Previously, users of the car park were allowed up to ten minutes to drop off or collect passengers before they were required to pay, now with this new scheme people must incur a 2 pound surcharge whatever the length of their stay. This has affected taxi drivers in particular who have had to add the cost of the new charge on to the price of their fair.

This charge, however, transcends a mere car park payment and is in fact set to cause some real issues with safety in and around the airports. A backlash is expected when the charge is brought in and many are suggesting that passengers will boycott the car parks and opt to walk to the airport terminals from the surrounding areas. This has two major issues with safety. One, of course is that people will be walking across busy main roads with heavy luggage (as with most airports situations) and this causes a risk to both the people doing the walking and the traffic on the roads. Airport complexes are seldom designed for pedestrians but people can now see little in the way of choice if they want to avoid expensive car park costs.

The second issue is that if people are not happy to pay the cost and are being dropped off outside of the usual airport drop off points then there will be a rise in traffic congestion. Traffic congestion is not good at the best of times but in a busy airport environment it is simply asking for trouble. There will be a rise in congestion of both people and cars in an area that is designed for neither.

Security is also a matter that may be affected by the new plans as the outer perimeters of the airport now have to be watched as well as the inner ones. Security is key in an airport and peoples’ safety is paramount. If, therefore, airport security now has to deal with problems and issues outside of the airport, they will not be focused on other more important things, something not to be taken lightly in an international airport.

With all the expense of going on holiday, it does not seem right that a person cannot be dropped off at an airport for free. With so many other costs when flying (including airport tax) the least an airport could do is to let a person be dropped off at the airport free of charge and it is simply mean for an airport to not allow this to happen. What’s more, it is only a handful of airports that are doing this, so why can some allow free drop offs and others not.

Each year, over 500,000 breath tests are carried out across the UK.

Of these 500,000 breath tests, an average of 1 in 5 is found positive.

The most common section of society who test positive in breath tests are men between the ages of 17 and 29.

Men between these ages also make up the highest number of casualties of drinking and driving.

Nearly 1 in 6 of all deaths on the road involve drivers with more than the legal limit of alcohol in their blood.

This results in an average of 3,000 people being killed or seriously injured as a result of drink drive collisions.

In addition to these 3,000 serious casualties, 2004 saw over 14,000 more people suffered minor injuries from collisions involving drink driving.

Don’t be one of the 100,000 people caught drinking and driving this year. Don’t drink and drive this Christmas.

Because of the massive danger involved in drink driving, exceeding the limit of 80mg of alcohol in 100 mg of blood carries a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison, a £5000 fine and a driving ban of 12 months. Although this is a maximum penalty, everybody caught drink driving loses their license for a year – a ban that remains on a license for 11 years! Not only does this boost insurance, the ban itself can totally ruin somebody’s life, as both work and family life become much, much harder.

As if this isn’t scary enough, merely being in charge of a vehicle whilst over the legal limit can result in a prison sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment, a £2,500 fine a driving ban! Failing to provide a provide a sample for testing won’t help either, as this carries a penalty as harsh as drink driving itself!

Most terrifying of all, however, is the penalty for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. As if causing death wasn’t harrowing enough, you can also be sentenced to 14 years in prison!

In fact, it is probably the same feeling that we enjoy from drinking alcohol that makes us more dangerous drivers. The boost in confidence, combined with reduced coordination and reaction times makes for a good party, but a very dangerous drive home.

This same principle goes for the morning after as well. Always remember, that sleeping is not the same as sobering up! Nor is drinking coffee, having a shower or changing your clothes! You may feel better, but you’re still not a safe driver and will lose your license if caught. On average, your body will metabolise a single unit of alcohol an hour – around half a pint of beer. A few hours of sleep is simply not enough to sober you up after a night of heavy drinking.

1. You don’t own the vehicle – often only the case if you have recently sold your car.
2. The penalty exceeded the amount shown on the sign.
3. The car was stolen at the time
4. The offence never occurred in the first place (no ticket was issued, there were no clear signs or markings etc)

In the vast majority of cases, number 4 is the most appropriate reason for appealing. It is worth bearing in mind the following, however:

Having a valid permit isn’t enough to invalidate a parking fine – the permit has to be on clear display. If there is evidence that it was not clearly display – and there is likely to be – you aren’t in a strong position. Since April 2008, parking tickets can also be sent by post – they don’t have to have been applied to your car. It is wise to ask for photographic evidence if you receive a surprise parking ticket, then check it carefully to ensure it is a genuine contravention.

HOWEVER:

If there aren’t clear signs on every single road leading into a restricted parking area, then you have grounds to appeal your ticket. If you get a ticket, check every road leading to the parking area; check both sides of the road and look for signs that are covered, smalls, faded or broken – all these can lead to your ticket being invalid. In the case of parking bays, there must be signs within 5 metres of each end of the bays. If you parked on a double yellow line, check that the line is unbroken and ends in a ‘T’. Breaks in the line, or failure to have a ‘T’ at the end of the line invalidate tickets. Of course, in all the above cases you will need to provide photographic evidence of the reason for appeal.

If your ticket was for parking outside of a marked bay, it is well worth measuring the bay to ensure it meets the requirements for the minimum size. If it isn’t at least 1.62 metres wide from edge of kerb to outer edge of line, it is too small and your ticket is likely invalid.

Although unloading vehicles is not allowed on double yellow lines, it is perfectly fine to unload on a single yellow line for up to 20 minutes. If you receive a ticket within 20 minutes, it isn’t valid. Of course, it will help to have proof that you were loading or unloading your vehicle at the time – contracts and witnesses work well.

Good luck!

Calling it a “Witch Hunt”, the MCA has been warning chiropractors that campaigners are trying to prosecute those who make use of “claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research” in their adverts. To put it another way, so many chiropractors lie about the ailments their treatment can cure that the MCA has had to actively warn them to stop doing so! What’s more, so deceit-ridden is the profession that they have also warned chiropractors against using the title “Doctor” if they are not registered medical practitioners! In other words; “if you’re not a doctor, don’t say that you are to get more business”.

From a legal point of view, this advice writes itself. If you are not a qualified medical practitioner, don’t call yourself a doctor or you will be in breach of breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) – because, quite simply, you’re not a doctor. What’s more, if there is no solid evidence that the treatment you are providing actually works, don’t use it to advertise your services. Normally this should be so screamingly obvious a point to make that it would seem redundant. In the case of chiropractors across the country, however, it’s the kind of advice that might well save their business.

Having read an advertisement for Dr. Dr. Carl Irwin and Associates, which claimed their therapies could treat a range of health issues – including IBS, colic and learning difficulties – a complainant challenged whether they could substantiate these claims. More importantly, the complainant also suggested that referring the chiropractors as “Doctors” was misleading in implying that they held general medical qualifications – which they did not.

In response, the ASA ruled that, despite references and abstracts sent by Dr. Carl Irwin and Associates, there was no “robust clinical evidence” that chiropractic therapy could treat IBS, colic and learning difficulties. They also ruled that the use of the term “Doctors” and “Dr” breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and that Dr. Carl should not refer to the chiropractors as doctors, as this was a misleading term.

This image of Dr. Carl is from his website. I won’t link to it her ebecause they don’t deserve the support.

Later, however, the Court of Appeal overturned this ruling and declared Singh’s remark to be “fair comment”, in a trial that gained massive publicity through the charity Sense About Science. The response from the public was immediate and overwhelming, with over 500 individual chiropractors reported for false advertising within 24 hours, by Alan Henness of ThinkHumanism.

Thanks to Singh, the BCA have been made to produce scientific evidence to support their position, resulting in less than 30 citations; 10 of which had nothing to do with chiropractic and the rest comprising of “a small collection of poor-quality trials”. In response, the General Chiropractic Council has renounced the BCA’s claims that chiropractic is effective treatment for childhood colic, bed-wetting, ear infections or asthma. As such, it is highly advisable that all chiropractors remove from their adverts any and all reference to these ailments, as this now officially classes as false advertising.

Over the last 12 years, the number of defendants being prosecuted in magistrates’ courts has fallen from nearly 2 million to 1.64 million, with minor speeding offences falling by nearly a quarter. In 2008, only just over half the total number of offences recorded were court convictions, yet spending on criminal courts rose to a billion pounds across 2008 and 2009. Despite the fact that they have already lost over 1,000 staff over the last 3 years, the government has hence proposed to close down 100 more magistrates’ courts across the country, as yet another money-saving strategy.

The problem, however, is whether this is really a sensible route for the country to be taking. Although minor speeding fines are the kind of thing that are probably best handled by police officers rather than magistrates, we must take care not to shift the emphasis of determining convictions and punishments only law enforcement officers, who are clearly not qualified for the role. Court hearings ensure justice and fairness remain of paramount importance; even in minor cases, everybody has a right to be treated fairly and have their case properly heard by a magistrate or judge – not just a bobby.