Drunk driver's?.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'm not asking anyone to gloat or brag, but how do drunk driver's behave when caught?.

ie, your operating a mandatory alcohol testing check point (is that what you guys call 'em) and someone fails the test.

Are they mad, confused or embaressed and full of excuse's?.

It just seem's to me the most ridiculous & selfish thing to do atm. You can't claim ignorance (or do they?) that they didn't know the limits, or that they didn't know about breath testing, or the danger's involved in drink driving.

This all came to light when I seen a guy arrested at one of those check points, he was a normal, decent looking guy. Maybe mid-40's, he was cuffed and taken to a police car looking very shamed and sheepish and thought to myself 'ya fecking muppet' (or something along those lines).

TheNog

The majority I have come across are fairly sheepish but I have seen some try to bully their way out of trouble by being obnoxious and blaming me for harassing them. Only one drunk driver that I had had to physically restrained by me and another member. He put up quite a fight.

At the station you can pretty expect any type of behaviour from crying to being polite to being rude and being shouted and spat at. Some will even try everything possible to frustrate the process from constantly changing their name to eating cigarettes. I even saw one drink a bottle of tipex!!! Some will even tell you they know more about the process than you do and make themselves believe that the guard is trying trick them into giving a breath sample.

With drunk drivers a normal person behaving well and co-operating would take approx 1hr to 1.5hr from time of arrest on the street to charging and release. The more difficult one can take nearly 3 hrs. During this time the patrol car is sitting outside the station and not out on the streets.

arybvtcw0eolkf

TheNog wrote: »

With drunk drivers a normal person behaving well and co-operating would take approx 1hr to 1.5hr from time of arrest on the street to charging and release. The more difficult one can take nearly 3 hrs. During this time the patrol car is sitting outside the station and not out on the streets.

Thanks, that leads me to another question.

Like most people I've been tested at check points more times than I can remember, always got a reading of 'Zero' of course.

At what point is someone arrested?.

IE what happens when its not 'Zero', and is someone arrested straight away?.

And the morning after test, no unless your a total non-drinkers we're all afraid of this one - is the behaviour much different? - I'd imagine it is, but who know's. This is the one I fear most, and I'd imagine every drinker does.

.

TheNog

Zyaire Happy Triathlon wrote: »

Thanks, that leads me to another question.

Like most people I've been tested at check points more times than I can remember, always got a reading of 'Zero' of course.

At what point is someone arrested?.

IE what happens when its not 'Zero', and is someone arrested straight away?.

And the morning after test, no unless your a total non-drinkers we're all afraid of this one - is the behaviour much different? - I'd imagine it is, but who know's. This is the one I fear most, and I'd imagine every drinker does.

.

The handheld alcolyser only shows two results, Pass/Fail. The machine is not sophisticated enough to show if a driver is actually over the limit or not. It just shows if the driver has alcohol in his breath. I believe the British Police have ones which do show if a driver is over the limit at the roadside.

So if you Fail the test you would be arrested and brought to a station for an evidential breath test. Sometimes people will come under the limit and are released straight away without any charges.

As for the morning after well I always tell people to be very very careful. People will think they are fine and take the chance but they have so much to lose if they are fined and disqualified from driving.

Just to give you an example one of our lads brought in man who had failed the roadside test. The man spoke normally and walked normally (no slurred speech or staggering) and his driving was actaully pretty ok too. The arresting guard did get a slight smell of drink but it wasnt bad. We thought he would pass the test no problem. The legal limit is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath. This man's result was 117 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath. We were shocked to say the least.

So anyone who thinks they are walking and talking fine does not mean they are under the limit.

arybvtcw0eolkf

TheNog wrote: »

The handheld alcolyser only shows two results, Pass/Fail. The machine is not sophisticated enough to show if a driver is actually over the limit or not. It just shows if the driver has alcohol in his breath.
So if you Fail the test you would be arrested and brought to a station for an evidential breath test. Sometimes people will come under the limit and are released straight away without any charges..

Wow, I didn't know the road side test was a black and white as that. For some reason I thought their might be varying degree's of failure (yes now I realise how silly that sounds)

TheNog wrote: »

As for the morning after well I always tell people to be very very careful. People will think they are fine and take the chance but they have so much to lose if they are fined and disqualified from driving. .

Eeek (I'll need to talk to my solicitor before making any further statements on the matter!.)



Thanks for all that, I appricate it.

Now, what time does Campions open? They've a nice big car park beer garden...

.

Bang Bang

Very interesting thread. I too wasn't sure how the roadside test worked, I've been tested once and it was zero.

It brings to mind a question I have regarding when a motorist is transported to hopital by ambulance, when there's a suspicion of drunk driving.
I personally have taken quite a few drivers in from traffic "accidents" where there is a suspicion of drink driving.
The old myth that if the driver is taken to hospital they can't be "done" still appears to be there. I've heard this from motorists I've taken to hospital.

Recently we responded to a traffic collision where the driver of one of the cars was "under suspicion" (I'm open to correction on my terminology there) of having consumed alcohol. There were other injured parties.
A Garda member travelled in the ambulance, which was followed by the Garda car. But there was a new, fairly young doctor in charge who didn't really understand the ways of the law regarding testing for alcohol in the Emergency Department. He asked that the Garda waith until a more senior doctor arrives to clear the patient before the Garda can speak to him. This wait could be anything up to a "few" hours.

Is there a definitive law regarding testing for alcohol in a hospital Emergency Department? I might add that this persons injuries were minor and not life threatening.

sunnyjim

A Garda member travelled in the ambulance, which was followed by the Garda car. But there was a new, fairly young doctor in charge who didn't really understand the ways of the law regarding testing for alcohol in the Emergency Department. He asked that the Garda waith until a more senior doctor arrives to clear the patient before the Garda can speak to him. This wait could be anything up to a "few" hours.

How is it done in an A&E? Take 2 blood samples, bag them, sign timestamp them?

Bang Bang

Bang Bang wrote: »

Very interesting thread. I too wasn't sure how the roadside test worked, I've been tested once and it was zero.

It brings to mind a question I have regarding when a motorist is transported to hopital by ambulance, when there's a suspicion of drunk driving.
I personally have taken quite a few drivers in from traffic "accidents" where there is a suspicion of drink driving.
The old myth that if the driver is taken to hospital they can't be "done" still appears to be there. I've heard this from motorists I've taken to hospital.

Recently we responded to a traffic collision where the driver of one of the cars was "under suspicion" (I'm open to correction on my terminology there) of having consumed alcohol. There were other injured parties.
A Garda member travelled in the ambulance, which was followed by the Garda car. But there was a new, fairly young doctor in charge who didn't really understand the ways of the law regarding testing for alcohol in the Emergency Department. He asked that the Garda waith until a more senior doctor arrives to clear the patient before the Garda can speak to him. This wait could be anything up to a "few" hours.

Is there a definitive law regarding testing for alcohol in a hospital Emergency Department? I might add that this persons injuries were minor and not life threatening.

Section 15 RTA 1994.

then such member may, in the hospital, require the person either—

(i) to permit a designated doctor to take from the person a specimen of his blood, or

(ii) at the option of the person, to provide for the designated doctor a specimen of his urine,

and if the doctor states in writing that he is unwilling, on medical grounds, to take from the person or be provided by him with the specimen to which the requirement in either of the foregoing subparagraphs related, the member may make a requirement of the person under this subsection in relation to the specimen other than that to which the first requirement related.

Terrontress

TheNog wrote: »

The handheld alcolyser only shows two results, Pass/Fail. The machine is not sophisticated enough to show if a driver is actually over the limit or not. It just shows if the driver has alcohol in his breath. I believe the British Police have ones which do show if a driver is over the limit at the roadside.

So if you Fail the test you would be arrested and brought to a station for an evidential breath test. Sometimes people will come under the limit and are released straight away without any charges.

As for the morning after well I always tell people to be very very careful. People will think they are fine and take the chance but they have so much to lose if they are fined and disqualified from driving.

Just to give you an example one of our lads brought in man who had failed the roadside test. The man spoke normally and walked normally (no slurred speech or staggering) and his driving was actaully pretty ok too. The arresting guard did get a slight smell of drink but it wasnt bad. We thought he would pass the test no problem. The legal limit is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath. This man's result was 117 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath. We were shocked to say the least.

So anyone who thinks they are walking and talking fine does not mean they are under the limit.

How much would the average male have to drink to reach a reading of 117?

If a pint and a half of Guinness puts you over at 35, would 117 be 3.5 times that? i.e. 5 pints? Or does it rise exponentially?

drzhivago

TheNog wrote: »

The handheld alcolyser only shows two results, Pass/Fail. The machine is not sophisticated enough to show if a driver is actually over the limit or not. It just shows if the driver has alcohol in his breath. I believe the British Police have ones which do show if a driver is over the limit at the roadside.

So if you Fail the test you would be arrested and brought to a station for an evidential breath test. Sometimes people will come under the limit and are released straight away without any charges.

CAn you expand a little here, is the person arrested or asked to go to the station

Can you be arrested without breaking a law as at this stage you dont know whether they have or not, all you know is they have alcohol on breath, that could be half a glass of wine couldnt it

Saruman

Wow I had no idea the roadside test was like that. Is that for real? The test will say fail if you have any alcohol in your system but still under the limit?

For instance if I had a half pint which should leave me under the limit, especially If I drive an hour later but I might still have a trace amount of alcohol.
Jaysus I could use mouthwash in the morning and get stopped, arrested and my day ruined.

I am not sure this can be true as I know I was stopped once and took a breath test (perfectly happy to do so) and I passed but I had a shandy that evening so I should have had some alcohol on the breath unless it had gone by the time I was stopped.

Our man in Havana

117 could be closer to 7 or 8 pints esp if he was a big fella.

Do the Gardaí operate a work back procedure where there is a delay in getting the samples?

Ok folks, first thing Gardai say it all the time but people don't seem to hear, if you have one drink don't drive. There is no set number of drinks you can have to will put you over the limit. Different factors affect how alcohol is absorbed by your system.

As for the roadside test, some members use the alcolyser at the roadside others don't. It is just an aid to forming your opinion. If a member thinks your intoxicated you will be arrested, brought back to the station and required to give a sample be it breath or a choice of blood/urine.

Terrontress

foreign wrote: »

Ok folks, first thing Gardai say it all the time but people don't seem to hear, if you have one drink don't drive. There is no set number of drinks you can have to will put you over the limit. Different factors affect how alcohol is absorbed by your system.

As for the roadside test, some members use the alcolyser at the roadside others don't. It is just an aid to forming your opinion. If a member thinks your intoxicated you will be arrested, brought back to the station and required to give a sample be it breath or a choice of blood/urine.

Yes, fine on the night but what about the morning after when you might feel fine?

ria5000

TheNog wrote: »

The handheld alcolyser only shows two results, Pass/Fail.
it comes up zero aswell

DrIndy

The issue is not the level on any machine - citing the example of the man who could walk and talk normally who was well over the limit - he might also be able to drive normally too if he had the correct tolerance.

HOWEVER - there are other people who with a much smaller amount of alcohol who would be well under the limit - are still impaired as that is their constitution. you don't know where you will be.

Moral of the story - don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive hungover. You may be under the legal limit - but you could still be impaired.

Regarding testing - to the best of my knowledge, this is always done by a police surgeon rather than an emergency doctor for medico-legal reasons. I have never significantly delayed the gardai from testing a patient in the ED (assess, stabilise, initiate treatment and then let the gardai in) - there is a courtesy that we sort people out faster when the gardai are involved simply to get them back out on the street - but I have once chased a rude and arrogant garda out of the room on his rear for intruding unneccesarily and impolitely speaking to me (the patient expressly asked the garda not to be told details from me and I respected that). This however is the exception, not the norm and we co-operate very well together as a rule.

arybvtcw0eolkf

happyhappy wrote: »

zero = no alcohol or less than 5 mgs - bye bye
pass = presence of alcohol between 5mgs - 35mgs roughly - stern warning!!
fail = over 35 mgs and arrest.

.

Great, thanks.

.

Our man in Havana

DrIndy wrote: »

The issue is not the level on any machine - citing the example of the man who could walk and talk normally who was well over the limit - he might also be able to drive normally too if he had the correct tolerance.

HOWEVER - there are other people who with a much smaller amount of alcohol who would be well under the limit - are still impaired as that is their constitution. you don't know where you will be.

Moral of the story - don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive hungover. You may be under the legal limit - but you could still be impaired.

Regarding testing - to the best of my knowledge, this is always done by a police surgeon rather than an emergency doctor for medico-legal reasons. I have never significantly delayed the gardai from testing a patient in the ED (assess, stabilise, initiate treatment and then let the gardai in) - there is a courtesy that we sort people out faster when the gardai are involved simply to get them back out on the street - but I have once chased a rude and arrogant garda out of the room on his rear for intruding unneccesarily and impolitely speaking to me (the patient expressly asked the garda not to be told details from me and I respected that). This however is the exception, not the norm and we co-operate very well together as a rule.

Are the Gardaí allowed to work back a sample taken in a hospital if they sample taken say 2 hours after the fact shows up as being marginally under the limit?

drzhivago

DrIndy wrote: »

The issue is not the level on any machine - citing the example of the man who could walk and talk normally who was well over the limit - he might also be able to drive normally too if he had the correct tolerance.

HOWEVER - there are other people who with a much smaller amount of alcohol who would be well under the limit - are still impaired as that is their constitution. you don't know where you will be.

Moral of the story - don't drink and drive, don't drink and drive hungover. You may be under the legal limit - but you could still be impaired.

Regarding testing - to the best of my knowledge, this is always done by a police surgeon rather than an emergency doctor for medico-legal reasons. I have never significantly delayed the gardai from testing a patient in the ED (assess, stabilise, initiate treatment and then let the gardai in) - there is a courtesy that we sort people out faster when the gardai are involved simply to get them back out on the street - but I have once chased a rude and arrogant garda out of the room on his rear for intruding unneccesarily and impolitely speaking to me (the patient expressly asked the garda not to be told details from me and I respected that). This however is the exception, not the norm and we co-operate very well together as a rule.

Have to agree drindy, most Gardai are fine, i have had problems with some of the doctors though that accompany, was called down to casualty one night to suture a difficult wound in someone who had been involved in RTS, busy enough night, other stuff on too
Got my kit set up, went to get spare pare of gloves and when i came back doc was in room and wouldnt leave. said he would only be a few minutes and that he was busy

Now my understanding of these matters is that patient comes first, law comes second and that the other doctor and Garda have to ask your permission to do things to ensure they are not interfering with your treatment of patient

It would take me 25 minutes to get suturing done and dusted, still well within their time frame for taking samples, the doc waved me away with his hand and said he was proceeding

I as going to report him and told him so on the night but didnt have the heart to do it afterwards

Hooch

happyhappy wrote: »

to clarify.

if garda is using alcolyser at side of the road

zero = no alcohol or less than 5 mgs - bye bye
pass = presence of alcohol between 5mgs - 35mgs roughly - stern warning!!
fail = over 35 mgs and arrest.

You forgot Alert = 25 - 35mgs!!!

Bond-007 wrote: »

Are the Gardaí allowed to work back a sample taken in a hospital if they sample taken say 2 hours after the fact shows up as being marginally under the limit?

No Bond the specimen result is the result taken. We cannot work backwards. The medical bureau will not give evidence of possibility of them being over two hours before specimen taken. They only give evidence on certain other cases.

Our man in Havana

Do you arrest them on the alert reading?

ScubaDave

Nope. It is still not a fail! But a very stern warning is a must!

Some members advise the motorist to park up but they arent obliged to!

Hooch

Bond-007 wrote: »

Do you arrest them on the alert reading?

As stated no we cannot form our opinion on the back of an alert as it is clearly showing that the driver is not over the limit, although the test is only an indication of the level. A warning is issued normally just to show the driver they shouldnt drink and drive. This doesnt stop the driver being stopped 10 minutes later and being arrested by another member. It would not be a defence to say they passed earlier.

Roadrat

happyhappy wrote: »

to clarify.

if garda is using alcolyser at side of the road

zero = no alcohol or less than 5 mgs - bye bye
pass = presence of alcohol between 5mgs - 35mgs roughly - stern warning!!
fail = over 35 mgs and arrest.

brought to station to give sample on more accurate intoxilyser machine to give full reading. or give sample of urine or blood which is send to motor bureau of raod safety lab for analysis.

some gardai done need to or don't use alcolyser at the side of the road because it is obvious the driver is drunk and they form their opinion that way.

And what pray tell does "Alert"= ?

ScubaDave

Its the reading between PASS and FAIL.

Not sure of Mgs though!

Mike...

I do on average 25-30,000kms per year and have not been tested once is this unusual?
I hardly ever meet checkpoints either?

I know there is some stat regarding how many checkpoints you should average a year given your mileage and location.

Our man in Havana

I drove for 5 years at one stage without meeting a checkpoint. Then you could meet 2 in 2 hours.

timmywex

*mono* wrote: »

I do on average 25-30,000kms per year and have not been tested once is this unusual?
I hardly ever meet checkpoints either?

I know there is some stat regarding how many checkpoints you should average a year given your mileage and location.

Itd depend on the roads and the time i suppose! Your not going to come across a checkpoint on the m50, but you might on the n11 say.


In my expirience, checkpoints tend to be done at night more!

daithip

drzhivago wrote: »

Have to agree drindy, most Gardai are fine, i have had problems with some of the doctors though that accompany, was called down to casualty one night to suture a difficult wound in someone who had been involved in RTS, busy enough night, other stuff on too
Got my kit set up, went to get spare pare of gloves and when i came back doc was in room and wouldnt leave. said he would only be a few minutes and that he was busy

Now my understanding of these matters is that patient comes first, law comes second and that the other doctor and Garda have to ask your permission to do things to ensure they are not interfering with your treatment of patient

It would take me 25 minutes to get suturing done and dusted, still well within their time frame for taking samples, the doc waved me away with his hand and said he was proceeding

I as going to report him and told him so on the night but didnt have the heart to do it afterwards

DrZ you're totaly correct, Gardai are not permited to take a sample from a possible drunk driver without the say so of the examining doc and only then if you feel he is capable of providing or a sample can be taken from him. Don't think it has been mentioned but sample must be taken/provided within three hours of driving.

Our man in Havana

So if you fall outside the 3 hour window no samples can be taken?

Bond-007

Bond-007 wrote: »

So if you fall outside the 3 hour window no samples can be taken?

Correct. All samples (breath / blood or urine) have to be taken within 3 hours of driving / attemp to drive.

Roadrat

nice guy always wrote: »

As stated no we cannot form our opinion on the back of an alert as it is clearly showing that the driver is not over the limit, although the test is only an indication of the level. A warning is issued normally just to show the driver they shouldnt drink and drive. This doesnt stop the driver being stopped 10 minutes later and being arrested by another member. It would not be a defence to say they passed earlier.

There have been instances where people have been arrested on the strength of an Alert.
As for "a stern warning"...poppycock.Arrest them or let them on their way. No need for lectures or finger-wagging.:pac:

deadwood

Roadrat wrote: »

There have been instances where people have been arrested on the strength of an Alert.

Be Alert.

The country needs lerts.

Hooch

Roadrat wrote: »

There have been instances where people have been arrested on the strength of an Alert.

If your opinion is formed using Section 12 or Section 4 on the strength of an alert then the arrest is unlawful. Alert is telling the member that the driver, at that time, was under the legal limit.

Illegal arrests means that whatever occurs or comes to light after the arrest and during the procedure may NOT be given in evidence.

Our man in Havana

Also loads of grief from GSOC after the member of the public complains about false arrest and imprisonment.

Roadrat

nice guy always wrote: »

If your opinion is formed using Section 12 or Section 4 on the strength of an alert then the arrest is unlawful. Alert is telling the member that the driver, at that time, was under the legal limit.

Illegal arrests means that whatever occurs or comes to light after the arrest and during the procedure may NOT be given in evidence.

Thats not so imo.Where in law does it say Alert = under the limit?And where do you get the authority to give anyone a stern warning just because they register an Alert ?
An arrest may be illegal if the court decides so - at which stage the court has heard all the evidence anyway.

Our man in Havana

But it won't convict off of a bad arrest. Fruits of a poisionous tree.

Hooch

Roadrat wrote: »

Thats not so imo.Where in law does it say Alert = under the limit?And where do you get the authority to give anyone a stern warning just because they register an Alert ?
An arrest may be illegal if the court decides so - at which stage the court has heard all the evidence anyway.

I certainly hope your not a member of AGS. Alert reading is under 35 mgs, hense you are forming your opinion using this as an aid. 35 mgs or under is under the limit, hense you have no power to arrest someone under Section 49 when your apparatus is telling you the driver is under. Arresting on an alert is a bad move and not in anyway recommended by Drager, the MBRS or AGS!

Bond-007 wrote: »

But it won't convict off of a bad arrest. Fruits of a poisionous tree.

Spot on. If the arrest isnt right...nothing after can be.

Roadrat

nice guy always wrote: »

I certainly hope your not a member of AGS. Alert reading is under 35 mgs, hense you are forming your opinion using this as an aid. 35 mgs or under is under the limit, hense you have no power to arrest someone under Section 49 when your apparatus is telling you the driver is under. Arresting on an alert is a bad move and not in anyway recommended by Drager, the MBRS or AGS!
My understanding of this is as quoted earlier - if machine shows Alert and the guard is satisfied that I'm drunk then his opinion is what counts not the machine. So the arrest is good.


Spot on. If the arrest isnt right...nothing after can be.

So if the arrest is right...everything afterwards is????? I'm doomed.:eek:

Roadrat

nice guy always wrote: »

I certainly hope your not a member of AGS. Alert reading is under 35 mgs, hense you are forming your opinion using this as an aid. 35 mgs or under is under the limit, hense you have no power to arrest someone under Section 49 when your apparatus is telling you the driver is under. Arresting on an alert is a bad move and not in anyway recommended by Drager, the MBRS or AGS!
Spot on. If the arrest isnt right...nothing after can be.

My understanding of this is as quoted earlier - if machine shows Alert and the guard is satisfied that I'm drunk then his opinion is what counts not the machine. So the arrest is good.

Hooch

Roadrat wrote: »

So if the arrest is right...everything afterwards is????? I'm doomed.:eek:

Not what I said...If the arrest is unlawful then the whole case built on the back of that arrest fails

Roadrat wrote: »

My understanding of this is as quoted earlier - if machine shows Alert and the guard is satisfied that I'm drunk then his opinion is what counts not the machine. So the arrest is good.

Your forming your opinion on the back of an Alert. While the drager is only a guide to assist the member in forming their opinions it still shows that the driver is under....would you expect an arrest in regard to a pass?? A pass still has alcohol in the drivers system. Pass and alert are not different and dont try to make them out to be. An alert is under the limit and so is a pass.

ScubaDave

How many times have you seen roadside fails only for them to come back under in the station!?

And thats a fail reading! Never mind alerts.

Zambia

Excellent thread ...personnaly I cant calculate the whole 1.5 standard drinks. my employer and the law here operates a 00.00 reading while working hence 0 alchol 24 hours prior to work and company vehicles/equipment.

Out of work I would risk one drink (beer bottle) with food or not on an empty stomach.

In Victoria they operate the Booze Bus


About 10 cops form a line of breath testing and everyone gets waved in and tested,if you don't pass you are sent to the bus.

The bus packs up then and relocates somewhere else so word does not spread

TheNog

deadwood wrote: »

Be Alert.

The country needs lerts.

Deadwood do you remember that poster that was in Garda Stations back in the 1970/80's?

If you do then you are the first person I have found that does!!

Zambia232 wrote: »

Excellent thread ...personnaly I cant calculate the whole 1.5 standard drinks. my employer and the law here operates a 00.00 reading while working hence 0 alchol 24 hours prior to work and company vehicles/equipment.

Out of work I would risk one drink (beer bottle) with food or not on an empty stomach.

In Victoria they operate the Booze Bus


About 10 cops form a line of breath testing and everyone gets waved in and tested,if you don't pass you are sent to the bus.

The bus packs up then and relocates somewhere else so word does not spread

I like the idea of these buses and certainly there is good arguement to have say 3 of them for super checkpoints around the country. Very handy, no need to travel from scene to station and drunk/drug drivers are charged there and then.

deadwood

TheNog wrote: »

Deadwood do you remember that poster that was in Garda Stations back in the 1970/80's?

Who do you think put them up?

It wasn't easy distributing them. I spent three nights, having sneaked into the Divisional Office, sending it around every station with this new-fangled Facts Machine. I'd only seen one on telly during Hawaii Five-O when Mc Garrett used to whip a sheet of paper from the telex in which, the boys in the lab revealed that the finger prints found on the weapon did, indeed, match those of the suspected killer, who was usually a well-to-do business man from the mainland, or an up-and-coming rock stars' manager fuelled with greed and driven by a lust for fame, but well-meaning.

I figured that surely there was a way to electronically copy the original and use optic-fibre to digitally reproduce the image at the other end, rather than mechanically rolling up sheets of paper and sending it down the phone line which I had only seen done, in what I suspect has an element of fiction about it, when Bugs Bunny sent a stick of dynamite down the phone to Yosemite Sam, but there are a whole load of issues there which the EOD experts here can point out.

On the third night, I only copped on that the original paper was meant to come back to me after travelling to the other station, which was completely pointless. I suppose you were meant to keep the original, or something.

pa990

was that the Colorado beetle poster ?

Our man in Havana

pa990 wrote: »

was that the Colorado beetle poster ?

I remember that one well. It used to be in post offices as well.

deadwood

pa990 wrote: »

was that the Colorado beetle poster ?

Bond-007 wrote: »

I remember that one well. It used to be in post offices as well.

Ah yes.

"Beware the beetle in his striped pyjamas!"

enniscorthy

oh dont get me started was coming out of market cross shopping centre in the fabulous city of kilkenny lovely little car park when i got this unmerciful thud forward in my seat and a huge bag anyway got out of the car 2 black fellas behind me after makin sh1t of me car ffs no idea where they were going oh hey dont get me started on the guards

Hooch

enniscorthy wrote: »

oh dont get me started was coming out of market cross shopping centre in the fabulous city of kilkenny lovely little car park when i got this unmerciful thud forward in my seat and a huge bag anyway got out of the car 2 black fellas behind me after makin sh1t of me car ffs no idea where they were going oh hey dont get me started on the guards

Whats your post got to do with this thread???

And what do the guards have to do with it??

Our man in Havana

He is a general troll.