Mandy Lifeboats

Pulling up in a space next to a marked Police car made me laugh. I bet they choked on their doughnuts.

I was in court (on a professional basis) and a young lad was being prosecuted in the same court for drink driving on a mobility scooter. He'd got drunk and fancied a McDonald's before bed. He hopped on his mom's mobility scooter and drove along the footpath to McDonald's where he parked next to a Police car. The two officers were having a snack and got their easiest arrest of the night. His defence was: It's not a car. I was on the path. McDonald's is private land. He was very wrong.

The law is there to prevent drink drivers. Its a little perverse to require the Police to watch you drive off and stop you when that action could harm someone. To answer your question - the law relates to the "road". A road is defined as an area where the public and their vehicles are normally allowed. Being drunk in a lay-by or a car park is breaking the law. A campsite where you have to book and/or pay an entrance fee would normally be excluded from that definition. But if you are drunk and drive into someone on a campsite I would expect the local Police to arrest you and let a court decide.

In the UK you don't even have to be drive to be arrested for drink driving. Just being in charge of a vehicle might be enough.

Please just win.

@Panto_Villan I don't necessarily agree but it's great to hear a rationale standpoint. The attack on an aid convoy is a small, clear and distinct event. I agree with you. The event that sparked this discussion was the death of a young girl due to the lack of medical care due to a destroyed hospital. That's less clear. Especially as its quite believeable that Hamas shelters its military in and around hospitals.

Here is the flaw to your argument. Hamas didn't just wake up and start a war on 7 October. They did it as retaliation for various acts by Israel. They did it due to a false sense that they were defending their country and their people. They felt it was necessary and proportionate. They were provoked by x, y and z. Israel did not wake up and decide to flatten hospitals. They did it as retaliation for various acts by Hamas They did it due to a false sense that they were defending their country and their people. They felt it was necessary and proportionate. They were provoked by x, y and z. Assigning sole blame assumes single events are not connected. They are.

To my knowledge the Irish state and the IRA were 2 completely disconnected organisations. Therefore the UK would be entirely to blame. But replace "IRA" with "Regular Irish Army" and its a different matter. My standpoint is simple - there is blame on both sides. I don't understand how anyone can come to any other conclusion?

You are good at posing futher questions. But not as good as answering them. The law of warfare is incredible complicated and specialised. I have no idea whether that's a legitimate defence. I suspect (but do not know) that it is. But let's get back to my question to you. In the scenario I outline who is to blame (in your opinion). 1. Ireland alone. They pulled the trigger. 2. Both sides.

Is it? You learn something new every day. So you would agree that Ireland would be committing a war crime and the UK would be completely blameless?

Thank you for some sanity.

It's 2035 and the UK is shelling Ireland using artillery placed on a hospital roof just over the Northern Ireland border. After 400 Irish deaths the artillery piece is destroyed along with the maternity unit. Who is responsible for the dead babies? Your answer - Ireland My answer - UK and Ireland Can't you see how perverse your logic is?

It's bizarre to blame Israel when it's so obviously a complex situation where all are to blame. Hamas are hiding amongst the civilian population. Hamas are using humanitarian supplies for their military. Hamas are holding hostages in civilian areas. Hamas could surrender. Hamas could give up the hostages. Hamas could stop smuggling weapons into the area. Hamas wanted a war. They got it. Now they are punishing their own people by prolonging a war that they never stood a chance of winning.

No. There is blame on all sides. Hamas and Iran also killed her.

I now await the aggressive and virtuous replies that avoid any rational discussion and completely ignore the bit of my post where I describe the Israel government a disgrace.