John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
Hee, hee - I'm normally a mild-mannered person but some people seem to only respond to the basics
Hee, hee - I'm normally a mild-mannered person but some people seem to only respond to the basics
izwozral
Full Member
- Posts
- 18,054
- Likes
- 42,011
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
SteveM
Guest
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 3,926
- Likes
- 2,331
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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.
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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
Guest
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 43,339
- Likes
- 64,277
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
Guest
It only took 210 posts to come round to that sensible conclusion...
SteveM
Guest
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 18,054
- Likes
- 42,011
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
Guest
ohhh how the above made me laugh...tongue in tooth....classic
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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!
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)
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)
Last edited:
pmsoftware
Guest
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!
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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.
