Mike Jenvey
Where, in any of this thread have you read anything that is evidence? No where.
Has the Officer concerned spoken on here? No.
Has anyone any knowladge of what he found on the flight deck? NO.
Was anyone here present when the woman was spoken to by police? NO.
So what have you got here? Nothing. No evidence of what happened. Just second hand information and a lot of assumptions.
You can quote the act and sections all you like, but you are missing the one bit of information you need to decide if what happened was right or wrong...ie WHAT ACTUALY HAPPENED!
To compound it, you talk of 'supervisors' sending police to incidents. What are you talking about? 'Supervisors' do not send police to anything. Communications staff do. Supervisors make very few decisions at operational level, they don't have to. So why should they be punished for something you have assumed to be wrong.
I am fully aware of what this act says. As I said in THIS case crashes and or mishandling are irelevent. There was no crash, nor is the incident relevent as such. Neither of these factors are needed to require a breath test.
A crash DOES NOT mandate a breath test. A Constable MAY is what the act says, not MUST. Nothing in this, nor the RTA, MANDATE a breath test of anyone.
There is one person that knows the what the grounds for the test were. And he probably wont be telling you what they are. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, it's none of your, mine or anyone elses business.and secondly, it is not policy of most, if not all police forces to give details of incidents where people are exonerated.