Someone at my wifes workplace has apparently been turning up at work somewhat tipsey and then seen drinking several more cans before driving home. he works evenings there and recently boasted that he had 3 cans of lager before driving in.
Im a non-drinker so ive no idea if thats alot in relation to driving. If its worth reporting, can you, how do you and who do you tell? She asked the question.
|
rather than grassing him up, have a quiet word, with the threat that you WILL grass him up if he doesn't change his behaviour.
Point out that in the event of any incident, HE WILL BE LIABLE, insurance will repudiate, and in the event of any injuries/deathes, he is in real trouble... as in jail time.
Or alternately have a word with the boss, and point out that the bloke cannot be giving it 100% if he is turning up tipsy. Unless he is a journalist, of course, in which case it is an occupational requirement.
|
Depends on the cans, depends on the lager, depends most of all on the driver.
Even if he drives like a prat after three cans, is the driving any worse than usual? Lots of people always drive like prats. If there's an obvious deterioration and you're that sort of person, grass him up if you want. Doubt if plod will thank you politely though.
|
Buy a breathalyzer kit and leave it (anonymously) on his desk.
tinyurl.com/bn27pk9
If he doesn't take the hint after that speak to the boss.
|
|
If he leaves work at a regular time then local non emergency plod number. Give him the information and it's then up to them whether they bother or not.
|
Denouncing others to the authorities has never sat well with me, smacks of those who ran to the Statsi or Gestapo to do their neighbours down or to gain some minor (often worthless) award or acknowledgement.
Who knows what is going on in this guy’s life? There maybe something that is causing him to feel he needs a drink to cope with his day.
I would suggest that he quietly asked if he is OK and go from there. If he is being a knob let him know that others know he has been drinking before arriving at work and that there are others that might run to the boss or the plod. At least give him the chance to put an end to this or perhaps share a problem that he is struggling with. If he is drinking 3 x 330ml cans of average supermarket lager before coming in it is doubtful he is even over the limit.
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 3 Aug 12 at 21:31
|
I personally dont care, nor does my wife and his boss does know. The man is an ass when sober apparently and thinks two bottles of wine a night is normal as a night cap, which sounds alot to me but as I said, I wouldnt know!
He apparently drives around with an open can of lager in his cupholder which seemed a bit brazen.
No consensus on what to do in such circumstances then, I did think it would be that way, but having watched some of those cop shows where they seem to have tip offs I wondered where they get them from.
I assume theres no legal issue with turning a blind eye?
|
>> I assume theres no legal issue with turning a blind eye?
for you or the missus, no. For his boss, yes definitely, he could be legally responsible by his failure to act in the event of accidents at work or out of it.
|
>> I personally dont care, nor does my wife
>>
Why ask the question then?
>> No consensus on what to do in such circumstances
>>
Consensus not needed. Follow Police advice:
"If you suspect that someone is drinking alcohol and driving or taking drugs and driving, please report it to the police or Crimestoppers.
If the crime is in progress, call 999.
Call 101, the 24-hour Police non-emergency number.
Contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. You do not have to give your name and you may receive a reward.
If you know that someone intends to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, please stop them. We need your help to put pressure on the people who insist on putting others in danger. "
www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=forms&formid=7&rep=1
Question is: Will you now care to do something about it? Somehow I very much doubt it.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 3 Aug 12 at 21:45
|
>>Why ask the question then?<<
Because its a grey area and if indeed my wife should bestick her nose in more than she is inclined to, she wanted to know what opinion was on the situation.
>>Consensus not needed. Follow Police advice:<<
But if actual officers dont care for people to report such things, that matters more than the official line.
>>Question is: Will you now care to do something about it? Somehow I very much doubt it.<<
If its really true that the police want this sort of thing reported, seems reasonable to do so.
|
I would wonder if there is something in the background that is causing him to not only drink but be so public about it. Seems like the colleague wants people to know how much they are drinking and you could even conclude they expect to be reported.
If a quiet word is not an option and the manager cannot be relied upon (they already know) then if it were me, I might try HR or occupational health. After that's I'd report them to the police even for their own sake. Maybe they want help but feel they cannot seek it themselves voluntarily. Who knows.
I wonder what Lygonos thinks.
|
>>I would wonder if there is something in the background that is causing him to not only drink but be so public about it <<
Imagine a very unattractive early 40's man, never married who still lives at home with his mother, often rude, always arrogant and lazy as you like. My wife described him as 100% unlikeable but has a sky high opinion of himself.
He actually reminds me of my brother who is also somewhat partial to large amounts of alcohol and driving while tipsey, aswell as uninsured and with not MOT.
Not sure if its a lifelong bachelor thing, maybe lack of responsibilities leads to irresponsibility?
|
|
How do you get a reward if you dont have to give your name? - seems like a ruse to get you to disclose your ID so that they may use you as a witness.
|
''How do you get a reward if you dont have to give your name? - seems like a ruse to get you to disclose your ID so that they may use you as a witness.''
Absolute cods - if he's caught drink/driving, the only witness needed is the officer. Doesn't matter a jot whether the caller's ID is revealed.
|
The cops will love it FoR they love a breathie, a satisfying catch where the outcome is not at a whim of a court. Phone them on 101 or Crimestoppers tell them where when and what he drives and rest easy - chances are he'll crash into something solid anyway. This guy sounds like he has a problem he's topping up on booze.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 10:37
|
|
Shop him-or are you and your wife and boss waiting for him to kill someone first???
|
|
Having drunk alcohol copiously and then driven home in the days before the blood alcohol content limits (and rural speed limits) were introduced it would be very hypocritical of me to report someone now.
|
>> Having drunk alcohol copiously and then driven home in the days before the blood alcohol
>> content limits (and rural speed limits) were introduced it would be very hypocritical of me
>> to report someone now.
>>
I've drunk alcohol (too much) and driven, a long, long time ago...and now would not hesitate in the slightest to call someone in...because...it's plain wrong to do that.
How would you live with yourself if you read in the paper of a fatal accident...and it's always the innocent who end up brown bread.
AC will be on in a minute to say that many people manage it perfectly well and don't come a cropper...and he's right....but...sometimes an emergency can arise, not necessarily your fault and it all goes breasts up because you WILL be impaired and won't be able to cope as well as you could do... so why risk it, even if your coping inebriated is better than someone else's stone cold sober coping.
|
>>AC will be on in a minute ...
Nah, too early, still be in his four poster.
|
>> too early, still be in his four poster.
Raspberry...
Westpig is right though. Some are not much affected in reaction time or judgement by the 'legal limit' or even more. Perhaps because this is so much less than their usual intake, and they can drive properly to start with. The problem is that others are quite badly affected by very small quantities of alcohol, and may drive like ladies' front bottoms to start with. It simply isn't safe to give generalized advice on such matters, except to say Better safe than sorry.
And of course there is always the risk of being sideswiped by some prat or having a cyclist in camouflage ride into you. If you're over the limit then you are for it, however innocent you may be in terms of causing the accident.
In the now quite distant past I've driven while incredibly drunk, too drunk even to drive in an inconspicuous manner (it's important not to be noticed when you're up to something). You get away with outrageous stuff and feel triumphant at first, but you can't help thinking it over later and feeling very stupid. Haven't done anything like that for years and am now cautious about going over the limit.
|
|
The law has to give a scientific limit - the one in the UK is higher than most (and there are constant moves to lower it) - it's a one size fits all. I never drink and drive, occasionally a nuisance when I fancy a beer.
|
>> The law has to give a scientific limit - the one in the UK is
>> higher than most (and there are constant moves to lower it) - it's a one
>> size fits all.
And no country has such an automatically severe penalty if you breach the limit. Most have a graduated penalty if they have lower limits.
|
|
I try to accept other people as they are, although they may have a different way of life.
|
>>...and now would not
>> hesitate in the slightest to call someone in...because...it's plain wrong to do that.
To clarify, having re-read it...I meant if drunk or most noticeably over the limit or alcoholic at work, constantly smelling of drink, etc.
If I was in my local and Billy Builder knocked backed three pints of Carlsberg, then hopped in his van...then i'd think him unwise, but that would be that.
|
|
someone needs to have a word and give the guy a chance to rectify his behaviour. If he don't then shop him.
|
>> someone needs to have a word and give the guy a chance to rectify his
>> behaviour. If he don't then shop him.
>>
Why? Hes aware of what he is doing, and appears to be quite proud of it, so I imagine it would be a waste of time
|
>> Why? Hes aware of what he is doing, and appears to be quite proud of
>> it, so I imagine it would be a waste of time
Why? because you haven't done nothing, because you have given the guy a fair crack, and if ignores you, by shopping him you have done the right thing.
|
We had a similar issue with a colleague (with drink problem) who would consume a considerable amount at lunch and stop in the local to top up on the way home.
We had a big moral debate over what to do, and another colleague phoned crime stoppers (the guy in question drove past his sons school every day).
They asked for details of his car, usual drinking place, routine etc.
He was stopped within a couple of days..................
IMO worth a call - if hes under the limit then no harm done as he will be waived on his way
|
Speaking with the drinker or the boss will have no effect, none whatsoever.
The drinker will be in a set pattern...and someone 'speaking with him' at work isn't going to alter that pattern.
The boss will put it on the too difficult pile.
|
>The boss will put it on the too difficult pile.
Depends upon the company WP.
I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be ignored where I work.
|
>> I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be ignored where I work.
Someone got fired where I worked at least 20 years ago because they kept turning up for work with boozy breath. Don't know how many warnings they got, if any.
|
|
At a quite large cumbrian complex, they do random drug and Alcohol tests. If you get a positive test for certain drugs you get sacked, same for drink, unless you declare that you have a "habit", in which case you get help and counseling instead.
|
WP: "Speaking with the drinker or the boss will have no effect, none whatsoever.
The drinker will be in a set pattern...and someone 'speaking with him' at work isn't going to alter that pattern."
More than 90% to be the case. It's also very likely the alcohol is being used as a (rather crap) coping mechanism.
If he's drinking through the day to stay topped up, he isn't going to be taking 2% Sweetheart Stout - he'll be drunk.
If he doesn't appear drunk then he's very likely a chronic user/abuser.
Give him a chance, and then shop him to the cops as per Z, or just shop him to the cops - either way it's unlikely his behaviour will change unless HE recognises he has a problem and wants to change it.
This isn't "I'll have a couple and probably get away with it" behaviour.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 29 Oct 18 at 10:16
|
I think you can't do nothing. Imagine if you hear he's killed a child entirely through his alcohol influenced driving?
Shopping someone is unattractive. Taking a gob full of abuse from an idiot you've tried to warn is no fun either.
Ultimately you should handle it in a way you're comfortable with, but you should handle it. If you don't want the confrontation then shop him to the police. And if nothing happens then shop him to the someone more senior together with a complaint that no action was taken the first time.
Perhaps not as fine as courageously taking him to task and helping him learn, but ultimately better than letting the ass kill someone. And who cares if it messes him up a bit, better that than the alternative.
Mind you, three cans is not much, depending on what drink it is of course.
I would behave differently if it were someone who was too drunk to drive just once, when I would do everythign I can to help them understand why they should not drive.
|
My concern would be for the safety of other road users. He could cause a crash or hit a pedestrian. It sounds harsh but reporting him might be the thing to do. Not that the reporter would get credit. Perhaps best done anonymously. Although that could be seen to be cowardly, it does mean the reporter will not get abuse. You say he is an ***, so it sounds like he is not liked, and hence not the life and soul of the office. Turning up to work intoxicated may well break the companies regulations and count as gross misconduct, and be grounds for dismissal.
An alternative is to talk to HR. Sometimes they can be useless jobsworths who are only interested in protecting themselves, but often they are genuine people who do care, and who do act accordingly. A HR person is less likely to shove this under the carpet, as they know the law, which a boss might not.
Oddly enough I have smelt alcohol on the breath of a colleague several times. However, he is very likeable, and this was soon after lunch, so a pint or two would have time to work off before home time. I have done nothing, even though it breaks company rules. I would act if I thought he was intoxicated when driving. Mildly intoxicated when typing is a lesser crime. But I cannot be sure. In this case it might be a half pint at lunch, hardly significant.
Regarding the quantity of alcohol, it depends on the person. 3 cans of 5% lager would be 1 litre or more, which would bring me close to the legal limit, and more importantly, I would not be fit to drive. 2 bottles of wine in an evening is huge. If I drink one bottle, I am well and truly hammered, with a headache the next day, 2 bottles and I would be paralytic, room spinning, vomiting and so on.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:57
|
I wouldn't leave it as doing nothing - I have a conscience etc. I too worry about others.
As Kevin says, some employers would act. We had someone who had drink problems and since it would be classed as an illness he went off sick - for a long time. Eventually he quit. But he was off sick for quite some time.
But maybe he's not drinking as much as you assume? He might be an ***, not liked, etc. but is he drunk. Saw someone (down and out person) buying 4 cans of lager in Tesco only yesterday. All four cans of 'value' lager was £1. Lager was 2% strength.....
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:56
|
I would shop him via Crimestoppers...he could be drinking more than he shows at work.
I went down to Treorchy on the train to collect my latest bike. I stayed in a hotel then went to the dealers with my kit. They were shut but the owner arrived 15 minutes later and opened up.
He asked if I wanted a drink....thinking tea and the availability of loos on the Brecon Beacons, I declined. He pulled out a can of Special Brew and said ' Only, I can't get going 'til I've 'ad a couple, see '
He wasn't driving, to my knowledge, but he was servicing and repairing customers motorbikes. I assume the workshop staff, including his son, knew him well and kept him under control........I hope so anyway.
Ted
|
>> He asked if I wanted a drink....thinking tea and the availability of loos on the
>> Brecon Beacons, I declined. He pulled out a can of Special Brew and said '
>> Only, I can't get going 'til I've 'ad a couple, see '
I love Special Brew, but one can and I am very relaxed, two cans and I am gone. What you say is worrying.
|
>> Regarding the quantity of alcohol, it depends on the person. 3 cans of 5% lager
>> would be 1 litre or more, which would bring me close to the legal limit,
>> and more importantly, I would not be fit to drive. 2 bottles of wine in
>> an evening is huge. If I drink one bottle, I am well and truly rattted , with a headache the next day, 2 bottles and I would be paralytic, room
>> spinning, vomiting and so on.
Unless they're very small cans indeed three of 5% abv beer is going to put an average man well over the limit unless consumed very slowly with food. And even then.......
Most canned beer in UK is 450ml+
Two bottles of average red wine, say 12% abv, is nigh on 25 units. Enough to still be well over the limit at 08:00 next day.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 01:06
|
|
I believe the number of UK units of alcohol in a drink can be determined by multiplying the volume of the drink (in milliliters) by its percentage ABV, and dividing by 1000. Thus a standard 750 ml bottle of 12% ABV contains 9 units.
Last edited by: NIL on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 13:37
|
>> I believe the number of UK units of alcohol in a drink can be determined
>> by multiplying the volume of the drink (in milliliters) by its percentage ABV, and dividing
>> by 1000. Thus a standard 750 ml bottle of 12% ABV contains 9 units.
>
I was overstating by a bit. The bottle of 13.5% Shiraz/Cabernet Mrs B and I shared last night states it contains 10.1 units confirming NIL's method above.
18-20 units at night is still firmly on over the limit next day territory.
|
>> 18-20 units at night is still firmly on over the limit next day territory.
Our company gave a short presentation on alcohol - given that being intoxicated is a sacking offence - and apparently we lose 1 unit per hour. So assuming a 10 hour gap between drinking and driving, there would be 8 - 10 units left, which is over the limit.
|
>> and apparently we lose 1 unit per hour. So assuming a 10
>> hour gap between drinking and driving, there would be 8 - 10 units left, which
>> is over the limit.
>>
It's an inexact science.
The size of the person, diet, exercise, tolerance...all have something to do with the results.
|
>>
>> The size of the person, diet, exercise, tolerance...all have something to do with the results.
All of those things are relevant to absorption and to the level of alcohol par body/kg or per microgramme in breath as alcohol is consumed. The one unit per hour elimination rate is IIRC a reasonable constant (or even a best case) hence back counting from samples taken some while after an incident.
HAlf a bottle on an empty stomach would put me, at 56kg, well into dunken territory. Over more time and with a good meal I'd be OK.
If Stu's wife's colleague is 'dependent' then he's probably drinking rather than eating. On pretty much any interpretation two bottles after work and before bed is in 'trouble the morning after' country.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 01:05
|
|
Bottles, cans, millilitres, %, 08:00, units ~ I'm going to have to go and get my abacus!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 13:44
|
>> Bottles, cans, millilitres, %, 08:00, units ~ I'm going to have to go and get
>> my abacus!
It's enough to drive someone to drink.
|
Likewise I suppose in the past I too have been guilty of maybe driving under the influence. But things have moved on. For the responsible there is a realisation that job, house etc are far more important than a few bevvies. We accept the restrictions or make alternative arrangements , maybe at a cost.
I have seen too many people decent/ordinary people at the moment they realise the full consequences of what they have just done and how it is now going to hit them. It is not a nice place to be. Yes they were volunteers but I had some sympathy.
Those that continue pay no regard to those restrictions that the rest of us adhere to.
|
|
I guess everyone of a certain age has done it, knowingly or not.
|
Drink driving limits are annoying and talk of them being changed is frustrating.
We have a limit, goodness knows what it is, but its a pint or so I think.
Three types of people;
1) Dont give a damn about the limit, drink what I want, think I'm safe, lowering the limit doesn't affect me since I ignore it anyway.
2) Never drink if I will drive. The limit, and changes to that limit, have no impact on me since I don't drink anything.
3) I drink and drive but am careful to not exceed the limit. So a limit does matter to me and changes in the limit will cause me to drink less.
Consequently any change in law will affect categoy 3) only.
Therefore, if you change the limit fropm what it is to half what it is, the question to ask is nto how many people were killed in drink related accidents, but how many people were killed in an accident by someone who was UNDER the current limit, but would be OVER the new limit, and who wouldn't have had the accident if they had drunk less.
I should think the resulting number is somwhere between nothing and naff all. And whatever the answer, nobody actuallly knows what it is.
|
|
We have one of the highest allowable blood alcohol limits in europe but one of the lowest accident and death rates, how does that work then?
|
FM2R is right to say that a one-size-fits-all limit is annoying. It must also be responsible for many cases of injustice when people who simply aren't significantly impaired get randomly tested and banned. And of course screaming wimps who imagine driving to be equivalent to astrophysics or brain surgery, and set up a constant yipping to lower the limit or have a zero limit, incur my considerable displeasure.
It's a great pity that there isn't a scientific test for significant impairment that could be used at the roadside, but of course there are too many variables up and downstream for that to be viable. There are sporting coppers who can make their own assessment and do the humane thing, but that must be discouraged by the powers that be; and of course there are mean so-and-sos who are cynical and don't mind busting the more or less innocent. Probably the same ones who cover up for real villains for one reason or another: an outlook that can only be described as criminal. And yes, I've seen it in action more than once.
|
>>There are sporting coppers who can make their own
>> assessment and do the humane thing,
Not so much nowadays AC.
Not when you can be disciplined for 'neglect of duty' or prosecuted for 'malfeasance in public office' or 'perverting the course of justice'. Discretion has virtually gone out of the window unless it's really minor stuff...and this is why you often get the moans every now and again when something 'unsporting' happens.
There are total sh!ts in that profession of course, but there are also loads of decent folk who'd like to do the 'right thing', but dare not.
To even things up, I can't see many circumstances where you'd let a drink driver off though.
|
Armel wroteL: >> It's a great pity that there isn't a scientific test for significant impairment that could
>> be used at the roadside, but of course there are too many variables up and
>> downstream for that to be viable.
Our American cousins do exactly that - recite the alphabet backwards, stand on one leg, close your eyes and touch your nose, walk done this white line with your arms extended.
Makes more sense to me that an empirical level (says he who has spent a night in the cells after being 'over the limit'.)
|
>> Our American cousins do exactly that - recite the alphabet backwards, stand on one leg,
>> close your eyes and touch your nose, walk done this white line with your arms
>> extended.
>
Have you ever tried some of those tests when sober? I wouldn't pass.
|
|
I've done them while drunk quite successfully. With friends from San Mateo PD who I was ridiculing at a party, I might add, not when driving.
|
>>
>> Have you ever tried some of those tests when sober? I wouldn't pass.
>>
You could, with practice.
And that's the whole point. EVERYONE there will practice, and can do it whilst sober.
But after a few too many...
|
>> recite the alphabet backwards, stand on one leg, close your eyes and touch your nose, walk done this white line with your arms extended.
Even sober I'm not sure how I would cope with the standing on one leg and walking down the white line arms out these days. Perhaps if it was a roadside test and I'd had a few adrenaline and terror would carry me through. A few years ago I tried the whole battery ripped as a stoat and passed fine. But you get a bit odd about balance and so on at my age if you don't take regular hard exercise, never my thing.
Reactions are fast enough and surer than most people's at the wheel.
|
>> Consequently any change in law will affect categoy 3) only.
Well put...and the reason why the law doesn't need to change.
It will probably change, so that a politician can be seen to 'do something' and the unthinking /ignorant can then think it's a good idea.
|
Let me give you a set of circumstances.
You are on night shift and in for some refreshments. The phone rings and its a nurse from A&E which you have a good relationship with and is a T spot. Informs you that a gentleman has arrived at A&E to say goodnight to his wife who died that day and is in the mortuary. However it is believed that he is in drink. En-route you pick up a family member who corroborates that the close family member and the gentleman has been drinking all afternoon. As you approach the hospital entrance a car turns out which is identified as belonging to the gentleman who has visited hospital.
What would you do??
|
Turn round, stop the guy, shake your finger at him fairly gently and sympathetically, and get the (presumably sober) relative to drive him home? Or if he's drunk too, drive them both home yourself griping angrily the while.
I fully appreciate your and Westpig's strictures on the narrowing range of options open to the front-line officer. Indeed I referred to it in my post above by saying that making up your own mind on the spot would be discouraged by the powers that be.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 18:37
|
|
I failed to think of something. I assumed the guy had been drinking all day to drown his grief. But of course there are people who drink all day as a matter of course. They don't usually last all that long if they are drinking a lot though.
|
>> What would you do??
I would stop them, take away his keys and tell them to call a taxi.
If I was caught doing that tho I would expect to be hauled over the coals by my superiors, its probably career threatening.
|
>> If I was caught doing that tho I would expect to be hauled over the
>> coals by my superiors, its probably career threatening.
>>
The trouble is...it puts any supervisor in a difficult position as well. If you condone the leniency by your subordinate, then YOU are up for grabs for 'neglect of duty' etc, etc.
Who wants to lose their career, pension, house etc for a drink/driver whatever the circumstances...and that's not even going as far as the criminal offences, where you'd end up in clink.
Who wants to be on the end of a police Complaints Unit/tabloid newspaper sting?..and everyone nowadays has camera phones...and there's CCTV all over they shop.
Discretion has gone.
|
>> Who wants to be on the end of a police Complaints Unit/tabloid newspaper sting?..and everyone
>> nowadays has camera phones...and there's CCTV all over they shop.
>>
>> Discretion has gone.
>>
Reading that makes me think living in the UK these days you are under less observation in an open prison than at liberty. Is that really the case ?
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 21:46
|
>> Reading that makes me think living in the UK these days you are under less
>> observation in an open prison than at liberty. Is that really the case ?
>>
To some extent, yes, definitely.
Complaints departments have huge resources, considerably more so than most of the public would realise. I'm not convinced there'd be a 'sting' on the average cop with no history of wrongdoing...but...who'd want to be the first?... (Sting's do go on, to catch out those thought to be wrong un's and I've no problem with that).
Similarly, I'm not so sure a newspaper would target PC Average...but again, who wants to be first.
The mobile phone/CCTV has long been an investigative tool and society uses the complaints system much more than ever was the case, the internal complaints system in general being most robust, then you have the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission). Chuck in IDR and MDT (Incident Data Recorders and Mobile Data Terminals) in police cars...and then political meddling with a rigid target system for 'results'...
....it's a brave person indeed to step outside of the 'norm'.
Sad really, it doesn't encourage lateral thinking and common sense.
|
Not having a dig Westpig but I have suspected this for a long time.
The village I grew up in has four cameras on the main street of a place with c.8k people. Then there are the hidden cameras and the private cameras.
Is this why Putin is in the UK today ?
|
>> Not having a dig Westpig but I have suspected this for a long time.
>>
Didn't take it as such..but thanks anyway.
|
|
I counted it the other day. On a 15 minute 3/4 mile walk to the shops I was visible to no less than 10 seperate cameras.
|
|
Does that make you feel safe or angry Zero ?
|
While the country is full of people who shy away from reporting crime, or see it as grassing, the cameras are here to stay.
Any reason why overt cameras should make you feel angry?
|
>> While the country is full of people who shy away from reporting crime, or see
>> it as grassing, the cameras are here to stay.
>>
>> Any reason why overt cameras should make you feel angry?
>>
Where do you draw the line ? Any reason why they should not be in your living room or bedroom after all if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide, right ?
|
That's where I draw the line.
Because I'm not a reactionary retard.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 23:37
|
|
I only asked where the line was...Retard is such a strong word even if it is mis-spelt.
|
Hey I edited the mis-spell ;-)
What next? Godwin?
|
Good for you ! Still don't have an answer where the line is...
The reason I ask is because a lot of these cameras can be pointed directly into private premises without prior authorisation.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 23:44
|
My view on cameras is they should be used more as tools to direct the Feds to the appropriate areas, more than simply recording devices to be scoured after events have transpired.
I'm quite capable of putting cameras in/around my own property if I deem it necessary but I equally have no problem with them being put openly in public areas (or used covertly for active investigation).
I am strongly of the opinion that a sizeable proportion of those who openly break the law/act antisocially are likely to be guilty of many more (and possibly more serious) acts - the number of criminals caught as a result of minor traffic violations, or unrelated offences is not insignificant.
If the Police thought I was an arch-criminal and happened to bug my phone and house then I would have to accept that as part of my 'philosophy' - but they'd best have a warrant.
|
>> The reason I ask is because a lot of these cameras can be pointed directly into private premises without prior authorisation.
My eyes can be directed to/into private premises.
As for them being inside someones bedroom or bathroom, then I think you'll agree that crosses a line on criminality.
If a householder happens to be naked/watching porn/doing something embarrassing that can be witnessed by someone outside their property or in a passing double-decker, then hell mend them ;-)
|
Please explain the Godwin comment !!!
I was UK born and bred and don't appreciate any references to what I suspect you are referring to. Shame on you !!!!
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 23:51
|
"Godwin" is a term that refers to any debate/chat in the internet.
The longer the exchange goes on, the more likely it will inevitably mention Hitler or the Nazis.
It's a tongue-in-cheek phrase and not meant to be directly offensive!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
|
|
Why was it even mentioned in this context ???
|
>>Why was it even mentioned in this context ???
Because the longer a discussion goes on about personal privacy and the State's right to watch us, the more likely someone will make a comparison with a totalitarian state such as Hitler's Germany or maybe even Putin's Russia ;-)
|
So 30 minutes is a defence. Nah !
Suggest the mods lock this due to my location.
|
>>Suggest the mods lock this due to my location.
Why?
|
Open prison?
I'm lost too at this point.
|
>> >> While the country is full of people who shy away from reporting crime, or see
it as grassing, the cameras are here to stay.
Any reason why overt cameras should make you feel angry?
>> >>
>> Where do you draw the line ? Any reason why they should not be in
>> your living room or bedroom after all if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing
>> to hide, right ?
>>
I did once say George Orwell was right - just a few years out.... 1984.....
|
>> Does that make you feel safe or angry Zero ?
Doesn't make me feel safe, for two reasons.
1/ I dont feel unsafe anyway
2/ I know cameras are useless at preventing crime.
I do feel a little angry about cameras, but only because they are the cop-out crime prevention tool - Literally. Cameras in, cops out.
|
>> Is this why Putin is in the UK today ?
Ah yes, Vladimir Putin. Never mind the damn cameras, as if anyone gave a damn at being made to look like a criminal and stared at, what are we, children?
There was a very inappropriate big political cartoon in yesterday's comic of Putin trampling on the corpses of Pussy Riot, represented as innocent trampled demonstrators.
In fact the beautifully named but old-fashioned Moscow girl punk band had made a slightly blasphemous, slightly anti-government song and are on trial for the old Soviet crime of 'hooliganism', a badge of honour in anyone's book. The point is really that Putin, who is supposed to be listened to in his country, has urged the court publicly to go easy on the charming little rascals.
Hands off Vladimir Putin (unless the Pussies get the seven years they are threatened with)!
|
>>What would you do??
I'd like to stop him. And get the family member to take him home. However, if he cuts up rough, as he might in that distress, I might have to restrain him, a bystander might watch, I'd have to put in a report, and then what?
Or he might swear not to drive, get round the corner, turf the relative out, continue to drive, and kill someone.
I guess ultimately I'd pull him over, make a fast call once I'd spoken to him, and go from there. I'd be erring on the side of nicking him though, I'd have to be pretty sure to let it go.
|
Unless you are planning to drive to Mars, it's always cheaper to pay for a taxi than lose your licence.
Last person I'd want driving is a drunk who is also just bereaved, distracted and possibly even suicidal.
|
|
You're quite right. And since when has doing what was called your civic duty suddenly become grassing ? Probably when this once great country became a little dump full of winging "me too" benefit cheats and ferret faced little thieving weasels.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:56
|
>> You're quite right. And since when has doing what was called your civic duty suddenly
>> become grassing ?
That's the bit I've never got Rob. In my mind a 'grass' is a co-conspirator who turns Queen's evidence. Somebody outside the plot who sees something and reports it is a witness.
|
>> >> You're quite right. And since when has doing what was called your civic duty
>> suddenly
>> >> become grassing ?
>>
>> That's the bit I've never got Rob. In my mind a 'grass' is a co-conspirator
>> who turns Queen's evidence. Somebody outside the plot who sees something and reports it is
>> a witness.
>>
That must depend on what part of the country you are in, where I come from it is an informer. Whether they are involved or not makes no difference, they are a grass.
|
When I was 19 I just managed to avoid being hit by a drunk driver by literally swerving off the road out his way. He proceeded to wrap his car round a lamppost, get out and casually go into the nearby pub and order a pint.
Turned out he had been laid off earlier in the day from his job.
So, a fairly decent reason to be p'eed off and turn to drink but no matter what the reason was, he was suddenly capable of causing someone some serious injury.
Don't wait till he has done this - if it helps the conscience then warn him first, but otherwise have no problem notifying the authorities.
If they stop him and he is under the limit, then hopefully the police will let him know they were tipped off and will keep watching. That might be enough to give him a shake.
If over the limit, he will get done for it and then he shouldn't be near our roads.
|
OMG, I was in that guys situation, at 26 having been made redundant 4 times in 5 years, with a company car, I went to the pub.....and somehow got from Bow home, on the M25!!! Thankfully for all I was lucky, and was 22 years ago . No I'm not justifying or glorying init, I just was in a bad place and not thinking rationally
Regarding this situation, how about printing this whole listing off and leave it on his desk to read or say " good night John, had a few drinks and driving home, one day you'll get stopped or injure someone or someone might dob you in, and see how he reacts.
|
...full of winging "me too" benefit cheats and ferret faced little thieving weasels...
Been to work today?
|
...:-) No...
Probably more genuine cases in the CAB than there is in the benefits office.
Your earlier remark is sadly spot on.
Benefits - topped up with modest thieving - has become a viable lifestyle choice for many.
|
>> Been to work today?
>>
He's not wrong though, is he?
|
I should have been more moderate in my posting maybe...but as the oft quoted saying goes, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
|
yeah, basically he is.
As I said, if you want to spend your life gazing down drain holes, all you are going to see is the poo running through the sewer.
Look up from time to time into the eyes at the majority of hard working, morally responsible, decent population striving to improve themselves and work for the greater good.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 01:04
|
|
I know that Zero (mostly).
|
...Look up from time to time into the eyes at the majority of hard working, morally responsible, decent population striving to improve themselves and work for the greater good...
Bit of a Surrey remark.
In the poorer parts of the country it is the feckless benefits addicts who are in the majority.
|
|
If you want to pick a sink estate, of course. Pick the county, any county, (or unitary authority) as a whole and its far from "the majority"
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 22:53
|
County Durham and perhaps surprisingly, Cornwall are two of the most economically deprived areas.
Can't speak for Cornwall, but there are many thousands in former pit villages in County Durham who have, economically, nothing.
Not all are benefits cheats and thieves. but the poor are in the majority in the county.
There are a comparative handful of well-off university and business types in Durham City.
|
|
Maybe the poor are in the majority, but the scroungers and scroats most definitely are not.
|
>> If you want to pick a sink estate, of course. Pick the county, any county,
>> (or unitary authority) as a whole and its far from "the majority"
>>
In that respect, you are absolutely right Zero...the good and decent folk far, far outweigh the scrotes...but....there's a significant minority of scrotes, who sponge off the rest of us..and prey on the weak, poor, disadvantaged, disabled, etc.
It really gets my goat...bad.
That's why I've posted before about the strong looking after the weak. This country doesn't do that well enough...it leaves the 'weak' to their own devices and that in my opinion is utterly shameful.
|
My thought was that sitting in a crown court or similar reporting the tastier cases for some rag or other might well have given Iffy a skewed impression of majority attitudes here or there.
Most people never end up in court and would die of mortification at the very thought. I don't mean I'm one of them or anything of course.
|
...My thought was that sitting in a crown court...
The court has nothing to do with the tens of thousands of people in poverty in the North East.
But if you want to talk about crime, have a think about clear up rates.
For the low level stuff that drags us all down - criminal damage, theft, minor assaults - the clear up rates are mostly around a few percent.
Thus for every lowlife scum who gets caught, there are 10 or more who don't.
That wouldn't matter if the courts were not busy, but they are.
And how much of this stuff goes unreported?
However you look at it, it's not a happy picture.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 23:18
|
Flippin'eck I agree with Iffy.
You see the misery caused away from the affluent areas and you really get a feel for what's going on.
|
|
I feel even more miserable now ! (GIANT SMILEY)
|
|
BMW 3 series are like Ford Focus for servicing if you want to relocate to Germany ;-)
|
>> However you look at it, it's not a happy picture.
Not always a barrel of laughs, no. Of course no one who has lived in inner cities much has a lot of Pollyannaish illusions about what life is like for quite a lot of people. And of course being poor doesn't make most people become criminals.
Criminal damage, minor assaults, low level stuff as you rightly call it, has always gone on, often outside the pub on Saturday night. It isn't done by 'lowlife scum' for the most part but by children and honest young British binge drinkers. It's just a bit annoying on the rare occasions one notices it. I don't feel dragged down by it and I don't suppose most others do either.
Spadger gets a bit ratted and gives his rival Wesley a bunch of fives drawing blood when they come out of the club. Who gives a toss about the clear-up rate? Not the old bill that's for sure.
|
>> What would you do??
Can't help wondering whether that story had ever happened to Fullchat, and what his solution was.
Just wondering...
|
...Can't help wondering whether that story had ever happened to Fullchat...
I am fairly certain it - or somethng like it - has happened elsewhere.
The majority of doctors and nurses know what they are about and will quite rightly report criminal activity if they see it.
One I recall was a man who went to casualty with a glass injury to his arm and three mobile phones in his pocket.
The casualty staff correctly suspected the injury had happened during the course of a burglary.
|
|
We've had this argument before but I'll put an end to it as I'm young enough to state with absolute certainty that 'scrote' derived from 'scrotum', since it was my generation back in about 1984 that started using it. Kindly desist from spelling it: 'Scroat'!!
|
|
Successive Governments and their policies have ensured the fate of this once great nation. Sold the lot they have. Oh! and the don't smack Johnny brigade hasn't helped. Games up.
|
|
where does everyone get this notion that this nation was great?
|
>> where does everyone get this notion that this nation was great?
>>
I think the clue is in the name.
|
>> >> where does everyone get this notion that this nation was great?
>> >>
>> I think the clue is in the name.
Like the DPRK?
I dont think the name is a good pointer.
|
>> The majority of doctors and nurses know what they are about and will quite rightly
>> report criminal activity if they see it.
I beg to differ on that one. Over the years it constantly surprised me at the sometimes belligerent or indifferent attitude to that sort of thing.
The worst was Westminster Hosptital in the 80's when all police stations were asked to check local hospitals for a shooting victim who was also a suspect...Arthur Muggins popped in there and was told 'no can do' patient confidentiality etc...there was a young nurse in there that i'd got to know over several visits, so I got her to check, as a favour...but it wasn't done officially or with the permission of the nurse in charge.
That sort of attitude was quite prevalent with drink/drive cases when the suspect had gone to hospital. There is a procedure for dealing with that, all set in law...but...you need the permission of the doctor treating the patient to initiate the procedure (rightly so)..amazing the amount of times it was refused, for no obvious medical reason, often the patient hadn't even been seen by the doctor yet, yet a refusal was forthcoming (rather than 'let me examine the patient first, then I can make a decision'). I used to take a copy of the legislation with me in the end, to prove it was a right and proper request.
Irritating when you consider the amount of people that fake or overplay an injury, to go to hospital, to try to evade the drink/drive procedure.
|
|
And it's still exactly the same today Westpig. Many Doctors apparently deliberatly unco-operative. I'd have thought they'd see the benefit what with treating the injuries, but not so.
|
>> And it's still exactly the same today Westpig. Many Doctors apparently deliberatly unco-operative. I'd have
>> thought they'd see the benefit what with treating the injuries, but not so.
>>
I have my theory as to why.
Many doctors in this environment are young/newly qualified, it's their first role. They are on that pedestal having achieved the goal they've been seeking for many years and they are in charge. Also they are expected to make decisions, important decisions, that affect people's welfare and lives...so stressful.
Then someone comes in from another profession that they have no idea about, requesting of them something they've never been told/taught about and on the surface of it, it goes against the grain of the doctor/patient relationship (despite the fact it is covered with legislation and the role of the doctor is not compromised).
So rather than research it, ask around, find out what the score is (I know they can be exceptionally busy), it's easier to just say 'no'.
Meanwhile, the drink/driver gets way with it, which when you think of some of the carnage they produce, some of which the A&E departments have to pick up, is a backward step. Ho hum.
|
I think the problem for the doctor is that he may still see is role as compromised. The legislation gives him a pass through to avoid professional misconduct charges. He may also feel that whatever the law his professional duty is to respect absolutely the confidence of his patient. Confidence in that respect covers both a bar on disclosure and retaining the patient's belief that all actions are in his best interest. What if the patient, suspecting his doctor will help the police, discharges himself and dies?
Hobson's Choice?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 5 Aug 12 at 13:09
|
|
I think other factors come into play as well, but I'm sure I'd start a debate I don't really want. Some whole hospitals different to others when it comes to interaction.
|
>> Some whole hospitals different to others when it comes to
>> interaction.
>>
+1
|
To balance the above...and show there often is co-operation between medical staff and police, here's a humorous one I've remembered.
Early 90's, North London, a man is arrested for drink/driving..but upon arrival at the police station feigns unconsciousness (no doubt to get out of the drink/drive procedure).
There's some relatively easy ways to test this e.g. hold his own hand up above his face..and drop it. If it smacks him on the chops, he may well be genuinely u/c. If not, he's faking it.
Trouble was, this fellow was making a good job of it. Untrained medically, we can't go around making medical type decisions, whatever our suspicions, so we called the police doctor, there being no immediate concerns (he was breathing all right), so no ambulance.
The police doctor thought he was faking it as well...but..some of them are more cautious than others (their call, their hide if it all goes wrong), so it was an ambulance and take him escorted to hospital.
At the hospital I went and spoke with the casualty doctor before he examined the patient..and explained our thoughts/concerns...and gave him a copy of our police doctor's report.
He was a South African army reservist doctor...who had seen some things in his life. He called me in to the treatment room where the patient was, with two police officers, gave a quick examination of the bloke, then with the most theatrical wink to me and the nurse, said in a loud voice to the nurse "I've had one of these cases before. Get me the largest needle and syringe we have, I'm going to have to inject him in his penis"....
...I have never in my life seen anyone move so fast. All of a sudden the patient wasn't unconscious.
|
ok, here is a real life event. After the famous bus incident I was taken to Peterborough A&E with suspected broken (confirmed) ribs and suspected collapsed lung (fortunately not).
Wasn't breath tested on site for obvious reasons, and in A&E after some time after initial treatment the doctor came to take a blood test, giving me some spiel about "checking for cholesterol levels" I refused until he admitted it was for "evidential purposes" at which point I allowed him to do it.
Now my question, would this obvious breach of protocol, deception in obtaining evidence and doctor patient confidentiality jeopardised any subsequent prosecution.?
|
>> Now my question, would this obvious breach of protocol, deception in obtaining evidence and doctor
>> patient confidentiality jeopardised any subsequent prosecution.?
>>
Difficult to answer from my perspective, might need RP's in put.
If you were u/c any blood could be taken by any doctor (no consent as you are u/c) and this can be used later for drink/drive evidential procedures. However, when you are conscious you then have to provide your consent for it to be used. If you do not agree, the court can be told you did not agree and this can be used to infer you may have been guilty.
If you were conscious a police doctor would take the blood, having had the hospital doctor agree you are medically fit enough for the procedure to go ahead and a police officer (sergeant) would read you all the legal safeguard stuff from a booklet.
It is possible that the u/c bit I've posted in the first paragraph would also apply to those conscious but not 'with it' enough to be making any proper decisions.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 5 Aug 12 at 13:35
|
>> >> www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-stops-takeoff-and-ejects-pilot-who-had-been-drinking-20120805-23nv8.html
>> >>
>>
>> I was expecting (hoping) to see a video of him coming out courtesy of an
>> ejector seat.
I have a friend and neighbour who works for Martin Baker. Working with him yesterday on the village show clear up, I asked if their redundancy procedures made use of the principal product via a hole in the factory roof. He wasn't very amused, after 27 years there he's probably heard that idea before.
|
Can't help wondering whether that story had ever happened to Fullchat, and what his solution was.
Just wondering...
Yes it did and I'm afraid the answer is on a 'need to know basis' - sorry :(
As regards hospitals have had good and bad experiences' the larger A&E being the worst. Once threatened to lock up a nurse for obstruction when it was more than clear after repeated polite requests that she never even asked the Dr for permission to breathtest.
And a funny one was an 'unconscious' patient admitted from the roadside suspected of being a 'hit and run' victim. Diagnosis was that he was feigning so then started a catalogue of tests. The penultimate was nasal hair being pulled with tweezers :O (that hurt just watching) . Despite a tear emerging from the eye no result. The best was saved til last and that was the stomach pump tube. That did the trick. Turned out to be a trainee male nurse. Bizarre job.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 5 Aug 12 at 22:54
|
Test 1: push middle finger knuckle firmly into breastbone and rub up and down.
Test 2: hold a pen across a fingernail with the pad of your thumb against the pad of the patient's finger - squeeze barrel of pen onto nail.
Try these on yourself and try not to wince - even harder when you've got your eyes closed and aren't expecting it.
|
|
Which compounds my thought that sadism is a pre-requisit of the medical profession :)))
|
|
ps. I'd not be testing conciousness because a PC asked me to - it'd be to see if the patient was potentially going to die from an undiagnosed bleed inside his head. The fact that they'd 'woken up' while the PC was there would be entirely coincidental...
|
|
Of course, entirely coincidental....
|
>> Which compounds my thought that sadism is a pre-requisit of the medical profession :)))
The medical profession can trace its history back to paganism, witchcraft and the barber shop.
In more recent history I only need mention Dkr. Josef Mengele
No more need be said.
|
Well that's one out of the several million doctors who have been around in the past hundred years.
Good work, Clueso.
|
>> Well that's one out of the several million doctors who have been around in the
>> past hundred years.
>>
>> Good work, Clueso.
thats it, ignore the witchdoctors, bloodletters and body snatchers.....
|
(At least in the UK) that's prior to the 20th century.
I hear politicians and judges used to burn people to death for having black cats, hanged monkeys in the early 19th century because "the looked like Frenchmen", etc etc.
yours sincerely
Harold.
|
|
hey just pointing out the history of your profession. Us IT droids dont have such skeltons.
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
- not exactly Mengele or Shipman I'll give you, so I'll raise you a Steve 'Beelzebub' Jobs and Bill 'Bigger than Satan' Gates ;-)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 16:47
|
www.toptenz.net/top-10-evil-doctors.php
I cant find a top ten evil IT droids list.
(mind that might be because the droids control the web)
|
>> I hear politicians and judges used to burn people to death for having black cats,
>> hanged monkeys in the early 19th century because "the looked like Frenchmen", etc etc.
You mean to say they actually did it themselves? I'd have employed someone to do it.
|
>> hanged monkeys in the early 19th century because "the looked like Frenchmen", etc etc.
>>
No. That was just Northerners that did that!
|
>> Try these on yourself and try not to wince - even harder when you've got
>> your eyes closed and aren't expecting it.
>>
I tried them on myself and there was no pain.
|
>> >>
>>
>> I tried them on myself and there was no pain.
>>
Same here.
The first test is a mildly pleasant way of clearing a chesty cough.
|
|
You're either undead or being overly gentle - make an appointment and I'll show you how to do it right.
|
>> make an appointment and I'll show you how to do it right.
Heh heh... there has to be a sadistic side really or you wouldn't get right through medical school. I went into the cadaver room in Edinburgh when my sister - a born sadist - was a student there and felt a bit green about the gills when she whipped the sheet off the pickled brown corpse whose face she was dissecting...
Surgeons of course are the most obvious and brutal. Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse do a very good turn with their two surgeons, discussing the ballet and opera and horrible, highly detailed and well-researched bowel operations in alternating paragraphs, with many a well-bred titter.
Nothing against them myself though. What you want in someone cutting your neck open or sticking wires down your arteries is a cool brain and steady hand, not some jumpy over-caring holistic surgeon...
|
Just a little update.
My wife had a word with her manager and he is concerned, mainly because they are licensed premises and they suspect though havent caught him officially of sneaking beer in with him to drink at work, which is a big no-no anyway.
He was going to consult the handbook to see what the company policies are but he did say they do have something in the contract about alcohol/drug testing and any employee under the influence on the premises may well be in trouble, even if you ignore the driving issues totally.
It also helps that the manager doesnt like the bloke so id suspect something will happen.
Apparently the two bottles of wine of an evening is followed by driving to work at 4am! At another job I might add. His car is also a bit, er, well worn round the edges!
|
|
Likes or dislikes shouldn't come into it.The manager should have a word with him about his drinking.If his car is a old banger so what.The drinking of alcohol is the problem.
|
When it comes to surgeons I want one who does all their thinking/caring/holisticity (word?), before they pick up the knife.
From that point onwards I want a robot.
|
>> does all their thinking/caring/holisticity (word?), before they pick up the knife.
>> From that point onwards I want a robot.
Yeah, OK. Obviously you don't want a complete psychopath who doesn't fully understand your humanity. You do want, when the time comes, a robot, mechanic or whatever. Hard decisions have to be made sometimes, dangerous expedients tried in the heat of the moment. What you need then is an icy champion. No wonder they need nurses wiping their brows.
My sister and I interviewed the surgeon who had tried to save our father's life when his aorta gave way. But the stent didn't work with his old tissue, degraded by smoking, and the poor old boy had died on the table.
My sister, who isn't really a sadist but manages to be quite scary as a militant feminist Catholic doctor, took against the poor guy because he felt uncomfortable in a setting more suited to say a psychiatrist or at least a family GP, and had his arms folded, although sitting down, while talking to us. I thought he had done well, giving a concise account of what had happened and saying awfully sorry of course, we tried, but... Despite what she claims are scientific credentials my sister is an emotional and superstitious soul though far from stupid. I have the advantage of some psychoanalysis and managed to separate them and thank the surgeon for his efforts.
|
Reminds me of my sister A.C.>:) Very emotional and not scared to speak her mind.
I managed to change the surgeon's mind who operated on me not to use Key hole.But the full cut open and go for it job.In for a penny in for a pound.
|
Reporting a drink driver - Ian (Cape Town)
