Safe Speed Forums

slight thread divergence here but I'll ask anyway ...

Are there exceptions in law to allow for exceptions on religious grounds? I know Jehovah's Witnesses have strict rules about giving / receiving blood, but don't know if this extends to samples. I seem to recall something about Rastafari rules on giving blood, but then strict Rastafari also rules against alcohol.

Second part of the question ... I don't drink so I hope I'll never be in a position to find this out, but I really dislike needles. If I have to give a sample for medical reasons I ask to be sitting somewhere I can't fall off, and have to look the other way. I know some people have more extreme phobias than I do; can this be taken into consideration? A diagnosed needle phobic forced to give blood could be argued to have suffered cruelty?

Back on subject slightly, I would support the earler position of reducing the limit to 30mg or whatever the number was. Enough to allow cough medicine and alcohol rich trifles, but not allow a full alcoholic drink.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I don't know of any exemptions on religous grounds but I haven't seen any cases where that was put forward. So there may be.


The law says that you are guilty of an offence if you refuse without reasonable excuse to give the sample requested. There is case law to say that you must give the sample in a manner which renders it suitable for use.

So breath must be given through the mouthpiece into the machine at sufficient pressure for the machine to operate properly. The driver who breathed into the officers face and told him to "sample that" was found guilty of failing to supply. Likewise the driver who urinated on the floor and made much the same comment.

There is a House of Lords judgement which says that needle phobics can just look away. Having seen a few of them in the day job I find that rather lacking in understanding especially as the alternative urine specimen can be collected without the use of a needle.


The guide used by courts to decide on the meaning of "reasonable excuse" is this gem from the court of appeal.

"In our judgement no excuse can be adjudged a reasonable one unless the person from whom the specimen is required is physically or mentally unable to provide it, or the provision of the specimen would entail a substantial risk to health".


Going back to the first part of your question I suppose you could claim that parting with 20cc of blood contravenes your relgious belief to the extent that you would be mentally scarred for the rest of your life if you did so.

In this modern pee-cee society I think the religious card more likely to carry weight than medical reasons, particularly if in the public eye, which is tragic.

How long before someone starts a religion where it is considered wrong to ever be sober....

Why is it tragic?

If you are a devout follower of a religion, why should you be forced to take part in something that is deeply against your beliefs when there is a valid alternative?

The "religious card", as you call it, does not hold the weight you seem to imagine - hence the RC church will be closing down a succesful, caring, socially important adoption service. Faith based schools were in danger of being forced to remove any religious requirement from their selection criteria (until, I suspect, they realised how much it would cost when the various churches decided to remove their funding).

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

It is tragic because it has people trembling so much in fear at the mere suggestion of a religious faux-pas that they are unable to do their jobs.

NQP.

I'm not trembling in fear.

None of my colleagues here (and the service we provide does go into people's homes, regardless of race, creed, colour or age) are trembling in fear.

Next question? Are YOU trembling in fear?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Yes of course I am, the vast majority of people trying to shoot me down are muslims! How dreadfully un-pee-cee of me, I had better start a campaign encouraging jews and sikhs to also shoot at me in order to prevent discrimination!

NQP.

More importantly, don't be such a bloody prat. Whoopie for you that your job crosses boundaries, and is so admirably middle of the road. If you can honestly believe that no police officer/NHS worker/insert other public-facing profession here, has been strong-armed into a decision on the grounds of 'religious discrimination' that they would not have arrived at having taken the case purely on its merits then shouldn't we all be as lucky as to live in your cloud-cuckoo land!

Is it meals-on-wheels btw?

Uh oh...

1,2,3,4
I can see a flame war.

And I should know, I've been in a few

Step away from the brink guys, it ain't worth it.

Get some thick white sliced and you can have toast

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I don't think it's a flame war - I think Robinex and I have had enough "robust debates" in the past to assume that the other can handle some direct, provocative arguments? If I'm wrong, RXe, please say so.

My main point is that I am heartily sick of the Daily Mail - like position on religion, which suggests that no-one would ever dare offend someone if they were in danger of being held up as religiously intolerant. The examples quoted earlier about the threat to faith based schools and the forced closure of the RC adoption service shows that the government does not have any respect for religion. They very nearly got away with the first, the second is now fact.

It's couched in, or derived from, a lack of respect; the government has no respect for religion - even the laughingly quoted "national" religion of Christianity - because we as a country have lost respect. Some people call this a Christian country, the sad fact is that the vast majority would be better described as Consumerist or Secular.

BUT, I accept that there are people out there who misguidedly think that political correctness is the right thing to do. A lot of them appear to be mid-level council officials. I would rather they took a step back from themselves and considered that "polite and courteous" is a FAR better use of the initial letters.

As for the people trying to shoot you down - I'm sure if they got to know you personally at least some of them would decide not to shoot at you any more. If you continue the Ad hominem statements such as "don't be such a bloody a prat", however, I fear Paul may be forced to issue you with a warning

Not meals on wheels, no, think a bit more technical than that - even more bits of wire than your flying transit van!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Please remember that there are many of us who would prefer the country to be secular. Whilst I have every respect for people's personal beliefs (regardless of how bizarre they may appear to me) and their right to hold them, I have very little respect for organised religion of any creed.

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

I wouldn't say that the closure of the adoption service was due to them having no respect for religion, but simply that the pee-cee swingometer happened to favour homosexuality over religion that day. Had it been a more 'sensitive minority' religion than catholicism running the service then we may well have seen a different result.

It does provide an excellent example of a situation where officials' desperation not to be viewed as un-pee-cee, and make everyone equal, has overridden common sense:

I have heard some very nasty language directed towards homosexuality, calling it 'against god's will', and 'unnatural'. While I do not approve of such malice directed towards anyone on the grounds of a lifestyle choice, it is certainly undeniable that same sex couples having babies the old-fashioned way cannot occur naturally.

The pee-cee lobby believe that we should not 'deny' same sex couples 'the right' to have babies purely because they have chosen a partner without the requisite plumbing to give them one. This is totally looking at the rights of the wrong party in the matter. They should be looking at the rights of the child, they're not just consumer goods that anyone with the cash should have the right to buy!

Psychology has shown time and again the benefits to child development of having two opposite-sex parents. When they are too young to be able to make their own decisions they should not have lifestyles that could well affect their development thrust upon them by a society desperate not to offend.

This thread sure has come a long way, I'm not sure the OP will find much value here for his puffy problem any longer

I think you'll find that 'don't be such a bloody prat' is far from ad hominem, but in fact a warning not to be a bloody prat, which seems to have been well heeded!

You should know that electric string is all that holds our whirling death-blenders in the sky!

Don't try it.

You'll find that all the proof they need is it was posted, first class. You would need to prove you never received it.

How does one prove to have posted something if it is not sent registered/recorded post? One person's word against another's surely?

Two people's words against the alleged non-recipient. They have books in which one writes the detail and another corroborates the detail with that on the envelope as it goes in the sack.

In practice I'll lay odds the book is created electronically and signed with minimal checks - but sufficient checks to convince TPTB.

How exactly does one prove that they did NOT receive something???

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

A statement under oath would possibly suffice.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Point to the space where it isn't?

Exactly.