Drink / Drive Position - Motorhome in Pub Car Park

[esxste]

LoonR1 said:

Hahahahahhaha. What a load of garbage. Did you just swallow a copy of The Socialist or some other communist rag?

No Loon I just think it's insane that the Government feels that cutting the welfare in a wholly arbitrary and punitive way to save a few billion is better than chasing multi-nationals for the right amount of tax on profits generated in this country, which adds up to 10s of billions.

I'm left leaning for sure. I believe that its best for everyone that society is more equal in terms of wealth; people who don't live in poverty have fewer health issues, commit fewer crimes, have more effective education and put that education to use more productively. I don't begrudge rich people living the life of luxury, many of them are very astute, clever people who have earned it. But I do want them to pay a representative cost to society for the opportunity to do so.

Is not one of the key areas of growth in China over the past few years to do with more and more people leaving rural, poorly occupations and taking up more skilled, better paid positions in cities? And in turn fuelling more domestic demand for goods? The better paid people are, the more they buy!

I don't think I'm a communist or socialist for wanting a better, more effective, lower cost capitalist society?

[LoonR1]

jith said:

Cat said:

jith said:

This happens constantly in campsites in the north of Scotland

No it doesn't.

jith said:

it's an easy target

Clearly it's an easy target, that's why the police in the north of Scotland do things like this when they could just charge people for being DiC or DD. Utterly ludicrous

Cat

Yes it does; frequently in Glencoe. And I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with you in particular. You are an intensely irritating pedant who seems to delight in contradiction for the sake of it.

I have climbed in Glencoe for over 40 years and have personally witnessed some bloody minded stupidity from traffic police in the Glen and the campsites.

If you want to contradict that you will have to call me a liar, and quite frankly I really don't care what you think.

J

Where's the evidence of it? Surely frequent motorhome raids would prompt some form of record, even an outraged driver or ten. A court case or two? A conviction or two? They shouldn't be hard for you to find and then I'll apologise for what I'm about to say.

You are making this up.

[TooMany2cvs]

jith said:

Yes it does; frequently in Glencoe.

You've already been asked for just one press report...

The only reports I can find on Google are you, on PH, claiming it happens...

[LoonR1]

esxste said:

LoonR1 said:

Hahahahahhaha. What a load of garbage. Did you just swallow a copy of The Socialist or some other communist rag?

No Loon I just think it's insane that the Government feels that cutting the welfare in a wholly arbitrary and punitive way to save a few billion is better than chasing multi-nationals for the right amount of tax on profits generated in this country, which adds up to 10s of billions.

I'm left leaning for sure. I believe that its best for everyone that society is more equal in terms of wealth; people who don't live in poverty have fewer health issues, commit fewer crimes, have more effective education and put that education to use more productively. I don't begrudge rich people living the life of luxury, many of them are very astute, clever people who have earned it. But I do want them to pay a representative cost to society for the opportunity to do so.

Is not one of the key areas of growth in China over the past few years to do with more and more people leaving rural, poorly occupations and taking up more skilled, better paid positions in cities? And in turn fuelling more domestic demand for goods? The better paid people are, the more they buy!

I don't think I'm a communist or socialist for wanting a better, more effective, lower cost capitalist society?

Hugely simplistic. What about all the tax and Ni that their employees pay? What about the risk that forcing them to pay more UK tax means they domicile themselves / their company is a more favourable tax regime and pay zero tax, potentially even taking a lot of jobs with them and reducing the amount of tax amd NI paid, whilst increasing the burden on the Welfare State? These companies don't evade tax they avoid it, just as I do and just as you do. They arrange their tax affairs in the most efficient way possible. There is no moral or legal issue with that.

What this has to do with Lidl rightly enforcing their right to control who parks in their car park at this one store though is beyond me.

[Cat]

jith said:

Yes it does; frequently in Glencoe. And I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with you in particular. You are an intensely irritating pedant who seems to delight in contradiction for the sake of it.

I have climbed in Glencoe for over 40 years and have personally witnessed some bloody minded stupidity from traffic police in the Glen and the campsites.

If you want to contradict that you will have to call me a liar, and quite frankly I really don't care what you think.

J

Pointing out you are wrong isn't pedantry.

Rather than the personal abuse why not just post a link to a news story about one of the many campervan drivers in the north of Scotland who has been done for being drunk in charge whilst on a campsite for the night? It shouldn't be difficult if your claim that the police are constantly targeting this is true.

Cat

[TooMany2cvs]

LoonR1 said:

esxste said:

I just think it's insane that the Government feels that cutting the welfare in a wholly arbitrary and punitive way to save a few billion is better than chasing multi-nationals for the right amount of tax on profits generated in this country, which adds up to 10s of billions.

These companies don't evade tax they avoid it, just as I do and just as you do. They arrange their tax affairs in the most efficient way possible.

There's also the subtle detail that what's often being complained about here is just the free movement of capital within the EU.

So, basically, you've got "left-leaning" people supporting UKIP's p-o-v.

[anonymous-user]

LoonR1 said:

What this has to do with Lidl rightly enforcing their right to control who parks in their car park at this one store though is beyond me.

And what that has to do with motorhomes and drink/driving is beyond me, too;)

Anyways, my friend's now set off on his hols for two weeks - hopefully to be unmolested by breathalyser-wielding BiB hiding behind Watney's Red Barrel hoardings!

[LoonR1]

280E said:

LoonR1 said:

What this has to do with Lidl rightly enforcing their right to control who parks in their car park at this one store though is beyond me.

And what that has to do with motorhomes and drink/driving is beyond me, too;)

Anyways, my friend's now set off on his hols for two weeks - hopefully to be unmolested by breathalyser-wielding BiB hiding behind Watney's Red Barrel hoardings!

Oops, my mistake too many paranoid threads on the go at once

[northwest monkey]

The Spruce goose said:

The way I would do it, is get a steering wheel lock and handbrake lock.

Lock them and give the keys to the landlord.

You cannot be in charge on a car that is now immovable, even the slowest policeman would have difficult arguing this.

I'd take the wheels off as well and post them to myself via courier to arrive in a couple of days time just to make sure.

[bearman68]

jith said:

Yes it does; frequently in Glencoe. And I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with you in particular. You are an intensely irritating pedant who seems to delight in contradiction for the sake of it.

I have climbed in Glencoe for over 40 years and have personally witnessed some bloody minded stupidity from traffic police in the Glen and the campsites.

If you want to contradict that you will have to call me a liar, and quite frankly I really don't care what you think.

J

Ohhh Climbed Agag's Groove one summer. Superb fun. Sunset at the top at 10 ish pm, followed by a frantic dash down for last orders in the Chlachaig. (sp). Not even slightly arrested for drunk behavior, even though my 2 mates were pissed as farts, and 'thinking' about calling mountain rescue after they stopped selling beer.

[guindilias]

LoonR1 said:

How many people were charged? Where are the court cases? Must be hundreds of them to link to. Seriously, if it's rife, then where are the details?

My local rag http://countydownspectator.com/category/general-ne... has around 10 cases a week of drink driving convictions reported in it - yet none of them make it onto google.
Hell, my own drink-driving bust (I was 4 times over the limit, didn't crash nor injure anybody) didn't even make the paper.
Charged, plead guilty, take your punishment. Unless you want to take it to the High Court on appeal, which isn't exactly common.

[Pontoneer]

280E said:

A work colleague plans to overnight in a pub car park (with landlord's permission!) during a tour in his motorhome.

Would he still be liable to a 'drunk in charge' prosecution for sleeping in the vehicle after consuming a bottle of wine or two?.

Simple !

When he retires for the night , he leaves the ignition key in the care of the landlord : no possibility of him driving .

Job done and safe .

[guindilias]

Technically, he could still be done for DIC - I'm shortly coming off my ban, and have taken a drink driving awareness course. If you push a car, with no engine in it, you can still be done for DIC. If you approach your car to fetch your glasses, keys in hand - DIC.
It would need to be a right cock of a policeman to try busting you for it - but he could TRY.
And if you are very over the limit, you are talking £1000 or more for a Barrister, possibly the same for your solicitor.
It doesn't happen often, but it could - how the definition of a "motorised vehicle" fits an empty shell being pushed off the road is beyond me, but as they say, "The law is an ass"!

[Antony Moxey]

Pontoneer said:

280E said:

A work colleague plans to overnight in a pub car park (with landlord's permission!) during a tour in his motorhome.

Would he still be liable to a 'drunk in charge' prosecution for sleeping in the vehicle after consuming a bottle of wine or two?.

Simple !

When he retires for the night , he leaves the ignition key in the care of the landlord : no possibility of him driving .

Job done and safe .

He can keep the keys himself. As long as he hasn't got them in the ignition he'll be fine - a motorhome' got plenty of shelves and cupboards away from the cab, just leave them there and then go to bed. Plod aren't interested in waking up someone in a motorhome in the middle of the night and would only be interested if you were causing a disturbance.

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

Hugely simplistic. What about all the tax and Ni that their employees pay? What about the risk that forcing them to pay more UK tax means they domicile themselves / their company is a more favourable tax regime and pay zero tax, potentially even taking a lot of jobs with them and reducing the amount of tax amd NI paid, whilst increasing the burden on the Welfare State? These companies don't evade tax they avoid it, just as I do and just as you do. They arrange their tax affairs in the most efficient way possible. There is no moral or legal issue with that.

They already domicile themselves/their company elsewhere to pay less tax. This is the issue. Also clever little tricks like Transfer pricing.

I agree it isn't just as simple as just forcing rich people/companies to pay more tax but there is scope to tackle some of the aggressive avoidance that goes on.

Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 7th September 10:04

[LoonR1]

Devil2575 said:

They already domicile themselves/their company elsewhere to pay less tax. This is the issue.

I agree it isn't just as simple as just forcing rich people/companies to pay more tax but there is scope to tackle some of the aggressive avoidance that goes on.

Close the loopholes, avoidance sorted and then they take their ball and play elsewhere. It's better to have 1% of something than 100% of nothing. Even if they pay 0% directly the VAT on their sales / staff tax and NI is worth having.

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

Devil2575 said:

They already domicile themselves/their company elsewhere to pay less tax. This is the issue.

I agree it isn't just as simple as just forcing rich people/companies to pay more tax but there is scope to tackle some of the aggressive avoidance that goes on.

Close the loopholes, avoidance sorted and then they take their ball and play elsewhere. It's better to have 1% of something than 100% of nothing. Even if they pay 0% directly the VAT on their sales / staff tax and NI is worth having.

You'd never have nothing though because they will always need to employ people in the UK to do business here. I'm thinking of companies like Starbucks as an example. Companies/individuals are always threatening to take their ball elsewhere but they seldom do. The UK has a pretty good tax regime and so we shouldn't be scared to enforce it properly.

[fatjon]

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/c...

Read paragraph 85 and you will see that it is very easy indeed to get stitched up for this offence. If you believe the police would be reasonable about it and miss out on a good collar then dream on.

[LoonR1]

fatjon said:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/c...

Read paragraph 85 and you will see that it is very easy indeed to get stitched up for this offence. If you believe the police would be reasonable about it and miss out on a good collar then dream on.

Come on then let's have some recent examples, five from July in the height of camping season should be easy to find

[TooMany2cvs]

fatjon said:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/c...

Read paragraph 85 and you will see that it is very easy indeed to get stitched up for this offence. If you believe the police would be reasonable about it and miss out on a good collar then dream on.

The Law Lords said:

85. An example may be posed to test these propositions. The owner of a car, who has drunk enough alcohol to take him over the limit, decides to wash the car. He takes his keys with him, which he uses to open the doors to get access to all the surfaces to be washed and to clean the inside. It is indisputable that during this process he is in charge of the vehicle. He may have started off with the sole intention of confining himself to cleaning the car, but the possibility exists that he may change his intention and drive it on some errand, perhaps to fill the tank with petrol. The person who knows best whether there was a real risk of that occurring is the defendant himself. I see nothing unreasonable or disproportionate in requiring him to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was no likelihood of his doing so. He should in my opinion have to do so, by adducing evidence which may be duly tested in court.

A very different situation to the "asleep in the back of a motorhome" one, and you seem to have ignored the bit where it actually says that he only has to prove on the balance of probabilities that he wasn't going to. Since the law itself actually says...

The law itself said:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit

...then that judgement actually LOWERS the bar slightly - "no likelihood" versus "balance of probabilities there was no likelihood".

If there was no onus at all on the pissed-up-person-with-car-keys-in-hand to prove anything, all they'd need to do was say "Who, Osshifer? Me, Osshifer? No, Osshifer. I washn't. I wash jusht... ummm... turning the ignition on to get a CD out of the shtereo. Yeh, that wash it. A CD. Shtereo. Honesht... My sheatbelt? Can't be too careful, can you? <hic>"