If you choose to enforce stupid laws..............

[mybrainhurts]

philthy said:

999 wanted to know if I was hands free

Think yourself lucky she didn't want to know the state of cleanliness of your underpants....

[parrot of doom]

I've dialled 999 a few times while driving, usually to report kids on bridges (on the outside of the railings), debris, etc.

I take the view that if I get in trouble for making the call, the danger is much less than the reason for the 999 call, and I'll have my day in court (and the papers) and make my stand.

[philthy]

mybrainhurts said:

philthy said: 999 wanted to know if I was hands free Think yourself lucky she didn't want to know the state of cleanliness of your underpants....

Good job too!!

Phil

[tim.tonal]

I dialled 999 on the M1 yesterday afternoon due to another motorist trying to change a wheel in the outside lane (Northbound J20-21)

I was not asked if I was using hands free which of course I was M'lud.

[gh0st]

parrot of doom said:

I've dialled 999 a few times while driving, usually to report kids on bridges (on the outside of the railings), debris, etc. I take the view that if I get in trouble for making the call, the danger is much less than the reason for the 999 call, and I'll have my day in court (and the papers) and make my stand.

Bear in mind however that the legal system these days is based on financial gain. They can gain £60 plus court fees from you with very little problems, they will expend effort trying to catch people doing stuff on a motorway bridge and probably not get a fine.

Which one do you reckon they will go for....?

[philthy]

...Update...

She didn't get prosecuted for drink driving
She was fined £250 + £50 court costs for "wasting police time". The exact reasons for this are unknown, as the copper that phoned my brother in law didn't elaborate.

So, pretty shitty result!
It's a sad state of affairs when something like this goes unpunished, because a normal law abiding citizen fears petty persecution for their actions.
I'm rapidly losing faith in our judicial system, I really am.

Phil

[hustlebabe]

That sucks of British justice these days.

Local rag might have more info as they usually have a court reporter

[flemke]

gone said:

Don't worry about why the operator asked if he was on hands free. It is immaterial and nobody could prove it anyway even if he had said yes.

I hope you are right, but cannot the phone company ascertain the location(s) of a phone in operation by triangulating the distances from the masts to which it is sending signals?
They may not, however, keep historical records of the locations - that would be a slug of data.

[rewc]

I am not a fan of the police and camera partnerships as far as speed enforcement is concerned, but surely the response to the operator asking if a hands free is being used is a bit paranoid. I work for a large private company and if we phone anybody and suspect they are in a vehicle we automatically ask them if they are on hands free. There is nothing sinister in this we are just applying company policy of not allowing drivers to be distracted or break the law.
Am I being naive in thinking the motive of the operator was the same and not to 'prosecute' the caller in some way?

[deeps]

rewc said:

Am I being naive in thinking the motive of the operator was the same and not to 'prosecute' the caller in some way?

Maybe you're right, but did you read Streaky's post earlier...

"This illustrates the fear that has been engendered in people that they, rather than the 'criminal' will be prosecuted (because it's easier). Reporting dangerous driving, defending your property, acting where the police can't be bothered or appear powerless, ... it does seem that the innocent party is more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and penalised that the offender."

[rewc]

deeps said:

rewc said: Am I being naive in thinking the motive of the operator was the same and not to 'prosecute' the caller in some way? Maybe you're right, but did you read Streaky's post earlier... "This illustrates the fear that has been engendered in people that they, rather than the 'criminal' will be prosecuted (because it's easier). Reporting dangerous driving, defending your property, acting where the police can't be bothered or appear powerless, ... it does seem that the innocent party is more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and penalised that the offender."

deep, I suspect that you and Streaky are right and yes I was being naive.

[streaky]

flemke said:

gone said: Don't worry about why the operator asked if he was on hands free. It is immaterial and nobody could prove it anyway even if he had said yes. I hope you are right, but cannot the phone company ascertain the location(s) of a phone in operation by triangulating the distances from the masts to which it is sending signals? They may not, however, keep historical records of the locations - that would be a slug of data.

Cell traffic and hand-over records are retained. The amount of data is practically immaterial when the relatively small cost of storing it is considered. However, the "triangulation" method is not simple; in areas where cell concentration is not high (e.g. open countryside), a signal might only be received by one call. As the signal strength of the current cell begins to fade and an adjacent cell's strength starts to rise, preparation for a hand-over is started. At that stage, both cells will have a record of the cell-phone's use. Tracking a 'phone is relatively simple, but locating one with any reasonable degree of precision merely by using network operator records is difficult. In towns it becomes easier, occasioned by the higher incidence of cells - Streaky