https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion- drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
On 2 Nov 2023 at 18:04:38 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
Is this a national initiative, or are they local cliques led by people in positions of power belonging to fundamentalists sects, such as Catholics?
These are the quesions that spring to mind.
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are taking a
sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have to be told
if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that, have then to
agree to it being taken.
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:41:52 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that
it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are
taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they
have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing
that, have then to agree to it being taken.
The problem with that is that even without such consent, it's
evidence and can be used in court.
Remember: illegally or unlawfully evidence is perfectly acceptable in
an English court. So there is little incentive to ensure otherwise.
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:41:52 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it is
requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are taking a
sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have to be told
if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that, have then to
agree to it being taken.
The problem with that is that even without such consent, it's evidence
and can be used in court.
Remember: illegally or unlawfully evidence is perfectly acceptable in an English court. So there is little incentive to ensure otherwise.
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 08:53:43 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:41:52 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:Which leads one to ask why is there such legislation if it is of no use?
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it
is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are
taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have
to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that,
have then to agree to it being taken.
The problem with that is that even without such consent, it's evidence
and can be used in court.
Remember: illegally or unlawfully evidence is perfectly acceptable in
an English court. So there is little incentive to ensure otherwise.
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such samples.
Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are taking a
sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have to be told
if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that, have then to
agree to it being taken.
Is this a national initiative, or are they local cliques led by people in
positions of power belonging to fundamentalists sects, such as Catholics?
These are the quesions that spring to mind.
On 03/11/2023 08:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:41:52 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it is >>> requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are taking a
sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have to be told
if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that, have then to
agree to it being taken.
The problem with that is that even without such consent, it's evidence
and can be used in court.
Which brings us back to the question of who is going to take such a
sample from a patient in the care of the NHS, if it is against NHS
policy to take one without the patients' informed consent? The other
option is to get a Court Order to take a sample, but I think there would
need to be compelling evidence of a crime to get one of those.
Remember: illegally or unlawfully evidence is perfectly acceptable in an
English court. So there is little incentive to ensure otherwise.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion- drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such samples.
Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it
is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are taking
a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have to be
told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that, have
then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with
excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse onto
the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed into
something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the better.
Is this a national initiative, or are they local cliques led by
people in
positions of power belonging to fundamentalists sects, such as
Catholics?
These are the quesions that spring to mind.
Not to those minds belonging to people who actually know what a sect is.
On 03/11/2023 09:09, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:41:52 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that
it is
requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are taking a
sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have to be told >>>> if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that, have then to
agree to it being taken.
The problem with that is that even without such consent, it's evidence
and can be used in court.
Which brings us back to the question of who is going to take such a
sample from a patient in the care of the NHS, if it is against NHS
policy to take one without the patients' informed consent? The other
option is to get a Court Order to take a sample, but I think there
would need to be compelling evidence of a crime to get one of those.
What's wrong with a refusal being sufficient evidence?
Should we go down
the line associated with alcohol and a refusal to be breathalysed be sufficient for a conviction?
Remember: illegally or unlawfully evidence is perfectly acceptable in an >>> English court. So there is little incentive to ensure otherwise.
But it's veracity can still be questioned.
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>>>
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such
samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that it
is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are
taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they have
to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing that,
have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with
excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse
onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed into
something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an
offence in itself.
Is this a national initiative, or are they local cliques led by
people in
positions of power belonging to fundamentalists sects, such as
Catholics?
These are the quesions that spring to mind.
Not to those minds belonging to people who actually know what a sect is.
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>>>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such
samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that
it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are
taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they
have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing
that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with
excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if preferable]. >>>
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse
onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed
into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the
better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an
offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding to a request.>
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>>>>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such
samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that
it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are
taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they
have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing
that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with
excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if preferable]. >>>>
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse
onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed
into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the
better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an
offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding to a
request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:abortion-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.htmlWhy is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be suspended?
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
Why is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be suspended?
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such
samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that >>>>>> it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are >>>>>> taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they
have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing >>>>>> that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with
excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if preferable]. >>>>>
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse
onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed
into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the
better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an
offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding to a
request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what we are talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally disabling, and very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether someone in that situation has capacity to give consent, for the same reasons as an injured driver may not have such capacity,
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>>>>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such
samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that
it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are
taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they
have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing
that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with
excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if
preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse
onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed
into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the
better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an
offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding to
a request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such
samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that >>>>>>> it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are >>>>>>> taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they >>>>>>> have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing >>>>>>> that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with >>>>>> excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if
preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse >>>>>> onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed
into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the
better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an >>>>> offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding to a >>>> request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what we are
talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally
disabling, and
very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether someone in that
situation
has capacity to give consent, for the same reasons as an injured
driver may
not have such capacity,
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small wound
on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a request.
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing- abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said
that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person >>>>>>>> they are taking a sample from has given their informed consent. >>>>>>>> I.e. they have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation >>>>>>>> and, knowing that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with >>>>>>> excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if
preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse >>>>>>> onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed >>>>>>> into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the >>>>>>> better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is >>>>>> an offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding
to a request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what we
are talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally
disabling, and very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether
someone in that situation has capacity to give consent, for the same
reasons as an injured driver may not have such capacity,
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that >>>>>>>> it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are >>>>>>>> taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they >>>>>>>> have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing >>>>>>>> that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with >>>>>>> excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if
preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse >>>>>>> onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed >>>>>>> into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the >>>>>>> better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is an >>>>>> offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding
to a
request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what we
are
talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally
disabling, and
very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether someone in that
situation
has capacity to give consent, for the same reasons as an injured
driver may
not have such capacity,
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 01:33:27 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:abortion-
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said >>>>>>>>> that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person >>>>>>>>> they are taking a sample from has given their informed consent. >>>>>>>>> I.e. they have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation >>>>>>>>> and, knowing that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with >>>>>>>> excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if
preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse >>>>>>>> onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed >>>>>>>> into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the >>>>>>>> better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample is >>>>>>> an offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding >>>>>> to a request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what we
are talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally
disabling, and very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether
someone in that situation has capacity to give consent, for the same
reasons as an injured driver may not have such capacity,
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
But as noted elsewhere, English courts aren't fussy about the niceties of
how evidence was obtained. So plod get an unlawful sample. You is done
for drink driving, and your remedy is to sue in civil court.
On 04/11/2023 01:33, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-testing-abortion-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said that >>>>>>>>> it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person they are >>>>>>>>> taking a sample from has given their informed consent. I.e. they >>>>>>>>> have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation and, knowing >>>>>>>>> that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive with >>>>>>>> excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if
preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to collapse >>>>>>>> onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he has crashed >>>>>>>> into something and got a small wound on the forehead, so much the >>>>>>>> better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample
is an
offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding >>>>>> to a
request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what
we are
talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally
disabling, and
very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether someone in that
situation
has capacity to give consent, for the same reasons as an injured
driver may
not have such capacity,
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
The medical practitioner in charge of a hospital patient may give
permission instead, provided that there are no medical reasons not to.
On 04/11/2023 09:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:testing-
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 01:33:27 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-
abortion-
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said >>>>>>>>>> that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person >>>>>>>>>> they are taking a sample from has given their informed consent. >>>>>>>>>> I.e. they have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation >>>>>>>>>> and, knowing that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive >>>>>>>>> with excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if >>>>>>>>> preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to
collapse onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he >>>>>>>>> has crashed into something and got a small wound on the
forehead, so much the better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample >>>>>>>> is an offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding >>>>>>> to a request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what
we are talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally >>>>> disabling, and very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether
someone in that situation has capacity to give consent, for the same >>>>> reasons as an injured driver may not have such capacity,
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
But as noted elsewhere, English courts aren't fussy about the niceties
of how evidence was obtained. So plod get an unlawful sample. You is
done for drink driving, and your remedy is to sue in civil court.
Interesting.
How would they do that in a hospital, with the suspected person in a
hospital bed?
Do they all carry blood sample syringes?
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 14:09:16 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 04/11/2023 09:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:testing-
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 01:33:27 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-
abortion-
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said >>>>>>>>>>> that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person >>>>>>>>>>> they are taking a sample from has given their informed consent. >>>>>>>>>>> I.e. they have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation >>>>>>>>>>> and, knowing that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive >>>>>>>>>> with excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if >>>>>>>>>> preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to
collapse onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he >>>>>>>>>> has crashed into something and got a small wound on the
forehead, so much the better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample >>>>>>>>> is an offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding >>>>>>>> to a request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what >>>>>> we are talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally >>>>>> disabling, and very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether
someone in that situation has capacity to give consent, for the same >>>>>> reasons as an injured driver may not have such capacity,
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
But as noted elsewhere, English courts aren't fussy about the niceties
of how evidence was obtained. So plod get an unlawful sample. You is
done for drink driving, and your remedy is to sue in civil court.
Interesting.
How would they do that in a hospital, with the suspected person in a
hospital bed?
Do they all carry blood sample syringes?
Just ask a doctor. Or nurse.
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 14:09:16 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 04/11/2023 09:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:testing-
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 01:33:27 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:33 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 19:40:57 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 06:57 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 03/11/2023 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:41 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 02/11/2023 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukhome-news/police-
abortion-
I was referring to the change from a driver who might have a small
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
I find it surprising that NHS staff are willing to take such >>>>>>>>>>>> samples. Or do the police bring their own staff.
In one of the articles about this, somebody from the NHS said >>>>>>>>>>> that it is requirement for NHS staff to ensure that the person >>>>>>>>>>> they are taking a sample from has given their informed consent. >>>>>>>>>>> I.e. they have to be told if it is for a criminal investigation >>>>>>>>>>> and, knowing that, have then to agree to it being taken.
That would be very welcome news to those who habitually drive >>>>>>>>>> with excess alcohol in their blood [substitute drug of choice if >>>>>>>>>> preferable].
All he has to do if ever stopped by the gendarmerie is to
collapse onto the ground and moan "I need an ambulance". If he >>>>>>>>>> has crashed into something and got a small wound on the
forehead, so much the better.
However, in the case of drink driving, refusal to give a sample >>>>>>>>> is an offence in itself.
Not when injured, in need of treatment and incapable of responding >>>>>>>> to a request.>
I spot a moving goalpost.
Not for one moment is that true. A late miscarriage (which is what >>>>>> we are talking about) is dangerous, painful, physically and mentally >>>>>> disabling, and very distressing. It is at least doubtful whether
someone in that situation has capacity to give consent, for the same >>>>>> reasons as an injured driver may not have such capacity,
wound on the forehead to one who was incapable of responding to a
request.
The point being made was that such a driver may be able to escape
"justice" by pretending to be unable to assent to a breath test.
But as noted elsewhere, English courts aren't fussy about the niceties
of how evidence was obtained. So plod get an unlawful sample. You is
done for drink driving, and your remedy is to sue in civil court.
Interesting.
How would they do that in a hospital, with the suspected person in a
hospital bed?
Do they all carry blood sample syringes?
Just ask a doctor. Or nurse.
On 3 Nov 2023 at 13:03:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion- >>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
Why is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be
suspended?
Yes, except for the special situation where someone is carrying out a regulated activity (like driving a car or flying an aeroplane) which is proven
to be dangerous to others when affected by drugs.
But in this case there is the further problem that the suspect is unlikely to be fit to give consent at the time the test is done.
On 03/11/2023 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 13:03:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
Why is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be
suspended?
Yes, except for the special situation where someone is carrying out a
regulated activity (like driving a car or flying an aeroplane) which is proven
to be dangerous to others when affected by drugs.
But in this case there is the further problem that the suspect is unlikely to
be fit to give consent at the time the test is done.
So how long would it be until the woman is fit? How many days? Given the
half life of Levonorgestrel is 24-32 hours it's trivial to check back to
the time of interest.
Or just place her in a cell and wait for her to urinate. No different to
the treatment of drug pushers who are incarcerated until they pass
whatever stash they've swallowed?
On 4 Nov 2023 at 22:24:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 13:03:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-abortion- >>>>> drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
Why is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be
suspended?
Yes, except for the special situation where someone is carrying out a
regulated activity (like driving a car or flying an aeroplane) which is proven
to be dangerous to others when affected by drugs.
But in this case there is the further problem that the suspect is unlikely to
be fit to give consent at the time the test is done.
So how long would it be until the woman is fit? How many days? Given the
half life of Levonorgestrel is 24-32 hours it's trivial to check back to
the time of interest.
Or just place her in a cell and wait for her to urinate. No different to
the treatment of drug pushers who are incarcerated until they pass
whatever stash they've swallowed?
Compulsory testing of body fluids has never been lawful in England, except in the sense various offences of failing to provide a specimen have been created for specific situations like driving. It would be unlikely that you could send
every woman who had a miscarriage to prison for ten years for failing to provide a blood sample. Swallowed drug containers are a bit different as no testing is needed to detect them, just a bit of looking at faeces.
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 13:03:49 +0000, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:abortion-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.htmlWhy is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be
suspended?
The drugs themselves are not "illegal" in the same way (for example)
ecstasy is.
As to the subject line, it is a quote from the newspaper article. I would hope that - especially in a moderated space - there was a general understanding that a poster may not always agree with the angle of
reporting in interesting legal cases. If we are to abandon that
understanding then even uk.l.m will have grown it's woke chops.
On 4 Nov 2023 at 23:50:43 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Nov 2023 at 22:24:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 13:03:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing- abortion-Why is this sinister?
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.html
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be
suspended?
Yes, except for the special situation where someone is carrying out a
regulated activity (like driving a car or flying an aeroplane) which
is proven to be dangerous to others when affected by drugs.
But in this case there is the further problem that the suspect is
unlikely to be fit to give consent at the time the test is done.
So how long would it be until the woman is fit? How many days? Given
the half life of Levonorgestrel is 24-32 hours it's trivial to check
back to the time of interest.
Or just place her in a cell and wait for her to urinate. No different
to the treatment of drug pushers who are incarcerated until they pass
whatever stash they've swallowed?
Compulsory testing of body fluids has never been lawful in England,
except in the sense various offences of failing to provide a specimen
have been created for specific situations like driving. It would be
unlikely that you could send every woman who had a miscarriage to
prison for ten years for failing to provide a blood sample. Swallowed
drug containers are a bit different as no testing is needed to detect
them, just a bit of looking at faeces.
I'm being sloppy in my exposition here; wwhat I mean is there is no law allowing testing by force or by subterfuge without consent. Although
there may be specific penalties for not giving consent in particular situations.
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 23:57:14 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Nov 2023 at 23:50:43 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:abortion-
On 4 Nov 2023 at 22:24:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 13:03:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.htmlWhy is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should be >>>>>> suspended?
Yes, except for the special situation where someone is carrying out a >>>>> regulated activity (like driving a car or flying an aeroplane) which >>>>> is proven to be dangerous to others when affected by drugs.
But in this case there is the further problem that the suspect is
unlikely to be fit to give consent at the time the test is done.
So how long would it be until the woman is fit? How many days? Given
the half life of Levonorgestrel is 24-32 hours it's trivial to check
back to the time of interest.
Or just place her in a cell and wait for her to urinate. No different
to the treatment of drug pushers who are incarcerated until they pass
whatever stash they've swallowed?
Compulsory testing of body fluids has never been lawful in England,
except in the sense various offences of failing to provide a specimen
have been created for specific situations like driving. It would be
unlikely that you could send every woman who had a miscarriage to
prison for ten years for failing to provide a blood sample. Swallowed
drug containers are a bit different as no testing is needed to detect
them, just a bit of looking at faeces.
I'm being sloppy in my exposition here; wwhat I mean is there is no law
allowing testing by force or by subterfuge without consent. Although
there may be specific penalties for not giving consent in particular
situations.
If you go to the other end of the process - where evidence is used - do courts have a problem with unlawful/illegal evidence ? And the answer to
that is "none whatsover".
On 5 Nov 2023 at 10:45:25 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 23:57:14 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Nov 2023 at 23:50:43 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org>abortion-
wrote:
On 4 Nov 2023 at 22:24:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 13:03:49 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:
On 02/11/2023 18:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-testing-
drugs-miscarriage-b2439733.htmlWhy is this sinister?
Do you think testing for all illegal forms of drug taking should >>>>>>> be suspended?
Yes, except for the special situation where someone is carrying out >>>>>> a regulated activity (like driving a car or flying an aeroplane)
which is proven to be dangerous to others when affected by drugs.
But in this case there is the further problem that the suspect is
unlikely to be fit to give consent at the time the test is done.
So how long would it be until the woman is fit? How many days? Given >>>>> the half life of Levonorgestrel is 24-32 hours it's trivial to check >>>>> back to the time of interest.
Or just place her in a cell and wait for her to urinate. No
different to the treatment of drug pushers who are incarcerated
until they pass whatever stash they've swallowed?
Compulsory testing of body fluids has never been lawful in England,
except in the sense various offences of failing to provide a specimen
have been created for specific situations like driving. It would be
unlikely that you could send every woman who had a miscarriage to
prison for ten years for failing to provide a blood sample. Swallowed
drug containers are a bit different as no testing is needed to detect
them, just a bit of looking at faeces.
I'm being sloppy in my exposition here; wwhat I mean is there is no
law allowing testing by force or by subterfuge without consent.
Although there may be specific penalties for not giving consent in
particular situations.
If you go to the other end of the process - where evidence is used - do
courts have a problem with unlawful/illegal evidence ? And the answer
to that is "none whatsover".
True. But that still leaves doctors or police defending a possible
criminal charge for doing tests without the victim's consent.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:58:30 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,401 |