Best ever mobile-phone story
Discussion
"How can the same s
t happen ..."
My sister just called me. She had been a passenger in a car driven by her husband which was stopped by a police officer who accused my BiL of using a mobile-phone whilst he was driving. The following is a summary of her story.
The officer was writing out the FPN as he approached and simply stated that he was reporting my BiL for the offence.
When my sister repeatedly tried to explain that my BiL couldn't been using the 'phone she was brusquely told to shut up or risk being booked for obstrction! [Despite this being some 200 miles away, the attitude of the officer appears depressingly similar to that of the one who stopped the car I was a passenger in (thread on here).] When he denied using a 'phone and tried to explain, my BiL was told not to argue, as the officer had clearly seen him on the 'phone.
He got a lecture on the dangers of driving whilst on the 'phone and the FPN thrust at him. Neither he nor my sister have any idea why the officer thought he was using a mobile-phone ... he wasn't.
He's now looking forward to his day in court ... if it gets that far.
The give-away will be if he requests a Palantype for the hearing.
You see, my BiL is profoundly deaf!
If the officer had not cut my sister's explanation short and had listened to my BiL, he wouldn't have made a (future) fool of himself. My BiL is so insensed by the obduracy of the officer that he is determined to expose him in court. He's an accomplished lipreader and as he lost his hearing in his 20s (in a PIRA bomb explosion in NI), his speech contains no clues to his deafness. He's also a lawyer.
It sounds like it might be worth driving up there to watch. And to those who will argue that it's a waste of the Court's time and of public money (a point that I did put to my BiL), his view was that 'justice' has to be seen to be done (although I think that 'retribution' might be nearer the mark).
Streaky
PS - I did think of saying that my BiL had a trump card to play ...
t happen ..."My sister just called me. She had been a passenger in a car driven by her husband which was stopped by a police officer who accused my BiL of using a mobile-phone whilst he was driving. The following is a summary of her story.
The officer was writing out the FPN as he approached and simply stated that he was reporting my BiL for the offence.
When my sister repeatedly tried to explain that my BiL couldn't been using the 'phone she was brusquely told to shut up or risk being booked for obstrction! [Despite this being some 200 miles away, the attitude of the officer appears depressingly similar to that of the one who stopped the car I was a passenger in (thread on here).] When he denied using a 'phone and tried to explain, my BiL was told not to argue, as the officer had clearly seen him on the 'phone.
He got a lecture on the dangers of driving whilst on the 'phone and the FPN thrust at him. Neither he nor my sister have any idea why the officer thought he was using a mobile-phone ... he wasn't.
He's now looking forward to his day in court ... if it gets that far.
The give-away will be if he requests a Palantype for the hearing.
You see, my BiL is profoundly deaf!
If the officer had not cut my sister's explanation short and had listened to my BiL, he wouldn't have made a (future) fool of himself. My BiL is so insensed by the obduracy of the officer that he is determined to expose him in court. He's an accomplished lipreader and as he lost his hearing in his 20s (in a PIRA bomb explosion in NI), his speech contains no clues to his deafness. He's also a lawyer.
It sounds like it might be worth driving up there to watch. And to those who will argue that it's a waste of the Court's time and of public money (a point that I did put to my BiL), his view was that 'justice' has to be seen to be done (although I think that 'retribution' might be nearer the mark).
Streaky
PS - I did think of saying that my BiL had a trump card to play ...
Edited by streaky on Tuesday 31st August 16:54
Davi said:
if only this could be videoed!!! Superb, though I'm sure the officer will be proven correct by some miraculous means.
If not video...are the transcripts of court hearings public domain? Because this I have to see/hear/read.I've no time for bent coppers. I'd hope he'll be 1st for the chop when the budget axe swings, if not before.
PintOfKittens said:
Davi said:
if only this could be videoed!!! Superb, though I'm sure the officer will be proven correct by some miraculous means.
I have a feeling this will happen too. The officer might state that he was just holding a phone, which is still an offenceWhy does this sort of thing happen? Is it just so that the copper involved gets to keep his figures up? Or did he just make a genuine mistake. I'd like to think it was the latter, but cynically I suspect the former.
I thought all this "target" nonsense was being stopped.
Either way, the copper was a tt for not listening!
I thought all this "target" nonsense was being stopped.
Either way, the copper was a t
t for not listening!Edited by A57 HSV on Friday 16th July 14:20
streaky said:
And to those who will argue that it's a waste of the Court's time and of public money (a point that I did put to my BiL), his view was that 'justice' has to be seen to be done..
It'll get dropped on the day, therefore completely wasting everybody's time and proving nothing.I don't get this.
Proof? Evidence? If the police do you for speeding for example, they have evidnce - they follow you use calibarated devices etc.
Surely if the 'phone was in use at that time it can be proved.
I support the police but its pricks like this that get them a bad name.
A Chief Constable I used to know once told me that the average law abiding person meets a copper one every decade. When they do, its often not in great cricumstnaces, scene of a car crash, post burlgary etc.
He told me that he tried to instill in his officers that in many cases the person they meet in something like a routine stop will take away an impression of the police that will last a very long time.
Treat them well and fairly - good perception, which they will probably pass on to friends in the form of anecodtes "When the cops stopped me" etc.
Behave like a price - bad perception. Mr average will come away with a bad view of all police - and pass on these feelings to people they know, thus spreading a poor perception of police.
I hope this bloke is held up to be a knob by the court. Why not tip off the local press about the case, they'll love something like that. With luck, nationals will pick it up from then, and then this fool might end up on the front of the Daily Wail.
Tell you BIL - good luck from me.
Proof? Evidence? If the police do you for speeding for example, they have evidnce - they follow you use calibarated devices etc.
Surely if the 'phone was in use at that time it can be proved.
I support the police but its pricks like this that get them a bad name.
A Chief Constable I used to know once told me that the average law abiding person meets a copper one every decade. When they do, its often not in great cricumstnaces, scene of a car crash, post burlgary etc.
He told me that he tried to instill in his officers that in many cases the person they meet in something like a routine stop will take away an impression of the police that will last a very long time.
Treat them well and fairly - good perception, which they will probably pass on to friends in the form of anecodtes "When the cops stopped me" etc.
Behave like a price - bad perception. Mr average will come away with a bad view of all police - and pass on these feelings to people they know, thus spreading a poor perception of police.
I hope this bloke is held up to be a knob by the court. Why not tip off the local press about the case, they'll love something like that. With luck, nationals will pick it up from then, and then this fool might end up on the front of the Daily Wail.
Tell you BIL - good luck from me.
Munter said:
Davi said:
if only this could be videoed!!! Superb, though I'm sure the officer will be proven correct by some miraculous means.
If not video...are the transcripts of court hearings public domain? Because this I have to see/hear/read.I've no time for bent coppers. I'd hope he'll be 1st for the chop when the budget axe swings, if not before.
Assuming that the BiB's claim is that the guy was talking on his phone (as opposed to texting) then since I doubt there will be any "hard" evidence to this surely the deafness of the driver should provide "reasonable doubt" at a minimum? Reminds me a story a friend told me about one of his former colleages that was done for parking in a disabled spot (not sure if it was here in the UK, could have been the US) - apparantly the case fell apart rather quickly when he came into the courtroom in his wheelchair.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff