# Drinking alcohol in your motorhome



## P McClure (Mar 5, 2015)

Came across this story in our local evening paper

North West Evening Mail | News | Barrow reveller receives points after sleeping in car


----------



## n brown (Mar 5, 2015)

potentially a bit worrying,but i tend to think the courts would look a bit differently at someone in bed in a motorhome, as opposed to sitting at the wheel in a car ,if he'd had the sense to lie in the back ,the outcome may have been different !


----------



## Borderland (Mar 5, 2015)

If he was intending to sleep in the car why sit in the drivers seat


----------



## P McClure (Mar 5, 2015)

Borderland said:


> If he was intending to sleep in the car why sit in the drivers seat



Would this not be the same as sitting in the drivers seat with a beer/wine in your hand whilst parked up for the night?


----------



## FULL TIMER (Mar 5, 2015)

A mate of mine got nicked a few years back for a similar offence, he was asleep at the wheel he had a job trying to get away with saying he hadn't driven as they found him in the middle of a roundabout


----------



## Fazerloz (Mar 5, 2015)

The court heard that Graham had been convicted of a similar offence in 2008.


Either he hasn't learnt anything or someone is out to nail him, but you don't always make the best decisions in life when pissed. :cheers:


----------



## hextal (Mar 5, 2015)

P McClure said:


> Would this not be the same as sitting in the drivers seat with a beer/wine in your hand whilst parked up for the night?



Arguably it is.

Seems a somewhat grey area, dependent on lots of factors (including the bobby).

That said, I'd have thought sitting in the drivers seat with alcohol would be best avoided. Possibly less of an issue if the seat has been spun to face inwards.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 5, 2015)

n brown said:


> potentially a bit worrying,but i tend to think the courts would look a bit differently at someone in bed in a motorhome, as opposed to sitting at the wheel in a car ,if he'd had the sense to lie in the back ,the outcome may have been different !



nop a chap i know got dun he was asleep in the back of his car, keys in pocket.
i also had a uncle fined as he had the keys on him and the car was on bangor main st ,charge ,drunk in charge be warned.


----------



## hextal (Mar 5, 2015)

So where do they draw the line.

"I'm sorry but you are being charged with having sex whilst drunk (and simmering a stew) with the telly on, all whilst in charge of your vehicle.":raofl:


----------



## jagmanx (Mar 5, 2015)

*Another pointer*

He was parked up on a road.

There has been another post similar to this one..
No hard and fast rules but

1 Being off road and preferably out of sight
2 Drivers seat swivelled
3 Steering wheel lock on  
4 Keys put away
5 Silver Screens in place
6 All doors locked


Any 3 from 6

Should (?) provide sufficient reasons for the police not to bother

And the winner is ..No7 ...No clothes on and in bed !


----------



## iveco4x4 (Mar 5, 2015)

the guy asked for it , the magistrate was tough but fair

Look in other threads I think this subject has been done to death

rich


----------



## pughed2 (Mar 6, 2015)

*unable to drive*

if you are going to have any alcohol, and you want to be sure that you will be judged unable to drive, you have to give your keys and spare keys to the possession of someone else who will hold them until a given time, then the law cannot say you can drive. I know agroup of lorry drivers used this mehod previously. For example several motorhomers at a meet wanting to drink alcohol nominate one to hold the keys until a given time next day.............steve bristol


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 6, 2015)

I stopped drinking whilst in the motorhome several years back now.   I found i was spilling too much when i went around corners.


----------



## Firefox (Mar 6, 2015)

Yes the law is an ass on this one.

May as well convict everyone walking on the streets of rape. After all, we've all got the equipment and we MIGHT use it


----------



## Antonio (Mar 6, 2015)

*Barrow*

Eldest daughter lives in Dalton, I took her to Barrow last week and called for a drink. Ended up being a pub crawl,so we decided to take a taxi back to her house. Don't know why as niether of us had driven a taxi before. Question is what do we do with this taxi as it is blocking her drive?


----------



## Beemer (Mar 6, 2015)

If your vehicle is made with 'overnight' facilities, then it surely would be more difficult to press charges against someone in their camper with a drink in their hand.
As has already been mentioned, keys out of the ignition and put out of sight with no indication of the vehicle about to be driven should avert any confrontation with the law.


----------



## Obanboy666 (Mar 6, 2015)

Innocent until proven guilty comes to mind, no different to charging the binge drinkers before they enter a pub. We all know they go out with the intention of getting as drunk as a skunk but unfortunately the police cannot charge them for drunk and disorderly conduct until they are actually drunk and disorderly. To be honest I don't drink so don't give a toss about it lol !


----------



## drewdt3 (Mar 6, 2015)

Both my wife and I are insured to drive our motorhome, who would they say was going to drive it?
We always set our van up for the evening before we have a drink, windscreen blind drawn, straps across front doors, keys hanging up bed made, job done. Never anticipating having a problem with the police regards this matter.

Drew


----------



## mariesnowgoose (Mar 6, 2015)

I think it would be a long shot to be arrested in a parked up motorhome.

Has anybody ever been arrested for being over the limit in this situation? Be interesting to know and what the circumstances were.

Methinks paranoia is creeping in, boys.... relax!


----------



## Firefox (Mar 6, 2015)

mariesnowgoose said:


> I think it would be a long shot to be arrested in a parked up motorhome.
> 
> Has anybody ever been arrested for being over the limit in this situation? Be interesting to know and what the circumstances were.
> 
> Methinks paranoia is creeping in, boys.... relax!




Nobody has been convicted DIC of a motorhome when in the living area of a motorhome and no intention of driving.

Every time one of these threads pops up, you get hundreds of anecdotes about how the man down the pub got done in the driving seat of his car or, how you should give the keys to the other half, or the dog, or put them in a drawer for safe keeping. 

It's all totally irrelevant to motorhomes. I keep on asking someone to post details of a successful DIC against someone in the living section of a motorhome but it never happens :lol-053:


----------



## Tbear (Mar 6, 2015)

“Mr Graham was found in a silver VW Golf. He was sat in the driving seat and his hands were on the steering wheel.” It was his second offence. If you are that stupid then you should not be allowed to drive even if you are sober. If you are sat in the back of the van with keys put away and the driving seat rotated or full of stuff as ours normally is, are they really going to try and prosecute you. Unless you have really gone out of your way to wind them up I doubt it. "Just popping the kettle on officer," seems to sort most problems.

Richard


----------



## n brown (Mar 6, 2015)

just to frit you up ! Alcohol and your motorhome - know the law | Motorhome News


----------



## John H (Mar 6, 2015)

mariesnowgoose said:


> I think it would be a long shot to be arrested in a parked up motorhome.
> 
> Has anybody ever been arrested for being over the limit in this situation? Be interesting to know and what the circumstances were.
> 
> Methinks paranoia is creeping in, boys.... relax!



Spot on! It is all about intent. If the police decide you intended to drive or that you were so intoxicated that you might release the handbrake and  let the vehicle drift into the path of others then they can (and should in my opinion) arrest you. If they decide, because  you are in the back of a motorhome which is clearly pulled off the road, that you do not  constitute a potential hazard they will leave you alone. I have several police friends who say that they have no desire to arrest motorhomers drinking on a wildcamp and there have been no examples, as far as I and my friends are aware, of anyone being arrested in a motorhome. This one has been done to death and until anyone provides an example of someone who has actually been prosecuted for drinking on a wildcamp then it remains something that does not and will not happen - if you wildcamp sensibly.


----------



## K9d (Mar 6, 2015)

I can't believe nobody has considered the possibility of being gassed whilst drinking.


----------



## francophile1947 (Mar 6, 2015)

K9d said:


> I can't believe nobody has considered the possibility of being gassed whilst drinking.



I've been affected by noxious gases, probably due to an excess of real ale:lol-053:


----------



## shortcircuit (Mar 6, 2015)

The police are also not judge and JURY so you are a bit misguided there.


----------



## iveco4x4 (Mar 6, 2015)

Absolute Tosh - this guy would have driven in the morning when still over the limit. He committed a defined offence

In france it may be more acceptable to drink and drive but this guy should count himself lucky, I would have told him to sell the car and use the money for taxi's for medical appointments.


----------



## Robmac (Mar 7, 2015)

Whilst I mostly agree with this, I think it also depends a lot on the attitude of the (potential) driver. I could foresee a scenario where a motorhomer parked in a layby,  with a no overnighting sign, halfway through a bottle of Pinot Grigio, winding up a policeman, spouting about no "there's no TRO, I've got every right to be here" etc. 

I have often found that it pays to be civil with policemen.


----------



## John H (Mar 7, 2015)

You seem not to fully understand the English legal system. There are fail-safes built into the heart of it. Thus neither the police, the prosecution service, the judiciary nor the public (through the jury system) have the sole ability to "decide" guilt. The police make an on-the-spot judgement, the CPS decide whether there is a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, the courts then weigh up the evidence, the jury (if there is one) decides and then the judiciary can hear an appeal. But the whole process starts off with the police making a judgement. You may not like that. You may think the police are stupid (although I wouldn't recommend that attitude if confronted by one of them!) and you may think the law is an ass - but whether you like it or not, that is the way the system works and will continue to work until someone comes up with a better idea.

PS if the police are as stupid as you suggest, why is it that no-one has heard of a prosecution for drunk-in-charge of a motorhome on a wildcamp?


----------



## John H (Mar 7, 2015)

Oh dear, oh dear. Back to trying to divert the issue when you can't answer the point, I see.

You criticised my post because you didn't think it was right for the police to be trusted to decide. I pointed out that the police do not decide but that it is their role to make an initial judgement. Do try to stick to the point!


----------



## frontslide (Mar 7, 2015)

Thank you both John and David for providing some interesting reading of a morning


----------



## iveco4x4 (Mar 7, 2015)

I've done quite alot of driving in France, so I've seen the 'good' driving of the french which may be great if your a cyclist but terrible if you're on the periphic at 5pm then check your boot cos there will be the front a renualt in it.

I've had business lunches in france that go on for 2 hours and everyone sinks at least 1 bottle (+ a few ricards as well), then they all get in their cars and drive back to the office.

The case quoted is not relevant to wildcampers or motorhome users, the guy was lucky,he was drunk and drunks don't make rational decisions, this really is the basis  for the law that he was prosecuted under. 

rich


----------



## SteveM (Mar 8, 2015)

In these circumstances, it is not for a police officer to decide whether you intend to drive. Their job is to ascertain a. That the person was over the prescribed limit b. Whilst in charge of the vehicle c. Whilst on a road or public place.

The onus then is for that person to show that he did not intend to drive and there have been numerous post suggesting ways to show this. I also have not heard of any motorhomer prosecuted or even arrested over this.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 8, 2015)

I don`t get anywhere near as drunk as i used to when out in the van nowadays.

What convinced me to ease up was getting into the wrong seat and wondering who`d pinched the steering wheel  

At first i thought the wife was messing about then i realised it was because i couldn`t focus properly and that was causing the problem  :rolleyes2:

I backed off a little to only a dozen or so cans each night and that helped immensely :dance:

Now if i squint a little i can see the steering wheel and get in the correct seat first time  :drive:


----------



## runnach (Mar 8, 2015)

As already outlined, the difference between a motorhome and car is one is equipped for overnight accomodation the other isn't. That has a significant bearing.

It is all about intention, sat there in yer jim jams reading a book curtains closed to the cab part keys in a draw, chosen tipple in your hand isn't going to upset too many police..

The things is of course you still need to exercise some common sense if the Police believe you could be OPL in the morning when you drive off, expect them to show a little more interest.

channa


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

SteveM said:


> In these circumstances, it is not for a police officer to decide whether you intend to drive. Their job is to ascertain a. That the person was over the prescribed limit b. Whilst in charge of the vehicle c. Whilst on a road or public place.
> 
> The onus then is for that person to show that he did not intend to drive and there have been numerous post suggesting ways to show this. I also have not heard of any motorhomer prosecuted or even arrested over this.



I'm sorry,but intent is a very major part of it. The offence is drunk in charge so, in theory, anyone over the limit in a motorhome can be prosecuted, as can anyone sitting in a car. The law recognises no difference between those two other than intent. Thus, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever been prosecuted in a motorhome that is wildcamped because the intent is usually clear - but there are examples of people in cars being prosecuted on their own drives because it was judged that they could allow the vehicle to move  onto the highway.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 8, 2015)

Robmac said:


> Whilst I mostly agree with this, I think it also depends a lot on the attitude of the (potential) driver. I could foresee a scenario where a motorhomer parked in a layby,  with a no overnighting sign, halfway through a bottle of Pinot Grigio, winding up a policeman, spouting about no "there's no TRO, I've got every right to be here" etc.
> 
> I have often found that it pays to be civil with policemen.





Ah ...............that might be where i`ve be going wrong  

Is telling them to feck off and arrest some burgliers or do some proper police work instead of annoying me and my carlsberg not the right answer then  :mad2:


----------



## Val54 (Mar 8, 2015)

The lack of any motorhome being involved in a prosecution for drunk in charge of a vehicle is surely down to why would the police be interested if you are parked sensibly and not causing an obstruction. On the other hand if you are parked up on a pub car park and the police see you staggering to the vehicle then you might reasonably give them cause for concern. To avoid any issue of intent leave your ignition key behind the bar.
Dave


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

Val54 said:


> To avoid any issue of intent leave your ignition key behind the bar.
> Dave



Hi. This one has been raised many timesbefore and I'm afraid that it would make little difference. The offence is drunk in charge and you can be in charge of a vehicle without the ability to actually drive it. For example, if you were inside the vehicle and behaving in a way that the police considered might lead you to release the handbrake and allow the vehicle to  roll into the path of another then they could arrest you. A remote possibiltiy, I know but it is important to know what the legal definitions are if you are to avoid getting into trouble.


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

I had to read that several times before I could believe that anyone could be so stupid as to post it! Remind me never to drive anywhere near Pontivy - especially after the bars close!


----------



## Robmac (Mar 8, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> Ah ...............Is telling them to feck off and arrest some burgliers or do some proper police work instead of annoying me and my carlsberg not the right answer then  :mad2:



I tried that once whilst being booked, the officer explained to me that if I really wanted to go down that route, he could have a team of mechanics dismantle my car at the roadside and, in his words, "we will definitely find several offences to book you under".

I calmed down pretty sharpish.


----------



## Val54 (Mar 8, 2015)

John H said:


> Hi. This one has been raised many timesbefore and I'm afraid that it would make little difference. The offence is drunk in charge and you can be in charge of a vehicle without the ability to actually drive it. For example, if you were inside the vehicle and behaving in a way that the police considered might lead you to release the handbrake and allow the vehicle to  roll into the path of another then they could arrest you. A remote possibiltiy, I know but it is important to know what the legal definitions are if you are to avoid getting into trouble.



If you were behaving like that then you probably wouldn't have left the keys behind the bar 
At the end of the day there is only one sure answer, don't drink if you are parking up in a public place.
Dave


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 8, 2015)

Robmac said:


> I tried that once whilst being booked, the officer explained to me that if I really wanted to go down that route, he could have a team of mechanics dismantle my car at the roadside and, in his words, "we will definitely find several offences to book you under".
> 
> I calmed down pretty sharpish.





:lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049:  a similar attitude got me my 1 and only speeding ticket back in the 80`s

It didn`t help when i asked him what crack in the wall or stone he`d just crawled out from as there was no one else about at that time of morning  :mad2:


----------



## Robmac (Mar 8, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> :lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049:  a similar attitude got me my 1 and only speeding ticket back in the 80`s
> 
> It didn`t help when i asked him what crack in the wall or stone he`d just crawled out from as there was no one else about at that time of morning  :mad2:



Subtle Graham, very subtle!


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

Val54 said:


> If you were behaving like that then you probably wouldn't have left the keys behind the bar &#55357;&#56836;
> At the end of the day there is only one sure answer, don't drink if you are parking up in a public place.
> Dave



True but if you take the attitude that David seems to have and assume that the police are idiots then they will find a way to get you (as others have pointed out) so it is always wise to know precisely hat the law is - however remote the possibiltiy of prosecution. But the key thing is to be sensible and polite.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 8, 2015)

John H said:


> I'm sorry,but intent is a very major part of it. The offence is drunk in charge so, in theory, anyone over the limit in a motorhome can be prosecuted, as can anyone sitting in a car. The law recognises no difference between those two other than intent. Thus, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever been prosecuted in a motorhome that is wildcamped because the intent is usually clear - but there are examples of people in cars being prosecuted on their own drives because it was judged that they could allow the vehicle to move  onto the highway.



Where did I say intent was not a part?

It is not for a police officer to prove intent. It is for the driver to prove he did not intend to drive. A police officer needs to prove over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place. 

A decision to proceed with a case will be made by the CPS ultimately and if they can see that the person has demonstrated they had no intent to drive then they won't proceed.

Intent is there but it is for the driver to prove he had none to drive


----------



## Tbear (Mar 8, 2015)

Anyone who thinks the drink driving laws or the police are stupid, please go and have a chat with someone who works in A&E. You only need to see one drunk that has gone through a windscreen to give you an education that will last you a lifetime. I wish I had only seen one!

Richard


----------



## runnach (Mar 8, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Where did I say intent was not a part?
> 
> It is not for a police officer to prove intent. It is for the driver to prove he did not intend to drive. A police officer needs to prove over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place.
> 
> ...



I totally agree, in respect of intent. Police aren't daft, I am pretty sure most would consider the situation and unless a prosecution is likely to be successful err on the side of caution irrespective of who the onus is upon. I'm equally sure the CPS have a mechanism that intervenes if they see cases presented where police intepretation is way off the mark. 

Channa


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Nobody has been convicted DIC of a motorhome when in the living area of a motorhome and no intention of driving.
> 
> Every time one of these threads pops up, you get hundreds of anecdotes about how the man down the pub got done in the driving seat of his car or, how you should give the keys to the other half, or the dog, or put them in a drawer for safe keeping.
> 
> It's all totally irrelevant to motorhomes. I keep on asking someone to post details of a successful DIC against someone in the living section of a motorhome but it never happens :lol-053:



there is no differance in the eyes of the law regarding car/motorhome it is a machanically propelled veh,if its on the highway and you have the keys its drunk in charge,i have just asked my brother who is a nic nic and he said dont come here and do it. Hand the keys to someone else save yourself the hastle.he also said when reading this try telling the judge that some fireside solicitor smartypants on the net told you it is ok ,you will be laughed out of court.all be fair warned now.


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Where did I say intent was not a part?
> 
> It is not for a police officer to prove intent. It is for the driver to prove he did not intend to drive. A police officer needs to prove over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place.
> 
> ...



My point is that, despite what you say, the police officer has to make an initial judgement about intent. The law is broader than you state. The offence, for example, does not have to be committed in a public place but if, in the judgement of the officer, you were likely to cause the vehicle to move onto a public place, he could arrest you even on your own drive. Indeed, there are cases of this happening.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Where did I say intent was not a part?
> 
> It is not for a police officer to prove intent. It is for the driver to prove he did not intend to drive. A police officer needs to prove over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place.
> 
> ...



here you would be handcuffed and taken to the copshop for a overnight and a nice breakfast,then you could tell the judge the story in the morning court,is it worth it.


----------



## runnach (Mar 8, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> there is no differance in the eyes of the law regarding car/motorhome it is a machanically propelled veh,if its on the highway and you have the keys its drunk in charge,i have just asked my brother who is a nic nic and he said dont come here and do it. Hand the keys to someone else save yourself the hastle.he also said when reading this try telling the judge that some fireside solicitor smartypants on the net told you it is ok ,you will be laughed out of court.all be fair warned now.



Hi Iagree with you Trev no difference in law between a car and motorhome , we use this fact on defending car park notices etc.

However the motorhome has a specially adapted body for habitation, that is the bit that is significant and would surely be considered in a potential prosecution by the CPS ?

A pal who is serving in Derbyshire Police I think summed it up. A few years ago he found a couple of lads " in coldish weather sleeping it off in a pub car park in a car" He gave benefit of the doubt and continued on his way .....couple of hours later when the temperature dropped lads decided not their best idea so decided to drive OPL. Of course prosecuted etc, Had it been a motorhome with heating proper bedding etc he accepts they would have stayed where they were. 

Obviously he was upset thinking they could have come to harm or harmed others and rued his earlier decision ...He is now of the opinion take no chances with a car DIC, unless good reason... alot more relaxed about motorhomes and truck cabs.( with trucks the tacho will tell how long the driver is staying there really) 

Channa


----------



## Val54 (Mar 8, 2015)

A parallel thread here with similar conclusions:

Drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle - In The Eyes Of The Law (UK Excluding Scotland) - UKPOLICEONLINE Discussion Forum

Dave


----------



## runnach (Mar 8, 2015)

to back Trevs point up, and opl tahtter than DIC does anyone else remember the footballer a fews ago that "borrowed an electric golf buggy" and rode off the course on an established srvice road in to a motorway services to buy a burger ....was successfully prosecuted...mechanically propelled vehicle oPL in a public place in effect 
Channa


----------



## SteveM (Mar 8, 2015)

John H said:


> My point is that, despite what you say, the police officer has to make an initial judgement about intent. The law is broader than you state. The offence, for example, does not have to be committed in a public place but if, in the judgement of the officer, you were likely to cause the vehicle to move onto a public place, he could arrest you even on your own drive. Indeed, there are cases of this happening.



But the point is that no he doesn't have to make an initial judgement about intent. He absolutely doesn't. 

And again it is for the driver to prove he had no intention of driving.

The law is not broader, please show me where a police officer has to make a judgement re intent 

Section 5 Road Traffic Act

Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.

(1)If a person—
(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.
(3)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.


----------



## Val54 (Mar 8, 2015)

StevenM is correct, the only consideration for the Police is whether you should be breathalysed. So have they have seen you drinking, have you have committed a traffic offence etc. If you are breathalysed and over the limit then you will be arrested. Intent is a matter for the defence and the CPS in judging whether to pursue the case. In reality, the Police may look at the wider circumstances before deciding to breathalyse.
Dave


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

Val54 said:


> A parallel thread here with similar conclusions:
> 
> Drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle - In The Eyes Of The Law (UK Excluding Scotland) - UKPOLICEONLINE Discussion Forum
> 
> Dave



just sums up what my brother said if your in it with keys on a public highway in ulster you will get hammered,but if its on privat property ie your home/ land you will be ok but a pub car park is open to public and will not count.
As for a post up one if the sleeping aera is open to the controls and you have the keys nic nic will have you,It is plain to read on this post engine keys driver licence gone?
buy the way police do not have descreation here if they stop you and a offence may have been committed they must charge you as to show no discrimination between religious groups/factions as they are held accountable to ombudsman.


----------



## Polar Bear (Mar 8, 2015)

In charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol or while unfit

http://www.marymonson.co.uk/motoring-solicitors/drunk-in-charge-of-a-motor-vehicle/


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 8, 2015)

*Rob*, is it your round yet ?


----------



## Tbear (Mar 8, 2015)

As you point out David, it is what the judge at the time says it is. Never studied law but is that not what common law is all about. You have to hope the likes of Lord Denning have a bit of common sense.

Richard


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

SteveM said:


> But the point is that no he doesn't have to make an initial judgement about intent. He absolutely doesn't.
> 
> And again it is for the driver to prove he had no intention of driving.
> 
> ...



The key phrase is the one I have highlighted. If the police officer assesses that you might attempt to drive then you can be arrested.  

Just think about it logically - if it a defence to say that you did not intend to drive (and it is) then that means that, in deciding whether or not to arrest you, the police officer MUST ask himself whether or not he assesses that you intend to drive. It is not rocket science; it is common sense(although the longer I live, thelessof that I see in some people!). As it says in the excellent linkprovidedby Polar Bear above, the definition of being "in charge" can be far broader than most people think and the only definite way of avoiding prosecution is to not drink at all.


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

My point was not about accidentally knocking off the handbrake but that the officer may decide that you were so far out of it that you could might let the handbrake off because you weren't in control of yourself. As for young children and dogs - YES, you are responsible if you leave them in the car and they do something that might cause an accident. I am beginning to think I don't want to be anywhere near you if you can't see a problem with driving while drunk or are willing to leave a young child unattended in a car!


----------



## Val54 (Mar 8, 2015)

John H said:


> The key phrase is the one I have highlighted. If the police officer assesses that you might attempt to drive then you can be arrested.
> 
> Just think about it logically - if it a defence to say that you did not intend to drive (and it is) then that means that, in deciding whether or not to arrest you, the police officer MUST ask himself whether or not he assesses that you intend to drive. It is not rocket science; it is common sense(although the longer I live, thelessof that I see in some people!). As it says in the excellent linkprovidedby Polar Bear above, the definition of being "in charge" can be far broader than most people think and the only definite way of avoiding prosecution is to not drink at all.



Sorry, you are not following the necessary and logical flow of events, the police officer cannot arrest you under these provisions unless you have failed a breathalyser test.
Dave


----------



## John H (Mar 8, 2015)

Val54 said:


> Sorry, you are not following the necessary and logical flow of events, the police officer cannot arrest you under these provisions unless you have failed a breathalyser test.
> Dave



Since the question was about whether or not you can be considered "in charge" of a vehicle while over the limit, I thought it was taken as read that you will have failed the breathalyser test. If you arenot over the limityou cannot be arrested for being drumk in charge under any circumstances. Thought that could be taken as read - but it seems I was wrong!


----------



## Polar Bear (Mar 8, 2015)

The only way to win is 'not to play'!
Or keep the curtains closed, keep quite and don't answer the door until next morning?


----------



## Tbear (Mar 8, 2015)

Definition of a Motor Vehicle. 

The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

Richard


----------



## Tbear (Mar 8, 2015)

Why has this become complicated, If you are over the limit and look like you are going to drive your motorhome. You get caught and you loose your licence. Make it clear to any numpty that you have no intention of driving and what's then chances getting done. Literally unheard of.

Richard


----------



## mossypossy (Mar 8, 2015)

Got me thinking

Has any motorhome ever been converted into a mini pub with a drinks license?

I have the carpet for it already:king:


----------



## bubwal (Mar 8, 2015)

mossypossy said:


> Got me thinking
> 
> Has any motorhome ever been converted into a mini pub with a drinks license?
> 
> I have the carpet for it already:king:



I don't have the licence but my MH is certainly a mini pub. Can't guarantee I'll have your favourite tipple so bring your own just in case (no corkage charge) and:banana: You're more than welcome to take a seat and use the facilities. I'll even throw in some salty snacks.


----------



## Polar Bear (Mar 8, 2015)

He He! You can be a very naughty boy sometimes?


----------



## mossypossy (Mar 8, 2015)

At last a use for that huge space under my bed


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

well david fare point but a veh with no conection to the driving wheels from engine would surfice but i dont think many folk will remove ther drive shafts just for a drink.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

Polar Bear said:


> In charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol or while unfit
> 
> Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle



Just what i have been saying all along polar.


----------



## Polar Bear (Mar 8, 2015)

I once came home from work at nine pm to find a neighbour from across the road had parked outside my gate preventing me getting in. Not wanting to start anything at that time of night  I parked in the only space left at that time which was across the road almost but not quite blocking my neighbour drive. At ten pm after I had had three glasses of wine with my dinner I got a knock on the door. I opened it to find a policeman and policewoman standing there. They asked me very politely to move my vehicle because it was blocking my neighbours gate. I said I have had too much to drink and could not drive and that I was struggling to park my car because the guy complaining had blocked me out. I was told that if I did not move my car they would charge me with an offence. I asked about his car they said they would get him to move his on to his own drive when I had moved mine. I asked for them to give me written permission to drive under the influence! they refused but insisted I moved the car. I, fumingly went outside and got in the car and moved it down the road and walked back to find the police charging my neighbour with obstructing a private drive. Made me smile in the end.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

Mul said:


> A preliminary roadside breath test may be required by a constable *in uniform* who has reasonable cause to *suspect *a person driving or in charge of a vehicle on a road or other public place has alcohol in his or her body or has committed a traffic offence.
> 
> If the driver fails to submit to a test or the test shows the driver has a breath alcohol level above 35 mg, the police may arrest him or her. To actually prove that the driver has committed a drink driving offence, however, the police will take him or her back to the police station and carry out additional testing. (NB. This is because the police use hand-held breathalysers for roadside stops, which sometimes provide inaccurate results. Since these results cannot be relied on, they are not admissible as evidence in court proceedings.)
> 
> ...



yes and thats how my uncle got dunyears back in bangor as the car was on main st and he came out of a club about 300 yds away pissed with the keys in his pocket,charge ,drunk in charge.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

with out the key.
david if that were so then it also would not require ins tax etc,whether the key is there or not its a mec propelled vh as made for road use ,i do see where you are comming from but its a lost case just hope no folk here are silly and get nailed.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 8, 2015)

Mul said:


> Phew, I was just about click "like" but thought that might come across as insensitive given both the words of your post and it's meaning ! So how about "we're on the same page"



never liked him served him right anyway as he was always a skunken dkut.


----------



## izwozral (Mar 8, 2015)

You get these articulated lorries with drop sides at festivals that dispense beer etc so I guess a MH could be used to dispense beer?


----------



## Fazerloz (Mar 8, 2015)

Get a Temporary Events Notice and a Personal Alcohol Licence and off you go. :cheers:


----------



## yorkslass (Mar 8, 2015)

Enough to drive you to drink:cheers::cheers::cheers:


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 9, 2015)

yorkslass said:


> Enough to drive you to drink:cheers::cheers::cheers:




My misses used to do that every sunday lunchtime.

She would also pick me up again a couples of hours later if i`d behaved myself.


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

No insinuations  -  the impression that you were an idiot was supplied entirely by you!


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

The law says it has to be a mechanically propelled vehicle, NOT that it has to be in theprocess of being mechanically propelled at the time! If you regard that as pedantry, then all I can say is that it is useful being a  pedant - it can avoid you a lot of trouble!


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

Mul said:


> I've highlighted defence above again. Again by this time you're in court defending. You've already been nicked. You don't provide a defence at the roadside. You can provide reasons / excuses but not a defence. A defence is against a charge, done at the nick.
> 
> 
> I've highlighted my keyword below *OR* (and NOT) *AND* Ya can be nicked for 1a *OR* 1b ...
> ...



Can't disagree with the message in that - it is precisely what I have been saying. The phrase "suspicion of" implies a judgement about intent. If a copper knocks on your motorhome door and you are reeling drunk and in pyjamas then he might decide you are a danger to no-one but yourself and wish you goodnight. If,on the other hand,you are fully clothed, in the driving seat and stroppy he might ask you to blow into the machine! You are just as drunk in both crcumstances but he has made a judgement about  intent. Simple really. The only mystery to me is that some people refuse to see it.

PS you are right about the "slip of the keyboard". I should have said "prosecuted" rather than "arrested".


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

Ignoring the stupidity in your post,you have inadvertently hit upon a truth. I only give advice or comment when I am sure of my ground. There are lots of things I know nothing about and do not attempt to get involved with. When, however, something comes up that I do know about (and where somebody might be giving misleadingor unclear information) then I do get involved. It is a policy I strongly recommend to you (since you seem to be in need of it!). Have a nice day.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 9, 2015)

John H said:


> Ignoring the stupidity in your post,you have inadvertently hit upon a truth. I only give advice or comment when I am sure of my ground. There are lots of things I know nothing about and do not attempt to get involved with. When, however, something comes up that I do know about (and where somebody might be giving misleadingor unclear information) then I do get involved. It is a policy I strongly recommend to you (since you seem to be in need of it!). Have a nice day.



Unfortunately you have got involved in something you are not fully clear of. The offence we are talking about is drunk in charge, a police officer does not have to suspect, assess, consider, believe , assume or prove that that person intends to  drive, please show me where in the legislation it says that they do. If it gets to court it will be for that person to prove to the magistrate that they had no intention to drive.

A police officer has to prove that they were over the prescribed limit, in charge of, a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place. Now some of these aspects may be argued by the legal eagles but the bottom line is asleep in your camper on the side of the road, with the keys nearby and over the limit could justifiably see you arrested and taken to custody. Blow over the limit on the evidential machine and following your interview when you stated that you were asleep for the night and didn't intend to drive, the CPS may send you to court to explain to the magistrate your lack of intent, or they may consider that given your explaination that there is not a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution to halt the case.

So in summary, over the limit in your van and you could get arrested and may or may not be prosecuted.


----------



## Firefox (Mar 9, 2015)

Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 9, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.



Yes, no reason whatsoever why you should answer a knock at the door, and if the curtains are shut and no-one can be seen then there isn't much else that they can do. However it is worth considering that if you can be seen and decide to play possum, a lack of response may result in a concern for welfare response.

If you do answer the door or engage in a conversation through a window, a police officer may decide to request a breath test (can't just request it, there has to be an element of suspicion that you may have consumed alcohol or have some in your system). Once that request has been made then it is an offence to fail to provide.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 9, 2015)

Because of the amount of alcohol ( purely medicinal ) i carry in the van i had to have air suspension fitted and uprate the load rating on my tyres.


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Unfortunately you have got involved in something you are not fully clear of. The offence we are talking about is drunk in charge, a police officer does not have to suspect, assess, consider, believe , assume or prove that that person intends to  drive, please show me where in the legislation it says that they do. If it gets to court it will be for that person to prove to the magistrate that they had no intention to drive.
> 
> A police officer has to prove that they were over the prescribed limit, in charge of, a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place. Now some of these aspects may be argued by the legal eagles but the bottom line is asleep in your camper on the side of the road, with the keys nearby and over the limit could justifiably see you arrested and taken to custody. Blow over the limit on the evidential machine and following your interview when you stated that you were asleep for the night and didn't intend to drive, the CPS may send you to court to explain to the magistrate your lack of intent, or they may consider that given your explaination that there is not a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution to halt the case.
> 
> So in summary, over the limit in your van and you could get arrested and may or may not be prosecuted.



I'm sorry but that is in part misleading. The phrase "in charge", as has been fully explained by both me and others, is far broader than that. You can, for example, be considered to be "in charge" even when not in the vehicle. Also, you do not have to actually be on what most people would regard as the public highway. You can be arrested in a pub car park, a caravan site or even your own drive. I have already explained that the key phrase in the legislation is the one about "attempting" to drive. That phrase requires interpretation and it is initially up to the officer to make that judgement. It may or may not be stopped at a later stage in the process but the officer HAS to make a judgement - otherwise he would end up arresting everybody in a motorhome who is over the limit.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 9, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.



not here they will put a batton through your window if they think you are inside and drunk,cops must be soft in england.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 9, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.




Ah OK ............. so if the coppers knock and you don`t answer do they just go away and leave you alone ?


----------



## Firefox (Mar 9, 2015)

Yes. Unless they have a warrant to enter, or a serious or dangerous incident has taken place, they can't enter. Your van or car counts the same as your house.

The steps to take if you have been drinking are 

1. Make sure you are parked not obstructing the highway or contravening a TRO.

2. Close the curtains and windows. Lock the doors.

3. Engage in quiet activities or sleeping.

4. Don't answer the door.

As I said previously you'll see a lot of "advice" about giving the keys to a partner or hiding them in a cupboard. This is all irrelevant. Avoid contact with anyone until you are fit to drive is a much better policy.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 9, 2015)

John H said:


> I'm sorry but that is in part misleading. The phrase "in charge", as has been fully explained by both me and others, is far broader than that. You can, for example, be considered to be "in charge" even when not in the vehicle. Also, you do not have to actually be on what most people would regard as the public highway. You can be arrested in a pub car park, a caravan site or even your own drive. I have already explained that the key phrase in the legislation is the one about "attempting" to drive. That phrase requires interpretation and it is initially up to the officer to make that judgement. It may or may not be stopped at a later stage in the process but the officer HAS to make a judgement - otherwise he would end up arresting everybody in a motorhome who is over the limit.



How about we stick to the discussion around intent, which was the main point of your argument that a police officer needs to show intent to drive? The other elements of the offence which do exist 'mechanically propelled vehicle, in charge, public road etc can be discussed forever but their meanings currently are in definitions, case law and whoever is presidings judgement.

The key phrase is not the one about 'attempting' that is just part 1a of Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act at the end of that sentence is the word 'or' which leads on to part 1b which deals with is in charge of. A police officer needs only to satisfy himself of part 1a OR part 1b. This has already been pointed out by another poster but you continue to ignore it.

I will ask again please show me where in the Road Traffic Act it says that a police officer must show intent to drive when proving an offence of drunk in charge of a motor vehicle?


----------



## Robmac (Mar 9, 2015)

Do what I do. Insure the wife for the vehicle and give her the keys.

Fortunately, my wife doesn't drink.


----------



## runnach (Mar 9, 2015)

fazerloz is spot on apply for a temporary events licence 28 days before the event and if you don't hear anything off you go !!!! What he did'nt tell you any police officer rank of inspector or above can immeadiately issue a prohibition order normally 24 hours which could scupper the idea.

little known factoid, is the only premises that dont need a licence to sell alcohol is a train. The impracticality of registering with each LA being the reason.....which is why they close the bar in a station and serve when the train is rolling again.

The licencing act 2003 has its quirks

Channa


----------



## hextal (Mar 9, 2015)

Robmac said:


> Do what I do. Insure the wife for the vehicle and give her the keys.
> 
> Fortunately, my wife doesn't drink.



How much to borrow her for a fortnight?


----------



## Robmac (Mar 9, 2015)

hextal said:


> How much to borrow her for a fortnight?



I'll give you 50 quid.


----------



## helmit (Mar 9, 2015)

Robmac said:


> I'll give you 50 quid.



I,ll tell Julie wot you said be scared:scared:


----------



## Robmac (Mar 9, 2015)

helmit said:


> I,ll tell Julie wot you said be scared:scared:



I'll give you 50 quid as well then Jim.

Please don't, please!


----------



## frontslide (Mar 9, 2015)

Alcohol and sleeping in your motorhome
We ask Philip Somarakis, an expert motoring lawyer with Davenport Lyons, what the legal implications are of parking into a pub car park, having a few alcoholic drinks and then getting back into your motorhome to sleep it off.

Driving one’s “home” to the public house is a pretty good idea to avoid drinking and driving as you now have a pub on your doorstep. Motorhome owners should however be cautious about the risks of being "drunk in charge" of a motorhome if they are staying overnight in the car park. 

If you are drunk “in charge” of your motorhome on a road or “public place” you can be arrested by the police and could lose your licence if convicted. This article looks at whether a parking area for motorhomes next to a pub amounts to a “public place” and also what being “in charge” of a motorhome means. We also focus on the scenario where you have evening dinner and drinks.

Pub car parks and opening hours
A pub car park is a “public place” during opening times because there is an implied invitation to the public to drive in and park up to use the pub. The position may change after the pub has closed. In a 1974 court case a person was found not guilty because the prosecution had failed to prove that the invitation to the public to use the car park next to the pub extended one hour after closing time (the time when the police had come to the car park and found the person at the wheel). However, each case is different; for example a pub adjacent to a Premier Inn with 24-hour reception facilities could mean the car park may be viewed as remaining a public place at all times.  

Segregated parking during opening hours
Even where there is apparent segregation, by some control system designed to separate motorhome drivers from other patrons, a reserved parking area may still be regarded as a public place. The law is not clear, but it would appear that at least during the day when the pub is open, imposing a control system which only allows motorhome owners into a segregated area would not necessarily prevent that area from being a public place – because such owners would still be regarded as “the public”.
Conversely, if that area was limited to motorhome owners from a defined association, there were barriers/notices and a control system clearly in place then it would be more likely to be regarded as a private place. However a parking place saying “reserved” on it would not do.
Where the law is clear is that if there was a blanket restriction on anyone turning up after the pub has closed and parking up, it is obvious that at that time of night the car park would ordinarily be regarded as private and not a public place.

Drunk in charge of a motorhome
There is no definitive answer to what amounts to being "in charge." If you are the owner or in possession of the vehicle or have recently driven it you will be “in charge”, unless you have put the vehicle in the charge of someone else. 
Control over the keys is a good indication of being in charge but is not conclusive.
However that does not mean that an owner is continuously in charge because, in some cases, control of the vehicle has clearly ceased.
The courts accept that an owner is not in control where he was a great distance from the vehicle and there was no realistic possibility of his resuming actual control whilst unfit/over the limit. 
Whilst that may suggest that when in the pub “control” by the owner has ceased, the courts may see it differently because of the intention to return to the vehicle at the end of the evening.



Will the police bother you?
Anyone charged with “drunk in charge” of a motorhome has a defence in law. They have to prove that there was “no likelihood of them driving whilst over the prescribed limit”. This can be a complicated process and involves an assessment of what your alcohol levels would be at the time you did intend to drive. Normally this involves having to use a forensic expert to calculate alcohol levels
Here’s an example. You’ve had a couple of pints and shared a bottle of wine with your wife. It’s 11pm and the pub closes in 20 minutes. You are both tired. You suspect you are both over the limit but you don’t have to worry because you are not going anywhere and are not setting off until the morning and after breakfast. As you leave the pub, you see parked up next to your motorhome, a police car.  After all, pub car parks are obvious targets by the police for suspected drink drivers. 
What do you do? Wait for them to leave or for the pub to close so the car park is no longer a “public place” perhaps? Or stride forth? You might arouse suspicion if they catch you doing a U turn and going back into the pub. If you stride forth yes they may get out and speak to you but one would expect most police officers to take a sensible view here. You are not going to drive off. You are not going to sit in the driver’s seat and fiddle with the controls. If they do ask you what you are doing you will tell them that you are retiring to bed. 
All the police want to do is to ensure that drink drivers are apprehended. However, if you have had a lot of alcohol, are clearly drunk and are intending to drive the following morning, you are placing yourself at greater risk here. You will be more of a concern to them, either that they think you are about to drive over the limit, or after your explanation, that you intend to the morning after when alcohol will still be in your system. 
The police do charge people with being drunk in charge but normally these tend to be people found slumped behind the wheel of a car in the street outside a house (usually a result of a domestic dispute). Clearly they arouse suspicion and as sleeping in a car is not particularly comfortable, will increase the likelihood of that person driving off (whilst over the limit).
If you drive to a pub with the intention of parking up and drinking, where the land in question is not truly “private” and where you know eventually you will be driving back at some point, you need to bear in mind that the police will assume you remain in control of that vehicle and to them, could drive it at any point.
So consider where you are parking up, whether you might under any circumstances have to move the vehicle and bear in mind it is not uncommon for police to occasionally stop outside pubs. Have a thought to how much you are drinking particularly if you do intend to drive the following day. 


Before you start drinking alcohol, you must:
•	Make sure your motorhome is already parked up for the night. Do not take the risk of having to move it later to the right place, even if it's just a short distance within the car park or into an adjacent field
•	Ensure your motorhome is not causing an obstruction. You should always consider whether you might be asked to move it later so 
•	Have some evidence if possible of the duration of your stay, so that you could prove your intention to sleep overnight in the car park

After you've had a drink of alcohol, you must:
•	Never start up the engine in your motorhome
•	Never place the key in the ignition
•	Never sit behind the steering wheel or in the driver’s seat if it is facing forwards
Any or all of the above could be taken as indicators that you may be contemplating driving the motorhome and are more likely to attract attention from the police. 
And always remember that if you've had a lot of alcohol to drink, you may still be over the legal limit the following morning.




 The police’s view
A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said:
“Regardless of whether you are a driver of a campervan or any other kind of vehicle, the rules of Highway Code and the laws around drink driving remain the same.
“Drivers should not attempt to move any vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs and should always ensure they are parked in a safe and secure location.
“If a person is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming excess alcohol then that person is guilty of an offence unless they can prove at the time of the alleged offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of their driving the vehicle.
“The advice from the police is clear. Do not drink and drive or put yourself or anyone else at risk.”

More information
The rules related to being in charge of a vehicle and alcohol are covered by The Road Traffic Act 1988. You can view it here Road Traffic Act 1988


----------



## Firefox (Mar 9, 2015)

> Here’s an example. You’ve had a couple of pints and shared a bottle of wine with your wife. It’s 11pm and the pub closes in 20 minutes. You are both tired. You suspect you are both over the limit but you don’t have to worry because you are not going anywhere and are not setting off until the morning and after breakfast. As you leave the pub, you see parked up next to your motorhome, a police car.



About the most ridiculous example I have ever seen! It might happen once in 100 lifetimes. But the answer would be to go back in the pub till closing time and if the roz hadn't shifted by then, go on a long walk until they have.


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

SteveM said:


> How about we stick to the discussion around intent, which was the main point of your argument that a police officer needs to show intent to drive? The other elements of the offence which do exist 'mechanically propelled vehicle, in charge, public road etc can be discussed forever but their meanings currently are in definitions, case law and whoever is presidings judgement.
> 
> The key phrase is not the one about 'attempting' that is just part 1a of Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act at the end of that sentence is the word 'or' which leads on to part 1b which deals with is in charge of. A police officer needs only to satisfy himself of part 1a OR part 1b. This has already been pointed out by another poster but you continue to ignore it.
> 
> I will ask again please show me where in the Road Traffic Act it says that a police officer must show intent to drive when proving an offence of drunk in charge of a motor vehicle?



The key phrase IS "attempt". If you cannot see that then there is no point in continuing this converstion.

PS the "or" bit to which you refer relates to being "in charge of" which we have already covered in excessive detail and which requires the officer to makea judgement about intent. So whichever way you look at it, INTENT is key to the whole thing.


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 9, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Why should you even answer a knock on the door if you are asleep? You don't have to let anyone in your vehicle. It is your private space. Know your rights.



Bang on....

When you hear a knock, sing in your loudest voice...... ''YOU KEEP A KNOCKING, BUT YOU CANT COME IN''....

Will it work? Probably not, but it amuses me....:hammer:


----------



## SteveM (Mar 9, 2015)

John H said:


> The key phrase IS "attempt". If you cannot see that then there is no point in continuing this converstion.
> 
> PS the "or" bit to which you refer relates to being "in charge of" which we have already covered in excessive detail and which requires the officer to makea judgement about intent. So whichever way you look at it, INTENT is key to the whole thing.



We are discussing being in your van after having a few drinks. No-one is 'driving', no-one is 'attempting' to drive. Section 1a is irrelevant.

Yes we are talking about drunk in charge, that is what the whole thread has been about as covered in Section 1b and does not require an officer to make a judgement about intent. Again please show me where in the Road Traffic Act it says this?


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 9, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> Ah OK ............. so if the coppers knock and you don`t answer do they just go away and leave you alone ?



No, they bust the door, drag you out and stamp on you're head.....:lol-061:


----------



## John H (Mar 9, 2015)

SteveM said:


> We are discussing being in your van after having a few drinks. No-one is 'driving', no-one is 'attempting' to drive. Section 1a is irrelevant.
> 
> Yes we are talking about drunk in charge, that is what the whole thread has been about as covered in Section 1b and does not require an officer to make a judgement about intent. Again please show me where in the Road Traffic Act it says this?



This is like pulling teeth. You may make an assessment that there is no attempt to drive but the attending officer may decide differently (that is where an assessment about INTENT is critical!). All I can say is that if INTENT was not a consideration then every driver in a motrohome who had had a few drinks and parked upfor the night would be liable to arrest - and that is just plain silly.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 9, 2015)

John H said:


> This is like pulling teeth. You may make an assessment that there is no attempt to drive but the attending officer may decide differently (that is where an assessment about *INTENT* is critical!). All I can say is that if *INTENT* was not a consideration then every driver in a motrohome who had had a few drinks and parked upfor the night would be liable to arrest - and that is just plain silly.




I have never drunk alcohol in a tent and we do not carry one with us in the motorhome.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 9, 2015)

John H said:


> This is like pulling teeth. You may make an assessment that there is no attempt to drive but the attending officer may decide differently (that is where an assessment about INTENT is critical!). All I can say is that if INTENT was not a consideration then every driver in a motrohome who had had a few drinks and parked upfor the night would be liable to arrest - and that is just plain silly.



You're right it is like pulling teeth.  You have mentioned 'attempting to drive' , no-one is attempting to drive, the campers are all tucked up having had a few drinks, drunk in charge is the discussion.

Thankfully you have hit the nail on the head, every driver in a motorhome who has had a few drinks and parked up for the night are indeed leaving themselves liable to arrest. The reason they aren't is nothing to do with the Road Traffic Act. 

Please prove me wrong and show me where in the legislation, a police officer must show the intent to drive for the offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit. It's that simple, that's all you have to do to prove me wrong.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 9, 2015)

Not much chance of me driving after a skinful, i can`t even get the key in the ignition never mind actually start it  :rolleyes2:


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 9, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> Not much chance of me driving after a skinful, i can`t even get the key in the ignition never mind actually start it  :rolleyes2:



thats because you are laying in your tent pissed.


----------



## Obanboy666 (Mar 9, 2015)

So pleased I don't touch the root off all evil that is alcohol lol !


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 9, 2015)

Obanboy666 said:


> So pleased I don't touch the root off all evil that is alcohol lol !




Me neither, it doesn`t touch the sides when it`s going down   :cheers:   :lol-049:


----------



## John H (Mar 10, 2015)

SteveM said:


> You're right it is like pulling teeth.  You have mentioned 'attempting to drive' , no-one is attempting to drive, the campers are all tucked up having had a few drinks, drunk in charge is the discussion.
> 
> Thankfully you have hit the nail on the head, every driver in a motorhome who has had a few drinks and parked up for the night are indeed leaving themselves liable to arrest. The reason they aren't is nothing to do with the Road Traffic Act.
> 
> Please prove me wrong and show me where in the legislation, a police officer must show the intent to drive for the offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit. It's that simple, that's all you have to do to prove me wrong.



You have asked the same question several times. I have answered it on each ocassion. You may not like the answer but it is not going to change just because you don't like it.

Perhaps you will understand better if we set up a little example. I am wildcamping in a layby (and therefore on the public highway). I am outside the motorhome with the keys in my hand (I have just accessed an exterior locker). The habitation door is open and an empty bottle of wine can clearly be seen on the table, There is alcohol on my breathe. A police officer passes by and stops. I am clearly "in charge" of the vehicle. There is a strong reason to suspect that I am over the limit. According to you he should not make any kind of judgement about what I may intend to do and should breathalyse and arrest me. In the real world, of course, he does make that judgement. He may even ask me what my intentions are, Then he has to decide whether he believes me or not. 

If you do not accept this scenario then please explain why the courts are not full of motorhoming wilkdcampers on d.i.c. charges. Is it that motorhomers are the most sober section of society? Is it that the country is full of police officers who are abandoning their duty? No, it is because police officers make judgements about what is likely to happen and act accordingly.

The scenario above is made up but I have been in similar situations a handful of times in the UK and on the mainland. In each case, I have been polite, answered all their questions and the situation has ended with a cheery "goodnight" (or bon soir or buenos noches). It is not rocket science. It is common sense. The only mystery is that, after all this discussion there are some people who refuse to accept the bleeding obvious.


----------



## John H (Mar 10, 2015)

frontslide said:


> The police’s view
> 
> A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said:
> 
> ...



Just giving this excellent point a bump. If anyone wishes to further insist that the law does not allow the police the ability to make judgements on the spot they should contact the Association of Chief Police Officers and ask them why the courts are mysteriously empty of motorhomers on d.i.c charges.


----------



## runnach (Mar 10, 2015)

John H said:


> Perhaps you will understand better if we set up a little example. I am wildcamping in a layby (and therefore on the public highway). I am outside the motorhome with the keys in my hand (I have just accessed an exterior locker). The habitation door is open and an empty bottle of wine can clearly be seen on the table, There is alcohol on my breathe. A police officer passes by and stops. I am clearly "in charge" of the vehicle. There is a strong reason to suspect that I am over the limit. According to you he should not make any kind of judgement about what I may intend to do and should breathalyse and arrest me. In the real world, of course, he does make that judgement. He may even ask me what my intentions are, Then he has to decide whether he believes me or not.
> 
> If you do not accept this scenario then please explain why the courts are not full of motorhoming wilkdcampers on d.i.c. charges. Is it that motorhomers are the most sober section of society? Is it that the country is full of police officers who are abandoning their duty? No, it is because police officers make judgements about what is likely to happen and act accordingly.
> 
> The scenario above is made up but I have been in similar situations a handful of times in the UK and on the mainland. In each case, I have been polite, answered all their questions and the situation has ended with a cheery "goodnight" (or bon soir or buenos noches). It is not rocket science. It is common sense. The only mystery is that, after all this discussion there are some people who refuse to accept the bleeding obvious.



i can vouch for this scenario john, you may recall my pigeon shooting experience a few years ago ...When I opened the door and he wanted to see the gun there was bottle of wine and the van reeked of it I was cooking the meal in wine. The officer asked how long I was staying there, I answered until the morning, at which stage him and his six colleagues were polite and  disappeared.

channa


----------



## SteveM (Mar 10, 2015)

The police’s view

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said:

“If a person is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming excess alcohol then that person is guilty of an offence unless they can prove at the time of the alleged offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of their driving the vehicle.

The rules related to being in charge of a vehicle and alcohol are covered by The Road Traffic Act 1988. You can view it here Road Traffic Act 1988



John H said:


> Just giving this excellent point a bump. If anyone wishes to further insist that the law does not allow the police the ability to make judgements on the spot they should contact the Association of Chief Police Officers and ask them why the courts are mysteriously empty of motorhomers on d.i.c charges.



You are right an excellant post because it's there plainly in black and white! A person is guilty of an offence unless THEY can prove that at the time of the alleged offence etc etc. 'Prove that at the time' doesn't necessarily mean at the time spoken to by a police officer.

In the scenario you have written in the previous post, you COULD (I haven't said should anywhere) lawfully be arrested for the offence of being drunk in charge. As previously stated the reason motorhomers arn't arrested in droves is nothing to do with the Road Traffic Act. You have yet to SHOW me where it is written in the legislation that a police officer must prove intent.


----------



## Pugs (Mar 10, 2015)

Pendel said:


> as an interest can you carry an air gun in a Motor Home - I have always fancied having a few shots in the woods for the odd pidgeon but I would need land owners permission etc - any advice?



You can't take a 'few shots' at anything. It is unlawful to shot on public rights of way, in fact I think 50m from a public road, you require permission to wonder on to somebodies land to bag a woodie or a rabbit and nowadays you also need a 'pest' control licence to shoot such species as rabbits, crows and so forth. Gone are though days


----------



## Firefox (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't think it is written in the legislation anywhere.

But there have been test cases, and the cops only tend to push stuff which the CPS will take up, and the CPS won't waste time with people in living areas of motorhomes when nowhere near driving seat or in bed etc etc as they only want to prosecute cases which have a good chance.

However, _if _one is stupid enough to open the door, and _if_ it is an inexperienced officer who doesn't know this area of law well, and _if_ he insists on a breath test,  then they may take the first steps towards prosecution, but it will _probably_ be dropped by the station, or the CPS if it ever comes down to it. That's my view given the test cases.

Someone can still prove me wrong and link to a successful conviction though, I am willing to learn...


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 10, 2015)

Pendel said:


> as an interest can you carry an air gun in a Motor Home - I have always fancied having a few shots in the woods for the odd pidgeon but I would need land owners permission etc - any advice?



Dunno, but i carry a compound bow and arrows plus a small[ish] target in my van, stashed in a cupboard.

If i get searched i will say i'm off target shooting, if i'm parked up overnight i will say i'm off target shooting in the morning...

Up to the police what they think tbh.......


----------



## n brown (Mar 10, 2015)

i've had my van turned over many times by the customs,who ignored the .22


----------



## runnach (Mar 10, 2015)

Pendel said:


> as an interest can you carry an air gun in a Motor Home - I have always fancied having a few shots in the woods for the odd pidgeon but I would need land owners permission etc - any advice?



If my experience was to go by then no problem. It was a Stoeger .22 air rifle.

Channa


----------



## John H (Mar 10, 2015)

SteveM said:


> The police’s view
> 
> A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said:
> 
> ...



I will try once more to get past those blinkers of yours by reference to the two parts of your post I have highlighted:

1. "Doesn't necessarily" does not exclude "at the time spoken to by a police officer". If it did exclude that time then the phrase would have been " to later prove".

2. I don't have to show to anyone that a police officer must prove intent - for the simple reason that I have never said that is the only course of action open to him. What I have said is that the law is framed in such a way that the officer has the discretion to assess the situation and decide whether or not he believes the occupant is likely to drive while intoxicated. While weighing up whether or not he believes that, then he must consider intent. There is no other way (unless he has a time machine at his disosal) to assess likely future actions. That is not controversial. It is logical and the law is framed so as to allow him to do it (as I have repeatedly pointed out). If you think the law does not give him that discretion then please explain to me why the courts are not full of wildcamping motorhomers on charges of d.i.c.

I think this has gone far enough. Most sensible people reading this thread will now realise what the situation is. If you choose to live in your own little world then that is upto you. Personally, I'll take the word of the legislators, the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers over yours any day of the week.


----------



## Polar Bear (Mar 10, 2015)

I think it's time for a Bishops finger?


----------



## izwozral (Mar 10, 2015)

Polar Bear said:


> I think it's time for a Bishops finger?



Isn't that a Nuns Delight?


----------



## SteveM (Mar 10, 2015)

John H said:


> I will try once more to get past those blinkers of yours by reference to the two parts of your post I have highlighted:
> 
> 1. "Doesn't necessarily" does not exclude "at the time spoken to by a police officer". If it did exclude that time then the phrase would have been " to later prove".
> 
> ...



Indeed, the situation is very clear, if you are over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place, you could be arrested for being drunk in charge. It really is that plain, simple, and straightforward. People are free to make their choices as they see fit.


----------



## John H (Mar 10, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Indeed, the situation is very clear, if you are over the prescribed limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle whilst on a road or public place, you could be arrested for being drunk in charge. It really is that plain, simple, and straightforward. People are free to make their choices as they see fit.



At last! Could be but not would be. That is because the officer must assess the liklihood of you doing something that would cause you to be a danger to others. That is why neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to a single case of a wildcamper being arrested or prosecuted for being over the limit. It is not because we are a teetotal lot; it is because any officer at the scene has decided that the occupant is more likely to go to bed than drive. He has made a judgement based on intent.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 10, 2015)

John H said:


> At last! Could be but not would be. That is because the officer must assess the liklihood of you doing something that would cause you to be a danger to others. That is why neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to a single case of a wildcamper being arrested or prosecuted for being over the limit. It is not because we are a teetotal lot; it is because any officer at the scene has decided that the occupant is more likely to go to bed than drive. He has made a judgement based on intent.



Show me where I said you 'would be'? I didn't, I pointed out that the law puts the onus on the driver to prove their intent not to drive. There is absolutely no provision in this piece of legislation that says that a police officer must consider intent.

In your scenario of campervan in the layby, would you consider that the arrest of that person for being drunk in charge to be unlawful?


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 11, 2015)

I think there is too much   
  being consumed in this thread   :cheers:


----------



## John H (Mar 11, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Show me where I said you 'would be'? I didn't, I pointed out that the law puts the onus on the driver to prove their intent not to drive. There is absolutely no provision in this piece of legislation that says that a police officer must consider intent.
> 
> In your scenario of campervan in the layby, would you consider that the arrest of that person for being drunk in charge to be unlawful?



Good grief. First I never said the law states that a policeman must show intent. What I said was that the law is couched in a way that allows him to make a judgement and I referred to one of the parts that did just that. If he is to exercise that judgement, he then must consider intent. Short of having a time machine, there is no other way he can determine what action the suspecct may or may not take.

Let me give another example. Two men, carrying hammers, walk past a jeweller's window. One is not given  second glance by the nearby copper;the other he approaches and questions. The first was clearly a carpenter going to a job; the second showed  no  obvious signs of needing the hammer for his trade and was acting suspiciously. That copper has made a judgement about likely future events. He can only have done that byasking himself about intent. It is not complicated, it is not compulsory under the law; it is common sense and most coppers do it all the time. Clear now?

And no - my arrest in the layby scenario wouldnot have been unlawful - I never said anything to imply it would.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 11, 2015)

i see it now,first we are all drunk and now we are going to get hammered.:scared::lol-049::wave:


----------



## SteveM (Mar 11, 2015)

John H said:


> Good grief. First I never said the law states that a policeman must show intent. What I said was that the law is couched in a way that allows him to make a judgement and I referred to one of the parts that did just that. If he is to exercise that judgement, he then must consider intent. Short of having a time machine, there is no other way he can determine what action the suspecct may or may not take.
> 
> Let me give another example. Two men, carrying hammers, walk past a jeweller's window. One is not given  second glance by the nearby copper;the other he approaches and questions. The first was clearly a carpenter going to a job; the second showed  no  obvious signs of needing the hammer for his trade and was acting suspiciously. That copper has made a judgement about likely future events. He can only have done that byasking himself about intent. It is not complicated, it is not compulsory under the law; it is common sense and most coppers do it all the time. Clear now?
> 
> And no - my arrest in the layby scenario wouldnot have been unlawful - I never said anything to imply it would.



Excellant we both agree that an arrest in your scenario would not be unlawful. So if you are in charge of your campervan whilst in a layby and over the limit you can be arrested and it wouldn't be unlawful.

Your hammer analogy doesn't compare unfortunately, for the majority of criminal offences intent must play a part in the police officers decisions, the guilty act and the guilty state of mind. Basically an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty. In this case it is for the police to prove what the intent was. So you are absolutely right in your hammer scenario, the police must show act and intent.

This is not the case for drunk in charge. Police just need to show over the prescribed limit, in charge, road/public place. Hence we arrive at our agreed viewpoint an arrest in these circumstances would not be unlawful.

So why are the courts not heaving with motorhomers losing the licence? Well Firefox has given probably the best post and explanation of this whole subject in his post 138 

I will ask this, is every person pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and not having an exemption ticketed or prosecuted? Illegal number plates? Using a mobile phone?  No, clearly not, some police officers have exercised discretion, and dealt with it another way, the offence has still been committed however,  there is no provision in the law for discretion. 

Have people been arrested and prosecuted for being drunk at the wheel of their car, yes we all know they have. What about in the back of an unconverted van? Certainly arrested, successfully prosecuted? Possibly.
What about a proper motorhome? I don't know of anyone arrested but I'm betting it has happened purely because there are some jobsworth police officers who will take every opportunity to make a lawful arrest, they will be the ones who who do not know the discretion word and we know they exist. Successful prosecutions? I don't know of any and I'm willing to bet there arnt any within the circumstances we have been discussing, not in drivers seat, tucked up in bed etc.

As I said people are free to make their choice, given the knowledge of what the law states.


----------



## John H (Mar 11, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Excellant we both agree that an arrest in your scenario would not be unlawful. So if you are in charge of your campervan whilst in a layby and over the limit you can be arrested and it wouldn't be unlawful.
> 
> Your hammer analogy doesn't compare unfortunately, for the majority of criminal offences intent must play a part in the police officers decisions, the guilty act and the guilty state of mind. Basically an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty. In this case it is for the police to prove what the intent was. So you are absolutely right in your hammer scenario, the police must show act and intent.
> 
> ...



Of course I COULD have been arrested in the layby scenario but I wasn't. IF the law was as you describe it then I MUST have been arrested or else the policeman would have been derelict in his duty. Of course, that is  nonsense. The law allows the officer to make a  judgement. You use the word "discretion". That is a good choice of word. Please now explain how a police officer can use that discretion in the layby scenario without making a judgement as to intent. If you can do that, I will recommend you for the post of Lord Chief Justice when it next comes up 

PS you seem to be confusing the phrase "not unlawful" with "compulsory". I don't know where you are going with that but it does rather smack of trying to divert the subject.

PPS I have no problem with Firefox's comments in post 138 - they do not conflict in any way with what I have been saying.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 11, 2015)

John H said:


> Of course I COULD have been arrested in the layby scenario but I wasn't. IF the law was as you describe it then I MUST have been arrested or else the policeman would have been derelict in his duty. Of course, that is  nonsense. The law allows the officer to make a  judgement. You use the word "discretion". That is a good choice of word. Please now explain how a police officer can use that discretion in the layby scenario without making a judgement as to intent. If you can do that, I will recommend you for the post of Lord Chief Justice when it next comes up
> 
> PS you seem to be confusing the phrase "not unlawful" with "compulsory". I don't know where you are going with that but it does rather smack of trying to divert the subject.
> 
> PPS I have no problem with Firefox's comments in post 138 - they do not conflict in any way with what I have been saying.



Where have I said you WILL or MUST be arrested? The law sets out points to prove for each offence. For drunk in charge they are 

a. Over the prescribed limit 
b. In charge of 
c. a mechanically propelled vehicle 
d. Road or public place.

 If these points are satisfied you could be arrested and that arrest would not be unlawful, there is no 

e. and the driver is not in a campervan. 

There is no confusion with 'compulsory', I can't think of any legislation that says 'and must be arrested'. In fact the opposite is true certain conditions must be necessary to make an arrest.

The whole point all along is that a police officer does not HAVE to consider intent in this offence and there are some out there who won't. As you said yourself you COULD have been arrested, that is what people need to consider when making their choices.


----------



## John H (Mar 11, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Where have I said you WILL or MUST be arrested? The law sets out points to prove for each offence. For drunk in charge they are
> 
> a. Over the prescribed limit
> b. In charge of
> ...



Back to basics, I see.

First, the criteria are nowhere near as cleaar as you state. As I and others have pointed out (including the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers!) there are at least two points in the law that require interpretation: "in charge" and "attempting to drive". These CANNOT be determined without a judgement on the part of, first the police officer and subsequently his superiors, the CPS and the courts.

In other words, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for an officer to make a dettermination about whether to breathalyse and arrest WITHOUT making a judgement as to, among other things, INTENT. 

Also, I never said that you used the word "must"; I said it was the only logical conclusion if we accept your interpretation of the law. I would be grateful if you could carefully read what I posted instead of jumping to conclusions.

You seem to be confusing several things. Not only the ones I have pointed out but the fact that his assessment does not have to be prescribed by law. He has to satisfy the law, of course, but in reaching his conclusion he MUST consider lots of things including (because of the nature of the offence) INTENT. I asked you earlier if you knew of any way that he could come to a conclusion without considering intent. You have steadfastly avoided answering that question.I wonder why?


----------



## SteveM (Mar 11, 2015)

John H said:


> Back to basics, I see.
> 
> First, the criteria are nowhere near as cleaar as you state. As I and others have pointed out (including the courts and the Association of Chief Police Officers!) there are at least two points in the law that require interpretation: "in charge" and "attempting to drive". These CANNOT be determined without a judgement on the part of, first the police officer and subsequently his superiors, the CPS and the courts.
> 
> ...



Whilst you still go on about 'in charge' and 'attempting to drive' requiring interpretation for this offence. Driving or attempting to drive is Section 1a, seperate to 1b. You have understanding of the word 'or' as opposed to 'and'?

So having acknowledged that you could have been have been arrested in the layby in the circumstances you described, explain why.

Your 2nd paragraph is completely wrong and shows that you are struggling to understand the legislation as it is written.

Police officer attends, smells alcohol, notes that the person is in charge of a vehicle on a road or public place, requestS a preliminary breath test under Section 6 of the road traffic act, driver blows over the prescribed limit. Arrest can now be made. No intent considered as not required. Not impossible to breathalyse and arrest in these circumstances. Once at the custody centre if the person exceeds the prescribed limit on the evidential machine then they will be able to offer THEIR defence of no intention to drive in an interview.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 11, 2015)

I`d just Taser them and be done with it  :wacko:


----------



## jacquigem (Mar 11, 2015)

isn't it wonderful that we are all different but the same in our love of this way of life?


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Mar 11, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> I`d just Taser them and be done with it  :wacko:



I think Tasering John H and SteveM a bit harsh, and is it legal, depends on intent I suppose. :rockroll::drive::cheers::cheers::cheers:


----------



## SteveM (Mar 11, 2015)

ColinD said:


> I think Tasering John H and SteveM a bit harsh, and is it legal, depends on intent I suppose. :rockroll::drive::cheers::cheers::cheers:



Make sure we are holding hands, one wire in each........  :wacko::wacko:


----------



## jacquigem (Mar 11, 2015)

To be fair I thought it was Avery enjoyable debate on a subject dear to my heart.Will carry on as before through guys and hope common sense prevails!


----------



## John H (Mar 11, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Whilst you still go on about 'in charge' and 'attempting to drive' requiring interpretation for this offence. Driving or attempting to drive is Section 1a, seperate to 1b. You have understanding of the word 'or' as opposed to 'and'?
> 
> So having acknowledged that you could have been have been arrested in the layby in the circumstances you described, explain why.
> 
> ...



What on earth are you talking about? Section 1a refers to "attempting to drive"; section 1b refers to "in charge". The OR is not in dispute. Both sections contain elments that require interpretation (or do you not place any weight on the opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers?). 

I could have been arrested if the police officer decided that I was a potential danger but he did not - because he made a sensible judgement that I was not likely to drive!

You are correct in that one of us is struggling to understand the legislation but I am afraid you've hit upon the wrong one! If you still consider your view more significant that mine, the courts, the ACPO and virtually every other authority in the country then please continue to dig that hole for yourself.

And I am still waiting to an answer to my question - but there is none, is there?


----------



## John H (Mar 11, 2015)

jacquigem said:


> To be fair I thought it was Avery enjoyable debate on a subject dear to my heart.Will carry on as before through guys and hope common sense prevails!



And therein lies the key  - common sense. Unfortunately, it is not as common as you might hope


----------



## drewdt3 (Mar 11, 2015)

In the interests of legal research my wife and I are off to the Lakes at the weekend for 2 weeks and because being the brave, selfless people we are we shall be drinking in the van copious amounts of red wine in the evenings to see what happens with regards to prosecutions. Wish us luck!

Drew


----------



## John H (Mar 11, 2015)

drewdt3 said:


> In the interests of legal research my wife and I are off to the Lakes at the weekend for 2 weeks and because being the brave, selfless people we are we shall be drinking in the van copious amounts of red wine in the evenings to see what happens with regards to prosecutions. Wish us luck!
> 
> Drew



Park up where you are not an obstruction to anybody else, be polite to the officer (but don't offer him aglass!) and I can almost guarantee that he will make a more sensible judgement than some have on this thread! Bon voyage


----------



## SteveM (Mar 11, 2015)

John H said:


> What on earth are you talking about? Section 1a refers to "attempting to drive"; section 1b refers to "in charge". The OR is not in dispute. Both sections contain elments that require interpretation (or do you not place any weight on the opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers?).
> 
> I could have been arrested if the police officer decided that I was a potential danger but he did not - because he made a sensible judgement that I was not likely to drive!
> 
> ...



This discussion is about being drunk in charge and intent, yet you consistently bring in attempting to drive, why? Attempting to drive is not relevant here.

So just to be clear, in your opinion ,a police officer who satisfies himself  of a-d in post 153, but makes no judgement or assessment  of that persons intention to drive, and arrests them has then made an unlawful arrest? Or an improper arrest? Or a poor arrest? Or an unwise arrest? 

Now before you hit the, 'the breath test and arrest would be impossible without the officer making a determination on intent' button (post 154) a preliminary breath can be required if the officer suspects the presence of alcohol and b.-d. are in place. A positive sample provides enough to satisfy a. for the purpose of an arrest

The answer has been plainly written but you're not accepting it. Let's go back to the hammer scenario you have skipped over, you show me where it is written anywhere that a police officer MUST show, prove, consider or assess intent when dealing with a drunk in charge at the roadside, and I will show you were it is written that a police officer MUST prove intent for robbery or theft (with a hammer walking past jewellers). I know mine is written down and I know yours isn't, but go on show me. Maybe the lawmakers for this traffic offence were a bit forgetful when the legislation was written.


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 11, 2015)

John H said:


> Park up where you are not an obstruction to anybody else, be polite to the officer (but don't offer him aglass!) and I can almost guarantee that he will make a more sensible judgement than some have on this thread! Bon voyage


And if he does'nt, shoot him in the face with an air pistol..... :cheers:


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 11, 2015)

I'm gonna start a new thread called SMOKING WEED IN YOUR MOTORHOME, anyone up for a scrap?


----------



## izwozral (Mar 11, 2015)

merc the berc said:


> I'm gonna start a new thread called SMOKING WEED IN YOUR MOTORHOME, *anyone up for a scrap*?
> 
> I thought it was called a toke?


----------



## Tbear (Mar 11, 2015)

I think I am going to have to research this and every time I park up for the night I will have a wee dram or a beer and see how long before the police take an interest. Might be a long project

Richard


----------



## frontslide (Mar 11, 2015)

Cumberland Building society really do have consistently competitive mortgages though


----------



## SteveM (Mar 11, 2015)

[No message]


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 11, 2015)

do you know where the police station is, yes letsbeavenue.:lol-053::lol-049::wave:


----------



## molly 2 (Mar 11, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> do you know where the police station is, yes letsbeavenue.:lol-053::lol-049::wave:


  Thats no joke their is a police department on letsbe avenue in sheffield .


----------



## izwozral (Mar 11, 2015)

And all the coppers are eating IrishStewInTheNameOfTheLaw. :rolleyes2:


----------



## CAL (Mar 12, 2015)

It'll all be ok if a four year old girl cycles past with stabilizers and on the footpath, blue lights and siren wailing, can just see the chase on police camera action "she's done a right,right,right into the playgroup center, helicopter assistance required".


----------



## Louise (Mar 12, 2015)

Last year while wilding in cornwall we decided to book on to a caravan club site for one night as we fancied a drink. The wardens then told us if they required us to vacate the site during the night due to an emergency we could find ourselves with drink drive problems.........can't win!!


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

SteveM said:


> This discussion is about being drunk in charge and intent, yet you consistently bring in attempting to drive, why? Attempting to drive is not relevant here.
> 
> So just to be clear, in your opinion ,a police officer who satisfies himself  of a-d in post 153, but makes no judgement or assessment  of that persons intention to drive, and arrests them has then made an unlawful arrest? Or an improper arrest? Or a poor arrest? Or an unwise arrest?
> 
> ...



Ok,  since you still refuse to accept the bleeding obvious, let us approach this from a different angle. Let us start at a point we can both agree on. Not INTENDING to drive is an absolute defence in law to a charge of d.i.c. If, in the layby scenario earlier, the officer had arrested me and if it had gone to court, all I would have to do to be found not guilty would be to show that I did not INTEND to drive. I would not have to pove anything else. It follows, therefore, that INTENT is central to the offence. INTENT takes precedence over any other aspect of the offence and INTENT takes precedence over any other interpretation of the offence. Thus, if the officer at the time did not consider my INTENT he would be setting up a case to fail. He has acted lawfully but stupidly. As I have said many times before, there is no compulsion in law for himto consider INTENT but there is a compulsion under common sense - just as there is no compulsion in law for someone to wear more than a t-shirt and shorts in sub-zero temperatures but I think he would be generally regarded as an idiot for doing so! Back to the layby - I am willing to bet that if that officer repeatedly arrested without using his brain cells then he would be taken aside by his superiors and told not to be such a prat.


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 12, 2015)

SteveM said:


> SNIP.e
> 
> I'll wager John H returns for the last word though :beer:



You were right! However, if I can slip a bit of info in about INTENT. We did not have to prove intent if I opened a bag and found a bunch of keys and a hammer or a jemmy!

*Going equipped for stealing, etc.* Sect. 25 Theft Act 1968

(1)A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft.


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

siimplyloco said:


> You were right! However, if I can slip a bit of info in about INTENT. We did not have to prove intent if I opened a bag and found a bunch of keys and a hammer or a jemmy!
> 
> *Going equipped for stealing, etc.* Sect. 25 Theft Act 1968
> 
> (1)A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft.



In that case, I bet the carpenters in your neighbourhood were heartily fed up with you! :raofl:

"For use in......" Tell me, how did you decide that?


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> In that case, I bet the carpenters in your neighbourhood were heartily fed up with you! :raofl:
> 
> "For use in......" Tell me, how did you decide that?



Discretion old chap, discretion...


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 12, 2015)

frontslide said:


> Cumberland Building society really do have consistently competitive mortgages though



nice sausage to.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 12, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> nice sausage to.




Cowmans of Clitheroe    Cowmans Famous Sausage Shop   do Edisford Pork sausage  that used to be nicer than the Cumberland variety.

Sadly  :sad:  they changed the recipe and they no longer taste as good   :sad::sad::sad:


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

siimplyloco said:


> Discretion old chap, discretion...



Exactly my point, dear boy. Nice to know there might be one ex-copper who might not embarrass all those I used to deal with! :lol-053:


----------



## izwozral (Mar 12, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> Cowmans of Clitheroe    Cowmans Famous Sausage Shop   do Edisford Pork sausage  that used to be nicer than the Cumberland variety.
> 
> Sadly  :sad:  they changed the recipe and they no longer taste as good   :sad::sad::sad:



I hate that shop, it made me part with £33.46 last week & all I got was sausages.:sad:

The Morroccan Spice sausage were nice tho'


......as were the Boerworst


.....& the Lamb  Stliton


....&.....

As my daughter would say, NOM. :tongue:


Just to keep on topic: They taste great in the MH with several alcoholic beverages & I had no INTENT on driving.


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

izwozral said:


> Just to keep on topic: They taste great in the MH with several alcoholic beverages & I had no INTENT on driving.



Should be ok then - unless you are unlucky enough to be questioned by a copper who thinks that, because the law doesn't lay down in words of one syllable what he should do, then it entitles him to act in a way that defies logic! :lol-053:


----------



## izwozral (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> Should be ok then - unless you are unlucky enough to be questioned by a copper who thinks that, because the law doesn't lay down in words of one syllable what he should do, then it entitles him to act in a way that defies logic! :lol-053:



Heaven forfend, they don't exist do they? No of course they don't, they all act in a very reasonable & measured way.
Just as long as you are not a 3 year old girl riding a bicycle on the pavement. Then woe betide you, the full weight of the law will descend upon you from a great height & you will be threatened with confiscation.
Mind you, the copper did turn a blind eye to the fact she was nissed as a pewt.:lol-053:


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

izwozral said:


> Heaven forfend, they don't exist do they? No of course they don't, they all act in a very reasonable & measured way.
> Just as long as you are not a 3 year old girl riding a bicycle on the pavement. Then woe betide you, the full weight of the law will descend upon you from a great height & you will be threatened with confiscation.
> Mind you, the copper did turn a blind eye to the fact she was nissed as a pewt.:lol-053:



At one point in all this I was inclined to change my mind and agree with David that they shouldn't be let  loose without a minder!


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 12, 2015)

izwozral said:


> I hate that shop, it made me part with £33.46 last week & all I got was sausages.:sad:
> 
> The Morroccan Spice sausage were nice tho'
> 
> ...



esp the girls could not drive whilsed partaking the sausage.:scared::lol-053:


----------



## Pugs (Mar 12, 2015)

channa said:


> If my experience was to go by then no problem. It was a Stoeger .22 air rifle.
> 
> Channa



Yes it is a problem, there is no such thing as 'free shooting' or picking up a rabbit for the pot, if you get caught, you are likely to get arrested and charged for poaching and loose your air rifle. Also that is not helping the fact that SNP in Scotland want all air rifles fully licenced and registered like a firearm..why, because of this type of behaviour and more importantly idiots taking pot shots in built up areas

You can't take a 'few shots' at anything. It is unlawful to shoot on  public rights of way, in fact I think 50m from a public road. You  require permission to wonder on to somebodies land to bag a woodie or a  rabbit. If you seek permission to shoot a rabbit or a woodie and the landowner grants that, then that should be fine

Do I need a general licence or a game licence? - Shooting UK


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> In that case, I bet the carpenters in your neighbourhood were heartily fed up with you! :raofl:
> 
> "For use in......" Tell me, how did you decide that?



The black an white striped jersey and the sack labelled SWAG is a bit of a giveaway......

Not much gets past plod these days......


----------



## Tbear (Mar 12, 2015)

Louise said:


> Last year while wilding in cornwall we decided to book on to a caravan club site for one night as we fancied a drink. The wardens then told us if they required us to vacate the site during the night due to an emergency we could find ourselves with drink drive problems.........can't win!!



Don't you just love CC site managers.

:rulez:   :rulez:   :rulez:

Richard


----------



## SteveM (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> Ok,  since you still refuse to accept the bleeding obvious, let us approach this from a different angle. Let us start at a point we can both agree on. Not INTENDING to drive is an absolute defence in law to a charge of d.i.c. If, in the layby scenario earlier, the officer had arrested me and if it had gone to court, all I would have to do to be found not guilty would be to show that I did not INTEND to drive. I would not have to pove anything else. It follows, therefore, that INTENT is central to the offence. INTENT takes precedence over any other aspect of the offence and INTENT takes precedence over any other interpretation of the offence. Thus, if the officer at the time did not consider my INTENT he would be setting up a case to fail. He has acted lawfully but stupidly. *As I have said many times before, there is no compulsion in law for himto consider INTENT*but there is a compulsion under common sense - just as there is no compulsion in law for someone to wear more than a t-shirt and shorts in sub-zero temperatures but I think he would be generally regarded as an idiot for doing so! Back to the layby - I am willing to bet that if that officer repeatedly arrested without using his brain cells then he would be taken aside by his superiors and told not to be such a prat.



Finally we got there  

If you could point to the post numbers on your thread where you have stated or acknowledged this I would be grateful, I missed the many times trying to explain that very point to you.


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 12, 2015)

Tbear said:


> Don't you just love CC site managers.
> 
> :rulez:   :rulez:   :rulez:
> 
> Richard




We`ve only ever once been to a " little get together " as they put it on a CC site.

We didn`t know anything about but as we were booking in they said we was more than welcome to attend.

They said there would be plenty of food but wine and beer was always welcomed.

The main wardens, assistant wardens, some wardens from another site and probably a dozen or so members attended the barbie.

Hells bells  :scared::scared:  they can drink  :scared::scared: it was going down like it was going out of fashion  :scared::scared:

We bailed out at 11pm and went back to the van and bedded down  :goodnight:

I woke at approx 3am and i could still hear them laughing and joking in the distance ... just.

We left at approx 10am and the office was still locked up with no sign of life so the barrier key went through the letterbox  :wave:


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Finally we got there
> 
> If you could point to the post numbers on your thread where you have stated or acknowledged this I would be grateful, I missed the many times trying to explain that very point to you.



Or to put it another way - finally you actually read what I was writing before criticising it! I may have missed a few because I made this list on a very quick trawl through this interminable thread but I made that very point in posts 142, 149, 152, 154 and 178 (and alluded to it in several other posts as well!). Nice to know that it only takes 5 hammer blows to your thick skull before the bell rings.


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> SNIP
> Nice to know that it only takes 5 hammer blows to your thick skull before the bell rings.



Isn't it nice to just sit here, enjoying our retirement, interacting with our virtual friends, lapping up the milk of human kindness...
John


----------



## izwozral (Mar 12, 2015)

Your turn again John H.

This is like watching verbal tennis.


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 12, 2015)

izwozral said:


> Your turn again John H.
> 
> This is like watching verbal tennis.



Your pun intended? Back and forth over the 'net?


----------



## sparrks (Mar 12, 2015)

I would have thought that the amount of alchohol/how drunk you were would be the biggest determining factor as to whether you get breathalized or not. If you are not deemed in control of your actions, even if 'parked' up for the night, I would have thought you would be breathalized and arrested for being drunk in charge.
As a general rule if I have a drink then I stay below the legal limit for driving, the rare occasion being if I'm in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

izwozral said:


> Your turn again John H.
> 
> This is like watching verbal tennis.



Did he respond then? Must have missed that - either it was the fastest serve in history or he's retired hurt


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

siimplyloco said:


> Isn't it nice to just sit here, enjoying our retirement, interacting with our virtual friends, lapping up the milk of human kindness...
> John



Hee, hee - I'm normally a mild-mannered person but some people seem to only respond to the basics


----------



## izwozral (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> Did he respond then? Must have missed that - either it was the fastest serve in history or he's retired hurt



He showed his bottom then ran away.

Bloody hell, he's taken the winners cup with him too.


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

izwozral said:


> He showed his bottom then ran away.
> 
> Bloody hell, he's taken the winners cup with him too.



It's the only way he'll get it


----------



## SteveM (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> Or to put it another way - finally you actually read what I was writing before criticising it! I may have missed a few because I made this list on a very quick trawl through this interminable thread but I made that very point in posts 142, 149, 152, 154 and 178 (and alluded to it in several other posts as well!). Nice to know that it only takes 5 hammer blows to your thick skull before the bell rings.



Beginning to resort to insults is no way to continue, we were going quite well. Not trying to divert attention by any chance?

If you could highlight particularly where in your posts that you stated

 there is no compulsion in law for himto consider INTENT

Go on just for a thicky like me


----------



## Tbear (Mar 12, 2015)

Wooie1958 said:


> We`ve only ever once been to a " little get together " as they put it on a CC site.
> 
> We didn`t know anything about but as we were booking in they said we was more than welcome to attend.
> 
> ...




Try a Fenland DA Wine tasting. Bring a spare liver, you will need it. About 40 members turn up with a little something for you to try a little drop of. Most of which is cheap muck but after the first 5 you can't tell the difference. hangover lasted a week. The informal off site meets have always been the best. I don't often attend now as I just can't drink like that. To my knowledge no one has ever been breathalysed during or after one. Not that most of that lot would remember if they had. 

If you ever do attend one, take Gill the organiser a nice bottle of cider and you will be an honoured guest and give her a hug from me. 

Richard


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Beginning to resort to insults is no way to continue, we were going quitewell. Not trying to divert attention by any chance?
> 
> If you could highlight particularly where in your posts that you stated
> 
> ...



Now you are just being silly. The posts aren't that long; it won't take you long to find the words - unless you are in denial.

I will summarise (for the umpteenth time):

1. The law is couched in terms that require interpretation (whether by the officer at the scene or later by the courts).

2. Thus there is an inbuilt element of discretion for the officer.

3. If an arrest is made then it is an absolute defence (indeed THE defence) in court to show that you didn't intend to drive.

4. Thus any officer who makes a decision to arrest without assessing intent is acting within the law but not using common sense. He is setting up a case to fail.

5. The law does not compel the officer to do anything; but it gives him the power to do a range of things. It is common sense that determines he must take into account intent. If he does not then he will probably be taken aside by his superiors and told to be a bit cleverer in future. 

Sorry to everybody else who have already heard this more times than anyone would want to but it seems we are dealing with someone who is a bit hard of understanding.


----------



## Tbear (Mar 12, 2015)

Am I the only one who thinks that there are two separate threads mixed together here. 

Richard


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

Tbear said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that there are two separate threads mixed together here.
> 
> Richard



Just imagine you are in the pub. Several people have got fed up with having to listen to the same points being made over and over again because one participant isn't listening and so they start up an alternative conversation. If this goes on much longer, I'm tempted to join that one myself - probably makes more sense than some of the stuff I've been listening to.


----------



## frontslide (Mar 12, 2015)

Aaaaanyway you can be done for being drunk in charge when overnighting in your camper van/motorhome but you are not going to be


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 12, 2015)

frontslide said:


> Aaaaanyway you can be done for being drunk in charge when overnighting in your camper van/motorhome but you are not going to be



and that about sums it up away to bed the lot of you rascals,NOW.


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 12, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> and that about sums it up away to bed the lot of you rascals,NOW.



It only took 210 posts to come round to that sensible conclusion...


----------



## John H (Mar 12, 2015)

Sorry, I fell asleep - did common sense prevail then? :goodnight:


----------



## SteveM (Mar 12, 2015)

John H said:


> Now you are just being silly. The posts aren't that long; it won't take you long to find the words - unless you are in denial.
> 
> I will summarise (for the umpteenth time):
> 
> ...



Why do you persist in attempting to belittle? Why not try and stick to the point, if you cant do it without your snide asides then bow out and join the conversation with the rest of the bar. You won't though, because you are itching for the last word.

Its no point now claiming, 'this is what I have been saying all along' 

show me in post 152 for example where you have stated *'there is no compulsion in law for himto consider INTENT'*

Maybe you will agree with this advice. If a police officer visits you in your campervan parked in a layby and you are over the prescribed limit, there is no compulsion in law for him to consider intent and you could be arrested. There are police officers who will not give two hoots regarding your intent, because they don't have too. This is a rare occurrence but could happen. If you are evidentially over the prescribed limit, you will be interviewed and you will raise your defence of not intending to drive. The chances of the CPS prosecuting is rare


----------



## izwozral (Mar 13, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Why do you persist in attempting to belittle? Why not try and stick to the point, if you cant do it without your snide asides then bow out and join the conversation with the rest of the bar. You won't though, because you are itching for the last word.
> 
> Its no point now claiming, 'this is what I have been saying all along'
> 
> ...







AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Desist, please, for the sake of humanity. You & John H are never going to agree because you refuse to because each of you believes that individually you are right. Is that right? 
I know I can choose to ignore, just like I don't have to stick my tongue into my aching tooth, but if the pain is there, the masochist in me wants to feel the pain. Believe me, your toing & froing is giving me one hell of a bleedin' toothache. Please agree to disagree. PLEASE.
Am I alone in this desolate place?


----------



## Tezza (Mar 13, 2015)

izwozral said:


> AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Desist, please, for the sake of humanity. You & John H are never going to agree because you refuse to because each of you believes that individually you are right. Is that right?
> I know I can choose to ignore, just like I don't have to stick my tongue into my aching tooth, but if the pain is there, the masochist in me wants to feel the pain. Believe me, your toing & froing is giving me one hell of a bleedin' toothache. Please agree to disagree. PLEASE.
> Am I alone in this desolate place?


ohhh how the above  made me laugh...tongue in tooth....classic


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

Steve- maybe you missed this, from post 149 (light years ago it seems). I won't bother to repeat all the other similar phrases I have used - surely one is enough for most people!




John H said:


> Good grief. First I never said the law states that a policeman must show intent. What I said was that the law is couched in a way that allows him to make a judgement and I referred to one of the parts that did just that. If he is to exercise that judgement, he then must consider intent. Short of having a time machine, there is no other way he can determine what action the suspect may or may not take.



With apologies to everybody else who is quite rightly totally sick of all this.

There is no disgrace in apologising - but there is no need either. Goodbye (i hope)


----------



## pmsoftware (Mar 13, 2015)

Sorry, can't resist jumping into the fray.

The silly thing is that izwozral and John H don't need to agree to disagree.

They are just arguing about semantics.

In the end they both seem to agree. It seems to me that they are both saying the same thing but saying it differently.

Really do they need each other to prove the route that they took to get there?

Come on guys, just let it go!


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

pmsoftware said:


> Sorry, can't resist jumping into the fray.
> 
> The silly thing is that izwozral and John H don't need to agree to disagree.



Think you might want to correct that one - the discussion has clearly had such a numbing effect on you that you typed in the wrong name :rolleyes2:

But, although I tend to agree  with your general message, it is a little more than semantics.I think it is potentially dangerous for someone to say that, because something isn't specifically prescribed in law then you have every right to disregard common sense.


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

Mul said:


> :lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053:
> 
> Childish but far better than being supercilious. Watcha don't get friction burns on your fingers as the righteous indignation kicks in.



Thank you for your well-considered contribution to the debate. :wave:


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 13, 2015)

Mul said:


> :lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053:
> 
> Childish but far better than being supercilious. Watcha don't get friction burns on your fingers as the righteous indignation kicks in.





I believe that was sung by  Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke.


----------



## drewdt3 (Mar 13, 2015)

I canny believe this thread is actually still going??


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 13, 2015)

drewdt3 said:


> I canny believe this thread is actually still going??



Wrongdoers won't be sent to Coventry: they'll be sent here to die of boredom!


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

Hotel California! :lol-053:


----------



## Tbear (Mar 13, 2015)

siimplyloco said:


> Wrongdoers won't be sent to Coventry: they'll be sent here to die of boredom!



We must have been very naughty in several previous lives  This thread has died a terrible death more than once.

Why I keep reading it must make a statement about my sanity. 

Richard


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 13, 2015)

drewdt3 said:


> I canny believe this thread is actually still going??




The wife only uses Gutermann thread  https://www.guetermann.com/shop/en/view/content/?clear=true&isoCode=en&catalog=guetermann_uk_catalog  for her items and it is very good  :wave:


----------



## pmsoftware (Mar 13, 2015)

John H said:


> Think you might want to correct that one - the discussion has clearly had such a numbing effect on you that you typed in the wrong name :rolleyes2:
> 
> But, although I tend to agree  with your general message, it is a little more than semantics.I think it is potentially dangerous for someone to say that, because something isn't specifically prescribed in law then you have every right to disregard common sense.



Indeed, I stand corrected.

You were probably right my mind must have gone numb. Which in the context of this thread is hardly surprising.

I'll go back to lurking. Don't know why I replied in the first place.

Kind regards


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

pmsoftware said:


> Indeed, I stand corrected.
> 
> You were probably right my mind must have gone numb. Which in the context of this thread is hardly surprising.
> 
> ...



Please don't hide - we're quite normal most of the time! :lol-049:


----------



## izwozral (Mar 13, 2015)

pmsoftware said:


> Indeed, I stand corrected.
> 
> You were probably right my mind must have gone numb. Which in the context of this thread is hardly surprising.
> 
> ...



Dear Sir,

You implied that I was party to one of the most boring threads to date, I take extreme umbrage to this scandalous accusation. I will be consulting my lawyer with regards to claiming compensation for libel, malicious falsehood & character assassination.
How dare you, align my good name to this sleep inducing, mind numbing madness when all I want to do is get blind drunk in my motorhome that is parked in a layby on the A64............excuse me one moment.

" Hello officer, er no, I don't INTEND to drive........................."

Now where was I...............

Yours faithfully

D.Rivel


----------



## Val54 (Mar 13, 2015)

John H said:


> Please don't hide - we're quite normal most of the time! :lol-049:



Ok, so let's define "normal" , nooooooooo, I didn't mean it 
Dave


----------



## SteveM (Mar 13, 2015)

John H said:


> Steve- maybe you missed this, from post 149 (light years ago it seems). I won't bother to repeat all the other similar phrases I have used - surely one is enough for most people!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



John, yes and you then went onto the hammer analogy and on and on we went, however we seem to be in a happy place now where you are accepting that it is possible for an officer to make a determination about whether to breathalyse and arrest without making a judgement as to intent. Which I think is where I came in.

Sorry folks, no patronising apology from me, oh hang on.......

I return your farewell John, Goodbye.


----------



## izwozral (Mar 13, 2015)

SteveM said:


> John, yes and you then went onto the hammer analogy and on and on we went, however we seem to be in a happy place now where you are accepting that it is possible for an officer to make a determination about whether to breathalyse and arrest without making a judgement as to intent. Which I think is where I came in.
> 
> Sorry folks, no patronising apology from me, oh hang on.......
> 
> I return your farewell John, Goodbye.



Hurray. At last :rockroll::fun::banana::cool1::raofl::wacko::dance::have fun::cheers::lol-061:


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

SteveM said:


> John, yes and you then went onto the hammer analogy and on and on we went, however we seem to be in a happy place now where you are accepting that it is possible for an officer to make a determination about whether to breathalyse and arrest without making a judgement as to intent. Which I think is where I came in.
> 
> Sorry folks, no patronising apology from me, oh hang on.......
> 
> I return your farewell John, Goodbye.



At the risk of boring anybody who is still awake, I ALWAYS accepted that it was possible; it just isn't sensible. You seem to imply that I have changed my mind but the reality is that you have at last seen what I was saying. 

Your lack of patronising apology is accepted :lol-053::wave:


----------



## SteveM (Mar 13, 2015)

John H said:


> At the risk of boring anybody who is still awake, _I ALWAYS accepted that it was possible_; it just isn't sensible. You seem to imply that I have changed my mind but the reality is that you have at last seen what I was saying.
> 
> Your lack of patronising apology is accepted :lol-053::wave:



Oh your back, hello.

It's a pity you didn't write those seven words earlier. It is quite obvious you have changed your mind, a police officer doesn't have to prove intent for the offence of being drunk in charge does he?


----------



## sparrks (Mar 13, 2015)

Just when you thought it was over........................


----------



## Val54 (Mar 13, 2015)

Phil, put us all out of our misery and close this thread PLEASE..........:help::help:
Dave


----------



## Sharon the Cat (Mar 13, 2015)

Is it beer o'clock yet?


----------



## Wooie1958 (Mar 13, 2015)

Sharon the Cat said:


> Is it beer o'clock yet?




No idea   :cheers:    i`ve been at it since i got up so my eyes aren`t focusing on the clock anymore.

BTW, 

are you the doctor ? do i live here ? it`s awfully wet outside :rolleyes2:


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 13, 2015)

i put you all to bed last night and you lot are up at it again,so tonight there will be no coco as it must have fermented and you are all piss instantly posting again.:lol-053::lol-053::wave:


----------



## Siimplyloco (Mar 13, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> i put you all to bed last night and you lot are up at it again,so tonight there will be no coco as it must have fermented and you are all piss instantly posting again.:lol-053::lol-053::wave:



As one of the ex-coppers on here I found it all breathtakingly dull! Pun intended...
John


----------



## merc the berc (Mar 13, 2015)

I saw a Red Kite, today.....:banana:


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Oh your back, hello.
> 
> It's a pity you didn't write those seven words earlier. It is quite obvious you have changed your mind, a police officer doesn't have to prove intent for the offence of being drunk in charge does he?



Those seven words were intended to be a light-hearted joke- sorry you didn't get it.

And sorry too to disappoint you - I have not changed my mind at all but I see you are back to criticising me without actually reading what I wrote.

I'll try one more time (to the sound of wildcamping members jumping screaming fromrooftops) A POLICE OFFICER DOES NOT LEGALLY HAVE TO  CONSIDER INTENT BUT HE WOULD BE AN IDIOT WITH POOR CAREER PROSPECTS IF HE DIDNOT. Try to find a difference between that and what I have said repeatedly in virtually every post on this thread! Have a nice night :hammer:

PS Sorry Pendel - I wanted to let you be last, I really did!


----------



## Deleted member 5816 (Mar 13, 2015)

I suppose the answer is for no one else to post on this thread then they might get the message.

Alf


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

Mul said:


> Stop posting then ... you can't. Last word syndrome or summit.Its so funny winding you up. A one liner is all it takes and you tap away at that poor unstintingly inanimate mute obedient keyboard for paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. Too easy it's almost, almost, no fun anymore.



Well, if its no fun then why are you still here? Nothing good on telly? Or are you just a masochist? 

If you really don't want me to post any more then tell your mate Steve to stop trying to make himself look competent by pretending that I said something I didn't. As long as he continues to distort what I say I will continue to correct him. If he or anyone else posts something that does not do that then he or they are welcome to as many last words as they want.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 13, 2015)

John H said:


> Those seven words were intended to be a light-hearted joke- sorry you didn't get it.
> 
> And sorry too to disappoint you - I have not changed my mind at all but I see you are back to criticising me without actually reading what I wrote.
> 
> ...



Exactly my point from the beginning, my first two posts 38 & 52. You didn't agree or acknowledge that part back then but that's ok, we are here now.

Don't kid yourself, whilst I'm still responding, so will you in order to have the last word.

A pleasant evening to you.


----------



## Tbear (Mar 13, 2015)

It's Friday night and I'm sat here reading this. By God I've become a sad old git. 

Richard


----------



## John H (Mar 13, 2015)

SteveM said:


> Exactly my point from the beginning, my first two posts 38 & 52. You didn't agree or acknowledge that part back then but that's ok, we are here now.
> 
> Don't kid yourself, whilst I'm still responding, so will you in order to have the last word.
> 
> A pleasant evening to you.



Well you got one thing right, anyway - I'm still here!

I have read those two posts carefully and, having read them again, I would still make exactly the same point. I have NEVER said that he must legally show intent; I have said that common sense dictates that he must. He would be very silly not to because he would be setting up a case to fail. My criticism of you is that you do not recognise this point but instead repeatedly try to pretend I said something else. If you stop that then you can have the last word if you really want it. Otherwise, I'm still here to not let you get away with it.


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 13, 2015)

one thing is for sure while we are all here posting we are not out geting rat arsed in our vans,hic.:scared:


----------

