Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

:rolleyes:

Never made a spelling or typing mistake in your life then.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

It happens. Full stop. Therefore, the form filler should be extremely careful.

If I lost a friend to a drunk driver who was later released because someone forgot to fill in a field on a form, I would be angry at two people.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

All the time. But my mistakes don't let criminals off the hook.


Even worse; this sort of thing should never happen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4547216.stm

Re: The Price of life
 

Sadly we don't live in a world where the police have all the resources they need and those doing the increasingly onerous administrative tasks are under pressure to get the job done and move onto the next one. Reconciling this reality with the need for extreme diligence is a very difficult balancing act. I would be angry at both people too but one made a genuine simple mistake filling out a form and the other presumably made a conscious decision to drive a car having been drinking.

Re: The Price of life
 

The drink drive limit should be Zero then everybody knows where they stand and temptation is reduced.

2 Pints for a 6'5" 17st man may be fine, whereas the same for someone of a smaller stature may not.

Also I'm sure people will goout with good intentions to only have 1 to 2 drinks, but they have those two drinks and think to themselves, I'm alright, It'll be ok to have just one more - and so it begins. I've done it myself.

Zero limit is required and also a few more police instead of cameras, I don't know of any cameras that successfully breathalised anyone??

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Have you ever seen the drink drive form? Or had to fill one in when a drunk, aggressive, potentially violent and desparate person is in a small room with you? It's not the easiest thing in the world.

Plus there are all manner of other technicalities un-related to the form that people can use to get off charges.

What being unable to obtain consent from someone unconscious or him getting off on a technicality.

Re: The Price of life
 

I think we should have zero tolerance for all drunken behaviour and not just driving while under the influence.It really should stop being the 'excuse' for every misdemeanor.If you commit a crime whilst sober you get dealt with completely differently to someone who was drunk at the time of committing the same offence.In other words if you are in control and in your right senses and you break the law you get treated much more harshly but claim you cannot remember anything because you were totally newted you get a different reaction.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Are you suggesting the procedures for dealing with drunk drivers need to be changed? So let's do it! Tell us what needs to be done.

I thought taking a blood sample without permission was assault.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

It's fairly simple. The legal limit is 35. If someone fails the roadside test they should be taken back to the Police Station, put on the intoximeter and then if they provide two samples and the lowest is over 35 they get charged.

Forget about whether the officers had hats on, if they used the exact wording when informing the driver he is under arrest etc. All that should be needed is a warning that a sample is needed, explain refusal is an offence and thats it.

If the driver was in the car and blew over 35 he should be getting used to taxis for 12 months, end of story.

Re: The Price of life
 

I don't see why people have a problem understanding this......you have a drink you don't drive....... problem solved!

Re: The Price of life
 

Unfortunately the law says differently which just adds to the confusion and some will always push at any limits.:rolleyes:

Re: The Price of life
 

Sadly that is true and that is when there are stories in the news of innocent people dieing :(

Re: The Price of life
 

Alcohol in general in the UK is treated differently as most people enjoy a drink and it is not hard for them to imagine being in a sticky situation. I agree with Incog limit should be zero then there is no confusion but it won't happen as far too many people like to drive down the local and have a pint. Only chance we have of a major law change is if a drunk driver kills someone close to an important figure then watch how fast the wheels will move.