B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[Graphite]

in the sense that this is my opinion and you dont need to try and change ny thinking or perspective views.

Forums might not be the place for you.

[not so new to town]

.... CHIMP, your not so well liked...and babbitman if your buying come pick me up

If you mean "you're" not well liked...then that may be. I do not come to these forums to be "liked". I come here to share info about subjects I may have knowledge in...... on my own time.

by taking something someone says and putting them down without the facts, yet you in another post to someone else, you said it wasnt right to do that(comment on something without the facts) you did it to me!

That said I feel the need to chime in here. I have just read all of the posts you have been either been a part of or have responded to. You claim you are being "railroaded" or "bullied". I have to say with what I have read (only posted on the forum) as I do not have access to the PM

is this because of your history cause i have one.

you may or may not have rec'd, you seem to the be the one bullying and tossing out name calling and the like. You should maybe practice what you preach.

if your gonna bully first then youll get bullied back, but I will NOT start buyying somwone for the fun of it

Look when you posted the story about your wife getting a ticket I initially asked what it had to do with the forum topic...BC Drunk Driving Law could be overturned as that is a legit question IMO. You posted about getting an entirely different thing. Then you stated that the system was flawed and attempted to explain why

Which is okay to post why I think the system is flawed right? mybe in my own experience but who cares what I think?

. I simply explained why I think the system, in your wife's case did not fail or was not flawed IMO. She was ticketed, faught it in court as is her right and lost. I will conceed the system is not perfect but it is not flawed IMO and thats all I was suggesting.


go re read the last page where you are agreeing with someone that is completetly wrong

If you feel you are being railroaded by members on this forum for agreeing with my logic then fine hit "ignore" and you will not see any of my posts.

I want to see your posts, just dont want the pushing around on the board, and when it suits you, you seem to be very hypocritical.

You also mentioned you will not argue with members on this forum. Again I have read your posts and your responses...and I hate to tell you this but IMO you are arguing with people for no apparent reasonm, even people that agree with you. These statements that I am making are simply IMO....nothing more and nothing personal.

I dont want to argue but I wont just sit back, and take it. not from you or anybody, so when i say I dont want to argue anymore enough said yet people continue to push then i push back but at least i try and stop it.

hope this information changes your thoughts.

[Trunk-Monkey]

I'd explain it to you but it is apparent that you don't like having things explained to you.

I'm pretty sure everyone else on here gets it.

I did.......

As did I...

[Trunk-Monkey]

....I dont want to argue but I wont just sit back, and take it. not from you or anybody, so when i say I dont want to argue anymore enough said yet people continue to push then i push back but at least i try and stop it.

hope this information changes your thoughts.

No...sorry to say it does not.
"take" what? You are the one calling people names and telling them they are "bullying" you when you seem to be the one lashing out at others...IMO.
So sorry if my opinion has not changed of you or your posts but you seem to have this issue with discussing things and when someone has a differing opinion from yours you revert to calling them names and say they are bullying you. Maybe come off of the defensive for a second and realize people on these forums, me included are not trying to railroad you. What ever that means.

[not so new to town]

....I dont want to argue but I wont just sit back, and take it. not from you or anybody, so when i say I dont want to argue anymore enough said yet people continue to push then i push back but at least i try and stop it.

hope this information changes your thoughts.

No...sorry to say it does not.

Ah..oh well... glad to be me and not you

[simnut]

Deleted by Trip. Off topic comment. If you have an issue contact a mod or admin. Stop derailing threads.

Thank you!

[KL3-Something]

Deleted by Trip. Off topic comment. If you have an issue contact a mod or admin. Stop derailing threads.

Thank you!

I thank you too. That was a good start....

And now if you could just tell me how to disable the ability for individual members to PM me I would appreciate that too. Some individuals can't seem to play nice.....

[simnut]

I thank you too. That was a good start....

And now if you could just tell me how to disable the ability for individual members to PM me I would appreciate that too. Some individuals can't seem to play nice.....

Jeez KL3, even you and I play better together! lol

[zzontar]

Just a thought... I wonder if now you can do something like charge people for an extended warranty on a product when it's virtually impossible to collect on it, and then say it was offered in good faith and keep the money regardless. The decision not to refund money paid to the obviously faulty and virtually impossible to win appeal system they had should be jurisprudence to open the door for all sorts of scams. The government thought that charging $100 for an appeal where they don't have to consider any evidence submitted was an appeal offered in good faith, so with completely absurd, borderline insane thinking like that, how could they deny other people from committing the same kind of scam?

[Trunk-Monkey]

Just a thought... I wonder if now you can do something like charge people for an extended warranty on a product when it's virtually impossible to collect on it, and then say it was offered in good faith and keep the money regardless. The decision not to refund money paid to the obviously faulty and virtually impossible to win appeal system they had should be jurisprudence to open the door for all sorts of scams. The government thought that charging $100 for an appeal where they don't have to consider any evidence submitted was an appeal offered in good faith, so with completely absurd, borderline insane thinking like that, how could they deny other people from committing the same kind of scam?

Interesting...but doesnt the gov`t clearly stated in the application for an appeal that not all the evidence has to be considered...making it your choice whether to file for an appeal or not. I not disagreeing here...just asking the question.

[theyeti]

i think they mean if u did have any evidence showing u were not guilty .. they would not have to consider it .

that sounds like typical govt bs to me

[simnut]

Interesting...but doesnt the gov`t clearly stated in the application for an appeal that not all the evidence has to be considered...making it your choice whether to file for an appeal or not. I not disagreeing here...just asking the question.

And that makes it a fair appeal? ....just asking the question

THAT is the difference between going to court.....and the appeal process with the OSMV. I know , I know...you can still take it to court for a "judicial revue".......but while you wait...you still serve your "sentence"...so the court thingy is kind of useless.......

[my5cents]

And that makes it a fair appeal? ....just asking the question

THAT is the difference between going to court.....and the appeal process with the OSMV. I know , I know...you can still take it to court for a "judicial revue".......but while you wait...you still serve your "sentence"...so the court thingy is kind of useless.......

A judicial review isn't really part of the process though is it ?

Isn't that really like approaching the court and asking it to rule on the whole process, not the guilt or innocents of one motorist.

[simnut]

A judicial review isn't really part of the process though is it ?

Isn't that really like approaching the court and asking it to rule on the whole process, not the guilt or innocents of one motorist.

The Supreme Court of BC CAN rule that the original "violation" is wrong (which can remove a violation from a drivers record)...and then can ONLY advise the OSMV to "relook" at the case. And this is why the OSMV can make the driver serve the "penalty" while you await your court date....making the appeal for a judicial revue in the Supreme Court a bit of a waste of time.....IMHO.

[my5cents]

The Supreme Court of BC CAN rule that the original "violation" is wrong (which can remove a violation from a drivers record)...and then can ONLY advise the OSMV to "relook" at the case. And this is why the OSMV can make the driver serve the "penalty" while you await your court date....making the appeal for a judicial revue in the Supreme Court a bit of a waste of time.....IMHO.

I guess with the right circumstances and enough money the Supreme Court of Canada could get involved as well. My point was that in the normal application of this new revolutionary system of handling drinking and driving offenses and soon other Motor Vehicle Act offenses, courts don't play a role.

Yes, I know that the Supreme Court can be brought into the mix, just like if city hall turns down your building permit for a fence, you can escalate the process, but the Supreme Court isn't normally on the list of tasks when building a fence, nor is it in requesting a review of a roadside drinking and driving conviction.

I'm all for hammering impaired drivers, but I don't think that any means justifies the end result.

I guess I’m one of the few that thinks we have to have a full, fair, open and reliable system of checks and balances even if it involves checking the decisions of our police.

On one hand we, the public, demanded that we have an independent body investigating police when involved in a serious injuries and during the same period we are letting the police deal out justice at the curb with a very limited and questionable review process. Did we demand the independent body because we fully trusted the police ?