Yes, it's an acronym. AGOG. I think it is deserved: Motorists risk £60 fines for smoking behind the wheel
I don't smoke. But I do drive. And I do like to know what I can and can't do, so I can avoid doing the latter. This simply seems designed to create confusion enough to ensure a steady stream of revenue.
Because I am trying to grasp how these sentences, I presume provided by this country’s legislators and law enforcers, can sit together in a viable manner:
‘... inclusion of smoking ... as a potential hazard.’
“... the smoking reference in the code was an advisory one and it was down to the discretion of police forces...’
‘Transgressors could face criminal charges “if someone was deemed ...’
Is it or is it not LEGAL to smoke whilst driving? If it still is, then this seems to be a fundamental assault (and not the first) on the chances of any law-abiding person being able to understand the law enough to obey it, much less those in theory tasked to enforce it.
How can you face criminal charges on something that is advisory????
This is clear institutional anarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.