oops, wanker alert! Hi Bakes! Good to see you're keeping up!
Just for the record mate, if I think a breath test should be administered at every accident, that is my opinion and your perverse obsession with continually having a dig at me will not change that opinion. Because although it may be inconvenient, people can be under the influence of alcohol at any time of day, therefore I feel that the decision to breathalyse should not be at the discretion of a police officer. This could lead, for instance, to rich white men driving a Lexus not taking a test while some poor black guy in a B13 gets tested.
And before you ask, I've taken at least four breath tests, it's quite common for the police in the U.K. to carry out random breath tests, but sadly, only around Christmas time. I welcome it, as it makes the roads safer and deters drink driving. Which as you point out, in your opinion, is laughable. Tell that to the family of Haydee Paul.
Calling me names does little to mask the paucity of logic in your position, and don't flatter yourself I have no more a "perverse obsession" with "having a dig" at you than I do with anybody else who habitually posts a pack ah ass on this site, so don't feel special just yet. You further flatter yourself by assuming that my response has anything to do with you, by thinking I'm trying to change your opinion. Get over yourself. If you had anything resembling a functional brain you'd see there's actually a link between your earlier position and this one... both express a desire to give police much broader powers than the Constitution allows. It is a well-established doctrine in common law countries (ah know yuh confused by that... it means places like the US, England... and yes, Trinidad) that police cannot unreasonably search a person without probable cause.
A breathalyzer test is a search and can only be performed where there is probable cause to believe a person has been drinking and driving, in contravention of the laws. Just as police can't search your bank records without probable cause, see how that works? Don't worry... I know you don't, that went over your head. But the beauty of this is that this response isn't really intended for you, so whether you grasp it or not is pretty immaterial. They can't just breathalyze anybody, or even everybody. As for the comment that police in the U.K. carry out "random breath tests"... I am quite certain that the police in the U.K. don't breathalyze everybody who's involved in an accident. I'm also pretty confident they don't randomly drive up behind people, stop them and stick a breathalyzer in they mouth. Instead, what they do is set up checkpoints and they randomly stop people who come thru the checkpoints. Which is actually a whole lot different than what is being discussed here.
Now I know you will still say you are right and I am wrong as usual. Yes the police set up check points in the UK during certain campaigns, but they also can stop anybody, at anytime and administer a test
if they believe or have reason to believe that a driver may be drunk. Something as simple as failing to use your indicator could be such a reason. Hence the comment about a B13 driver. Another such situation in the UK would be a fatal accident early in the morning, as it is still very common for people to be over the limit on their way to work after a night out, despite having slept for 3 or 4 hours. But, it is discretionary.
I can think of no reason why a breath test shouldn't be administered at every serious accident, except for the cost making this impossible. I suppose it can be argued that it infringes peoples rights, but I can't support that. I'm more interested in the rights of people to enjoy life without fear of inconsiderate, selfish drivers ploughing into them because they have no self control, willpower or respect for the lives of others.
And yes, there is a link between my arguments. Don't commit crimes and you will not feel threatened or abused by pesky policemen doing their job. Perhaps there is an innocent reason to carry large sums of cash around. I can't think of one. But at least 90% of people making large cash transactions are doing it to avoid detection or to launder money.
I just can't imagine a life in your utopia where the draconian police forces can't do anything unless they have gathered substantial evidence of your guilt before they can investigate you. Living in a low crime society has its costs, and if one of those costs if giving up a few personal rights, so be it. Because, believe it or not, I also appreciate the kind of legal arguments you make in defence of personal rights, I just think yours are too conservative and favour the criminal more than the police. I also recognise that sometimes unsafe convictions occur, but, damn, drink driving (especially in T&T) is becoming an epidemic and the authorities need to toughen up.
So if Uncle Jack said the police will breath test any driver involved in an accident, I would buy the man a (non alcoholic) drink. And you know how hard that would be for me!
