wrongly accused

[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-ca...arrest-targets

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1870416.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-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...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...olice++targets


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

And because of this the pc plods, are given targets for arrests, and anything associated with it.
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....

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.

[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...
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...
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]

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.

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.
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!

[English Rose]

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

just don't get caught, if you do

[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

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.

[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]

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

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

[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

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/stopandsear...s.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!!

[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.