Note on windscreen

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

So show us a truck driver who's been convicted.

Have you concluded your view on the damage caused by the passenger was wrong?

Oh and just because someone hasn't been convicted doesn't make something legal.

Paradigm

George_Michael wrote: »

The offence is committed by being drunk whilst in charge unless you can prove that you were not going to drive. The CPS do not have to prove that you were.

To be fair that would be pretty easy for a Truck driver parked up at the end of his shift & taking his, legally required, daily rest!
Curtains closed, in bed with his jim jams on watching TV.

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

Have you concluded your view on the damage caused by the passenger was wrong?

Oh and just because someone hasn't been convicted doesn't make something legal.

Shame they have a defence.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Shame they have a defence.

I am glad you agree legally the OP could just tell the insurance company to refuse the claim for the damage caused by the passenger.

Now this is not to say they should or will, just they could, but that debate is a whole different thread.

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

I am glad you agree legally the OP could just tell the insurance company to refuse the claim for the damage caused by the passenger.

Now this is not to say they should or will, just they could, but that debate is a whole different thread.

I was referring to the truck driver.

George_Michael

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

So show us a truck driver who's been convicted.

Why?
If no truck driver has been convicted doesn't this show that they were able to prove that they weren't going to drive?

Now that I've shown the legislation to you, are you man enough to admit that your claim of:

For drunk in charge you need to prove a likelihood to drive. Being in a sleepecab is the same as being at home in bed.

is in fact wrong?

Billy_Bullocks

George_Michael wrote: »

Why?
If no truck driver has been convicted doesn't this show that they were able to prove that they weren't going to drive?

Now that I've shown the legislation to you, are you man enough to admit that your claim of:

is in fact wrong?

You do realise that you get interviewed the following day for drunk in charge offences? CPS will not take a case on unless you can close that defence down from the onset.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

You do realise that you get interviewed the following day for drunk in charge offences?

Obviously the police are going to wait for the drunk to be sober before interviewing them.

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

CPS will not take a case on unless you can close that defence down from the onset.

So how does the fact the person arrested was so drunk they could not be interviewed for several hours create a defence?

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

Obviously the police are going to wait for the drunk to be sober before interviewing them.



So how does the fact the person arrested was so drunk they could not be interviewed for several hours create a defence?

It's quite easy for a truck driver.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

It's quite easy for a truck driver.

Could explain or are you going to continue talking in riddles.