Is £500 going to turn the head of someone to report people they know to "have had a drink" to the police?
If I saw someone obviously worse for drink I would make determined efforts to stop them but I draw the line at "snitching".
Those that would, probably would regardless of the £500 or is the cash going to make a diffence?
Or is it like the lottery, not the principle just the amount on offer that counts?
|
You misunderstand the scheme.
It's aimed at encouraging people to spike drinks and report the guy whose drinks they've spiked.
This helps raise detection rates of a crime that's almost non-existant these days...
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Or getting the bloke carted of to the nick so they can burgle his pad while he's entertaining plod.
Ian Cook
|
Loverly cartoon in Today's Daily Torygraoh by Matt:
Man in car with bottle on mobile to police: Can I claim my £500 for shopping a drunk driver?
Meanwhile outside PC is about to arrest him..
(one picture worth a lottawords:-)
madf
|
>>If I saw someone obviously worse for drink I would make determined efforts to stop them but I draw the line at "snitching".
Why ?
I wonder how the feeling of guilt over "snitching" would compare to the feeling of guilt if having decided not to "snitch", you read about the innocent killed by said drink-driver knowing that perhaps you could have prevented it.
Or how would you feel if someone close to you was killed/injured by a drink driver and you found out someone could have prevented it but thought "snitching" was wrong.
If you drink and drive you deserve all you get. And preferably before you do it to someone else.
Do it near me and you'll get snitched as quickly as I can get my mobile phone out of my pocket.
|
That's up to you.
To stretch your scenario what if a chase ensues as a result of the "snitch" that results in a friend of yours being killed?
Not as simple as you seem to think.
|
Its the driver's fault.
Why not blame the cashier for someone getting killed in a bank robbery, because they raised the alarm. Your moral code seems to be somewhat twisted.
|
Not so. Your example while dramatic, is inaccurate.
The cashier is not being financially encouraged to speculate whether a crime is being committed.
My points are: -
1) Reward driven information tends to be the least accurate, taking resource away from where it's needed.
2) A similar scheme aimed more locally produced dismal results - if your measurement of success is to reduce further the level of drink driving.
3) It opens the gates for malicious hoaxing between parties who have some other grievance.
I think the resources are far better aimed at a highly visible road presence rather than hoping to short-cut by encouraging vigilante type behaviour.
There is also the far higher injury and death statistics produced by reckless driving. It isn't to say drink driving is right - merely to point out that it isn't the biggest problem faced by those of us who wish to see road death and injury reduced significantly.
|
Your example is based on the supposition that a person would only 'snitch' because of a financial reward and not because of any moral compunction. Incidentally, how does the driver know if someone has 'snitched' and reward is likely to be taken or if the police have been lucky to pull him. Your example assumes that the driver would act differently. Not so.
|
Jonathan, we're not that far apart on this - it is precisely "the supposition that a person would only 'snitch' because of a financial reward" that worries me.
If as you say, someone has the moral compunction to report such a situation - what difference is this £500 going to make?
I don't think it will change the behaviour of this hard core - a greater police visibility than they currently face just might.
|
Lets agree to agree then.
It is just another high profile scheme to reduce the stats on what is seen as a scourge. Does anyone know what the police's view on this is?
|
Also - "Your moral code seems to be somewhat twisted."
Disagree. If I stop a guy from getting in his car when over the limit - no cash, OK we feel better. If I wait, see him drive off and then report him - £500, still feel better?
Is that really morally the right message?
|
|
|
re: your three points;
All valid, but not what you said initially;
"I would make determined efforts to stop them but I draw the line at "snitching"."
You didn't comment on the dangers or inefficiencies of such a system. The implication of what you wrote is that you disapprove of "snitching".
You next note didn't talk about these three points either, it explained that it was more complicated than I think and I might cause a "chase" situation.
Only now do we get the three points;
A bit of revisionist justification is going on here I think.
So...
Would you, assuming a just and fair reason, "snitch" on someone to the police if they were drunk and intending to drive ??
And it is *exactly* as simple as I think.
|
|
No revisionist justification - I got distracted see above post re - why I think it's wrong to snitch. You are rewarding people to wait until a crimes committed rather than put the effort into preventing it.
|
|
|
>>If I stop a guy from getting in his car when over the limit - no cash, OK we feel better. If I wait, see him drive off and then report him - £500, still feel better?
Why wouldn't you be responsible and try and stop him, resorting to the police only if that failed ?
And if the £500 offends, there are plenty of charities you could give it to and feel warm and cuddly that even mroe good had come out of you doing something which should be your duty anyway.
Best of both worlds ?
|
>>Would you, assuming a just and fair reason, "snitch" on someone to the police if they were drunk and intending to drive ??
And I think you missed this bit......
|
"Why wouldn't you be responsible and try and stop him, resorting to the police only if that failed ?"
Would (and have) stopped someone from getting in their car when they were drunk. Would I report someone to the police? Situation hasn't occurred but probably not.
Now perhaps some questions for you Mark.
Now you haven't said whether you feel offering the £500 encourages people to wait rather than intervene?
Also the person you have seen have a couple of drinks is either a good friend or your relative - does that mobile come out as quickly?
|
Sad is it not that we have to reduce to Bounty hunting as opposed to Joe Public reporting these incidents as a citizen doing his public duty?
As mark says it could be one of your kith and kin at the receiving end of a drunken drive.
DVD
|
True DVD, but what if it's one's kith and kin that you have to report.
Much as I can see the purist "right" in that - I probably wouldn't. I'm interested to see how many would.
|
True DVD, but what if it's one's kith and kin that you have to report.
Didn't the Hitler Youth have this down to a fine art?
|
A quick look at the DETR website to look at the stats on d&d shows figurse for this being detected have fallen enormously since the 70s and give or take 10% each year the figures for convictions have now flattened out suggesting that the message has now gone as far as it will go.
The use of the annual police "terror" of roadblocks as we get here in Halton gets less convictions as an exercise than those shown on the DETR site suggests is an average for all d&d stops and tests despite the fact all those stopped at a roadblock round here get breath tested despite (from my own experience) dubious reasonable cause.
The local rag quotes Sgt Yvonne Williams of Cheshire plod as saying "there will be static checks (roadblocks?) all round the division and people will be pulled over and breathalysed" so much for ACPO guidelines it appears we have have random testing in Halton.
This aside I do not and will not condone drunken driving but bear in mind the majority of those killed in RTAs are killed by drivers who would pass a breath test.
Surely the answer lies in tackling this not trying to detect the ever decerasing minority of those who drive whilst incapable.
|
Mark,
It is surely the police emphasis on catching and prosecuting the drunk drivers that acts as a deterrent, and has reduced the number of offences.
I wager if the police laid off this aspect of criminal behaviour more people would take the risk.
Marcus
|
Marcus
I think the point I tried to make was that they are now into a game of diminishing returns for the increased effort expended.
The roadblocks round here tie up at least 6 plods each and catch less and less each year.
Whereas 3 traffic cars would likely catch far more driving dangerously and reduce the chances of being hit by a sober muppet.
as ever
Mark
|
Maybe.
In Cambridge 3 weeks ago, in the local rag it published
(as it does every week)
numbers of convictions at the local Magistrates Court for Motoring offences.
That weeks score was:-
Speeding - 20
No seat belts - 15
DUI - 31 !!!
WHAT!!
2) and 3) are "brain dead".
|
I think most people agree that drink driving is usually committed by a "Hardcore" of drivers who won't learn. Consequently, why the annual charade of the Christmas campaigns by the Police? Surely the Idiots are DUI all year round?
Personally I don't drink and drive and even if I do celebrate with the bottle a bit more because its Christmas the car keys will still be safely left at home.
Anti Drink drive campaigns and Christmas: Two annual traditions where the original well meaning and utility has been lost over the years.
|
Richie
True enough I suspect, there is a little git who has 4/5 pints most nights at my local then motors two miles home, seems like he is only worth £500 at Christmas. Too bad I will be too busy stuck in the queue for a local roadblock to shop him.
as ever
Mark
|
>>Now you haven't said whether you feel offering the £500 encourages people to wait rather than intervene?
If it gets the drunk drivers off the road, then make it 1000 and have everybody at it. With some clear penalties about wasting police time of course.
It doesn't matter how vindictive or mercenary someone is, if you haven't been drinking they can't get you in trouble. If you have been drinking, then more fool you and you deserve everything that happens to you whether it comes from a responsible citizen or from a vindictive, spiteful so & so.
>>Also the person you have seen have a couple of drinks is either a good friend or your relative - does that mobile come out as quickly?
Given that I would be much stronger with a good friend and/or relative and that would include forcibly removing the keys, the situation is significantly less likely to occur. However, given that it did arise, then yes I would.
A DD conviction is bad. Being dead is a whole bunch worse.
|
>>I think most people agree that drink driving is usually committed by a "Hardcore" of drivers who won't learn.
'Usually' being the operative word
A DD conviction is bad. Being dead is a whole bunch worse.
True. Which is why *I* am glad I only have to take a break from driving.
-
Anyway, this scheme is a good plan, a very good plan, apart from the fact, just how much strain will be placed on police resources? They already have such a hard time dealing with so many hardened criminals who speed.
|
Mark (RLBS)
"the situation is significantly less likely to occur. However, given that it did arise, then yes I would."
You're a man of strong constitution. I would also use force to secure the keys - but in the event of failure - I don't think I would.
|
|
|
|
|
If you drink and drive you deserve all you get. And preferably before you do it to someone else.
Quite right - a car in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon. If you want a drink get a bus or a taxi home and if you can't get one of these as there is no taxi or bus service in your area then you should do your drinking at home!
|
|
|
|
|
Steve S:
First of all I think you may have misrepresented what the scheme is all about. (IIRC, the £500 offer is regarding informing Crimestoppers about people that you know are habitual drunk-drivers. For the kind of incident you refer to, Crimestoppers are suggesting that you call the Police direct and inform them that a crime is in progress ).
Secondly, you may like to note the following quote from the Times:
" Police said a pilot scheme was tried last year in the Thames Valley, but most of those who telephoned with tip-offs did not claim the cash reward. ?We?re not sure why. Perhaps they felt they were doing something worthwhile and thought afterwards they didn?t want to accept money for doing so,? a spokesman said.
Ron Jessup, vice-chairman of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, said: ?Last year?s local pilot scheme was quite successful so Crimestoppers have decided to go national. I think lots of people telephoned in information and less than 4 per cent actually claimed the reward, so it was quite effective. "
I trust that settles this argument.
|
You never see drunk drivers these days, it's effectively been stopped.
What you do see is a lot of people with bad eyesight.
Accident statistics clearly show which is the greatest risk.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
MB,
"Last year?s local pilot scheme was quite successful"
Annual variances can be as much as 12% in those who test positive. Have you seen any figures that directly relate to the initiative?
Local plod seemed to think it was not worth it and certainly didn't achieve the results they hoped for.
Kent police are putting their "coppers" excuse the pun, into high visibility policing of all drink related crime including DUI - IMHO I think this is more effective.
The "argument" is more one of would you report a friend or relative that you thought was probably over the limit. I don't think I would.
Mark the Mod seemed to infer that he would have no hesitation.
I wondered what others would do.
|
The "argument" is more one of would you report a friend or relative that you thought was probably over the limit. I don't think I would. Mark the Mod seemed to infer that he would have no hesitation. I wondered what others would do.
Personally I would not let them drive in the first place, so problem wouldn't occur!
HF
|
|
|
|
Never mind drunk driving, which is a BAD thing; what are your chances of getting a police response to ringing up to report a break-in at a neighbour's house? 48 hours to get a scene of crimes officer to call, in one recent case. Counselling from Victim Support the next morning which is thoughtful but not what we want IMHO
|
I agree AS!
On Saturday night in Portsmouth I saw *two* seperate incidents in a taxi queue of lads who, after striking police officers and civilians had to be physically restrained by about 9 officers. [1]
In both cases after 45 seconds in the van to calm down they were released. In one case the rozzers were having a larf with the bloke afterwards.
I was livid. Most people I know have convictions for motoring. If they'd simply gone ballistic in public and lamped a rozzer they'd be free as a bird.
I'm sure 20 years ago assault was more serious than speeding. What's changed?
[1] O not every officers was making physical contact but there was a sea of day glo over each incident.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.S. : There is only one way to deal with your dilemma.
The "argument" is more one of would you report a friend or relative that you thought was probably over the limit. I don't think I would. >>
Your point boils down to one of morality. It depends on hgow you have been brought up as to whether you feel it is your moral duty to help stop criminal behaviour. Whether you engage in criminal activity, or aid and abett it, is all down to your personal sense of right and wrong. For example, what may be considered proper in one culture may be totally unacceptable in another - witness the Muslim abhorrance of drinking alcohol.
Your use of emotive terms such as "snitching" indicates that your moral values are different to Mark's. Remember that the concept of "Crimestoppers" is based entirely on "snitching" as you term it. The inducement of rewards (and their size, whether £5 or £50,000) is sometimes necessary to help those of dooubtful morals to be bribed in to doing the right thing.
The question you need to ask yourself is why you find it so hard to "snitch" on someone known to you who is commiting a criminal offence. Where did your moral upbringing go wrong in this area?
|
Beg to differ.
Inducements are more likely to corrupt. If your morals are as intact as you would have us believe then you need no reward.
In which case should one of your close friends, parents or siblings take four or five drinks and then drive - I would pay money to see you make that call!
I suspect, you are assuming that you will never have to make such a decision. A safe position from which to pontificate.
But unless it happens - I put it to you that you have no idea how you would react.
|
SS:
You can differ all you like. All it shows is your lack of moral fibre. Clearly you like your drink. I suspect you are one of the drunks that HJ identified in his post above. I wonder if you smoke in public places too without regard to non-smokers, as that is no crime - is it?
|
OK, so drink driving is a terrible thing. OK, so this reward scheme might reduce it, and may even save a life. Hard to argue with that logic, but we MUST.
You have to ask yourself what sort of society you want to live in. None of us are blameless, some of us drink-drive, some of us speed, some of us take drugs, spread litter etc etc. Do we really want to live in a country where people are paid a reward for turning each other in? The chap who mentioned the Hitler youth was dead right, he might also have mentioned George Orwell.
|
|
I am only going to allow this conversation to keep running so long as it does not get over emotional or personal. Please bear that in mind.
|
|
|
Is this the first time Godwin's Law (look it up...) has been invoked in the Backroom?
In any case, I've got news for you, Joe. Rewards have been offered for turning people in for decades. Is it just the fact that it's for drink driving that yanks your chain?
|
For those that don't know.........
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving n***s or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the n***s has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
|
|
"don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right".
|
|
|
|
|
MB,
As you seem to be the self appointed judge of moral fibre it may interest you to know that I neither drink and drive, nor smoke.
Nor dor I respond aggressively to you rudeness.
I am just honest about my limitations and grassing people up is not for me. Whether you think that's right or not.
Just as an experiment I've canvassed a dept of 40, not scientific but interesting. Only two said they would.
I'm still trying to see what other back roomers would do.
|
I think it simply shows the way that society is going and frankly I don't find it very pleasant.
I'm siding with Steve S on this one. I think perhaps MB you're overlooking the point he is trying to make.
Witness the following scenario which from memory happened in about 99 - one of the first years this "shop a drink driver" campaign was launched...
Large group of college acquaintances out in the pub for a Christmas meet up to rekindle old times and generally catch up as we'd all headed off to uni. One guy had managed to consume three pints after being bought the third by a thoughtless "mate". This was just about before the last decrease in allowable blood alcohol but he was probably teetering round the limit mark at the least. He recognised where the situation was going, made his excuses and left. One particularly spiteful girl, due to some past aggrievance, let him leave and then had to have the next half an hour spent persuading her that calling this number would be a pretty crappy thing to do. All was resolved in the end however I and several others noted that when we all left the pub, the girl it turned out she was having a lift with had consumed probably several drinks past that. When confronted about this by myself and one of the other of our group, and whether we should call the hotline ourselves in a sarcastic fashion, after several profanities her comment was "well my friend isn't a little ###########" - the hash marks replacing a rude and uncalled for description.
So where do you draw the moral line then? I'd even heard people joking they'd call about people they didn't like regardless of whether they had been drinking or not, simply to cause a nuisance.
Also, chances are if someone did call the hotline on you, you'd probably have a damned good idea who it was.
MB, you say you'd happily report a family member or friend, but would you really? I have to say an uncle of mine who I am otherwise very fond of had a penchant for drink driving. After excessive nagging he now restricts himself to 3 pints which after previous incidents is a good step in the right direction. If I had reported him I think that is the last time our family would ever be the same again. I would probably be ostracized and exactly what would I have acheived by doing what I have?
|
|
|
I wouldn't shop a friend. If I had to go to that much trouble then would confront him personally with a warning first and tell him to walk. I would consider simulating a phone call and hope to appeal to their better judgement. I am fortunate that I have never been put in that position
I think Steve asks a very pertinient question, it's not all in black and white.Hypothetical questions and answers below.
Neighbour has one pint. Do you call the police? No!
Neighbour has two pints. Do you call the police? No, he's probably under the limit if he has taken his time.
Neighbour has three pints. Do you call the police? Well, Erm its not too much.Hes a good driver I sure he'll get home all right?! Its all a storm in a tea cup.
and so on
Its very easy not to want to cause a scene, pass on the other side and hope that everything turns out ok.
I would have to think very, very hard about shopping someone due the bad feeling it would cause. The animosty caused would be guaranteed but you may not prevent any accidents at all.
Of course we should stop people from drink driving I have no argument there. I do feel though that I could get very cowardly with my convictions after a few drinks. Its very easy and wrong to say nothing sometimes.
|
I wouldn't shop.
I've only ever seen two people drink drive. One I knew served in the Navy in WW2 so I figured since he fought for our laws he could choose whether or not to obey them. Plus his journey home was rural and deserted.
THe other was a guy shifting his car around the Rugby club car park. DIC according to the RTA but shopping would be a little harsh.
I oncce saw an old guy driving and clipping kerbs etc and reported it but was just given an incident number. (Of course I'd be claiming on my insurance... NOT!!!)
However the 500 quid reward isn't about encouraging people to snitch. It's a crime that almost never happens so it must be about encouraging spiking.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
I think the whole concept of sneaking on someone else is just abhorrent. Sure, being unfit to drive can be down to drinking too much (there are many other reasons, some can't be measured so easily), but is the sneak able to tell how much is too much?
Why not encourage people to dissuade someone from driving, who appears to have drunk too much? (Maybe, encourage the use of breath testers located in every drinking establishment.) Also, there are many ways of crashing a car, and the majority of "accidents" are not down to being over the (varing depending on country) alcohol limits.
If this sneaking is taken further, we may all be watching each other for any "misdeamenour".. what kind of quality of life would we have then?
Cut out the mealy-mouthed sneakiness!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a slur on the integrity of the general public.
If one sees a situation which is dangerous one will do one's best to remove the danger e.g. by removing a friend's car keys or trying to persuade a stranger.
If the above fails then one would summon official help.
To infer that a financial incentive is required is an insult.
I think that I would be less willing to seek help if a financial incentive were on offer as I would feel that it would be assumed that I was doing it for the money.
|
|
|
I imagine if you do shop someone. To collect a reward you have to give your details out. I expect it is then only a matter of time before someone who is incompetant (most people I deal with) or corrupt( hopefully I don,t deal with) gives out these details.
You can then sit back and relax. Safe in the knowledge that the Police will be able to protect you especially as you have helped them. Don,t think so somehow do you?
|
That'd be the police who arrested our neighbour 5yrs ago for trying to glass me when I asked him to turn his music down at 2am, would it? The police who let him go after 4 hours? The police we called when he put my front door through to go after my 6mths pregnant g/f when he got back? The police who couldn't find him, because he'd gone out in his car before they arrived?
We stayed round the mother-in-law's for a week after that episode, then moved our stuff out at 4am one night. Then he trashed our flat. Then the housing assoc billed US for the damage. Which we've only got £900 left to pay now. Don't talk to me about the ******* police.
|
|
|
|
Went to visit a mate in hospital tonight - on the way home stopped to watch the cricket in a local pub. (SA beat pakistan, BTW - and I had one pint, then drank lime and s**a)
There was a bloke in there so pi%%ed he could barely stand - I spoke to the landlord, and asked if the drunken sot had come by car.
Yes, he does this often, apparently.
Our D&D laws are not as well-enforced as Britain... but for the landlord to admit that he serves the guy enough to make him as drunk as he was... knowing he had a car outside ...makes me shudder.
In those circumstances, I felt compelled to make a call to the local traffic guys.
Hopefully nothing untoward happened to the errant drunk! (like an accident!)
|
Well how did this report a drink/driver go?
1,700 (Seventeen hundred)people apparently went after the 500 notes. It even included immediate members of the family and in one case a wife reported her husband.
So far 51 have been dealt with and banned.
Scheme apparently considered to be such a success that moves a foot to make it permanent.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ... it just isn't worth it.
(Source of information: The Times 150103)
DVD
|
Reminds me of a case back in the 80s. Arrested person's SWMBO had
bubbled her husband and he was caught (well over). I attended as duty brief and as we were leaving the nick the Plod on the counter (this is a description not a term of abuse) told him, in front of me of what his wife had done........STUPID FOOL.
|
|
Did you get the divorce/assault work!!!!!!?????????
|
|
|
|
|
Rather like my previous post concerning random breath testing in Oz (home country): whether you approve or disapprove of it, if people know it exists, it will serve to focus the mind and maybe change some habits that need changing.
|
|
|
|
|
