If you choose to enforce stupid laws..............
Discussion
Having a pint with my brother in law last week, he told me this story. I must point out, that this is alleged, as it's still sub judice.
He was on his way home from Bovey tracey in Devon, stuck in a long queue of traffic behind a tractor. The queue is travelling at no more than 20Mph, and has something like twenty cars in it. The car that is 2 cars in front of him is weaving VERY badly, from almost hitting the nearside wall/bank, to crossing the solid/broken white lines. Suspecting that any car driven that poorly, must be driven by someone who is drunk/drugged, he phones the old Bill. He gives them the index, and colour/make of the vehicle, and describes the circumstances. He intends to follow the vehicle for the police, to keep an eye on it for them. At this point, the operator asks "are you handsfree ?". Worried he is going to get a ticket, he responds "no, I've just pulled into a layby". The operator thanks him, and says someone will deal with it as soon as possible.
BiL rejoins the queue, and carries on his way. As he approaches Newton Abbot, he spots the alleged vehicle again, and starts to follow it from several cars back. The alleged vehicle proceeds through Newton Abbot, towards Totnes (in the process passing the local nick). BiL gets a phone call. This time it's the local nick (who could have almost shouted out of the window), they ask him if he can see who is driving the vehicle. He responds that he can't, as he's too far back, and he's had to stop to answer his mobile phone (still worried about being ticketed himself).
He carries on after the phone call, only to have lost the vehicle, so he turns around, and goes home.
Shortly after getting home, he gets another phone call from the police. They once again ask him "did you get to see the driver of this vehicle", he maintains that he didn't, as he was too far away.
Officer arrives at his house, and takes a statement later on. Obviously, he is not allowed to discuss the case, but he is able to disclose that a woman had been arrested at the registered keepers address, and allegedly found to be three and a half times over the legal drink drive limit.
The alleged driver, is adamant she had not driven.
It's going to crown court of course, where my brother in law will appear as a witness.
I wonder if he'll be "handsfree" on his way to court.........
And before anyone jumps up, and says he would have been exempt in these circumstances, why did the operator ask him then....twice?
Phil
He was on his way home from Bovey tracey in Devon, stuck in a long queue of traffic behind a tractor. The queue is travelling at no more than 20Mph, and has something like twenty cars in it. The car that is 2 cars in front of him is weaving VERY badly, from almost hitting the nearside wall/bank, to crossing the solid/broken white lines. Suspecting that any car driven that poorly, must be driven by someone who is drunk/drugged, he phones the old Bill. He gives them the index, and colour/make of the vehicle, and describes the circumstances. He intends to follow the vehicle for the police, to keep an eye on it for them. At this point, the operator asks "are you handsfree ?". Worried he is going to get a ticket, he responds "no, I've just pulled into a layby". The operator thanks him, and says someone will deal with it as soon as possible.
BiL rejoins the queue, and carries on his way. As he approaches Newton Abbot, he spots the alleged vehicle again, and starts to follow it from several cars back. The alleged vehicle proceeds through Newton Abbot, towards Totnes (in the process passing the local nick). BiL gets a phone call. This time it's the local nick (who could have almost shouted out of the window), they ask him if he can see who is driving the vehicle. He responds that he can't, as he's too far back, and he's had to stop to answer his mobile phone (still worried about being ticketed himself).
He carries on after the phone call, only to have lost the vehicle, so he turns around, and goes home.
Shortly after getting home, he gets another phone call from the police. They once again ask him "did you get to see the driver of this vehicle", he maintains that he didn't, as he was too far away.
Officer arrives at his house, and takes a statement later on. Obviously, he is not allowed to discuss the case, but he is able to disclose that a woman had been arrested at the registered keepers address, and allegedly found to be three and a half times over the legal drink drive limit.
The alleged driver, is adamant she had not driven.
It's going to crown court of course, where my brother in law will appear as a witness.
I wonder if he'll be "handsfree" on his way to court.........
And before anyone jumps up, and says he would have been exempt in these circumstances, why did the operator ask him then....twice?
Phil
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. He would not have been proceeded against on just his own admission! Some what a lack of evidence .
I'm with you on that gone. I'd have said "yes of course I am"
, then followed the car until it was stopped, or stopped outside the registered address, in which case I'd be able to ID the driver. Trouble is, he is just a normal law abiding MoP who feared he would be ticketed himself.
Phil
Spot on streaky An update for you.
Brother in law got a phone call the day before the case. The woman had changed her plea to guilty. Have no idea why (other than the fact she was obviously), unless she wanted to delay the loss of her license for whatever reason.
Result anyway
I'll let you know what she got, when I find out.
Phil
Brother in law got a phone call the day before the case. The woman had changed her plea to guilty. Have no idea why (other than the fact she was obviously), unless she wanted to delay the loss of her license for whatever reason.
Result anyway
I'll let you know what she got, when I find out.
Phil
Phil...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
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff