wrongly accused

[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

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

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.

[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

[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 !!!!

[fred]

ACAB = All constabulary are brilliant.

[aromulus]

ACAB = All constabulary are brilliant.

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

[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!!

[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]

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/...ing/index.html

[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/...ing/index.html

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

[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.

[aromulus]

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

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

[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