Worth a look - Pissed but not in charge?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Noddy on 18 Jul 2010 03:12 "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:yvxeaogc05wx.1s1vprnb1zzp9.dlg(a)40tude.net... > Tend to agree - but if they DID simply follow the book, we'd pretty soon > get into changing the recipe - as a society I mean. Possibly, but then not for the better I don't think. > The first 50 politicians booked by the book for driving pissed/flashing > their willies in public places/etc would see to that. > And yes, some police do follow the book in those cases. A Very Few. > Undoubtedly they're the ones smart enough to know that's the only chance > they may ever get to see reasonable statutes there to work with - later. Maybe :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: D Walford on 18 Jul 2010 04:29 On 18/07/2010 10:49 AM, Clocky wrote: > D Walford wrote: >> 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. >> > > Nothing to do with communism (which doesn't even work, like your bait). > People no longer take any responsibility for their own actions and have no > respect for others and their property (and deemed to be OK by people like > you) so it's simply a case of cause and effect. > More utter dribble, it has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your actions, you just cannot accept that a court found that there is no evidence proving that a drunk person sitting in a cars drivers seat "intends" to drive. If the person did drive whilst drunk I'd be very happy for him to be severely punished but since he didn't drive he was found to be not guilty which IMO is the correct verdict. Daryl
From: D Walford on 18 Jul 2010 04:43 On 18/07/2010 10:58 AM, Clocky wrote: > So copper Noddy is standing in a bank and in walks a man wearing a > ballaclava and holding a gun... Does copper Noddy wait to see if the man is > there to make a deposit (well, it's a bank so it could be and he's innocent > until proven guilty - right?) or does he think there is enough intent shown > to arrest him? > > That is essentially what the officers where confronted with the drunk and > ofcourse they made the right decision - it's the only decision that makes > any kind of sense. No wonder you are confused, you can't tell the difference between a person sitting in a stationary car and an armed person hiding their face in a bank. Daryl
From: D Walford on 18 Jul 2010 04:47 On 18/07/2010 11:05 AM, Clocky wrote: > D Walford wrote: >> On 17/07/2010 4:49 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> D Walford wrote: >>>> On 17/07/2010 10:20 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>>> Noddy wrote: >>>>>> "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4c400d74$0$28652$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Using common sense isn't something cops these days seem to be >>>>>>> trained to do. >>>>>>> In the "good old days" they would have just taken his keys but >>>>>>> these days they must get brownie points for the number of charges >>>>>>> they write so common sense is abandoned. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems that way. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> So you would be happy to be fined for speeding next time you get in >>>> your car just in case you did speed because we are all told that >>>> speed kills so prevention is better than cure. >>> >>> There is no evidence that I'm going to speed when I step into a car, >> >> Yes there is, you are a driver therefore you will speed, just ask any >> cop, like you they think we are all criminals unless proven otherwise. >> >> there >>> is no *intent* that you could prove. When a drunk is sitting behind >>> the steering wheel of a running car, there is some pretty damning >>> evidence of intent to drive.. >> >> Utter bullshit. >> >> . well to most rational people who remember the sort of >>> decisions they think are rational whilst they are under the >>> influence that is. >>> >>>> If you don't speed this time think of it as a down payment on next >>>> time you do speed and I know you will so you deserve your fine >>>> sooner or later. Welcome to the police state, don't forget to pay >>>> up on time and have a nice day:-) >>>> >>> >>> Pity speeding has nothing to do with what was being discussed. >> >> It has everything to do with it, its about the assumption that a >> person will break the law despite there being no evidence. >> > > Being drunk behind the wheel of a running car shows intent and that is > enough evidence to arrest someone on. > > Without the ability to be able to do that, police hands are completely tied > and there is no longer any way to prevent any crime. > > Wrong, there are many ways they could have prevented a person they believe is drunk and intending to drive from doing so. Daryl
From: atec77 on 24 Jul 2010 05:39
On 24/07/2010 7:17 PM, Jason James wrote: > >> I wouldn't. In any car. >> If you're idling a car for what may be an extended period, you need to be >> somewhere you can clearly see the temperature gauge. > > Tobe,..modern vehicles can idle all day without any discernable > problem,..the electric fans do the job :-) > > Jason > > boring the pair of you here http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4yctt_20-hot-japanese-chicks-in-a-box_sexy gratuitous sexual adult displays -- X-No-Archive: Yes |