illegal random breath tests
AlanG
300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
No wonder they can't catch criminals
"POLICE carried out almost 300 random breath tests on a busy
Huddersfield road – to catch hungover drivers.
Their five-hour operation in Leeds Road was aimed at the morning-after
brigade – the people who had been drinking the previous evening.
They caught one driver for allegedly being over the drink-drive limit
and reported two others for other offences.
And the police have vowed that they will repeat the exercise again and
again.
Sgt Dean Taylor said: “Drink and drive over the festive period and you
will face the consequences.”"
Wonder if he has read this?
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm
Ret.
> http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>
> 300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>
> No wonder they can't catch criminals
Do you take every newspaper article as gospel?
Kev
Alex Heney
>http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>
>or
>http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>
>300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>
Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
in there?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My attention isn't hard to get. It IS hard to keep...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
johannes
Alex Heney wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
> >
> >or
> >http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
> >
> >300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
> >
>
> Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
> in there?
�Not only will we be breathalysing any motorist who is involved in a collision,
but we will also be conducting stop check operations in various areas of Kirklees."
Ret.
Stop check operations are perfectly legal. If a stopped driver then exhibits
signs of having been drinking, he can legally be breathalysed.
Kev
AlanG
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>
>>or
>>http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>
>>300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>
>
>Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
>in there?
The word 'random' in the report is a bit of a giveaway.
Ret.
And, of course, all newspaper articles are always 100% accurate as we all
know...
During the 30 years I served in the police I was involved in numerous
incidents that, because of their nature, made the local newspapers.
Invariably there were numerous factual errors in the reports.
Kev
johannes
Which of course he will exhibit signs in the opinion if the officer.
It's a bit suspicious when only 0.33% of stopped AND brethalysed drivers
were charged. Do they have targets on stopped AND brethalysed?
Rob
Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do what they
like, since no one can stop them - which I fully support".
--
Rob
Ret.
> "Ret." wrote:
>>
>> johannes wrote:
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>>>>
>>>>> 300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word
>>>> "illegally" in there?
>>>
>>> "Not only will we be breathalysing any motorist who is involved in a
>>> collision, but we will also be conducting stop check operations in
>>> various areas of Kirklees."
>>
>> Stop check operations are perfectly legal. If a stopped driver then
>> exhibits signs of having been drinking, he can legally be
>> breathalysed.
>>
>> Kev
>
> Which of course he will exhibit signs in the opinion if the officer.
Why would you think that a police officer would want to waste time
breathalysing someone he does not suspect of having been drinking?
> It's a bit suspicious when only 0.33% of stopped AND brethalysed
> drivers were charged. Do they have targets on stopped AND brethalysed?
It's not suspicious at all. As has been commented upon in several other
posts on this thread, the majority of drivers today will have a drink - but
will not drink to the extent that would put them over the limit. This means
that when they are stopped they may well smell of drink - but when
breathalysed, provide a negative test. Simples.
Kev
Steve Firth
> And, of course, all newspaper articles are always 100% accurate as we all
> know...
Well you certainly seem to think that the Daily Heil is 100% accurate
since you always quote it when you need a crutch for your worthless
opinion.
Or are we back to that "hypocrisy" thing that you do so well?
Mr X
"Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5GdnaUyx7se16rW...@bt.com...
> Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do what
> they like, since no one can stop them - which I fully support".
>
Do you want to see more drink drivers on the road? Will your hatred of the
police always addle whatever brains you have?
johannes
I suspect that a driver on M25 the other day was over the limit or sleepy, as
I had to take avoiding action, the car was wandering about between inside and
middle lane. But no police around.
Mr X
"johannes" <jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B375413...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com...
Mentalguy2k8
"johannes" <jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B375413...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com...
>
>
Maybe their new telepathy sensors aren't working.
Ret.
I certainly support measures that deter drunk driving.
Kev
AlanG
wrote:
Then you will have no objection to letting the police into your house
to search for stolen goods/ illegal drugs/ illegal firearms etc. and
doing an intimate body search for drugs once a week
Rob
|| "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:a5GdnaUyx7se16rW...@bt.com...
||| Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do
||| what they like, since no one can stop them - which I fully support".
|||
|| Do you have a problem with that?
Yes.
|| Do you want to see more drink drivers on the road?
No. If you care to look you will see that I'm all for giving the police
statutory powers to conduct random breath tests.
|| Will your hatred
|| of the police always addle whatever brains you have?
I have no such hatred.
--
Rob
Rob
As do I provided they are lawful.
--
Rob
Steve Firth
We could solve crime at a stroke by incacerating the entire population
in prison and only permitting state approved work details under strict
sueprvision.
Do you have a problem with that?
Do you want to see more criminals on the streets?
Do you perhaps just get a tiny, weeny idea of how impoverished your
"argument" is?
Mr X
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbeate.unnvkoi887tgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
It is not a right to drive a motor car. It is a right to live freely.
If someone does not wish to undergo the breath tests they can simply not
drive a car.
I'm all for random breath tests and applaud the police for think off a way
to bring them in without having to wait for Parliament.
Of course your brains have been addled by hatred for the good guys.
AlanG
wrote:
>
>"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1jbeate.unnvkoi887tgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> Mr X <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:a5GdnaUyx7se16rW...@bt.com...
>>> > Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do what
>>> > they like, since no one can stop them - which I fully support".
>>> >
>>> Do you have a problem with that?
>>> Do you want to see more drink drivers on the road? Will your hatred of
>>> the
>>> police always addle whatever brains you have?
>>
>> We could solve crime at a stroke by incacerating the entire population
>> in prison and only permitting state approved work details under strict
>> sueprvision.
>>
>> Do you have a problem with that?
>> Do you want to see more criminals on the streets?
>>
>> Do you perhaps just get a tiny, weeny idea of how impoverished your
>> "argument" is?
>What a stupid response.
>It is not a right to drive a motor car. It is a right to live freely.
>If someone does not wish to undergo the breath tests they can simply not
>drive a car.
Stopping someone at random and forcing them to prove their innocence
is hardly living in freedom.
>I'm all for random breath tests and applaud the police for think off a way
>to bring them in without having to wait for Parliament.
Parliament framed the legislation in the 1960s specifically excluding
random breath tests. In those days MPs were more aware of our
traditions of liberty and the right of the citizen to go about his
business unmolested by the state except where reasonable suspicion of
an offence existed. Attempts to circumvent the will of parliament
could well be considered criminal .
>Of course your brains have been addled by hatred for the good guys.
>
Perhaps like the rest of us he only wants the law applied.
Ret.
Rather a silly comment bearing in mind that statutes were already on the
books at that time that gave the police the power to stop any motorist at
random for any number of reasons.
Kev
Rob
|| "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:1jbeate.unnvkoi887tgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
||| Mr X <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
|||
|||| "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|||| news:a5GdnaUyx7se16rW...@bt.com...
||||| Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do
||||| what they like, since no one can stop them - which I fully
||||| support".
|||||
|||| Do you have a problem with that?
|||| Do you want to see more drink drivers on the road? Will your
|||| hatred of the
|||| police always addle whatever brains you have?
|||
||| We could solve crime at a stroke by incacerating the entire
||| population in prison and only permitting state approved work
||| details under strict sueprvision.
|||
||| Do you have a problem with that?
||| Do you want to see more criminals on the streets?
|||
||| Do you perhaps just get a tiny, weeny idea of how impoverished your
||| "argument" is?
|| What a stupid response.
|| It is not a right to drive a motor car. It is a right to live
|| freely.
It's not about rights - nobody is claiming the 'right' to drive a car. It's
about whether the police should operate within the rules or outside of them.
Some people think they should, others don't if the end result just happens
to be something they agree with.
|| If someone does not wish to undergo the breath tests they can simply
|| not drive a car.
|| I'm all for random breath tests and applaud the police for think off
|| a way to bring them in without having to wait for Parliament.
Which simply means you're happy for them to act unlawfully when it suits
both them and you. Do you extend that thinking to other areas of policing?
If so what other rules would you be prepared to see them tear up to achieve
their objective?
|| Of course your brains have been addled by hatred for the good guys.
Sigh...
--
Rob
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1jbeate.unnvkoi887tgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > Mr X <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:a5GdnaUyx7se16rW...@bt.com...
> >> > Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do what
> >> > they like, since no one can stop them - which I fully support".
> >> >
> >> Do you have a problem with that?
> >> Do you want to see more drink drivers on the road? Will your hatred of
> >> the
> >> police always addle whatever brains you have?
> >
> > We could solve crime at a stroke by incacerating the entire population
> > in prison and only permitting state approved work details under strict
> > sueprvision.
> >
> > Do you have a problem with that?
> > Do you want to see more criminals on the streets?
> >
> > Do you perhaps just get a tiny, weeny idea of how impoverished your
> > "argument" is?
> What a stupid response.
Oh I agree, what followed from you was a very stupid response. For
example, you simply stuck your head in the sand screaming
"LALALALAICAN'THEARYOU" rather than adressing the issue.
> It is not a right to drive a motor car.
Perhaps you can point to where I said it was a right to drive a motor
car?
> It is a right to live freely.
No, it's not. You have the right to be made into a slave, to be kept on
starvation rations, the right to think what you are told. The right to
die of pestilence, or famine or in a war that you have no interest in.
Those are the "rights" have been given to the population for centuries.
There's no "right" to live freely, especially not in Blair's Britain or
the Britain that you want to impose on the rest of the population.
> If someone does not wish to undergo the breath tests they can simply not
> drive a car.
If you don't want to be clubbed to the ground you can simply obey the
curfew. If you don't want to be beaten half to death you can simply vote
for the candidate you are told to vote for. If you don't want your
family to disappear then you can simpy keep quiet and do as you are
told.
> I'm all for random breath tests and applaud the police for think off a way
> to bring them in without having to wait for Parliament.
You approve of illegal acts if you agree with the end result. Obviously
since you are relatively rich, if I come to your house and steal
everything your have and give the proceeds to poor people when you will
applaud me for thinking of a way to help "society" without having to
wait for Parliament.
> Of course your brains have been addled by hatred for the good guys.
When did criminals become "the good guys"? Was it when they started to
do things that you approve of?
Mr X
> Oh I agree, what followed from you was a very stupid response. For
> example, you simply stuck your head in the sand screaming
> "LALALALAICAN'THEARYOU" rather than adressing the issue.
>
Troll.
>> It is not a right to drive a motor car.
>
> Perhaps you can point to where I said it was a right to drive a motor
> car?
>
You imply that people should be allowed to do so without let or hinderance.
That is just not true.
>> It is a right to live freely.
>
> No, it's not. You have the right to be made into a slave, to be kept on
> starvation rations, the right to think what you are told. The right to
> die of pestilence, or famine or in a war that you have no interest in.
>
> Those are the "rights" have been given to the population for centuries.
> There's no "right" to live freely, especially not in Blair's Britain or
> the Britain that you want to impose on the rest of the population.
>
Bullshit.
Such rights are well described in various supra-national agreements. None
of them mention driving motor cars!
>> I'm all for random breath tests and applaud the police for think off a
>> way
>> to bring them in without having to wait for Parliament.
>
> You approve of illegal acts if you agree with the end result. Obviously
> since you are relatively rich, if I come to your house and steal
> everything your have and give the proceeds to poor people when you will
> applaud me for thinking of a way to help "society" without having to
> wait for Parliament.
>
They are not illegal. Thepolice can stop cars for any number of reasons and
then administer the tests.
>> Of course your brains have been addled by hatred for the good guys.
>
> When did criminals become "the good guys"? Was it when they started to
> do things that you approve of?
The only criminals are the drink drivers.
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1jbejh6.1s6xoiq1jpip15N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
[snip]
> Troll.
Everything you post seems to be a (poor) troll, it is true.
[snip]
> > Perhaps you can point to where I said it was a right to drive a motor
> > car?
> >
> You imply that people should be allowed to do so without let or hinderance.
> That is just not true.
Perhaps you can point to where I made such an implication?
I'll save you the time, I've neither said not implied either of the
things you allege. You're making up lies about what I have said.
[snip]
> Bullshit.
You're good at spouting it, I agree.
> Such rights are well described in various supra-national agreements.
Those are aspirations, not rights. There's no such thing as "a right".
What you refer to as "a right" is at best an agreement between a few
nations, mostly in the northern hemisphere. And even then those "rights"
are set aside at the drop of a hat.
> None of them mention driving motor cars!
Since I have said no such thing, why do you keep raising that red
herring?
> >> I'm all for random breath tests and applaud the police for think off a
> >> way
> >> to bring them in without having to wait for Parliament.
> >
> > You approve of illegal acts if you agree with the end result. Obviously
> > since you are relatively rich, if I come to your house and steal
> > everything your have and give the proceeds to poor people when you will
> > applaud me for thinking of a way to help "society" without having to
> > wait for Parliament.
> >
> They are not illegal. Thepolice can stop cars for any number of reasons and
> then administer the tests.
They cannot stop cars at random. Thanks for agreeing that your goods can
be seized if the cause is considered better than your need. Very public
spirited of you. I guess the same will apply to your bank accounts?
> >> Of course your brains have been addled by hatred for the good guys.
> >
> > When did criminals become "the good guys"? Was it when they started to
> > do things that you approve of?
> The only criminals are the drink drivers.
Umm hmmm and the innocent car drivers stopped in this case (i.e. the
vast majority) are you overlooking them in your zeal to set aside human
rights when it suits you?
Mr X
>> They are not illegal. Thepolice can stop cars for any number of reasons
>> and
>> then administer the tests.
>
> They cannot stop cars at random.
Yes they can.
>Thanks for agreeing that your goods can
> be seized if the cause is considered better than your need. Very public
> spirited of you. I guess the same will apply to your bank accounts?
>
More trolling.
> Umm hmmm and the innocent car drivers stopped in this case (i.e. the
> vast majority) are you overlooking them in your zeal to set aside human
> rights when it suits you?
Troll.
Alex Heney
Your point?
It isn't illegal to carry out "stop check" operations.
It would be illegal if they *demanded* breath tests of those stopped
without some evidence to suggest one might be required. But not to
merely *ask* if the motorist would mind being tested.
Which is *probably* what is happening here.
Most don't mind (or will say they don't).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Recovery program for excessive talkers: On-and-on-Anon.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
Nope.
The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
missing was "compulsory".
If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To be, or not to be, those are the parameters.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>> And, of course, all newspaper articles are always 100% accurate as we all
>> know...
>
>Well you certainly seem to think that the Daily Heil is 100% accurate
>since you always quote it when you need a crutch for your worthless
>opinion.
>
Can you find a *single* post by him which suggests he believes the
Daily Mail to be accurate?
Thought not.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up!
Steve Firth
Norman Wells
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:55:19 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
> missing was "compulsory".
>
> If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
But I suspect they'd regard any refusal as reasonable grounds for suspicion,
then demand one. It's like an East End thug'suggesting' that you pay him
�500 by 5pm. Best not to decline.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:46:13 +0000, johannes
><jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>> >
>>> >or
>>> >http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>> >
>>> >300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
>>> in there?
>>
>>“Not only will we be breathalysing any motorist who is involved in a collision,
>> but we will also be conducting stop check operations in various areas of Kirklees."
>
>Your point?
>
>It isn't illegal to carry out "stop check" operations.
>
>It would be illegal if they *demanded* breath tests of those stopped
>without some evidence to suggest one might be required. But not to
>merely *ask* if the motorist would mind being tested.
>
>Which is *probably* what is happening here.
Now you are getting into fantasy land
>
>Most don't mind (or will say they don't).
How do you know?
AlanG
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:55:19 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:20:14 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>>>
>>>>300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
>>>in there?
>>
>>The word 'random' in the report is a bit of a giveaway.
>
>Nope.
>
>The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
>missing was "compulsory".
"POLICE carried out almost 300 random breath tests on a busy
Huddersfield road "
>
>If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
Nothing in the report says the tests were voluntary.
Ret.
This is simply a local newspaper report - and reporters are notorious for
getting their facts wrong. Simply because a newspaper report states that
police carried out 300 random breath tests does not mean that they actually
did. They probably carried out many more legal random stop-checks and
simply breathalysed those drivers that smelled of drink.
How many times do you have to have this pointed out to you?
Kev
Rob
|| On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:46:13 +0000, johannes
|| <jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote:
||
|||
|||
||| Alex Heney wrote:
||||
|||| On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net>
|||| wrote:
||||
|||||
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
|||||
||||| or
||||| http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
|||||
||||| 300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
|||||
||||
|||| Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word
|||| "illegally" in there?
|||
||| in a collision, but we will also be conducting stop check
||| operations in various areas of Kirklees."
||
|| Your point?
||
|| It isn't illegal to carry out "stop check" operations.
You're right it isn't - but it's an extremely dishonest (ab)use of their
legitimate powers to use them for an illegitimate purpose. They don't even
deny it, their stated objective is to breathalyse drivers - not check
documents and tyres etc.
|| It would be illegal if they *demanded* breath tests of those stopped
|| without some evidence to suggest one might be required. But not to
|| merely *ask* if the motorist would mind being tested.
||
|| Which is *probably* what is happening here.
||
|| Most don't mind (or will say they don't).
You appear to be saying that the whole legal basis for these operations
hinges on some kind of imaginary subtle difference between a request and a
demand, even though both have identical adverse consequences for refusal.
Even Kev's argument has more merit than that.
--
Rob
Mr X
> You appear to be saying that the whole legal basis for these operations
> hinges on some kind of imaginary subtle difference between a request and a
> demand, even though both have identical adverse consequences for refusal.
> Even Kev's argument has more merit than that.
>
They can randomly stop cars for any number of reasons, such as to check
documents or roadworthiness. Once the car is stopped they can, by law,
demand a breath test if they have cause to believe the driver is over the
limit. That is why not all drivers who were stopped were tested - they had
no reason to suppose they were over the limit.
This is all perfectly leagal.
johannes
Alex Heney wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:55:19 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:20:14 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
> >>>
> >>>or
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
> >>>
> >>>300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
> >>in there?
> >
> >The word 'random' in the report is a bit of a giveaway.
>
> Nope.
>
> The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
> missing was "compulsory".
>
> If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
Weasel words.
E.g. police at a demonstration: "Would you like to step aside please?"
Draw your own conclusion of what follows if you decline the 'suggestion'.
AlanG
wrote:
>
>"Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5IOdnen1ofGpO6XW...@bt.com...
>> You appear to be saying that the whole legal basis for these operations
>> hinges on some kind of imaginary subtle difference between a request and a
>> demand, even though both have identical adverse consequences for refusal.
>> Even Kev's argument has more merit than that.
>>
>It is an obvious difference.
>They can randomly stop cars for any number of reasons, such as to check
>documents or roadworthiness. Once the car is stopped they can, by law,
>demand a breath test if they have cause to believe the driver is over the
>limit. That is why not all drivers who were stopped were tested -
"Between 9am and 2pm on Sunday, 291 drivers were stopped and tested on
Leeds Road in Huddersfield."
> they had
>no reason to suppose they were over the limit.
or even had been imbibing alcohol
>This is all perfectly leagal.
>
Only on planet troll
joe parkin
> > Translation: "The police will contrive any reason they can to do
> > what they like, since no one can stop them - which I fully support".
>
> I certainly support measures that deter drunk driving.
Yes we know: any measures.
--
Col Colt
news:Fc2dnZn7pLRY3qrW...@pipex.net...
>
> And, of course, all newspaper articles are always 100% accurate as we all
> know...
>
Alex Heney
<rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>You appear to be saying that the whole legal basis for these operations
>hinges on some kind of imaginary subtle difference between a request and a
>demand,
Not imaginary, but otherwise, yes, I am saying exactly that.
>even though both have identical adverse consequences for refusal.
Of course they don't.
Refusal to obey a lawful demand for a breath test is a criminal
offence.
Refusal to comply with a *request* is no offence at all.
If the police are taking any action over those who refuse, where they
have no reasonable suspicion on which to base a demand, then they are
undoubtedly breaking the law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: AC adapter for solar calculators.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Thought not.
>
>I know Heney, you never think before you post.
Wrong, of course.
But ten I have seen little evidence that you might recognise the
concept of "thought".
Your response above being a case in point.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
No one ever said "if I'd only spent more time in the office"
Alex Heney
<cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:55:19 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
>> missing was "compulsory".
>>
>> If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
>
>But I suspect they'd regard any refusal as reasonable grounds for suspicion,
>then demand one.
Possible, but then you would expect every driver stopped to have been
tested. And no court in the and would accept that as reasonable
grounds for suspicion. Plod would have to lie under oath if they were
to claim genuine "reasonable grounds for suspicion". Not unknown, I
know, but not nearly as common as some people on this group would have
us believe.
I have yet to see a report listing total numbers stopped and total
numbers tested where anywhere near all those stopped have been tested.
This particular report doesn't mention the total number stopped, but
if it was only 291 in 5 hours (9AM to 2PM) on a "busy" road, then they
weren't stopping many.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Enough research will tend to support your theory.
Alex Heney
Nor does anything say they were compulsory.
And if they only tested 291 in 5 hours on "a busy Huddersfield road ",
then either they were being VERY lazy in the numbers they stopped, or
they weren't testing all those they stopped.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
So simple, a child could do it. (Child sold separately)
Steve Firth
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:20:47 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Thought not.
> >
> >I know Heney, you never think before you post.
>
> Wrong, of course.
>
> But ten I have seen little evidence that you might recognise the
> concept of "thought".
Guffaw.
> Your response above being a case in point.
Ah, fate is a cruel mistress. Mind you don't trip over the milk bottles
on your way out. Oh, too late, another pratfall.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:40:00 -0000, "Norman Wells"
><cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:55:19 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
>>> missing was "compulsory".
>>>
>>> If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
>>
>>But I suspect they'd regard any refusal as reasonable grounds for suspicion,
>>then demand one.
>
>Possible, but then you would expect every driver stopped to have been
>tested. And no court in the and would accept that as reasonable
>grounds for suspicion. Plod would have to lie under oath if they were
>to claim genuine "reasonable grounds for suspicion". Not unknown, I
>know, but not nearly as common as some people on this group would have
>us believe.
>
>I have yet to see a report listing total numbers stopped and total
>numbers tested where anywhere near all those stopped have been tested.
>
>This particular report doesn't mention the total number stopped, but
>if it was only 291 in 5 hours (9AM to 2PM) on a "busy" road, then they
>weren't stopping many.
"Between 9am and 2pm on Sunday, 291 drivers were stopped and tested on
Leeds Road in Huddersfield."
that works out at one every minute as near as dammit
AlanG
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:43:51 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:49:13 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:55:19 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:20:14 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
>>>>>in there?
>>>>
>>>>The word 'random' in the report is a bit of a giveaway.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>The word which would have been a giveaway, but which was conspicuously
>>>missing was "compulsory".
>>
>>"POLICE carried out almost 300 random breath tests on a busy
>>Huddersfield road "
>>>
>>>If they are requesting rather than demanding, then it isn't illegal.
>>
>>Nothing in the report says the tests were voluntary.
>
>Nor does anything say they were compulsory.
The report says 291 were tested and only one arrested on sus.
I find it hard to believe every single driver or even a high
proportion volunteered.
>
>And if they only tested 291 in 5 hours on "a busy Huddersfield road ",
>then either they were being VERY lazy in the numbers they stopped, or
>they weren't testing all those they stopped.
One a minute.
Ret.
There is a difference between linking to a newspaper article to raise a
debating point - and insisting, as Alang is doing, that everything a
newspaper states in an article must be accurate.
Kev
Col Colt
>>>
>>> And, of course, all newspaper articles are always 100% accurate as
>>> we all know...
>>>
>> You appear to think so when you are attacking the HRA!
>
> There is a difference between linking to a newspaper article to raise a
> debating point - and insisting, as Alang is doing, that everything a
> newspaper states in an article must be accurate.
>
ideas about the HRA.
Rob
Come of it Alex, given the obvious consequences for a refusal to
'volunteer', nobody in their right mind would believe they actually had a
choice.
||
|| And if they only tested 291 in 5 hours on "a busy Huddersfield road
|| ", then either they were being VERY lazy in the numbers they
|| stopped, or they weren't testing all those they stopped.
The 'defence' to any critisism regarding the legality of their operation is
that they are simply carrying out vehicle and driver related spot checks,
and if just so happens that they are led to suspect that a driver has been
drinking, they will test him. If they tested ALL the stopped drivers then
that sham of a defence would be exposed as...well as a sham. They're not
stupid.
--
Rob
Col Colt
>
> The 'defence' to any critisism regarding the legality of their operation
> is that they are simply carrying out vehicle and driver related spot
> checks, and if just so happens that they are led to suspect that a driver
> has been drinking, they will test him. If they tested ALL the stopped
> drivers then that sham of a defence would be exposed as...well as a sham.
> They're not stupid.
>
AlanG
wrote:
And I don't claim newspaper articles are accurate.
I killfiled the slandering git so the only time I see his posts is
when someone replies to him
Col Colt
news:fssjj5t7fabob16id...@4ax.com...
honest law-abiding people, I just read his posts!
AlanG
<rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The 'defence' to any critisism regarding the legality of their operation is
>that they are simply carrying out vehicle and driver related spot checks,
>and if just so happens that they are led to suspect that a driver has been
>drinking, they will test him. If they tested ALL the stopped drivers then
>that sham of a defence would be exposed as...well as a sham. They're not
>stupid.
You may think that.
I will not comment
Ret.
And if ever I need confirmation of just why we need a police service - I
read yours!
Kev
Col Colt
speed limit and I don't drink and drive. Your response simply confirms that
you see the police force as a means of attacking people like me, who do not
break the laws, do not cheat and hurt others. That is why you and your kind
represent the greatest threat to honest law abiding people. A thief can
only take my property. Your kind can take my liberty and my life and take
sadistic pleasure in knowingly doing it to an innocent.
Col Colt
AlanG
wrote:
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
Last time I saw a breath test, (not me it was a friend driving me
home) it took about 15 minutes.
Even if the police were not breath testing every one of the drivers
stopped it was still a gross abuse of police powers to be stopping a
car a minute for no good reason
AlanG
wrote:
>"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>news:obGdnT4ndp6AY6TW...@pipex.net...
>> Col Colt wrote:
>>> "AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fssjj5t7fabob16id...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:49:42 -0000, "Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I killfiled the slandering git so the only time I see his posts is
>>>> when someone replies to him
>>>>
>>> If I ever need confirmation of why the police are the biggest threat
>>> to honest law-abiding people, I just read his posts!
>>
>> And if ever I need confirmation of just why we need a police service - I
>> read yours!
>>
>I have never thieved from anyone, I have never assaulted anyone. I obey the
>speed limit and I don't drink and drive. Your response simply confirms that
>you see the police force as a means of attacking people like me, who do not
>break the laws, do not cheat and hurt others. That is why you and your kind
>represent the greatest threat to honest law abiding people. A thief can
>only take my property. Your kind can take my liberty and my life and take
>sadistic pleasure in knowingly doing it to an innocent.
>
They can and do now take property.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
I don't expect they only had one or two cops doing them.
Although even if they did, they could *stop* a lot more than one per
minute.
Other reports which have listed total numbers stopped have had several
times that many *stopped* in a similar period.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
Charles Bryant
}johannes wrote:
}> It's a bit suspicious when only 0.33% of stopped AND brethalysed
}> drivers were charged. Do they have targets on stopped AND brethalysed?
}
}It's not suspicious at all. As has been commented upon in several other
}posts on this thread, the majority of drivers today will have a drink - but
}will not drink to the extent that would put them over the limit. This means
}that when they are stopped they may well smell of drink - but when
}breathalysed, provide a negative test. Simples.
A success rate of 0.33% is not compatible with reasonable suspicion.
If such a large number of drivers smell of drink without being over
the limit then that is not grounds for testing unless the law allows
random testing.
Rob
You appear be under the impression that a resonable suspicion of being over
the limit is necessary to require a breath test - this is not the case, a
constable only has to suspect that you have alcohol in your body. However,
if you fail a roadside breath test then he DOES have the reasonable
suspicion required to arrest you for the alleged offence of driving over the
limit.
--
Rob
Bob Ferguson
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:97sfj5ld38fsc3r8f...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:46:13 +0000, johannes
> <jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>> >
>>> >or
>>> >http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>> >
>>> >300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
>>> in there?
>>
>>collision,
>> but we will also be conducting stop check operations in various areas of
>> Kirklees."
>
> Your point?
>
> It isn't illegal to carry out "stop check" operations.
>
> It would be illegal if they *demanded* breath tests of those stopped
> without some evidence to suggest one might be required. But not to
> merely *ask* if the motorist would mind being tested.
>
> Which is *probably* what is happening here.
>
This was discussed some while back. Though I don't know that it applies in
this case, what the police were doing was randomly stopping motorist (on
some pretext or other), then asking if they would volunteer to take a breath
test. If the motorist declined then this would be used as providing the
suspicion that the motorist had been drinking and a then compulsory breath
test would be required.
The practical upshot is that breath testing without the requisite criteria
being met is being carried out.
Bob Ferguson
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hha8vj$234$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...> news:5IOdnen1ofGpO6XW...@bt.com...
>> You appear to be saying that the whole legal basis for these operations
>> hinges on some kind of imaginary subtle difference between a request and
>> refusal. Even Kev's argument has more merit than that.
>>
> It is an obvious difference.
> They can randomly stop cars for any number of reasons, such as to check
> documents or roadworthiness. Once the car is stopped they can, by law,
> demand a breath test if they have cause to believe the driver is over the
> limit. That is why not all drivers who were stopped were tested - they
> had no reason to suppose they were over the limit.
> This is all perfectly leagal.
It's only legal because the definition of suspicion of driving under the
influence has been stretched since the original legislation. Then original
legislation intended that the suspicion arose from observance of the actual
driving.
Bob Ferguson
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:36:10 -0000, "Rob"
>
>
Don't be silly. How would you power it in the dark?
Bob Ferguson
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/12/15/police-stop-and-breath-test-300-drivers-on-huddersfield-road-86081-25390741/
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc8stry
>>>>
>>>> 300 people illegally stopped and breath tested. One charged.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for the word "illegally"
>>> in there?
>>
>
> know...
> incidents that, because of their nature, made the local newspapers.
> Invariably there were numerous factual errors in the reports.
>
In just the same way that police reports and evidence contain factual
errors.
Charles Bryant
Rob <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
}Charles Bryant wrote:
}|| In article <8uCdnTWrG9dL16rW...@pipex.net>, Ret. <xxx>
}|| wrote: }johannes wrote:
}|| }> It's a bit suspicious when only 0.33% of stopped AND brethalysed
}|| }> drivers were charged. Do they have targets on stopped AND
}|| brethalysed? }
}|| }It's not suspicious at all. As has been commented upon in several
}|| other }posts on this thread, the majority of drivers today will have
}|| a drink - but }will not drink to the extent that would put them over
}|| the limit. This means }that when they are stopped they may well
}|| smell of drink - but when }breathalysed, provide a negative test.
}|| Simples.
}||
}|| A success rate of 0.33% is not compatible with reasonable suspicion.
}|| If such a large number of drivers smell of drink without being over
}|| the limit then that is not grounds for testing unless the law allows
}|| random testing.
}
}You appear be under the impression that a resonable suspicion of being over
}the limit is necessary to require a breath test - this is not the case, a
}constable only has to suspect that you have alcohol in your body.
There is a very high probability that a person chosen at random at any time
has at least one molecule of alcohol in their body.
Alex Heney
If they do that, then I believe it is illegal, because such refusal
cannot give rise to "reasonable cause to suspect".
>The practical upshot is that breath testing without the requisite criteria
>being met is being carried out.
>
If they take no further action over anybody who refuses (and where
they cannot genuinely smell alcohol), then it is technically OK.
But if they take any further action over a refusal, then I believe
they are acting illegally.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't look at me in that tone of voice!
Alex Heney
<rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Charles Bryant wrote:
>|| In article <8uCdnTWrG9dL16rW...@pipex.net>, Ret. <xxx>
>|| wrote: }johannes wrote:
>|| }> It's a bit suspicious when only 0.33% of stopped AND brethalysed
>|| }> drivers were charged. Do they have targets on stopped AND
>|| brethalysed? }
>|| }It's not suspicious at all. As has been commented upon in several
>|| other }posts on this thread, the majority of drivers today will have
>|| a drink - but }will not drink to the extent that would put them over
>|| the limit. This means }that when they are stopped they may well
>|| smell of drink - but when }breathalysed, provide a negative test.
>|| Simples.
>||
>|| A success rate of 0.33% is not compatible with reasonable suspicion.
>|| If such a large number of drivers smell of drink without being over
>|| the limit then that is not grounds for testing unless the law allows
>|| random testing.
>
>You appear be under the impression that a resonable suspicion of being over
>the limit is necessary to require a breath test - this is not the case, a
>constable only has to suspect that you have alcohol in your body.
He has to have "cause to suspect".
So he would have to give some basis for his suspicion, not just be
able to say "I suspected".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You can't have everything...where would you put it?
Rob
I think it goes without saying that he needs to have what the law accepts as
'reasonable suspicion', I just thought it tedious to repeat that in the same
sentence.
--
Rob
Bob Ferguson
I agree. But do the police and (of course) the magistrates?