Mr Nick is a very naughty boy

[Snoopy]

WHat have I started?

I fooked up and have to live with the consequences. We can talk about all kind of pros and cons, and yes, the rozzers do set out to trap people, and do it regularly round here. I have spoken to a number of folks int eh village, all of whom have been 'done' at one time or another and the response is sympathetic, not least because at the other end of the borough (Growler knows where) the streets are alive with violence and untaxed cars. THis place is a soft target.

I know a lot of people who, over the years, have said @I can't recall how I got home.' We have all heard it. My mate S drives daily from pub to pub and Mr G knows another one who does likewise. Both have said to me 'There burt for the grace of god....'

I have regularly driven over the speed limit (on motorways) but never been caught. This time I was targetted.

I have done some research, taken some legal advice, decided on my course of action. Main consequence now will be some continuing GBH Of the earhole, expense on taxis and a lot of inconveninece which I will doubtless find ways around (online shopping being one of them). Public transport hereabouts is crap, so I may have to walk more, or find my old bike  

Thanks again for all your knind words. Watch this space for developments. D Day is Feb 18th, so I have another month of mobility which I shall make maximum use of.

Does that mean you may come and visit? 
















Always welcome as you know.

[Barman]

This is worth a read IMHO...

When I sent off my photo for my driving licence, it turned out I wasn't allowed to have my hat on. I argued that it was my religion, and I argued that my face made photo booths explode, but they would have none of it. So my driving licence has my face on it.

I've had that licence a long time. It used to be face-free but it's not now. It also used to last as long as I did, but now it expires and I'll have to pay more for a new one, as well as searching out another particularly robust photo booth. I'm not risking my own cameras on this face.

Currently I don't have a car. I have occasionally owned one but I don't really like driving. My licence is pristine, no bans, no endorsements (or whatever they're called now), I just don't like driving. So I don't.

I do like drinking. Much, much more than driving. I won't be drink-driving but I might, once in a while, be drink-blogging and that can be strange. Tonight I'm typing with the aid of Ledaig. It's not illegal yet, not until they bring in blogging licences. If I have to show my real face on this blog, it will attract only the iron-stomached and those attracted to weirdness. Which is okay. Sometimes they're pretty.

But I digress. I've always been mystified by the drink limit for drivers. It's 80 mg. What the hell does that mean? How would I go about checking myself to see if I'm under or over that figure? Let's be honest here - how many people do you suppose have the slightest idea what that figure really means? If you were to say 'two pints', it's equally meaningless. Two pints of 3% beer, two of 5%, two pints of 'Jock McSquirty's Bowel Purger 'at 11%, or two pints of Trappist-brewed 'God's Smiting Ale' (aka Chimay, I forget which colour) at anything up to 14%? Incidentally, that Trappist vow of silence is rubbish. There's no vow. I've tried that stuff and I'm certain the reason they don't speak is because they've forgotten how.

Now it appears that 'most people' think the limit should be cut from 80 to 50 mg. To those asked, both figures are meaningless. So they approve of changing one regulation they don't understand to another regulation they don't understand. I expect most responses were a shrug and an 'If you say so'.

Well, if 'most people' say something the Government intended to do anyway, then they'll do it. If most people had said 'No, get lost, raise it or scrap it' then it would have been lowered for our own good anyway. It might not even have been reported.

The case for the Righteous hinges on polls like that, and on statements like these:

Also, 17 per cent of those surveyed admitted that they had driven home after a night out knowing they were probably over the limit.
And 20 per cent said they had got behind the wheel the morning after thinking their blood-alcohol levels were over the limit.

'knowing they were probably' - that's an interesting bit of logic. I know, but only maybe. They didn't know whether they were over the limit or not because they don't understand the limit, and if they did they have no way of measuring it. And yet the phrasing suggests that they must have been blasted, barely able to see, as talkative as a Trappist and driving at 100 mph along back streets.

The other 20 percent, who said they thought they were over the limit next morning, are idiots. If they were, they'd know, They'd feel drunk. It's a different feeling from hungover. And yet that line conjures images of commuters weaving through traffic jams on two wheels, while spilling not a drop from the vodka bottle they swig from as they drive. Look for such suggestion in news reports. It's not hard to spot once you get the hang of it.

Alcohol's effects depend on much more than the 80 mg or 50 mg figure. Those who imbibe often can drink far more than those who have the odd shandy, without being dangerously affected. Some might be safe to drive after five pints, some might be a menace after one. Rather than a fixed limit which doesn't work for everyone, what we need is a sobriety test. A test of capability, not of blood. One that does not require handing over your DNA, which will be stored in one of the Government database storage areas (currently on public transport) whether you are guilty or not.

This government's policies are based on a population of clones, and not very bright clones at that. They cannot recognise that people don't come out of a sausage factory as identical units, no matter how hard they try to make it happen.

The Righteous cannot cope with it at all. They can tell us apart by whether we are dependent on them or not, and that's it. All dependents are the same, all non-dependents are the same. All non-dependents are merely dependents in waiting, all they need to do is figure out how to make it so. There are no differences between individuals in the Righteous mind. Andy Pandy logic works for them.

For those who don't remember, Andy Pandy was a character on a children's show. His friends were Looby Loo and Teddy, and it's not on air any more because they all slept together in a box. Anyway, 'Andy Pandy logic' stems from an episode where they played hide and seek. Ted hid by covering his eyes. His logic was 'if I can't see Andy, then Andy can't see me'. This is the logic of the Righteous.

So if one maniac has a gun, anyone with a gun is a maniac. If someone commits a crime with a knife, anyone with a knife is a criminal. If drug dealers carry large amounts of cash, anyone with a large amount of cash is a drug dealer. If racists don't like immigrants, then anyone who objects to immigration is a racist. And so on.

Therefore, if one person is drunk at 80 mg, then everyone is.

What's worrying is that the Righteous drones really believe they are correct in this. They genuinely believe, just like that stuffed teddy bear, that covering their eyes means they can't be seen. That any connection immediately implies the converse in all situations, always. They see one white man acting racist, and immediately assume that all white men are racists. Men commit rape so all men are rapists.

When the consistency and simplicity of their style is considered, it shows that either they are terminally stupid or extremely clever. The idiotic logic works on so many people, so many times, it is easy to understand why they keep using it.

But then, to assess all the Righteous as stupid or clever is to fall into the trap they have set for us. The trap so many have fallen into: all smokers are evil, all drinkers will drive drunk, all fat people will cost the taxpayer, all Scots are taking English taxes, all Welsh demand Welsh road signs, all Romanians are child traffickers, all Jamaicans are Yardies, all Nigerians are scammers... the logic comes from the Righteous and it is stupid, but they have used it so often it has become part of many people's psyche. I've met people who will curl their lip at anyone who says they are going outside for a smoke. The smoker is filthy and evil even though the lip-curler has never even seen that person smoke. All smokers are devils who want to kill non-smokers with the fumes from Beelzebub's arse. That's how Andy Pandy logic works.

It's not just the Righteous argument that pervades the country. It's the very style of that argument. Unconsciously, people mimic the Righteous and generalise about whole populations on the basis of, often, a single incident. This is where the Righteous are winning. Not in their stupid laws and idiotic arguments, but in changing the very face of logic itself. They have us thinking like them. Unless we fight it, we soon won't be thinking at all.

Not all the Righteous are stupid. The ones we meet day to day are perfectly thick, but they have to be. If they had enough intelligence to question what they were doing, they'd realise they've been had. There are intelligent Righteous but we won't see them often, if at all. Like the Queen at the centre of the ants' nest, they send the stupid ones out to do the dirty work and take the flak while they stay hidden and spawn more drones. They know the logic is wrong. They know it's stupid but they depend on their drones being more stupid, and they know that continual repeating of the stupid makes it eventually accepted. Why? Because, for the most part, people are too lazy to think and are happy to let someone else do it for them.

There is one generalisation it is safe to make. All Righteous are dangerous. Their Andy Pandy logic is taking hold. It will soon be applied to those Iraqi interpreters the Government don't want to let in, because of this case. That case can also be used in the war against photographers. Andy Pandy logic will be used to censor the Internet because of this one. Any single case can be used as proof that anyone engaged in that activity is doing it for criminal reasons.

Poor Andy must be turning in his grave.




I wonder if he and Looby Loo ever... but that's a seriously twisted childhood fantasy. Besides, the result would be so horrible and so dim it would have no choice but to enter Westmonster.

Source

[Snoopy]

Driver snatched a bite of her sandwich at the wheel - and had to swallow a £60 fine

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1118186/Driver-snatched-bite-sandwich-wheel--swallow-60-fine.html

But also see this:

The Highway Code lists all of the following as potential distractions:

• Using a mobile phone
• Eating and drinking
• Smoking
• Loud music
• Trying to read maps
• Inserting a CD
• Arguing with passengers or other road users

All of which can be construed as an offence by a Police Officer and attract a fine. Refusal to pay the "On the spot" fine of £60 can result in (i) an appearance in court where the only evidence needed to convict is the word of a single police officer or (ii) the accused being arrested for "obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty" Which will result in a court appearance on not only the original charge but also a charge of "Obstruction". Again the only evidence needed for a conviction is the word of the police officer.
Conviction normally results in the original fine being doubled and "costs" added. The second offence carries the potential for large fines and/or a term of imprisonment.

Meanwhile as we are all agreed the real villains are laughing all the way to the Costa del Sol. Little old ladies live in fear and  3 people who gang rape a teenage girl with a mental age of 7 and then throw caustic soda over her face and body, scaring her in body and mind for the rest of her life, will be back on the streets in 4 years.

Edit to add: When did anyone here last see a copper pull over a souped up 206 full of Rastas whose music can be heard four streets away? No way will that happen ~ too difficult. Much easier to pick on middle aged men (sorry Nick but you are) and single mums snatching a sandwich in their increasingly busy day.

[GROWLER]

Talkin' of fines and getting nicked and stuff, I've not heard anymore from plod regarding my little 'indiscretion' with a speed scamera a couple of months ago.
Not out the woods yet mind.

[Snoopy]

Well ladies and gentlemen the answer is in our hands ~ Police can only police with the consent of the people.
Government can only govern with the consent of the people.
We elected them (OK WE didn't vote for this shower but some bugger must have) and if we don't like what they do then we can damned well unelect them.

Nick is right when he says he made a mistake and must pay for it but the whole can of worms needs looking at very closely and no-one will get my vote unless I hear them saying that they will do the looking and where necessary the correcting.

Hit the streets when the time comes and get like minded people out in force to vote for what we really want.

[Darwins Selection]

... no-one will get my vote unless I hear them saying that they will do the looking and where necessary the correcting.

I have an uneasy feeling that your strategy is flawed. 

[Snoopy]

... no-one will get my vote unless I hear them saying that they will do the looking and where necessary the correcting.

I have an uneasy feeling that your strategy is flawed. 

I know ~ The only buggers who I can find in agreement with me are the bloody BNP and they come with a lot of other baggage that I don't want either.

[Nick]

Have just been to see my local butcher!! Another local who got a three year ban and a rather nasty Community Service thingy ('100 hours of hanging around with pond life' as he put it) That won't apply to me cos he was 4 times over the limit 

He has strongly recommended a solicitor and put me on to his (£230, I saw the bill) and reckons it helped him avoid a lot worse. SO off to Birkenhead again next week to see the brief. 

[GROWLER]

Have just been to see my local butcher!! Another local who got a three year ban and a rather nasty Community Service thingy ('100 hours of hanging around with pond life' as he put it) That won't apply to me cos he was 4 times over the limit 

He has strongly recommended a solicitor and put me on to his (£230, I saw the bill) and reckons it helped him avoid a lot worse. SO off to Birkenhead again next week to see the brief. 

Nick. Far be it for me to start querying the benefits of having a solicitor with my numbskull knowledge of such matters, but look mate, joking aside, you are a highly intelligent...albeit daft as a brush...bloke. What exactly can a solicitor do or say in mitigation that you can't?

If he gets your fine reduced from say £500 to £250, so what? You'll have to pay him the difference anyway, and as for reducing the ban, well that's a virtual impossibility. 12 months, end of, unless it can be proven that there were absolute extreme and life threatening dangers for you to be driving. Can't actually think of a case that's gone that way thoough tbqh.

Tell you what. I'll come and represent you FREE OF CHARGE, and then we can become cell mates!

[Nick]

Thanks Mr G. There is no charge to see the brief. The charge is if he represents me. I am leaving no stone unturned  at present. Saw that Jenny this morning by the way. SHe had heard and has resorted to taxis!

[GROWLER]

I actually remeber an instance of me having to drive whilst pissed.
Back in 1983 I was the manager of a shop in Northwich, Cheshire, and obviously, the main key holder.
One of my dickhead staff forgot to lock the front door the previous evening (my day off), and plod were doing their rounds at 3am and found the door unlocked, and consequently rang me to come and secure it.
I lived in Frodsham at the time, and had the moral dilema of deciding wheather to drive out there knowing I was over the limit, or facing the full wroth of the management the next day if anything was nicked, with the possibility of being sacked even.

I took the chance and drove there and back without seeing a soul ...fortunately.
Wonder what would have happened if plod had been waiting for me and sniffed me breath?

[Nick]

You'd have been in the poo, but they are much much stricter nowadays 

[GROWLER]

Thanks Mr G. There is no charge to see the brief. The charge is if he represents me. I am leaving no stone unturned  at present. Saw that Jenny this morning by the way. SHe had heard and has resorted to taxis!

Now SHE has been taking the piss, quite literally down her gullet in V. LARGE quantities for far too long...and driving to pick her kids up after one of her many afternoon benders.
She can count her lucky stars that she's never been caught, and by you getting nicked, it may just have save the inevitable roasting she was heading for eventually.

[Nick]

She admitted as much, and Jim has had a few brushes too. My mate S has not learnt from my experience judging by last night 

Note for non-locals: Like TMR and TEl, Growler and I have developed a few folks in common, like

[GROWLER]

She admitted as much, and Jim has had a few brushes too. My mate S has not learnt from my experience judging by last night 

Note for non-locals: Like TMR and TEl, Growler and I have developed a few folks in common, like

Any chance of translating that into English like,  as I haven't got the foggiest what you're goin' on about quite frankly?