Beware - Watch out for this one!!

[recycled]

I bet both these geezers are typing furiously as we speak.......

John

Not me not typing. i have an intelligent PC just thinks for me.
I just do not want any copper selling the fact that i am having an affair to a daily newspaper, if i am a celebrity footballer and he has my mobile phone.
As they claim to be badly paid. who knows.
and anyway any copper who does not like your face,(secret policemen who do not like asians ch4) can simply say i saw that asian guy using a phone.
he drives a jag which he should not be doing so i am setting him up.

 

[fredfloggle]

The detail is in the reading and not in the arguing.

I don't like mobile phones, I like mobile phones used in cars even less.

I also don't like the fact that in this case a police officer was reading someone the riot act based upon supposition only - if he had seen the guy with the phone in his hand the by all means prosecute - but what is all this waffle? did he see him or not? if he is prepared to swear on oath that he did then this is surely enough? The phone proves little after the offense if the damned date/time isn't set right, or in the case of my Ipaq which forgets what it is if not charged .

Just make sure you set your phone clock a few hours out.

 

[fredfloggle]

Not me.
I just do not want any copper selling the fact that i am having an affair to a daily newspaper, if i am a celebrity footballer and he has my mobile phone.
As they claim to be badly paid. who knows

I know the bugger that did that - he made my life hell for a while when I was young and foolish. He got caught fiddling. He doesn't have the protection of his warrant card now.

 

[The Dent Guy]

I don't like mobile phones, I like mobile phones used in cars even less.

I also don't like the fact that in this case a police officer was reading someone the riot act based upon supposition only - if he had seen the guy with the phone in his hand the by all means prosecute - but what is all this waffle? did he see him or not? if he is prepared to swear on oath that he did then this is surely enough? The phone proves little after the offense if the damned date/time isn't set right, or in the case of my Ipaq which forgets what it is if not charged .

Just make sure you set your phone clock a few hours out.

What they admitted to seeing was my hand cupped to my left ear - which was the opposite side to their position relative to me.

However, they both saw this and both coppers made the assumption i was using a phone.

 

[recycled]

However, they both saw this and both coppers made the assumption i was using a phone.

which is enough to stand up in court if you have a rubbish lawyer and a good bank balance.
someone got done for drink driving 20mins after he parked his car and went into his house by a copper who got a call from a member of the public saying a car was being driven badly (sky one thames valley)
he then raced to the cars registered address and even though the guy claimed he only started after he got home the copper was not well pleased.
did i say the guy who reported was a neighbour whose kids and his kids had been at loggerheads for a while?

now i do not know how soon you can be asked to blow after having a drink, but i would think 20mins is a bit too early.

 

[The Dent Guy]

A scary thought......

If the police allege you were on the phone and you deny it, then we can argue that phone records can prove guilt or innocence........

A scary thought........

If the ultimate evidence is phone records then what if i had been on a call with hands free????

 

[fredfloggle]

which is enough to stand up in court if you have a rubbish lawyer and a good bank balance.
someone got done for drink driving 20mins after he parked his car and went into his house by a copper who got a call from a member of the public saying a car was being driven badly (sky one thames valley)
he then raced to the cars registered address and even though the guy claimed he only started after he got home the copper was not well pleased.
did i say the guy who reported was a neighbour whose kids and his kids had been at loggerheads for a while?

now i do not know how soon you can be asked to blow after having a drink, but i would think 20mins is a bit too early.

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm

I thought it was 15 minutes after the last drink and 5 minutes after a cigarette.

In this case I don't think that the policeman would stand a chance.

 

[fredfloggle]

A scary thought........

If the ultimate evidence is phone records then what if i had been on a call with hands free????

That's the point - unless the policeman is prepared to be sure of his facts then taking the phone is a waste of time - even if he has seen you, taking the phone proves nothing because the time and date my not be accurate on the phone.

 

[recycled]

the point is he could not even prove the guy was driving.
this goes to show the red tape thing is rubbish. they all say they do not chase murderers./ rapists/ assault as there is not enough evidence.
with drivers however they do not need any evidence. the slightest chance that they can get you is enough for them to put on blues and twos and drive all around the city, risking another emergency in the process.

 

[recycled]

That's the point - unless the policeman is prepared to be sure of his facts then taking the phone is a waste of time - even if he has seen you, taking the phone proves nothing because the time and date my not be accurate on the phone.

but the phone company will have the accurate time and date.
e.g you dialled x number on this date at this time ,regardless of what your phone setings are.

as for hands free,/ well they will not have stopped you in the first place.

Bu if you are hands free, and are scratching you ear at the same time, you may be snookered like in an auction and forced to cough up cash for the car or the fine as is the case.
Its all about the cash

 

[The Dent Guy]

That's the point - unless the policeman is prepared to be sure of his facts then taking the phone is a waste of time - even if he has seen you, taking the phone proves nothing because the time and date my not be accurate on the phone.

But the network provider can supply accurate times of the call logs!


Ahh - you beat me to it recycled.

 

[fredfloggle]

So many possibilities - what if he had a dual SIM adapter fitted? what if pay as you go (though agreed they may keep records) - so many "what ifs" ? What does seem to be clear is that the phone itself is probably no use at all in securing a conviction in this case - if they didn't see it , end of the matter , if they did (and not just kind of perhaps thought they did) then nick him.

We all know what it is like when you get a John Wayne sort who wants to dive over the car bonnet etc. If he demands the phone, legal or not, what can you do apart from comply? Nothing until you get a lawyer and start making complaints - then mind your back.

 

[The Dent Guy]

Had i been on a call with handsfree then there would have been a miscarriage of justice based on the sheer ignorance of the coppers understanding of handsfree or lack of training in the police force on the subject. Either way it could have cost me a fine and points on my licence and a degree of lost income!

 

[fredfloggle]

But the network provider can supply accurate times of the call logs!


Ahh - you beat me to it recycled.

But again, this isn't important - unless it confirms he was or was not using a handsfree kit.

How long are PAYG records held?

Are you sure that non-chargeable incoming calls are logged?

 

[fredfloggle]

Didn't their car have video ?

 

[The Dent Guy]

Didn't their car have video ?

I can only assume they did have this on video - but most phones these days are small enough to be completely concealed with a cupped hand on your ear anyway.

 

[recycled]

Had i been on a call with handsfree then there would have been a miscarriage of justice based on the sheer ignorance of the coppers understanding of handsfree or lack of training in the police force on the subject. !

or based on the need to balance the books

 

[glojo]

What they admitted to seeing was my hand cupped to my left ear - which was the opposite side to their position relative to me.

However, they both saw this and both coppers made the assumption i was using a phone.

Hi Dent Guy,
I have absolutely no reason whatsover to doubt your account of events and it must be annoying to have a total stranger putting forward a counter argument, but you refer to 'they' which indicates the plural? If in a completely different situatgion two people say I swore at them and I say I never, who do we believe? I feel for you and if you were scratching your ear then you must feel hard done by, especially if the one and only phone in your vehicle was in its harness, wired up for hands free operation.

Hypothetically would the police seize the phone in this circumstance? If the offender was being obnoxious, argumentative, or denied the offence then possibly. If they were unsure and thought the bad guy was telling the truth then unlikely.

Regards
John

 

[recycled]

more like if the books needed balancing yes.
if the cash count for the month was acceptable, then no.
and john if ten coppers in a van say someone did something and a member of the public said otherwise, i would believe the member of the public.
10 coppers equals 1. they will always back each other up as they are one big gang who have to work with each other against the public.

My experience (personal not hearsay)
6 coppers beating an individual in a van then claimed he assaulted them in court.
1 5ft 4 man v 3 6ft coppers and 3 fat coppers.
the judge threw the case out faster than it came in.

 

[glojo]

My experience (personal not hearsay)
6 coppers beating an individual in a van then claimed he assaulted them in court.
1 5ft 4 man v 3 6ft coppers and 3 fat coppers.
the judge threw the case out faster than it came in.

No doubt the man in the van was a perfectly innocent individual who was at home minding his own business and the police kicked his door in for no reason?

They then dragged him into their van for no reason?

Then for no reason knocked ten bells out of him?

There is NO EXCUSE for someone to be assaualted by the police once they have been arrested and restrained. None, no excuse whatsoever and no one should defend them. If a number of police officers deliberately lie to cover up any misconduct then they should then be prosecuted and if there was a cospiracy to pervert the course of justice then hopefully that will also be investigated.

I enjoy reading your posts because of their consistancy, they fetch a smile to my face and I just wonder who you would call if you ever needed the assistance of these folks you find so objectionable? (Don't bother answering as I can guess what you would say )

Here's a news flash for you

The police do not award punishment, they do not give the armed robber a conditional discharge, or award a prison sentence to the driver that is caught using a mobile phone! Sorry to be the bearer of this bad news but the police merely enforce laws, governments make them, the courts award the punishment. Lets scrap the police and let anarchy rule the mad house. Let's unconditionally believe the defendant and not even bother hearing the prosection evidence, the police are all corrupt, they are all habitual liars, they all spend there time beating up innocent members of the public and always seem to harrass the innocent motorist.

Power to the people and let's scrap the police service.

Regards
Citizen John