Convicted Driver Insurance Quotes

Convicted Driver Insurance Quoteline
Convicted driver insurance quote line owned and operated by MCE Insurance

Follow Drinkdriving.org on:


Follow Drinkdriving.org on Facebook Follow Drinkdriving.org on Google+ Follow Drinkdriving.org on Twitter

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Drink Driving Forum Forums Articles Articles
  • price1367's Avatar
    434 replies | 360984 view(s)
  • dino101's Avatar
    Today, 02:14 PM
    Hi John, Last night, I went to my scanner settings and noticed that the resolution was in PPI and not DPI (assuming both are the same thing)? Anyway, I changed the default settings from 200 to 300PPI and then scanned the image and uploaded it onto my computer. When I checked the photograph's properties, the dimension was 592x574 PX. I am very confused, should it not be 600x600 pixels when you scan a 2inch by 2inch photo at a resolution of 300 ? I then did what you said about editing it in GIMP, so after changing both the X and Y to 600 pixels at a resolution of 300, the file size is too big for the US embassy's requirements. It is 328kb. I am really stuck and also feel like an idiot for not be able to do this task. Please help me :(
    434 replies | 360984 view(s)
  • price1367's Avatar
    Today, 11:46 AM
    I have already explained the law in respect of hip flask defence. They have evidence from the witness that you smelled of intoxicants, and a reading showing that you were over the limit. The case is then made out. It is for the DEFENCE to shown that the presumption that what is in a persons sample when they are tested is what was in their body when they drove. This is a quote from a leading defence company on this: You may think this is simple; you just tell the Court you had a drink when you got home/to the pub/reached your friend’s house and that you would have stayed the night or got a taxi home. After all, how could the prosecution prove that isn’t what happened? However, this is where the burden of proof shifts. It is generally for the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt. But this burden of proof sometimes switches to the accused, so the onus is on them to prove what they are saying in their defence. When someone wishes to rely on the defence of drinking alcohol after they drove, it is up to them to provide evidence of this to the Court. The Court must be convinced that it is more likely than not that this is what actually happened. https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/drink-driving-post-drive-consumption-hip-flask-defence Drink driving in this respect is different to other cases where the police investigate all circumstances before deciding to charge. Your solicitor, if competent, should realise this and be helping to focus on the points that need to be proved for your defence to succeed. If you do not have a solicitor then I would urge you to get one to help with the legal points. The other issues you have talked about are fine to get sympathy from your mates in the pub, but they will not assist with your case in court. i am not trying to be dismissive about what you say happened. Just trying to get you to realise that they are irrelevant to the outcome in court. I have extensive experience in working in a Custody environment (albeit not in Kent) and was surprised when you said that your fingerprints were taken by a nurse. Just out of curiosity, I have checked with Tonbridge custody unit and as I thought, there is no way that a nurse has ever been trained or would be authorised to take fingerprints from a suspect. It may be that your recollections of the events are not as clear as you thought.
    12 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Reuser2003's Avatar
    Today, 10:32 AM
    The time for my DNA and finger print tests is 1.30pm on the Tuesday... they actually took them the previous evening. Well, the Nurse did. The Rox report does back my claim, but just. However the fact is I could have had another large glass of wine before I drove home and still have been under the limit comfortably. With a back calculation time line is all important and the police have been willing to lie about this. Also they ignored the evidence which of course would have helped my case when I had not been charged... so it was their responsibility to interview witnesses and gather CCTV. Their job is to investigate the claim, not to prove someone guilty or innocent.
    12 replies | 220 view(s)
  • price1367's Avatar
    04-24-2018, 09:50 PM
    The 120 is something of a red herring as it was not on an evidential breath test device. the police version is that you provided a blood sample at 1.10am and it showed 184 in blood. backtracking 3 hours they say that your reading 3 hours before would have been 120. your version is that you provided a sample at 12.10am and it was 184, so when you were driving TWO hours before it would have been higher, at about 140. Either way, you were not drunk so why would the police officer say that you were? it really doesn’t matter when you had your fingerprints and DNA taken. Presumably the time for this was recorded on the custody record and you have timed it by a clock that may or may not have been reading correctly. I will stress it again, you need to concentrate on what evidence you can gather to show that you consumed alcohol after driving, AND that it made the difference to you being over the limit. That is what your “hip flash defence” relies on. Anything else is spurious and diverts you from what you need to do.
    12 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Reuser2003's Avatar
    04-24-2018, 05:01 PM
    The point is that alcohol is absorbed quicker than its dispelled. So an hour earlier means that at 1.10am my blood count would have been lower than at 12.10am, given I’d not had a drink for 3 hours by 1.10am. The Lies do leave me bemused. To say they took my prints and DNA @ 13.30pm on the 8th rather than 12.00pm on the 8th is bizarre. As is inventing an hour in a holding cell. The alcohol would be absorbed quicker but not be disposed of by my body quicker given I’d not eaten since 6pm on the 6th. Also the officer says I smelt of alcohol when he first spoke to me ( about 30 mins since I got out of the car) but didn’t say Seemed drunk. At the police station they claim probably correctly I was unsteady( about hour and 10 later. The CCTV about 20 mins before I first spoke to the officer shows me perfectly sober. Given the reading a heavy drinker would not be swaying at the level they measured... I wasn’t swaying at 120 at all... my point being as I’m not a heavy drinker I’d have been blitzed in the co-op at 120. They lied from the start to try and illiminate the chance of me having drank at home... this has already been shown.
    12 replies | 220 view(s)
  • price1367's Avatar
    04-24-2018, 06:25 AM
    In respect of the CCTV, it is normal for recordings to be deleted after a period of time. This varies between forces but I would think that 28days - 3 months is the norm. If a specific complaint is raised or a request for the video:evidence is received then yes, that part of the CCTV can be preserved. After the normal retention time then it is wiped and would not be recoverable.
    12 replies | 220 view(s)
  • price1367's Avatar
    04-23-2018, 08:54 PM
    I am trying to see through what you are saying, to get at the relevant facts..... you blew 119 on the breath test at home, not this is a hand held device which is not reliable, it only gives an indication and you cannot be prosecuted on this. BUT, it could have indicated a high reading because you had recently consumed alcohol so that would tend to support your claim to have drunk a bottle of wine after you got home and before the police arrived. The police say that you provided a blood sample at 1.10am, whereas you say that it was provided at 12.10am. What would the police gain out of saying that it was an hour later than it actually was? It came back as 184, and from that, it seems that they have done a back calculation to indicate that at the time you drove you were 1.5 times the limit, so 120 in blood. If they are starting to count back from an hour later than the sample was really provided, then their calculation has an extra hour in it for your body to get rid of alcohol so it should have been higher, so their “lies” have helped you get a lower reading in their back calculations! if you look at the custody record, you will see various times recorded on it by the custody officer, anyone visiting you in the cells and the time you saw the nurse. The nurse will have signed the blood sample and timed / dated it. She will have also signed a certificate to say that she took the sample at (time / date) with your consent. There will be a statement from the Laboratory receiving your sample which quotes the time and date that the label says the sample was taken. this cannot be altered months later because it is recorded when it is received at the laboratory. on the custody record will be other signatures, certainly from the duty inspectors who carried out your review at 6 and 15 hours. (They will have been different officers) If you feel that the paperwork has been forged later, that is an awful lot of people who have had to be a part of it and you will struggle to persuade the court that they would all conspire to ‘fit you up’ and in the process get a lower estimate of what your reading would have been at the time of the driving. You may feel aggrieved that the police did not follow up on witnesses or CCTV, but you need to understand what the law says about ‘hip flask ‘ defences in Drink Drive cases. The law says that what is in a suspects alcohol when they are arrested is presumed to be what was in their system when they drove. If their defence is that the consumed alcohol after driving then it it up to them to satisfy the court that on the balance of probabilities they did consume alcohol AND that it made the difference to them being over the legal limit. It is not the police job to investigate your defence, that is the job of the defence...... it flies in the face of the general principals of British law - innocent until proven guilty - but all I can do is advise the law as it stands in ‘hip flask defences’. You should concentrate your efforts on trying to present evidence of post incident drinking, because arguments about how you were later treated, however angry they made you feel, will not cut any ice with the magistrates who will only be concerned with the evidence about your driving, your reading and when the alcohol consumption took place.
    12 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Misunderstood's Avatar
    04-23-2018, 04:49 PM
    Can you let me know if you got it back and what happened? I had detox/rehab in may 2016. License revoked in December and got medical tomorrow. Doc has already sent DVLA my medical records showing abstinence since then. dvla say “abstinence is usually required” under the dependency on alcohol section. Do you know if they expect 100% off booze for a year? many thanks
    6 replies | 315 view(s)
  • Misunderstood's Avatar
    04-23-2018, 04:36 PM
    Can you let me know if you got it back and what happened? I had detox/rehab in may 2016. License revoked in December and got medical tomorrow. Doc has already sent DVLA my medical records showing abstinence since then. dvla say “abstinence is usually required” under the dependency on alcohol section. Do you know if they expect 100% off booze for a year? many thanks
    6 replies | 315 view(s)
More Activity