Naughty.

By the way do you have any uniform at all. Even a Gas mans might do :lol: 

Busty


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

I'm going to stick my neck on the block and say I believe the punishment should fit the crime. It seems that our Police, Judiciary and Politicans don't believe in this.

Some examples:

Kill someone whilest Drunk Driving: Life (i.e. 30 years) + total loss of Licence.

Maime someone whilest Drunk Driving: Appropriate Gaol Sentence with regard the injuries + total loss of Licence.

Sitting in a Layby/Pub Car Park (i.e. suitable camping location -Public Place) with a Beer and BBQ, engine off, handbrake on etc. and no intention of driving: NOT a crime! Police should be reprimanded and or fined for harassment.

Unfortunately Gormless Brown and his cronies are so short of money that they have to keep thinking up new "taxes" for the ParaMilitary Tax Collectors (PMTC) to collect. They also have ridiculus targets which are easier to achieve by going after "Soft targets".

I used to have the greatest respect for the Police, no longer. Also, 2 of my Police friends have resigned (both after long service) because, as they have told me, they don't want to be PMTCs. They loved their jobs but were gutted by the current system.


P.S. Busty I have a Peaked Cap - would that suffice?


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Damn........nope...oh maybe it...no...or.......................

its no good, try as I might, I cant think of a medical reason why I should search for keys in a ladies undergarment.
Although I still have the uniform.

Unfortunately the uniform makes you look like you work in Homebase however.


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

asprn said:


> eddied said:
> 
> 
> > ...one of our members in the law enforcement profession was going to visit us at Lincoln rally
> ...


I wonder how many Police Officers have been attracted by the flames from an illegal Gypsy camp and carried out a smililar operation.

Trev.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Which operation trev, drunk in charge or searching for keys in the womens bras?







:wink: :lol:


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Damn*



bandaid said:


> Which operation trev, drunk in charge or searching for keys in the womens bras?
> 
> :wink: :lol:


Dam Just when I was trying to be serious!


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

ridiculous idea, you're a page and a half too late for that,


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

They would never do that because it would be considered harassing a minority and it may skew their figures  ! B*ll*cks to Political Correctness


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

I take you're going for the keys option then JQL?


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

My insurance states that ALL the keys must be kept with me whilest out of the van which includes sitting under the awning having a beer!

Catch 22 :evil:


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

JQL said:


> My insurance states that ALL the keys must be kept with me whilest out of the van which includes sitting under the awning having a beer!
> 
> Catch 22 :evil:


Yes just had a look at my insurance and it states the same. So its a 36DD next time i shop. As none of my dresses have pockets and i dont wear pants.

Busty


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Bandaid*



bandaid said:


> ridiculous idea, you're a page and a half too late for that,


Well I have to thank you for that quote as after a exceptionaly bad week, it made me laugh.

Thanks,
Trev.


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

Busty said:


> snip... and i dont wear pants.
> 
> Busty


_*Oh My*_


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

JQL said:


> Busty said:
> 
> 
> > snip... and i dont wear pants.
> ...


Im getting mixed up now. I started a bit early on the wine as Friday is early finnish in our govt dept. I meant to say i dont wear pants as in mens trousers. I have been in a few but they dont suit.

Busty x


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Busty said:


> JQL said:
> 
> 
> > Busty said:
> ...


----------



## eddievanbitz (May 1, 2005)

Ok so this is easy! Buy a time lock safe, set the time limit for the next day, and get blotto! Simple No chance of intent to drive as you can't get the keys out of the safe. No problems with insurance as the keys are still in the vehicle.

Artona, don't stop in dodgy places!

One last thought, I was told recently that over 35% of fatal accidents are caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol. Does this mean that 65% are caused by sober drivers 8O So it's safe to have a tipple before you drive


----------



## 112673 (May 26, 2008)

well if sitting in a layby having a bbq and drink gets you charged, how about in the house...i've had a big drink and the van is there and i have the keys, no intention of driving a bit like no intention of driving while bbq-ing chicken


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Busty said:


> Apologies for the Thicko  :lol:


Well it's debatable, ask my wife.

It's your logic that's got more holes than a swiss cheese.

You'd look the biggest prat if you stood up in court and said "the policeman could not find the keys therefore I was not in charge".

We could ask a policeman but you've really p1ssed him off.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

hilldweller said:


> Busty said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies for the Thicko  :lol:
> ...


Well obviously you havent read my post properly. I lived with a very senior officer for several years, he advised me about the keys. Unfortunately some people if they cant suppress others veiws take their ball home.

I cant pander to that i am entitled to my veiw irrespective of wether it agrees with yours or anyone elses. Is your wife allowed an opinion. What rank and authority is this policeman, is his word Gods. Police are wrong many many times over we see it every day do you belive it if a policeman tells you.

Many Police havent had a decent University education being recruited from all walks of life dont you read the papers, did you not see the police lady stabbed to death previously abusing her position as a police officer. Did you not read about the troubled officer in Gtr Manchester being found dead on Snowdon.

I am not as nieve to believe anyone. In my job i meet liars and ill informed people every day i have to decipher the truth out of the mess i am presented with. Dont expect just because i am a women who incidentally in your posting you abused women in general i will not keep quiet to satisfy you.

Busty


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Busty said:


> Dont expect just because i am a women who incidentally in your posting you abused women in general i will not keep quiet to satisfy you.
> Busty


>> I lived with a very senior officer for several years,

Yes and you said he was an alcoholic. Police officers are the foot soldiers, you go do court with your optimistic defence and you are playing with the officers. You lose.

>> Many Police havent had a decent University education

They will be the good ones then.

>> In my job

What is this job - Busty isn't a handle for Cherie Blair is it ?

No, I'll take a stab at WPC. Possibly with a drink problem.

>> incidentally in your posting you abused women in general

Not really, we agree, men and women are different. We see different perspectives.

>> did you not see the police lady stabbed to death previously 
>> abusing her position as a police officer.

Not sure which one - the one who we thought went out with a kitchen knife to confront intruders ? Well, she was human. Humans are incredible things but don't forget, it's only the blink of an eye since they were swinging in the trees. All these genes are still in there.

>> Did you not read about the troubled officer in Gtr Manchester 
>> being found dead on Snowdon.

I am a Mancunian. That upset me at the time and upsets me now, he was one of the good guys, he was human, it's a terrible waste of a life.


----------



## namder (Sep 20, 2006)

You have to remember that the police in a drink drive incident can only charge you. The CPS then decide if there is a good chance of a positive outcome in court. Then and only then are the facts put before the only body that can determine the outcome - the bench of magistrates. I offer my opinion as a magistrate, which is that common sense will apply.

John


----------



## billym (Dec 17, 2005)

Busty

How is Russian Dave ?


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

billygoat said:


> well if sitting in a layby having a bbq and drink gets you charged, how about in the house...i've had a big drink and the van is there and i have the keys, no intention of driving a bit like no intention of driving while bbq-ing chicken


Hi just a thought what if you were wildcamping and had pulled up for the night, and were both sat totally relaxed with a meal and bottle of wine ? or a glass of beer............ what if both of you have driving licenses and the police pulled up, who would the police charge then ? we don't wildcamp but it was a thought that ran through my mind for those of you that do wildcamp. Hopefully that is a sensible question :lol:


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Busty said:


> i am entitled to my veiw irrespective of wether it agrees with yours or anyone elses


Ah, but of course that doesn't apply to anyone else, least of all a low-ranking Copper, whose wages you pay.



Busty said:


> I lived with a very senior officer for several years, he advised me about the keys


... and who gave such great advice whilst having serious drink problem for which he was busted out the Police when he caused a crash whilst being drunk. Hmm. That's good then.



Busty said:


> Unfortunately some people if they cant suppress others veiws take their ball home


Unfortunately, some people if they cant suppress others veiws [sic] feel obliged to climb aboard the Good Ship Vitriol and set sail with much bitter blowing of horns.



Busty said:


> Is your wife allowed an opinion


Is your husband?



Busty said:


> What rank and authority is this policeman


"What authority is this policeman"? Makes sense. What authority are you? Make just as much sense.



Busty said:


> is his word Gods


Is yours?



Busty said:


> Police are wrong many many times over we see it every day


Is that the Royal "we"? Oh - you mean you find things in the paper. Must be true then - the media are truthful and have no agenda. Their word is God's.



Busty said:


> incidentally in your posting you abused women in general


Let me check who it was that introduced bras and no pants. Oh yes. I remember now. I know at least one woman who finds your post offensive and sexist.



Busty said:


> i will not keep quiet to satisfy you


I've no doubt whatsoever you would not be able to do so, even if you wanted to.



Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Briarose said:


> Hi just a thought what if you were wildcamping and had pulled up for the night, and were both sat totally relaxed with a meal and bottle of wine ? or a glass of beer............ what if both of you have driving licenses and the police pulled up, who would the police charge then ? we don't wildcamp but it was a thought that ran through my mind for those of you that do wildcamp. Hopefully that is a sensible question :lol:


Yes, it's a sensible question (thank God) and in fact one which was asked earlier in the thread.

Whether we like it or not, Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the following:-
4(1) A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

4(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle which is on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

It also provides the following statutory defence :-
4(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.

However, in the case of Sheldrake v DPP 2003 the Court stated that in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 this defence must be given the following meaning:

"It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to demonstrate from the evidence an arguable case that at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence, the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while he/she remained unfit to drive though drink or drugs."

The national Police guidelines are that officers should ensure that sufficient evidence is collected to ensure this defence can be countered if raised.

In your scenario, you would both be asked who was in charge of the vehicle. Normally, one person is nominated, but if you both declined to provide the information, you would both be liable to be required to provide a breath test. If you both blew positive, you would both be arrested and subsequently separately interviewed as part of the investigation into who was in charge. There are other permutations in your scenario, and I would deal with it as it developed.

I can also expand on the definition of "in charge" if anyone is interested.

Hope this helps.

Dougie.


----------



## gazza333 (Aug 1, 2007)

"It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to demonstrate from the evidence an arguable case that at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence, the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while he/she remained unfit to drive though drink or drugs." 

The national Police guidelines are that officers should ensure that sufficient evidence is collected to ensure this defence can be countered if raised. "

Im just curious then in the case you gave of arresting the guy in the lay bye what evidence was there that the guy was going to drive in a drunken state. It would seem to me that having the chairs and BBq out and having a drink with a vehicle made for sleeping in next to you would say he wasn't.

Just curious as from the other persons perspective it could look like this

After driving around all day I found a lovely spot to stop the night and have a bbq and a few beers. Along came a policeman and arrested me for drink driving !!!! I was taken to the station and tested positive. I lost my license, I lost my job , I lost my house and the strain on my family meant they left too. I was a complete mess and now I live rough on the streets............For that hideous crime of having a family BBq......

Im not knocking you or the police at all im just very curious and you seem to have not answered any questions about the incident but chose to answer busty instead


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

gazza333 said:


> you seem to have not answered any questions about the incident but chose to answer busty instead


God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perfom.  I do have other things to take care of in my busy life - stitching up innocent law-abiding people instead of catching real criminals is a time-consuming process.

As with any incident, each case must be assessed on its own merits. That's something which most people may not fully understand, as the law appears on the face of it to be black-and-white. It's not however the law which is in question here - as at the layby in my incident - but the circumstances. My job is to assess and give proper regard to those circumstances, and then make a decision based on my experience and understanding. Not easy, especially as there's all the time in the world for others who were not there and who are not privy to all the elements of the process, to analyse, challenge and criticise. I'm not saying that's what you're doing - simply that it happens. However, I'm happy to answer your reasonable (although heavily illustrated) question, but please bear in mind that looking beyond the obvious is what I'm paid to do (amongst a few other things).

* The time was around 7:30 pm
* The family was returning home (80 miles away) from Skegness
* The BBQ was blazing away out of control (5ft flames) at the roadside of a busy layby on a major Red-Route "A" road
* The driver had consumed several tins of lager and was evidently not bothered about having set a fire inappropriately at that location, as well as not controlling his kids who were running about near the very busy traffic
* He stated they had "stopped off" for a BBQ and that they "might" stop there the night
* He was the only driver

All things considered, I was of the opinion that the likelihood of his driving was reasonable, he was in charge of the vehicle on a (busy main) road, and he also had his family with him which I had a duty to protect.

Another Bobby may have dealt with it differently, but that's true of almost any situation (it's the essence of discretion, which means latitude to deal as I see fit, and does not mean letting someone off, as commonly misunderstood).

Dougie.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Case closed M'Lud!!


----------



## timbop37 (Jun 28, 2006)

I guess that if you were wildcamping, with no intention to continue your journey thet night, and the beds in the van were made up (i.e. converted beds in the front, etc), the Constabulary would be sympathetic.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

timbop37 said:


> I guess that if you were wildcamping, with no intention to continue your journey thet night, and the beds in the van were made up (i.e. converted beds in the front, etc), the Constabulary would be sympathetic.


Like I've endeavoured to say, it's all assessed on its own merits, at least by me. I might be able to make a case for locking you up, and I also might be able to make a case for letting you be. This raises the question of officers' discretion, which is absolutely the most important tool in my toolbox. Take that away, and the fabric of society is seriously undermined. There are many countries who can amply illustrate that, especially in Africa and the Central American Republics. The trade-off is apparent unfairness ("I wuz done for that, but my mate wuzzn't...." etc.) but policing with no discretion - i.e. every offence MUST be dealt with by prosecution - would quickly mean policing with no consent. It's a proven historical social fact, not just my opinion.

Bear in mind that I have no power to breath-test you unless you've committed a moving traffic offence, or I suspect you have excess alcohol in your body and you're driving or in charge of a vehicle. I would not be knocking on your van door at 03:30 hrs without reason - possibly welfare - and if you came to the door smelling of alcofrolic drink, I would then begin to assess the situation as I've previously posted. Specifically in your example, having got you out of bed in your PJs with curtains drawn would give me a reasonably warm fuzzy feeling (if you'll pardon the pun).

On the other hand........

Dougie.


----------



## gazza333 (Aug 1, 2007)

Thankyou dougie and keep up the good work 

Gary


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

gazza333, you wrote:

_After driving around all day I found a lovely spot to stop the night and have a bbq and a few beers. Along came a policeman and arrested me for drink driving !!!! I was taken to the station and tested positive. I lost my license, I lost my job , I lost my house and the strain on my family meant they left too. I was a complete mess and now I live rough on the streets............For that hideous crime of having a family BBq...... _

Perhaps in your little scenario you had no intention driving and the outcome as you painted would be sad indeed.

However in the real situation described by asprn (a Policeman), had he not intervened and had the tipsy driver continued his journey, pulled out on to the busy A road and caused your death by drunken, dangerous driving - how might the scenario have panned out then?

I leave that to your imagination!!


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

gazza333 said:


> Thankyou dougie and keep up the good work


Welcome. 

Dougie.


----------



## Zuma (Apr 29, 2006)

This may help to clarify things

http://www.marymonson.co.uk/drunk-in-charge.htm


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

*off topic*

Ciao Dougie,
...and do drop in to Caffe Chausson if I do make it to Lincoln.
:wink: 
saluti,
eddied


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Zuma said:


> This may help to clarify things


It's one solicitor's take on one case they dealt with for a client, which they subsequently successfully defended. I'm not saying it's not relevant, but what I posted above regarding the generalities of what defences there are and are not, is pasted directly from the Home Office National Legal Database.

Examples (or "What If" questions) are not always helpful, and sometimes have the opposite effect to clarifying. Understanding the generic basis of defence and then applying it to a particular situation, is a far more reliable method of indicating whether or not an offence may have been committed.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: off topic*



eddied said:


> Ciao Dougie, ...and do drop in to Caffe Chausson if I do make it to Lincoln.


Ciao edddied,

I'm relying on you. 

Dougie.


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

Dougie,

I notice that quite a few new or updated laws have now changed the presumption of guilt from Innocent until proven guilty to Guilty until proven Innocent.

The Drunk in charge law seems to be a case in point where the "offender" needs to prove that he/she had no intent to drive.

I find this very distrubing as a person's livelihood could now rely soley on the reliability of the Police Officer. I'm sure an employer could use the fact that you've been charged with drink driving as grounds for dismissal if it was in their contract. Saying you could be proven innocent is too late if you have already lost your job.

Job interviewer: "Why did you leave your last job?" You: "I was charged with drink driving." Job interviewer: "Don't call us..."

You, with your experience, I'm sure will use your discretion wisely. Some others may not. Which brings me to my question: what is to stop the Officer destroying (willfully or not) someone's life especially as the "evidence" they present may satisfy the CPS though later fail in court?


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

JQL said:


> I notice that quite a few new or updated laws have now changed the presumption of guilt from Innocent until proven guilty to Guilty until proven Innocent


That's simply is not the case. Nothing has changed in terms of the Magna Carta (apart perhaps from lengthy detentions without trial... :roll, and a Police officer just cannot say to the Court, "I say that THIS happened" and the Court are bound to accept it. Lots of checks and balances are in place (we call them "obstructions" ) primarily in the guise of CPS, who determine the likelihood of convictions at Court.

Any defence which might be offered, must be looked at during the investigation stage, and preparation made for it. If of course the defence is good enough, the prosecution will not proceed, and rightly so.

Dougie.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Theres nothing like a lively discussion, with argument based and supported by reason and logical trains of thought. 

and this is nothing like it.

From a fairly light hearted post, this has become a diatribe of vitiol, thinly veiled insult, and aggression.

I re-read the original post, and thought it light hearted, almost joking even, and certainly not, imho, deserving of, nor warranting the dramatic fall into mediocrity which ahs occurred. 

Please can we remember that although the diveersity of opinion held by the members of the forum is mostly what makes it so enjoyable, its supposed to be enjoyed by grown ups.


Finally, we should remember, that although the criminal Justice system we have in these sceptred isles far from perfect, its infinitely better than the system which is prevelant in, for instance, North Korea, and so, so much better than suffered by those subject to justice by the Stasi, and certain South American states lately.


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

Thanks for your reply Dougie as I said we don't wildcamp as it isn't something that appeals to us personally..............the only time we tend to stop is on a layby for lunch and a cuppa (tea LOL) but it just got me thinking as to how it can/does affect anyone who does enjoy wildcamping.

I suppose most policemen would and do assess a situation there is just the odd one that might act differently. I say that in relation to a totally different situation that I see many times in a certain place near to our workplace but thats another story :wink: and I will just leave it at the one guy who ought to be awarded a 'jobsworth hat' LOL


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

I must be honest and say that I have not read all of this thread but I get the gist and would just like to say that we love to wildcamp but would never dream of staying overnight in a layby for many reasons, most of all for our own peace and secuirty more than anything. I cannot think of a worse place to stop and we would only ever stop for a quick rest break enroute to some place else. However, like I say we do like to wildcamp when the right opportunity arises and if we find someplace safe and pretty where there are no restrictions for staying overnight then we will happily park there and get settled down for the night. We will often open a bottle of wine to enjoy with our meal and this to us is part of the enjoyment. There is nothing nicer than being in a beautiful location with a wonderful view and relaxing in our motorhome with a lovely glass of merlot but of course we have no intention of driving the motorhome until the next day and generally I am in my jim jams all chilled out and ready for bed. I would imagine if a policeman knocked on our door he would soon realise that we were settled in for the evening and that we weren't the type of couple to act irresponsibly and likely to drive off under the influence and I assume this is exaxctly the kind of situation Dougie is referring to when he says he judges each situation on its merit. Well I hope he is or else we could be in big trouble if we are not careful!

I think the guy in the layby having a BBQ with his family was a prize plonker if you ask me and had I been a policewoman on duty I would have definitely taken the guy in for a breath test make no bones about that! Surely nobody thinks he was acting responsibly do they? God forbid what could have happened to his kiddies if they had run out in front of a car and the mother must have been lacking a few brain cells if you ask me?

Anyway, I hope we aren't breaking any laws cos we love to wildcamp and it wouldnt be the same without a glass of red wine to sip as we chill out overlooking the views before us!

Sue


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Sonesta said:


> the mother must have been lacking a few brain cells if you ask me


lol - you've obviously met them then (they _were_ coming from Skeg.....probably from yours....).



Sonesta said:


> Anyway, I hope we aren't breaking any laws cos we love to wildcamp


You do need to be mindful of what I've said because you might be, but you're right - it usually comes down to common sense about the likelihood of you driving (although you can't always rely on that).

Nuff said.

Dougie.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Drunk in charge*

Hi

I always thought that there had to be an "intention" to drive - such as engine running etc.

Here's a scenario though.

I am wild camped on Dover sea front and have had quite a few red wines over the hours. I am quite sozzled in fact. The van is secure, I am in bed in my jimjams.

Next thing all hell breaks loose and there is a bomb scare. I am over the limit to drive, but could probably drive in needs be.

Where do you go from there in that situation?

Another example, on campsite, tucked up in bed and drunk as a skunk. Next thing, environment agency advised the adjacent river is about to burst it's banks and an evacutation is ordered.....

Russell


----------



## RichardnGill (Aug 31, 2006)

> Another example, on campsite, tucked up in bed and drunk as a skunk. Next thing, environment agency advised the adjacent river is about to burst it's banks and an evacutation is ordered.....


 I would think this is a reality at Rowentree park CC site in York.

This could also easy enough happen to us as we stop there quiet often. I would guess you would have to get the site warden ( or some other willing fit person) to drive the van to safety and then get back on with your nights kip.

Richard...


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



Rapide561 said:


> Here's a scenario though


Russell, Russell, Russell.... 

You're descending into the realms of fantasy and delusion.  These are politely called "What If" questions, or as I prefer, 50 pence ones.

Two words. Common Sense. If your life is in imminent danger, you do what you have to do. I don't know exactly what's in your mind (does anyone?), but if there is a bomb "scare", I imagine you're thinking of Police & public running about in chaos, telling you to get out. You can''t legislate for that, so as I say, you do what you have to do. If however you're sozzled, your judgement would be impaired - perhaps seriously - so if you drove off in your van and mowed down other panicking people, you'd have to justify your actions afterwards, perhaps to twelve of your peers.



Rapide561 said:


> Another example, on campsite, tucked up in bed and drunk as a skunk. Next thing, environment agency advised the adjacent river is about to burst it's banks and an evacutation is ordered.....


Put it this way. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you said, "Well Your Worships, the man from the Environment Agency ordered me to drive...." 

Common sense.

Dougie.


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



Rapide561 said:


> Hi
> 
> I always thought that there had to be an "intention" to drive - such as engine running etc.
> 
> ...


Hi Russ I suppose if you start to think about it you could imagine lots of situations for instance what if you are parked on a site for several days, no intentions to drive at all, and then the next unit catches on fire etc etc

To be honest the nearest we have got to a situation such as this is the aires at Calais, we had just got there after using the tunnel and bought a takeaway from the little kiosks there (big mistake but another story) it was just about 7pm so we had a beer or two and then a bottle of wine between us.

We were safely tucked up in bed at just gone 10.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Drunk in charge*



RichardnGill said:


> > Another example, on campsite, tucked up in bed and drunk as a skunk. Next thing, environment agency advised the adjacent river is about to burst it's banks and an evacutation is ordered.....
> 
> 
> I would think this is a reality at Rowentree park CC site in York.
> ...


Richard

That is one of the three sites I was thinking of to be honest.

Russell


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

Just to add I am so glad that this has now turned into a sensible debate/topic as lets be honest it is something that is a very serious topic.


----------



## RichardnGill (Aug 31, 2006)

Russel would a CC or CC&C warden be insured through work to drive a vehicle? As this would be the next obstacle to over come in this situation.

Richard...


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

RichardnGill said:


> Russel would a CC or CC&C warden be insured through work to drive a vehicle? As this would be the next obstacle to over come in this situation.
> 
> Richard...


What about Brandy Wharf at New Year :wink: that would be an interesting situation. I am being quite serious.


----------



## RichardnGill (Aug 31, 2006)

> What about Brandy Wharf at New Year that would be an interesting situation. I am being quite serious.


 I guess I would have been a touch over the drink drive limt that night....But I was not alone!

Richard...


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

RichardnGill said:


> > What about Brandy Wharf at New Year that would be an interesting situation. I am being quite serious.
> 
> 
> I guess I would have been a touch over the drink drive limt that night....But I was not alone!
> ...


 True Richard and that goes for us all, what I am saying is would the owner have helped us out :?: had there been a problem :wink:


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Briarose said:


> What about Brandy Wharf at New Year


Brandy Wharf at any time of the year is risky. :roll: I should know....

As for the owner, he's very good at sorting things out himself, and you can read into that what you like (you'll probably be right).

Dougie.


----------



## Bagshanty (Jul 24, 2005)

pippin said:


> Frank quoted:
> 
> _Numerous factors: *sex,* size, build, tolerance, amount and type of beverage taken, duration of drinking, presence of food, type of food." _
> 
> ...


Not so.

from http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0310.html

"The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, defines sex as:

1. The property or quality by which organisms are classified according to their reproductive functions; skip definitions #2 & #3 because they're quite similar;
4. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior;
5. Sexual intercourse; and,
6. The genitalia."

You can see that sex and gender can be used interchangeably. There was a prurient period a few years ago when all mention of sex in this context was never mentioned by the Beeb, only gender, but sense now prevails and sex is back on the agenda


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Seriously* {offtopic}

(mine was only a little bit  )


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

Ciao tutti, so can I have sex at Lincoln as well as a(small) drink?
saluti, eddied


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

eddied said:


> so can I have sex at Lincoln as well as a(small) drink?


Sorry - who were you asking, exactly?

Dougie.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Sorry, eddied but sex is definitely off the agenda - with pippin or even Dougie.

However, if you want a bit of gender then that's up to you!

PS - Why has this thread calmed down from its earlier mud-slinging form?


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

apathy.


also, all the good vitriol has been used up, the available mud slinging is of a sub standard nature.


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



Briarose said:


> Rapide561 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi
> ...


Hi Netty and Russell,

Hmmn tricky situation this but I think I know what we would do and although we would probably be breaking the law I think if we were faced with a situation like this and our lives were in serious jeopardy we, or should I say Gilbert (I daren't drive the motorhome myself - its far too big) would definitely drive away from any peril or hazardous situation. Not far I hasten to add just far enough to be out of danger and certainly not on a public road for any distance. If the police stopped us and Gilbert was deemed to be over the limit then of course he would probably end up being arrested and if he got charged with drink driving then I suppose we would just have to accept the consequences but sooner that, than risk being seriously hurt or losing our lives!

I know these are probably highly unlikely and extreme situations but if they were to ever happen then of course your survival instincts would surely kick in and you would do whatever you needed to do to protect yourself and your loved ones etc!

Fingers crossed that none of us are ever put to the test!

Sue


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



Sonesta said:


> I know these are probably highly unlikely and extreme situations


Well, quite. Russell has a great imagination. 



Sonesta said:


> I suppose we would just have to accept the consequences


Sue, you are such a worry bean.  Go and have a read at what I said 
>> here << and have a nice cup of tea. 

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

bandaid said:


> apathy - also, all the good vitriol has been used up


Always the same. The good thing about having to listen to a shouted narrow view is that it doesn't last long before dying of boredom.

Dougie.


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



asprn said:


> Sonesta said:
> 
> 
> > I know these are probably highly unlikely and extreme situations
> ...


Hey Dougie,

I think we might turn tee flipping total after all this ROFL! :lol: :lol:

Seriously though, I do tend to worry about such things and to see my poor Gilb being carted off in his nightcap and nightshirt handcuffed to some burley police officer has me quaking in me boots! Mind you, it would be quite comical though, especially if I were there in me neggyleggy and hair rollers hanging on to him screaming for mercy like a banshee! Ooooh not a pretty sight! :roll:

Sue


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



Sonesta said:


> my poor Gilb being carted off in his nightcap and nightshirt handcuffed to some burley police officer


Ask him how he feels about being carted off handcuffed to some young, athletic WPC.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Now we really _are_ in the realms of fantasy!


----------



## Sonesta (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



hilldweller said:


> Ask him how he feels about being carted off handcuffed to some young, athletic WPC.


Me thinks that may be one of his top 10 fantasies Hilldweller! :wink:

Sue


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Drunk in charge*



Sonesta said:


> Me thinks that may be one of his top 10 fantasies Hilldweller! :wink:
> 
> Sue


A man needs the odd dream.

How odd ? Well that's the BIG question.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

namder said:


> You have to remember that the police in a drink drive incident can only charge you. The CPS then decide if there is a good chance of a positive outcome in court. Then and only then are the facts put before the only body that can determine the outcome - the bench of magistrates. I offer my opinion as a magistrate, which is that common sense will apply.
> 
> John


Thank you for your obviously informed, educated, view which the hysterical frightened mob seem to have overlooked curiously.One sometimes sniffs conspiricy.

No keys, no means, no intention. Of course one could possibly encounter an overzealous *PC*take the case of PCs threatening children for chalking playing hopscotch on pavements, a previous reply sited gypsy camps and reluctance by brave officers to enter, no reply.

So having lived with my married very, very, senior officer for several years i will not have keys in my possesion.

Now to reply to the many, many, offers by email and private messages, and two on the site, to search for my keys i thank you so much. After a wonderful weekend golfing and horseriding in the new forest it was refreshing to open my desktop to the jokes on a Monday lunchtime.

They were all taken in the humorous context they were presented in and i shall treasure them *PRIVATELY*.

It is also nice to see the return to the site of our dissenter with his legal presentations. I wish him good luck in his not too far off retirement, and look forward to further discussions.

Busty xx

Just as you thought it was safe to come out of the water


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Busty said:


> It is also nice to see the return to the site of our dissenter with his legal presentations


As ever, I bow to your very, very, very, (I awarded you an extra one - why not) superior knowledge and experience having lived with the very, very senior officer - sorry, very, very *ex*-officer - and leave you to your conspiracy theories, your amusing anecdotes, and of course, to your many, many offers, all of which to which you are perfectly entitled.

Dougie.


----------



## Busty (Apr 3, 2008)

billym said:


> Busty
> 
> How is Russian Dave ?


I dont know Russian Dave. The only Russian i know is Vladamir Gerumoff.

It looks as though our friend is having a breakdown. Hes leaving the site and i did treat him nicely. I am carrying on drinking and hiding my keys.

Busty x


----------



## billym (Dec 17, 2005)

Sorry Busty, must have been a case of mistaken identity.




Where is BIG FRANK anyway ?



As for the other business, I said goodbye !


----------

