MK5 Golf GTI
General => Random Chat => Topic started by: patrickcullen87 on August 13, 2012, 09:51:24 am
-
Looking for a little bit of advice, basically I got pulled for driving whilst on the phone (wasn't on the phone) so I took it to court, I attended the first court date to plead not guilty. They then set me 2 dates, one to confirm I was ready to go to trial and the other the trial date. My Question is, should I produce my evidence at the 1st date to stop it going to trial? Basically I have phone records showing that I wasn't on the phone, secondly the police have got the date wrong in ye summary of evidence and I have a tracker report showing I wasn't in the area I got pulled on that date and time?? Case seems pretty black and white to me so I am representing myself. Is thi a good idea? Should I produce my evidence just now or just wait till the trial date??
Thanks :happy2:
-
You seem to have good evidence (including the bungling efforts of the police attempting to get the date right). This is just a typo/technicality though yeah? Be wary of the possibility of the judge brushing a simple mistakes like that aside. I presume you were looking at your phone when noticed by the police, but not actually using it (call/text) at the time. Don't answer that one online (just incase). :wink: If so then the most the police should be able to do you for is using a device whilst driving (this includes sat-navs, mp3 players, electric shavers,etc).
I think you should put forward all the evidence you have at the first available opportunity. If the judge looks at it in your favour then he can stop it going any further.
Hope it all goes well for you.
p.s. All of the above is totally my own opinion. I'm in no way a legal expert :laugh:
-
I don't think the mistake is a typo to be honest...I will use an example here...say the offence happened on Sunday the 13th January they have wrote in the evidence the offence happened on Friday the 11th of January, it's a full statement it's not just a typo error??
-
im sure the offence extends to holding/using your phone as well as making calls or sending texts, but with the proof you have along with the tracker and the incorrect date you do have a strong case!
-
Looking for a little bit of advice, basically I got pulled for driving whilst on the phone (wasn't on the phone) so I took it to court
....When you say you got "pulled" should we assume you mean you were pulled over and stopped at the roadside by Police? And this wasn't a case of receiving a notice of prosecution subsequently just on the strength of being spotted (allegably) using the phone?
If you were 'pulled', presumably you strongly (but politely) protested your innocence and that should be on record.
Either you were or you were not using your phone while driving. If you were not, then I would advise informing the court (via its clerk) by letter as soon as possible. The letter should be a full account and explanation pointing out that you believe there has been an error. A court will always be grateful that its time is not wasted.
However, if you were using your phone while driving, whether voice or txt, then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever and you should accept what's due.
-
Looking for a little bit of advice, basically I got pulled for driving whilst on the phone (wasn't on the phone) so I took it to court
....When you say you got "pulled" should we assume you mean you were pulled over and stopped at the roadside by Police? And this wasn't a case of receiving a notice of prosecution subsequently just on the strength of being spotted (allegably) using the phone?
If you were 'pulled', presumably you strongly (but politely) protested your innocence and that should be on record.
Either you were or you were not using your phone while driving. If you were not, then I would advise informing the court (via its clerk) by letter as soon as possible. The letter should be a full account and explanation pointing out that you believe there has been an error. A court will always be grateful that its time is not wasted.
However, if you were using your phone while driving, whether voice or txt, then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever and you should accept what's due.
Yes I was pulled over at the roadside by an undercover police car, I explained to the police officer that I was not using the phone nor was I holding the phone. They gave me a slip to fine me and give me 3 points which I did not pay, I then went to court and pleaded not guilty, got my intermediate deit and final trial date.
My intermediate date is tomorrow so I was wondering wether I should produce my evidence at this point or wait untill the final trial? I am 100% innocent so I am not accepting the points. I know mistakes can be made by the police and they have a hard job but I am not accepting 3 points for their error. If it was jut a fine then I would pay it just to get the case out the way as it is only money at the end of the day, but 3 points stay on my license which I do not need
-
^^^^
So, I guess that the Police were adamant that they (one? two?) had witnessed you using your phone. Any court is likely to believe the Police evidence over your protestation of innocence in such a case, I reckon. However, your phone records should counter that and support your case.
I would advise (but I'm not a lawyer) having all your evidence with you to present tomorrow (IF given that opportunity). At least inform the court tomorrow that you have it available but I expect it will be a quickie and just a formaility and the 'trial' hearing is where they will take more notice of it.
The underlying principle here is for you to be totally compliant and cooperative. Whether you like it or not, we all have to submit to the ways of a court and it never bodes well for us if we show anger or (of course) disrespect even if we feel it and feel justified.
What I'm finding difficult is that the Police seem to be so positive about your guilt. Were you merely dewaxing your ear? What exactly do they allege they witnessed?
Interesting..... Please keep us informed.
There are one or two legal bods on this forum who may post some advice or info.
-
You either will or will not be given the opportunity to present your evidence at your first court date. It should be obvious, ie the judge will ask you if you have anything you wish to say in relation to what you are there for. So listen carefully! I'd guess you won't get the opportunity to plead at this date as it's only to confirm you're ready to go to trial, as you said. I'm not legally trained just to let you know.
I personally agree with what you're doing 100%. I would do the same in your situation. I'd be perfectly polite and courteous. I'd listen very carefully to the judge and answer thoughtfully and truthfully. If I did all that and lost I'd be upset but I'd have to take it on the chin-not worth going to jail after all. At least your conscience is clear, nobody can take that away from you.
-
^^^^
So, I guess that the Police were adamant that they (one? two?) had witnessed you using your phone. Any court is likely to believe the Police evidence over your protestation of innocence in such a case, I reckon. However, your phone records should counter that and support your case.
I would advise (but I'm not a lawyer) having all your evidence with you to present tomorrow (IF given that opportunity). At least inform the court tomorrow that you have it available but I expect it will be a quickie and just a formaility and the 'trial' hearing is where they will take more notice of it.
The underlying principle here is for you to be totally compliant and cooperative. Whether you like it or not, we all have to submit to the ways of a court and it never bodes well for us if we show anger or (of course) disrespect even if we feel it and feel justified.
What I'm finding difficult is that the Police seem to be so positive about your guilt. Were you merely dewaxing your ear? What do they allege they witnessed?
Interesting..... Please keep us informed.
There are one or two legal bods on this forum who may post some advice or info.
There were 2 officers present at the time. I was sitting at traffic lights and had my right elbow on the drivers window Leaning my head in my hand so it would like my hand was I my ear, I was singing along to Oasis on the radio lol so I can see how it looks like I would be on the phone, when i pulled away from the lights the officers drove past me in the opposite direction then done a U turn and pulled me over. So they surely could only of had a 2-3 second glance in my window. As said I have the phone records to prove I was not on the phone, erm though they state on the citation that they clearly seem me engaging in conversation
-
And also I have a Bluetooth device fitted in my van which I was pulled in so I have no reason to have the phone to my ear as it connects automatically!
-
There were 2 officers present at the time. I was sitting at traffic lights and had my right elbow on the drivers window Leaning my head in my hand so it would like my hand was I my ear, I was singing along to Oasis on the radio lol so I can see how it looks like I would be on the phone, when i pulled away from the lights the officers drove past me in the opposite direction then done a U turn and pulled me over. So they surely could only of had a 2-3 second glance in my window. As said I have the phone records to prove I was not on the phone, erm though they state on the citation that they clearly seem me engaging in conversation
....Aha! That explains the Police action and I expect they may have been told such reasons as yours before and taken it to be a clever cover-up even though, in your case, it apparently wasn't.
Although there is no law against it, it's not a great driving habit to be in charge of a vehicle with right elbow out and head in hand. If you were playing your music loud it won't have impressed the Police either. I must admit that I hate seeing drivers in my rear view mirrors who have their elbow out and head in hand even at traffic lights. On seeing your mouth moving I too would have assumed you were on a phone even if hands-free and consequently that you were distracted.
Be aware that the Police may add the charge of 'Driving without due care and attention' to their case against you.
I don't think that your account of events will hold anything in your favour but that the phone records you have will be strongly in your favour. If I was sitting on the bench I would ask to see phone records presented to support the case either way. [Sorry, I'm just a frustrated wannabe barrister!]
-
And also I have a Bluetooth device fitted in my van which I was pulled in so I have no reason to have the phone to my ear as it connects automatically!
....And, so far, such hands-free devices are not illegal. Personally, I don't think they are much better at not distracting someone from driving but where do you draw the line? Passengers not allowed to talk to drivers? The law is based on the principle of your physical control of your vehicle rather than your mental focus it would seem.
You should also tell the court (at the appropriate time) that you have a Bluetooth and therefore no need for a handheld phone to your ear.
You can understand why the Police feel justified in pulling you though can't you?
-
And also I have a Bluetooth device fitted in my van which I was pulled in so I have no reason to have the phone to my ear as it connects automatically!
....And, so far, such hands-free devices are not illegal. Personally, I don't think they are much better at not distracting someone from driving but where do you draw the line? Passengers not allowed to talk to drivers? The law is based on the principle of your physical control of your vehicle rather than your mental focus.
You should also tell the court (at the appropriate time) that you have a Bluetooth and therefore no need for a handheld phone to your ear.
You can understand why the Police feel justified in pulling you though can't you?
Yeah I don't have any objections to them pulling me over as I can put myself in their position and would have came to the same conclusion, I just hopes evidence is enough to convince the judge that I was indeed not on the phone. I would feel it a little unfair to receive points for something i haven't done!
-
.
Black and white material evidence such as phone records is exactly the sort of evidence which makes a court's job easier - I think that the case against you will be dismissed. But don't hold your breath for an apology for the waste of your time etc.
So, as others have also said in this thread, take all your evidence with you tomorrow just in case and Good Luck! :happy2:
-
From reading all of this, I tthink you should be fine. I presume it's a magistrates court your going to, when asked a question by the prosecution or defence always address the magistrates with the answer . ( hope I'm not teaching you to suck eggs and don't wanna sound patronising! )
As far as phone records go, this is pretty much concrete evidence, as the fine and statements will have the time on they stopped you, however ifsstatement has wrong date that does show something about the officers .
And dfinetly bring the Bluetooth up, I'd find it hard to believe with the evidence you have of them finding you guilty. I know a few people that have represented themselves and the magistrates haven't favoured the officers.
Good luck :happy2:
-
If you represent yourself, the court will talk you through the process and help you out as much as possible while you are there. They will ask you to stand and give you a chance to say anything you like and ask you leading questions to which you can answer.
If dates are incorrect they may well throw the case out as Judges HATE dealing with mistakes made by the CPS and the police.
-
do your phone records show all incoming and outgoing calls and texts?
-
speak to a solicitor that specialises in motoring offences. :happy2:
-
do your phone records show all incoming and outgoing calls and texts?
Using a phone while driving does not have to be calling or texting as in the old days .
You can be found guilty for having it in your hand , listening to your music , using your apps etc etc
Your records will show perhaps that you were not texting or calling someone . Does it show incoming and outgoing .
Cases have to be proven by the prosecution (and beyond any reasonable doubt) and not by you proving you weren't doing what they say . You need to be able to put doubt into the mind of the Magistrate and that they believe what you say . What did you tell the officers you were doing then at the time ? What you said should have been recorded on their notes , if not why not .
-
do your phone records show all incoming and outgoing calls and texts?
Using a phone while driving does not have to be calling or texting as in the old days .
You can be found guilty for having it in your hand , listening to your music , using your apps etc etc
Your records will show perhaps that you were not texting or calling someone . Does it show incoming and outgoing .
Cases have to be proven by the prosecution (and beyond any reasonable doubt) and not by you proving you weren't doing what they say . You need to be able to put doubt into the mind of the Magistrate and that they believe what you say . What did you tell the officers you were doing then at the time ? What you said should have been recorded on their notes , if not why not .
Well as their statement says that he had the phone up to his ear and he was engaging in a conversation, they can hardly now say he was playing tetris.
Providing phone records show both incoming and outgoing calls, missed or otherwise he is pretty safe.
-
.
I have to say that, regardless of the facts and outcome of this particular case, I'm very glad indeed to read of cases of the Police 'pulling' drivers for using their phones.
It will be very interesting to hear later how today went in court.
-
If the police have made an error in the information they have submitted to the court then it would be worth pointing this out to the court ASAP - with a suggestion that a procedural impropriety has occurred.
If I were a judge, or a lawyer (and I'm neither) then unless you have persuaded your phone company to provide the incoming call records for the date in question then the chances of you being able to win a case like this are small. You may well be able to prove that you hadn't placed a call, but the counter argument will be that you received a call rather than placed one.
If you get stopped for using a mobile phone then if the police have made a mistake IMO its better to sort it out at the time. Of course they are used to people arguing the toss. Be polite - show them the phone, where it was in the vehicle, what the time is set to and the incoming and outgoing call logs. If they say that you could have deleted the offending record then show them how that is done on your phone and point out that from the time when they signalled you to pull over to when you stopped you would not have had time to delete the record. Above all, stay calm. Do not argue with them, if they give you a ticket then take it but maintain that you are innocent.
If the police haven't made a mistake, just admit your guilt, take the ticket and learn the lesson.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
-
Please update this thread. It would be interesting to see what the outcome is. GOOD LUCK MATEY! :drinking:
-
do your phone records show all incoming and outgoing calls and texts?
Using a phone while driving does not have to be calling or texting as in the old days .
You can be found guilty for having it in your hand , listening to your music , using your apps etc etc
Your records will show perhaps that you were not texting or calling someone . Does it show incoming and outgoing .
Cases have to be proven by the prosecution (and beyond any reasonable doubt) and not by you proving you weren't doing what they say . You need to be able to put doubt into the mind of the Magistrate and that they believe what you say . What did you tell the officers you were doing then at the time ? What you said should have been recorded on their notes , if not why not .
Well as their statement says that he had the phone up to his ear and he was engaging in a conversation, they can hardly now say he was playing tetris.
Providing phone records show both incoming and outgoing calls, missed or otherwise he is pretty safe.
Where have you read what the Police statement says/states ? I haven't seen it . The OP has said what he was doing not the Police !
-
.
Well, we'll hopefully hear what happened today in court at some stage this evening, or at least the OP's account of what happened.
I can't help wondering that if the CPS/Police feel they are on weak ground and that if they want a successful prosecution, they may add the charge of Driving Without Due Care and Attention. But perhaps all charges have to be declared before any court hearing - I've forgotten as it's so long since I have had any court experience. It's a charge which is always very open to interpretation but if someone is seen driving with head held in hand it seems to me to be potentially justifiable. There have been successful prosecutions for things such as eating while driving.
-
well waited 2 and a half hours to be called up to the judge sitting in a roasting hot court room, judge called me up and cnfirmed my name, then asked if i was ready to go to trial which i replied yes then he said bring all evidence or witnesses at the trial date then told me that was me. lasted a whole 2 minutes!! n and a half hours wait just for a 2 minute speach (if even 2 minutes) what a waste of time!!
-
^^^^
Not a waste of time. Had you not bothered to turn up, the court might immediately feel a bias against you at the next hearing. It may be viewed as disrespectful to the court. It's a 'waste' of their time as well as yours.
I thought it might be just a formality like that but what some others posted caused me to think that you might have been given the opportunity to say something. Was it that you simply weren't given that opportunity or that you clammed up? (no shame in that, some people find such experiences very daunting).
When is your "trial"? - It sounds as if you are on a serious criminal charge!
Thanks for keeping us all updated up here in the gallery!
-
^^^^
Not a waste of time. Had you not bothered to turn up, the court might immediately feel a bias against you at the next hearing. It may be viewed as disrespectful to the court. It's a 'waste' of their time as well as yours.
I thought it might be just a formality like that but what some others posted caused me to think that you might have been given the opportunity to say something. Was it that you simply weren't given that opportunity or that you clammed up? (no shame in that, some people find such experiences very daunting).
When is your "trial"? - It sounds as if you are on a serious criminal charge!
Thanks for keeping us all updated up here in the gallery!
A simple letter would have been sufficient...a whole day off work for 2 minutes lol no they never gave me a chance to speak. He asked me 2 questions, to confirm my name address and if i was ready for the trial. My trial is the middle of September, hopefully with my evidence i should be ok :smiley:
-
Welcome to world of Legalese. Let the games begin. You should have presented a Bill for your time to the Judge LOL
-
I have to say, I've a lot of respect for you not taking it lying down, which after reading all this, is what I suspect I'd do in the same situation. Sounds like a whole load of hassle!
-
I have to say, I've a lot of respect for you not taking it lying down, which after reading all this, is what I suspect I'd do in the same situation. Sounds like a whole load of hassle!
...........x2 :congrats:. Good on you. :happy2:
-
^^^^
I think that if you believe you are in the right then you should always stand up and fight for fair justice. Anyway, there's also a hassle in having penalty points.
I once fought against Great Ormond Street Hospital in The High Court. The hearing only lasted a couple of days but the lead up was months. My now ex wife wanted to give up but by not giving up I saved our son from experimental surgery - It was absolutely worth all the effort. GOS is not all it claims it is!
-
^^^^
I think that if you believe you are in the right then you should always stand up and fight for fair justice. Anyway, there's also a hassle in having penalty points.
I once fought against Great Ormond Street Hospital in The High Court. The hearing only lasted a couple of days but the lead up was months. My now ex wife wanted to give up but by not giving up I saved our son from experimental surgery - It was absolutely worth all the effort. GOS is not all it claims it is!
may i ask why would you had to take that to the High Court? if your son was either not legally competent to consent and your ex wife had refused or your son was legally competent and refused consent then that's the end of the matter in the eyes of the law. (the mother has more parental responsibility than the father in the eyes of the law.)
whilst i appreciate (and i mean this with no disrespect at all RR) that for your son to be young enough to be in GOS this might have been a while ago, i'm not aware that these laws have been changed recently.
-
^^^^
The matter was about parental consent and our (both parents) refusal to give that consent. GOS took the matter to The High Court but I fought back and they backed down. That's really as much as I want to go into as the whole experience was very unpleasant and has very unhappy memories and is also very off-topic - Sorry for that.
I mentioned my case just as a directly experienced example of how it can be worth fighting for or defending what you believe.
-
no problem RR :happy2:
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
these are in effect criminal proceedings tho, right? so the officers would have to argue that he was using someone else's phone, that that call was not registered on his calls as registered by his phone company and not on the bluetooth he has fitted in the vehicle he was driving.
going further and further from "beyond reasonable doubt", no?
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?
I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'
-
that's my point: surely if that was the prosecution's argument then the burden of proof is on them that he was using someone else's phone? innocent until proven guilty and all that.
i think getting a lawyer would be the sensible thing to do
-
My friend is a Policeman and he said even if he is on his own, its his word against yours and they will always go with Officer of the Law.
He gets loads of 'prove its' he finds it quite funny.
-
yes but in the circumstance above his word isn't "you were on the phone", it was "you were on someone else's phone". if they don't have to prove that, beyond reasonable doubt, then i will have lost quite a lot of faith in the legal system.
at the end of the day, if the OP hasn't done anything wrong then he shouldn't suffer for this. that's the bottom line really. the legal case shouldn't be built on what ifs until it is impossible for the defendant to maintain his innocence.
-
Simply all they would have to say is that they witnessed someone with a phone positioned near to their head talking. Usually if i have someone saying that they were not on the phone I would seize it as evidence. The fact that someone has logs saying that they were not on their phone at that time will not be an instant get out of jail free card. Thats why I would get a solicitor to argue it using stayed cases. Its like if you see someone punch another person but they dont have any visible injuries. It doesnt negate that the offence didnt take place. It just means that it will come down to witness accounts to prove or disprove the offence.
-
^^^^
I can see why the next hearing is called a 'trial'! But it's trying the evidence rather than Patrick as a criminal (subtle difference?).
If we look at the case and assume that the OP Patrick is in fact totally innocent of what he is being charged with, it then might seem slightly ridiculous that a matter of a driver's hand supporting his head and singing is brought as far as a trial.
But we must also accept that the Police have innocently acted in doing their duty as they saw it - Reporting the illegal use of a phone while driving. However, by hearing all sides in a courtroom is how fair justice may hopefully be established. That is what is meant to happen.
Sorry, but I still have a niggle about the possibility of a Driving Without Due Care and Attention charge as it adds weight to the CPS case and it's unclear to me whether Patrick was actually driving while supporting his head (and singing) rather than only doing so while he was still stationary at the traffic lights. It also makes me think that 56OctyVRS's advice to get a solicitor is very good advice. I would suggest a specialist such as Patterson Law:
http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/index.php < I have no direct personal experience of using them but they seem to have a good realistic approach and, very importantly, are specialists.
One thing I can strongly advise from experience is that a SPECIALIST solicitor/lawyer in ALL cases is an absolute must! The technicalities of law are mighty complex and not necessarily related at all to emotional judgement.
-
.
In very simple terms, a Police Officer upholds the law by reporting what he/she/they see as infringements of the law and the matter is only brought to court if the defendant wishes to contest what is alleged by the Police.
You are not in reality completely 'innocent' until proved guilty but your innocence is put in question at the very moment Police stop you and, if you protest your innocence the matter is then resolved later in a formal court.
Sorry if I appear to be stating the obvious but there are always two sides to every story and again that is why a court system is a good thing. We can enjoy speculating and try to advise but the bottom line is what happens in the courtroom.
-
speak to a solicitor that specialises in motoring offences. :happy2:
that sounds like I good idea... i would suggest the same thing :star:
take it from someone that has experience :innocent: :wink:
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?
I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'
Yes they asked me to provide my phone, to which i provided them with my work phone (black HTC) and my personal phone (white iphone) to which the officers were certain it was the black phone. So they took the phone number and called the phone. So they cant argue i was using a different phone i would presume?
As for taking legal advise i really dont want to go down that route as it is pretty costly, the way i see it is i have done nothing wrong so so if they cant judge wether i am innocent or not going by my evidence and all the circumstances eg bluetooth etc then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system,
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?
I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'
Yes they asked me to provide my phone, to which i provided them with my work phone (black HTC) and my personal phone (white iphone) to which the officers were certain it was the black phone. So they took the phone number and called the phone. So they cant argue i was using a different phone i would presume?
As for taking legal advise i really dont want to go down that route as it is pretty costly, the way i see it is i have done nothing wrong so so if they cant judge wether i am innocent or not going by my evidence and all the circumstances eg bluetooth etc then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system,
....You can usually get a first stage of legal advice free. You say you have done nothing wrong but others think differently. Obviously you maintain that you are innocent but others will be setting out to prove otherwise to the court and that is the way it should be so that a fair and balanced final judgement is hopefully arrived at. The logic of you having Bluetooth and therefore (in your eyes only) you didn't need to use any other phone begs the question why you carry so many phones while in the car anyway - It's not a get-out-of-jail card which proves your innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Sorry, but surely you can see how the Police officers were totally reasonable and justified in their eyes to challenge you and now a trial of all evidence has to be heard in court. It isn't enough for you to just plead your innocence, ALL the facts need to be heard and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?
I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'
Yes they asked me to provide my phone, to which i provided them with my work phone (black HTC) and my personal phone (white iphone) to which the officers were certain it was the black phone. So they took the phone number and called the phone. So they cant argue i was using a different phone i would presume?
As for taking legal advise i really dont want to go down that route as it is pretty costly, the way i see it is i have done nothing wrong so so if they cant judge wether i am innocent or not going by my evidence and all the circumstances eg bluetooth etc then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system,
....You can usually get a first stage of legal advice free. You say you have done nothing wrong but others think differently. Obviously you maintain that you are innocent but others will be setting out to prove otherwise to the court and that is the way it should be so that a fair and balanced final judgement is hopefully arrived at. The logic of you having Bluetooth and therefore (in your eyes only) you didn't need to use any other phone begs the question why you carry so many phones while in the car anyway - It's not a get-out-of-jail card which proves your innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Sorry, but surely you can see how the Police officers were totally reasonable and justified in their eyes to challenge you and now a trial of all evidence has to be heard in court. It isn't enough for you to just plead your innocence, ALL the facts need to be heard and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
but the burden should be on the prosecution to prove that the OP is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent
-
Just been reading through this, were the officers in question in uniform? I was told the other day by a d.c that an ununiformed officer aint even allowed to pull you. :confused:
-
Sorry, but surely you can see how the Police officers were totally reasonable and justified in their eyes to challenge you and now a trial of all evidence has to be heard in court. It isn't enough for you to just plead your innocence, ALL the facts need to be heard and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
but the burden should be on the prosecution to prove that the OP is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent
....Either I haven't made it clear or you misunderstand me. All the facts will be presented by both sides so that the court is able to decide what it sees as the truth beyond any reasonable doubt. The case is going to trial to test his innocence. The CPS is calling his innocence into question. If there was absolutely no question of it wouldn't the case already be dismissed?
Any accused person summoned to appear before a court can plead their innocence until the cows come home (and they frequently do so even when in truth they are guilty). As far as those prosecuting are concerned, the person brought to court isn't necessarily innocent and they set out to prove guilt as they see it. Going to court at all is often a risk but there are times when you need to stand by a principle or to defend your good name and reputation.
Sorry but I don't see what you, Sub, are saying about 'the burden', to be much different from what I am saying.
Irrespective of the actual truth, the court will decide what it believes is true and it will become a matter of record.
-
Red .... Not exactly true , the Prosecution put forward their case and it is down to them to prove their case . The defence have to pulls this apart in any way they believe the Judge/Magistrate/Jury may decide that the prosecution case is not proven , hence Not Guilty Verdict . Our forumer only has to throw doubt on what the prosecution say .
-
^^^^
So it starts off as a prosecution of someone who claims they are innocent (assuming they plead innocent and do not admit guilt to the charges). Hence they are supposed 'innocent' until proven to be guilty. Sorry, I thought that was what I was saying.
Surely the prosecution will in turn attempt to throw doubt on what the defence say?
Isn't it sensible to employ a solicitor/lawyer as a mouthpiece because they will be familiar with the ways of court and how to best defend against a prosecution? And then ask for their legal costs to be paid if found innocent?
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?
I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'
Yes they asked me to provide my phone, to which i provided them with my work phone (black HTC) and my personal phone (white iphone) to which the officers were certain it was the black phone. So they took the phone number and called the phone. So they cant argue i was using a different phone i would presume?
As for taking legal advise i really dont want to go down that route as it is pretty costly, the way i see it is i have done nothing wrong so so if they cant judge wether i am innocent or not going by my evidence and all the circumstances eg bluetooth etc then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system,
Sorry for being dumb. i don't know much about blue-tooth but doesn't it have to be one phone at a time connected to it. Ie if you had your home phone connected to it whilst driving then someone rang your works phone, is it not the case that your works phone wouldn't automatically connect. :happy2: I am only basing this on our Mazda, family car which can't have two phones connected to it at the same time. :smiley:
-
Regards your case I would seek legal advice from a professional as I suspect if the case for using your phone gets thrown out they might try the "Driving without care and attention", although the fact that you saw them and witnessed them turning round shows you were paying attention :wink:.
While driving home a few weeks back I got pulled over (allegedly speeding) and my phone was on the centre console (It was actually on the armrest until the police officer stepped out in the road in front of me at which point it slipped off and landed on centre console), he asked me was I using the phone to which I replied "No, feel free to check the call history and duly handed him the phone", he never even checked it (I guess if he figured I handed it over I had nothing to hide), they did not "do" me for speeding, he said I was doing 43 in a 30 (I was not actually speeding anyway :smiley:) as it seemed he was only issuing me with a warning "To slow down" (Still was not speeding officer!), funny thing was tho they pulled me over and not the old guy in front of me who was blatantly speeding (and clearly pulling away from me at the time), I suspect that the radar gun speed they said they had that showed 43 was indeed the old guy in front of me :signLOL:.
-
The problem I see with your phone records defence is that you could have been using anyones phone. You really need to seek legal advise CPS will use stated cases and now how to present evidence. I am a Police Officer myself and now how the system works. At a trial they will call both Officers as witnesses so it becomes 2 against 1. The small typo on the date doesnt matter. I have been guilty of that when doing paperwork at 3am and been tired. Happens to us all. If I was you I would seek legal advise and let a solicitor do your arguing for you. They know about case law and stated cases they can use to help defend you.
Did they take your phone number and check it by calling you at the time?
I suspect they might say 'how do we know you don't have another phone?'
Yes they asked me to provide my phone, to which i provided them with my work phone (black HTC) and my personal phone (white iphone) to which the officers were certain it was the black phone. So they took the phone number and called the phone. So they cant argue i was using a different phone i would presume?
As for taking legal advise i really dont want to go down that route as it is pretty costly, the way i see it is i have done nothing wrong so so if they cant judge wether i am innocent or not going by my evidence and all the circumstances eg bluetooth etc then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system,
Sorry for being dumb. i don't know much about blue-tooth but doesn't it have to be one phone at a time connected to it. Ie if you had your home phone connected to it whilst driving then someone rang your works phone, is it not the case that your works phone wouldn't automatically connect. :happy2: I am only basing this on our Mazda, family car which can't have two phones connected to it at the same time. :smiley:
Most BT devices these days allow connection of upto 5-10 different phones but only 1 at a time :happy2:
-
Regards your case I would seek legal advice from a professional as I suspect if the case for using your phone gets thrown out they might try the "Driving without care and attention", although the fact that you saw them and witnessed them turning round shows you were paying attention :wink:.
....That's exactly what I suggested a few pages back. IIRC, the OP's posted description of what happened suggested that he had already driven away from the lights with head held in hand and elbow on window - If so, that's very sloppy IMO and certainly worthy of a 'Driving without care and attention' charge plus possibly a charge of 'Not being in full control of the vehicle'.
-
Well I went to court, was suppose to be seen at 10am but ended up having to wait untill 3pm because the 2 police officers did not show up! I am pretty sure if I was that late then the officers would not wait around that long for me!! Anyways after much thinking I decided I was going to represent myself as the case was pretty much black and white in my eyes! The police gave their version of what happened that day and I gave my version along with my evidence (which the fiscal was not happy to see) after both accounts of what happened the fiscal then said to the judge that the officers statements were to be taken as the truth and the judge should discard my evidence!! I found this to be pretty cheeky but why do I know. The judge then went away for 10 minutes and came back and made her decision that I was NOT GUILTY! Justice has been done! Although the fiscal and police officers did not seem to happy, and funnily enough there was an unmarked police car follow me pretty much all the way home, might just have been a coincidence? Happy is not the word :smiley:
-
Well I went to court, was suppose to be seen at 10am but ended up having to wait untill 3pm because the 2 police officers did not show up! I am pretty sure if I was that late then the officers would not wait around that long for me!! Anyways after much thinking I decided I was going to represent myself as the case was pretty much black and white in my eyes! The police gave their version of what happened that day and I gave my version along with my evidence (which the fiscal was not happy to see) after both accounts of what happened the fiscal then said to the judge that the officers statements were to be taken as the truth and the judge should discard my evidence!! I found this to be pretty cheeky but why do I know. The judge then went away for 10 minutes and came back and made her decision that I was NOT GUILTY! Justice has been done! Although the fiscal and police officers did not seem to happy, and funnily enough there was an unmarked police car follow me pretty much all the way home, might just have been a coincidence? Happy is not the word :smiley:
Every court case is set to start at 10am, so you could have 3 or 4 cases set to start at the same time. I've spent days sat waiting at court over the last 9 years, it's the way our justice system works and it's not going to change
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
-
Congratulations, excellent news :grin: You must be over the moon!
Justice has been served!
-
Justice has been served!
....Justice has a funny habit of only being served when it goes the way you wanted it to go.
-
Justice has been served!
....Justice has a funny habit of only being served when it goes the way you wanted it to go.
The OP claimed he was innocent, and felt strongly enough about it to take it to court and represent himself. The court agreed he was innocent.
Police can make mistakes and a court of law agreed this was the case.
Yes justice has definitely been done.
-
^^^^
I agree. In this case, justice has been done. And I am sure that the OP feels very relieved.
In fact, justice is seen to be done irrespective of the outcome. I think you may have missed my point.
-
^^^^
I agree. In this case, justice has been done. And I am sure that the OP feels very relieved.
In fact, justice is seen to be done irrespective of the outcome. I think you may have missed my point.
Well apologies if that is the case. I thought you were saying justice was served because the OP got the outcome he wanted regardless of guilt, and not in fact that he had gained justice because he was innocent. :drinking:
-
^^^^
Apology graciously accepted :drinking:
The way of the courts of justice is that, having heard and considered all accounts, they then decide whether someone is guilty or innocent (sorry, I realise you know this already) and that's officially it. However, whether someone in truth is guilty or innocent is sometimes only known by those brought before the court. I'm trying to say that justice is always seen to be done but occasionally isn't done.
Did you ever watch the TV series "Silk" about barristers' life at the Bar? - Fascinating stuff. Also, "Garrow's Law" about the true life of the 18th Century barrister Sir William Garrow. He had a massive influence on the modern adversarial court system as we now know it. Of course, the British legal system does its very best to administer true justice but it's a very complex arena and we are all only human. It can get very technical and Judges and Juries are only human too.
-
Great news!
-
It's a shame you had to go to court, but I'm glad you did.
I'm very pro-Police, but it was fairly obvious they'd made a bad call and didn't want to be seen to back down. I hope your result teaches them a lesson.
-
^^^^ could not agree more, shame it had to go this far, pleased for you fella. :happy2:
-
.
I tend to think that, in hindsight, the Police did make a bad call. But it was ambiguous and I think they were right to go to court and that it was equally right for the OP to contest it in court.
Lesson to be learnt is not to drive around singing or talking with your head supported by your arm (in mobile phone style) - It's sloppy driving anyway. I'm glad to hear that the Police are being more alert and active towards what they see as mobile phone use while driving.
All is well which ends well :smiley:
-
Lesson to be learnt is not to drive around singing or talking with your head supported by your arm (in mobile phone style) - It's sloppy driving anyway.
everyone is human, I dont know a single person who sits rigidly upright holding the steering wheel at ten to two, mirror signal manoeuvre etc etc etc, give the guy a break.
-
Lesson to be learnt is not to drive around singing or talking with your head supported by your arm (in mobile phone style) - It's sloppy driving anyway.
everyone is human, I dont know a single person who sits rigidly upright holding the steering wheel at ten to two, mirror signal manoeuvre etc etc etc, give the guy a break.
....I was actually addressing everyone when I said that the positive lesson to be learnt was... etc. Surely the OP would be inclined to think the same after his experience? I know that is what I would learn by it.
Either way, 99% of the time I drive with my hands at quarter to three on the steering wheel (easy on the GTI wheel because it's ergonomically designed to encourage that) and it's a very easy habit to get into. And I never listen to radio or music while driving. The mirror signal manoeuvre etc is surely what every good driver should consciously strive to do - My weakness is the wing mirror sometimes but I have an extra wide rear view mirror which helps. It's all part of the joy of driving. It's not a fecking armchair on wheels.
-
Hmm, but it's innocent until proven guilty - he could quickly demonstrate he'd not been on his phone and they were mistaken. It shouldn't have had to go that far.
-
.....so how much public money was wasted in taking this case to court I wonder??? :stupid:
-
Glad you've got through this without a nasty fine and points. No more Oasis for you!
It's not a fecking armchair on wheels.
I've had a bad day and that just made me laugh! Thanks!
-
Congrats, but like others said, if the police had seen sense and realised they were wrong (after your offer to prove you were not on the phone) it would not have wasted your time and the public's money.
Hearing from friends of mine (2 Police officers and 1 lawyer) Police officers turning up half a day late for court appearances is normal practice :grin:
Unmarked following you home on the same exact time you leave court after winning your case coincidence? :grin:, sour grapes? :happy2:
-
Unmarked following you home on the same exact time you leave court after winning your case coincidence? :grin:, sour grapes? :happy2:
....The same two officers who originally stopped you? Surely just leaving court the same time as you and going back to base.
How did you know it was Police if unmarked? Little blue lights hiding away? Or was it paranoia?
It's all very well to say it was a waste of time and public money after the event has been proved to be innocent but we must accept other people's points of view and not judge the Police as acting in a way to cover up their mistake. It doesn't mean that they weren't covering up but remember that everyone is innocent until proved guilty.
I think that the OP was absolutely right to have insisted on his innocence and on going to court. I think that it was absolutely right for the Police to prosecute as there was clearly an element of doubt. The court, as it is designed to do, dispensed fair justice. So I don't think this case was a waste of time or 'public*' money - (*It's no longer your money once it's handed over in tax etc).
As said before, I'm very glad to see that Police are coming down hard on mobile phone drivers. They were over zealous in hindsight but were doing their job.
-
Unmarked following you home on the same exact time you leave court after winning your case coincidence? :grin:, sour grapes? :happy2:
and not judge the Police as acting in a way to cover up their mistake.
The police do cover up mistakes from time to time, highlighted quite recently..........Hillsborough.
-
Paranoia i would expect.... Does he realy think a person using a phone driving is a big deal ??
Also i don't think the OP stated he was in Scotland where the law is different . How different i do not know .
Anyone enlighten us on the court process differences , as i know the England process inside out .
As stated before if there is doubt then a NG is the only outcome , this would be the case in this matter .
-
The police do cover up mistakes from time to time, highlighted quite recently..........Hillsborough.
....Isn't that yet to be fully investigated and proved? (I don't buy the newspapers).
But let's assume for a moment that a Police cover up at Hillsborough is proved. Would you tar all Police with the same brush (or in your case, Clunge Sponge)?
-
:congrats: Glad to see you got the result you deserved
I liked the comment of the witnessing officer "please disregard his evidence" :booty:
-
I liked the comment of the witnessing officer "please disregard his evidence" :booty:
....Going for the jugular straight from the start is quite a common tactic in the courtroom. Try facing a barrister who had been charmingly chatting with you in the corridors of The High Court whose then opening speech to the High Court Judge was asking that your 3yo son is taken out of your parental care! Fortunately, I had presented The Judge with a 2-inch thick ringbinder of correspondence which he had been legally obliged to read and so he consequently was able to rule that I had a case to be heard. We subsequently had the case dismissed after I called expert witnesses from America.
Thanks to William Garrow in the 18th Century, the courtroom system is adversarial and is better for being so. You have to remain objective and not take everything personally.
-
Two very different cases Robin.
-
Two very different cases Robin.
....Certainly, but all English courts use an adversarial system do they not? And that is all that was happening - The prosecution in the OP's case (and in my case) was attempting to get a fast and favourable (to them) result. Nothing wrong with that. Even less waste of time and money for those who are bothered by such matters.
-
The police do cover up mistakes from time to time, highlighted quite recently..........Hillsborough.
....Isn't that yet to be fully investigated and proved? (I don't buy the newspapers).
But let's assume for a moment that a Police cover up at Hillsborough is proved. Would you tar all Police with the same brush (or in your case, Clunge Sponge)?
Not only did the police cover up their own mistakes by changing witness statements but they also changed those of the ambulance services and others. This was an order from top to bottom i.e. everyone who was part of the disaster that day would have known about the cover up.
However a few choice stories sold to press (by... yes the police!!) and suddenly its someone elses fault. So in response to your original question, "would you tar all police with the same brush?" - Maybe not all, but a huge majority seem to stick together and very rarely break ranks to speak the 'truth'. I think if you were to brand all the police involved in the hillsborough incident... then you would be quite correct to brand them all 'cnuts', and that is being nice.
Well done to the OP for showing up these power crazed fools for what they are :happy2:
-
Two very different cases Robin.
....Certainly, but all English courts use an adversarial system do they not? And that is all that was happening - The prosecution in the OP's case (and in my case) was attempting to get a fast and favourable (to them) result. Nothing wrong with that. Even less waste of time and money for those who are bothered by such matters.
The English Court system was never designed to be adervsarial. An adversarial process is one that supports conflicting one-sided positions held by individuals i.e as we have seen here the policy officer advising the judge to discard the OP's evidence. How is that a fair and justice legal system? The court system, anywhere in the world, is all about revenue nothing more nothing less. It not about serving justice anymore. Its just a business. That is exactly how I see it.
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaz.co%2Fmedia%2Fu94%2Fhansumbwunderful%2Fcourtsondunnandbraddstreet.jpg&hash=1ccc939e05992374a030a5113bec3433deb5b28a)
-
The English Court system was never designed to be adervsarial. An adversarial process is one that supports conflicting one-sided positions held by individuals i.e as we have seen here the policy officer advising the judge to discard the OP's evidence. How is that a fair and justice legal system?
....Please research the life of William Garrow and his influence on the English court system. The adversarial system is a legal system where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case.
The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense. Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one.
In that context, it is perfectly acceptable for either parties' representative in court to present their case as strongly as they possibly can - Their aim is to discredit the other party's position and convince a court of the truth of their own position. It's a form of legal debate.
How would you prefer court matters to be conducted?
In my opinion, that is a fair and just legal system and most other people would agree.
The court system, anywhere in the world, is all about revenue nothing more nothing less. It not about serving justice anymore. Its just a business. That is exactly how I see it.
....Crikey! I am sorry for you if you see it that way. May you never find yourself needing the judgement of a court!
-
The police do cover up mistakes from time to time, highlighted quite recently..........Hillsborough.
....Isn't that yet to be fully investigated and proved? (I don't buy the newspapers).
But let's assume for a moment that a Police cover up at Hillsborough is proved. Would you tar all Police with the same brush (or in your case, Clunge Sponge)?
Well it was on the news the other night and there was a senior officer apologising to the families of the 96, so I guess they admitted they covered up quite a bit and lied about things, it happens, at least they have now come to admit it (after a report showed they were lying).
Not intending to tar all with same brush, like any occupation the %age of bad uns tar it for the rest themselves, I have several mates currently in the police force and several who came out in last 3-10 years, I also play golf with 2 ex coppers so I am fortunate enough to have heard quite a lot of goings on :grin: (Seems lots of ex-police in cornwall and tbh all sound blokes).
One of mates in police has not changed, same bloke he used to be and is doing well, another particularly likes the "Heavier" stuff in the force (Think batons/shields and full body armour, but he always did like a scrap anyway! :grin:) but the other 2 are complete tools, flashing their badges everywhere (usually when we are on a night out to doormen of all things....cock :grin:), never off duty it seems :fighting2:
-
The English Court system was never designed to be adervsarial. An adversarial process is one that supports conflicting one-sided positions held by individuals i.e as we have seen here the policy officer advising the judge to discard the OP's evidence. How is that a fair and justice legal system?
....Please research the life of William Garrow and his influence on the English court system. The adversarial system is a legal system where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case.
The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense. Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one.
In that context, it is perfectly acceptable for either parties' representative in court to present their case as strongly as they possibly can - Their aim is to discredit the other party's position and convince a court of the truth of their own position. It's a form of legal debate.
How would you prefer court matters to be conducted?
In my opinion, that is a fair and just legal system and most other people would agree.
The court system, anywhere in the world, is all about revenue nothing more nothing less. It not about serving justice anymore. Its just a business. That is exactly how I see it.
....Crikey! I am sorry for you if you see it that way. May you never find yourself needing the judgement of a court!
oh please, your pity is not required! :P God will only ever pass judgement on me. Not a man in a costume and silly wig! We are all assumed to "The Law" Robin, so it would seem.
As for William Garrow...pah. Another corrupt judge and politician. "known for his indirect reform of the advocacy system, which helped usher in the adversarial court system used in most common law nations today." WHY? Because common law courts only ever benefitted the injured parties, not the courts or judges. Believe it or not there two jurisdictions that cover the face of this land. Common Law and Statute Law. The difference? Common Law only ever relates to another person commiting harm, loss, injury or fraud on another person. Statute Law relates to all things involving fiat paper currency, fines, debtors and creditors, bonds, trusts etc etc....
read this again please. An adversarial process is one that supports conflicting one-sided positions held by individuals
Statute Law requires consent, as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary "A given Rule of Society, by corporation of rule, given the force of Law by consent of the Governed"
The OP may have broken the law but he did not commit a crime by causing harm, loss, injury or fraud? Non?
-
The OP may have broken the law but he did not commit a crime by causing harm, loss, injury or fraud? Non?
....Agreed. The discussion had moved on to the subject of the adversarial nature of the court system and not any question of whether the OP had committed a crime causing harm, loss, injury, or fraud etc. Yes, I realise that both Common Law and Statute Law exist. However, the basic principle in fair justice remains that differing positions contest with each other, criminal or otherwsie, be it Joe Bloggs versus The Court/Magistrates or Joe Bloggs versus A N Other in front of a court's proceedings.
Rightly or wrongly, I refer to such opposing positions as "adversary".
As for William Garrow...pah. Another corrupt judge and politician.
....Do you judge all politicians and judges to be be corrupt in your perspective?
-
Well it was on the news the other night and there was a senior officer apologising to the families of the 96, so I guess they admitted they covered up quite a bit and lied about things, it happens, at least they have now come to admit it (after a report showed they were lying).
Not intending to tar all with same brush, like any occupation the %age of bad uns tar it for the rest themselves, I have several mates currently in the police force and several who came out in last 3-10 years, I also play golf with 2 ex coppers so I am fortunate enough to have heard quite a lot of goings on :grin: (Seems lots of ex-police in cornwall and tbh all sound blokes).
One of mates in police has not changed, same bloke he used to be and is doing well, another particularly likes the "Heavier" stuff in the force (Think batons/shields and full body armour, but he always did like a scrap anyway! :grin:) but the other 2 are complete tools, flashing their badges everywhere (usually when we are on a night out to doormen of all things....cock :grin:), never off duty it seems :fighting2:
....Hence perfectly illustrating how every basket of fruit has both good ones and bad ones. We are all human afterall, even Big Bang's Sheldon Cooper! Penny is from Heaven though.
It seems to me sometimes that far too many people on car forums are prejudiced against the Police. The Police stop me from doing much of what I would love to do, but I respect them and am never prejudiced against them because of a few bad ones.
:happy2:
-
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.babycentre.co.uk%2Fjs%2Ftinymce%2Fplugins%2Fsmileys%2Fimg%2Fsmiley-yawn.gif&hash=0b3a38cb80459033acabc3b11096322e8ce4bf5d) Must every topic on here turn into a technical and gramatical debate. Apart from being way off topic for the last page or so, Patrick has had his query/problem resolved.
...away to put my flamesuit on... :P
-
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.babycentre.co.uk%2Fjs%2Ftinymce%2Fplugins%2Fsmileys%2Fimg%2Fsmiley-yawn.gif&hash=0b3a38cb80459033acabc3b11096322e8ce4bf5d) Must every topic on here turn into a technical and gramatical debate. Apart from being way off topic for the last page or so, Patrick has had his query/problem resolved.
...away to put my flamesuit on... :P
Just sharing the brotherly love :love: :grin:
-
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.babycentre.co.uk%2Fjs%2Ftinymce%2Fplugins%2Fsmileys%2Fimg%2Fsmiley-yawn.gif&hash=0b3a38cb80459033acabc3b11096322e8ce4bf5d) Must every topic on here turn into a technical and gramatical debate. Apart from being way off topic for the last page or so, Patrick has had his query/problem resolved.
...away to put my flamesuit on... :P
Just sharing the brotherly love :love: :grin:
.... :happy2:
And having an intelligent discussion now that Patrick's issue is resolved. Afterall, this is in the Random Chat section. :smiley:
-
and i think he was tried in Scotland which is different !
and the Hillsborough tragedy was not caused by the police . No police officer trampled to death anyone . The Football crowd of 1989 was very different to what we have now today and so were football stadiums , this tragedy led to all sorts of changes and caused football stadia to become all seaterss .
Now the issue of Police changing statements is well worth looking into . How can it be done ? Have you ever given a statement ? It is a signed document signed by the person who gives the evidence .
Lets see what comes of the investigation
-
and the Hillsborough tragedy was not caused by the police . No police officer trampled to death anyone . The Football crowd of 1989 was very different to what we have now today and so were football stadiums , this tragedy led to all sorts of changes and caused football stadia to become all seaters.
Lets see what comes of the investigation
....Exactly! Until a full investigation is done the rest is speculation and prejudice even if allegations turn out to be proven true. Newspapers are not to be trusted in my opinion. It must be true, I read it in the newspapers!
-
and the Hillsborough tragedy was not caused by the police . No police officer trampled to death anyone . The Football crowd of 1989 was very different to what we have now today and so were football stadiums , this tragedy led to all sorts of changes and caused football stadia to become all seaters.
Lets see what comes of the investigation
....Exactly! Until a full investigation is done the rest is speculation and prejudice even if allegations turn out to be proven true. Newspapers are not to be trusted in my opinion. It must be true, I read it in the newspapers!
If the police big-wigs are apologising on national TV for making out it was not their fault (when it was it seems according the report).
If its written on paper people perceive it to be true.............................billions believe the bible to be true and not written by some dude trippin on acid way back in the day :signLOL:
Now let's NOT get onto religion :grin:
-
If its written on paper people perceive it to be true.............................billions believe the bible to be true and not written by some dude trippin on acid way back in the day :signLOL:
Now let's NOT get onto religion :grin:
....Damn! You are spoiling my enjoyment - I was leading up to bringing religion into the discussion.
I like the dude trippin on acid version :laugh: but as wordsmithing and not as anything disrespectful to Christian beliefs. I'm not a Christian btw.
It's sad how billions of people perceive any written word to be true and are misguided. I am writing to you from Nigeria... If you send me your bank details........
-
If its written on paper people perceive it to be true.............................billions believe the bible to be true and not written by some dude trippin on acid way back in the day :signLOL:
Now let's NOT get onto religion :grin:
....Damn! You are spoiling my enjoyment - I was leading up to bringing religion into the discussion.
I like the dude trippin on acid version :laugh:
It's sad how billions of people perceive any written word to be true and are misguided. I am writing to you from Nigeria... If you send me your bank details........
It seemed the logical next step..............................quite how people can believe in the "immaculate conception" is beyond me, I remember years ago we were discussing this having downed far too much vodka and beer together! (Pint with a depth charge!) and my mate proceeded to explain this in 1 simple sentence................................ "She probably sat on one of the many sticky tissues laying around as he clearly was not getting any!" :signLOL:
I will not be talking about mohammed tho...........................
-
^^^^ :signLOL:
-
Now let's NOT get onto religion :grin:
Deleted.
-
Wtf?!? Earliest bible was written In hebrew which has no capital letters. Koran in arabic - again no capital letters. Hindu scriptures - again Hindi has no capital letters. Sikh scriptures - punjabi - no capital letters.
-
Now let's NOT get onto religion :grin:
religion dismissed in five words, just five though.
LOSS OF STATUS THROUGH CAPITALISATION. used by the greeks and romans, and still today, to keep their slaves in check and the illusion of freedom. Jesus was a legal fiction. the earliest version of the bible had his name capitalised throughout. Same with every religion out there. :innocent: a legal fiction is referred to as a person, a mr, a mrs, a sir, doctor and defendant. only exists on paper and no where else. check your government sponsored ID's. YOUR NAME WILL ALWAY APPEAR IN CAPITAL LETTERS! THIS IS YOUR LEGAL FICTION!
:drinking:
Where do you get/dream up this tosh? :stupid: People are entitled to have their own beliefs (or unbeliefs) in whatever faith they choose, without having others trying to ram their opinions/theories down their throats. I happen to be a Christian and find your posts extremely offensive. Leave off-topic posts out of this thread (preferably off the forum). If you feel the need to express your faith in something (or the opposite) start your own topic.
If you have a problem with this post, kindly PM me, don't spam up this thread.
-
Point taken :happy2:
-
^^^^
:grouphug:
-
Appreciated. :grouphug:
-
Hey each to their own beliefs I say, I have friends who are
"God Squad" religious :happy2: and we have a good banter with each other about our own beliefs (Or lack thereof), don't take it too seriously, your entitled to your beliefs (as am I) :happy2:
And back on topic.............................altho I thought the "topic" had ended as it was resolved?
-
and the Hillsborough tragedy was not caused by the police . No police officer trampled to death anyone . The Football crowd of 1989 was very different to what we have now today and so were football stadiums , this tragedy led to all sorts of changes and caused football stadia to become all seaterss .
Now the issue of Police changing statements is well worth looking into . How can it be done ? Have you ever given a statement ? It is a signed document signed by the person who gives the evidence .
Lets see what comes of the investigation
Are you fcuking serious?? :surprised: :surprised:
I think you maybe need to read the FULL REPORT before you stay things that you obviously have no knowledge of.
For what its worth, 41 people could have been saved had it not been for mistakes made by the police during the incident. 96 lives could have been saved had they not made the huge mistake of opening a gate on that day. Every police officer working on that day knew that this order was given.
It took 23 years for this to come out. Not once during that period did anyone speak out about the injustice!! As far as I am concerned every police officer working that day should face a custodial sentence... how does 23 years sound??? Not very nice I imagine :stupid:
-
I don't think due process is a waste of public money. The officers were of the opinion an offense was committed and the everybody has the right to put their side of the story.
The judge hears the evidence from both and then rules, the officers thought they had enough to prosecute and the judge's opinion was it wasn't quite enough. That's due process, not waste.
and as for being on the phone isn't a big deal, I was watching police, camera, nonsense on sky and a woman, on the phone, pulled out the wrong way of a garage into incoming traffic and wiped out an oncoming car seriously and permanently injuring it's driver that seems like a big deal.
I wouldn't be suprised if the coppers did follow you home, but if you are driving legally that's not a problem is it.
-
I don't think due process is a waste of public money. The officers were of the opinion an offense was committed and the everybody has the right to put their side of the story.
If the officers had used common sense and checked his phones at roadside and seen he was not making nor receiving calls there would have been no waste of public money or peoples time
the officers thought they had enough to prosecute and the judge's opinion was it wasn't quite enough. That's due process, not waste.
As above, it was a waste, it need not have happened!
I wouldn't be suprised if the coppers did follow you home, but if you are driving legally that's not a problem is it.
Why should they tho?, apart from smacking of petty (having just lost their case) I thought they had to have reason?, If it had been me I would have pulled over got out of the car and had a cig whilst reading my paper :happy2:
I respect the police and the job they do, but they do make mistakes and don't like to admit it, instead they are happy to waste your time!.
My mate just lost a fellow officer in the Hattersley/Tameside shooting (she lived in the same village as him and worked in same area), there are nutters out there to be dealt with and he is fully aware of the danger of the job, but after speaking to an ex-police officer last night (while catching up on things) I mentioned this case to him and he said "Had they bothered to check the call logs on both his phones and seen no call was being made/received the incident would not have even been reported", he did make a joke saying maybe they were having a quiet day :signLOL:
-
Unless I'm missing something I can go to my phone log and swipe delete very easily.
-
Unmarked following you home on the same exact time you leave court after winning your case coincidence? :grin:, sour grapes? :happy2:
....The same two officers who originally stopped you? Surely just leaving court the same time as you and going back to base.
How did you know it was Police if unmarked? Little blue lights hiding away? Or was it paranoia?
It's all very well to say it was a waste of time and public money after the event has been proved to be innocent but we must accept other people's points of view and not judge the Police as acting in a way to cover up their mistake. It doesn't mean that they weren't covering up but remember that everyone is innocent until proved guilty.
I think that the OP was absolutely right to have insisted on his innocence and on going to court. I think that it was absolutely right for the Police to prosecute as there was clearly an element of doubt. The court, as it is designed to do, dispensed fair justice. So I don't think this case was a waste of time or 'public*' money - (*It's no longer your money once it's handed over in tax etc).
As said before, I'm very glad to see that Police are coming down hard on mobile phone drivers. They were over zealous in hindsight but were doing their job.
I don't know about England but in Glasgow area 90% of unmarked police cars begin with the registration plate SF, they have numerous aerials on the roof, you can see the little blue lights in the front grille an the fact there were 2 uniformed officers in the front seats lol
If they were going to their base they must have been going a pretty long way for a shortcut as I live pretty far away from the police stations in the surrounding area. It doesn't bother me at all as I had nothing to hide and I don't drive out with the law :signLOL:
Just glad it's over with!
-
^^^^
I wish our English unmarked cars were as 'unmarked' as yours! On the otherhand I personally prefer them to the marked cars because the unmarked usually follow you for much longer and use their discretion based on your overall driving. I have been stopped lots of times by the unmarked boys for speed (I never exceed the 30 and 40 mph limits though) but always let off.... So far!!
Anyway, we are all very glad that this has come to a happy conclusion for you. I hope that you won't feel anti-Police as a result of this case - They are just doing their job and, like everyone, some are better than others.
-
^^^^
I wish our English unmarked cars were as 'unmarked' as yours! On the otherhand I personally prefer them to the marked cars because the unmarked usually follow you for much longer and use their discretion based on your overall driving. I have been stopped lots of times by the unmarked boys for speed (I never exceed the 30 and 40 mph limits though) but always let off.... So far!!
Anyway, we are all very glad that this has come to a happy conclusion for you. I hope that you won't feel anti-Police as a result of this case - They are just doing their job and, like everyone, some are better than others.
No not at all I don't have any problems with the police, they were only doing their jobs. In their eyes they saw me in what appeared to be in conversation on a mobile telephone, by the way ma hand was resting on my head I can understand why they pulled me over, everyone makes mistakes so I can't hold it against them for that. No grudges held on my side.
As for unmarked police car most of them can be spotted a mile away (if you know what you are looking for) I've even seen them drive BMW M3s, golf R32s and even had a sneaky wee policeman race up behind me in a Focus RS trying to coax me into racing and when I didn't respond he over took me and I noticed it was an unmarked police car with 2 uniform officers driving, thought this was a little cheeky as a few people would have went for a bit of fun if that type of car raced up behind them on the inside lane of a dual carriageway!!
-
^^^ well given that was apparently a black "unmarked" police car with tints and "motorsport" across the back that goaded drivers into racing and then pulled them over for speeding, it wouldn't surprise me.
-
Unless I'm missing something I can go to my phone log and swipe delete very easily.
Yup that smacks of guilt tho and the OP had not done that
-
I'm just saying the phone log can be altered and therefore Is not conclusive proof of phone use. I'm not saying it was at all I'm just saying it could be.
-
They can still approach the phone company for details and IIRC some data might well be recoverable.
-
i was stopped for the same thing a couple days ago .. i didnt even have a phone in my posession at the time . they did give the car a good search but what made me laugh was the guy was that adiment he was right that he checked the boot ... im sorry officer but how am i going to be on the phone whilst driving with my phone in the boot?! haha
-
A friend of a friend was on the phone got pulled, but he had 2 phones (work and personnal) so he dropped the one he was talking on under the seat and presented the log of the other one as proof he wasn't on the phone. My point is presenting a phone log on the side of the road is not conclusive proof a person wasn't on the phone.
-
A friend of a friend was on the phone got pulled, but he had 2 phones (work and personnal) so he dropped the one he was talking on under the seat and presented the log of the other one as proof he wasn't on the phone. My point is presenting a phone log on the side of the road is not conclusive proof a person wasn't on the phone.
And neither is a police officer accusing you of something you were not doing :grin:, then spending your time proving them wrong which they need not have done.
Surely a simple check and common sense could have prevailed and saved everyones time (including the half a day late PO's) :signLOL:
-
I'm fairly sure police don't have access to phone records without some sort of process. We must have some coppers on here. You guys allowed to see my call records at the drop of a hat ? Civil liberties issues aside would be good if there was some sort of access to see if a phone was active at a certain time so it easy to check but I doubt there is.
-
Phone records are obtainable quite quickly in serious incidents (under 5 minutes re life and death issues)
Phone records for the incident in question can be obtained , the actual detail (number called or calling would not be disclosed) just the time of the calls / texts
Then the issue of time comes into it , ie their clock time may be different to the police officers time . Officers would check their timings with the speaking clock , the phone company would tell the officers asking for phone info how their clock timings relate to the speaking clock
Phone records convict many hundreds if not thousands of people every year (Crime not motoring offences) due to what infomation can be obtained from just phonecalls made or received
-
Okay I agree they are time and money wasting monkeys for not doing the check.