|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 23, 2024 16:08:45 GMT
What do you think of this idea proposal ? Police could get the power to disqualify drink or drug-drivers instantly at the roadside. Force chiefs are in early discussions looking at the type of tests that could be used and the legal changes needed to make the move possible. Chief Constable Jo Shiner, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for roads policing, also wants tougher punishments for drivers who kill while under the influence, including potential murder charges. She said: “The ability for us to be able to disqualify people either for drink or drug-driving by the roadside would mean that we can immediately take that risk off the road. “And those people haven’t got the ability to be behind the wheel, particularly if they’ve blown well over the legal limit.” The idea of instant disqualification is supported by Ceinwen Briddon, who campaigned for tougher sentences for fatal drivers after her 21-year-old daughter Miriam was killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver. Gareth Entwhistle, then 34, was jailed after admitting causing death by undue care while over the prescribed drink-drive limit in 2015. He served half of a five-year jail term and was banned from driving for five years. Ms Briddon’s campaigning spurred on a change in the law where those found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving can face a life sentence. IMHO it is a good idea I'm not so sure. Surely it's the job of the police (and CPS) to put people before the courts who then implement laws passed down from parliament. How long will the police disqualify people for? And if this comes to fruition what's next, maybe the police could ban speeding motorists without bothering the courts. As far as I can see this takes away peoples right to a fair trial. Perhaps behind the scenes this is designed to ease the backlog of court cases. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 23, 2024 16:16:26 GMT
What do you think of this idea proposal ? Police could get the power to disqualify drink or drug-drivers instantly at the roadside. Force chiefs are in early discussions looking at the type of tests that could be used and the legal changes needed to make the move possible. Chief Constable Jo Shiner, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for roads policing, also wants tougher punishments for drivers who kill while under the influence, including potential murder charges. She said: “The ability for us to be able to disqualify people either for drink or drug-driving by the roadside would mean that we can immediately take that risk off the road. “And those people haven’t got the ability to be behind the wheel, particularly if they’ve blown well over the legal limit.” The idea of instant disqualification is supported by Ceinwen Briddon, who campaigned for tougher sentences for fatal drivers after her 21-year-old daughter Miriam was killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver. Gareth Entwhistle, then 34, was jailed after admitting causing death by undue care while over the prescribed drink-drive limit in 2015. He served half of a five-year jail term and was banned from driving for five years. Ms Briddon’s campaigning spurred on a change in the law where those found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving can face a life sentence. IMHO it is a good idea I'm not so sure. Surely it's the job of the police (and CPS) to put people before the courts who then implement laws passed down from parliament. How long will the police disqualify people for? And if this comes to fruition what's next, maybe the police could ban speeding motorists without bothering the courts. As far as I can see this takes away peoples right to a fair trial. Perhaps behind the scenes this is designed to ease the backlog of court cases. It is the CPS that decides who is sent to Court all the Police do is provide the evidence to the CPS to make that decision , as this is a suggestion a proposal at this point in time it may never happen Indeed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law is a right we all have and one we must cherish. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 23, 2024 16:16:30 GMT
There must always be a very clear divide between The Police and the Judiciary, in my opinion the idea is not just dangerous, but could be the start of a slippery slide towards the Police been both enforcer and judge and jury.
The idea should be tossed aside and kicked into touch
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 23, 2024 16:19:29 GMT
]It is the CPS that decides who is sent to Court all the Police do is provide the evidence to the CPS to make that decision , as this is a suggestion a proposal at this point in time it may never happen Indeed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law is a right we all have and one we must cherish. Oh I see... so the proposal is the police effectively ban someone until their court date? If I understand that correctly, yes that's not such a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 23, 2024 16:20:03 GMT
There must always be a very clear divide between The Police and the Judiciary, in my opinion the idea is not just dangerous, but could be the start of a slippery slide towards the Police been both enforcer and judge and jury. The idea should be tossed aside and kicked into touch IMO that will never happen , the Police and Courts are two different beasts the Courts have more power than the Police have or will ever have |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 23, 2024 16:21:55 GMT
]It is the CPS that decides who is sent to Court all the Police do is provide the evidence to the CPS to make that decision , as this is a suggestion a proposal at this point in time it may never happen Indeed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law is a right we all have and one we must cherish. Oh I see... so the proposal is the police effectively ban someone until their court date? If I understand that correctly, yes that's not such a bad idea. That is my opinion of what may happen, not enough Info at this point in time |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 23, 2024 21:13:39 GMT
You say the police wont become judge and jury but then say they would remove your right to drive until you appear in court . You have also mentioned it could be some time before the court case . In effect the police will ban you for maybe a year when you have a perfectly good reason or excuse as to why you may have driven whilst over the limit . I don't like it ,I can see this moving into other areas giving the police more powers over the people . This is a suggestion a proposal it may not come to fruition at the end of the day, if this proposal is adopted and is passed by the Government of the day it will be the Police that have to carry out their instruction, which means if over the drink drive limit by either drink and or drugs they will have to choice. If tested at the roadside and the driver is over the limit they are arrested on the spot taken to the Police Station and if over the alcohol limit charged there and then, if the driver is not suitable for bail they will be kept in custody and taken to Court the following day, if suitable for Bail they will given a date to attend Court which usually is withing a week or maybe a bit longer. Not sure but I think if impaired by drugs a toxicology test has to carried out by a Laboratory If this does come in and they are banned from driving until the first Court Hearing IMHO it is highly likely if they plead Not Guilty they maybe allowed to ask the Court to remove the ban until their trial date, if they plead guilty at the first hearing the Court can then decide if the disqualification stands and how long for. If the accused driver asks that his case be dealt with by a Crown Court yes that may take a long time to come about. Its all academic at this stage , it all depends if it come about or not, the only power Police have is what the Government gives them Well thats fair enough ,as long as the courts are involved the following day or within a few days I would support it |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 23, 2024 21:57:07 GMT
There must always be a very clear divide between The Police and the Judiciary, in my opinion the idea is not just dangerous, but could be the start of a slippery slide towards the Police been both enforcer and judge and jury. The idea should be tossed aside and kicked into touch IMO that will never happen , the Police and Courts are two different beasts the Courts have more power than the Police have or will ever have Yes but the problem is, and I accept this is something of a digression btw, but the courts 'power' is ineffective unless the police put offenders before the courts. And as we have seen in recent weeks and months the police tend to be very selective when it comes to enforcing the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 24, 2024 12:21:41 GMT
IMO that will never happen , the Police and Courts are two different beasts the Courts have more power than the Police have or will ever have Yes but the problem is, and I accept this is something of a digression btw, but the courts 'power' is ineffective unless the police put offenders before the courts. And as we have seen in recent weeks and months the police tend to be very selective when it comes to enforcing the law. The Police right across the UK make hundreds of arrests week in week out , Police can only arrest a person if the offence they are suspected of has a Power of Arrest attached to it, if not they can deal with minor offences by others means a Fixed Penalty Notices, a Summons, even words of advice they can and do use their discretion. Since 1984 the CPS decide what happens after they have evaluated the Police Evidence, Victims Statements, Forensics, Suspects interviews, etc, the CPS then decide what happens next either Charge and put before the Court, a Caution, No further Action , not in the Public Interest to pursue the matter, the Police have no say in what happens The Met Police for instance have arrested hundreds and hundreds of Protesters , what happens to them at the end of the day is up to the CPS, some they Charge, some they Cautions, these Protesters are a pain in the arse not only to Public but the Police and hundreds of man hours to process them and all the paperwork for each one. For Protests it is the Senior Officers that make the decisions to make arrests or not IMHO they select their targets based on what certain individual are doing and how they are behaving or prior intelligence gathering, each arrest means at least two Officers to do it , get them out of the crowd and away to the nearest Charging Station, they are out numbered ever time. The old saying comes into play " If you need to kill a snake you don't stand on its tail , you take its head off " the Hot Heads in the crowd, the Trouble Makers They have cost the Taxpayers millions of pounds in overtime, Officers are taken off their normal duty for every protest , they even have to draft in Officers from outside London, but even after saying that the Met and other Forces are still making arrests for very Serious Offences, as we see in the Media the Court Cases right across the UK 24/7 |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 24, 2024 12:36:00 GMT
This is a suggestion a proposal it may not come to fruition at the end of the day, if this proposal is adopted and is passed by the Government of the day it will be the Police that have to carry out their instruction, which means if over the drink drive limit by either drink and or drugs they will have to choice. If tested at the roadside and the driver is over the limit they are arrested on the spot taken to the Police Station and if over the alcohol limit charged there and then, if the driver is not suitable for bail they will be kept in custody and taken to Court the following day, if suitable for Bail they will given a date to attend Court which usually is withing a week or maybe a bit longer. Not sure but I think if impaired by drugs a toxicology test has to carried out by a Laboratory If this does come in and they are banned from driving until the first Court Hearing IMHO it is highly likely if they plead Not Guilty they maybe allowed to ask the Court to remove the ban until their trial date, if they plead guilty at the first hearing the Court can then decide if the disqualification stands and how long for. If the accused driver asks that his case be dealt with by a Crown Court yes that may take a long time to come about. Its all academic at this stage , it all depends if it come about or not, the only power Police have is what the Government gives them Well thats fair enough ,as long as the courts are involved the following day or within a few days I would support it I agree I like the idea myself if its done right, when it comes to Drink Drive they can be dealt with quite quickly at the Magistrates Court , it is rather difficult to mount a defence when the readings of alcohol show the driver was over the permitted limit, in some cases way over most cases end in Disqualification and a hefty fine if in employment |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 24, 2024 17:44:10 GMT
It all sounds a bit dystopian Judge Dredd to me. Roadside executions for hogging the middle lane - The police pull you over into the hard-shoulder and force you dig your own grave in the verge. A grave marking is left in place to act as a warning to other drivers. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 24, 2024 19:03:49 GMT
Though I would agree that drunks need taking off the road without delay we do have to take into consideration the rights of the individual and the competence of the Police force . The problem is the courts are too slow , drunk drivers should be detained and in court within 24 hours . I’ll borrow your input to hang my own 2p worth First and foremost, apart from the case of an Anglesey MP in the 1970’s who successfully used the Hansard statement that ‘no member of this house is ever too much under the influence of drink’ to walk OUT of the police station to which he was taken when found incapable behind the wheel in Bridgend, NO driver has been released from custody to continue driving while impaired. Second, why the ratchet against drivers (again) I say if we’re going down the road of instant justice, hang pakistani child sex abusers by the scrotum from lamp posts with chicken wire, and shoot shoplifters as looters ….. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 24, 2024 20:21:30 GMT
Drunk drivers should lose more than just their license.
They're absolute scum.
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Feb 24, 2024 21:33:03 GMT
Even small amounts of alcohol makes driving risky for people who are not regular drinkers. Half a pint of shandy is enough to impair my judgement. If I have a further half of shandy the next day the impairment/change in my awareness is noticeably less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 26, 2024 9:45:46 GMT
Roadside executions for hogging the middle lane - The police pull you over into the hard-shoulder and force you dig your own grave in the verge. A grave marking is left in place to act as a warning to other drivers. LOL superb suggestion, and one that would get support of the vast majority of sensible drivers. |
|
