You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Rob on 26 Mar 2010 15:22 Ret. wrote: || Rob wrote: ||| Ret. wrote: ||||| Conor wrote: |||||| On 26/03/2010 14:17, Ret. wrote: |||||| ||||||| I made it quite clear that I was disputing their allegation ||||||| that I had been speeding. I could have refused to take the ||||||| breath test on the grounds that they had no lawful reason to ||||||| request it - but that would have been a very stupid thing to do. |||||| |||||| Only because failure to give a breath test upon request results |||||| in a driving ban ||||| ||||| Although not if it could be shown that the request for the breath ||||| test was not lawful (which it was not in my case). The problem is ||||| it would have been my word against two police officers. ||| ||| Why would that have been a 'problem' - lengthy legal arguments on ||| complicated points of law? || || In a way it was my fault. I sped away from a panda car when the || lights changed. I also accelerated hard up to 65 mph on my speedo || which I know is a true 60 mph (which was the limit). The panda car || was balked behind another car and had difficulty catching up to me. || || They then accused me of having been doing 70 mph which they said || they had both observed on their speedometer. I pointed out to them || that whilst they may have indeed been doing 70 in order to catch up || with me - I myself was doing nowhere near that speed. || || The problem, of course, is that had I refused the breath test (which || was requested because I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit), || then I could well have been arrested and charged with refusing to || provide a breath test. My claim that I was not speeding would have || been countered by two police officers claiming that I *had* been || speeding. || || The police woman told me, even before she requested the breath test, || that they were not going to book me for speeding - which is a good || job because I *would* have fought that . I feel a bit guilty now for not making my toungue-in-cheek comment more obvious, saving you the trouble of typing all that explanation, but thanks anyway. The point was that if every copper (or even most of them) were as honest as you would like us to believe, there would be no problem at all. -- Rob
From: Ophelia on 26 Mar 2010 15:21 "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:PcmdnU6W64vEaTHWnZ2dnUVZ7qOdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > Ophelia wrote: > || "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > || news:kLSdndSWS9FAdjHWnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > ||| Not true. In some circumstances it could be an offence to not > ||| answer. Of course if he gets arrested for it, he may then refuse to > ||| answer any subsequent questions. > || > || More detail, please? > > Here's one. > > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020030_en_6#pt4-ch2-pb2-l1g50 Thanks. -- -- https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
From: Mike Scott on 26 Mar 2010 16:14 Ret. wrote: > Mike Scott wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >> .... >>> >>> You can drag up unlikely scenarios as long as you like. The fact is >>> that I stand more chance of being killed by a crashing 747 than I >>> will of becoming involved in one of your imaginary scenarios. >> >> Funny you should mention that. One did come down a few miles north of >> Harlow a few years ago. Part of Hatfield Forest is still afaik fenced >> off (radioactive?). I shudder to think what might have happened. So >> /your/ idea of low probability may well not align well with that of >> others. >>> >>> It could happen to someone, somewhere, but the chances of it >>> happening to any one of us is so remote as to be not worth being >>> concerned about. And I am *not* concerned about it. >> >> Out of curiosity, I'd say the chance that your house would burn down >> is singularly low. So may I assume you don't trouble with fire >> insurance? > > I don't think that the chances are as low as a 747 crash. There are any > number of occurences that could result in a house fire and so I > certainly do have house insurance. > > Kev You do appear somewhat inconsistent then. Oh well. -- Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk) Harlow Essex England
From: Ste on 27 Mar 2010 02:56 On 26 Mar, 17:31, Cynic <cynic_...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:24:32 +0000, Bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: > > >> So you think we should allow wrongdoing to take place? > > Of course not, but your case won't be helped by mouthing off. > > How is politely refusing to answer a question or take a breath test > "mouthing off"? "I ask the question here Sonny... [clonck over the head with a baton]"
From: Kim Bolton on 27 Mar 2010 05:25
Ret. wrote: > >"When the new system is fully up and running, anyone who has access to your >records: > >*must be directly involved in caring for you. >*must have an NHS smartcard with a chip and passcode (like a bank card and >pin). >*will only see the information they need to do their job. >*will have their details recorded - who they are and if they have added or >changed any of your information (you can ask to see this), and will ask your >permission every time they need to look at your SCR." There is nothing to stop the rules being changed post-facto. -- from Kim Bolton |