Right then BJCC......... with your old copper hat on, some questions for you.
1. What are the other two reasons that a policeman has solid grounds to ask somebody to blow into the bag?
2. Did the policeman in the purported incident have these other two reasons as back-up?
3. Getting off the fence for a moment, knowing what you know of this alledged incident, is it reasonable for this Commander to blow into the bag?
You jumped to a conclution (sic), rather like this passenger appears to have done. I don't know I wasn't there. I presume nor were you, so think of it another way, how do you know he didn't have good reason to test?
4. I think you would know for damn sure if I had been there - I would have said - and I would have rather more solid ground to jump to more conclusions, that this initial report of some prat down the back causing trouble for no sound reason that anybody here can see.
If you think a few go-arounds is good reason for a breath test then we have further evidence that we have nannies looking after us rather than policemen - would you agree?
5. There can be no comparison of actualy SEEING a crime in progress (breaking and entering) and this alledged incident where a passenger ASSUMES a crime has been committed through his pure ignorance - would you not agree?
6. From what you have read ( we all know you are not in possession of the true facts) of this passenger causing a Captain to be breath-tested, do you believe a policeman has good reason to ask the guy to blow in the bag?
TG