BJCC...
The process is an ass, because the Police Officer would appear to not have to justify their decision, and that would appear to be further compounded by a continued lack of explanation and/or acceptance of responsibility to the mistake that was made
hence it is an ASS
A breath test is not an indication of sobriety, it is not claimed to be. It does not have to be, as that is not what it is being used for. What it is however, is measure of BAC, because that is the offence being investigated.
There you go again..agreeing with me...I actually did say that it is a poor indicator of sobriety, which by implication you have agreed with
The breath test used was not an 'evidential' breath test as you put it, it is a screening test, which gives the officer evidence that justifies arrest, nothing more.
Wrong...ANY breath (screening) test can be used as an evidential instrument...go and check a little bit of case law BJCC
We are now however arguing semantic's......so lets move on, you still haven't offered a credible defense/justification regarding the use of a "breath screening test" as a measure to assess the pilot in question, and his ability to fly under the current regulations, you have merely offered that this "screening test" and its positive result mandates further investigation.
If that is so, then I put it to you that in order to achieve a consistent and unbiased sample of aircrew then "qualified" screeners will need to make assessments of aircrew breath alcohol levels...rather than having officer plod acting on unsubstantiated and consequently ill founded grounds to victimize a completely innocent individual.
If the Police don't wish to be derided or vilified, then they need to operate to the highest standards of professional integrity and operational transparency, they also need to be held to account for their actions, mistaken or otherwise.