MacArab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: Actually I think its quite interesting. I would like to see a definitive resolution. Buddist has asked Monkman to reference the actual law / statute which presumably he will be able to do. Its got feck all to do with the Robson incident now but its very P&B. Fairy Nuff - Agree it is very P&B, but could you not take yourselves off to a wee thread of your own and thrash it out there, and we can get back to using this one to chat about the mighty Terrors?????? Ideally you could lock it and only give the access password to those who can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that they give a f**k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: Actually I think its quite interesting. I would like to see a definitive resolution. Buddist has asked Monkman to reference the actual law / statute which presumably he will be able to do. Its got feck all to do with the Robson incident now but its very P&B. I think Buddist Monk should get shitfaced and we can all act as witnesses to this and video it. He can then get in a car in an area where he cannot possibly be a danger to anyone other than himself and drive. We will then hand the video over to the authorities and see what transpires. If it goes to court Random Guy’s girlfriend and Skyline Drifter can act as his defence team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 11 minutes ago, MacArab said: Fairy Nuff - Agree it is very P&B, but could you not take yourselves off to a wee thread of your own and thrash it out there, and we can get back to using this one to chat about the mighty Terrors?????? Ideally you could lock it and only give the access password to those who can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that they give a f**k. You should post half as much and half as often but no one complains. This is far more interesting than whether Billy King can beat a man or what formation Lazlo prefers. Have a few days off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gbud84 Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Police receive a call from a landlord that some fud has sat in his bar all night on the whiskey and got up, left, jumped in the car and headed home. Police go out and pull said 'fud' see he's absolutely reeking and take him to the cop shop. Once there he's asked to provide a sample which he refuses. Meanwhile the arresting officers head to the pub he was drinking in and speak to the landlord and around another 20 or so drinkers who all say ' yes he was sat there drinking for 4 hours straight'. Police head back to the station where the 'fud' is still refusing to provide a sample. By this time it's 3 or 4 hours later and that's now 4 times he's refused to take a test. He's papped in the holding cells and left to sleep it off. He wakes up and is charged with "failing to provide a sample" and not drink driving. Why? Well that's because for all they know, he could still be under the limit and without test results to prove otherwise then there's heehaw they can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Buddist Monk said: Care to highlight this explicitness in the actual law? And to help you, here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/contents ps: You need to update your sig to include St Mirren.. s.7 with the specific measurements a matter for secondary legislation. Rather than ask for convoluted examples of case law where folk have filmed it and all that shit, why don't you provide an example of case law where there was a successful prosecution in the absence of any blood/breathe/urine samples. This should be straightforward enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacArab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 19 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: You should post half as much and half as often but no one complains. This is far more interesting than whether Billy King can beat a man or what formation Lazlo prefers. Have a few days off. Apologies. I was under the misapprehension that I was posting on a football forum. Do carry on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, MacArab said: Apologies. I was under the misapprehension that I was posting on a football forum. Do carry on.... We all think that to begin with. It's more like group therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: We all think that to begin with. It's more like group therapy. Do you want to share your experience of growing up in Invergowrie and only having a punnet of raspberries and a £500 note to last each month with the group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddist Monk Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: This should be straightforward enough. Yeah, the most straightforward thing would be to point to exactly where in the legislation it supports your argument, something nobody so far has managed to do, rather than the onus on me going through every single drink driving case and analysing the court report. Section 7, which you referred to, does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said: Yeah, the most straightforward thing would be to point to exactly where legislation that supports your argument, something nobody so far has managed to do, rather than the onus on me going through every single drink driving case and analysing the court report. You don't have to go through every case. You are obviously a student/practitioner of the law. Citing precedent for unusual or important cases is usually pretty easy. You will also be fully aware that technical guidance is rarely contained within primary legislation. I think as you are steadfastly refusing to offer up anything to back up your position I'll bow out now. I'm confident the casual reader can make their own mind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Do you want to share your experience of growing up in Invergowrie and only having a punnet of raspberries and a £500 note to last each month with the group? A punnet? We didn't own the farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: A punnet? We didn't own the farm. Your serfdom explains a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddist Monk Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, invergowrie arab said: You don't have to go through every case. You are obviously a student/practitioner of the law. Citing precedent for unusual or important cases is usually pretty easy. Sadly that is exactly what you are asking of me. My contention has never been that Robson should be charged, more just that he could. Those who are making assumptions do so without actually referencing the actual texts of the law. This is fairly prevalent in the footballing community because we all do it with referees. We'll see an offence either given or not, spend hours debating the pros/cons then somebody actually looks at the laws of the game and finds it different to what the common assumption is/was. My only involvement in this thread was to correct that, and the assumption that cctv would be inadmissible. I have no axe to grind with either club or player. I find the tediosity equally exasperating but it's borne from people just making assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Buddist Monk said: Sadly that is exactly what you are asking of me. My contention has never been that Robson should be charged, more just that he could. Those who are making assumptions do so without actually referencing the actual texts of the law. This is fairly prevalent in the footballing community because we all do it with referees. We'll see an offence either given or not, spend hours debating the pros/cons then somebody actually looks at the laws of the game and finds it different to what the common assumption is/was. My only involvement in this thread was to correct that, and the assumption that cctv would be inadmissible. I have no axe to grind with either club or player. I find the tediosity equally exasperating but it's borne from people just making assumption. F*ck sake, you could be a Falkirk poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 You're looking at the wrong Act. Drink driving is covered by the RTA 1988. If you refuse to provide a specimen for analysis you're guilty of an offence that results in disqualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarto Mutiny Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Sorry to drag this back to football, but Fyvie is out for the season. Shite. https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-united-dealt-huge-blow-fraser-fyvie-injury-absence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Sorry to drag this back to football, but Fyvie is out for the season. Shite.https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-united-dealt-huge-blow-fraser-fyvie-injury-absence/ That article doesn't appear to say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardy23 Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Looks like the club has sorted this out in a 5 min chat between Robson, Shabba and the MD. And the Sweeney arn't interested, so move along, nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 10 minutes ago, Sarto Mutiny said: Sorry to drag this back to football, but Fyvie is out for the season. Shite. https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-united-dealt-huge-blow-fraser-fyvie-injury-absence/ Not certain though? Says he needs a further scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Without having ever been charged with such an incident - surely if the person just refuses to give a breath test they can then only be charged with dangerous driving? That seems a bit iffy, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.