Police used to only be able to stop and ask you for a breath test if you'd committed a moving traffic offence ie driven eratically etc. I think they can now do random breath tests for no reason.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Can the Police stop you for no reason?
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostNot technically correct. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s163 gives any officer the power to stop you. This is the section relied upon for random vehicle checks. Consequently from that check they can ask you for a breath test under section 6 if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you've been drinking. What is reasonable is up to their interpretation.
What is reasonable in terms of suspicion should be subject to a test of what the man on the Clapham Omnibus might think (not the Police)- OTH the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about 30% likely to be a "nothing to hide" twat so maybe he gets what he deserves.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sappatz View Post**** UK police anywayThe court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.
But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”Comment
-
Better no reason than thinking they have one. Being stopped for fire bombing a NF office and making obscene phone calls from public telephone boxes like I have (been stopped that is) is much more worrying.bloggoth
If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)Comment
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostPolice used to only be able to stop and ask you for a breath test if you'd committed a moving traffic offence ie driven eratically etc. I think they can now do random breath tests for no reason.Comment
-
Bolshie B posted : Having suffered a loss due to a drunk driver I've not got a problem with random breath testing.
I support your case, in the sense that I am more than prepared to suffer the occasional inconvenience to my lifestyle, if it is for the purposes for law enforcement and crime prevention.
Eg, hypothetically, I could be the drunken person coming out of a pub, and subjected to a breath test, instead of getting in to a car and killing someone. That's crime prevention and good policing.
A lot of people see the police as interference in their lives, as if somehow the world revolves around them, and anything which inconveniences them is dreadfully wrong.
It's the "me me me state interference blah blah blah selfish gene gone mad".
Fine.
Perhaps the services should write to such people and say :
"seeing as you find our involvement from time to time in your life such a tedious chore, we have decided to honour your request at peace and privacy.
We will no longer respond if your car gets stolen, your house gets burgled, your property catches fire, you have a heart attack, etc.
Sorry to have been a nuisance, and good luck!"
A small inconvenience to me, is nothing compared to the immense "inconvenience" of someone else losing a loved one.
It's my civic duty to help the police and the services in general, and I have nothing to hide.Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. LewisComment
-
Originally posted by Board Game Geek View Post
It's my civic duty to help the police and the services in general, and I have nothing to hide.
Plenty of people have something to hide which is no business of the state whatsoever.
In many European countries plenty of people with 'nothing to hide' have had a lot to fear from their governments.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Originally posted by Board Game Geek View PostI'm really sorry to hear that Mr BB.
I support your case, in the sense that I am more than prepared to suffer the occasional inconvenience to my lifestyle, if it is for the purposes for law enforcement and crime prevention.
Eg, hypothetically, I could be the drunken person coming out of a pub, and subjected to a breath test, instead of getting in to a car and killing someone. That's crime prevention and good policing.
A lot of people see the police as interference in their lives, as if somehow the world revolves around them, and anything which inconveniences them is dreadfully wrong.
It's the "me me me state interference blah blah blah selfish gene gone mad".
Fine.
Perhaps the services should write to such people and say :
"seeing as you find our involvement from time to time in your life such a tedious chore, we have decided to honour your request at peace and privacy.
We will no longer respond if your car gets stolen, your house gets burgled, your property catches fire, you have a heart attack, etc.
Sorry to have been a nuisance, and good luck!"
A small inconvenience to me, is nothing compared to the immense "inconvenience" of someone else losing a loved one.
It's my civic duty to help the police and the services in general, and I have nothing to hide.Comment
-
You’d better have something to hide and let the police find it when they detain you. Otherwise they will get upset when they have to make something up for themselves. Given their sick minds and spiteful nature, it could be a lot worse than anything you could imagine.How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
Follow me on Twitter - LinkedIn Profile - The HAB blog - New Blog: Mad Cameron
Xeno points: +5 - Asperger rating: 36 - Paranoid Schizophrenic rating: 44%
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - AesopComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment