View Full Version : Shop a friend - win a prize

2nd Dec 2001, 03:07
Thames Valley Police have proudly announced a scheme to encourage people to inform on suspected drink drivers and gain a reward of up to 500. Reports that the reward was to be 30 pieces of silver have been denied.

I must urge Thames Valley residents not, under any circumstances, to make cruel hoax calls fingering the vicar, the milkman, and the old lady across the road, as Thames Valley's finest do not have the resources to look for dozens of suspect cars at the same time.

So don't do it.



2nd Dec 2001, 03:35
Oops too late :D

Can I have my 500 anyway please :cool:

2nd Dec 2001, 04:48
Of course I wouldn't do it, Unwell, and one to whom I would not do it is Tartan G. I seem to remember he does not drive a car, but since I am not going to do it, that would not matter. The name under which I should not do it is Unwell_Raptor -- give discredit where discredit is due -- but my motivation would be altruistic, to revive Tartan's shaky trust in the fabled English jury. I don't suppose you have his non-name? Where can the dear fellow have gone? I suppose we could approach Velvet -- she met the Tartan Phantom, after all -- but probably she would act in good conscience and honour. No help there.

2nd Dec 2001, 05:01
Good Lord, what kind of pervert would finger a vicar or the old lady across the street. :eek:

2nd Dec 2001, 06:47
Speaking as someone who has had a close relative murdered by a drink driver, I have no objections to the police taking whatever action they feel necessary to remove these irresponsible people from the roads.

How would you feel if it was you that had to suffer the loss of a loved one, then see the person responsible getting a poxy fine and a six month ban, because if the ban had been any longer the poor love would have lost his job. My Uncle did not have that option when that idiot got into his car when his judgement was impaired by alcohol, went far to fast round a blind bend, ended up on the wrong side of the road and met my Uncle coming the other way.

I don't care who it is, if I know that the person who is driving is over the limit, I phone the police.

Feeton Terrafirma
2nd Dec 2001, 06:52

een nee meany miney moe

Yes OK, got the Vicar's rego number? Will the cops mail a cheque to Oztraila?

[ 02 December 2001: Message edited by: Feeton Terrafirma ]

2nd Dec 2001, 15:37
I like your idea Davaar. I think you are right that the old Tartan Grump does not drive, but it can be an offence to be drunk in charge of a bike, so Velvet might be able to help us.

We miss him don't we? We don't even know his thoughts on the Afghan problem. Where are these people when you really need them?

2nd Dec 2001, 23:29
They seek him here, they seek him there, they .......... oh you know the rest guys. He'll be back, maybe.........

As for the topic - seems a bit tacky of the police offering 500 for someone to give information on drink driving (will they extend it to other crimes) - is the money to be given after the person is caught and convicted - haven't seen any details. I don't know the legal ramifications - but couldn't the person claim entrapment.

Isn't it just too easy for this initiative to be abused by anyone who has a grudge. Seem to remember other rather unworkable schemes - like the one where 'oicks' would be taken to a cash point and made to hand over 'instant fines' - whatever happened to that.

As for the Vicar and the 'old lady' hasn't anyone heard of sloe gin. Goodness all those Christmas tipples could employ the local constabulary from now until after the New Year ;)

tony draper
2nd Dec 2001, 23:50
Why don't they bite the bullet and say the permited alcohol level for drivers is zero,ie, say 24 hrs from bottle to throttle.
The limit itself must cause confusion, people think well I can have a pint or two and I'll still be below the limit, and that is dependant on many things and is not necessarily the case..
I know someone who claimed to have had five pints and passed the breathalyser, he was nabbed coming out of a club car park one Christmas, I was actually there when old bill collered him, I can't actually vouch for the amount he had in the club, but he used to joke that he was going to sue them for watering their beer, and from his past behaviour I would say if he had only had five he was taking it slowly that day.
I have always thought that it is this permitted level of alcohol that is ambiguous.

3rd Dec 2001, 05:59
Mr Draper

Quite agree the limit should be zero, then at least everyone would know that if they have a drink then they are over. They have a zero limit in a lot of Scandinavian countries I believe, and it reduced the accident rates.


I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you about this being a bit tacky of the police . If it saves one persons life, or removes one irresponsible person from the roads surely it would be worth it. As for entrapment, don't think so. You have witnessed a crime taking place, reporting that crime and then it is up to the police to do what they want with the information you supply. No-one forces these people to take their car when over the limit, it is their decision. If the police forced them into the car, made them drive and then arrested them for doing so then yes, I could see that would be entrapment.
Can I ask if you witnessed another crime say someone getting mugged or even worse raped, and you knew the perpetrator, would you still keep quiet? Would you still consider it a bit tacky to help the police? After all you might not just save someone elses life by stopping this hypothetical person driving, you could save their life too....

3rd Dec 2001, 20:49
Hobbes - you don't know my history, but yes I have given the name of a person who committed a crime to the police - on more than one occasion. I didn't need money either. Yes, I find offering money just for one particular type of crime distasteful - especially one that is so easy to solve. But how many resources will be tied up chasing down every reported incident.

You mention that if it saves one life it will be worth it - but we could do that by stopping everyone driving - more people are killed and injured by drivers who haven't been drinking. Do you ever drive when using a mobile, when you've had an argument with someone, when you're really tired (shall we also include people who've taken drugs - both legal and illegal - who insist on driving); do you always drive with full attention on the road. Do you ever drive too close, too fast or just without due care and attention.

I don't think people should drink and drive, and probably making it zero tolerant would stop more people drinking and driving. But will it achieve it's objective.

Would you report your father or mother if they went to a pub, had a couple of drinks, and drove home. Would you report your sister or wife or daughter if they had a drink and then decided to drive. Especially if you couldn't stop them driving. Would you watch them arrested and imprisoned - easy to talk about this in the abstract, but it has far reaching consequences. Would you report your boss, if you knew it might result in the loss of your job.

The man who was responsible for the Selby rail disaster had apparently been up all night. He hadn't taken one drink, but the accident killed 10 people and injured far more. Should we also report people who drive when we know they are not fit. Where will it end!!!!

I am aware of someone who, in my opinion, shouldn't be driving due to age-related infirmity, but I am unable to stop him. So far he has not been involved in an accident and he may never be, but how should I stop him. He doesn't drink, doesn't take drugs, but shouldn't be allowed to drive.

[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: Velvet ]

Bally Heck
4th Dec 2001, 07:43

So eloquent, and so right.

If you were less intelligent you could get a job as home secretary.

[ 04 December 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]

5th Dec 2001, 07:32

I do not wish to get into a slanging match and I respect your views. I wouldn't want the money either, my main point is that some people see a lot of car related crime as minor and therefore not worth tying up resources, where I consider it to be a real problem and would like to see a more pro-active method of dealing with it, and if that means using Crimestoppers then so be it.
I know that there is a lot of death on our roads, most of which is caused by sheer stupidity, people speeding, following too close or just by driving when they are obviously incapable through drink, drugs, sickness or age. If you look at the majority of deaths on the roads there is usually some factor caused by the driver which seriously affected the outcome of the accident. I know it is an old chestnut but would we put up with the same amount of death on public transport caused by pilots, bus or train drivers? I think not, after any disaster there are public enquiries, outpourings of grief and steps are taken to try and rectify any problem. Granted a lot of disasters take many lives at one time and so therefore are a shock to the system, but more people are killed on the roads in one year in the UK compared to any other form of transport.So why do we persist in accepting this unneccessary carnage on our roads? Probably because we don't find it shocking any more and a lot of us feel sorry for the "poor" driver who loses his licence for speeding, being "unlucky" to get caught over the limit or in your case not being able to persuade the person in question that they should not really be on the road any more, if only to save themselves.
Yes I treat driving seriously. I drive approxiamately 25k a year, have passed advanced tests with the Institute of Advanced Motorists and RoSPA, and every time I get into the car, I try to achieve the standard of driving and observation that allowed me to pass these tests. So that means no mobile (another of my personal hates), leaving enough space, driving at the speed limit when it is safe to do so, holier than thou maybe, but then in 18 years of driving both motorbikes and cars I still have a clean licence and have never had an accident (give me some wood quick!), and would prefer not to have one by becoming, like my relative, a victim of an exceptionally selfish person who thinks that they are above the Law.
Again you ask if I would report my relatives? Well since the accident that really isn't an issue any more. But I have removed the keys from close friends and relatives before now, so that they could not drive. At the time it may have caused unpleasantness, but I have also been thanked for doing it in the cold light of day. If they insisted then okay they can go, but I am on the phone, I do not want to lose any more relatives through drink driving. Would you report your relative for burglary or assault?
Oh and when I was a student, I lost a job that I needed very much for reporting a customer who had entered the bar I worked in at 11 am and stayed there til closing time. It was a regular who I knew very well, wouldn't let me call a taxi, even when I offered to pay for it, could hardly walk to his car and then barely managed to get it going. I phoned the police, gave them his index number and he was stopped and lost his licence, but he was alive and he hadn't killed maimed or injured anybody else. I kept it quiet that it was me, didn't even give my name, but unfortunately the police came up and asked who had phoned. The Boss put 2 and 2 together and I got the sack, cos I was the only one on duty that day. And yes I would do it again.
Would a zero limit help? In that it would remove all the speculation about how much you can drink and stay legal, yes. But in reality probably not because people would still ignore it or turn a blind eye because it is not a "serious" crime until they lose someone close.
I have no sympathy at all for anyone who loses their licence for whatever reason, if they had obeyed the Law they would not be in that situation. My sympathy lies with the innocent victims...

Demounts high horse.

5th Dec 2001, 10:28
It is not just the alcohol that is the problem. Prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and stress also reduce driving capability. This is of course assuming that the "Driver in Command" actually has driving skills. The ONLY way to reduce the road toll is to retest drivers constantly. Yearly driving tests would remove a lot of hopeless cases from the road, 100 hourlys on the cars with cars U/Sed when required.
And do you thing any govt would bring this in. PIGS BUM. Remember almost all drivers vote. Note: in OZ about 10% of fatals involve drink, so 90% are sober...... Is being pissed safer?