Edited to say
I do not condone drinking and driving and I would take your keys away from you rather than let you do it either, even if you protested.
[Edited on 9/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
A friend of mine who is a heavy goods driver was away from base and slept in the sleeper cab of his truck after a visit to a pub for a meal and a
couple of beers.
At one AM a policeman awoke him to move his truck to allow another truck to better fit in the layby he was parked in, smelt his breath and asked if he
had been drinking, breathalised him and arrested him for drunk in charge.
Question?if this is right can you get charged for drunk in charge if you are sleeping in a vehicle ,,,say a campervan or even a car after a few
drinks.
Denis.
seems awefully unfair.
friend of mine got 6 points and banned from driving when we where kids for pushing a moped down the road that didnt work.
banned for no licence or insurance - total joke
I believe you only need the keys in your pocket these days to be "in charge" of a vehicle. Like much of our policing it sounds absurdly
unfair but I doubt he will have a defense in court especially as he was in a layby and could have driven at any time. Obviously we need more policing
like this to keep us all safe!
Edited to say
I do not condone drinking and driving and I would take your keys away from you rather than let you do it either, even if you protested.
[Edited on 9/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
If you have no intention to drive and its not made easy to drive while under the influence then he should be ok.
Lorry drivers will sometimes leave the keys elsewhere to ensure they are not charged with being drunk in charge.
its difficult cos you are drunk in charge so moving the keys out of reach into the trailer etc protects you a little better.
This site helps give advise from x officers and legal people.
http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/22815-drunk-whilst-in-charge-of-a-motor-vehicle/
cheers
dave
I'm afraid that is the case, point being he was the only one there who was able to move the vehicle when asked to do so by the police, so he is
therefore in charge of the vehicle regardless of whether the keys were in his pocket or in the trailer.
second thought would be, if he only had "a couple of beers" would he be over the legal limit at 1am ?,if he had drank more, would he have
been legal to drive the next morning anyway ?
Ray
[Edited on 9/3/11 by rayward]
As said above this is right if you have the keys and inside the vehicle there is nothing stopping you driving
its stupid but thats the law and for a good reason too
In my opinion, if you are a professional driver, i think consuming alcohol during a working week is not really a good idea. Even though you can
handle your drink extremely well, you just don't know how your body will handle it the next day.
Don't get me wrong, i am all up for having a drink etc esp if i am off duty, but a professional driver who has to spend the night in his vehicle
i feel should do everything in his power to ensure that they are 100% fit for driving the next day.
Being arrested for being under the influence in charge of commercial goods vehicle, but fast asleep does seem a little harsh. The question is...did
he say to he officer, no he could not do it as he had a drink, or did he do it then got arrested?
The drivers tacho should clearly show when he last drove the vehicle anyway as proof he wasn't drunk in charge.....
its nonsense; where do you draw the line? I have my keys with me now inside my house, so im still techincally in charge of the vehicle. I could go out
and drive it at a whim.
I think this concept of drunk in charge has probably stemmed from a prosecution test case, whereby the jury or magistrates didnt believe someone wasnt
intending to drive, and it has now become the case that anyone with keys approaching a vehicle is committing an offense, when that often isnt the
case.
Ie, you cannot get pissed at home and then go out to your car for a cd, in case you have a brainwave and decide to drive. Technically, you'd have
to get someone else to unlock it (they must be sober though; if you're all pissed, you simply cannot listen to that cd...).
What a polava.
Drunk in charge and driving with excess alcohol are two different offenses. There is a limit for driving with excess alcohol which is tested by breathalyser but I wonder if the same limit applies to Drunk in Charge. Similarly, are the penalties the same ( at least 1 year mandatory disqualification for driving with excess but is it the same for DIC ? ) Your friend needs to engage a lawyer.
This decision may have been overturned since, but...
Yesterday ( 2003 ) the Court of Appeal ruled that a driver who was asleep in his van while above the legal driving limit should have his conviction
quashed. Peter Sheldrake admitted being over the limit but said he had no intention of driving. Under Section 5 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act it was up
to Mr Sheldrake to prove there was no likelihood of him driving his van.
But yesterday the Court of Appeal said that was too high a burden of proof to impose on a defendant. The judges, in a 2-1 decision, ruled the road
traffic laws which led to Mr Sheldrake's conviction were "disproportionate" and "violated the presumption of innocence" to
which he was entitled under the European Convention on Human Rights. The appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Jack, with Mr
Justice Henriques dissenting
It is a nonsense when this occurs. Countless times I've been camping, sat next to my car with the keys in the ignition to charge something, while having a few beers. I've no intention of driving it, but I could still get done. But this is why I'd not do it on a public layby/road - that would be asking for trouble. If my license were vital for my job I'd not be going anywhere near alcohol while near a vehicle.
I have had a similar experience in the past, and we took the steps to confirm the rules with the police. They insisted we put a steering lock on the vehicle, and hand the key to that lock to a 3rd party who wasnt going to be in the vicinity. Bloody crazy rules, but then again, they have to find a way of stopping drink drivers. sorry to your mate, but I agree above - he is a professional driver, so should be aware of this type of issue and behave accordingly....
We had a similar problem at Silverstone last year, I drove the 4 of us up there, and we camped in the car park, along with about 20 others not
connected to us, as my friend has done every year. (i had never been before)
The Police drove round and informed us we were on private ground and had to move, we had all had a couple of beers, so i declined saying exactley
that, and although i was ok to drive round the field, was not prepared to drive on the road to access the proper campsite, as we had been drinking,
The police said that was fine, and the land owner would take out legal proceedings to have us removed, (that never happened!!
Strange thing is, that we had been in the same spot camping for 3 days, but had decamped every day, and this only happened on saturday night before
race day
Steve
This thing makes my blood boil.
They should allow charecter personality tests for this sort of thing. Mind you the officer may of done this at the time and decided he may of driven
the vehicle.
Still I would love to shake the hand of this officer and congratualte him for wasting his time and exciting hate for our government.
I read yesterday the government are cutting police pay and bonuses. Im over the moon about this.
Police dont do enough at the moment to prevent actual problematic crime and are proven too many times to be poor at their job. The crime rate is not
linked to the number of officers or their pay so put them back in their place to do some real work and stop pushing paper or taking the easy route.
Wow I did not expect me to rant so much,
Soz!!!
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
This thing makes my blood boil.
They should allow charecter personality tests for this sort of thing. Mind you the officer may of done this at the time and decided he may of driven the vehicle.
Still I would love to shake the hand of this officer and congratualte him for wasting his time and exciting hate for our government.
I read yesterday the government are cutting police pay and bonuses. Im over the moon about this.
Police dont do enough at the moment to prevent actual problematic crime and are proven too many times to be poor at their job. The crime rate is not linked to the number of officers or their pay so put them back in their place to do some real work and stop pushing paper or taking the easy route.
Wow I did not expect me to rant so much,
Soz!!!
They didn't come to ours when our Clio was stolen a few years ago and just last week I rang at 02.30 about a couple (youth and girl) fighting
outside in the street causing a right ruckus and they said they'd already been notified but still never turned up to do anything about it. If
I'd gone out there with a bat to sort them out I would be lucky enough to get locked up in short order. I would expect anyone drinking in any
vehicle to be subject to the same as your friend if on a public highway as he is still technically in charge of the vehicle. If you were in a camper
van or a car and parked off road it would probably be more defensible.
[Edited on 9/3/11 by Peteff]
ive thought of this before and sort of knew it happened. What would happen if you witnessed a car crash, if you get out and phone 999 you could get
charged as youre now using a phone while been incharge of a car (keys in hand/pocket. If you leave the keys in the car you are risking having youre
insurance not pay out so technically you cant do anything but just sit there and wait for a police officer to tell you that its ok to leave the scene
of an incident that has been called by a pedestrian or passenger.
Typical british law, you doomed if you do anything so its best to do nothing (and get slatted in the press for doing nothing) 
quote:
Originally posted by Moorron
ive thought of this before and sort of knew it happened. What would happen if you witnessed a car crash, if you get out and phone 999 you could get charged as youre now using a phone while been incharge of a car (keys in hand/pocket. If you leave the keys in the car you are risking having youre insurance not pay out so technically you cant do anything but just sit there and wait for a police officer to tell you that its ok to leave the scene of an incident that has been called by a pedestrian or passenger.
Typical british law, you doomed if you do anything so its best to do nothing (and get slatted in the press for doing nothing)
could he not challenge this based upon his tacho this would show the last time the vehicle was moved and whether he had driven whilst intoxicated , I appreciate the charge is based upon him being in charge of the vehicle.
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
could he not challenge this based upon his tacho this would show the last time the vehicle was moved and whether he had driven whilst intoxicated , I appreciate the charge is based upon him being in charge of the vehicle.
Surely if the guy was asleep and had to be woken up by the police, it shows that his intention was not to drive.
What happened to Innocent until proven guilty. Shouldn't there be some proof he intented to drive?
As professional driver myself, my opinion is that its a bit different when you are in a sleeper cab.
That is considered not only your place of work, but your place of residence when you are awy from home.
This sort of question comes along often, mainly regarding tv licences and smoking.
You are not allowed by law to smoke in a company owned van, I believe. But if it is a sleeper cab, and you are living in it while working away from
home, you can smoke.
I have never known, in 15 years of driving artics, anybody prosecuted for that offence. The copper is more at fault for waking the bloke up and
interupting his legally required daily rest period.
It can't be the drivers responsibility to prove he isn't going to drive until he legally can, otherwise 99% of long distance truck drivers
would be in prison now.
What is the case, as someone pointed out, if you are holidaying with a touring caravan or a motorhome?
John
surely the cop who woke him up and told him to drive essentially put him in charge of the vehicle? good point on the hours of rest too. if he gets
done its ridiculous, whatever happened to cops actually assessing a situation and making a decision based on it? clearly he wasnt driving so he wasnt
posing any threat to anyone.
good luck to him
A police officer can ask you to move even if it breaks drivers hours or working time directive regulations, but he has to sign a tacho disc or
digicard printout with reason and his police number. Again, after 15 years it's never happened to me or anyone I can think of.
To add, the officer must have a valid reason and if the driver considers it unsafe to move, can refuse. AFAIK of course!
[Edited on 9/3/11 by jake_truck]
I only read upto half way through page two so apologies if this has already been said but the very fact that the police requested he moves his lorry brings up a salient point, he couldn't because he'd been drinking. If your vehicle is on the road (And in this case I'd consider a layby to be on the road, you shouldn't be in it drunk and I personally don't think you should be drinking if your driving a lorry the next day.
Folks - a number of the anti police comments aren't really fair. The officers 'on the road / street' are doing what the senior officers
/ policy makers say. You can't have a go at them for that.
Does seem very unfair on the driver from how its described. Is that definately what happened? I'm curious if he was asked to move it, moved it
and then the police realised he'd been drinking and did him - still unfair but he did drive under the influence (although if woken at 1am and
asked to move 5m by the police i doubt i'd click that i may be over limit if i'd had two pints a couple of hours earlier).
Taking this off on a tangent ......... something i've often idly wondered ..........
if i down two pints in 20 seconds whilst sat in my car. I then start the car and drive 1 mile down the road at 30 mph. The police then stop me.
I'd be under the limit as the alcohol wouldn't have got into my bloodstream - except i couldn't take a breathaliser as i'd drank
too recently. If i then went to the police station - would the blood test clear me?
Probably not... the whole DD procedure is one almighty faff and takes a fair bit of time.
By the time you've been arrested, taken to the station, refused the breath sample, then agreed to blood, and then had to wait for the doctor to
arrive to take the blood, then there's every chance it's settled well into your 'system'.
As is always the case with these things, we don't know the full story as we weren't there. Also, the account being given here is not one of
a witness - it's hearsay that's originated from a bloke who could be on the verge of losing his livelihood. It's worth noting that
sometimes people do tell porkies when they are in a bit of a pickle!
Anyway... as I've read it - the lorry was not in a lorry park, or in an industrial estate car-park off the beaten track... it's on the
PUBLIC HIGHWAY (a lay-by forms part of the legal-definition of a road). Discretion is unlikely to be shown here as you simply can't be p*ssed up
whilst the whacking great motor you're 'in charge' of is sharing the same space as other road users who are whizzing by. You're
on the road so you have to be responsible for your lorry... how can you do that if you're drunk?
Also, we don't know how drunk this guy was... I would have some sympathies if he was marginally over the limit, but what if he was completely and
utterly hammered - we don't know!
Where was the restaurant in relation to the lorry? Was it right next to the lay-by, or was it miles back down the road... is it obvious that
he's stopped at the restaurant, had a drink, got back in the lorry, driven a few miles down the road and then stopped for as kip? We don't
know!
Is he an arse? Did he wind up the cops who dealt with him and subsequently bring some heat on himself? We don't know!
I've obviously put a different slant on something that I didn't see and I'm stereotyping the driver as being an idiotic argumentative
lying drunken menace. Just playing devils-advocate as it seems that some are quick to label the police officers as over-zealous jobsworth
mini-Hitlers... when (again) we don't know!
I really don't believe the policeman's boss was telling him to wake up drivers in sleeper compartments and nicking them. It's more
likely the policeman's boss was telling him to nick as many drunk drivers as possible and Mr Plod doesn't know a) where to draw the line b)
any common sense.
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage
and I was working on it after a few beers and had the keys to the (yet to be fitted ignition switch) in my pocket I could get done for
1) drunk in charge
2) no insurance
3) no MOT
4) unroadworthy vehicle (after all, looks at the thread on those non-existant tyres 
)
5) not displaying a tax disc
Okay, that's extrapolation to the absurd but the point holds. At some level Mr Plod needed to show some bleeding common sense.
Also- how can you be in "drunk in charge" of a vehicle from a sleeper cab? Before Mr Plod told him to get into the driving seat he was not
in charge. Or to put in another way, if he was going down the road driving his vehicle from the luxury of the sleeper compartment he would get done
for not being in charge of his vehicle. If you can't be in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab you can't be drunk in charge of a
vehicle from the sleeper cab. QED
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage...
I agree with scootz to a point.
every job/business has its bad eggs the police included, I was burgled in November, accused of insurance fraud and never heard from them since, other
than to take a satisfaction survey, which i duly harsh and still never heard and as I said in my second post, a 17 year old friend got 6 points and
disqualified because a police officer lied and said he had seen him riding the scooter. when this was impossible as it didnt work.
the problem I have with the police (and all public sector workers )is 80% of them do the job as an easy way out, teachers for instance, finish uni
having done some pointless degree, don't know what to do and do a PGCE (or whatever its called nowadays). similar the police, anyone can go have
a go at the entrance test/exam and its an easy way out for many to get work.
its a shame as I imagine there are some damn good police officers out there (and teachers too), its just too many are poor at their job.
And to put another slant on it... let's see it from the cop's point of view...
We'll assume (for the sake of argument) that everything is 'as described'. Trucker has stopped in a layby and hopped over the wall
into the nearby restaurant where he's had a couple of beers with his supper, then returned to the cab for a kip before starting again the next
morning. The police wake him up in the middle of the night to ask him to move to let another truck into the layby. Whilst talking to the officers
one of them gets a whiff of alcohol and subjects him to the breath-test procedure (which he fails).
First thing to be aware of is... the offence is complete. The officer does not have to prove that the trucker was going to drive.
Second thing... discretion is not allowed for any offence relating to drink-driving legislation. That's the way it's been for years!
The rules state that Mr Trucker should be reported and a court should decide on his guilt or innocence.
Anyway... the copper decides to be mr-nice-guy and goes out on a limb for this complete stranger. He tells to him to make sure he stays in his kip and
doesn't drive until the morning. He leaves the scene and an hour later another cop (for whatever reason) wakes up the driver to speak to him.
He also smells alcohol. The driver explains that it's ok, because PC 'X' has already spoken to him about it and that he knows he just
has to stay in the cab and not drive until sober. This other cop knows he is not allowed to exercise discretion for offences relating to drink
driving and arrests him. First cop is now in the sh*t for not doing his job properly. Would you take that risk for someone you didn't know?
Next scenario... nice cop lets the trucker off with it... blah blah blah. An hour later a passenger car being driven too fast slews off the
carriageway and slams into the back of the parked truck. The occupants die instantly and a major investigation begins. The officer in charge speaks
to the blameless trucker and smells alcohol on his breath. This can't be ignored (no discretion allowed), so he is breathalysed and fails the
test. He is arrested for being 'drunk in charge' but protests saying it's ok as he cleared it with PC 'X' a short while ago
and he said he could stay in the cab until he was sober in the morning... blah blah blah. PC 'X' is now embroiled in an investigation where
two people have died. PC 'X' is charged with dereliction of duty, he loses his job and faces the prospect of further court punishment. He
now has no income to support his wife and kids. Would you take that risk?
I wouldn't... I doubt any cop these days would!
[Edited on 9/3/11 by scootz]
And finally (I promise)...
Let me get this right... another lorry wants to get into the lay-by, but can't because the trucker-in-questions lorry isn't fully-in... why
isn't it fully in... ??? Most importantly - why didn't the two truckers just sort it out by themselves (knock knock... morning mate, can
you pull your wagon in a bit to let me in)? Job-done... simples!
Why have the Police had to get involved? Who called them, or pulled them over to assist?
There's more to this than meets the eye!
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
the problem I have with the police (and all public sector workers )is 80% of them do the job as an easy way out, teachers for instance, finish uni having done some pointless degree, don't know what to do and do a PGCE (or whatever its called nowadays). similar the police, anyone can go have a go at the entrance test/exam and its an easy way out for many to get work.
its a shame as I imagine there are some damn good police officers out there (and teachers too), its just too many are poor at their job.
Scott has it right there! and if i understand right from another thread, you used to be in the police?
anyway, he's right, why would the police have got involved? the other trucker wouldn't have called them for that, but of course, they
can't just wake him up and accuse him of being drunk, on these tv shows (road wars is a good one) they always stop them for a minor matter,
"just noticed your brake light is out. oh by the way i can smell alcohol on your breath, have you been drinking?" etc in this case,
"can you move forward to let another truck in, oh by the way..."
as a professional driver, he should know NOT to be drinking. no excuses. he can have his dinner, but stick to lemonades. he knows that, we all do
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
Scott has it right there! and if i understand right from another thread, you used to be in the police?
quote:
Originally posted by kipper
A friend of mine who is a heavy goods driver was away from base and slept in the sleeper cab of his truck after a visit to a pub for a meal and a couple of beers.
At one AM a policeman awoke him to move his truck to allow another truck to better fit in the layby he was parked in, smelt his breath and asked if he had been drinking, breathalised him and arrested him for drunk in charge.
Question?if this is right can you get charged for drunk in charge if you are sleeping in a vehicle ,,,say a campervan or even a car after a few drinks.
Denis.
How is it a complete no-no for him to have a couple of hes driving the next day? hed be sober in the morning.
mr plod should have looked at his tacho and worked out from there that hed be sober by the time he is to drive the next day (assuming)
if he wasnt going to be sober when his rest is up, then the should tell him not to drive till x time, and make a note on the tacho.(?)
in this case, nobody starts thinking the cops are unfair and nobody can have a go at them. cause it would be good policing.
the way they did it, quite frankly its yet another mark against them in my humble opinion. (the others include unmarked cars and sneaky speeding
tactics)
Way too many assumptions being made in this thread, and way too much anti-plod prejudice! Thanks Scootz for applying some rational thought and putting
things in perspective 
Unfortunately the simple answer to OP's question is 'yes'. Still, if the guy genuinely doesn't deserve to
be in trouble, I hope he gets off as lightly as possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Way too many assumptions being made in this thread, and way too much anti-plod prejudice! Thanks Scootz for applying some rational thought and putting things in perspective
Oh I'm sure you're right, and the reasons for it are unfortunately many, although personally I'm lucky enough to have never received
bad treatment from the police (even as a criminal ). I just thought there was a lot of jumping to conclusions without the facts, and maybe people
ought to try to be more rational - that's all
ive never met a bad cop either, and at least 3 times ive thought they were quite kind - even the bugger who nicked me was a nice chap!
But, i cant stand the concept of this law. If they arent happy with the amount of drink driving, they need to throw the book at those caught red
handed. And anyone who drives banned after being caught, needs to get royally shafted, not least for contempt of court. But trying to fiddle people
who havent actually driven isnt on.
That said, being pissed in your cab is asking for bother.
We once got away with it, as a bunch of sad kids, getting pissed in a mates car. Got rumbled even though we werent planning on driving off (you'd
never believe it really, but we werent), and copper was satisfied with a lecture and sending us off on foot.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage...
Sorry Ben, but that's just plain nonsense... your garage isn't a public place, so there would be no offence (even if your car was in full working order).
My point was just how can you be in charge of a vehicle from a sleeper bunk from which
is it impossible to actually be in charge of the vehicle? If that's the law then it smacks of desperation. Having the keys on him means he has
the potential or capability of driving but the capability to commit a crime does not a crime make.... I have the potential to strangle random
strangers but I'd be a bit annoyed if I got nicked for murder every time I left the house on the basis that I could! I've seen the effect of
drink-driving and multiple RTAs and it ain't pretty (in fact it's devestating) IE I'm not condoning drink-driving, just suggesting that
sometimes the law goes way too far. You can't go around nicking people "just in case" they've commited a crime. I'm not
anti-police BTW, they have to work within the law. But sometimes they sure lack some common sense and in the good words of Mr Bumble: Your friend needs good legal advice. However, I'm sure I remember a similar case in the papers a few years ago. I'm pretty sure that the driver was found not guilty because he was on a statutory rest period as proved by his tacho - something along those lines anyway.
quote:
Maybe there is so much anti police prejudice on this thread 'cause many of us are fed up with the way we are treated by them in the first place! Just a thought!
Well I never thought my rant about my pal would set off such a big debate but I will try to fill in a few details.
His tacho showed he had been stopped for four hours prior to been woken by the police.
His lorry (artic) was fully in the lay by and another truck had pulled in behind but the rear of his truck was sticking out into the carridgeway which
is why the cop stopped to ask my mate to move up a bit.
My mate never got the opertunity to move the rig as he was asked to take a breath test. which led to his arrest.
The original concern about the second lorry sticking out into the carridgeway for disregarded.
After being charged and proccesed and being further tested he was released the following day he was allowed to drive the unit away,,,,,,,,,, more or
less when he would have woke up if nothing had happened.
In conclusion ............he is not a heavy drinker, just had a couple of beers with an evening meal. did nothing to endanger anyone, but was a victim
of an over reactive policeman.
Denis.
Thanks for filling in some gaps, it sounds like he wasnt charged, so my scenario above your post maybe quite accurate
quote:
Originally posted by Antnicuk
Thanks for filling in some gaps, it sounds like he wasnt charged, so my scenario above your post maybe quite accurate
Even if CPS choose not to
charge him, he has been woken up before his shift so he will be tired at the wheel and dragged off to be processed at a police station. Lovely
experience for him. Perhaps the clever officer involved thought he might drive in his sleep?! Not much
serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world. "
in your post. Maybe the dope isn't working any more ?
You have clearly just identified who doesn't know what they are talking about, cps making the charging decision, police charge but only in
certain offences, drink drive isn't one of them, the only motoring offences cps decide on are ones involving a road death. Also police have just
regained many more offences that they can charge without cos advice.
As for cannabis, this thread isn't the place for that discussion, but the fact is it's illegal. If you don't like the laws in this
country, leave or face the consequences.
I think your summary is ....
"i want to break the laws i don't agree with without being punished" (cannabis).
"I want the police not to follow policy despite being revised over a number of years to make it as robust and safe for everyone else" (drink
driving).
Thanks .......... how can the police win when they get no respect for following the policies laid down by the superiors/courts? Policies formed over
time for good reason to protect the majority of society. If you don't like policies start or join a campaign to get the law changed. If the
majority or science believe in your views, the changes aren't too detrimental to society, then the law will (eventually) get changed. Simple
examples, fox hunting, seat belts, public smoking ban - science or the majority believed it was a bad idea, campaigned, law changed.
Oh, and whilst cannabis does have a lot of positive effects its also got (i believe, not done any recent reading on the subject) proven links to
psychosis and depending on the form taken (eg resin) mixed with lots of really poisonous stuff to make it go further. Also due to being an illegal
drug supports a number of criminal types who do lots of naughty things including not pay tax
^^^^ ROFL Of course leaving the country is one option, changing the absurd laws is another! And as usual, thanks for the emails from those that
don't want to be identified/persecuted by the closed minded that seem to like to impose there lifestyle choices on others!
Mike, sorry but you don't have a clue from your comments and out of interest, do you think if I had never smoked a spliff the police would have
bothered to turn up when my bike was nicked? Or do I not qualify for the protection the law is supposed to provide for every citizen.
If you feel so strongly that I should not smoke the herb that alleviates my medical condition and which breaks down into absolutely no toxins when
ingested unlike the prescription alternatives I have to take instead you should try to find genuine rational arguments against it instead of spouting
Daily Mail type propaganda.
I'm off t5o drink 10 pints and smoke 40 fags now. Oh wait, I don't drink or smoke tobacco because they are bad for me and those in my
immediate proximity. Bugger, I'd better have a spliff instead then!
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
Without pushing this thread even furth off topic.
but last year half the goverment drug advisory scientists lost their jobs pushed/quit for not towing the goverment line on cannabis.
so just because its scientific doesnt make it fact.
its estimated that the police siezed less that 1% of drugs entering the uk in 2009 - pointless
for me all drugs should be legalised, the trade is unstoppable due to the money involved - the £30k a year customs man being offered £100k to let 1
container through - nothing can compete. if he doesnt want the £100k, he will have a price and the smugglers can pay it.
then you can tax it, you can check its quality, and it could be sold professionally.
the laws cant keep up with the chemists either, the new wave of manufactured drugs is now unstoppable. in 1996 (I think), the goverment banned
ketamine, it pushed its use up 10 fold over the next few years
the bottom line comes down to peoples mis-education, people remember leah betts taking some exctasy and dying, nobody points out that she drank sooo
much water she would have died without the ecstasy.
If alcohol had just been invented - it would certainly be banned
please stop reading the daily mail!
edit to apologise about my horrific grammar and spelling
[Edited on 10/3/11 by MikeFellows]
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
I really don't believe the policeman's boss was telling him to wake up drivers in sleeper compartments and nicking them. It's more likely the policeman's boss was telling him to nick as many drunk drivers as possible and Mr Plod doesn't know a) where to draw the line b) any common sense.
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage
and I was working on it after a few beers and had the keys to the (yet to be fitted ignition switch) in my pocket I could get done for
1) drunk in charge
2) no insurance
3) no MOT
4) unroadworthy vehicle (after all, looks at the thread on those non-existant tyres
5) not displaying a tax disc
Okay, that's extrapolation to the absurd but the point holds. At some level Mr Plod needed to show some bleeding common sense.
Also- how can you be in "drunk in charge" of a vehicle from a sleeper cab? Before Mr Plod told him to get into the driving seat he was not in charge. Or to put in another way, if he was going down the road driving his vehicle from the luxury of the sleeper compartment he would get done for not being in charge of his vehicle. If you can't be in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab you can't be drunk in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab. QED
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
^^^^ ROFL
quote:
Mike, sorry but you don't have a clue from your comments
quote:
and out of interest, do you think if I had never smoked a spliff the police would have bothered to turn up when my bike was nicked? Or do I not qualify for the protection the law is supposed to provide for every citizen.
quote:
If you feel so strongly that I should not smoke the herb that alleviates my medical condition and which breaks down into absolutely no toxins when ingested unlike the prescription alternatives I have to take instead you should try to find genuine rational arguments against it instead of spouting Daily Mail type propaganda.
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
Yes, thing I agree with you on is I don't want to keep on about this. I could spend the time you have and trawl up plenty of evidence and post
lots of links too but I won't. I will just make these two points though.
Adulterated cannabis can only exist in an unregulated market, the Government is allowing our people to come to harms they could prevent by maintaining
the present system, they are shirking their duty to a sizable minority by enforcing prohibition.
4% of the public are susceptible to psychosis, of them a small fraction MAY develop psychotic symptoms, although their is, as yet, no causal link.
Considering the risks compared to other legal activities, (smoking, drinking, hang gliding, etc. etc), it should be deemed as acceptable,
Other than that visit the LCA http://www.lca-uk.org/ and look at the response people like Luke Flanagan have received in a recent publi opinion
poll
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-luke-ming-flanagan-be-growing-cannabis-2011-03/
Oh, and I don't think the old bill didn't turn up just 'cause I smoke. It's just that they didn't show up full stop. As it
goes, my recent involvement on more than one topic has been OK. They have been at worst polite and at best helpful. It's just not always the case
though!
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
Been there got the t shirt and a dr10 on my licence.short answer is after (my drink awareness course) drunk in charge of a carriage (which is defined as a method of transport,push bikes included)is the only law that i'd heard of you have to prove your innocence.and are assumed guilty.as in if your pist and walking past your car with no intention of driving it,if your keys are in your pocket they can do you.same goes if you sleep in it with your keys on you whats to say you wont wake up freezing and drive home,you have to prove you wont.thats how the magistrates look at it.best thing to do is make sure someone else who isn't in your vehical has your keys.its rare for common sense not to work but they showed us newspaper clippings of coach drivers etc loosing everything because of this law.
My 2p's worth on the drinking and driving front....
I personally think that there should be zero movement on it, i.e. you have A drink and your over the limit, or lower the legal limit to 5mg or
something silly like this. Altho this being a pain in the arse on a Friday after work and meeting up with friends for a social few, it would
completely remove the grey areas of "I only had 2-3 drinks officer I THOUGHT I was OK." People would know where they stand all the time.
This way it would also increase the possibly be walking to the pubs/bars/clubs etc etc which would be good for our health because recently its been
drummed into us that if we look wrongly at a bar of chocolate were going to die from being clinically obese.
I also noticed that no one has touched on the morning after driving which among young people especially is as big a problem as drinking and
driving.
John
you totally forgot about driving without due care and attention.. look at that park. you left it on the grass......
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
I really don't believe the policeman's boss was telling him to wake up drivers in sleeper compartments and nicking them. It's more likely the policeman's boss was telling him to nick as many drunk drivers as possible and Mr Plod doesn't know a) where to draw the line b) any common sense.
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage
and I was working on it after a few beers and had the keys to the (yet to be fitted ignition switch) in my pocket I could get done for
1) drunk in charge
2) no insurance
3) no MOT
4) unroadworthy vehicle (after all, looks at the thread on those non-existant tyres
5) not displaying a tax disc
Okay, that's extrapolation to the absurd but the point holds. At some level Mr Plod needed to show some bleeding common sense.
Also- how can you be in "drunk in charge" of a vehicle from a sleeper cab? Before Mr Plod told him to get into the driving seat he was not in charge. Or to put in another way, if he was going down the road driving his vehicle from the luxury of the sleeper compartment he would get done for not being in charge of his vehicle. If you can't be in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab you can't be drunk in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab. QED