Morning. Could you let me have the website address for the text you've posted.
Many thanks.
Lisa
Many thanks.
Lisa
I once worked with a young lad who drove to work after a xmas party, he intended to clock in at 8am, but instead ended upside down in a wood.
He got a fine and a years ban, over the limit.
Which as already mentioned, is reason for the annual campaign to random breath test.
How anyone can post a complaint about random testing, beggars believe.
These minority "groups" are constantly banging on about liberty and rights.
What about my rights, don't i have the right to travel the roads, in the full knowledge, that at lest some effort is being made to keep our roads safe!
My son and his young family will be travelling to see us this week for xmas, do i really want drunk drivers on the road, isn't it enough that i whittle about the snow and ice, he will be driving through, with out having to read risible comments, and complaints from a minority?
He got a fine and a years ban, over the limit.
Which as already mentioned, is reason for the annual campaign to random breath test.
How anyone can post a complaint about random testing, beggars believe.
These minority "groups" are constantly banging on about liberty and rights.
What about my rights, don't i have the right to travel the roads, in the full knowledge, that at lest some effort is being made to keep our roads safe!
My son and his young family will be travelling to see us this week for xmas, do i really want drunk drivers on the road, isn't it enough that i whittle about the snow and ice, he will be driving through, with out having to read risible comments, and complaints from a minority?
Ray the minority, as you put it is still a very large number.
The resistance in Nazi Germany was also a minority.
People fought and died to preserve my freedom and I am not prepared to give it up without a struggle and name calling will not change my opinion.
Steve W
The resistance in Nazi Germany was also a minority.
People fought and died to preserve my freedom and I am not prepared to give it up without a struggle and name calling will not change my opinion.
Steve W
Parksy
Moderator
And that Ladies and Gentlemen is the point at which we will either steer this discussion in another direction or end it.
This is a caravan forum, it is nothing to do with Nazi Germany, preserving freedom or minority interests.
All to often in the past we've seen reasonable discussions of this nature turn into something else altogether and it's not going to happen in future.
This is a caravan forum, it is nothing to do with Nazi Germany, preserving freedom or minority interests.
All to often in the past we've seen reasonable discussions of this nature turn into something else altogether and it's not going to happen in future.
I'll steer it in another direction - just like the drunk at the wheel of a van who crashed into a tree whilst trying to drive after a night drinking. The passenger, his best friend (and my son's best friend)aged just twenty-three lost an eye and much of the sight in the other, just two weeks ago. The driver is now in prison on remand but poor Ollie has to rely on his other friends to steer him in the right direction these days!!
There is no excuse for drink driving and I applaud the police in doing random testing.
There is no excuse for drink driving and I applaud the police in doing random testing.
Posted 3rd Dec:
3 Dec 2009 08:01 AM
My local police force has just launched it's annual anti drink drive campaign. Whilst I applaud any measures to make the roads safer I wonder who is going to carry out all the planned extra stop checks? There doesn't seem to be enough police to attend many of the calls regarding burglary, vandalism, anti-social behaviour etc yet spare coppers can be found for this campaign. Surely there should be no seasonal differences in the vigilance of police officers in the detection of drink drivers. The very fact that they are stepping up the checks suggests that at other times in the year they aren't doing enough.
Last year they had quite a low figure of convictions, less than 15% of drivers breathalysed were over the limit which they said was a mark of success for the campaign. I would have thought that as they have to have a suspicion that you may have been drinking before they are allowed to request a breath test they were wrong at least 80% of the time. Doesn't say much for their judgement.
3 Dec 2009 08:01 AM
My local police force has just launched it's annual anti drink drive campaign. Whilst I applaud any measures to make the roads safer I wonder who is going to carry out all the planned extra stop checks? There doesn't seem to be enough police to attend many of the calls regarding burglary, vandalism, anti-social behaviour etc yet spare coppers can be found for this campaign. Surely there should be no seasonal differences in the vigilance of police officers in the detection of drink drivers. The very fact that they are stepping up the checks suggests that at other times in the year they aren't doing enough.
Last year they had quite a low figure of convictions, less than 15% of drivers breathalysed were over the limit which they said was a mark of success for the campaign. I would have thought that as they have to have a suspicion that you may have been drinking before they are allowed to request a breath test they were wrong at least 80% of the time. Doesn't say much for their judgement.
We were stopped once, a few years ago, and the bobby asked me were i had been, whats my reg no,and so on, and were did i get my van from. I had recently let my brother in law borrow it, and i had forgotten to put my own no/plate back on the van. They were happy with my explanation,and after checking my car details they sent me on my way. So don,t complain, it could have been nicked.
Whilst i agree with much of your argument this bit:-
I would have thought that as they have to have a suspicion that you may have been drinking before they are allowed to request a breath test they were wrong at least 80% of the time. Doesn't say much for their judgement.
IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are going to make sweeping statements be aware of the ACTUAL facts.
Darryl
Chrisbee.
Whilst i agree with much of your argument this bit:-
I would have thought that as they have to have a suspicion that you may have been drinking before they are allowed to request a breath test they were wrong at least 80% of the time. Doesn't say much for their judgement.
IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are going to make sweeping statements be aware of the ACTUAL facts.
Darryl
Whilst i agree with much of your argument this bit:-
I would have thought that as they have to have a suspicion that you may have been drinking before they are allowed to request a breath test they were wrong at least 80% of the time. Doesn't say much for their judgement.
IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are going to make sweeping statements be aware of the ACTUAL facts.
Darryl
I only have one word to describe what these nasty policemen are doing with their unfair Xmas drink testing,
HALELUJAH!
HALELUJAH!
In response to below from Chrisbee
Chrisbee
22 Dec 2009 02:58 PM I stand corrected, I didn't know that random breath tests were now legal.
Chrisbee , as far as i am aware "strictly speaking they are NOT!"
However this little article ( not written by me )seems to cover MOST of the relevant points.
When can the police require a breath test?
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt), may be required by the police to provide a breath test, to ascertain whether they are over the prescribed limit of alcohol - 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).
The request must be made by a police officer, but note the officer does not have to be in uniform anymore to require a preliminary test (breath test), but he does have to be in uniform to administer it (unless after an accident then the police officer does not have to be in uniform for either the requirement or to administer any of the preliminary tests). The request can only be made if one of the following situations apply :-
The police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you have committed, or are currently committing a moving traffic offence, or if, having stopped, an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the person driving/attempting to drive/in charge of the vehicle has consumed alcohol, or the police officer has reasonable cause to believe that you were the person driving/attempting to drive/in charge of a motor vehicle which was involved in an accident.
So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test?
The answer is NO. They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car matches that given by a witness).
What happens if the roadside test is positive, or you refuse, or you can't give the necessary sample?
If any of these happen you will be arrested and taken to the police station. At the police station you will usually be asked to provide two specimens of breath for analysis (using approved evidential instruments either an Intoximeter EC/IR; Lion Intoxilyzer; or Camic Datamaster). If the two readings differ then the police must rely on the lower reading. If the reading is over the prescribed limit then you will have committed an offence and you will be charged.
You do not have a right to insist on supplying a sample of blood or urine instead. If you fail to supply a breath specimen at the station you will committed an offence, unless you have a reasonable excuse. Being too drunk or unfit to supply the necessary breath specimen is NOT a reasonable excuse. A medical condition which prevents you from supplying enough breath for the machine to sample may be a sufficient excuse. If you have such a condition you must advise the police at the time.
The police may legitimately request that you provide a specimen of blood or urine as an alternative to a breath test, if :-
No automatic measuring device is available at the time of your arrest, or it is not working properly.
The offence involves drugs and the police officer has taken medical advice that your condition may be due to drugs.
The police officer making the request has reasonable cause to believe that breath samples should not be requested for health reasons.
What happens if it is close to the limit?
If the lower of the two breath readings at the station is 39 micrograms or below, then you should be released either without charge or with a caution.
If it is between 40 and 50 micrograms, then you MUST be offered the option of providing an alternative specimen of either blood or urine (if the police fail to offer you this option then you will have a defence to the charge). You should be asked which you would prefer, but it is up to the police to decide which one they offer you, unless, again, you have a medical condition which would preclude you from providing the necessary sample. The police cannot take a blood sample without your consent, but if this is the option offered and you refuse to consent then the police can rely on the breath sample they have taken.
If you are asked to provide urine they will ask you to provide two samples within an hour. If blood then this must be taken by a police surgeon, who will have to be called to the station.
You have a right to have the second sample taken and you should always avail yourself of this right.
Chrisbee
22 Dec 2009 02:58 PM I stand corrected, I didn't know that random breath tests were now legal.
Chrisbee , as far as i am aware "strictly speaking they are NOT!"
However this little article ( not written by me )seems to cover MOST of the relevant points.
When can the police require a breath test?
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt), may be required by the police to provide a breath test, to ascertain whether they are over the prescribed limit of alcohol - 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).
The request must be made by a police officer, but note the officer does not have to be in uniform anymore to require a preliminary test (breath test), but he does have to be in uniform to administer it (unless after an accident then the police officer does not have to be in uniform for either the requirement or to administer any of the preliminary tests). The request can only be made if one of the following situations apply :-
The police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you have committed, or are currently committing a moving traffic offence, or if, having stopped, an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the person driving/attempting to drive/in charge of the vehicle has consumed alcohol, or the police officer has reasonable cause to believe that you were the person driving/attempting to drive/in charge of a motor vehicle which was involved in an accident.
So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test?
The answer is NO. They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car matches that given by a witness).
What happens if the roadside test is positive, or you refuse, or you can't give the necessary sample?
If any of these happen you will be arrested and taken to the police station. At the police station you will usually be asked to provide two specimens of breath for analysis (using approved evidential instruments either an Intoximeter EC/IR; Lion Intoxilyzer; or Camic Datamaster). If the two readings differ then the police must rely on the lower reading. If the reading is over the prescribed limit then you will have committed an offence and you will be charged.
You do not have a right to insist on supplying a sample of blood or urine instead. If you fail to supply a breath specimen at the station you will committed an offence, unless you have a reasonable excuse. Being too drunk or unfit to supply the necessary breath specimen is NOT a reasonable excuse. A medical condition which prevents you from supplying enough breath for the machine to sample may be a sufficient excuse. If you have such a condition you must advise the police at the time.
The police may legitimately request that you provide a specimen of blood or urine as an alternative to a breath test, if :-
No automatic measuring device is available at the time of your arrest, or it is not working properly.
The offence involves drugs and the police officer has taken medical advice that your condition may be due to drugs.
The police officer making the request has reasonable cause to believe that breath samples should not be requested for health reasons.
What happens if it is close to the limit?
If the lower of the two breath readings at the station is 39 micrograms or below, then you should be released either without charge or with a caution.
If it is between 40 and 50 micrograms, then you MUST be offered the option of providing an alternative specimen of either blood or urine (if the police fail to offer you this option then you will have a defence to the charge). You should be asked which you would prefer, but it is up to the police to decide which one they offer you, unless, again, you have a medical condition which would preclude you from providing the necessary sample. The police cannot take a blood sample without your consent, but if this is the option offered and you refuse to consent then the police can rely on the breath sample they have taken.
If you are asked to provide urine they will ask you to provide two samples within an hour. If blood then this must be taken by a police surgeon, who will have to be called to the station.
You have a right to have the second sample taken and you should always avail yourself of this right.
Hi Darryl,
let me start by saying I am very much against drink driving and as I have previously said applaud any measures the police take to stamp it out.
However, the point I was trying to make was that my local force's policy is to stop all cars at certain points and test ALL drivers. If, by their own figures from last year, 15% tested positive then even allowing for those who had been drinking but passed the test it must be assumed that a lot of drivers who hadn't been drinking were also tested. I was wondering where the suspicion was?
It would be much better if the law was changed to allow random testing even if there is no suspicion of drinking having occured.
let me start by saying I am very much against drink driving and as I have previously said applaud any measures the police take to stamp it out.
However, the point I was trying to make was that my local force's policy is to stop all cars at certain points and test ALL drivers. If, by their own figures from last year, 15% tested positive then even allowing for those who had been drinking but passed the test it must be assumed that a lot of drivers who hadn't been drinking were also tested. I was wondering where the suspicion was?
It would be much better if the law was changed to allow random testing even if there is no suspicion of drinking having occured.
I posted this earlier .. but it appears to have been overlooked by many ...
From Hansard ... (the formal record of what our "lawmakers" say in parliament.)
I quote "It is lawful for a police officer in uniform acting in the execution of his duty to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop. A police officer who stops a vehicle on a road with the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty. It is accordingly lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose, provided there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body."
Apparently, from another debate, the fact that it is Christmas and the season for office parties, is enough to give "reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body."
Sorry to be so long-winded .. but that is Hansard ...
In summary .. yes ... you can be stopped.... anytime .. it is not "random" .. it is targeted as you "may have been drinking"
Note .. the ONLY criteria is "may have alchohol in the body" .. not how much, or when ... that is done by the breathtest ... it is "may" .. and as you "may" have attended an Xmas staff do .. you "may" have had a drink ...
It really is very, very, simple
From Hansard ... (the formal record of what our "lawmakers" say in parliament.)
I quote "It is lawful for a police officer in uniform acting in the execution of his duty to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop. A police officer who stops a vehicle on a road with the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty. It is accordingly lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose, provided there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer. It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body."
Apparently, from another debate, the fact that it is Christmas and the season for office parties, is enough to give "reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body."
Sorry to be so long-winded .. but that is Hansard ...
In summary .. yes ... you can be stopped.... anytime .. it is not "random" .. it is targeted as you "may have been drinking"
Note .. the ONLY criteria is "may have alchohol in the body" .. not how much, or when ... that is done by the breathtest ... it is "may" .. and as you "may" have attended an Xmas staff do .. you "may" have had a drink ...
It really is very, very, simple
Chris,
the law NEEDS to be changed.
Loosely . A Police officer in uniform can legitimately stop ( randomly ) any vehicle and once having done so request a specimen of breath IF there is a suspicion that the driver has been drinking.They can also request the drivers details and ask for production of driving documents.
NO suspicion is required, to request a specimen if the driver has been involved in an accident or has committed a moving traffic offence.
How many law abiding motorists are aware of the subtle difference ?
How many motorists are going to start arguing the toss?
Far better that the law was changed so that you can be stopped and breathalysed anytime.
Sorry if i sounded shirty it's just that i have seen the devastation first hand that drink driving causes.
I know the law and my rights but if i am stopped over the next few days and asked to provide a breath test i will simply go ahead and do it even though i will be stone cold sober.
I will do so not out of fear but the fact that what they are trying to achieve is for everyones good and the Police dont make the law they only work with what they are given.
In all honesty i totally agree with much of your original post wher shortcomings are highlighted.
Anyway all the best and have a good and safe Christmas.
Kind Regards Darryl
the law NEEDS to be changed.
Loosely . A Police officer in uniform can legitimately stop ( randomly ) any vehicle and once having done so request a specimen of breath IF there is a suspicion that the driver has been drinking.They can also request the drivers details and ask for production of driving documents.
NO suspicion is required, to request a specimen if the driver has been involved in an accident or has committed a moving traffic offence.
How many law abiding motorists are aware of the subtle difference ?
How many motorists are going to start arguing the toss?
Far better that the law was changed so that you can be stopped and breathalysed anytime.
Sorry if i sounded shirty it's just that i have seen the devastation first hand that drink driving causes.
I know the law and my rights but if i am stopped over the next few days and asked to provide a breath test i will simply go ahead and do it even though i will be stone cold sober.
I will do so not out of fear but the fact that what they are trying to achieve is for everyones good and the Police dont make the law they only work with what they are given.
In all honesty i totally agree with much of your original post wher shortcomings are highlighted.
Anyway all the best and have a good and safe Christmas.
Kind Regards Darryl
Hello all, I just want to say that I have been reading with interest this post.It would only be a complete idiot who advocates drinking and driving.What I find agrannoying is the precept that assumes guilt based on statistics, I have watched the program on tv involving police in performance of their duties and I have observed the poor communication skills some of them exhibit. The practice of point scoring and sarcasm is shared by both police and offenders.The difference being that one of the parties are supposed to be professional.All I ask is IF I am stopped I want to be treated with respect and considered innocent until proven otherwise.Please let the police remember we are at a disadvantage because we are not always aware of their good intentions.The nature of their job must make them less than impressed by some members of the public and there is a danger of becoming cynical.I do not drink at all but that is because I have never enjoyed the taste of alcohol any more than I like coffee!!!Personally I think if you kill some innocent person because of drinking it is murder! This is because it is using a weapon(vehicle) with premeditation to me. But what do I know?
Mr Policeman Sir ,you treat me with the same respect you would show to a member of the Royal Family and I will certainly assist you in the execution of your duties to the very best of my ability. SORTED!!!!
Thursdays Child
Folks,if you are interested I have posted in the Comments instead of Reply. Too much tea I think!!!!
Thursdays Child
Thursdays Child
Thursdays Child.
I could not agree more. It costs nothing to be civil and i also firmly believe that if you explain to people what is happening and why, there is often a complete acceptance.
Darryl
I could not agree more. It costs nothing to be civil and i also firmly believe that if you explain to people what is happening and why, there is often a complete acceptance.
Darryl
Hi Ray,
Yes, if my wife was clocked at 100mph, then she should EXPECT to lose her licence, not SHOULD lose her licence.
But no woman should be told to get out of her car, at night, on an unlit and empty stretch of motorway.
When asked for identification, the police officer should have produced his warrant card, not pointed to his police car.
The only way the police car could have got near her, without her knowing, is for it to have been driven without lights. I have experienced that too. OK, we would not have known it was a police car .... but it can scarcely be considered safe to announce your presence by flashing your blue lamp when along side the drivers window.
She was lucky.
On another occasion we were driving home at about one oclock in the morning, her Reliant Sabre Six GT, back streets of Pontardawe. A police car came up behind us, flashed his blue lamp. Wife stopped.
Plod (usualy an affectionate term) walked up to my door.
"Is this your car , Sir?" ....... Oh dear!
I told him it belonged to my wife, who was driving. So he started asking her questions ..... across me. She refused to talk to him until he he went round to her side of the car.
"Why did you stop us?"
"Because anybody driving at this time of night is suspicious".
" I disagree. I think you just wanted to admire my car. You are welcome to come and look at it daylight"
He didn't take her up on her offer.
If plod is polite, we will be polite. We have met coppers who deserve to go far, and we have met coppers who give the force a bad name. We have no objection to them doing their job, and will go out of our way to help them if we can. We do not apreciate being spoken to like scum, for no other reason than that they can.
602 (Not even a parking ticket since 1957 ... but probably lucky)
Yes, if my wife was clocked at 100mph, then she should EXPECT to lose her licence, not SHOULD lose her licence.
But no woman should be told to get out of her car, at night, on an unlit and empty stretch of motorway.
When asked for identification, the police officer should have produced his warrant card, not pointed to his police car.
The only way the police car could have got near her, without her knowing, is for it to have been driven without lights. I have experienced that too. OK, we would not have known it was a police car .... but it can scarcely be considered safe to announce your presence by flashing your blue lamp when along side the drivers window.
She was lucky.
On another occasion we were driving home at about one oclock in the morning, her Reliant Sabre Six GT, back streets of Pontardawe. A police car came up behind us, flashed his blue lamp. Wife stopped.
Plod (usualy an affectionate term) walked up to my door.
"Is this your car , Sir?" ....... Oh dear!
I told him it belonged to my wife, who was driving. So he started asking her questions ..... across me. She refused to talk to him until he he went round to her side of the car.
"Why did you stop us?"
"Because anybody driving at this time of night is suspicious".
" I disagree. I think you just wanted to admire my car. You are welcome to come and look at it daylight"
He didn't take her up on her offer.
If plod is polite, we will be polite. We have met coppers who deserve to go far, and we have met coppers who give the force a bad name. We have no objection to them doing their job, and will go out of our way to help them if we can. We do not apreciate being spoken to like scum, for no other reason than that they can.
602 (Not even a parking ticket since 1957 ... but probably lucky)
hi all
a very interesting if not long winded explaination by Darryl thanks for that. BUT if you put into context of us in the vanning fraternity A motorhome is a motor vehicle therefore the driver/drivers cannot drink and be in charged the van even if they have no intention of driving or as Darryl puts it, "When can the police require a breath test?
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt)," surely this means anyone in the van with a licence could be prosecuted if the van was parked up somewhere and they had been drinking because the police could not determine who was the driver or wether they had been drinking before the van was parked up???? seems like one big can of worms to me.
a very interesting if not long winded explaination by Darryl thanks for that. BUT if you put into context of us in the vanning fraternity A motorhome is a motor vehicle therefore the driver/drivers cannot drink and be in charged the van even if they have no intention of driving or as Darryl puts it, "When can the police require a breath test?
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt)," surely this means anyone in the van with a licence could be prosecuted if the van was parked up somewhere and they had been drinking because the police could not determine who was the driver or wether they had been drinking before the van was parked up???? seems like one big can of worms to me.
Randon breath testing has always existed, about 30 years ago I was stopped on a made up speeding offence because the officer thought I was drunk, I passed the breath test but he still had to go through with the speeding offence.
I now live in France & one of the the thing that made me leave the UK was the insidious way the government is imposing Big Bother on the nation, whether it be in the name of 'Anti-terrorism' surveillance, drink driving, speeding 'Speed kills' propaganda etc.
It's all about control (the more they know about 'you', the easier 'you' are to control), revenue generation or lazy policing.
Regards
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790
I now live in France & one of the the thing that made me leave the UK was the insidious way the government is imposing Big Bother on the nation, whether it be in the name of 'Anti-terrorism' surveillance, drink driving, speeding 'Speed kills' propaganda etc.
It's all about control (the more they know about 'you', the easier 'you' are to control), revenue generation or lazy policing.
Regards
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790
Colin,
in reponse to "long winded", i did say at the beginning:-
However this little article ( NOT WRITTEN BY ME )seems to cover MOST of the relevant points.
Any yes, like many other laws, a potential can of worms.
he true quotation is
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
And never was a truer word spoken.
Freedom is a right, not a gift.
Steve W
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
And never was a truer word spoken.
Freedom is a right, not a gift.
Steve W
It was a good job Darryl wasn't the magistrate who let me off when I proved mathematically that the officer couldn't have caught me in the distance he did if I had been doing the claimed speed.
Or the assistant Chief Constable who banned the officer from driving Police cars because he was driving without lights when he followed me.
Or the assistant Chief Constable who banned the officer from driving Police cars because he was driving without lights when he followed me.
Facebook
Twitter