aftershavedave
Well-known member
are you actually saying that you didn't threaten to sue for libel? are you really?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Early contender for Sussex w***ker of the year
- Thread starter Buzzer
- Start date
are you actually saying that you didn't threaten to sue for libel? are you really?
Now come on DAVE, you know he didn't sue for libel. Not once. I think you'll find that was just me LYING again.
Unless of course you know something that proves he DID sue for libel.
aftershavedave
Well-known member
Now come on DAVE, you know he didn't sue for libel. Not once. I think you'll find that was just me LYING again.
Unless of course you know something that proves he DID sue for libel.
he didn't sue, but made very loud noises about doing so, public enough noises that i'm rather surprised he's denying it now. his lawyers were putting together a case and that was that.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Shut up Sim, you City of London-based PAUPER. I'm sending you 50p via Paypal, enjoy.
"Traffic Cops" on BBC1 at 8:30 tonight features pissed-up drivers getting nicked.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
- Thread starter
- #106
WHAT!
Bloke is over 6 (yes, 6) times over the limit - but because the police didn't get 2 samples within 3 minutes he'll be charged with failing to provide a sample and the magistrate will never know how much he's over.
6 f***ing times.
*calm down Buzzer and move away from the pc*
Bloke is over 6 (yes, 6) times over the limit - but because the police didn't get 2 samples within 3 minutes he'll be charged with failing to provide a sample and the magistrate will never know how much he's over.
6 f***ing times.
*calm down Buzzer and move away from the pc*
WHAT!
Bloke is over 6 (yes, 6) times over the limit - but because the police didn't get 2 samples within 3 minutes he'll be charged with failing to provide a sample and the magistrate will never know how much he's over.
6 f***ing times.
*calm down Buzzer and move away from the pc*
The penalty for failing to provide is just as steep as the conviction for drink driving. It used to be used as a get out clause but the prosecution are wise to that.
It is also used for drug driving as well where a blood sample is needed.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,639
Buzzer, out of interest (genuine question), which offences DON'T you think the police/CPS should deal with then?
Speeding? Or just speeding at a certain level? Plenty of motorists get let off with a warning, trust me. It's not a cop out, pardon the pun, believe me it's a whole lot more grief for me to do someone for speeding than it is to give out a bollocking, say "don't do it again and go on your way". One day, you might just get lucky yourself- then again if you're moaning away at the copper about how unfair it all is, he's hardly likely to think you've absorbed the advice and let you off, is he?
You'd be surprised at the number of officers for whom motoring offences are but an annoyance.
Parking? The police have very little to do with it these days, only if it's causing a danger or an obstruction, like parking on the zig zags by a pedestrian crossing because you're too lazy to walk an extra twenty yards to pick up your Chinese takeaway.
Using the phone while you're driving? Tough luck on that one, I say. One of my colleagues caught someone driving a seven tonne council dustcart today while yacking away on the phone (and going through traffic lights). Should he have been let off or do you think he's just an easy target?
The point is, where do you draw the line?
Speeding? Or just speeding at a certain level? Plenty of motorists get let off with a warning, trust me. It's not a cop out, pardon the pun, believe me it's a whole lot more grief for me to do someone for speeding than it is to give out a bollocking, say "don't do it again and go on your way". One day, you might just get lucky yourself- then again if you're moaning away at the copper about how unfair it all is, he's hardly likely to think you've absorbed the advice and let you off, is he?
You'd be surprised at the number of officers for whom motoring offences are but an annoyance.
Parking? The police have very little to do with it these days, only if it's causing a danger or an obstruction, like parking on the zig zags by a pedestrian crossing because you're too lazy to walk an extra twenty yards to pick up your Chinese takeaway.
Using the phone while you're driving? Tough luck on that one, I say. One of my colleagues caught someone driving a seven tonne council dustcart today while yacking away on the phone (and going through traffic lights). Should he have been let off or do you think he's just an easy target?
The point is, where do you draw the line?
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,639
WHAT!
Bloke is over 6 (yes, 6) times over the limit - but because the police didn't get 2 samples within 3 minutes he'll be charged with failing to provide a sample and the magistrate will never know how much he's over.
6 f***ing times.
*calm down Buzzer and move away from the pc*
As per Yorkie's post, the penalty is the same.
Lots of pissed people fake asthma attacks, or collapsed lungs, or try to pretend they're blowing when they're not (we can tell, easily) because they think it'll get them off drink driving charges, or because they think they can fool the machine.
It doesn't work, you just get charged with Failing To Provide instead. The police can still give evidence as to your conduct to suggest why you may have failed to do so- ie falling out of the car, smelling like a brewery, driving into a wall etc.
