Traffic fine dodgers could lose licence

[Akzle]

Im old enough to have seen itt all fella. Wont be falling anywhere anytime soon. Imagined, I doubt it ! Me think you are somewhat delusional if you think I have missed something along the way.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

well, you couldnt tell a man in your own home that had smoked dope, so....

[Grubber]

well, you couldnt tell a man in your own home that had smoked dope, so....

Just goes to show you trust no one that dabbles with dope, as it seems they aren't very honest or respectful. Guessin you fall into this category too aye!
The fact that we found him to be rather fuckin odd would seem to me to be an indicator! Once again , your category i believe.

[Grubber]

[QUOTE=Tazz;1130672397][CENTER]

Red rep all ya like ya donkey.
What an imagination you have little fella. like because i got stuff, that means it's ok to steal It???? Are you for fuckin real. The opposite end of the spectrum, but i guess if it suits your argument aye.

[Akzle]

Just goes to show you trust no one that dabbles with dope, as it seems they aren't very honest or respectful. Guessin you fall into this category too aye!
The fact that we found him to be rather fuckin odd would seem to me to be an indicator! Once again , your category i believe.

ha bloody ha, you found him polite and all.
honest? he honestly told you!
respect? what, there's a sign on your door says "no one who uses cannabis allowed"?

you don't have a damned clue, about this or much else by the sounds.

[Grubber]

ha bloody ha, you found him polite and all.
honest? he honestly told you!
respect? what, there's a sign on your door says "no one who uses cannabis allowed"?

you don't have a damned clue, about this or much else by the sounds.

Yea I do actually ya retard. I know you don't trust dope smokers. Why the fuck should anyone put a sign on the door when its already illegal, wow that made fuckin sense on your part dude. You live in your little mental world if ya like. I believe there is a very small percentage of the human race that will reside with you.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Akzle]

Yea I do actually ya retard. I know you don't trust dope smokers. Why the fuck should anyone put a sign on the door when its already illegal, wow that made fuckin sense on your part dude. You live in your little mental world if ya like. I believe there is a very small percentage of the human race that will reside with you.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

i trust dope smokers. i'd trust any given one more than i'd trust someone with your attitude.

you've never ever driven at 101km/h? you've never been drunk? those things are illegal, and i'll betcha have...

but hey. don't question what's illegal or why, just comply.

[Grubber]

i trust dope smokers. i'd trust any given one more than i'd trust someone with your attitude.

you've never ever driven at 101km/h? you've never been drunk? those things are illegal, and i'll betcha have...

but hey. don't question what's illegal or why, just comply.

Jeez is being drunk illegal now. Well ill be buggered, ya learn something new everyday. I must have been drunk when it was still legal then. 101km yea I have. But if I get caught I pay the fuckin bill and dont winge about it. I just smart enough not to do it in areas with safety issues for fellow roadusers or the plod. Of coarse YOU would trust a dope smoker. All part of the package really init!

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[HenryDorsetCase]

Jeez is being drunk illegal now.

In certain circumstances absolutely. Whilst driving for example. Or in public. Whilst travelling on a plane.

All sorts of different times really.

You guys should get a room. After this wee fight your makeup sex will be unbelievable.

____________________-
getting back on topic:

is this "proposal" not just confirmation that the po po are revenue collectors first and foremost? One submits that it is. and that their focus (particularly in road pleecing) should be on road safety. But what do I know?

[Akzle]

101km yea I have

Why the fuck should anyone put a sign on the door when its already illegal

your logic is astounding.

so, you're the only individual "smart enough" and capable of deciding when it is "safe" to infringe legislation, that would cause no harm to anyone else?

[SMOKEU]

Just goes to show you trust no one that dabbles with dope, as it seems they aren't very honest or respectful. Guessin you fall into this category too aye!
The fact that we found him to be rather fuckin odd would seem to me to be an indicator! Once again , your category i believe.

I'd trust a stoner over a drunk (all other things remaining equal) any day of the week.

you don't have a damned clue, about this or much else by the sounds.

+1 to this.

i trust dope smokers. i'd trust any given one more than i'd trust someone with your attitude.

you've never ever driven at 101km/h? you've never been drunk? those things are illegal, and i'll betcha have...

but hey. don't question what's illegal or why, just comply.

Yup!

Or in public.

It's not illegal to be intoxicated in public under current NZ legislation. What the drunk person does while intoxicated is an entirely different matter.

[Grubber]

your logic is astounding.

so, you're the only individual "smart enough" and capable of deciding when it is "safe" to infringe legislation, that would cause no harm to anyone else?

There is a massive difference between someone stealing and doing 101kph.
Most peple would be able to figure this one out without an explanation.
Thus is why i won't waste me time telling you as you are not MOST people by a long shot.
No traffic at all makes it pretty damn safe to do the 101kph and i doubt i am on my own figuring that one out.

[Grubber]

In certain circumstances absolutely. Whilst driving for example. Or in public. Whilst travelling on a plane.

All sorts of different times really.

You guys should get a room. After this wee fight your makeup sex will be unbelievable.

____________________-
getting back on topic:

is this "proposal" not just confirmation that the po po are revenue collectors first and foremost? One submits that it is. and that their focus (particularly in road pleecing) should be on road safety. But what do I know?

If you read the post you would have seen that none of the above was mentioned, just "getting drunk" and there is no legal bounds involving that.

AS for the "proposal". There surely is a segment of revenue collecting for sure, someone has to get paid for the hours spent etc so money needs to come from somewhere. But i reckon taking the car is removing the offenders from the road which would in turn make the road safer would it not. Just like removing a murderer from our society makes it safer for the rest of us. 2 elements to your statement i reckon.

[Grubber]

I'd trust a stoner over a drunk (all other things remaining equal) any day of the week.



+1 to this.



Yup!



It's not illegal to be intoxicated in public under current NZ legislation. What the drunk person does while intoxicated is an entirely different matter.

Then along came the other Tossa.
Typical, was wondering how long it would be before you reared your ugly head.

[HenryDorsetCase]

It's not illegal to be intoxicated in public under current NZ legislation. What the drunk person does while intoxicated is an entirely different matter.

You may be partially correct: the offence is the drinking, not the being drunk.

Summary Offences Act 1981 s38

38 Drinking in public place

(1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $300 who, in or on any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle that is carrying passengers for reward,—

(a) drinks any intoxicating liquor; or

(b) supplies or offers any intoxicating liquor to any other person for consumption there; or

(c) has in his possession or under his control any intoxicating liquor for consumption there.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), if any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle carries any passengers while under charter it shall be deemed to be carrying those passengers for reward.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), every person under the age of 18 years commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $300 who, in any public place (or in a vehicle in any public place) and while not accompanied by his or her parent or legal guardian,—

(a) drinks any intoxicating liquor; or

(b) has in his possession or under his control any intoxicating liquor for consumption there.

(4) This section does not apply in respect of any licensed premises under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

[SMOKEU]

You may be partially correct: the offence is the drinking, not the being drunk.

Summary Offences Act 1981 s38

(1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $300 who, in or on any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle that is carrying passengers for reward,—

(a) drinks any intoxicating liquor; or

(b) supplies or offers any intoxicating liquor to any other person for consumption there; or

(c) has in his possession or under his control any intoxicating liquor for consumption there.

There must be something I'm missing here. How do airlines get away with serving alcohol aboard the aircraft?