Using hands free, but police say he was holding phone
Discussion
hondansx said:
Refuse to take the ticket, stand in front of his car, whatever it took to give me the time to rationally explain my defence. Not that hard, really.
However, I have never had to resort to this, and have found the police reasonable to talk to in almost all cases. Which is why I think the OP's mate is fibbing.
Really?However, I have never had to resort to this, and have found the police reasonable to talk to in almost all cases. Which is why I think the OP's mate is fibbing.
First, it doesn't matter if you accept the ticket or not. It's been written and not accepting it simply means your case ends up in court rather than the option to accept a fixed penalty.
Standing in front of their car - you'll be asked to move and then, whey the keyboard warrior inside you still refuses to move you'll simply be arrested for obstructing a police office in his duties (or similar wording).
They still won't discuss your ticket once you arrive at the station, but at best you'll end up with a caution to add to your already "crap day".
Markbarry1977 said:
Joeguard1990 said:
If your friend is telling the truth then tell him to go to court and contest it.
Nothing else he can do.
Thought I doubt the policeman would just blatantly lie and make something like that up...
Nothing else he can do.
Thought I doubt the policeman would just blatantly lie and make something like that up...
Yeah right a copper would never ever lie............
They make far too many assumptions and use their "intuition" regardless of what they saw.
They might be right 90% of the time, but it's the 10% that's worrying.
cat with a hat said:
A policeman will interpret the series of events they believe are likely to have occurred.
They make far too many assumptions and use their "intuition" regardless of what they saw.
They might be right 90% of the time, but it's the 10% that's worrying.
Its not the 10% of time where they saw the wrong thing that worries me..... Its the fact that the courts almost carte-blanche believe a coppers word is truthful and that in reality once it goes to court you are guilty....They make far too many assumptions and use their "intuition" regardless of what they saw.
They might be right 90% of the time, but it's the 10% that's worrying.
In my opinion the police should have to produce more than just a coppers statement of fact to allow a prosecution to occur.. CCTV from a road camera or local shops. Camera footage from the car clearly showing the face and the phone. Evidence from the mobile phone company and manufacturer to confirm a call was in place and no Bluetooth in use.....
Surely just a copper turning up in court and going I saw this... You turn round and say no sorry your mistaken.. Judge, I believe PC Blindgit, here's your fine and points...... Where is the evidence? humans are fallible by nature so surely a % of convictions solely off a coppers word would be unsafe and therefore shouldn't be allowed.
bigee said:
What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? Someones (even a plod ) word surely cannot be deemed a sufficient proof ?
It’s enough to get you charged and in front of a judge who will pretty much take the word of the copper as gospel and will slap you accordingly. Unless you had a gps time stamped dashcam video with audio which could prove your innocent then your going to lose.
bigee said:
What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? Someones (even a plod ) word surely cannot be deemed a sufficient proof ?
So your saying it's magical coincidence that he was on the phone at the time the cop thought that he was on the phone?Lucky coincidence for the cop or someone is lying.
Well my friend had his afternoon in court today. Based on photos provided by the police of were he was spotted 'holding' his mobile phone, he produced a video which showed the police officer could not have seen into the cab of the van. The magistrates accepted there was reasonable doubt and found him not guilty.
DHE said:
Well my friend had his afternoon in court today. Based on photos provided by the police of were he was spotted 'holding' his mobile phone, he produced a video which showed the police officer could not have seen into the cab of the van. The magistrates accepted there was reasonable doubt and found him not guilty.
Brilliant outcome!
I have done exactly that, due to being "seen" using a handheld phone, despite it being sat in a mounted cradle, plugged into a charger and paired up to bluetooth with steering wheel controls. I'd love to catch out one of the lying rat f
ks trying it on again but It hasn't happened since I got my camera.
Police that are dishonest should be subjected to capital punishment regardless of how minor their infraction IMO, they chose the life, They chose a career where they get to pick on every else day in day out, when they get caught slipping it should be a public beheading. 
Or at least the snidey wee that did me, i'd love to see him hang. If i had a bit more money I would have taken it to court but my daugter was only a few weeks old and every penny was a prisoner, and a solicitor was at minimum 5 times the price of the fpn and couldn't trust myself not to call the jumped up wee fk the liar that he is. That day will burn with rage in me for the rest of my life I think and I know I should just forget it.
I have been shown footage on a dashcam I fitted for a taxi driver in Glasgow a video of him being pulled and the copper said he saw him on the phone, the driver pointed to the cam and blagged it a bit, he said do you realise that camera has a sim card in it and uploads back to a hard drive at the depot? The copper very quickly sent him on his way with "no further action". I wanted him to stick it on youtube but he didn't want a target pained on his back, he just wanted to get on with his graft. Funnily enough when he replaced his taxi he spent even more on the next dashcam.
ks trying it on again but It hasn't happened since I got my camera.Police that are dishonest should be subjected to capital punishment regardless of how minor their infraction IMO, they chose the life, They chose a career where they get to pick on every
else day in day out, when they get caught slipping it should be a public beheading. Or at least the snidey wee
that did me, i'd love to see him hang. If i had a bit more money I would have taken it to court but my daugter was only a few weeks old and every penny was a prisoner, and a solicitor was at minimum 5 times the price of the fpn and couldn't trust myself not to call the jumped up wee fk the liar that he is. That day will burn with rage in me for the rest of my life I think and I know I should just forget it.I have been shown footage on a dashcam I fitted for a taxi driver in Glasgow a video of him being pulled and the copper said he saw him on the phone, the driver pointed to the cam and blagged it a bit, he said do you realise that camera has a sim card in it and uploads back to a hard drive at the depot? The copper very quickly sent him on his way with "no further action". I wanted him to stick it on youtube but he didn't want a target pained on his back, he just wanted to get on with his graft. Funnily enough when he replaced his taxi he spent even more on the next dashcam.
Edited by OldGermanHeaps on Wednesday 25th April 23:57
What should happen is this is recorded against the officers record. If he ‘sees’ someone using their phone again when the person is adament they weren’t, then it should be taken into account that this officer has been mistaken before.
As much as we all know the police can lie (Hillsborough, Barry George, as well as 2343 officers investigated for corruption in 2017) I would give the officer the benefit of the doubt.
That being, that he thought he saw something that he actually didn’t, rather than made it up. B
As much as we all know the police can lie (Hillsborough, Barry George, as well as 2343 officers investigated for corruption in 2017) I would give the officer the benefit of the doubt.
That being, that he thought he saw something that he actually didn’t, rather than made it up. B
Of course, just because someone is found not guilty at court doesn't mean they didn't commit the offence or that the officer was mistaken/lying (not suggesting that was/wasn't the case in the OP). It could also be that they did commit the offence but managed to introduce enough uncertainty so that the court felt there was reasonable doubt as to whether they did or not.
Cat
Cat
DHE said:
Well my friend had his afternoon in court today. Based on photos provided by the police of were he was spotted 'holding' his mobile phone, he produced a video which showed the police officer could not have seen into the cab of the van. The magistrates accepted there was reasonable doubt and found him not guilty.
F**king awesome outcome. A virtual pint for that man. I still can’t beleieve in this day and age a coppers word is enough to get the cps to prosecute someone without any other form of evidence being available. Markbarry1977 said:
Its not the 10% of time where they saw the wrong thing that worries me..... Its the fact that the courts almost carte-blanche believe a coppers word is truthful and that in reality once it goes to court you are guilty....
In my opinion the police should have to produce more than just a coppers statement of fact to allow a prosecution to occur.. CCTV from a road camera or local shops. Camera footage from the car clearly showing the face and the phone. Evidence from the mobile phone company and manufacturer to confirm a call was in place and no Bluetooth in use.....
Surely just a copper turning up in court and going I saw this... You turn round and say no sorry your mistaken.. Judge, I believe PC Blindgit, here's your fine and points...... Where is the evidence? humans are fallible by nature so surely a % of convictions solely off a coppers word would be unsafe and therefore shouldn't be allowed.
The problem with requiring that extra evidence CCTV etc, would be most officers are single crewed and if they required more than just their evidence there would be little point in taking any action against any driving offence as the driver would just say where is your evidence as a court won't believe you without it.In my opinion the police should have to produce more than just a coppers statement of fact to allow a prosecution to occur.. CCTV from a road camera or local shops. Camera footage from the car clearly showing the face and the phone. Evidence from the mobile phone company and manufacturer to confirm a call was in place and no Bluetooth in use.....
Surely just a copper turning up in court and going I saw this... You turn round and say no sorry your mistaken.. Judge, I believe PC Blindgit, here's your fine and points...... Where is the evidence? humans are fallible by nature so surely a % of convictions solely off a coppers word would be unsafe and therefore shouldn't be allowed.
Its been suggested on here that an officer may lie about what they have seen, that's a big risk, losing their job pension etc just to issue a ticket for a minor traffic offence. That's not to say they are aren't mistaken on occasions as they are only human. How many time have people been convinced they have seen something that hasn't happened or happened differently to their recollection.
If that scenario occurred a single crewed police officer would have to ignore blatant traffic offences, and could you then imagine the outcry?
Edited by Hogstar on Thursday 26th April 11:10
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
I'd be surprised if anyone with handsfree fitted wouldn't be using it. Am I wrong? If I'm not wrong then the cop was being a bit silly suggesting someone with handsfree wasn't using it.
I've seen so many people driving with a mobile phone to their ear, in a car I know has bluetooth. Why these people don't connect their phone to bluetooth I don't know! Saw a bloke in a brand new S Class last week, phone to ear?!? joyless lobotomised parrot said:
I'd be surprised if anyone with handsfree fitted wouldn't be using it. Am I wrong? If I'm not wrong then the cop was being a bit silly suggesting someone with handsfree wasn't using it.
I think it depends on the system. If you are making an outgoing call you have to initiate it. Mine has voice activation, but it’s terrible.So to make a call I have to either use the cars system (radio dash buttons) or physicaly pick up the phone to make the call.
I’m willing to bet a lot of people with hands free still initiate an out going call by holding the phone.
For those of you with the newer bmw. Whilst pressing the voice activation button operates the bmw hands free system (which is worse than useless) if you press and hold the voice command button for about 5 seconds it operates the phones inbuilt voice control system. Ie Siri on an iPhone or whatever androids equivalent is. Certainly it’s so much better than the bmw inbuilt system.
That’s my good deed for the day.
That’s my good deed for the day.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff