Tinkerton Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 NHS online and 111 say it's doesn't require medical attention yet. using paracetamol and ibuprofen at intervals to help, which is what they advised. TBH the thing thats irritating me the most is the very productive cough. Also I probably have to go into work tomorrow as it's end of month/ end of quarter and we're £17k short of our parts purchase target. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 Do not.You are too ill to work and will only infect others with whatever you have. Link to post Share on other sites
amateurstuntman Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 Like I said buddy. One above 42 is room temperature. You are in clip. Your man flu has been officially upgraded to Hebola. Link to post Share on other sites
Tinkerton Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 but that's super tempting, because some of those people are dickheads. temperature currently 37.3 which is lower than I thought, and apparently fairly normal. we'll see how I feel later, been unsurprisingly not hungry but starting to get peckish now. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 That sounds promising. Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 That temp is fine. Also, laughing at hebola! Link to post Share on other sites
Tw1tch Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 Glad you're better boss. I just caught the "Last Call" memorial for the 343 FDNY responders who lost their lives during the World Trade Centre attack on Facebook (sometimes it's really interesting when you see something not super recent) and it made me well up. The comms traffic over those days must have been something haunting (in a similar vein the original radio transmissions from "Black Hawk Down", are so eerie, I have to find them again), all those people not responding to hails. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 What's a decent brand of AEG gears? Don't say Lonex. Lonex and I aren't currently on speaking terms. Link to post Share on other sites
Gunmane Posted September 23, 2018 Report Share Posted September 23, 2018 SHS before they got rebranded/bought out? I went all in for the lipo shenanigans, and my wallet hates me now. Trying to rationalize it all as an experiment but I already dreading trying to get the lct rpk gearbox out again amongst all the other things. Eh, what's a few days of work worth anyways? Then I remember we have a 2000+ 2 oz bottle run for Korea sometime this week... Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Can anyone explain the thought process of the police's use of breathalyzers? (in the UK). I was watching some police program yesterday and they arrested some guy for drink driving. He failed the roadside breathalyzer. He was then released as he passed the breathalyzer when they eventually retested him at the station. How does that work? Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 The roadside ones aren't as accurate.They should have done a blood test really - but the longer they wait the lower the alcohol level will drop. Link to post Share on other sites
Mike_West Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 6 minutes ago, hitmanNo2 said: Can anyone explain the thought process of the police's use of breathalyzers? (in the UK). I was watching some police program yesterday and they arrested some guy for drink driving. He failed the roadside breathalyzer. He was then released as he passed the breathalyzer when they eventually retested him at the station. How does that work? Maybe the one they had on site was busted? False positives happen, if they took him to the station and tested him immediately with a different device there, it might have been the case. Also, I hate immature bints who pretend that everything is cool and they will turn up at the arranged place on time, then just block you when you try to ask them why they're late. Made me waste several hours on cleaning and setting up the studio. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Hedganian said: The roadside ones aren't as accurate. They should have done a blood test really - but the longer they wait the lower the alcohol level will drop. Ah. I see. I imagine you have to consent to a blood test? They can't just stick you with a needle can they? Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 No, they can get a court order to take a sample, IIRC, but it will cause a lot of delay. If you consent, they can take one straight away as long as trained staff are available to do it. You have to consent to giving a breath sample too - however, refusing to provide a sample will get you arrested anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Makes sense. But surely a drink driver would never consent to a roadside blood test or even one at the station without a court order. Just the roadside breathalyzer then hope the alcohol level is reduced by the time they're processed at the station and a blood test can be forced. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 They don't do roadside blood tests, they're only done at the station. However, they can estimate how much the level will have fallen over time do a level of X at a time of Y would equate to being over the limit when pulled over, so you'd still be prosecuted. Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Failing to give a sample is an equal offence to drink driving iirc - So police won't bother waiting for a court order, just charge you under that offence instead. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Interesting. Are prosecutions often successful that way? I mean, a prosecution based off an estimation? Seems like a competent defense could wriggle out of that. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Blood alcohol level drops at a predictable rate based on age, sex, bmi, etc. It's science. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 But BMI is not a science. Is that not enough to screw projections up? Link to post Share on other sites
amateurstuntman Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 In Stunt's Britain failing a roadside inebriation test would mean a full blood/hair/stool/urine screening for everything. At the suspect's expense (unless clean). Then if found guilty of driving while under the influence of drugs, alcohol or drum 'n' bass they would have their license revoked, car seized and possibly have their thumbs confiscated. Depends on whether it was a first offence. The cars would be given to the emergency services to use. Crappy normal cars to the non police ones for admin/training etc. and the good ones to the police. Stick a roll cage and a bull bar on them and use them to ram people who flee into bridge abutments. Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Hi! As said, roadside tests aren't evidential. They are accurate enough, but that's how it is. However, if someone blew say 34 (just under), was released and then crashed/hurt someone it could be an influencing factor in court. I always noted readings down in my book, even if under the limit. If over, its a free ride back to the containment boutique and you're stuck on an intox machine ASAP. People think stalling helps them, but it just ###### off the cop who will then do you for failing to provide. People who were nice got a couple of goes at it - nerves can cause problems etc, but if they were a knobhead, they got 2 maximum. Edit, you're then bunged in a cell until you sober up, as you cannot be interviewed whilst under the influence. It can turn into a long day/night. Blood has to be taken at the nick or a hospital, so not roadside by a burly copper waving a needle around and trying to find a vein by torchlight in the rain... As said, lack of consent just equals a charge of failing to provide, which carries the same tariff as blowing over the limit. People usually fail to provide when they are properly battered and a reading would carry a longer ban. A DD ban starts at 1 year, but can be knocked down to 9 months if you take an awareness course too. Fines can vary greatly. You can also backtrack a blood reading, but that takes time and effort so is not always necessary/in the publics interest, but is accurate. I don't know the ins and outs as I didn't do much traffic. It has been used several times though, so case law makes it hard to wriggle out of. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 I still say that the limit should be much lower, if not zero. Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 Zero tolerance would be impossible to enforce, and would tie up cops something chronic will locking half the population up... Fun fact, there is a limit for a cop being on duty, and is 15 micrograms, so just under half the drink drive limit...! Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted September 24, 2018 Report Share Posted September 24, 2018 That seems reasonable. What people seem to forget is that different people are affected by alcohol more than others, but the same limit applies to everyone.One person could be under the legal limit but totally unfit to be in control of anything more dangerous than a dinky car. Another could be over the limit but still in control of themselves.It's well established that even a small amount of alcohol will impair a driver's reactions, and too many people are dangerous enough while stone-cold sober.Admittedly, I'm not looking at it from a 'how hard this would be to enforce' standpoint, I accept that.It just seems wrong to me that someone could blow "just under" the limit and be allowed to proceed - when in reality they're not safe to be behind the wheel. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.