asitis Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I have no idea what the incident was or who it involved but imho the judiciary on the IOM have never taken dangerous driving seriously are far too many offenders have walked from court after fatal accidents with little more than a slap on the wrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripoff Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Well I am intrigued!! I live in Port Erin and have not heard a thing about this. Anyone care to enlighten me..or put me in touch with a news link that does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I looked on iomonline and the manx radio site but can't find anything on this incident, strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I know what your saying, but who decides when you are a piss head or not? I wouldnt want the spotty bird down spar having that sort of power. I seem to recall the Police have a machine to do that. I remember years ago being pulled over after an RTA to be told I "smelled of alcohol" to be dragged to the Police HQ in the back of a Transit only blow into the machine and .. hey presto ... zero result. My how that b*stards had to apologise afterwards. But they were right to do it. If your suggesting an opportunity to breathalize was not taken that's pretty big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie 'E' Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I know what your saying, but who decides when you are a piss head or not? I wouldnt want the spotty bird down spar having that sort of power. I seem to recall the Police have a machine to do that. I remember years ago being pulled over after an RTA to be told I "smelled of alcohol" to be dragged to the Police HQ in the back of a Transit only blow into the machine and .. hey presto ... zero result. My how that b*stards had to apologise afterwards. But they were right to do it. If your suggesting an opportunity to breathalize was not taken that's pretty big. According to my sources the individual got off with it and whoever did the sentencing explained in court that 'Boys will be boys' Unless they have changed the Law, they have to breath test you at the roadside BEFORE they 'Arrest you on suspicion of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol & or drugs'.. then they have to follow a certain procedure, especially if you have just had a cigarette or a sweet. Ask yourselves the following questions: Who has 'enough influence' to have Court Reporting Restrictions lifted? Why were they lifted? Why should they be the exception to the Laws? But taking into account that it is 'speculative hearsay' you have to be careful of any further implications, if the Press get a whiff something is not right, I would think they are hardly likely to let it rest unless specifically ordered to do so by a Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 hold on a moment, no one suggested there was drink involved in the case the thred was started about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 But taking into account that it is 'speculative hearsay' you have to be careful of any further implications, if the Press get a whiff something is not right, I would think they are hardly likely to let it rest unless specifically ordered to do so by a Court Ignoring the way this thread might be going (I'm not even sure what we are talking about) but in that comment I think you seriously over estimate the willingness of the press here to do anything without direction from certain quarters. That comment smacks of the suggestion that investigative journalism exists here which we all know to be completely untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Gotta agree with JK there The press over here usually don't even move their arse unless you write the damn story yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 What do you think the correct punishment should be if you drive the wrong way along a one way road and end up rolling your car and wrecking two others in the process? I'm not sure about the driving down a one way street part, but if you did the rest at speed causing to hit, splat and kill a person on a motorcycle, I would say, on the Isle of Man in front of a deemster, a £1000 fine and a year's ban. Remind me, what was the title of this thread? ..........and a year to pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Can't someone PLEASE give us more detail about what actually happened? The reason the IOM newspapers are so timid is that the government is by far the biggest advertiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Can't someone PLEASE give us more detail about what actually happened? The reason the IOM newspapers are so timid is that the government is by far the biggest advertiser A young male who was driving along church road in Port Erin in a direction that may or may not have been the same direction as the one way system, rolled a gold color Relient Robin that ended up on its roof in between cars parked on either side of the road causing dammage to a white citroen van and a nice, red mk 1 golf cabriolet, both damaged vehicles were up road from the position in which the robin ended up suggesting that the car had been traveling against the flow of traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I know what your saying, but who decides when you are a piss head or not? I wouldnt want the spotty bird down spar having that sort of power. I seem to recall the Police have a machine to do that. I remember years ago being pulled over after an RTA to be told I "smelled of alcohol" to be dragged to the Police HQ in the back of a Transit only blow into the machine and .. hey presto ... zero result. My how that b*stards had to apologise afterwards. But they were right to do it. If your suggesting an opportunity to breathalize was not taken that's pretty big. According to my sources the individual got off with it and whoever did the sentencing explained in court that 'Boys will be boys' Unless they have changed the Law, they have to breath test you at the roadside BEFORE they 'Arrest you on suspicion of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol & or drugs'.. then they have to follow a certain procedure, especially if you have just had a cigarette or a sweet. Ask yourselves the following questions: Who has 'enough influence' to have Court Reporting Restrictions lifted? Why were they lifted? Why should they be the exception to the Laws? But taking into account that it is 'speculative hearsay' you have to be careful of any further implications, if the Press get a whiff something is not right, I would think they are hardly likely to let it rest unless specifically ordered to do so by a Court I am well aware off the police having a "machine" as you call it, My point was towards "the bees" comment on stopping selling booze to piss heads. or are you sugesting that you have to provide a breath test to buy booze in the first place? I do think it is sad all the same to see folk buying a half bottle of vodka at 10am mind, but I guess thats for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie 'E' Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 are you sugesting that you have to provide a breath test to buy booze in the first place? Not at all.. least I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.. lol.. but anyone who sells alcohol does have the right to refuse to serve them.. that includes off licences..however, this is diverting from the original thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Unless they have changed the Law, they have to breath test you at the roadside BEFORE they 'Arrest you on suspicion of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol & or drugs'.. then they have to follow a certain procedure, especially if you have just had a cigarette or a sweet. Load of Bollocks, they dont have to breath test you at the road side, they can just arrest you. They can also arrest you if your not even near your car but have the keys in your pocket, been there, got the T shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.