a year today

[Alf63]

Re: a year

If you read my original response, and then read the comments made after, I think you will find that my response was justified.

All of my posts to date have been constructive, and certainly not controversial. Maybe you shock easily.

Be that as it may, this clown Sanctuary can think again if he thinks he can bully female members on this site, as he originally intended to do. That's not going to happen.

I have spent time and effort on many occasions posting in reply to people's requests here. For certain I can say that you haven't.


M

You are entitled to your view of course but you seem mighty quick to make judgements. I don't see why someone would make something like this up.
You call someone a bully when you yourself write something of a most 'keyboard warrior' nature without knowing the facts. Easy to do from the safety of your bedroom.

Incidentally, this ally character is no angel herself. There are numerous posts of a deeply unpleasant nature where she has, for example, called a member a fraud (quite wrongly and causing them a fair amount of anguish) and had a pop at an NHS worker who was trying to gain information to help advise people on the dangers and consequences of drink driving.
I'm sure she was/is going through a tough time. Some may think it's a valid excuse.

All I'm saying is try winding your neck in a bit. Have a quick read through what you've written before hitting Submit and I think this site will be a better place for it.
Cheers A

 

[Portico]

Re: a year

I did mentioned people who fail to supply; and that is a victimless crime, where no accident or collision is concerned. Those people aren't convicted of drink driving, but they are classed as high risk; when people who smash into stationary objects whilst drunk, aren't.

Hi there. I am new to the forum and you do make some interesting points in your posts on the site. Although not interested in all of the 'banter' you are engaged in I did want to ask about this specific point on failure to supply (Failure to supply without reasonable excuse is, I believe, the specific offence)

Surely the only reason someone would fail to supply without reasonable excuse is because they know they are way over the limit and think that by failing to supply they will somehow
receive a lower sentence. Are there any other reasons you are aware of?

Since it is impossible to determine the level of impairment in such a case what options exist other than to assume that the person is an HRO? If you assigned a lower level offence then surely everyone who knows they are way over would just fail to supply.

You say failure to supply is a victimless crime where no accident or collision has occurred. On that basis surely the same goes for someone who is stopped and provides a positive reading since they have not been involved in an accident or collision either. Does that mean you believe that drink driving is a victimless crime in any event where there has been no accident or collision?

Do you think that people who smash into stationary objects should be classed as high risk or people who fail to supply without reasonable excuse shouldn't be?

It would be interesting to understand the logic.

 

[Mclanelli]

Re: a year

You are entitled to your view of course but you seem mighty quick to make judgements. I don't see why someone would make something like this up.
You call someone a bully when you yourself write something of a most 'keyboard warrior' nature without knowing the facts. Easy to do from the safety of your bedroom.

Incidentally, this ally character is no angel herself. There are numerous posts of a deeply unpleasant nature where she has, for example, called a member a fraud (quite wrongly and causing them a fair amount of anguish) and had a pop at an NHS worker who was trying to gain information to help advise people on the dangers and consequences of drink driving.
I'm sure she was/is going through a tough time. Some may think it's a valid excuse.

All I'm saying is try winding your neck in a bit. Have a quick read through what you've written before hitting Submit and I think this site will be a better place for it.
Cheers A

All I'm saying is try winding your neck in a bit. Have a quick read through what you've written before hitting Submit and I think this site will be a better place for it.

I always read through before I submit. Using terms like "keyboard warrior" is laughable. Its funny how people who struggle with written responses always seem to throw out that line.

You seem to have a good handle on what people do or don't say on this site, yet you never actually contribute to the topics and discussions. In both notes to me, you have not once mentioned the subject of drink driving.

If you are not discussing the topics, then why even bother logging in. Talking to me about what you think is right and wrong is pointless. Nobody wants to read that.

Lets agree to disagree.

M

 

[Mclanelli]

Re: a year

Hi there. I am new to the forum and you do make some interesting points in your posts on the site. Although not interested in all of the 'banter' you are engaged in I did want to ask about this specific point on failure to supply (Failure to supply without reasonable excuse is, I believe, the specific offence)

Surely the only reason someone would fail to supply without reasonable excuse is because they know they are way over the limit and think that by failing to supply they will somehow
receive a lower sentence. Are there any other reasons you are aware of?

Since it is impossible to determine the level of impairment in such a case what options exist other than to assume that the person is an HRO? If you assigned a lower level offence then surely everyone who knows they are way over would just fail to supply.

You say failure to supply is a victimless crime where no accident or collision has occurred. On that basis surely the same goes for someone who is stopped and provides a positive reading since they have not been involved in an accident or collision either. Does that mean you believe that drink driving is a victimless crime in any event where there has been no accident or collision?

Do you think that people who smash into stationary objects should be classed as high risk or people who fail to supply without reasonable excuse shouldn't be?

It would be interesting to understand the logic.

Surely the only reason someone would fail to supply without reasonable excuse is because they know they are way over the limit and think that by failing to supply they will somehow
receive a lower sentence. Are there any other reasons you are aware of?

I would agree. That's the most of the time, although I am sure there are a few other technical reasons that push people into this category

Since it is impossible to determine the level of impairment in such a case what options exist other than to assume that the person is an HRO? If you assigned a lower level offence then surely everyone who knows they are way over would just fail to supply.

I was not suggesting that this category should not be HRO. I understand why it needs to be. I was just using the example against crashing a vehicle whilst drunk, which is not an automatic HRO; which I believe it should be.

You say failure to supply is a victimless crime where no accident or collision has occurred. On that basis surely the same goes for someone who is stopped and provides a positive reading since they have not been involved in an accident or collision either. Does that mean you believe that drink driving is a victimless crime in any event where there has been no accident or collision?

Drink driving causes death on the roads and we know this. So although an individual convicted may not crash their vehicle, the actual offence results in related victims. Its still drink driving, and that is the aggravating factor where death is caused.

In contrast FTS is a technical offence. There is no victim, all be it technically. But I guess where there is an admission of drinking (there isn't always) then you could argue that it would fall into the drink driving category; and as such there would then be related victims.

The reason that I mentioned FTS in the context of no collision or accident; was because where that happens, and there is no admission of drinking, there would still be a victim. The victim would be the third parties involved in the collision.


Do you think that people who smash into stationary objects should be classed as high risk or people who fail to supply without reasonable excuse shouldn't be?

I believe that both should be classed as HRO. I understand why FTS get hammered, they have to be as a deterrent. But people who are involved in a collision whilst drunk should surely be classed as high risk. If you crash a vehicle whilst drunk then you are further down the scale towards actually killing someone than even a 99+ reading or a FTS.

M

 

[price1367]

Re: a year

Hi there. I am new to the forum and you do make some interesting points in your posts on the site. Although not interested in all of the 'banter' you are engaged in I did want to ask about this specific point on failure to supply (Failure to supply without reasonable excuse is, I believe, the specific offence)

Surely the only reason someone would fail to supply without reasonable excuse is because they know they are way over the limit and think that by failing to supply they will somehow
receive a lower sentence. Are there any other reasons you are aware of?

Since it is impossible to determine the level of impairment in such a case what options exist other than to assume that the person is an HRO? If you assigned a lower level offence then surely everyone who knows they are way over would just fail to supply.

You say failure to supply is a victimless crime where no accident or collision has occurred. On that basis surely the same goes for someone who is stopped and provides a positive reading since they have not been involved in an accident or collision either. Does that mean you believe that drink driving is a victimless crime in any event where there has been no accident or collision?

Do you think that people who smash into stationary objects should be classed as high risk or people who fail to supply without reasonable excuse shouldn't be?

It would be interesting to understand the logic.

The fail to supply offence IS classed as a drink driving offence.
A person who is suspected of being over the limit while driving can only be arrested if they blow over the limit on a screening breath test machine or fail to supply a screening sample AND are suspected of having consumed alcohol. At the police station they may fail to provide the evidential sample and are then prosecuted. The sentence range available to the magistrates is in 3 parts, for those who have a honestly held belief that they did not have to provide a sample, but falling short of a defence, those who simply fail to provide and those who fail to provide AND there is evidence of high intoxication. This could be the evidence of the custody video or evidence from witnesses to the persons drinking before driving. The sentencing ranges are available to view on this site.
There are people who deliberately fail to provide, but there are also those who have a go, but do not provide sufficient, or a long enough, sample for a measurement to be made. If there is a genuine medical reason why the person cannot blow, which the police are aware of, then they will revert to requiring a blood or urine sample. Often it is the case that a person is confused (as a newt) and simply cannot follow the instructions they are given.
the high risk offender scheme, that sets out the requirement to submit to a medical before a person can have their licence back is split into 3 parts.
Blowing 2 1/2 times or more over the limit (87.5)
having a second disqualification within a 10 year period for drink driving
Failing to supply a sample.
You are right, Portico, in that the first 2 are known risks, whereas failing to supply is an assessment of the Unknown, to see if the risk exists.
People who smash into stationary vehicles while drunk ARE HRO's. In my view over 87.5 is drunk, under 87.5, you would not normally classify a person as drunk unless they have low tolerance to alcohol..... But remember that the offence is not drunk driving, it is driving while your ability to control a motor vehicle is impaired.
I agree Portico that it is best to discuss actual drink drive issues and queries on here, rather than points scoring.

 

[Mclanelli]

Re: a year

The fail to supply offence IS classed as a drink driving offence.
A person who is suspected of being over the limit while driving can only be arrested if they blow over the limit on a screening breath test machine or fail to supply a screening sample AND are suspected of having consumed alcohol. At the police station they may fail to provide the evidential sample and are then prosecuted. The sentence range available to the magistrates is in 3 parts, for those who have a honestly held belief that they did not have to provide a sample, but falling short of a defence, those who simply fail to provide and those who fail to provide AND there is evidence of high intoxication. This could be the evidence of the custody video or evidence from witnesses to the persons drinking before driving. The sentencing ranges are available to view on this site.
There are people who deliberately fail to provide, but there are also those who have a go, but do not provide sufficient, or a long enough, sample for a measurement to be made. If there is a genuine medical reason why the person cannot blow, which the police are aware of, then they will revert to requiring a blood or urine sample. Often it is the case that a person is confused (as a newt) and simply cannot follow the instructions they are given.
the high risk offender scheme, that sets out the requirement to submit to a medical before a person can have their licence back is split into 3 parts.
Blowing 2 1/2 times or more over the limit (87.5)
having a second disqualification within a 10 year period for drink driving
Failing to supply a sample.
You are right, Portico, in that the first 2 are known risks, whereas failing to supply is an assessment of the Unknown, to see if the risk exists.
People who smash into stationary vehicles while drunk ARE HRO's. In my view over 87.5 is drunk, under 87.5, you would not normally classify a person as drunk unless they have low tolerance to alcohol..... But remember that the offence is not drunk driving, it is driving while your ability to control a motor vehicle is impaired.
I agree Portico that it is best to discuss actual drink drive issues and queries on here, rather than points scoring.

People who smash into stationary vehicles while drunk ARE HRO's. In my view over 87.5 is drunk, under 87.5, you would not normally classify a person as drunk unless they have low tolerance to alcohol

That is simply your opinion only. Its not true to fact and you can caps lock in bold all you want, but it wont make it so. If you are involved in a collision, and you are convicted of drink driving under 87.5, you are not a HRO. Fact.

What you consider to be drunk under 87.5 is irrelevant.

So people who smash into stationary vehicles while drunk, aren't HRO. They are HRO if the blow over 87.5. That is not an automatic HRO for a collision is it?

M

 

[Portico]

Re: a year

The fail to supply offence IS classed as a drink driving offence.
A person who is suspected of being over the limit while driving can only be arrested if they blow over the limit on a screening breath test machine or fail to supply a screening sample AND are suspected of having consumed alcohol. At the police station they may fail to provide the evidential sample and are then prosecuted. The sentence range available to the magistrates is in 3 parts, for those who have a honestly held belief that they did not have to provide a sample, but falling short of a defence, those who simply fail to provide and those who fail to provide AND there is evidence of high intoxication. This could be the evidence of the custody video or evidence from witnesses to the persons drinking before driving. The sentencing ranges are available to view on this site.
There are people who deliberately fail to provide, but there are also those who have a go, but do not provide sufficient, or a long enough, sample for a measurement to be made. If there is a genuine medical reason why the person cannot blow, which the police are aware of, then they will revert to requiring a blood or urine sample. Often it is the case that a person is confused (as a newt) and simply cannot follow the instructions they are given.
the high risk offender scheme, that sets out the requirement to submit to a medical before a person can have their licence back is split into 3 parts.
Blowing 2 1/2 times or more over the limit (87.5)
having a second disqualification within a 10 year period for drink driving
Failing to supply a sample.
You are right, Portico, in that the first 2 are known risks, whereas failing to supply is an assessment of the Unknown, to see if the risk exists.
People who smash into stationary vehicles while drunk ARE HRO's. In my view over 87.5 is drunk, under 87.5, you would not normally classify a person as drunk unless they have low tolerance to alcohol..... But remember that the offence is not drunk driving, it is driving while your ability to control a motor vehicle is impaired.
I agree Portico that it is best to discuss actual drink drive issues and queries on here, rather than points scoring.

Thanks Price for the detailed response. I would have been amazed if Mclanneli's statement that failing to provide was not a drink driving offence was true. This whole field is incredibly complex now. A far cry from the days when all the police had to work with was a bag you blow into and the crystals turn green!

 

[Alf63]

Re: a year

All I'm saying is try winding your neck in a bit. Have a quick read through what you've written before hitting Submit and I think this site will be a better place for it.

I always read through before I submit. Using terms like "keyboard warrior" is laughable. Its funny how people who struggle with written responses always seem to throw out that line.

You seem to have a good handle on what people do or don't say on this site, yet you never actually contribute to the topics and discussions. In both notes to me, you have not once mentioned the subject of drink driving.

If you are not discussing the topics, then why even bother logging in. Talking to me about what you think is right and wrong is pointless. Nobody wants to read that.

Lets agree to disagree.

M

Agreed. You are clearly just another chop logic pedant. Where appropriate I have made contributions based upon my own experience rather than just posting random charts and other inaccurate information around what does or does not constitute an offence. The law is the law and is not open to interpretation. Leave the comments to the experts and you focus on what you are good at.....whatever that is. Bye.

 

[price1367]

I, for one, think this particular discussion has gone far enough.
The law on HRO is what it is, including failing to supply..... and no amount of discussion on here will alter it.

 

[Mclanelli]

Re: a year

Agreed. You are clearly just another chop logic pedant. Where appropriate I have made contributions based upon my own experience rather than just posting random charts and other inaccurate information around what does or does not constitute an offence. The law is the law and is not open to interpretation. Leave the comments to the experts and you focus on what you are good at.....whatever that is. Bye.

I have never once posted charts, random charts or any charts; not have I ever cut and pasted an article, paragraph or insight. My words have always been my own; just to be clear.

The law is open to interpretation, otherwise the legal profession would not exist. Not all legal defences are statutory.

M