Legal advice/bullying police?

[martinalex]

james280779 said:

A lawyer spends nearly a decade - most of it on one subject to become qualified. A police officer has six months to cover ALL subjects to the same standard as a Laywer. He also has to learn to make these decisions which a lawyer will spend up to five years picking apart in a matter of seconds.

For accuracy though, a lawyer doesn't train for anywhere near ten years and not just on one subject area.
Generally, a university degree in any subject is followed by a one year conversion course plus a one year legal practice course and then two years on the job training at which point a solicitor is fully qualified. Similar timescale for barristers.

Deduct one year for conversion course if university degree is in law.

Similar periods of study and work based training to a social worker or teacher and less than a doctor or university lecturer.

Also, a police officer is not expected to cover all subjects to the same level as a lawyer as there will be a CPS lawyer prosecuting a case, not a police officer.

[J5]

ferrariF50lover said:

Finally to the idea that the copper told you that the ticket was final and there was no going back, I'm sure, like the majority of police officers, he was a normal bloke, with not a lot of education, woefully inadequate training and essentially, just an ordinary bloke looking to do as little as possible until home time.

Or he's in Scotland?

bobthebench said:

Firstly, whilst well intentioned no doubt, ignore postings about NIP or CPS. These apply south of the border. What you have is a conditional offer of fixed penalty - COFP. If you pay it, then it cannot be questioned, she gets 3 points and pays £60. If you want to dispute it, do nothing and the PF will repeat the offer to you. Again do nothing, and you will get a court summons to have your day in court, presumably in the local JP court in Glasgow.

Uneducated and lazy officers?

Edited by J5 on Thursday 14th June 11:48

[ED209]

daz3210 said:

But the law states use FOR INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION. That suggests to me that you have to be communicating with a person, not a set of satellites.

And has anyone questioned whether the fella at the Police Station was actually a copper as opposed to a civvy? Our local desk is staffed by civvy's, coppers are in short supply these days.

Show me this pice of law then I am not aware of such a term being used?

[marshalla]

mat777 said:

to all those saying the legislation is a blanket ban on using phones whilst driving even when mounted and doing satnav... if this is the case then why can one purchase a TomTom satnav app for smartphones? Hmm?

Actually, applying the letter of the law strictly, it does apply to SatNav functions on phones if they phones are handheld and the application uses online data (e.g. for downloading maps or traffic info.): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regul...

However, if the mapping data is entirely on the phone and can function without a live Internet connection, it's not prohibited.

[marshalla]

ED209 said:

Show me this pice of law then I am not aware of such a term being used?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

[J5]

marshalla said:

ED209 said:

Show me this pice of law then I am not aware of such a term being used?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

legislation said:

(c)
“interactive communication function” includes the following:

(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;

(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;

(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and

(iv) providing access to the internet;

[jazzyjeff]

J5 said:

marshalla said:

ED209 said:

Show me this pice of law then I am not aware of such a term being used?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

legislation said:

(c)
“interactive communication function” includes the following:

(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;

(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;

(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and

(iv) providing access to the internet;

Would receiving transmitted GPS information not fall under head (iii) above?

[ED209]

that is not the whole piece of legisaltion is it? Its an edited piece designed to suit your agenda.

[masermartin]

mat777 said:

to all those saying the legislation is a blanket ban on using phones whilst driving even when mounted and doing satnav... if this is the case then why can one purchase a TomTom satnav app for smartphones? Hmm?

You can purchase radar detectors and radar jammers legally. You can purchase knives, and even guns, legally. The illegality is all in the *USE* of them.

ED209 said:

that is not the whole piece of legisaltion is it? Its an edited piece designed to suit your agenda.

Of course it's not the whole piece - that was conveniently linked above. The "edited" piece (which actually isn't edited, it's an extract) is designed to answer a specific question that you posed. But, hey, what am I to know, I only followed the handy link and read for myself.

[10 Pence Short]

ED209 said:

that is not the whole piece of legisaltion is it? Its an edited piece designed to suit your agenda.

I would have thought, to be guilty of the offence, you have to be using, hand held, one of the interactive functions of the device. Otherwise, what is the point in the legislation in identifying the particular interactive traits of a mobile phone?

If the offence were purely to hold it for any purpose, that would not make sense. What danger is there in simply holding a mobile phone that is not present when holding any other item of similar dimension?

If the device is being used for a purpose other than interactive functions, I would argue it's no more illegal to hold that than it would be to hold, say, a dictaphone.

Is a mobile phone being used for a purpose other than interactive communication, still a device for the purposes of the regulation?

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 14th June 14:09

[harry010]

james280779 said:

A lawyer spends nearly a decade - most of it on one subject to become qualified. A police officer has six months to cover ALL subjects to the same standard as a Laywer. He also has to learn to make these decisions which a lawyer will spend up to five years picking apart in a matter of seconds.

I am a corporate lawyer, my brother is a Police Officer. He would be the first to admit he knows nowhere near as much about the law as I do.

[Pothole]

10 Pence Short said:

ED209 said:

that is not the whole piece of legisaltion is it? Its an edited piece designed to suit your agenda.

I would have thought, to be guilty of the offence, you have to be using, hand held, one of the interactive functions of the device. Otherwise, what is the point in the legislation in identifying the particular interactive traits of a mobile phone?

If the offence were purely to hold it for any purpose, that would not make sense. What danger is there in simply holding a mobile phone that is not present when holding any other item of similar dimension?

If the device is being used for a purpose other than interactive functions, I would argue it's no more illegal to hold that than it would be to hold, say, a dictaphone.

Is a mobile phone being used for a purpose other than interactive communication, still a device for the purposes of the regulation?

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 14th June 14:09

Does entering an address/postcode and following directions to it while holding it in one's hand, clearly having to look quite a way from the view ahead, and having one hand not occupied with controlling the vehicle not count as 'interactive' then?

To my mind, whatever the legislation, doing what she did is bloody stupid, and potentially dangerous.

[Red 4]

harry010 said:

I am a corporate lawyer, my brother is a Police Officer. He would be the first to admit he knows nowhere near as much about the law as I do.

You may have a point. You may have a greater knowledge of the law in general but how much do you know about criminal law ? I would imagine you specialise in one specific area of law, not necessarily crime ?

For example do you know much about The Public Order Act, for example. Do you know what constitutes specific offences without reference to a book ?

Or Road Traffic legislation (Construction and Use) ? Or Stop and Search powers ? Powers of entry ? Drink/ Drive legislation ? Bread and butter offences; Theft, Handling stolen goods, burglary, assault, etc. etc.

Could you act immediately without reference to the law books ?

Police officers are trained (very well imo) in the things they will deal with daily. This doesn't mean they are experts in all aspects of law but they (generally) are professional and know what they need to know.

[oldsoak]

10 Pence Short said:

....... it's no more illegal to hold that than it would be to hold, say, a dictaphone.

<juvenile snigger>

[marshalla]

Pothole said:

Does entering an address/postcode and following directions to it while holding it in one's hand, clearly having to look quite a way from the view ahead, and having one hand not occupied with controlling the vehicle not count as 'interactive' then?

To my mind, whatever the legislation, doing what she did is bloody stupid, and potentially dangerous.

The critical wording is "interactive communication function", not "interactive function" - there are other offences (which your post hints at) which can be used for non-communication tasks which distract from driving with due care or being in full control.

legislation said:

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;

and interactive communication function is defined above.

Edited by marshalla on Thursday 14th June 14:54

Edited by marshalla on Thursday 14th June 14:55

[marshalla]

Pothole said:

Does entering an address/postcode and following directions to it while holding it in one's hand, clearly having to look quite a way from the view ahead, and having one hand not occupied with controlling the vehicle not count as 'interactive' then?

To my mind, whatever the legislation, doing what she did is bloody stupid, and potentially dangerous.

The critical wording is "interactive communication function", not "interactive function" - there are other offences (which your post hints at) which can be used for non-communication tasks which distract from driving with due care or being in full control.

legislation said:

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;

and interactive communication function is defined above.

Edited by marshalla on Thursday 14th June 14:54

Edited by marshalla on Thursday 14th June 14:55

[J5]

ED209 said:

that is not the whole piece of legisaltion is it? Its an edited piece designed to suit your agenda.

/sigh... no it's not the whole piece... it's just the piece that seemed relevant to the discussion. It's an extract, not an edit too; there is a big difference.

legislation said:

Amendment of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

2. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986(1) are amended by inserting after regulation 109—

“Mobile telephones

110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or .

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4). .

(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or .

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4). .

(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or .

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4), .

at a time when the provisional licence holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road.

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—

(a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999; .

(b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and .

(c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made). .

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function; .

(b)a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (grant of provisional licence); .

(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following: .

(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages; .

(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents; .

(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and .

(iv)providing access to the internet; .

(d)“two-way radio” means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted— .

(i)for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and .

(ii)to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and .

(e)“wireless telegraphy” has the same meaning as in section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949(2).”

That better? I assumed if people wanted the entire link they'd have the intellect to click it, perhaps not.

[harry010]

Red 4 said:

harry010 said:

I am a corporate lawyer, my brother is a Police Officer. He would be the first to admit he knows nowhere near as much about the law as I do.

You may have a point. You may have a greater knowledge of the law in general but how much do you know about criminal law ? I would imagine you specialise in one specific area of law, not necessarily crime ?

For example do you know much about The Public Order Act, for example. Do you know what constitutes specific offences without reference to a book ?

Or Road Traffic legislation (Construction and Use) ? Or Stop and Search powers ? Powers of entry ? Drink/ Drive legislation ? Bread and butter offences; Theft, Handling stolen goods, burglary, assault, etc. etc.

Could you act immediately without reference to the law books ?

Police officers are trained (very well imo) in the things they will deal with daily. This doesn't mean they are experts in all aspects of law but they (generally) are professional and know what they need to know.

All of what you have said is perfectly true - my OH (10PS) knows more about Traffic Law than I do!

My point was more generally aimed at the assertion that Police Officers are trained to the same standard as lawyers - in my opinion they are not.

Granted, they know an awful lot about criminal matters (or the vast majority - I was having to tell an Officer the correct law on harassment matters recently), however I had to study the law of contract, tort, criminal, European Union, constitutional, land, trusts etc just to gain my degree - I then went on to specialise in more corporate matters in my training contract, finally qualifying into Mergers and Acquisitions.

I advise, without the help of books, on matters considerably more complicated than theft every day, and whilst I admit that my brother is more of an expert than me in criminal matters, to say he is equally as adept at the law as a whole is laughable.

[Zeeky]

The reason for all the disagreement on this topic is different interpretations of legislation that is not clear as well as an apparent lack of authority to assist.

The following words need to be clarified.

"Device" Is an iphone one device or a unit comprising of different devices?

...Using... a device... which performs Does this mean capable of performing or actually performing during use?

...an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data... “interactive communication function” includes the following:

Is the inclusive list exhaustive? If so the first part of the definition is irrelevant, if not it is decisive.

...a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held

Held by the operator or artificially?

My own interpretation is that the "device" is the unit, "performs" means actually performing, the list is not exhaustive, satellite navigation is transmitting/receiving data and the device must be held by the operator.

If you hold the iphone in your hand whilst using the satnav function you are committing an offence.

[masermartin]

Zeeky said:

My own interpretation is that the "device" is the unit, "performs" means actually performing, the list is not exhaustive, satellite navigation is transmitting/receiving data and the device must be held by the operator.

If you hold the iphone in your hand whilst using the satnav function you are committing an offence.

That matches my interpretation as well (IAverymuchNAL). My *desire* would be for this to be extended to typing in addresses to a cradled sat-nav as well - I've done it and know how much attention it takes away from driving.