Grass a friend...

Re: Yes, I can

I'm not being sanctimonious, but probably being a youngster helps, drink driving is not acceptable, at all, ever. It's not big or cleaver.

I also think that not many people will be in to grassing up mates etc., but surely the idea that someone could grass you up may be a preventative measure.

Flame away :-)

M
 
Re: Yes, I can

I have no problem with people shopping dd's, but I do have a problem the money being used as an incentive.

Surley this money could be used far more productivly. The biggest problem at present is;

1. Driver gets caught, slaped wrist (fine & no licence for a year)
2. Sent home, where his/her car is still sitting in the drive way
3. Few drinks at home one night or just needs to get somewhere jumps in car.

Would it not be better ( we have had a couple of pilot schemes) if you get caught you loose your car, police sell it off money goes towards funding.

and/or (as in Finland) fines are based on your earnings, last week on of the VP's at nokia was caught at 15 km over the speed limit and ended up with a 24,000 fine
 
Drink driving is deadly and should be stopped in any way, I agree dd's should be turned in, it might be your firends/family next time, BUT to pay people is disgusting and just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I do not hold with drink driving and do not do it ever! I do think aswell though we should be concentrating on other crimes as a priority.
 
Everyone here agrees (I think) that DD is a very serious offence and should be treated as so. If you choose to DD then accept everything the courts throw at you BUT.... There a many many more serious crimes out there which recieve far less PUBLIC airing by the police.
There are people who INTENTIONALLY go out and harm children or beat up old ladies. There are far more deaths caused by "gang land" feuds each year than DD for the last 10.
Lets get some perspective on the problem eh!
Again the motorist is the easy target - the police view a crime is a crime regardless of its serverity, so 10 mins arresting a motorist is as good as 10 months work catching a rapist. Sad but true.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by KevB on Fri Nov 30 12:07:59 2001 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
Agree with your sentiments on crime priorities, I wonder how many people will actually NOT grass a friend? Probably far more than will. People are already in tune with grassing on criminals via TV programmes, how many would have a pleasant sociable evening with friends and then call the cops? The Police should spend their money (ours actually) encouraging/educating people not to D&D and highlight all of the consequences of either having someone elses blood on their hands or the practical future problems faced with insurance, getting about etc.
 
at an average of a ton a go, I'm spending Xmas sat on a camping stool wearing a big anorak outside my local, complete with mobile phone. The lot that drinks in my local, I could pay for next year's fuel on this...
 
You dont seem to think that driving drunk is a problem, wait until one of the bastards slams into you car on the highway with such force that all the windows pop out, the petrol tank bursts etc. you can probily picture the seen, I say hang them, if you get behind the wheel when your drunk you should be charged with attempted murder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

R

P.S Have a nice day
 
Re: I\'ve tried so hard to keep out of this

Dear rbrooks,

I have really tried to keep out of this because I agree with a lot of what both "sides" are saying but I do feel your post needs a response.

To be fair to byron, if you reread his post he does not think drunk drivers are not a problem but the police should concentrate on things he thinks are more important. I have sympathy with his list except for a thief or car thief. After all, rapists, child molesters and bashers of old ladies (and gents) have gone out with the intention of doing so. As has already been said by everyone I think, I have no time for drunk driving but it would also be very limiting to have a zero alcohol level tolerance with medicines and unknown traces from a modest drink the night before. As in most things, it is moderation that wins and I think perhaps a level of 2 rather than the present 3 units would be generally acceptable.

I will not get into the debate about capital punishment viz "I say hang them" but I must strongly disagree with your wish to charge people with attempted murder by driving when drinking/drunk. I know fancy lawyers will say being careless of the consequences is the same as attempting an action but I think in the real world actual bodily harm or rape IS different from an accident resulting from someones misjudgement. Please note, I DON'T condone DD but I think your arguement debases real premeditated violence or attempts at murder, which of course some might believe judicial or vigilante hanging is.

About the original question ie should people be paid to inform, I believe a subject (or citizen if you prefer) has a duty to inform the police and I find the idea of them needing money to do so is distasteful. But surely, that doesn't mean I can be classed as supporting drunk driving?

Flame away (nicely) because that is what a BB is about.

Anthony
 
Re: I\'ve tried so hard to keep out of this

Intersteing points adarcy, but you say people should grass up DD'ers for the good citizenship aspects alone and shouldnn't need a reward for doing so. But most people ain't like that. There's always the "what's in it for me" attitude. Witness the post above, richson has WATCHED over a period of some weeks someone elses boat sink and has done nothing about it. Did he tell the marina? Did he ask for the owners 'phone no and give him a call and warn him? Did he just empty the water out himself as a "good citizen"? Nope there was nothjing in it for him so he did nothing.

This DD initiative MAY make more people report DD'ers, but perhaps more likely it'll make potential DD'ers think, "oh better not have a drink in case someone grasses me up for the money". In which case the whole idea may have the desired result. I don't want to see more people caught for DD. I'd like to see more breath tests that don't catch people 'cos they're not drinking. That surely is the measure of success for the scheme. More negative tests and we're all safer and better off.
 
Re: Emotive issues.

Well of course we all don’t condone DD. But lets push the boat out a bit more.
The last statistics I saw said something like. 3% of accidents caused by dd and 8 % by speeding.
So there would appear to be ninety odd % of cases that are un addressed.

Now take my late mother. She used to drive about town and when seeing a friend would turn round in her seat and leaning out of the window, wave and shout funny cuckooing sounds, whilst the car would mount the pavement or hit the nearest lamp post.
All the short people being banned from her car.
Now I can see the mood changing, when talking about £500 for shopping a granny.
Now last year my wife had quite a big accident when she argued with a car transporter at the traffic lights.
In her defence she said that she thought it was a filter lane. TO THE RIGHT !!

So if we extend this new rule a bit I could now be £1000 quid up for reporting mothers and wives for dangerous and stupid driving.
Of course every newly driving son would come under this rule, cos they all drive about like some demented animal, and usually have about three accidents before calming down.
So I’m now up to £1500 in these stakes.

It’s all emotive. D drivers can be attacked openly, and I’m not totally against that in extreme cases.

But now I’ve shopped my mother ,wife and two sons. Gained two grand in the process and
cut the local accident rate by half. Is any of you going to buy me a beer for this service to mankind!!




Haydn
 
Re: Emotive issues.

I'll buy you a beer! Anytime if you are as amusing as this here, you must be great to have a beer with, see you in Lagos!
 
OK I got Exited because I'Ve been totaly smashed up by one of these tits.
My problem is when a guy gets behind the wheel when he has no hope of controlling his car, this car now becomes just as deadly as any gun or knife.
I remember seeing a program on t.v where driver's were given different amounts to drink it was scary how Quickly they lost it.

Please accept my appologies if I came across rudly, Its just that I've been on the recieving end (great thread though)
 
Having been hit head on by a drunk driver at night who had crossed the central reservation (and him with no lights) I can say that I have been on the "receiving" end as well. The Police budget and manpower would be better spent on other crimes than on hitting the motorist.

Agreed that DD is horrible and the book should be thrown at them when they are caught.

If a bounty is going to be offered - then howabout on some thing like - wife beaters, child mollesters, dole cheats, people who walk on the cracks in the pavement etc...

Barry
 
Re: ok, I\'m convinced

I hadn't thought of the issue re dd's having 2nd thoughts.
 
I think perhaps you have a point where someone is drunk. ie incapable.

The difficulty with the breathalyser is that a driver is guilty at a relatively low level of alcohol. In normal conversation you would be unlikely to notice someone over the limit by a small amount.

Further if you have a drink, you have no way of knowing whether you are over the limit or not.

In most prosecutions for breathalyser offences there has been no damage or personal injury ie no victim.

It is an unusual crime where one can be guilty without knowing one has commited a crime, where there is no victim and where guilt or innocence is decided purely by machine.

Why can we not use the old law where the police were required to prove with evidence that an individual was affected by "drink or drugs" . If that can be established then by all means throw heavy volumes.

At present a glass of wine can mean the loss of large sums in fines, loss of license and with it, for many people, loss of job and no-one is worse off as a result of the crime. Even worse you can be as high as a kite on cannabis or heroin and provided you don't turn the machine on - you walk (sorry, I mean drive) no matter how dangerous.

If someone causes a death by driving whilst drunk then again thrown large books at them. I see no reason not to bring a charge of manslaughter - potential life sentence.

What it does mean is that the police have to prove the case. The reason the police are so keen on breathalyser is that it gives them lots of guilty verdicts with little effort on their part, and little opportunity of cases being lost because of their incompetance. Which is probably why they have chosen to go down this path.
 
Re: Duh? don\'t d&d then!...

Interesting points, Bergman, but unfortunately total cobblers imho.

You'd wait until someone killed before prosecuting. You'd give them the benefit of the doubt since they "had no way of knowing". There's no victim so there should be no prosecution? A glass of wine in itself of course dow not lead to a prosecution - it the getting behind the wheel and attempting to control large lump of metal moving down a narrow causeway moving at speed easily high enough to kill.

"At present a glass of wine can mean the loss of large sums in fines, loss of license and with it, for many people, loss of job and no-one is worse off as a result of the crime." ...No mate, a glass of wine can mean dead dad, dead wife, dead kids, cos of loonies who think no further than their own position, not that of others.

Know, then, that ONE glass of wine is enough. That TWENTY miles an hour kills. So don't do it at all.

The thread was started with comment regarding the issue of grassing for money, not the offence, taken as read - except by you.

Althiough I understand an initially supported the "awful grasser" point of view, I'v changed my mind. I remeber numerous attempts to stop people driving, in which I felt in a minority, awkward, a wuss, a grass. This would make the law on the side of that one (possibly sober) person instead of the others, keen to get home. the money is irrelevant, it's that the law is clearly on the side of the passive protester: "Sorry mate, I feel so strongly about this that if you drive, I'll call - see?"
 
Re: Duh? don\'t d&d then!...

Mabey their is someone reading these "threads" who can give an exact figure of how many people were killed and how many injured E.g. for last year due to Drunk driving, just to see how many UNESSASARY DEATHS AND INJURIES could have been prevented.

Grassing for payment? money becomes a stupid bit of paper considering a person like you or me has just been killed.

Something to think about !

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top