On 14/03/2010 18:40, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Salad Dodger<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:08:33 +0000, (E-Mail Removed)
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>>> Salad Dodger<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... Drivers face ban if they drink a pint
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle7061168.ece
>>>
>>> *Shrug*
>>>
>>> I can't help thinking that if you're going to have a drink-drive policy,
>>> that should be: "No booze at all. Zero."
>>
>> Enjoy that thought when you get tugged the morning after a few beers,
>> or on the way up the M20 after a TOGTour.
>
> Yeah, well, the Friday night sessions on the TOG Tours are always the
> killer ones. Saturday night is mild by comparison.
>
> Seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with a zero-tolerance drink driving
> law. If you know the rules, you can abide by them.
>

I once bought one of the £10 keyring alcohol breath tester from Maplin
on the run up to Christmas. Did a test with a few friends one evening
with one guy consistently passing even after 6 pints of lager. Suffice
to say I returned it and got a refund.

I got stopped by the Police a while ago returning from the pub. I'd had
three or four pints over the evening but had been chatting away and
eating but mainly spreading it out over quite a few hours. Suffice to
say the rookie cop could smell alcohol and was confident he had me.
First test was a pass. Then decided the unit was faulty and sent for
another. Same result. Decided to try a third time with another unit and
started to threaten me that I wasn't blowing correctly into the unit.
Pass. Big lecture on not drinking and driving to which I politely
replied that I enjoyed drinking alcohol and that I was *not* breaking
the law and would continue to do so until the law changed.

Wonder if there are any properly calibrated units for the man on the
street to check against ?

--
DozynSleepy

'Hog wrote:
> sweller wrote:
>> SteveH wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle7061168.ece
>>> First, they came for the smokers.... then they came for the
>>> drinkers....
>>>
>>> Exactly as predicted by the smokers, then.
>> You sound quite stupid with the utterly irrelevant Pastor Niemoller
>> quote - As an aside the railway has been "zero" since 1992, do you
>> think train drivers are being persecuted?
>
> I doubt it can be absolute zero? or there wouldn't be many train drivers
> left. Or pilots. I assume the testing allows for a few ml variation or
> somesuch.
>
> Do they also drug test train drivers and is there any sort of random
> testing.
>

I think, as referenced elsewhere in the thread, medical zero is regarded
as < 29mcg (or mg I mis recall) per 100ml.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

Catman wrote:
> 'Hog wrote:
>> sweller wrote:
>>> SteveH wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle7061168.ece
>>>> First, they came for the smokers.... then they came for the
>>>> drinkers....
>>>>
>>>> Exactly as predicted by the smokers, then.
>>> You sound quite stupid with the utterly irrelevant Pastor Niemoller
>>> quote - As an aside the railway has been "zero" since 1992, do you
>>> think train drivers are being persecuted?
>>
>> I doubt it can be absolute zero? or there wouldn't be many train
>> drivers left. Or pilots. I assume the testing allows for a few ml
>> variation or somesuch.
>>
>> Do they also drug test train drivers and is there any sort of random
>> testing.
>>
>
> I think, as referenced elsewhere in the thread, medical zero is
> regarded as < 29mcg (or mg I mis recall) per 100ml.

I saw that at the end of the thread, still wondering if the do drug and
random testing. If a profession needs a zero drink limit it would seem a
reasonable argument that it needs both these others.

Heading back to the beginning of the thread, the rationale behing this plan
is the real problem. As we live in an era of incremental policy and law it
is a short journey towards blanket 50mph NSL and 20mph urban limits. With
bans and retesting for almost any infringment.

--
Hog

In communiqué <HcrXPHNo$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mick
Whittingham <(E-Mail Removed)> cast forth these pearls
of wisdom
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Pete Fisher
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>In communiqué <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mick
>>Whittingham <(E-Mail Removed)> cast forth these pearls
>>of wisdom
>>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Champ
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:34:35 +0000, Pete Fisher
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>Quite. Is anyone suggesting that it's ok to leave an alarm going off
>>>>for 2 weeks?
>>>
>>>Two thought to this:
>>>
>>>1/ Two weeks give the police time to turn up.
>>>
>>
>>Ha ha. The police don't want to know about misfiring alarms. In fact
>>they could never be bothered to keep up their side of the recommended
>>notification system under the existing Code of Practice.
>
>This is true.
>
>>
>>>2/ Every alarm around where I live has the makes the name on the bell
>>>box (and some times phone number) so they can over ride the alarm.
>>>
>>
>>Only if the owner has taken out a maintenance contract.
>
>The local manufacturer / installer will come out if requested by the
>police, I would imagine.
>

Possibly, but the police really won't get involved unless they consider
there is risk to life or limb and in that case they won't bother with a
locksmith. More likely that the local EHO will try contacting the number
on the bell box, but IME the installer or maintainer is still very loath
to silence an alarm without the owner's specific permission or an
indemnity from the council. We would try to use the original installer
whenever possible, but it is almost a given that a misfiring alarm that
isn't promptly dealt with by the owner or someone they have entrusted a
key to isn't subject to a maintenance contract.

People who have a decent alarm, properly installed and maintained don't
often get serious problems with them. If they do, they have usually
thought ahead and there is a relative or a neighbour who gets to know
about it and sorts things.

As always, it is the irresponsible that have to be legislated for. I
just think the Times could have chosen a better example to lead the
article with.

>>No DIY installations round you?
>
>I forgot this, you're right.
>
>>Problems with alarms tend to be in areas a bit pikier than yours. The
>>'maker' is very unlikely to touch it without the owner's permission or
>>an order from an authority. The installer *might*.
>
>See above.
>

See above.

>>
>>>And to get in, they contact a lock smith. Any competent lock smith
>>>can do that without ant damage or changing of locks
>>>
>>
>>We used to have a couple of locksmiths on our list to call out if we
>>were forced to gain entry to the property itself. Often the nuisance
>>can be abated without needing to. Often a locksmith can get you in and
>>out again leaving the property secure without changing the lock. Not
>>always *in a hurry* IME without at least requiring the provision of a new key.
>
>Bump keying is the way to go. Only slowed down if you have a mortise
>lock with 5 pins in addition to the 'Yale' type lock. That will slow a
>good locksmith down for a short while.
>>

TBF it was a very rare occurrence. Perhaps lock picking technology has
improved even more since I last had to execute a warrant.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: (E-Mail Removed) |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:19:08 +0000, Mick Whittingham
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Talking to a regular in my old pub at the turn of the millennium, a high
>up in what was called Customs and Excise. He reckoned the most popular
>rolling tobacco in England was Drum.
>Which at that time was not for sale in the UK.

Well, I sold it in the petrol station I worked in in 1997.
--
GSX-R1000 K8
Bandit 1250GT L0 (Make me an offer, I need to buy another car)
GSX-R600 W

'Hog wrote:
> Catman wrote:
>> 'Hog wrote:
>>> sweller wrote:
>>>> SteveH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle7061168.ece
>>>>> First, they came for the smokers.... then they came for the
>>>>> drinkers....
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly as predicted by the smokers, then.
>>>> You sound quite stupid with the utterly irrelevant Pastor Niemoller
>>>> quote - As an aside the railway has been "zero" since 1992, do you
>>>> think train drivers are being persecuted?
>>> I doubt it can be absolute zero? or there wouldn't be many train
>>> drivers left. Or pilots. I assume the testing allows for a few ml
>>> variation or somesuch.
>>>
>>> Do they also drug test train drivers and is there any sort of random
>>> testing.
>>>
>> I think, as referenced elsewhere in the thread, medical zero is
>> regarded as < 29mcg (or mg I mis recall) per 100ml.
>
> I saw that at the end of the thread, still wondering if the do drug and
> random testing. If a profession needs a zero drink limit it would seem a
> reasonable argument that it needs both these others.

ISTR they do, but I'm sure sweller can elucidate.

>
> Heading back to the beginning of the thread, the rationale behing this plan
> is the real problem. As we live in an era of incremental policy and law it
> is a short journey towards blanket 50mph NSL and 20mph urban limits. With
> bans and retesting for almost any infringment.
>

That is another kettle of fish, IMHO, but you have a valid point.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Salad Dodger
<(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like:

>>I can't help thinking that if you're going to have a drink-drive policy,
>>that should be: "No booze at all. Zero."
>
>Enjoy that thought when you get tugged the morning after a few beers,
>or on the way up the M20 after a TOGTour.

Exactly.
A mate of mine got done for being just over the newly-introduced lower
limit, in a morning-after situation. ****ing thing was, he'd no
intention of going out that day, but was called out for some
favour-related thing.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (E-Mail Removed) (The
Older Gentleman) saying something like:

>Seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with a zero-tolerance drink driving
>law. If you know the rules, you can abide by them.

Sanctimonious bullshite.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Bonwick <(E-Mail Removed)>
saying something like:

>What else can they do? Banning smoking completely will never work
>because there aren't enough cops in the land to enforce it and raising
>taxes even higher just won't work because the majority of smokers are
>buying duty free tobacco already.

Meanwhile, the grow-yer-own tobacco movement is going from strength to
strength. The fact that it tastes like insecticide-sprayed cabbage is
counterbalanced by the low cost.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Bonwick
> <(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like:
>
>> What else can they do? Banning smoking completely will never work
>> because there aren't enough cops in the land to enforce it and
>> raising taxes even higher just won't work because the majority of
>> smokers are buying duty free tobacco already.
>
> Meanwhile, the grow-yer-own tobacco movement is going from strength to
> strength. The fact that it tastes like insecticide-sprayed cabbage is
> counterbalanced by the low cost.

Fnar
www.freesmoking.co.uk/moreinfoUK.html

--
Hog