From: D Walford on
On 17/07/2010 5:33 PM, Feral wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> Reading some of the tripe in here it's no wonder society is going to
>> hell in
>> a handbasket.
> I'm afraid this group has become top heavy with anti-establisment chest
> pounders who don't see the need for policing, regulations and any type
> of authority.
Utter dribble, you and Clocky should move to a Communist country so you
can enjoy all that nice heavy handed authority.

From: Noddy on

"Clocky" <notgonn(a)> wrote in message

> They may also have saved the lives of my family or yours, and I know which
> is more important to me.

That's an *incredibly* long bow you're drawing there Clocky. There's just as
much chance that nothing at all would have happend.

> The cops did the right thing and the only thing they could do if they were
> doing their job properly which is to protect the public.

They could have done any number of things that would have removed any chance
of the guy driving drunk, such as taking his keys, disabling the car,
driving him home or calling someone to pick him up.

They elected to charge him with an offence. Presumably because that was
easier, and that it added a few thousandths of an inch to their appendages.


From: Noddy on

"Clocky" <notgonn(a)> wrote in message

> Either he posed a risk in which case he needed to be booked or he didn't
> in which case taking his keys isn't justifiable.

He didn't pose any risk if he was doing as he said when the coppers found
him, and just because the law states that what he was doing was "illegal"
doesn't make it right. There are *hundreds* of ridiculous laws, and this is
but one of them.

If the cops were concerned that he *might* drive at some point in the near
future, they could have simply relieved him of his keys and resolved the
problem easily.

> It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with proper
> procedure and liability, it's a sign of the times and the litigation
> society (one where a drunk driver can get let off by a minor procedural
> error or loophole) and the cops are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I call that politically correct bullshit.

If you were drunk and asleep on the back seat of your car somewhere with the
keys in your pocket, no one but you and the coppers who tapped on your
window would ever know the cops found you. If they took your keys and
prevented you from driving off into the night and possibly killing someone
you *might* be a bit put out that you have to go get them the next morning,
but then you might also be thankful that they used enough common sense to
realise that you weren't going anywhere and a cab ride to the station the
next morning is a very small price to pay for that.

Coppers don't *have* to book people for such things. They can use their
discretion if they wish.


From: Noddy on

"Clocky" <notgonn(a)> wrote in message

> There is no evidence that I'm going to speed when I step into a car, there
> is no *intent* that you could prove.

How is that in any way different to a drunk sleeping on the back seat of his

> When a drunk is sitting behind the steering wheel of a running car, there
> is some pretty damning evidence of intent to drive... well to most
> rational people who remember the sort of decisions they think are rational
> whilst they are under the influence that is.

It doesn't matter how you look at it, unless the action actually takes place
everything is an assumption. Do we start handing out tickets for jaywalking
to everyone legally walking along the footpath just because they *might*
cross the street between crossings?


From: Noddy on

"D Walford" <dwalford(a)> wrote in message

> It has everything to do with it, its about the assumption that a person
> will break the law despite there being no evidence.

That's it in a nutshell.