I've kicked a hornet's nest with this elsewhere
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:Sewinman wrote:Not sure where I fit in to this hypothetical! Anyway, my answer would be that it is entirely subjective and up to the person who witnesses it to decide on their actions. In the scenario described by the OP I would not have acted.
Well, there we go then, somone had a different opinion!!
As stated you seem to be happy for someone that is driving a car to also be drinking strong lager. That is your perogative, but please do not criticise others for having the opinion that this is not an acceptable course of action, whether it is actually legal or not.
But the point is that it isn't illegal. Therefore the OP had no right to threaten the driver (and he did he threatened to report him to the police).
Equally the driver was well within his right to ignore the OP.
And I personally wouldn't choose to drink behind the wheel but at the same time I don't think it's our place to encroach on another persons right to do so.
Nice that you cut off my next line where I stated it was legal!!
The point being that there would be the suspicion that the driver had consumed more than just a mouthful and may well have been over the limit. This would obviously be a suspicion till it was proven, but they should be reported and suffer the consequences. Also lets take it easy with use of "threaten" he threatened to report the driver to the police, he has every right to do that should he feel that a crime may have been committed. If the driver was innocent, he has every right to ignore, and nothing to fear."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
CyclingBantam wrote:
But surely it is our duty to do what we think is right to ensure events are the best outcome for society in general as opposed to leaving it to some one else.
What we think is right? Most in this thread initially thought it was illegal to drink alcohol behind the wheel until someone pointed out that it wasn't.
What we may think is right may not be law, which is why we have laws. As citizens It is not our duty to enforce law or enforce what we may or may not think is right.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I'd say it was similar. Picking up an apple is similar to picking up a can of beer.DonDaddyD wrote:snailracer wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure of that.DonDaddyD wrote:OK, so what I can gather is that:
The guy wasn't doing anything illegal.
It probably isn't the best idea to drink alcohol while behind the wheel of a vehicle but doing so isn't illegal. However, in some circles it is highly socially unacceptable and could convey an image that may result in you rightly/wrongly being reported to the police.
KB did and did not do the right thing dependant on the outcome....
:shock:
People have been done for "not being in proper control" when they were eating an apple, wiping their nose on a hanky, putting on makeup, etc., even if the car was stationary - the argument being that they were not in proper control when it came to setting off again.
Yes but that is a circumstance that isn't relevant in the example the OP has put forward so there isn't no point discussing or considering it.
As Subjects of the British Empire it isn't our duty to police all the circumstances that could or might happen.0 -
DDD - on the flip side of your (pretty bloody daft) example, if I saw a man on top of a woman in a bush and she's screaming No, leave me alone - do I assume that its just a bit of kinky fun or do I assume that its something worth reporting?
A number of factors will go through your head before thinking about reporting such as: what is the likelihood that an offence is being commissioned, what harm could that offence cause, can I be bothered etc.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I like living in a world where we don't make criminals out of the innocent.
But the innocent become the criminals. All criminals were innocent once, but crossed the divide.
It is all subjective what you report, each person has their own views and limits. Discussing it on here will not do any good as there will be a huge cross section of society.
My opinion was he should have reported it. If I see potentially life endangering behaviour I would do so.
If I clip a person's heel and they fall hit the curb crack their skull and die. Well, my walking that's potentially life endangering behavior. Are you going to report me for walking?
If this - reporting everybody elses action you don't agree with or view as life endangering - then Sewinman is right you have appointed yourself police, judge and jury.
I take it you report RLJers and all other possible cycling infringements then?
You are now being pedantic!!
I never said report actions you don't agree with, thanks for that mis quote. Obviously you have to take a judgement call on what is life threatening. RLJing is not in itself life threatening, but driving a car though red lights at 70mph in a 30 zone is.
As stated, the Police are still the police, if anything goes to court, the Judge is the judge and the jury the jury.
In the last 25 yaers I have only ever reported 1 incident to the Police, and that was the above mention of a car going through a red light in a 30 zone at around 70mph."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:
Nice that you cut off my next line where I stated it was legal!!
The point being that there would be the suspicion that the driver had consumed more than just a mouthful and may well have been over the limit. This would obviously be a suspicion till it was proven, but they should be reported and suffer the consequences. Also lets take it easy with use of "threaten" he threatened to report the driver to the police, he has every right to do that should he feel that a crime may have been committed. If the driver was innocent, he has every right to ignore, and nothing to fear.
You do know where SUS laws lead don't you?
Suspicion is usually driven by preconceptions and prejudices.
This is why police action largely works on facts.
1) Was the guy committing any crime?
No.
2) Did you witness a crime?
No.
3) Should the police get involved because you don't like the look or him or his actions, which are entirely legal?
No. He is entitled to live his life much like you are.
"Mind your business" is something not said enough.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:If I clip a person's heel and they fall hit the curb crack their skull and die. Well, my walking that's potentially life endangering behavior. Are you going to report me for walking?
If this - reporting everybody elses action you don't agree with or view as life endangering - then Sewinman is right you have appointed yourself police, judge and jury.
I take it you report RLJers and all other possible cycling infringements then?
Why undermine your earlier excellent summary of the whole thread by posting such nonsense?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If I clip a person's heel and they fall hit the curb crack their skull and die. Well, my walking that's potentially life endangering behavior. Are you going to report me for walking?
If this - reporting everybody elses action you don't agree with or view as life endangering - then Sewinman is right you have appointed yourself police, judge and jury.
I take it you report RLJers and all other possible cycling infringements then?
Why undermine your earlier excellent summary of the whole thread by posting such nonsense?
Bit'o'fun isn't it?
And thank you.
Anywho I'm done. I don't have the stamina for this debate today.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DDD You did this on that thread the other day. Are you intent on misquoting people and then developing it in to an argument? Seriously, why pick at any point you can to try and find some outrage and insinuate people are prejudice.
It's really not cool.0 -
Alcohol on a driver’s breath is accepted as reasonable suspicion for further police action - at that point it doesn’t matter whether the driver is over the limit or not.
It seems reasonable that a driver who has just taken a slurp from a can of Stella would qualify for the same.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:
Nice that you cut off my next line where I stated it was legal!!
The point being that there would be the suspicion that the driver had consumed more than just a mouthful and may well have been over the limit. This would obviously be a suspicion till it was proven, but they should be reported and suffer the consequences. Also lets take it easy with use of "threaten" he threatened to report the driver to the police, he has every right to do that should he feel that a crime may have been committed. If the driver was innocent, he has every right to ignore, and nothing to fear.
You do know where SUS laws lead don't you?
Suspicion is usually driven by preconceptions and prejudices.
This is why police action largely works on facts.
1) Was the guy committing any crime?
No.
2) Did you witness a crime?
No.
3) Should the police get involved because you don't like the look or him or his actions, which are entirely legal?
No. He is entitled to live his life much like you are.
"Mind your business" is something not said enough.
Agree to some extent. However as Spen666 previously pointed out, the Police would more than likely have breathalysed him as there was enough suspicion to think he was drink driving.
You see someone stagger over to a car, get in and drive away..... suspicion is that he is drunk. Do you do nothing as you do not know a crime has been done?
In this case the guy could well have been over the limit."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Come again? In that thread the other day there were those that agreed with my point and there were those one that did not.CyclingBantam wrote:DDD You did this on that thread the other day. Are you intent on misquoting people and then developing it in to an argument? Seriously, why pick at any point you can to try and find some outrage and insinuate people are prejudice.
It's really not cool.
That point still stands: Jeremyrundle benefits were in direct conflict with the personal belife you put forward and you were too cowardly to admit it.
As for this thread.
Suspicion is often driven by prejudices and preconceptions. We all have them and we all make them. It's how we choose to act upon them that they become a problem.
Exactly like the Sus laws.
Now I originally said that I thought the OP did the right thing. However, with more thought I don't think he did. You see I was assuming that drinking alcohol while behind the wheel was in some way wrong if not illegal.
It isn't.
Given that it isn't illegal then personally I'm of the thought to let the driver live his life and I'll go on living mine.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:TailWindHome wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:IA lotta old guff
Why undermine your earlier excellent summary of the whole thread by posting such nonsense?
Bit'o'fun isn't it?
To be fair it did have the air of a bored Wednesday afternoon about it.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:
Agree to some extent. However as Spen666 previously pointed out, the Police would more than likely have breathalysed him as there was enough suspicion to think he was drink driving.
You see someone stagger over to a car, get in and drive away..... suspicion is that he is drunk. Do you do nothing as you do not know a crime has been done?
In this case the guy could well have been over the limit.
Have I witness a crime? No. So, no.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article612647.ece
DRIVERS who eat and drink at the wheel are twice as likely to have a crash, a study has indicated. They try to compensate for the distractions of eating and drinking by driving more slowly and carefully, but they are often unable to brake in time to avoid a collision.
The risk is similar to using a handheld mobile phone while driving, for which the fixed penalty is to be raised from a £30 to a £60 fine plus three points.
Road safety groups said that the absence of any legislation or clear guidance on the dangers of eating and drinking while driving encouraged motorists to think it was safe.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:...
You do know where SUS laws lead don't you?
Suspicion is usually driven by preconceptions and prejudices.
This is why police action largely works on facts.
1) Was the guy committing any crime?
No.
2) Did you witness a crime?
No.
3) Should the police get involved because you don't like the look or him or his actions, which are entirely legal?
No. He is entitled to live his life much like you are.
"Mind your business" is something not said enough.
Members of the public and the police act on reasonable suspicion. That's why a policeman says, "I arrest you on suspicion of murder", and not, " I arrest you for murder". That is why newspapers report that someone has been arrested "on suspicion of murder", and not "for murder".
Whether a crime has actually taken place is for a court to decide. By your argument, a court would have to have decided an offence had been committed before someone could even be arrested, which is pure nonsense.0 -
I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now brekkie has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.0 -
W1 wrote:I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now Stella has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.
Fixed that for you!
sewinman and DDD seem to think it is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all. And we should not report any suspicions of crime, unless they have been convicted, as everyone is innocent."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Come again? In that thread the other day there were those that agreed with my point and there were those one that did not.CyclingBantam wrote:DDD You did this on that thread the other day. Are you intent on misquoting people and then developing it in to an argument? Seriously, why pick at any point you can to try and find some outrage and insinuate people are prejudice.
It's really not cool.
That point still stands: Jeremyrundle benefits were in direct conflict with the personal belife you put forward and you were too cowardly to admit it.
As for this thread.
Suspicion is often driven by prejudices and preconceptions. We all have them and we all make them. It's how we choose to act upon them that they become a problem.
Exactly like the Sus laws.
Now I originally said that I thought the OP did the right thing. However, with more thought I don't think he did. You see I was assuming that drinking alcohol while behind the wheel was in some way wrong if not illegal.
It isn't.
Given that it isn't illegal then personally I'm of the thought to let the driver live his life and I'll go on living mine.
Ok fair enough. You win again big man.0 -
W1 wrote:I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now brekkie has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article612647.ece
DRIVERS who eat and drink at the wheel are twice as likely to have a crash, a study has indicated. They try to compensate for the distractions of eating and drinking by driving more slowly and carefully, but they are often unable to brake in time to avoid a collision.
He wasn't objecting to him drinking, he was objecting to the consumption of perhaps 50ml of beer.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:W1 wrote:I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now Stella has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.
Fixed that for you!
sewinman and DDD seem to think it is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all. And we should not report any suspicions of crime, unless they have been convicted, as everyone is innocent.
It is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all.
I however wouldn't I don't like drinking and then driving. I don't eat, smoke or drink while in my car driving. However, that is a personal choice and I accept the fact that others are entitled to their's.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I don't disagree with your comment on preconcemptions and prejudices linked to suspicion - just look at the thread about youths standing near a bike locked up outside a Co-op.DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:
Nice that you cut off my next line where I stated it was legal!!
The point being that there would be the suspicion that the driver had consumed more than just a mouthful and may well have been over the limit. This would obviously be a suspicion till it was proven, but they should be reported and suffer the consequences. Also lets take it easy with use of "threaten" he threatened to report the driver to the police, he has every right to do that should he feel that a crime may have been committed. If the driver was innocent, he has every right to ignore, and nothing to fear.
You do know where SUS laws lead don't you?
Suspicion is usually driven by preconceptions and prejudices.
However, the 'sus law' was a particular case of the abuse by the Police of wide powers under the Vagrancy Act (the ability to detain, search and arrest someone [edited to add: 'effectively'] for just standing around in public). To equate the 'sus laws' to a member of the public (or anyone) acting when they have a suspicion - apparently based on the congruence of the terms - seems a little unfair.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:W1 wrote:I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now Stella has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.
Fixed that for you!
sewinman and DDD seem to think it is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all. And we should not report any suspicions of crime, unless they have been convicted, as everyone is innocent.
It is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all.
I however wouldn't I don't like drinking and then driving. I don't eat, smoke or drink while in my car driving. However, that is a personal choice and I accept the fact that others are entitled to their's.
Really? Socially Acceptable = Legal?
Life suddenly got more simple.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.0 -
snailracer wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:...
You do know where SUS laws lead don't you?
Suspicion is usually driven by preconceptions and prejudices.
This is why police action largely works on facts.
1) Was the guy committing any crime?
No.
2) Did you witness a crime?
No.
3) Should the police get involved because you don't like the look or him or his actions, which are entirely legal?
No. He is entitled to live his life much like you are.
"Mind your business" is something not said enough.
Members of the public and the police act on reasonable suspicion. That's why a policeman says, "I arrest you on suspicion of murder", and not, " I arrest you for murder". That is why newspapers report that someone has been arrested "on suspicion of murder", and not "for murder".
Whether a crime has actually taken place is for a court to decide. By your argument, a court would have to have decided an offence had been committed before someone could even be arrested, which is pure nonsense.
I see your point. Thing is there is an assumption of a crime when none has taken place. This kind of attitude leads to needless stop and search scenario's that casts everyone as a criminal.
My brother who has cornrows and a perchant from tracksuits, trainers and hooded tops got stopped on the grounds that he looked suspiciously like every other teenager, the minority of which may cause crimes. It's not right that he is stopped based on the way he dresses right now.
I see the driver in the same light. His actions were those that some may not approve of. However that and that alone does not justify reporting him to the police. The driver committed no crime, the OP didn't say or imply he had even after speaking to him the OP did not feel that a crime had taken place or a law had been broken, so why report him?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:W1 wrote:I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now Stella has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.
Fixed that for you!
sewinman and DDD seem to think it is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all. And we should not report any suspicions of crime, unless they have been convicted, as everyone is innocent.
It is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all.
I however wouldn't I don't like drinking and then driving. I don't eat, smoke or drink while in my car driving. However, that is a personal choice and I accept the fact that others are entitled to their's.
Really? Socially Acceptable = Legal?
Life suddenly got more simple.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.
Erm, it isn't illegal to drink alcohol while driving. This has been established earlier in the thread. The notion of what is socially acceptable or uinacceptable is driven and influenced by what is legal and illegal.
I would argue it isn't socially acceptable to do Class A drugs (as in the majority of society would frown on it) but then it is also illegal.
I await your apology.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
his point is that just because it isnt illegal doesnt mean that it is socially acceptable.0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:....
Erm, it isn't illegal to drink alcohol while driving. This has been established earlier in the thread. The notion of what is socially acceptable or uinacceptable is driven and influenced by what is legal and illegal.
I would argue it isn't socially acceptable to do Class A drugs (as in the majority of society would frown on it) but then it is also illegal.
I await your apology.
It is not legal to drink whilst driving as you are guilty of the offence of not being in full control of your vehicle.
I await your apologyWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Specialized Needs wrote:
I don't disagree with your comment on preconcemptions and prejudices linked to suspicion - just look at the thread about youths standing near a bike locked up outside a Co-op.DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:
Nice that you cut off my next line where I stated it was legal!!
The point being that there would be the suspicion that the driver had consumed more than just a mouthful and may well have been over the limit. This would obviously be a suspicion till it was proven, but they should be reported and suffer the consequences. Also lets take it easy with use of "threaten" he threatened to report the driver to the police, he has every right to do that should he feel that a crime may have been committed. If the driver was innocent, he has every right to ignore, and nothing to fear.
You do know where SUS laws lead don't you?
Suspicion is usually driven by preconceptions and prejudices.
However, the 'sus law' was a particular case of the abuse by the Police of wide powers under the Vagrancy Act (the ability to detain, search and arrest someone [edited to add: 'effectively'] for just standing around in public). To equate the 'sus laws' to a member of the public (or anyone) acting when they have a suspicion - apparently based on the congruence of the terms - seems a little unfair.
I think my intention was to demonstrate where that mentallity could lead. Not to say that's what it is.
But you are right.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I don't think that was what he was getting at. I think he was pointing out that saying something was OK (socially acceptable) just because it is legal is a bit simplistic.DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:W1 wrote:I feel slightly unwell, as I tend to agree with Sewinman and DDD in this thread.
But now Stella has turned up and my whole afternoon is complete.
Fixed that for you!
sewinman and DDD seem to think it is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all. And we should not report any suspicions of crime, unless they have been convicted, as everyone is innocent.
It is acceptable to drink strong lager while driving. It is legal after all.
I however wouldn't I don't like drinking and then driving. I don't eat, smoke or drink while in my car driving. However, that is a personal choice and I accept the fact that others are entitled to their's.
Really? Socially Acceptable = Legal?
Life suddenly got more simple.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.
Erm, it isn't illegal to drink alcohol while driving. This has been established earlier in the thread. The notion of what is socially acceptable or uinacceptable is driven and influenced by what is legal and illegal.
I would argue it isn't socially acceptable to do Class A drugs (as in the majority of society would frown on it) but then it is also illegal.
I await your apology.0
