HMG Your Freedom - Drink-Boating Repeal

[carlt]

This is NOT law....

What he said...

[Naughty Cal]

This is NOT law.

 

Good because i am going to be having a good drink tonight

[Daio]

Good because i am going to be having a good drink tonight

 

Don't forget you can still be liable in civil law if you're negligent and it results in loss.

 

If you get so pissed you can't control yourself you might be guilty of criminal damage too!

 

This is why these bloody daft provisions are. Bloody daft that is. Existing laws are usually quite adequate (and let's not forget bye-laws, both on the cut and elswhere, eg local authorities) but are usually unenforced, which makes it look as if a new law is needed. Makes politicians look ever so busy on our behalf. Prats, the lot of them. Puffed-up, self-important, self-serving, disingenuous, lying, thieving, lying, slimy lot. But at least I can write this on here with only a mild sense that a new entry is being added to my file

 

Enjoy your pop.

[Guest]

[carlt]

Putting too many fat people on one side of the boat is not a crime (yet).

[cotswoldsman]

Putting too many fat people on one side of the boat is not a crime (yet).

 

Should be though!!

[MtB]

This is NOT law. At least, not in the sense meant here.

 

<snip>

 

Unless someone can inform me differently, s.80 has not been introduced because no Commencement Order concerning it has been issued by the Secretary of State.

 

To save me trawling through the legislation did you happen to notice what the penalty will be, if/when a Commencement Order is issued?

 

It seems to me that even once the Commencement Order has been issued this law will have no teeth until a compulsory 'steering licence' is also introduced, which can be taken away on conviction, meaning plenty of boaters (including me) will be happy to risk paying a fine on the rare occasion we might be caught steering slightly over the limit.

 

Even when banned from steering the chances of being caught steering without a licence will probably be vanishingly small. As others have said, effectively unenforcable.

 

MTBM

[Natalie Graham]

As others have said, effectively unenforcable.

 

Which makes a good reason to put it on the site for pointing out pointless, bureaucratic laws to get rid of.

[RLWP]

Which makes a good reason to put it on the site for pointing out pointless, bureaucratic laws to get rid of.

 

As long as it actually is a law that can be repealed

 

Is this where I came in?

 

Richard

[Smelly]

What he said...

 

Seconded

[gardencoaster]

This is NOT law. At least, not in the sense meant here.

 

So British waterways has it wrong too then...

 

http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/can...ing-and-driving

[Natalie Graham]

My understanding, from when this was discussed at length before, was that this had been passed into law by parliament but the implementation required an order from the minister or some such.

 

I would search for the thread but I think searching on CW under "drink", "alcohol" or "beer" would bring up too many results.

[carlt]

My understanding, from when this was discussed at length before, was that this had been passed into law by parliament but the implementation required an order from the minister or some such.

 

I would search for the thread but I think searching on CW under "drink", "alcohol" or "beer" would bring up too many results.

Clicky

[Daio]

As long as it actually is a law that can be repealed

 

Is this where I came in?

 

Richard

 

Yes, it can be repealed. It is a statutory provision and therefore subject to repeal or amendment, it's just that at the moment it isn't THE law in the sense that it is an active provision which must be obeyed, because it hasn't started yet and may never do so.

 

MTBM - Interesting question. The Act says the penalty shall be 2 years and unlimited fine if convicted on indictment (that means Crown Court) and fine to the statutory maximum if convicted summarily (that means a magistrates' court and the statutory maximum (although there are some rare exceptions, such as various offences relating to commercial fishing and some HSE offences) which, when I were a lad was £5000 per offence. Don't know or care if it's gone up). It's interesting because, although the penalty in a mags' court is less than it is for drink/driving, because you can get fined £5000 AND go down for 6 months for that, as well as get a driving ban for life, drink/driving is only triable summarily. I had a quick look to see if the Schedules contained a provision to exclude offences under s.80 from jury trial but I couldn't see anything before I went mad, quite mad, with boredom.

 

Also interesting is that although the drinking limit is the same as for motor vehicles, ie 80 breath/35 blood, this can be altered purely by the Sec of State. So no Parliamentary discussion, no warning, bang in a quick SI to make the limit 0. Can't remember or be bothered to look up if the same lack of requirement for scrutiny applies to drink/driving.

 

And you thought you lived in a democracy. You poor innocents.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I believe the provision is basically unobjectionable, it's just unnecessary, for reasons given earlier.

[Guest]

Yes, it can be repealed. It is a statutory provision and therefore subject to repeal or amendment, it's just that at the moment it isn't THE law in the sense that it is an active provision which must be obeyed, because it hasn't started yet and may never do so.

 

MTBM - Interesting question. The Act says the penalty shall be 2 years and unlimited fine if convicted on indictment (that means Crown Court) and fine to the statutory maximum if convicted summarily (that means a magistrates' court and the statutory maximum (although there are some rare exceptions, such as various offences relating to commercial fishing and some HSE offences) which, when I were a lad was £5000 per offence. Don't know or care if it's gone up). It's interesting because, although the penalty in a mags' court is less than it is for drink/driving, because you can get fined £5000 AND go down for 6 months for that, as well as get a driving ban for life, drink/driving is only triable summarily. I had a quick look to see if the Schedules contained a provision to exclude offences under s.80 from jury trial but I couldn't see anything before I went mad, quite mad, with boredom.

 

Also interesting is that although the drinking limit is the same as for motor vehicles, ie 80 breath/35 blood, this can be altered purely by the Sec of State. So no Parliamentary discussion, no warning, bang in a quick SI to make the limit 0. Can't remember or be bothered to look up if the same lack of requirement for scrutiny applies to drink/driving.

 

And you thought you lived in a democracy. You poor innocents.

For the avoidance of doubt, I believe the provision is basically unobjectionable, it's just unnecessary, for reasons given earlier.

I did not. George Orwell told me when I were a lad.

[carlt]

So British waterways has it wrong too then...

Yes.

 

There has to be a first time for everything.

[Gibbo]

If I can quote the illustrious Mr Mayall:

 

Dave does seem to know an awful lot about the law for a postman

 

Anyway it seems ridiculous. I love boating when I'm too pissed to even see the lock let alone to know what to do with it. All part of the fun.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Gibbo

[carlt]

Dave does seem to know an awful lot about the law for a postman

He's a man of letters.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

My coat? Thank you.