commonrail:
it`s got nothing to do with where the copper draws the line…cps are in charge.
As I said last weekend, it is my understanding that this is where the line has been drawn, as explained to me over 30 years ago.
I didn’t state it as a fact, or that it was the police who drew that line.
The copper is the person on the scene, with the discretion on whether or not evidence needs to be gathered for presenting to the CPS.
I had assumed I was ‘talking’ to grown adults who wouldn’t need something so basic explaining to them.
oooh…get you
who exactly…explained this imaginary line to you
the fact remains,that roadsrat reckons next time im outside acme plastics...having had a few with the keys in the ignition,he would come along and lock me up. the point im making,is that this imaginary line you`re talking of is bollox.i know it,the wpc who interviewed me knew it and so did the cps.
commonrail:
the fact remains,that roadsrat reckons next time im outside acme plastics...having had a few with the keys in the ignition,he would come along and lock me up. the point im making,is that this imaginary line you`re talking of is bollox.i know it,the wpc who interviewed me knew it and so did the cps.
The fact is that Roadrat said exactly the opposite.
He has said he would assess the situation and decide how to proceed according to the situation in front of him. “Keys in the ignition” would have little bearing.
Lines like that are drawn for almost every situation.
In some cases, like drunk driving, the line is drawn by law. If you have more than a certain amount of alcohol in your blood when driving, you are guilty of drunk driving. If you have less you are not.
Then there is drunk in charge. The line for drunk has already been drawn by law. The line for ‘in charge’ hasn’t. I was told, a very long time ago, that the line most commonly used was ‘keys in the ignition’. Not by law, or statute, or anything else, other than a simple piece of evidence to use in assessing the situation. Keys in ignition? Look for further evidence one way or the other.
Keys in a pocket? Probably safe to leave and continue with patrol.
Simon:
the fact is that Roadrat said exactly the opposite.
He has said he would assess the situation and decide how to proceed according to the situation in front of him. “Keys in the ignition” would have little bearing.
for the life of me…i dont know how the hell you come to that conclusion.ive just reread the first 3 pages of this thread,and it`s plainly obvious that roadsrat seems to think(as you do yourself) that having the keys in the ignition is some kind of deal breaker that denotes wether you are drunk in charge or not.
you…yourself then say that being sprawled across the back seat of a car with the keys in = drunk in charge.
i challenged roadsrat to explain my scenario,but as yet he has failed to do so…mainly,because he was wrong
Simon:
the fact is that Roadrat said exactly the opposite.
He has said he would assess the situation and decide how to proceed according to the situation in front of him. “Keys in the ignition” would have little bearing.
for the life of me…i dont know how the hell you come to that conclusion.ive just reread the first 3 pages of this thread,and it`s plainly obvious that roadsrat seems to think(as you do yourself) that having the keys in the ignition is some kind of deal breaker that denotes wether you are drunk in charge or not.
you…yourself then say that being sprawled across the back seat of a car with the keys in = drunk in charge.
i challenged roadsrat to explain my scenario,but as yet he has failed to do so…mainly,because he was wrong
When you park up for a 11 hour rest, who is in charge of that vehicle whilst your on rest?..You!
I stand to be corrected but i think Roadrat was just giving you an example and people seem to stick with the keys in this and that example. At the end of the day your in charge of that vehicle on a public road end of
mickyblue:
When you park up for a 11 hour rest, who is in charge of that vehicle whilst your on rest?..You!
I stand to be corrected but i think Roadrat was just giving you an example and people seem to stick with the keys in this and that example. At the end of the day your in charge of that vehicle on a public road end of
ok then…maybe you can explain my scenario.
i thought you was going to try earlier in the thread…but you faded away,just like roads rat.(although he attempted a bit of a u turn before he left)
dts:
…Solicitor David Holmes, defending, said Mason had formerly been an HGV driver and had been semi-retired at the time of the incident. Mr Holmes said he had been driving the cement lorry as a favour for a friend…
I don’t have a problem with your point of view Phil which I agree may well be correct. I’ve based my view partly on the above, but mainly on his admission of guilt which would have been the clincher. I can’t see any solicitor arguing against that, can you?
It looks like a brief that just spoke on the defendants behalf on the day of sentencing, But not on the day that he made his plea.
This is Scotland. Since a ruling in 2010,known as “cadder”, nobody is allowed to be interviewed under caution without a lawyer. Only in Scotland,not england or wales.
dts:
…Solicitor David Holmes, defending, said Mason had formerly been an HGV driver and had been semi-retired at the time of the incident. Mr Holmes said he had been driving the cement lorry as a favour for a friend…
I don’t have a problem with your point of view Phil which I agree may well be correct. I’ve based my view partly on the above, but mainly on his admission of guilt which would have been the clincher. I can’t see any solicitor arguing against that, can you?
It looks like a brief that just spoke on the defendants behalf on the day of sentencing, But not on the day that he made his plea.
This is Scotland. Since a ruling in 2010,known as “cadder”, nobody is allowed to be interviewed under caution without a lawyer. Only in Scotland,not england or wales.
Simon:
the fact is that Roadrat said exactly the opposite.
He has said he would assess the situation and decide how to proceed according to the situation in front of him. “Keys in the ignition” would have little bearing.
for the life of me…i dont know how the hell you come to that conclusion.ive just reread the first 3 pages of this thread,and it`s plainly obvious that roadsrat seems to think(as you do yourself) that having the keys in the ignition is some kind of deal breaker that denotes wether you are drunk in charge or not.
you…yourself then say that being sprawled across the back seat of a car with the keys in = drunk in charge.
i challenged roadsrat to explain my scenario,but as yet he has failed to do so…mainly,because he was wrong
Solly:
RoadsRat:
You don’t HAVE to do anything you don’t want to do. Do as you please.
There is no “keys in the ignition” mentality. Never had been, never will be.
At the end of the day, the police are only evidence collectors. Whether you are prosecuted is a decision for the CPS/Procurator Fiscal to make.
Police officers have no interest in truck drivers having a few jars at the end of their shift.
There you go. Straight from the horses mouth methinks.
Roadrat has also said though, that one of the things taken into account is, ‘are the keys in the ignition?’
I didn’t say it was a deal breaker. Roadrat didn’t say it was a deal breaker. I doubt any one thing is a deal breaker.
It does seem to be a key piece in a jigsaw though, which ties in with what I was told all those years ago.
