So what happens if you're caught "bladdered"

Aye, and all the misery by Scotsmen.....

Brown, Blair, McCartney, Jamieson. I am getting sick to then back teeth of Holier than Thou Scots telling me how to run my life. Even the late John Smith told a woman on a radio chat program "Whay makes you think that we were put on this earth to enjoy ourselves"

Steve Cronin

Regularly Drunk in Charge....

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
...of a....

pair of Barbecue tongs!

But NEVER a boat.

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Oh YES there IS.....

I have a letter from the Directtor of Operations of the RNLI stating that , in their incident reports there is no significant indication that alcohol plays a leading role as a cause of marine incidents attended by crews.

This is just the pain in the a.s. miserable, "can't live it it isn't regulated" sector pandering to the most nannying government in political history. Would you like to attend a birthday party organised by that Ian McCartney?
Jeeze!

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: Know what how you feel

But I don't think all of them are like the crew you mention.

All of this flows from the Marchioness disaster, worth looking back at 2 Jags comments at the time.

Basically he blamed the Tory govnmt for not having radar based traffic control!!!

Then became part of govnmt and did nothing until critcised for doing nothing

Then politicians logic - We must do something

"This" is something

therefore we must do "this"

No more thought than that

Of course the argument goes that if you oppose this "safety" measure you are supporting drunken sailing or don't care if people are hurt or killed by drunks

Which is the point where I tend to snarl a bit

Funny thing is I don't drink so it makes no difference to me personally

Although I can't help feeling I ought to get ratted, - sort of on principle.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I don\'t....

...sail in the UK anymore but I too think that the scenario of "officials" running around with little machines in their well superannuated mitts on some sort of mission to save the masses is ludicrous.

Steve cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

In response to your points

1. Yes it would need to be enacted, but we are going to get something enacted anyhow.

2. The 1973 national speed limit of 50mph springs to mind as a piece of recinded legislation, as does the taxfree status of 25 year old cars.

3. I am specifically talking about a right to stop if an injury had occurred.

4. The right of arrest will be given with the full legislation anyway, so whoever is being considered for that could do this.

5. If an injury had occurred, then most courts would accept reasonable suspicion, in the same way an alcohol test is taken after a road traffic accident.

6. I am not suggesting citizens arrest.

7. I believe that it would be clear to most courts that a 5 year old was not the responsible helmsperson, in the same way that if you were in a car and asked her to drive home.

8. You are correct, the recording of the helm change would be an overhead, however Nicho's original point was that the full legislation would soon bring in the requirement for a licence so they could take it away, which would be even more onerous (and costly in £) to get in the first place, and thinking about it, you cannot be sure that the log book recording would not be a requirement anyway.

9. Despite autohelm, there would still be someone responsible for the helm during that time period.

10. Refusal to stop, if someone had injured one of your family in a car, and the police told you they could do nothing about a failure to stop, would you really support that ? I am only talking about incidents where an injury occured.

11. If the finger merited being taken to hospital, then yes.

12. If the drink/sailing problem is found to be negligible, then why would the government spend money on the continuing of the collation, or the enactment of the full law ?

Again, I re-iterate, those who claim there is no problem need to come up with a strategy to prove it, as I don't see the "We THINK theres no problem" arguement winning the day, do you ?

When you look at the objections you are raising, the full legislation could be a real sledgehammer (think cars, aircraft, commercial vessels) , whereas I think you may find the data collation period would have less day to day impact.

Now I do not claim this is the only strategy, and am interested in hearing what your strategy is.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
NB

That strange breed "Regulators" work on the principle of POTENTIAL risk. That way they never run out of new causes.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

OK

For the last time!

1 My point is that we (I) do not want or need anything enacted - do nothing is a perfectly acceptable policy

2 One example in 31 years, and that a temporary limit brought on by an extraordinary situation - The Arab - Israel war.
The taxfree status of cars still exists - I've got one!

3 You may be talking about that but the proposed legislation does not limit right to stop to an injury having occured

4 The right of arrest is a very significant one, very very few examples of right being given to anyone except a policeman, not even MI5 have it! Is having a drink more serious than plotting to overthrow the government?

5 No! Courts do not work on reasonable suspicion, the requirement is proof beyond reasonable DOUBT, a very different thing. Boats are not cars. The road traffic acts covering drink and drive are very specific and it is erroneous to try to parallel their use on roads to a marine situation. Police have absolute right to stop on the road. That is not the case at sea. The vast majority of breathalyser cases do not come following an accident, they come from police stopping people where they have "reason to suspect" (ie at random). During the Xmas period of 1999/2000 all those involved in accidents were breathalysed, without exception, only 7% of those tests proved positive. Which gives food for thought on the true cause of accidents.

6 Maybe not but in absence of rights of arrest it is the only recourse.

7 Again NO there is no age limit in any legislation that I know of. Courts can only apply the Law. They cannot apply your (or anyone elses) version of what is "clear" or what they wish or anything else, only the law. If she drove my car on public road she would be breaking the law - Road Traffic Acts, she can however drive on private property quite legally. A very different case with a boat, the sea is not a public road nor is it private property.

8 I can produce a judgement that says keeping a log is a legal requirement now - thought you would have known that. It does not say however that it is a requirement to record the name of the helmsman at all times.
"would soon bring in the requirement for a licence so they could take it away"
Please read this phrase again, perhaps you will see just how futile it is

9 It was you who said the helmsman was responsible. Where does it say "someone would have to be responsible" Who? on what grounds? You really cannot make this sort of thing up as you go along.

10 But we are not talking about cars. Nor are we talking about stopping after an accident. We are talking about "officials" ,whoever they may be, having a right to stop you or me or anyone else going about their lawful business. And I do not like that.

11 Not worth answering

12 I cannot believe that anyone can have the naive belief that this government needs a good reason, or even any reason at all to spend taxpayers money.

I really cannot agree with your last (unnumbered) point. There is no requirement to prove that there is NOT a problem.

If that line was followed then any lunacy could be enacted because no-one can prove it unnecessary, in fact the more lunatic the more difficult to prove unnecessary.

The requirement MUST be to prove that there IS a problem before you come up with an act to solve it.

It is so completely illogical to say we must enact this solution and then we can see if there is a problem or not.

As for a strategy - I do not have one
I do not see any need to have one
I do not have a strategy for being attacked by a pterodactyl
If someone can convince me I might be so attacked then I will develop a suitable strategy - perhaps a Dangerous Pterodactyls Act.




<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

1 Do nothing means the full law will be enacted, that's what is on the table.

2 You only asked for one example and two were provided. If you are interested, the ROLLING 25 year tax emption was stopped, I was waiting for my classic to reach tax free status in 5 years time.

3 Agreed, but that is the point of my proposal, limit the legislation until there is enough data for an informed decision.

4 Again, the new legislation will give it for all situations, my proposal limits it to accidents where injury is caused.

5 I believe the police are allowed to take an alcohol test where there is reasonable suspicion, they cannot do this at random. I simply cannot see who would not agree (present company excepted) that an incident causing injury would not be reasonable suspicion. The courts would have the actual readings, and would then be able to decide beyond reasonable doubt whether it was over the limit.

6

7 In the example you gave originally, a court would have to decide whether the log accurately reflected who was in charge of the helm, or whether you were in actuality the helm's person (see the autohelm example). Again, a majority of jurers may view the 5 year old as being under your instruction, however you may be able to get a clever laywer, the law is not infallible by a long chalk.


8 Nicho's point has been echoed on other strings, take for example the wealthy car owner, they used to be able to pay of speeding fines out of loose change, it was only when speeding offences put the right to drive at risk that this section of the speeding public were affected. Even if the first draft of the new legislation does not include a loss of licence, a few wealthy serial drink/sailors will make this a consideration. Yes, what I am proposing will involve more paperwork, but can you be sure the actual law will not also.

9 Are you really suggesting that in territorial waters, people engage the autohelm and do not keep a lookout for other vessels ? Normally the person who set the autohelm would ensure that the vessel is not going to be put in danger. In the same way that although aircraft are on autopilot, there is a member of flight crew on duty at all times.

10 Again, can I reiterate, only in the case of an injury, are you supporting people who have caused injury having a right to leave the sceen.

11. Well, it's your finger.

12. I think we are talking about waste, which they are also against, if the data collection proves that there is no problem, then they will be seen to be prudent.

So, to sum up your strategy, the goverment's proposal is a fully fledged drink sail law, and your proposal is effectivly to let this happen.

It kinda works for me too, as they will be collecting data as they go....

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Various actions can be done

Its like animal keeping .... run foul of the law and you can be banned from keeping an animal. I would expect with boats - a similar thing may occur - run foul of the law and they'll ban you from commading / owning a boat.


<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/
 
Sad .....

another example of unpaid collectors ....

VAT cam in and authorities couldn't police it - so businesses / shops became unpaid collectors.

Poor old CG and HM's will become the 'law' doing a job that they a) probably feel unqualified for, b) are not paid for .... but in the end will likely not feel too bad about if they reduce drunk incidents in their areas ....


<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top