I disagree with drink driving but.....

ScouseMouse

Was on the Tallaght By-pass today at half past one in the afternoon, and the traffic corp had a road block. They were pulling three cars at a time into the hard shoulder and breathalysing them all. Two squad cars and one unmarked. They were stopping people in batches in the middle of the afternoon.

Jesus Christ ! Now I would be afraid to have a drink on my only day off just in case I am still over the limit next day....

Risarow

Sure while they're doing that they don't have to deal with the drugs dealers, robbers, travellers, gang crime and all the other issues the normal people of Ireland would like some protection from.

Midnight_EG

superscouse wrote: »

Was on the Tallaght By-pass today at half past one in the afternoon, and the traffic corp had a road block. They were pulling three cars at a time into the hard shoulder and breathalysing them all. Two squad cars and one unmarked. They were stopping people in batches in the middle of the afternoon.

Jesus Christ ! Now I would be afraid to have a drink on my only day off just in case I am still over the limit next day....

Really? I didn't see any of them :S

EDIT: Just realised I came in through aylesbury/killinarden, avoiding the main road :L

slimjimmc

Having a drink or even two won't put you over the limit the next day, it takes a few more than that. Besides, do you think it should be ok to drive while over the limit just because you done your drinking the previous day?

Looks like they might be following the Ozzies with their booze bus. The set up checkpoints, breathalise every driver and have a bus waiting to haul the naughty ones to the shop.

TheNog

superscouse wrote: »

Was on the Tallaght By-pass today at half past one in the afternoon, and the traffic corp had a road block. They were pulling three cars at a time into the hard shoulder and breathalysing them all. Two squad cars and one unmarked. They were stopping people in batches in the middle of the afternoon.

Jesus Christ ! Now I would be afraid to have a drink on my only day off just in case I am still over the limit next day....

Unfortunately drunk drivers are not just confined to weekends or after a specific time in the day. Drunk drivers have been arrested at all times of the day.

Risarow wrote: »

Sure while they're doing that they don't have to deal with the drugs dealers, robbers, travellers, gang crime and all the other issues the normal people of Ireland would like some protection from.

Im presuming you think a checkpoint is set up for one particular reason such as targeting insurance or tax or drunk drivers. This is not the case at all. Checkpoints are used for detecting all of the above including what you have mentioned.
Also the OP mentions it was Traffic Corp who wouldnt be investigating any of the crime types you outline but would certainly be used to prevent travelling criminals and their wares.

Mr. Presentable

superscouse wrote: »

Was on the Tallaght By-pass today at half past one in the afternoon, and the traffic corp had a road block. They were pulling three cars at a time into the hard shoulder and breathalysing them all. Two squad cars and one unmarked. They were stopping people in batches in the middle of the afternoon.

Jesus Christ ! Now I would be afraid to have a drink on my only day off just in case I am still over the limit next day....

If you're over the limit you're over the limit. I for one am glad to see the Gardai testing.

Teacherman

There is evidence to suggest that People who drive next day after excessive drinking previous day are more liable to cause accidents than those who dont. I have heard this but would like to have more info.

There are varying types of accidents.

kwalshe

superscouse wrote: »

Was on the Tallaght By-pass today at half past one in the afternoon, and the traffic corp had a road block. They were pulling three cars at a time into the hard shoulder and breathalysing them all. Two squad cars and one unmarked. They were stopping people in batches in the middle of the afternoon.

Jesus Christ ! Now I would be afraid to have a drink on my only day off just in case I am still over the limit next day....

Jesus, they are doing their job. If they killed one of you family members etc. while over the limit would you still scold them. They are enforcers of the law and they don't just choose specific ones to enforce just to annoy you. If you are over the limit the next day after drinking, and you get done, it's not a technicality, it's because your over the limit.

eamonpendergast

I've never agreed with drink driving, but at the same time I'm adamantly against random breathalyser tests.

I don't believe that the guards have the right to stop people going about their business without a reasonable level of suspicion that they are doing something wrong.

It's no different that randomly searching you on the street for no reason.

Jarren

I disagree with drink driving but.....

there is no but

Simple enough

Berty

slimjimmc wrote: »

Looks like they might be following the Ozzies with their booze bus. The set up checkpoints, breathalise every driver and have a bus waiting to haul the naughty ones to the shop.

The Booze Bus does not take anybody away. It is a makeshift judicial area. You go in and get further tested, processed and license revoked all in the same bus. You leave through the back door BUT if you can prove you require your vehicle for work you are given an E license with a big RED/WHITE E Sticker for your window showing everybody you are a drink driver but need your license for work.

Booz-o's.

slimjimmc

eamonpendergast wrote: »

I've never agreed with drink driving, but at the same time I'm adamantly against random breathalyser tests.

I don't believe that the guards have the right to stop people going about their business without a reasonable level of suspicion that they are doing something wrong.

It's no different that randomly searching you on the street for no reason.

A driver over the limit may not show any symptoms in normal driving until fast reactions become necessary. So without random checks how do you propose the Gardaí detect drink drivers? Kick footballs across the road and see who reacts slowest ? Sit outside pubs the night before and take down reg nos then surveil the driver the next morning?

eamonpendergast

slimjimmc wrote: »

A driver over the limit may not show any symptoms in normal driving until fast reactions become necessary. So without random checks how do you propose the Gardaí detect drink drivers? Kick footballs across the road and see who reacts slowest ? Sit outside pubs the night before and take down reg nos then surveil the driver the next morning?

A drugy may not show any symptoms in normal day to day life. So without random drug tests for all how do you propose the Gardaí detect them? The same could be said for people carrying illegal weapons, etc, etc

Like I said the Gardaí have no business stopping you going about your business without reasonable suspicion that you are doing something.

ScouseMouse

How can a person know next day if they are over the limit from the day before?

I have never driven over the limit in my life (that I know of!) but my main point, as someone who needs to drive for a living, you always wonder what you can have on your day off without affecting you the next day.

Its impossible to tell ! Now I wont be able to have any without thinking about it.

The main guard wasnt even looking at discs in the window, he was just pulling three cars in a row from each lane. He didnt even look at my discs. Its was then I saw the cops in the hard shoulder with the breathalyzers.

B11gt00e

Pulling them in three at a time is useful enough, but plenty of drivers go by as they're processing or testing those pulled in. They'd be better off cruising around during an agreed time and pulling in a few eejits who have display no lane sense or any kind of reaction to colour changes on the traffic lights etc., etc.

They would catch more twits by being discerning fishermen rather then the lottery system which the OP has described. Anyone reading this site on a regular basis would seem to know that you wouldn't have to drive far on any road in the country to come across driving worthy of garda interrogation.

At least that way they can justify pulling people over on suspicion while not hindering those honestly and innocently going about their day-to-day business.

ScouseMouse

At no time did I, or did I mean to, suggest drink driving as acceptable.

triple-M

its obviously unfair if somebody has a good night out does the responsible and doesnt drive on their night out then the next day goes about their daily life fully sober but gets done for drink driving just because the alcohol is still in their system even if their 100% sober,they should use the american sobriety test as a backup if a person claims they havent drunk since the night before and have slept it off as machines cant always be accurate they should be made recite the alphabet walk a line etc. like you see the american cops doing,thats really the fairest way imo

danjo-xx

All garda activity in crime prevention is always welcome, but we don't see our streets flooded with them after dark when they are most needed.


Are most rostered on day shift and then a skeleton staff after that.

Dont mention cut back, it was the same during the years of the cat:D

Guy:Incognito

triple-M wrote: »

its obviously unfair if somebody has a good night out does the responsible and doesnt drive on their night out then the next day goes about their daily life fully sober but gets done for drink driving just because the alcohol is still in their system even if their 100% sober,they should use the american sobriety test as a backup if a person claims they havent drunk since the night before and have slept it off as machines cant always be accurate they should be made recite the alphabet walk a line etc. like you see the american cops doing,thats really the fairest way imo

Do you know what sober is? If your over the limit you couldnt be 100% sober.

Explain in your terms the difference between having 15 pints on a night out and being 10% over the limit the next day and haveing 2 pints and being 10% over the limit straight after leavign the pub, Do you not concede its the same thing?

greendom

Risarow wrote: »

Sure while they're doing that they don't have to deal with the drugs dealers, robbers, travellers, gang crime and all the other issues the normal people of Ireland would like some protection from.

Killing someone through being drunk at the wheel is as much a crime as the others you mention

Drummerboy08

Well, the way I see it is like this.

If you were driving legally, you have nothing to worry about, and should let the Gardai do their job.

If that checkpoint stopped one person who was driving illegally - be it drunk, no tax/insurance/disqualified, etc - you should be greatful to the Gardai for doing a job well done, and taking a person who shouldnt be on the road, off it.

eamonpendergast

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Well, the way I see it is like this.

If you were driving legally, you have nothing to worry about, and should let the Gardai do their job.

If that checkpoint stopped one person who was driving illegally - be it drunk, no tax/insurance/disqualified, etc - you should be greatful to the Gardai for doing a job well done, and taking a person who shouldnt be on the road, off it.

By that logic you could justify any number of other unnecessary Gardaí interferences into your life:

Randomly searching your house without out a warrant "If one life is saved it's worth it, be it drugs or a bomb that they find"

How many of your freedoms are you willing to trade away for the illusion of security?

Shield

eamonpendergast wrote: »

By that logic you could justify any number of other unnecessary Gardaí interferences into your life:

Randomly searching your house without out a warrant "If one life is saved it's worth it, be it drugs or a bomb that they find"

How many of your freedoms are you willing to trade away for the illusion of security?

Ever heard of comparing like with like? When you're on a public road in a car, you are subject to the Road Traffic Act, like it or not. Gardaí are tasked with enforcing it, whether you or they like it or not. No legislation exists that allows Gardaí to randomly search your house without a warrant signed by a Judge.

You're making it sound like the Gardaí are the bad guys here. Laws are signed by the President. If you don't like the laws, why not express your displeasure at the President and leave the Gardaí do to their jobs?

Victor

eamonpendergast wrote: »

By that logic you could justify any number of other unnecessary Gardaí interferences into your life:

Randomly searching your house without out a warrant "If one life is saved it's worth it, be it drugs or a bomb that they find"

How many of your freedoms are you willing to trade away for the illusion of security?

There are about 300 traffic deaths per year. Don't you think that targeted checks like this* are more useful than a fishing trip in searching more than a million homes?


*Random is a misnomer - most of the people breathalysed are being breathalysed for some reason, its just that reason isn't enough to form full suspicion.

DublinWriter

eamonpendergast wrote: »

It's no different that randomly searching you on the street for no reason.

Except for the fact that you're in charge of half-a-ton of metal capable of doing over 100mph.

Terrontress

Eamonn is correct though. He is talking about law which should not be emotive. People talk about "if it saves one life" or "what if it was your brother or sister". Neither of these justify a law, all of which should be taken to extremes to prove their validity.

I think that random testing is lazy policing. Wait long enough and someone will come along.

The only time I was ever tested was leaving the Electric Picnic on a dark Sunday evening. I had made sure I'd be OK by having my last drink at 10pm the night before and I returned a zero reading.

On the M7 home, there was a lone man in an Izusu Trooper driving at 45mph, straddling the hard shoulder and the driving lane with no lights on. Most likely coming home drunk from his Sunday visit to the golf club.

I think that a competent traffic officer should be able to spot impaired driving rather than sitting at a solitary spot and wait for it to come to him. And in doing so can look out for other offenses. The current set-up is lazy and ineffective.

And finally, there are those who might argue that being required by law to provide a physical sample of anything from your body is more intrusive that Eamonn's very valid comparison of having your entire street's houses searched on the off chance that there may be guns, drugs or whatever in there.

eamonpendergast

Terrontress, nicely summed up.

terrontless, i think it's the fear of a checkpoint that stops alot of potential drink drivers. if we take it that that we'll only get caught by the state of our drunk driving, the false confidence and the "it'll be grand" effect of the alcohol will mean people will take the risk.

keefg

I think there should be more drink-driving checkpoints, not less (as some posters want).

Sat afternoon seems like a perfectly reasonable time to set up a checkpoint I think. There are a lot of early afternoon football matches & the like shown in pubs during the day and therefore a lot of people drinking whilst they watch the matches.

As always though, the gardai are in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

People will moan & bitch about being "harassed" by the garda and having their civil rights "abused" but these same people will be calling Joe Duffy, complaining to the Sunday Indo and seeking compensation if they or their family become a victim of a drink driver because the gardai " do fcuk all".

agree on the fact that their should be more checkpoints.. have never been checked and sometimes wonder why i bought my breathalyzer in the first place.

eamonpendergast

Deleted User wrote: »

terrontless, i think it's the fear of a checkpoint that stops alot of potential drink drivers. if we take it that that we'll only get caught by the state of our drunk driving, the false confidence and the "it'll be grand" effect of the alcohol will mean people will take the risk.

I would think that in this day in age it's no longer the fear of being caught that deters people but the fact that is no longer socially acceptable to drink and drive. There was an attitude years ago "Ahh, sure it'll be grand". Which I think is mostly gone in this country.

In most social circles today drink driving is severely frowned upon, at least in any circle I've been involved in. Of course this is not the same in every circle, but I'd like to think that drink driving is no longer socially acceptable for most people in this country.

trad

Afternoon checkpoints could be for those coming from the 19th hole / watching match etc. A lot of people think drink driving only occurs after pubs close.

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote: »

terrontless, i think it's the fear of a checkpoint that stops alot of potential drink drivers. if we take it that that we'll only get caught by the state of our drunk driving, the false confidence and the "it'll be grand" effect of the alcohol will mean people will take the risk.

The fear of someone kicking in your door to check for drugs will stop you pumping them in the home will stop you storing them but it doesn't make it right.

How many people do you see at night driving with no lights on? Do you think that might suggest impaired driving? Or driving without using their indicators while turning? Driving too close to the centre of the road? Having full beam on when approaching an oncoming vehicle? Driving much slower or quicker than the road conditions should allow? Having more people than seats in a car? Slowing down dramatically when an oncoming vehicle approaches on a good, two-lane road?

I would have no qualms about anyone doing any of the following be stopped and investigated.

We all see the above every night yet there is nothing done about it. I would think each of the above is enough for a Garda to form reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired. And if they are not, at least there is another form of behaviour to be addressed.

So instead of standing in a single spot, why not get out and observe driving and give people the right to get on with normal behaviour without intrusive interruption.

Terrontress

keefg wrote: »

I think there should be more drink-driving checkpoints, not less (as some posters want).

Sat afternoon seems like a perfectly reasonable time to set up a checkpoint I think. There are a lot of early afternoon football matches & the like shown in pubs during the day and therefore a lot of people drinking whilst they watch the matches.

As always though, the gardai are in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

People will moan & bitch about being "harassed" by the garda and having their civil rights "abused" but these same people will be calling Joe Duffy, complaining to the Sunday Indo and seeking compensation if they or their family become a victim of a drink driver because the gardai " do fcuk all".

Again, emotive nonsense.

Plenty of crimes take lives but we have the right to be presumed innocent and not be prevented from carrying on with our business.

Terrontress

Terrontress wrote: »

So instead of standing in a single spot, why not get out and observe driving and give people the right to get on with normal behaviour without intrusive interruption.

what you're suggesting is that traffic corps observe peoples driving instead of drink driving checkpoints.. how do they do this?

1. sit on a stretch of road and observe all the cars going by. then it's just a matter of hoping the drink driver makes a mistake in their sight that warrants being pulled over. hardly a deterrent to drink driving. and aswell as this, i know i wouldn't like to be pulled over and breathalyzed over something like braking when there's an oncoming car..

2. drive the roads and keep and eye out for bad driving. but then they could waste twenty minutes of limited resources behind one safe driver..


i think we're on completely different wavelengths here.

eamonpendergast

Deleted User wrote: »

i know i wouldn't like to be pulled over and breathalyzed over something like braking when there's an oncoming car..

So why would you be happy with being randomly breathalysed either?

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote: »

i know i wouldn't like to be pulled over and breathalyzed over something like braking when there's an oncoming car..

Allow me to get this right.

You are happy to be stopped and provide a physical sample for no reason whatsoever but you would not be happy if your behaviour suggests your driving is impaired.

Is that correct?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Stekelly wrote: »

Do you know what sober is? If your over the limit you couldnt be 100% sober.

I could argue that you aren't 100% sober since within your body you have amounts of a substance called dimethyltryptamine which is an extremely powerful psychedelic drug.

You would argue that it doesn't affect you. Someone could equally argue that a trace amount of alcohol doesn't affect them.

The method of testing is certainly flawed but it would be hard to come up with another objective test.

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote: »

2. drive the roads and keep and eye out for bad driving.

This is exactly what I am suggesting.

Firstly, there are many road offences other than drink driving. By having mobile patrols free to observe, these will be detected. I can drive toward a breath check point at 160km/h and away at the same speed but because I have not been drinking I will sail through.

Secondly, of all the signs of impairment mentioned above, how many do you come upon? I drive relatively few miles but see them all the time so the notion of having to drive along with nothing to do is not realistic, should the traffic Gardai choose to act upon minor offences, which might lead to larger offences.

Thirdly, by having mobile patrols, the geographic spread is greater, allowing Gardai to respond to emergency calls more quickly instead of having eight members in a fixed location to resource the checkpoint.

Victor_M

Everyone should buy one of these I have one and as recently as last thursday morning after a work sponsored night out I checked my self before going to work, i blew a 0.90 (limit is 0.80) had another weetabix, a cup of coffee and hung on an extra 30 mins, retested, 0.4 and went to work, prior to getting the sensor, it was guess work as to whether you are good to drive or not if you have been out the night before.

eamonpendergast

eamonpendergast wrote: »

So why would you be happy with being randomly breathalyser either?

happy because it happens so infrequently. i've never been breathalyzed but i know that the fear of it keeps drink drivers of the road. if it were a common thing to meet checkpoints, i'd be singing a different tune.

Terrontress wrote: »

Allow me to get this right.

You are happy to be stopped and provide a physical sample for no reason whatsoever but you would not be happy if your behaviour suggests your driving is impaired.

Is that correct?

yes, i guess i'd say that's correct.. because like i've said above, i don't have to deal with the breathalyzer enough to make it an issue. if a guard pulled me over and his reason was my braking or driving too close to the line, i'd find this more annoying than a checkpoint since neither thing is illegal.

vinylrules

Things will only get worse when/if they drop the drink drive limits. Australia is the only English speaking country with the 50mg limit (UK, Canada, US, New Zealand are all 80mg the same as us)

It has been a disaster....how do you fancy a seven hour wait to get breathalized?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/01/2457725.htm

Or how about some fake random breath tests? (surely our finest law enforcers wouldn't get up to this sort of thing?)

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22552418-3102,00.html

Guy:Incognito

Sean_K wrote: »

I could argue that you aren't 100% sober since within your body you have amounts of a substance called dimethyltryptamine which is an extremely powerful psychedelic drug.

You would argue that it doesn't affect you. Someone could equally argue that a trace amount of alcohol doesn't affect them.

The method of testing is certainly flawed but it would be hard to come up with another objective test.

Over the limit is not trace amounts.

Terrontress

Terrontress wrote: »

This is exactly what I am suggesting.

Firstly, there are many road offences other than drink driving. By having mobile patrols free to observe, these will be detected. I can drive toward a breath check point at 160km/h and away at the same speed but because I have not been drinking I will sail through.

Secondly, of all the signs of impairment mentioned above, how many do you come upon? I drive relatively few miles but see them all the time so the notion of having to drive along with nothing to do is not realistic, should the traffic Gardai choose to act upon minor offences, which might lead to larger offences.

Thirdly, by having mobile patrols, the geographic spread is greater, allowing Gardai to respond to emergency calls more quickly instead of having eight members in a fixed location to resource the checkpoint.

i don't think there's any actual reason for us to be having this argument since the mobile patrols are in place so much.. i know that i see traffic corps around galway driving the roads constantly and i see alot of people pulled in for traffic light offences in particular. i am in full favour of the mobile patrols since they do catch all offences.

i still think that the fear of checkpoints stops alot of drink driving.. this is a really good thing and i don't think the innocent good driver has to deal with these checkpoints enough that it's an issue. it works well as a deterrent.


actually a good example of my position is me at the moment.. i've checked my alcologic and i'm over the limit this morning (which may explain my bad posting). if it weren't for the fear of hitting a checkpoint, i'd definitely drive now since i think i'd be well able to. isn't it a good thing that the deterrent is there? like it's stopping me go on the road this morning..

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote: »

yes, i guess i'd say that's correct.. because like i've said above, i don't have to deal with the breathalyzer enough to make it an issue. if a guard pulled me over and his reason was my braking or driving too close to the line, i'd find this more annoying than a checkpoint since neither thing is illegal.

Good on you for responding, usually when people on boards make such a massive contradiction and have it pointed out to them they disappear as there is no point in fighting a losing argument.

I believe in your case, it comes down to pride or machismo. You are happy to be stopped with no reason because you can justify it as being random so there is nothing you can do or could have done.

But when it comes to having it pointed out to you that your driving is erratic you would take offence at the fact that you are displaying traits of a drunk driver. While you do not drive drunk, you resent being compared with a drunk driver.

While neither putting on the brakes for an oncoming car on a main road or driving too close to the centre of the road are illegal, they are indicators of impairment.

Because, as you point out, they are not illegal; after pulling you over the Garda would allow you to continue on your way provided he was satisfied that you and your vehicle were being operated within the Road Traffic Act.

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote: »

i still think that the fear of checkpoints stops alot of drink driving.. this is a really good thing and i don't think the innocent good driver has to deal with these checkpoints enough that it's an issue. it works well as a deterrent.

Policing through fear. That's a return to 1980s East German style policing. Policing should be by consent.

I have to make the point though that even if it were proven that static random checkpoints were the most effective method of policing for drink-driving, which I don't believe they are, I would still be against a law which obliges someone to provide a bodily specimen without any suspicion whatsoever.

We are getting to McDonalds policing now. Yellow Pack cops. All they need to do is know how to operate a speed gun and a breathalyser. There is no longer any skill required by a traffic cop. No longer any discretion of a Garda. Just as someone cooking food in McDonalds forgets what a chef is, puts a bit of meat in a machine and presses a button, a modern traffic cop in Ireland forgets what policing is and either tells someone to blow into a pipe or else points a speedgun and presses a button.

nialler

I have a friend who bought a breathalyzer(sp?) for himself as he travels the country a lot, we normally have our wednesday night out with the lads after footy and it gives very surprising results. One recent saturday night we were all out at a 40th birthday party he had about 8 pints and gin'n'tonic home in bed by 2am and he checked himself at midday the next morning, over the limit, it was 2pm before he was low enough to drive, scary stuff, I don't bother now as it's to risky to even consider it, I've been breathlyzed once and the garda thought I'd be over the limit when I told him how much I'd had and the amount of sleep I'd had, luckily I was 0.0, good metabolism, give yourself 1.5 hours of sleep for every pint that's what they say, so if you're on a bender it could be 2 days before you're safe to drive in those terms.

Terrontress

Terrontress wrote: »

Good on you for responding, usually when people on boards make such a massive contradiction and have it pointed out to them they disappear as there is no point in fighting a losing argument.

I believe in your case, it comes down to pride or machismo. You are happy to be stopped with no reason because you can justify it as being random so there is nothing you can do or could have done.

But when it comes to having it pointed out to you that your driving is erratic you would take offence at the fact that you are displaying traits of a drunk driver. While you do not drive drunk, you resent being compared with a drunk driver.

While neither putting on the brakes for an oncoming car on a main road or driving too close to the centre of the road are illegal, they are indicators of impairment.

Because, as you point out, they are not illegal; after pulling you over the Garda would allow you to continue on your way provided he was satisfied that you and your vehicle were being operated within the Road Traffic Act.

ok, let's take this back to basics..

the basis of your argument is how to catch the criminal and the best means to do this is mobile patrols? i can completely agree with this.

the basis of my argument is that the checkpoints act as a deterrent to drink drivers whereas a mobile patrol isn't as scary a prospect when leaving the pub.

agreement?

Big Nasty

vinylrules wrote: »

It has been a disaster....how do you fancy a seven hour wait to get breathalized?

I would say a lot of drink drivers would be more than happy with that!

Terrontress

Deleted User wrote: »

ok, let's take this back to basics..

the basis of your argument is how to catch the criminal and the best means to do this is mobile patrols? i can completely agree with this.

the basis of my argument is that the checkpoints act as a deterrent to drink drivers whereas a mobile patrol isn't as scary a prospect when leaving the pub.

agreement?

No, the basis of my argument, although I got sidetracked, is that it is an invasion of someone's right to carry on their business without interference if they give no reason to be suspected of a crime.

Same as what Eamon said a page ago.

Terrontress

Terrontress wrote: »

No, the basis of my argument, although I got sidetracked, is that it is an invasion of someone's right to carry on their business without interference if they give no reason to be suspected of a crime.

Same as what Eamon said a page ago.

we're in disagreement so.. i'm away to get ready to head into the united match.