Pig ignorant pigs

[Phuoc Nghuy]

Police won't apologise to innocent drug test driver December 22, 2004 -
12:10PM SMH.

>A driver picked up under ground-breaking roadside drug testing in
>Melbourne last week is demanding an apology after police tests today
>confirmed his innocence.

>John De Jong, of Ballarat, was said to have tested positive to
>amphetamines and cannabis when he was pulled over in his work van last
>week.

>Mr De Jong maintained his innocence and said he had last smoked cannabis
>four weeks before he was tested.

>He had his blood sample tested at an independent laboratory, with the
>results showing no traces of drugs.

>Today, Victoria Police told Mr De Jong their own tests had confirmed he
>was innocent.

>Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De
>Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.

Surely he can now sue for defamation of character?


Phuoc

[Diesel Damo]

Can you post the link for that?

[John_H]

Phuoc Nghuy wrote:
>
>>Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De
>>Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.
>
>Surely he can now sue for defamation of character?

Sue who?...

The manufacturer of the test kit?
The politician who introduced the legislation?
The police minister who undermined his civil liberties?
The junior copper who administered the test?

--
John H

[Phuoc Nghuy]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:53:45 -0800, Diesel Damo wrote:

> Can you post the link for that?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Police-wont-apologise-to-innocent-drug-test-driver/2004/12/22/1103391812043.html

Phuoc

[James Whitehead]

Why should the police apologise?
Is it their fault the kits do not work?


"Phuoc Nghuy" <Phuoc412@cloaca.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.22.04.48.01.205342@cloaca.com...
> Police won't apologise to innocent drug test driver December 22, 2004 -
> 12:10PM SMH.
>
> >A driver picked up under ground-breaking roadside drug testing in
> >Melbourne last week is demanding an apology after police tests today
> >confirmed his innocence.
>
> >John De Jong, of Ballarat, was said to have tested positive to
> >amphetamines and cannabis when he was pulled over in his work van last
> >week.
>
> >Mr De Jong maintained his innocence and said he had last smoked cannabis
> >four weeks before he was tested.
>
> >He had his blood sample tested at an independent laboratory, with the
> >results showing no traces of drugs.
>
> >Today, Victoria Police told Mr De Jong their own tests had confirmed he
> >was innocent.
>
> >Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De
> >Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.
>
> Surely he can now sue for defamation of character?
>
>
> Phuoc
>
>
>
>

[Michael C]

"Phuoc Nghuy" <Phuoc412@cloaca.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.22.04.48.01.205342@cloaca.com...
> Police won't apologise to innocent drug test driver December 22, 2004 -
> 12:10PM SMH.
>
>>A driver picked up under ground-breaking roadside drug testing in
>>Melbourne last week is demanding an apology after police tests today
>>confirmed his innocence.

You'd think the police would be a little more careful on their very first
bust. In order to introduce something like this it's *really* important to
get the first one right.

Michael

[Michael C]

"James Whitehead" <James@whitehead.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cqavg9$1qe$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
> Why should the police apologise?
> Is it their fault the kits do not work?

Of course. Surely they tested them.

Michael

[veritas]

John_H wrote:
> Phuoc Nghuy wrote:
>
>>>Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De
>>>Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.
>>
>>Surely he can now sue for defamation of character?
>
>
> Sue who?...
>
> The manufacturer of the test kit?
> The politician who introduced the legislation?
> The police minister who undermined his civil liberties?
> The junior copper who administered the test?
>
> --
> John H

The Victorian government *and* all of the above..... and let the court decide who is at fault.

[Diesel Damo]

> In order to introduce something like this
> it's *really* important to get the first one
> right.

Not really anymore. All we can do is wait for the next election and
vote for whatever party opposes this sort of thing (if there even is
one, and who knows what their other policies might be).

But even so, the majority of voting citizens have the memory of Homer
Simpson, so when election time comes around again, all they have to do
is show a few TV ads with pretty shiny things in them and all will be
forgotten about the drug tests that don't work and the speed cameras
that clock people at 400mph.

[Speedy LJ]

"Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:32sdu7F3ofgjaU1@individual.net...
> "James Whitehead" <James@whitehead.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cqavg9$1qe$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
>> Why should the police apologise?
>> Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>
> Of course. Surely they tested them.
>
> Michael

That's right they did test them and waste this poor guys time. Now
what every poor sap who fails the test and is innocent has to go
through this crap .. I think they should can the whole idea now !

I recon he should sue too .. for time wasted because of a faulty
test to prove his own innocents.

Cheers

Speedy


>
>

[James Whitehead]

I think you would find the testing would be done by the company who made
them and then prob. by a third party. I do not think the police would do
this directly.

Would you blame the person who packs the bread if the wheat is off?

"Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:32sdu7F3ofgjaU1@individual.net...
> "James Whitehead" <James@whitehead.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cqavg9$1qe$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
> > Why should the police apologise?
> > Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>
> Of course. Surely they tested them.
>
> Michael
>
>

[DalienX]

James Whitehead wrote:

> Why should the police apologise?
> Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>
>
I think they should apologise, but not for the faulty kit, rather for
smearing the poor guys name all over the country as the first to be
caught.



--
DalienX

[OzOne]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:13:45 +1100, "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com>
scribbled thusly:

>"James Whitehead" <James@whitehead.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cqavg9$1qe$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
>> Why should the police apologise?
>> Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>
>Of course. Surely they tested them.
>
>Michael
>
Experts seem to suggest that the method used is extremely unreliable
and should never have been introduced.
I guess we'll know when the first round of court cases comes to town.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[OzOne]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:07:48 +1000, "James Whitehead"
<James@whitehead.co.uk> scribbled thusly:

>Why should the police apologise?
>Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>
>
It's their fault for introducing an unreliable and virtually untried
system.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[D Walford]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>
> > In order to introduce something like this
> > it's *really* important to get the first one
> > right.
>
> Not really anymore. All we can do is wait for the next election and
> vote for whatever party opposes this sort of thing (if there even is
> one, and who knows what their other policies might be).
>

Not much of a choice in Vic at the moment, the current Gov. with this
dodgy drug testing and the village idiot (R Doyle).
I'm not against drug testing but only when they can guarantee its
accuracy and with current technology that appears to be a long way off.




Daryl

[OzOne]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:35:00 +1000, "James Whitehead"
<James@whitehead.co.uk> scribbled thusly:

>I think you would find the testing would be done by the company who made
>them and then prob. by a third party. I do not think the police would do
>this directly.
>
>Would you blame the person who packs the bread if the wheat is off?
>

This is a TRIAL!
They have accused and defamed this guy for a trial!

You don't trial something as important as peoples reputations, you
test first, ensure that you have an effective, reliable test....THEN
introduce it as a proven reliable system.
Breath analysis was the subject of years of controlled testing before
it was put on the streets and is very hard to beat.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[D Walford]

James Whitehead wrote:
>
> Why should the police apologise?
> Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>

IMO its the Govt. who should be apologizing, you can't really blame the
police for doing what they are told.



Daryl

[atec]

James Whitehead wrote:
>
> Why should the police apologise?
> Is it their fault the kits do not work?
>
The apology would involve continuing to breath AND failure to apply the
test correctly , just like speed application equipment

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"John_H" <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0avhs0h8ootf9sodjejcq0ffjsuh1mb90r@4ax.com...
> Phuoc Nghuy wrote:
>>
>>>Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De
>>>Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.
>>
>>Surely he can now sue for defamation of character?
>
> Sue who?...
>
> The manufacturer of the test kit?
> The politician who introduced the legislation?
> The police minister who undermined his civil liberties?
> The junior copper who administered the test?

The 'State' John - The manfufacturer could also be a defendant in a united
defensive team, but not necessarily so, this depends on many legal
circumstances. This is all untried and new territory.

The gentleman's name was publicised domestically and internationally, in
this his good name and reputation of character damaged, he may also have
suffered outside emotional bounds. Litigation is certainly valid in this
instance. This is not necessarily the case for each future claimant owing
the lack of publicity for each, but does not inherently dismiss each person
from making such claim.

The gentleman is advised to seek legal counsel forthwith.

In the past year or so I've stated that 'public servants' and this includes
individual police can face litigation. Employees of government departments
cannot 'hide' behind their respective agencies 'for doing their job',
certainly the employers are alos liable in this. I state this again
despite NSW government moving to give additional legal 'protection' to NSW
Police which seems for some ill informed reason placated the NSW Police
Association. Similar steps apply in State law in VIC. I say the protective
measures are still not watertight.

Much depends therefore on the prevailing circumstance of each and every item
and case.

Common Law as inhereted comes into play and this means potential High Court
action for some candidates.

Jeremy H. Pritchard
Mot Adv-NSW
mot.adv@gotalk.net.au






> John H

[Serialpest]

On 22/12/04 2:48 PM, in article pan.2004.12.22.04.48.01.205342@cloaca.com,
"Phuoc Nghuy" <Phuoc412@cloaca.com> wrote:

> Police won't apologise to innocent drug test driver December 22, 2004 -
> 12:10PM SMH.
>
>> A driver picked up under ground-breaking roadside drug testing in
>> Melbourne last week is demanding an apology after police tests today
>> confirmed his innocence.
>
>> John De Jong, of Ballarat, was said to have tested positive to
>> amphetamines and cannabis when he was pulled over in his work van last
>> week.
>
>> Mr De Jong maintained his innocence and said he had last smoked cannabis
>> four weeks before he was tested.
>
>> He had his blood sample tested at an independent laboratory, with the
>> results showing no traces of drugs.
>
>> Today, Victoria Police told Mr De Jong their own tests had confirmed he
>> was innocent.
>
>> Victoria Police vowed to continue the program and are not offering Mr De
>> Jong an apology for the stress his family has endured.
>
> Surely he can now sue for defamation of character?
>
>
> Phuoc
>
>
>
>

Put them on a spit and roast them I say.