Alf Cannan's I Have A Dream

[NoTailT]

37 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It seems only to apply if the gap is less than an hour and is usually only used after an accident.  And as you say will be disrupted by later consumption.

Let's say the gap is 3+ hours as I've been told by numerous people.

I know what my defence would be if I tested over the limit: Sorry officer, but I've had half a bottle of whiskey since I got home.

The fact is - even if he had tested over the limit - the considerable time gap allows for considerable defence against any allegations.

[Ringy Rose]

45 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Let's say the gap is 3+ hours as I've been told by numerous people.

I know what my defence would be if I tested over the limit: Sorry officer, but I've had half a bottle of whiskey since I got home.

Yeah, that’d be my defence too.

For a man of Cannan’s size the drink driving limit is about four units- a pint of Guinness is about 2.3 units. On top of that you metabolise about one unit per hour.

So if he’s tested negative on the breathalyser he can’t have had more than 7-8 units in the pub, which is less than four pints of stout, unless the police really did take more than 3 or 4 hours to test him.

[Holte End]

Whoever phoned the police over this incident, should be prosecuted for wasting police time. How much money was spent in this deliberate act of abusing someone in public office. The AG's really should do something about it.

[Ringy Rose]

2 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Whoever phoned the police over this incident, should be prosecuted for wasting police time

Why? If I thought someone had had too much and was getting in their car, I’d have no hesitation in ringing plod.

[x-in-man]

1 minute ago, Holte End said:

Whoever phoned the police over this incident, should be prosecuted for wasting police time. How much money was spent in this deliberate act of abusing someone in public office. The AG's really should do something about it.

What bollocks.

What evidence do you have that it wasn't a reasonable 'phone call? 

Should all people in public office be protected from being reported to the police?

 

[thommo2010]

4 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Whoever phoned the police over this incident, should be prosecuted for wasting police time. How much money was spent in this deliberate act of abusing someone in public office. The AG's really should do something about it.

Not much time, someone phones up,car is stopped/found at address 2 minutes breathalyser.

[Numbnuts]

4 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Whoever phoned the police over this incident, should be prosecuted for wasting police time. How much money was spent in this deliberate act of abusing someone in public office. The AG's really should do something about it.

Really , you’re making lots of assumptions coming out with that statement. Unless you heard the call made to the police and what it was about then it’s guesswork. Was the call just about the altercation or…….. Anyway it’s all academic now but Alf is clearly tarnished again by it. 

[Holte End]

Just now, Ringy Rose said:

Why? If I thought someone had had too much and was getting in their car, I’d have no hesitation in ringing plod.

But he hadn't , that is the whole point Does everyone who drives out of a pub car park get report to the police.

[Banker]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

If that’s the case, I wonder what questions will be posed?

What are you asking as chief critic Bonzo?

[NoTailT]

8 minutes ago, Holte End said:

But he hadn't , that is the whole point Does everyone who drives out of a pub car park get report to the police.

it's been known.. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/999/businessman-given-two-year-ban-for-drink-driving-222397

[Holte End]

1 minute ago, NoTailT said:

it's been known.. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/999/businessman-given-two-year-ban-for-drink-driving-222397

Yes, but he failed the breathalyser test. 

 

13 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Really , you’re making lots of assumptions coming out with that statement. Unless you heard the call made to the police and what it was about then it’s guesswork. Was the call just about the altercation or…….. Anyway it’s all academic now but Alf is clearly tarnished again by it. 

So why did the police breathalyser Mr Cannan, I seen many altercation on pub car parks, you don't ring the police unless it gets out of hand, but normally is just handbags and a little bit of pushing. It is a poor publician who can't control his customers and can lose his licence.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It seems only to apply if the gap is less than an hour and is usually only used after an accident.  And as you say will be disrupted by later consumption.

I think it only applies if the period after driving is more than, rather than less than, one hour.

Reason is simple. Alcohol crosses the into the blood quickly, and is eliminated slowly at a steady rate. But it continues to be absorbed into the blood for at least an hour after the last drink. 

So, back calculating within that hour doesn’t accurately reflect the blood alcohol at time of driving.

Back calculation is often used when post driving consumption is alleged. Police will look for evidence, bottles, level of contents, glasses, sizes and any remaining, plus they’ll ask how much. Most drivers, at home, will massively understate, and that puts them in danger when back calculation is done.

[Ringy Rose]

29 minutes ago, Holte End said:

But he hadn't , that is the whole point

It took the police three hours to breathslyse him, so we don’t know how much he’d had. If I’d seen someone in the pub all night with a pint I’d ring and let plod find out the truth.

[Happier diner]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I think it only applies if the period after driving is more than, rather than less than, one hour.

Reason is simple. Alcohol crosses the into the blood quickly, and is eliminated slowly at a steady rate. But it continues to be absorbed into the blood for at least an hour after the last drink. 

So, back calculating within that hour doesn’t accurately reflect the blood alcohol at time of driving.

Back calculation is often used when post driving consumption is alleged. Police will look for evidence, bottles, level of contents, glasses, sizes and any remaining, plus they’ll ask how much. Most drivers, at home, will massively understate, and that puts them in danger when back calculation is done.

Thinking about the science and balancing the probability of making a successful prosecution, is it fair to say that the longer the period since your drink, the more you need a comclusive figure. I am meaning, if you were marginal it would be harder to make a case from a back calculation.

I know there are ways that the police can disprove the "I had a bottle of whisky when I got home" tale but I'm not sure how they do it.

[Holte End]

1 minute ago, Ringy Rose said:

It took the police three hours to breathslyse him, so we don’t know how much he’d had. If I’d seen someone in the pub all night with a pint I’d ring and let plod find out the truth.

Three hours isn't enough time for someone who you think has been drinking all night, to past a breathalyser test. But If you do see someone and think they have been drinking all night, then think they might be driving, you should tell the landlord and his bar staff first .