wrongly accused

[eytch29]

On January 15, I was stopped by a police officer and asked me to come out of the car, he asked me if I used my mobile phone while driving. I said no, and then he said they normally give warning if they admit it but since I lied he will give me Fixed Penalty Notice £60 fine and 3 points on my license. I told the officer that I really didn’t use my phone, I was just scratching my head because I couldn’t pass the intersection because it’s traffic. I offered to check my phone to prove that I was telling the truth but he said he knows how mobile phone works and didn’t check it. He checked my license and issued me the FPN then he asked me to go to the police station and bring my paper counterpart license. He even said that I was a bad person.
I will be applying for citizenship this April, would this affect my application if I bring this to court?
Any advice please. Thanks.

[Dedworth]

On January 15, I was stopped by a police officer and asked me to come out of the car, he asked me if I used my mobile phone while driving. I said no, and then he said they normally give warning if they admit it but since I lied he will give me Fixed Penalty Notice £60 fine and 3 points on my license. I told the officer that I really didn’t use my phone, I was just scratching my head because I couldn’t pass the intersection because it’s traffic. I offered to check my phone to prove that I was telling the truth but he said he knows how mobile phone works and didn’t check it. He checked my license and issued me the FPN then he asked me to go to the police station and bring my paper counterpart license. He even said that I was a bad person.
I will be applying for citizenship this April, would this affect my application if I bring this to court?
Any advice please. Thanks.

You are OK I don't think they will view you as a threat to the country. This is what the UKBA guidance notes say

You must give details of all criminal convictions both within or outside the United Kingdom. These include road traffic offences, but not fixed penalty notices which have not been given in a court. Fixed penalty notices include parking and speeding offences. Drink driving offences must be declared.

I would just pay up and not argue it

[walesrob]

I would think it wouldn't affect your application for Citizenship.

More than likely he issued a FPN due to some traffic violation at the intersection you mention. He probably thought you weren't paying attention, hence the idea you may have been using the phone.

More about FPN : http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/road-traffic/index.html

"If you feel a penalty notice is unjust, you can choose not to pay the fine and argue your case in court. If you do pay the fine, you won’t be prosecuted and no record of your offence will be kept."

[eytch29]

I would just pay up and not argue it

Thanks, but 3 points will stay on my license for 4 years, will affect my insurance and this would mean I was really lying.

[walesrob]

Thanks, but 3 points will stay on my license for 4 years, will affect my insurance and this would mean I was really lying.

3 points wont affect your insurance that much, if at all. To be honest, I would pay the fine and live with the 3 points for the next 4 years. As I said, it was more likely he gave the FPN for some traffic violation.

I had 3 points in January 2006 for a speed camera on the M4 (J41 Port Talbot) in a restricted 50mph zone, and would you know, a year later later the camera was removed as it was causing accidents at a nearby junction :doh http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=131 I still kept the points though, they wouldn't remove them, and would you believe it, I now gotta pay £20 to have those points removed from my licence, even though they have expired. :NoNo:

[pennybarry]

On January 15, I was stopped by a police officer and asked me to come out of the car, he asked me if I used my mobile phone while driving. I said no, and then he said they normally give warning if they admit it but since I lied he will give me Fixed Penalty Notice £60 fine and 3 points on my license. I told the officer that I really didn’t use my phone, I was just scratching my head because I couldn’t pass the intersection because it’s traffic. I offered to check my phone to prove that I was telling the truth but he said he knows how mobile phone works and didn’t check it. He checked my license and issued me the FPN then he asked me to go to the police station and bring my paper counterpart license. He even said that I was a bad person.
I will be applying for citizenship this April, would this affect my application if I bring this to court?
Any advice please. Thanks.

:omg::omg::omg: Why some policemen here will not listen the truth and stick with what they conclude? I will not go away until I convinced them and let them check my mobile. Did you try to speak with higher cops to check your mobile?

I have checked before at UKBA website about driving in the UK offenses if I am not yet holding British Passport and there's some laws that we really need to obey so that our application will not be affected.

But not to worry too much if that is not fixed penalty.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/eligibility/goodcharacter/

[pennybarry]

I would just pay up and not argue it

:omg: seems we have no right to defend ourself to policemen here?
They will not bother to listen and check?
Whatever they say is true. Just confused.:Erm:

[walesrob]

:omg: seems we have no right to defend ourself to policemen here?
They will not bother to listen and check?
Whatever they say is true. Just confused.:Erm:

Probaby because there are cameras everywhere, and I bet the policeman had one in his car as well, most traffic cars do. Welcome to CCTV UK :NoNo:

[Alan]

I was wrongly convicted of a traffic offence many years ago. I of course denied the offence and so it went to court. In court the police officer LIED and so I was found guilty of something I hadn't done!! It doesn't give one much confidence in our police force does it? :NoNo:

Al.:)

[Dedworth]

3 points wont affect your insurance that much, if at all.

Don't bet on it :) I jumped a red light 3 yrs ago camera showed I crossed the line at some low speed like 20mph one second too late - car was loaded with loose boxes so I didn't emergency stop. 3 points £60 fine - Direct Line loaded my premium by £70 per year for each of the 3 years

[KeithD]

According to the Chief Constable of Dorset yesterday he stated that in order to issue a FPN for using a phone they require TWO police witnesses!!

I take it this is because in court it is your word against his, and you could supply better character witnesses than him. Or the CCofD doesn't know the law :Erm:

[KeithD]

:Erm: This is the law, but a lot of grey areas http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/fixedpenaltynotice

[eytch29]

According to the Chief Constable of Dorset yesterday he stated that in order to issue a FPN for using a phone they require TWO police witnesses!!

I take it this is because in court it is your word against his, and you could supply better character witnesses than him. Or the CCofD doesn't know the law :Erm:


I was stop by just 1 police officer, he's in uniform but using an undercover car.

Thanks all.

[johncar54]

If I did not commit an offence I would fight the case. Unfortunately most people getting stopped for an offence tend to say the police were lying. I know sometimes they do but I also know that they are unjustly accused of lying too. After all its the best excuse we have, Who would say, "the accident was completely my fault'"

In this case, EYTHCH, if the incident was a few hours ago, I suggest you go to the police and take your phone and insist they check the calls. If they won't I suggest you ask to speak top the most senior officer in the station. If they still will not check the phone, make an official complaint against both the officer who stopped you and the officer who refuses to check your phone. Of course they could say the phone you are producing was not the one you had in the car when 'seen.'


As for saying its just a policeman's word again yours. That probably will not carry much weight. Normally a policeman has nothing to gain by lying (no increased promotion chances, no days off, no extra pay, just more work) whereas a person who has committed an offence has a lot to gain.

Cases like the ones mentioned above, where a car crossed the line 'a second' after the light turned red tend to show part of the problem. The light goes from green to amber. amber mean stop. Thus he is admitting the offence. That the person say he had loose boxes in the car was another traffic offence, which it would appear he got a way with.

PS I don't want to get into an argument here about 2 officers being required to prove such an offence, but if you believe that then you have nothing to worry about as you will not be prosecuted.

[aromulus]

I was stop by just 1 police officer, he's in uniform but using an undercover car.

Thanks all.

To me it sounds like as if he was looking for someone to help him get his weekly target.....:doh

[Arthur Little]

To me it sounds like as if he was looking for someone to help him get his weekly target.....:doh

:iagree: ... like the traffic wardens, aka "The Yellow Peril", :icon_lol: used to do! :doh

[KeithD]

:iagree: ... like the traffic wardens, aka "The Yellow Peril", :icon_lol: used to do! :doh
I've been 'harrassed' a few times over the years because I don't look disabled enough for a blue badge :Erm: ... it seems I'm supposed to have no limbs, and have vomit all down my t-shirt, and be cross-eyed :Cuckoo:

[johncar54]

I've been 'harrassed' a few times over the years because I don't look disabled enough for a blue badge :Erm: ... it seems I'm supposed to have no limbs, and have vomit all down my t-shirt, and be cross-eyed :Cuckoo:

If I was entitled to parking privileges I would be pleased to see that the authorities were trying to ensure there was less abuse. Such abuse, people not entitled using the assigned parking places would seriously affect my privilege to park where it is most convenient for me.

As for people believing in weekly targets for police officers, some also like to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too, but it does not make them real !

[KeithD]

If I was entitled to parking privileges I would be pleased to see that the authorities were trying to ensure there was less abuse.
I would be if that was what they were doing, but it seldom is. For instance last time the traffic warden walked past the white van (no badge) and the Royal Mail van (no badge) parker in the disabled bays infront of me, and came straight to me. Questioned me, gave me a lecture that my badge was 0.03mm out of position!!! And then walked off :doh

[johncar54]

I would be if that was what they were doing, but it seldom is. For instance last time the traffic warden walked past the white van (no badge) and the Royal Mail van (no badge) parker in the disabled bays infront of me, and came straight to me. Questioned me, gave me a lecture that my badge was 0.03mm out of position!!! And then walked off :doh

Sorry, I was thinking of the police not traffic wardens.

I do not know for sure now, but in the past I know traffic warden were not allowed to exercise discretion. Thus if you were committing an offence they had to issue a ticket, they were nor allowed to do anything else. (At West-end Central Police Station they even used to put tickets on marked police cars, which are except from parking regs and in any case a police officer in uniform can authorise a person to park in a no parking area, including himself. The ticket were always cancelled but that took up police time filling in the pro forma). The wardens continued to do it even though they were advised. Some maybe not that intelligent! Just a personal view.

A police officer has always been able to exercise discretion, thus he/she can decide to take no action, advise you, give you a formal caution or report you.

[pennybarry]

I was wrongly convicted of a traffic offence many years ago. I of course denied the offence and so it went to court. In court the police officer LIED and so I was found guilty of something I hadn't done!! It doesn't give one much confidence in our police force does it? :NoNo:

Al.:)

That was what my husband said. If you were wrongly accused, sometimes you need to prove it in court and if you found guilty, then you are more worst. :omg:

My husband is driving lorry and bus for 25 years and no offence yet. But he said he may have some soon because whilst he's driving, I'm giving him wrong instructions. :icon_lol: He wants me to shut my mouth if he's driving. :cwm23:

[johncar54]

Originally Posted by Alan View Post
I was wrongly convicted of a traffic offence many years ago. I of course denied the offence and so it went to court. In court the police officer LIED and so I was found guilty of something I hadn't done!! It doesn't give one much confidence in our police force does it?


(Before I was a police officer) I got off many traffic offences by lying too, just like practically everybody does.

Alan, that you say you were convicted MANY YEARS AGO would seem to show that it was a very isolated occurrence. Penny says her husband has been a professional driver for 25 and has no convictions. So maybe its not a common occurrence and thus we can have confidence in our (your) police service.

(Oops, now I am opening a can of worm !!!!! )

[aromulus]

As for people believing in weekly targets for police officers, some also like to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too, but it does not make them real !


Where have you been lately, John...???:Erm:

[johncar54]

Where have you been lately, John...???:Erm:

Are you telling me (I have lived in Spain for 21 years) that police officers, on the beat in UK, must reach certain targets for reporting and arresting people ?

If so, can you please direct me to where I can read up on it.

Thanks, John

[KeithD]

He wants me to shut my mouth if he's driving. :cwm23:
Like finding an ice cream seller in Hell..... Impossible :D

[walesrob]

Are you telling me (I have lived in Spain for 21 years) that police officers, on the beat in UK, must reach certain targets for reporting and arresting people ?

If so, can you please direct me to where I can read up on it.

Thanks, John

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6656411.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6942381/Police-still-burdened-by-Government-targets-says-former-chief-constable-Tim-Brain.html
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/05/31/rude-police-punishing-middle-classes-to-hit-home-office-targets/
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/police-targets-for-2010-revealed/
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/32712116/Police-targets-conflict-with-work-of-youth-offending-teams
http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=5475

Want more? :D

[eytch29]

Thanks all, I decided to be tried at court. I'll contact citizens advice bureau for other advice.

[pennybarry]

Like finding an ice cream seller in Hell..... Impossible :D

:omg: Why do you know I love ice cream boss?:omg:
I love strawberry milk shake too!

One time he was driving in the countryside and I have spotted people enjoying picking strawberries in the field. I read Pick your own strawberries!!.

He was shocked when I shout WoW ! stop the car!
I want to buy strawberries.!!!!!!!!!!
:doh

[eytch29]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6656411.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6942381/Police-still-burdened-by-Government-targets-says-former-chief-constable-Tim-Brain.html
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/05/31/rude-police-punishing-middle-classes-to-hit-home-office-targets/
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/police-targets-for-2010-revealed/
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/32712116/Police-targets-conflict-with-work-of-youth-offending-teams
http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=5475

Want more? :D

Nice one

[KeithD]

He was shocked when I shout WoW ! stop the car!
I want to buy strawberries.!!!!!!!!!!
:doh
I know how he feels :crazy:

[aromulus]

Are you telling me (I have lived in Spain for 21 years) that police officers, on the beat in UK, must reach certain targets for reporting and arresting people ?

If so, can you please direct me to where I can read up on it.

Thanks, John


Sorry to burst your bubble, but since this shower has been in power I havent trusted a cop very much.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/49007-call-to-end-police-arrest-targets

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-laughing-policemen-inaccurate-data-boosts-arrest-rate-1870416.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190785/Police-target-innocent-youths-arrest-bid-increase-DNA-samples-database.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6656411.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7145860.stm

Just a few pointers here, but you could google to your hearts content...:xxgrinning--00xx3:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en-GBGB318GB318&q=home+office+police+targets&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB&aq=5m&oq=police++targets


Now, as you well know, poo flows downhill....:rolleyes:

And because of this the pc plods, are given targets for arrests, and anything associated with it.:furious3:
It must be Christmas all over again, when they attend a domestic, and everybody and his wife have to be carted off to the nick.... bingo.... detection rate doubled.... I won't get a rollocking from him with the fruit salad on his hat....:omg:

A DI I know well, wanted to stay on, for another couple of years after his official retirement date, so to get some extra brownie points with the pension.
He didn't for desperation.
He's happy as larry, now, working the security desks for his local council.
Besides he is only working to stay out of his wife's way.... Not for money.:doh

[johncar54]

Aromulus, Thanks for that.

I now have another reason for living in Spain.

I knew the UK was going down the drain I just had not realised just how far down the drain it was.

Good luck to you guys, who could move out of UK, but for some reason have failed to do so.

PS don't all come here at once !

[johncar54]

Aromulus, Thanks for that.

I now have another reason for living in Spain.

I knew the UK was going down the drain I just had not realised just how far down the drain it was.

Good luck to you guys, who could move out of UK, but for some reason have failed to do so.

PS don't all come here at once !

[aromulus]

Aromulus, Thanks for that.

I now have another reason for living in Spain.

I knew the UK was going down the drain I just had not realised just how far down the drain it was.

Good luck to you guys, who could move out of UK, but for some reason have failed to do so.

PS don't all come here at once !

Just to make you stay in Spain that little bit longer, here's another one...:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8454959.stm

[johncar54]

Just to make you stay in Spain that little bit longer, here's another one...:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8454959.stm

Armulus, Well having read that stupid finding by the court, I can understand why crime levels are so high in UK and that the police have all but given up.

The stop and search and / suspected person laws, were radically changed because a certain group in the UK said they were the ones, in the main being stopped and searched. The fact that statistics showed people of that group were identical to over 90% of those committing mugging offences seemed not to be important.

Most people investigated for white collar fraud are business people not road sweepers or bus conductors because the latter two don't usually commit that type of crime.

In those far off days, the police tended to concentrate on those most likely to be the ones committing the type of crime they were concentrating on.

That was before the time when, for example at an airport a whole line of people must be searched instead of being able to select those most likely to present a danger. Thus babies in one queue get searched whilst everyone in the adjoining queue pass through un-searched.

[WillsG25]

:omg: seems we have no right to defend ourself to policemen here?
They will not bother to listen and check?
Whatever they say is true. Just confused.:Erm:

I think you tend to forget what the police are like in the Philippines, we seem to be quite lucky having a decent Police force.

[pennybarry]

I think you tend to forget what the police are like in the Philippines, we seem to be quite lucky having a decent Police force.

I will never forget our bad policemen as well as our good policemen too. :ReadIt::ReadIt::ReadIt:
I will never forget where I came from and my roots.
I admit I have high expectations in UK governemnt as they are not corrupt and I am very much proud of it!
That's why I am confused and asked.
I am proud of my country and your country!:philippines::unitedkingdom:

[English Rose]

:omg::omg::omg: Why some policemen here will not listen the truth and stick with what they conclude? I will not go away until I convinced them and let them check my mobile. Did you try to speak with higher cops to check your mobile?



The police don't check whether a call has gone out from the phone because you would also be committing an offence if you were just tapping in the number, or looking up the person in your Contacts, or listening to the ringing tone but hadn't actually got through to anyone.

Sorry to hear this happened to you. In future, shut the phone in the boot, then they can't accuse you of using it while driving.

[bornatbirth]

i use to work at a police HQ, driving home i followed a police man who used this phone as he drove for over a mile :D

just don't get caught, if you do :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[beppe]

On January 15, I was stopped by a police officer and asked me to come out of the car, he asked me if I used my mobile phone while driving. I said no, and then he said they normally give warning if they admit it but since I lied he will give me Fixed Penalty Notice £60 fine and 3 points on my license. I told the officer that I really didn’t use my phone, I was just scratching my head because I couldn’t pass the intersection because it’s traffic. I offered to check my phone to prove that I was telling the truth but he said he knows how mobile phone works and didn’t check it. He checked my license and issued me the FPN then he asked me to go to the police station and bring my paper counterpart license. He even said that I was a bad person.
I will be applying for citizenship this April, would this affect my application if I bring this to court?
Any advice please. Thanks.

Usually a traffic ticket should report among other things the time it was issued. Ask your telephone provider if they can provide a printed record of the calls, if there is not record you should appeal the penalty notice.

[eytch29]

Usually a traffic ticket should report among other things the time it was issued. Ask your telephone provider if they can provide a printed record of the calls, if there is not record you should appeal the penalty notice.

telephone company couldn't provide incoming calls, outgoing calls can be printed online but not incoming calls.
Just waiting for the summon.

[somebody]

telephone company couldn't provide incoming calls, outgoing calls can be printed online but not incoming calls.
Just waiting for the summon.

But the police also have to prove you were on the phone surely? So surely asking them to prove what call you recieved as the phone company cant shown one that you made.
Also if the police had wanted an open shut case (if you really had done it) surely he would have confiscated your phone or inspected it when he stopped you as you offered him the chance to:Erm:

I doubt they would do it but the POLICE could find out if supplied with the phone number if you recieved a call im pretty sure they seem to have found out such infomation in many other examples...

You gave them him the chance for some clear evidence one way or the other and he didn't take up the chance.

Does sound odd a officer on his own in a plain car possibly needing to up his detection rate as others mention..

[johncar54]

But the police also have to prove you were on the phone surely? So surely asking them to prove what call you recieved as the phone company cant shown one that you made.
Also if the police had wanted an open shut case (if you really had done it) surely he would have confiscated your phone or inspected it when he stopped you as you offered him the chance to:Erm:

I doubt they would do it but the POLICE could find out if supplied with the phone number if you recieved a call im pretty sure they seem to have found out such infomation in many other examples...

You gave them him the chance for some clear evidence one way or the other and he didn't take up the chance.

Does sound odd a officer on his own in a plain car possibly needing to up his detection rate as others mention..

People tend to over simplify things..

A police officer saying he/she saw a person with a phone to their ear is proving the person was using the phone. Its up to the court to believe or otherwise.

If they could prove a call was made/received that would be further evidence of using, and fairly conclusive too.

[Dedworth]

People tend to over simplify things..

A police officer saying he/she saw a person with a phone to their ear is proving the person was using the phone. Its up to the court to believe or otherwise.

If they could prove a call was made/received that would be further evidence of using, and fairly conclusive too.

I don't think there is any excuse for incorrectly using a mobile phone whilst driving. I was pulled over 5 or so years ago (before it became a points offence) by a plain clothes car and the officer rightly pointed out that I had driven carelessly with one hand, nattering away for like 5 minutes two miles oblivious to his presence. I only knew about him when we hit a dual carriageway and he overtook lights and siren on. On the odd occasion I switch it on in the car I have the bluetooth earpiece on.

[johncar54]

I don't think there is any excuse for incorrectly using a mobile phone whilst driving. I was pulled over 5 or so years ago (before it became a points offence) by a plain clothes car and the officer rightly pointed out that I had driven carelessly with one hand, nattering away for like 5 minutes two miles oblivious to his presence. I only knew about him when we hit a dual carriageway and he overtook lights and siren on. On the odd occasion I switch it on in the car I have the bluetooth earpiece on.


This has gone off subject. The original post was an allegation that they were wrongly accused of using a phone !!!

[fred]

a.c.a.b !!!!

[aromulus]

a.c.a.b !!!!

:Erm:

[fred]

:Erm:


ACAB = All constabulary are brilliant.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[aromulus]

ACAB = All constabulary are brilliant.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

I was thinking about "B*****s".....:omg:

[fred]

I was thinking about "B*****s".....:omg:


Trust you to lower the tone!! Typical!

[somebody]

People tend to over simplify things..

A police officer saying he/she saw a person with a phone to their ear is proving the person was using the phone. Its up to the court to believe or otherwise.

If they could prove a call was made/received that would be further evidence of using, and fairly conclusive too.

Well of course they would have to prove the phone was in the car at the time (which they should be able to do or at least in the area of the local cell)

I would also ask why the policeman did not check the phone for a call or the number of the sim in the phone, plus the imei of the phone as well.
Surely all pretty simple things for the officer of the law to do? Especially if there was a chance the issue may go to court and be the word of an police officer agaisnt another indivudal.

It would if I was a judge be very unusual of a law enforcement office not to make a note of these basic details. Which would make me suspect they may have made other mistakes.
I would have no reason to think the Officer was lying but then no reason to think they could not have been mistaken...

If they dont know what phone you own or sim if not a contract phone how the heck are they going to prove you used one? As im sure most cells have hundreds of calls, data transmissions passing though them every hour:Erm:

[johncar54]

Well of course they would have to prove the phone was in the car at the time (which they should be able to do or at least in the area of the local cell)

I would also ask why the policeman did not check the phone for a call or the number of the sim in the phone, plus the imei of the phone as well.
Surely all pretty simple things for the officer of the law to do? Especially if there was a chance the issue may go to court and be the word of an police officer agaisnt another indivudal.

It would if I was a judge be very unusual of a law enforcement office not to make a note of these basic details. Which would make me suspect they may have made other mistakes.
I would have no reason to think the Officer was lying but then no reason to think they could not have been mistaken...

If they dont know what phone you own or sim if not a contract phone how the heck are they going to prove you used one? As im sure most cells have hundreds of calls, data transmissions passing though them every hour:Erm:

I don't what the law is on the subject but I doubt that the police officer would have had the legal power to check the phone, its tantamount to making a search (without a warrant).

As I have said before, quite often in a court case its the police officer's word against the person accused. Its up to the court who they believe.

On then face of it why would the officer lie ? (OK some of you guys are gong to come back with same old chestnuts of achieving targets etc. but do you really think its that hard for a police officer to find someone breaking the law. There are people doing it all the time. Its more a case of trying not to! On the other hand, Is it likely that the defendant would lie ? If they are guilty very likely.

This is an extract of what I just found on the internet:-

Ok, so what exactly is the law now?
The law states that it is illegal to ride a motorbike or drive a car while you are using a hand held communication device. Hands free phones may be used, but they are ultimately a distraction and you are still open to a charge of careless driving should a police officer think you are driving poorly while using one.

[somebody]

I don't what the law is on the subject but I doubt that the police officer would have had the legal power to check the phone, its tantamount to making a search (without a warrant).

As I have said before, quite often in a court case its the police officer's word against the person accused. Its up to the court who they believe.

On then face of it why would the officer lie ? (OK some of you guys are gong to come back with same old chestnuts of achieving targets etc. but do you really think its that hard for a police officer to find someone breaking the law. There are people doing it all the time. Its more a case of trying not to! On the other hand, Is it likely that the defendant would lie ? If they are guilty very likely.

This is an extract of what I just found on the internet:-

Ok, so what exactly is the law now?
The law states that it is illegal to ride a motorbike or drive a car while you are using a hand held communication device. Hands free phones may be used, but they are ultimately a distraction and you are still open to a charge of careless driving should a police officer think you are driving poorly while using one.

John I think you been out of the Uk for a while the police can and do search a lot of people and what they carry.

Police do lie as do many people in the street a human trait and no Judge surely would presume a police officer would not lie while a person in the street would..

Its quite common to ask for the IMEI and check it at least in London.

They would check the car reg and VIN out and indivudal if stopped due to breaking a law so now they would check a Phone..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/met_apollo/

A police officer can perform a search If they feel a crime is occuring or has occured. I belive quite rightly using a mobile phone while in the driving seat of a car stopped or moving is a offence (I personally think its not on as well)

http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm#wherecan

What is a stop and search?

Only a police officer can stop and go onto search you, your clothes and anything you are carrying, except when powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 are being used then police community support officers may search vehicles and bags carried by persons under the supervision of a police officer.

You may be stopped as the officer may have grounds to suspect that you are carrying:

Drugs, weapons or stolen property
Items that could be used:
to commit crime.
to commit an act of terrorism
to cause criminal damage.

[johncar54]

As I said, ........

OK some of you guys are gong to come back with the same old chestnuts of achieving targets etc. but do you really think its that hard for a police officer to find someone breaking the law. There are people doing it all the time. Its more a case of trying not to!

Its so easy to knock something, we all love doing it, you know the doctors, the politician, the teachers, judges, the media etc. etc. We all have a view that they have got it wrong. OK maybe we are right and all those we knock are wrong. But I know my son was the only one marching in step in the parade !!!!!

OK there must be some police who lie and we all know there are many of us who when we are in the wrong would never admit it (lie). I mean when was the last time you said or heard people saying, yes I was to blame for that accident, I'm a awful driver. Or, yes I was speeding, I was wrong, etc.

I am not defending the police but it seems unlikely a copper would willy nilly, put him/her self to a lot of paperwork and internal aggravation, put his/her career on offer, risk going to prison for perjury, just to prosecute an innocent person for a relatively minor offence, when as I said, they could stand on any corner for 5 or 10 minutes and nick at least a couple of people breaking the law.

But its just my impression, I know I might be wrong (and I am sure some of you will tell me I am).

[fred]

OK there must be some police who lie and we all know there are many of us who when we are in the wrong would never admit it (lie). I mean when was the last time you said or heard people saying, yes I was to blame for that accident, I'm a awful driver. Or, yes I was speeding, I was wrong, etc.

I was driving once in my motor on a road going through an industrial estate on a Sunday morning..It was like a ghost town so I suddenly got the urge TO BOOT IT..
20 seconds later I heard the siren behind me and so I pulled over... (No I idea where they come from/hiding)
The copper after interviewing me,obviously realising that I was a polite young man and without an attitude problem after readily admitting to my speeding offence gave me a well deserved caution...
******* then gave me 5 days to produce my documents!!

Now if all coppers were so well mannered and with such intuition and common sense perhaps this this thread would be redundant..
If only.

[johncar54]

I was driving once in my motor on a road going through an industrial estate on a Sunday morning..It was like a ghost town so I suddenly got the urge TO BOOT IT..
20 seconds later I heard the siren behind me and so I pulled over... (No I idea where they come from/hiding)
The copper after interviewing me,obviously realising that I was a polite young man and without an attitude problem after readily admitting to my speeding offence gave me a well deserved caution...
******* then gave me 5 days to produce my documents!!

Now if all coppers were so well mannered and with such intuition and common sense perhaps this this thread would be redundant..
If only.


In UK if a person does not admit an offence then the police cannot caution them. So if you deny it, they have the decisions to make either ignore it or report you.

Of course being polite and showing that you understood what you were doing was wrong, repentant and 'you will never do it again' cannot but help.

It seems strange to the police in Spain, and probably most countries, that in UK drivers do not have to carry their D/L etc and have up to five days to produce them at any police station.

[fred]

It seems strange to the police in Spain, and probably most countries, that in UK drivers do not have to carry their D/L etc and have up to five days to produce them at any police station.
They do to here in the P.I...The problem here is that I dont like carrying my licence all of the time in case of loss etc therefore driving illegally thereafter..
If I lose my licence here it can take up to one year to get a replacement... Id rather accept the modest fine to be honest..
In this regard I think that the UK rules of one week submission makes perfect sense.
(cant believe I just said "UK rules" and" "Perfect sense" all in one sentence!!:omg:

[Pete67]

Are you telling me (I have lived in Spain for 21 years) that police officers, on the beat in UK, must reach certain targets for reporting and arresting people ?

If so, can you please direct me to where I can read up on it.

Thanks, John

It might be more about "clear-up rate" traffic offences are a great way of increasing these because they are much more likely to be "cleared up"
Eg, a fine for speeding as a result of a camera taking the photo, if you accept the fine, the offence has been "cleared up" because one is admitting the offence, if you go to court and win, then the "crime" is also "cleared up" because it has been proved no offence has been commited!
I would be really interested to hear from any Police on this one, perhaps I'm wrong or just really cynical. btw I'm not anti-police or anything like it, got flashed doing nearly 50 (d'oh) on a deserted seafront road at 6am one summer, it was a 30 zone so a fair cop. I had just finished a 12 hour night shift and wasn't paying attention, good lesson learnt for me, still paid extra insurance for four years though...

[Pete67]

In UK if a person does not admit an offence then the police cannot caution them. So if you deny it, they have the decisions to make either ignore it or report you.

Of course being polite and showing that you understood what you were doing was wrong, repentant and 'you will never do it again' cannot but help.

It seems strange to the police in Spain, and probably most countries, that in UK drivers do not have to carry their D/L etc and have up to five days to produce them at any police station.

I stand to be corrected on the caution issue, but it was my understanding that Police can give you a "verbal caution" I think it might also be called "street caution" with no consequences for records, but a "formal caution" is something offered to enable Police to close the case, should you choose to accept it, and you have to sign a form proving you have admitted something this will give you a criminal record if it's a criminal offence (shoplifting etc) Once winessed an Officer giving a young male a "verbal caution" when asked "what for?" the officer's response was "to b***er off"

[johncar54]

It might be more about "clear-up rate" traffic offences are a great way of increasing these because they are much more likely to be "cleared up"
Eg, a fine for speeding as a result of a camera taking the photo, if you accept the fine, the offence has been "cleared up" because one is admitting the offence, if you go to court and win, then the "crime" is also "cleared up" because it has been proved no offence has been commited!
I would be really interested to hear from any Police on this one, perhaps I'm wrong or just really cynical. btw I'm not anti-police or anything like it, got flashed doing nearly 50 (d'oh) on a deserted seafront road at 6am one summer, it was a 30 zone so a fair cop. I had just finished a 12 hour night shift and wasn't paying attention, good lesson learnt for me, still paid extra insurance for four years though...

I preface this by saying I retired from CID 22 years ago and although I try to keep up, things do change.

For the most part only crime which is reported can be on the list of 'crimes committed.'

The exception is for example possession of drugs, or handling stolen property etc. as they can not exist, as a reported crime, unless someone is arrested, and these in effect distort clear up figures.

Everyone who is arrested for this type of increases known crime by one. Thus if a lot of people are arrested for this type of crime reported crime increases. One might say that would be an insensitive not to arrest anyone in that type of case.

That of course also applies to say speeding. It's not a reported offence unless someone is caught. And (unless the collation of figures has changed) a traffic offence cannot be a 'clear up' for a crime.

A simple example: If no one is arrested, say for handling stolen property then there are no crimes of that type to clear up. If someone is arrested then, whilst it is one clear up it is also one more listed crime.

Generally. For every crime reported, where no one is arrested for that crime, that number cannot be cancelled by an arrest. Example 100 crimes reported and not solved + 100 people arrested for other crimes. Clear up is 100 out of 200, thus a 50% clear-up rate.

This is a 'technical' answer just in response to Pete 67's post.

[johncar54]

I stand to be corrected on the caution issue, but it was my understanding that Police can give you a "verbal caution" I think it might also be called "street caution" with no consequences for records, but a "formal caution" is something offered to enable Police to close the case, should you choose to accept it, and you have to sign a form proving you have admitted something this will give you a criminal record if it's a criminal offence (shoplifting etc) Once winessed an Officer giving a young male a "verbal caution" when asked "what for?" the officer's response was "to b***er off"

Hi again Pete 67.

Again unless things have changed. A person cannot be cautioned unless a crime/offence has been committed. If a person denies they have committed an offence/crime then it cannot exist unless a court find it does. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

A caution can never create a criminal record for a person, only a conviction in court can do that (that is still so where say an absolute discharge is given, as that is a conviction, only a case dismissed, or no case to answer, is no conviction).

In the same way if a person is acquitted (except in very unusual circumstances) that can never be referred to in another case.

Once witnessed an Officer giving a young male a "verbal caution" when asked "what for?" the officer's response was "to b***er off"

Well on the face of it, that was a pointless pieces of stupidity by the officer, for the reasons I have explained.

I have just checked out what I said. It is I believe confirmed at :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/index.html

[Pete67]

I preface this by saying I retired from CID 22 years ago and although I try to keep up, things do change.

For the most part only crime which is reported can be on the list of 'crimes committed.'

The exception is for example possession of drugs, or handling stolen property etc. as they can not exist, as a reported crime, unless someone is arrested, and these in effect distort clear up figures.

Everyone who is arrested for this type of increases known crime by one. Thus if a lot of people are arrested for this type of crime reported crime increases. One might say that would be an insensitive not to arrest anyone in that type of case.

That of course also applies to say speeding. It's not a reported offence unless someone is caught. And (unless the collation of figures has changed) a traffic offence cannot be a 'clear up' for a crime.

A simple example: If no one is arrested, say for handling stolen property then there are no crimes of that type to clear up. If someone is arrested then, whilst it is one clear up it is also one more listed crime.

Generally. For every crime reported, where no one is arrested for that crime, that number cannot be cancelled by an arrest. Example 100 crimes reported and not solved + 100 people arrested for other crimes. Clear up is 100 out of 200, thus a 50% clear-up rate.

This is a 'technical' answer just in response to Pete 67's post.

Thanks very much for that John, clarified things for me :)

[KeithD]

I preface this by saying I retired from CID 22 years ago and although I try to keep up, things do change.
Like the real police seldom leave the building, and those we do see on the beat are plastic police with little powers of arrest :doh

[Pete67]

Hi again Pete 67.

Again unless things have changed. A person cannot be cautioned unless a crime/offence has been committed. If a person denies they have committed an offence/crime then it cannot exist unless a court find it does. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

A caution can never create a criminal record for a person, only a conviction in court can do that (that is still so where say an absolute discharge is given, as that is a conviction, only a case dismissed, or no case to answer, is no conviction).

In the same way if a person is acquitted (except in very unusual circumstances) that can never be referred to in another case.

Once witnessed an Officer giving a young male a "verbal caution" when asked "what for?" the officer's response was "to b***er off"

Well on the face of it, that was a pointless pieces of stupidity by the officer, for the reasons I have explained.

I have just checked out what I said. It is I believe confirmed at :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/index.html

Thanks again John! things are certainly a lot more complicated than I thought, I certainly do stand corrected ! :)

[johncar54]

Thanks again John! things are certainly a lot more complicated than I thought, I certainly do stand corrected ! :)

Any time Pete (and its good to appreciated too, thanks)

[jonathan47]

i was talking to a SB officer last night, conversation got around to arrest he told me they always let the uniform guys do it as they have targets and performance pay based on it he also told me thet discuss which one of the uniform will do it depending on who needs the arrest !!! beggrs belief but from the horses mouth so to speak !

j & a

[johncar54]

i was talking to a SB officer last night, conversation got around to arrest he told me they always let the uniform guys do it as they have targets and performance pay based on it he also told me thet discuss which one of the uniform will do it depending on who needs the arrest !!! beggrs belief but from the horses mouth so to speak !

j & a

I cannot say that is not now the case, although I doubt it. It seems so unbelievable that one might think he was pulling your leg. 20 years ago there was a myth that police got paid more and got extra days off for making arrests. It not true but people still believed it. But I know times have changed so maybe it's true now.

As it is so easy to find people breaking the law I am surprised, if they really do get payments for making arrests, that any one is ever just cautioned.

[Pete67]

i was talking to a SB officer last night, conversation got around to arrest he told me they always let the uniform guys do it as they have targets and performance pay based on it he also told me thet discuss which one of the uniform will do it depending on who needs the arrest !!! beggrs belief but from the horses mouth so to speak !

j & a

Full marks for teamwork though :)

[aromulus]

. But I know times have changed so maybe it's true now.

You better believe it, lots of things have changed....:omg:
Some openly, and a lots of others from the back door....:doh

[marlyn&kenny]

:omg::omg::omg: Why some policemen here will not listen the truth and stick with what they conclude? I will not go away until I convinced them and let them check my mobile. Did you try to speak with higher cops to check your mobile?

I have checked before at UKBA website about driving in the UK offenses if I am not yet holding British Passport and there's some laws that we really need to obey so that our application will not be affected.

But not to worry too much if that is not fixed penalty.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/eligibility/goodcharacter/

You can ask to speak to a senior officer. tel him what has happend. He will then demand an expensive list of cals and times from your network. If your telling ther truth the case will be dropped. if your not they wil hammer you.