|
This is how a state morphs into something George Orwell warned us about.
I can tell you now that large numbers of the holier than thou are on the side of the state over these things, what these perfect people don't realise is that sooner or later something they do, or will have historically done but be sure it's recorded somewhere, will be in the state's sights.
Even if it's just getting old and after a lifetime of hard work and personal responsibility and sacrifice are then deemed responsible somehow for anything from the NHS farce to the housing shortage...and other holier than thou's will be looking down their noses at them when it's their turn, maybe by agreeing with the state as it changes hymnsheet weekly they hope they will be last to be singled out, wrong.
Divide and rule.
The state is not your friend.
|
|
|
To me you should be innocent until proven guilty and this has helped no one.
Like so many things, that is easy to say, and most of us would agree in principle. But in this particular context, how is anyone 'proven guilty' before they have an alcohol-related accident and damage someone severely, or maybe worse.
It's a no-win question. Too much prevention and we complain of nanny-atate; too little and we moan about irresponsible drivers. Many GP's might not wish to shop any of their patients, just hoping that nothing awful happens - and usually it doesn't. When it does, though ?
|
“Like so many things, that is easy to say, and most of us would agree in principle. But in this particular context, how is anyone 'proven guilty' before they have an alcohol-related accident and damage someone severely, or maybe worse.”
Because someone is capable of committing a crime doesn’t mean they will do so. Again innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone in which our legal system is built. In this case he has never and I highly doubt ever would drive under the influence but today he’s now another burden on the state with his job gone without his licence and prospects of getting another that’ll allow him to stand on his own two feet are slim without it. I’m not making excuses for his flaw, I personally don’t understand people who cannot control their urges but again he’s committed no crime nor harmed anyone other than himself.
Edited by SLO76 on 10/05/2018 at 11:24
|
|
SLO, your friend is in a difficult position, and I agree that his GP may have gone too far. I am talking not about on-and-off alcoholics, but about those whose driving abilities have deteriorated and have no prospect of improving. Some GP's hesitate to take action when I reckon they should. But maybe your friend's GP thought a relapse was quite probable ?
|
|
All on here should know that if you have an alcohol problem it should be declared to the DVLA.
If asked by the DVLA for a report, the GP is duty bound to provide one.
For those interested in exploring a doctor's responsibility when patient confidentiality and public safety conflict, the advice in this oldish article is still current......
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/dilemma-drunk-driving-patient...e
|
You must tell DVLA if you have an alcohol problem.
You can be fined up to £1,000 if you don’t tell DVLA about a medical condition that affects your driving. You may be prosecuted if you’re involved in an accident as a result.
www.gov.uk/alcohol-problems-and-driving
So quit your whining about "police states" and do your duty and what's required of you as a driver.
Edited by Gibbo_Wirral on 10/05/2018 at 13:34
|
“You can be fined up to £1,000 if you don’t tell DVLA about a medical condition that affects your driving. You may be prosecuted if you’re involved in an accident as a result.”
It wasn’t a medical condition which affected his driving at all, he never drove under the influence, the car was parked for several days after he stopped drinking. I do accept that he has higher moral values than most with this affliction however and there is a need to remove dangerous people from our roads but surely you must only punish people who’ve committed a crime. We see constantly on these police stop programmes people being caught drunk driving only to later hear it was their tenth conviction etc yet still they walk (or drive) our streets. These are the people who need to be removed from circulation not those who’ve a drink habit but don’t mix it with driving.
|
|
<< ...surely you must only punish people who’ve committed a crime .. >>
He wasn't being punished, SLO, he was being prevented from committing a crime. I am sure his GP is well aware of the typical behaviour of an alcoholic, which I am also sure is much the same whether he/she is an intermittent one. After all, the 'punishment' is much the same as it would be if he were breathalysed over the limit - a very possible scenario.
|
“He wasn't being punished, SLO, he was being prevented from committing a crime.”
So you should be banned from driving because you’re theoretically capable of committing a dangerous driving or speeding offence then? Do you drink? You’re also capable of drink driving, should you have your licence revoked just in case? It’s a poor argument and goes against the principles of British law. Again you should only be punished if you commit a crime not if you might do so.
“After all, the 'punishment' is much the same as it would be if he were breathalysed over the limit - a very possible scenario.”
Actually a very unlikely scenario. He’s been an alcoholic since his early twenties and driving since he was seventeen (he’s now 51) yet he’s never had a single criminal offence against his name not even a parking ticket. A good boy indeed aside from driving the family nuts.
Edited by SLO76 on 10/05/2018 at 16:49
|
|
|
|
|
Shocking this is happening under a conservtive government.
It will be10x worse if the red marxist ever gains power.
|
|
How can this be. Everyone I know lies like a doormat to their doctor when it comes to alcohol consumption! I suppose in cold reality that if the doctor thinks anyone is a danger to others through alcohol then he is duty bound to report it. Each case must be taken on merit and it is impossible to generalise in this matter.
Anyway, if Karl Corbyn gets in, it will free beer for all the workers. Roll on the revolution comrades!!! Cheers Concrete
PS to focussed. Thank you for the warning about this situation and I hope you are able to rectify matter to your satisfaction. C
|
|
|
|
In Germany, if the authorities catch you coming back from the Netherlands on the train with narcotics, you will lose your driving licence because of the risk that you may drive "under the influence". Quite why the same does not apply if you have a crate of beer in the back of the car, I do not know.
|
|
A loose comparison might be "going to the DIY shop and buying a crowbar, and the man in the shop being duty bound to tell the police about your purchase because you might decide to use the bar to burgle someone's house". Similarly, there are many ways to choose to use alcohol, not all of them bad.
Yes, if you're a diagnosed alcoholic then it makes sense to inform the authorities because there must be a strong likelihood that you will drive whilst under the influence. However, if you just happen to be someone who likes a drink then withdrawing your licence without your ever committing an offence is a stretch is too far for my liking.
Mind you, on the plus side it gives the police less work to do, so they can cut the service even further.
|
|
"PS to focussed. Thank you for the warning about this situation and I hope you are able to rectify matter to your satisfaction. C"
I think you've got the saddle on the wrong horse there Concrete, it was the bloke who wrote the letter who had his licence lifted by the DVLA, not me.
I'm out from under the DVLA - I've got a French licence this year - valid until 2033 with no renewals or medicals!
Edited by focussed on 10/05/2018 at 19:45
|
"PS to focussed. Thank you for the warning about this situation and I hope you are able to rectify matter to your satisfaction. C"
I think you've got the saddle on the wrong horse there Concrete, it was the bloke who wrote the letter who had his licence lifted by the DVLA, not me.
I'm out from under the DVLA - I've got a French licence this year - valid until 2033 with no renewals or medicals!
Oops! Sorry focused. Is the French licence the same as the UK one? It runs until you are 70? Cheers Concrete
|
"PS to focussed. Thank you for the warning about this situation and I hope you are able to rectify matter to your satisfaction. C"
I think you've got the saddle on the wrong horse there Concrete, it was the bloke who wrote the letter who had his licence lifted by the DVLA, not me.
I'm out from under the DVLA - I've got a French licence this year - valid until 2033 with no renewals or medicals!
Oops! Sorry focused. Is the French licence the same as the UK one? It runs until you are 70? Cheers Concrete
I turned 70 this year, so although I managed to blag a UK 3 year licence with a relative's UK address, as we have been awarded permanent French residency and with the Brexit nonsense going on, we thought it best to exchange for French licences. I tried to work a flanker and have both, but they twigged it! It is, as I said, valid until 2033, cars + bikes + towing.
|
|
Shocking this is happening under a conservtive government.
It will be10x worse if the red marxist ever gains power.
Who is this Red Marxist who might gain power and, objectively, what would be 10x worse and how?
|
|
|
|
It wasn’t a medical condition which affected his driving at all
But you said:
My brother recently lost his licence after asking his doctor for help with his alcoholism
Alcoholism is a diagnosable medical condition
Whether it affects your driving or not, its a medical condition that must be declared.
|
|
|
|
|
My brother recently lost his licence after asking his doctor for help with his alcoholism. He was going through a very bad patch even landing in hospital with a suspected seizure (he hadn’t) but not once has he attempted to drive or been charged with a single driving offence not even a parking ticket or speeding fine.
He would stay dry for months then fall off the wagon and drop off the radar for a few weeks. His car was parked up and never moved while he was drinking. Yet his doctor informed the relevant authority who decided he was unfit to drive and thus made him redundant and giving him more reason (and time) to drink. To me you should be innocent until proven guilty and this has helped no one.
You say he did not drive for weeks when drinking, but later on you say he lost his job when he lost his driving licence. So how come he was able to get to work without driving when he was drinking? Incidentally, my half brother had his Finnish licence withdrawn due to being drunk in public. It indicated unsuitablility for driving ie irresponsible.
|
“You say he did not drive for weeks when drinking, but later on you say he lost his job when he lost his driving licence. So how come he was able to get to work without driving when he was drinking?”
He never drank while he was working. He’d take a few weeks off and go on a binge which almost kills him. But inbetween he didn’t touch it. When he started one the car and job (self employed) were both parked. I accept his case is unusual but each one should be tested on its own merit instead of being judged as being just the same as the rest.
|
|
I think the test is the existence of markers (liver enzymes?) in a blood sample that show you are regularly and probably habitually under influence and not just an occasional heavy drinker.
Similar scenario to someone prone to epileptic fits.
Some people prone to fits might recognise a precuror and avoid driving. Others may not.
How do you reliably identifty those who recognise the precursor and stop driving and those who dont?
Precautionary principle says no licence until you can prove you're safe?
|
|
|
“You say he did not drive for weeks when drinking, but later on you say he lost his job when he lost his driving licence. So how come he was able to get to work without driving when he was drinking?”
He never drank while he was working. He’d take a few weeks off and go on a binge which almost kills him. But inbetween he didn’t touch it. When he started one the car and job (self employed) were both parked. I accept his case is unusual but each one should be tested on its own merit instead of being judged as being just the same as the rest.
Okay, that makes sense, though it is as you say unusual.
|
|
As the Pulse article linked by John F explains the GP has guidelines issued by the General Medical Council covering the scenario of a habitual heavy drinker. The GP has a professional to professional chat with the DVLA medical team.
In practical terms it's little different to somebody with a history of epilepsy or mini strokes. There is a condition that MAY affect their ability to drive. The precautionary principle requires licence to be suspended. Once it's clear that treatment is effective or that condition has improved consideration can be given to licence being reinstated.
Driving is not a right and process above seems to me a proportional response to the issues at stake.
|
|
Looking at the situation in France, it's totally different, France as we all know has a culture of heavy drinking.
If you go to see your GP that you are registered with, you pay €25 for a consultation.
If you are a bona fide member of the Fench health service you get some of that back, and the rest from your health insurance if you have it or in the case of the locals, if you can afford it.
If a French GP got a reputation for reporting patients for being likely to have an alcohol problem, they wouldn't have any patients left as they would all re-register with another doctor in the next village or town. No patients = no income = no doctor.
Plus, the only official body that can confiscate your licence permanently is a court of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
