Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

If a rozzer wants to stop a motorist and breathalise him then whats the problem, the rozzer shouldnt have to have a reason to do so, if he can then he jolly well will.
if a motorist is against it then he is either guilty or doesnt respect what the rozzers have to do.
so friggin what, if your stopped and have been drinking too much then its the motorists hard luck and should have respected the law.
if i was told on the other hand by a cop that if i didnt take the test and it wasnt the law in that particular country im afraid to say i would of kicked him in the nuts

Don't you think it would be better if they stopped motorists that gave them some cause to doubt their ability to drive rather than stopping all motorists?

[pretty-as-pink]

If a rozzer wants to stop a motorist and breathalise him then whats the problem, the rozzer shouldnt have to have a reason to do so, if he can then he jolly well will.
if a motorist is against it then he is either guilty or doesnt respect what the rozzers have to do.
so friggin what, if your stopped and have been drinking too much then its the motorists hard luck and should have respected the law.
if i was told on the other hand by a cop that if i didnt take the test and it wasnt the law in that particular country im afraid to say i would of kicked him in the nuts

Don't you think it would be better if they stopped motorists that gave them some cause to doubt their ability to drive rather than stopping all motorists?

the police have a set rule and they must stop and do routine checks certain number a day.
you would be surprised what they stumble across doing routine checks.
im sure the majority of checks they do have good cause to, but what a bonus for a cop if its a random check and the driver is rat arsed

[cyprusgrump]

If a rozzer wants to stop a motorist and breathalise him then whats the problem, the rozzer shouldnt have to have a reason to do so, if he can then he jolly well will.
if a motorist is against it then he is either guilty or doesnt respect what the rozzers have to do.
so friggin what, if your stopped and have been drinking too much then its the motorists hard luck and should have respected the law.
if i was told on the other hand by a cop that if i didnt take the test and it wasnt the law in that particular country im afraid to say i would of kicked him in the nuts

Don't you think it would be better if they stopped motorists that gave them some cause to doubt their ability to drive rather than stopping all motorists?

the police have a set rule and they must stop and do routine checks certain number a day.
you would be surprised what they stumble across doing routine checks.
im sure the majority of checks they do have good cause to, but what a bonus for a cop if its a random check and the driver is rat arsed

Why do they?

Why do they have targets?

Why do they have to get a set number?

Why do they have to inconvenience the law abiding instead of targeting those that have done wrong?

It is the target culture that results in motorists going to court for blowing their nose - not enough people caught to meet their target that day probably...

When there is no crime, when it is safe to leave you belongings, when you can walk down the street in safety, when muggings and murders aren't on the TV every night... THEN start targeting lesser crimes...

[DANGAMAN]

Now about the having to stop certain numbers of drivers for whatever isn't really the case.

Every month the Police concentrate (Not target) a specific road traffic offence, could be driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone, overtaking speeding or even driving under the influence of alcohol. For those campaigns, yes statistics are given.

Now basically how it works (or should work) Having the right amount of Officers at the right place at the right time, to tackle that offence. (Logic?)
That is to say DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM - NOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE PROBLEM (This is called POP Problem Orientated Policing)

Now as regards breath testing... and as regards an individuals resonable grounds go...

we would all agree that they are diffrent, it not only the smell of alcohol in a drivers breath and the red eyes it can be all types of issues. Funny as it seems you may be requried to give a breath sample for taking nonsence.
Could be behaviour etc, etc.

I am sure the Officer will justify in court why he rose such a suspicion.

Failing to provide a road side breath test carries the same punishment as if you gave a positive sample and you will be subjuect to arrest, unless you can give a resonable excuss as to why you could not give a satisfactory sample

[pretty-as-pink]

Now about the having to stop certain numbers of drivers for whatever isn't really the case.

Every month the Police concentrate (Not target) a specific road traffic offence, could be driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone, overtaking speeding or even driving under the influence of alcohol. For those campaigns, yes statistics are given.

Now basically how it works (or should work) Having the right amount of Officers at the right place at the right time, to tackle that offence. (Logic?)
That is to say DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM - NOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE PROBLEM (This is called POP Problem Orientated Policing)

Now as regards breath testing... and as regards an individuals resonable grounds go...

we would all agree that they are diffrent, it not only the smell of alcohol in a drivers breath and the red eyes it can be all types of issues. Funny as it seems you may be requried to give a breath sample for taking nonsence.
Could be behaviour etc, etc.

I am sure the Officer will justify in court why he rose such a suspicion.

Failing to provide a road side breath test carries the same punishment as if you gave a positive sample and you will be subjuect to arrest, unless you can give a resonable excuss as to why you could not give a satisfactory sample

I will put your thoughts to my sargent in the morning and get back to you on that

[pretty-as-pink]

If a rozzer wants to stop a motorist and breathalise him then whats the problem, the rozzer shouldnt have to have a reason to do so, if he can then he jolly well will.
if a motorist is against it then he is either guilty or doesnt respect what the rozzers have to do.
so friggin what, if your stopped and have been drinking too much then its the motorists hard luck and should have respected the law.
if i was told on the other hand by a cop that if i didnt take the test and it wasnt the law in that particular country im afraid to say i would of kicked him in the nuts

Don't you think it would be better if they stopped motorists that gave them some cause to doubt their ability to drive rather than stopping all motorists?

the police have a set rule and they must stop and do routine checks certain number a day.
you would be surprised what they stumble across doing routine checks.
im sure the majority of checks they do have good cause to, but what a bonus for a cop if its a random check and the driver is rat arsed

Why do they?

Why do they have targets?

Why do they have to get a set number?

Why do they have to inconvenience the law abiding instead of targeting those that have done wrong?

It is the target culture that results in motorists going to court for blowing their nose - not enough people caught to meet their target that day probably...

When there is no crime, when it is safe to leave you belongings, when you can walk down the street in safety, when muggings and murders aren't on the TV every night... THEN start targeting lesser crimes...

Alright, calm down, DEEP BREATH dont kick the bucket!!!
and you call me mental

[cyprusgrump]

If a rozzer wants to stop a motorist and breathalise him then whats the problem, the rozzer shouldnt have to have a reason to do so, if he can then he jolly well will.
if a motorist is against it then he is either guilty or doesnt respect what the rozzers have to do.
so friggin what, if your stopped and have been drinking too much then its the motorists hard luck and should have respected the law.
if i was told on the other hand by a cop that if i didnt take the test and it wasnt the law in that particular country im afraid to say i would of kicked him in the nuts

Don't you think it would be better if they stopped motorists that gave them some cause to doubt their ability to drive rather than stopping all motorists?

the police have a set rule and they must stop and do routine checks certain number a day.
you would be surprised what they stumble across doing routine checks.
im sure the majority of checks they do have good cause to, but what a bonus for a cop if its a random check and the driver is rat arsed

Why do they?

Why do they have targets?

Why do they have to get a set number?

Why do they have to inconvenience the law abiding instead of targeting those that have done wrong?

It is the target culture that results in motorists going to court for blowing their nose - not enough people caught to meet their target that day probably...

When there is no crime, when it is safe to leave you belongings, when you can walk down the street in safety, when muggings and murders aren't on the TV every night... THEN start targeting lesser crimes...

Alright, calm down, DEEP BREATH dont kick the bucket!!!
and you call me mental

I am calm...

We need to question these things tho or they will impose more and more restrictions on our liberty.

Before long you'll have to go to the police station, take a drugs and alcohol test and buy a licence each day before being allowed to take your car on the road...

[DANGAMAN]

Now about the having to stop certain numbers of drivers for whatever isn't really the case.

Every month the Police concentrate (Not target) a specific road traffic offence, could be driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone, overtaking speeding or even driving under the influence of alcohol. For those campaigns, yes statistics are given.

Now basically how it works (or should work) Having the right amount of Officers at the right place at the right time, to tackle that offence. (Logic?)
That is to say DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM - NOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE PROBLEM (This is called POP Problem Orientated Policing)

Now as regards breath testing... and as regards an individuals resonable grounds go...

we would all agree that they are diffrent, it not only the smell of alcohol in a drivers breath and the red eyes it can be all types of issues. Funny as it seems you may be requried to give a breath sample for taking nonsence.
Could be behaviour etc, etc.

I am sure the Officer will justify in court why he rose such a suspicion.

Failing to provide a road side breath test carries the same punishment as if you gave a positive sample and you will be subjuect to arrest, unless you can give a resonable excuss as to why you could not give a satisfactory sample

I will put your thoughts to my sargent in the morning and get back to you on that

I think you meant Sergeant...

... and thats Sir to you (LOL)

[pretty-as-pink]

Now about the having to stop certain numbers of drivers for whatever isn't really the case.

Every month the Police concentrate (Not target) a specific road traffic offence, could be driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone, overtaking speeding or even driving under the influence of alcohol. For those campaigns, yes statistics are given.

Now basically how it works (or should work) Having the right amount of Officers at the right place at the right time, to tackle that offence. (Logic?)
That is to say DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM - NOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE PROBLEM (This is called POP Problem Orientated Policing)

Now as regards breath testing... and as regards an individuals resonable grounds go...

we would all agree that they are diffrent, it not only the smell of alcohol in a drivers breath and the red eyes it can be all types of issues. Funny as it seems you may be requried to give a breath sample for taking nonsence.
Could be behaviour etc, etc.

I am sure the Officer will justify in court why he rose such a suspicion.

Failing to provide a road side breath test carries the same punishment as if you gave a positive sample and you will be subjuect to arrest, unless you can give a resonable excuss as to why you could not give a satisfactory sample

I will put your thoughts to my sargent in the morning and get back to you on that

I think you meant Sergeant...

... and thats Sir to you (LOL)

thanks

[DANGAMAN]

Now about the having to stop certain numbers of drivers for whatever isn't really the case.

Every month the Police concentrate (Not target) a specific road traffic offence, could be driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone, overtaking speeding or even driving under the influence of alcohol. For those campaigns, yes statistics are given.

Now basically how it works (or should work) Having the right amount of Officers at the right place at the right time, to tackle that offence. (Logic?)
That is to say DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM - NOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE PROBLEM (This is called POP Problem Orientated Policing)

Now as regards breath testing... and as regards an individuals resonable grounds go...

we would all agree that they are diffrent, it not only the smell of alcohol in a drivers breath and the red eyes it can be all types of issues. Funny as it seems you may be requried to give a breath sample for taking nonsence.
Could be behaviour etc, etc.

I am sure the Officer will justify in court why he rose such a suspicion.

Failing to provide a road side breath test carries the same punishment as if you gave a positive sample and you will be subjuect to arrest, unless you can give a resonable excuss as to why you could not give a satisfactory sample

I will put your thoughts to my sargent in the morning and get back to you on that

I think you meant Sergeant...

... and thats Sir to you (LOL)

thanks

Anything yet? or doesnt he/she work on weekends - Which Police force dos he/she serve with?