mad-butcher
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
Pond Life Coppers
Pond Life Coppers
Just been stopped by a F*****g traffic copper on the M53 for using a mobile phone while driving, daft bastards mate had to remove it from my bag, now
who in therir right frame of mind uses a phone then puts it in their bag, offered me a fixed penalty and 3 points or a day in court, chose the day in
court, offered to show him call log but he declined, choosing to say him and his mate saw me on a black phone, changed it to a silver one when he saw
the F*****g thing. complete and utter waste of my time and money but I'm going to fight it. phone was in me bag on passengers seat why in the
name of god would I take it out with my left hand then use it with my right.
Oh forgot to mention they even breathalized me even though I'd just finished 6 hours behind the wheel of a wagon
[Edited on 15/2/10 by mad-butcher]
 
Rescued attachment Phone.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 09:41 AM |
|
|
Did they go through the whole rigmarole of what network, taking your number and immediately ringing you on it etc?
|
|
|
vinny1275
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 09:45 AM |
|
|
Get the call log from your network provider today - someone on here had the same problem, and the network wouldn't give him the information
after a certain amount of time.
Did you get the copper's shoulder number?
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 09:46 AM |
|
|
Absolute scumbags!! Speak to your mobile phone provider to see if they can provide written evidence to show that you neither made or received calls,
and if you can then find as many people to look at your call log as possible today (ideally a solicitor).
Also, ring the local cop shop and ask for the number for the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) and get it registered as a formal
complaint. They have to investigate it (although wont decide the outcome till after the court date) but get the pressure onto this early.
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 10:11 AM |
|
|
A guy I know got done just for looking at his phone. I think the offence is not actually being on a call so to speak. It is actually that they saw
him looking at a message (which he admits) - He was stationary in a long queue of traffic on the motorway, his phone bleeped, he picked it up to see
what it was beeping for and they clocked him from an adjacent unmarked car.
So they can stick you on just for looking at the phone. Dont take this as fact, but if it is the case and they insist you had it in your hand, then
no call log would help in a defence. I guess you need to clarify what the actual offence of using a mobile device is.
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
Charlie_Zetec
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 10:13 AM |
|
|
I had a similar incident a few years back. My advice (in retrospect) is do what everyone else has said and try to get the records from your mobile
provider. Also, once calmer (I know the feeling only too well), write down a written statement of events, sign/date it, and get a third party to also
sign and date it as a witness.
When I went to court the statements the officers made were all over the place, as they were made from scribbled notes in their notepads, and
weren't even made at the time of the alleged offence, but a day or two later. I submitted a copy of my statement of events in court to contra
the prosecutors's case (CPS), but as painful as it seems, the Police Officers' statements will always be more weighted than your own.
My advice is prepare yourself for the worst - you'll prob get £60 fine, three points, £15 victims fund contribution cost, and Court costs of
maybe up to a few hundred pounds. So unless you're 110% positive in a win, please don't hold much hope.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity!
|
|
|
Charlie_Zetec
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 10:16 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by karlak
A guy I know got done just for looking at his phone. I think the offence is not actually being on a call so to speak. It is actually that they saw
him looking at a message (which he admits) - He was stationary in a long queue of traffic on the motorway, his phone bleeped, he picked it up to see
what it was beeping for and they clocked him from an adjacent unmarked car.
So they can stick you on just for looking at the phone. Dont take this as fact, but if it is the case and they insist you had it in your hand, then
no call log would help in a defence. I guess you need to clarify what the actual offence of using a mobile device is.
The charge is using a mobile device whilst in control of a motor vehicle, code CU80. You could argue that if the handbrake was on and you were
stationary with no direct intention of moving (eg. solid traffic) and argue your case, but I was told by a copper that you have to have a specific
device that enables the mobile phone to be used without the need to touch it, thus making it truly "hands free". Without that,
they'll do you....
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity!
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
If you weren't using your phone fight it.
However if you were using your phone --- no sympathy.
[Edited on 15/2/10 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 10:34 AM |
|
|
As already said, get in touch with your network provider and get them to send you a call log straight away. I assume you have evidence of what time
you were pulled over. So that coupled with a call log should be more than sufficient.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
The issue with the CU80 offence, as my missus found out, is that although "using" a phone to you or I tends to be fairly clear cut,
"using" in the context of this particular law seems to be more than a little subjective. You can "use" your phone as a clock
for example, you can "use" it for stress relief by twiddling it in your hand.
In other words, having the call log does not prove innocence as both coppers just have to say that they saw you holding your mobile phone 
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 11:08 AM |
|
|
Guilty till proven innocent and unable to readily prove innocence as usual with motoring convictions.
My Build Thread
|
|
|
fesycresy
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
You're fuct.
Get the phone records and they'll probably say you were using a 2nd phone.
They won't change their statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
Oh, and to add insult to injury, missus' insurance company declined to invite renewal on her policy due to the CU80. Technically she has now
also been refused insurance
Apparently there are more and more insurers declining to quote if you have a CU80
|
|
|
mad4x4
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 12:49 PM |
|
|
" I saw the Person driving with siliver a phone in Hand"
How far away were you
"20ft"
Could you be sure it was a phone and not a soft drink can"
" Well Ere em er"....
Surely at 20 - 30ft and travling at speed any silver item could be mistaken for a phone. DOn;t they have to prove you were using the phone as is
prove guilty
Scot's do it better in Kilts.
MK INDY's Don't Self Centre Regardless of MK Setting !
|
|
|
bi22le
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 01:01 PM |
|
|
Is it an Iphone? Say it was an Ipod and you maybe lucky. I dont actually know, just stabbing in the dark!! I hate the stupid driving laws.
Again its the odd idiot that made a mistake when driving that got blamed becasue they were on the phone thats has caused this law to be passed.
Its the same as speeding. Everybody speeds so everybody can ge blaimed for speeding when they have an accident irrelavent if it was speed and not
rubbish driving that caused the accident. Alittle OT but I feel better now!
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 01:12 PM |
|
|
Why would he say it was an iPod if he didnt have anything to his ear?? May as well just plead guilty if trying to make up stories like that as by
using anything you'd be admitting to not being in proper control of a vehicle (same as eating a choc bar, drink etc).
Really makes my blood boil that cops can make up stories like this seeing as its two cops word against the driver. Bet the cops statement is so vague
that if it goes to court he can make up a story to suit - ie bet it wont say he saw Mad-Butcher talking on the phone to get around any produced phone
records.
Declined to look at the phone so that there's no proof that the records produced match the phone that he says he saw i bet!!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 01:16 PM |
|
|
Could you not argue that every accident has an element of speed in it - if you weren't moving you wouldn't crash! therefore speed is
always partly to blame. The issue is people drive at inappropriate speeds. The easy way to deal with this is to have limits and enforce them. If you
can figure out a way of dealing this without limits - let the world know now.
As for everyone speeding - i don't think so. I do my best to keep to the speed limits. (Despite the utter pr!ck driving 2ft off my rear all the
way to work. If the road was clear and safe to do so i would have pulled over and let him speed off. I didn't as I drive past two schools.
I'd much rather he hits me when i slam on than doesn't brake at all for a kid. He also didn't bother to overtake on the long
straight bit well before a school so had his chance)
Regarding the OP - If you're honestly innocent i'd suggest fighting, but have a strong suspicion that the courts see lots of people trying
to argue they're innocent when they're not. Therefore i'd expect you to lose. Read the other posters thread who got done the same if
you really are innocent and if you decide to fight it, good luck.
One other thing - just because the guy following me to work was a brain dead stupid moron, doesn't mean all drivers are. The same is true for
the police, a few bad apples spoil it for everyone.
p.s. if you didn't have a phone to your face - did you have a drink / something else they could have mistaken?
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G
Why would he say it was an iPod if he didnt have anything to his ear?? May as well just plead guilty if trying to make up stories like that as by
using anything you'd be admitting to not being in proper control of a vehicle (same as eating a choc bar, drink etc).
Really makes my blood boil that cops can make up stories like this seeing as its two cops word against the driver. Bet the cops statement is so vague
that if it goes to court he can make up a story to suit - ie bet it wont say he saw Mad-Butcher talking on the phone to get around any produced phone
records.
Declined to look at the phone so that there's no proof that the records produced match the phone that he says he saw i bet!!
Because an
iPod isn't a phone and therefore not covered by the same piece of legislation. They only need to say that they saw him "using" the
phone which doesn't necessarily mean making or recieving a call or text etc.
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 02:04 PM |
|
|
Agreed Richard - its covered by a different piece of legislation and can lead to a Careless Driving or Driving Without Due Care and Attention (CD10)
charge.......... so why would anyone innocent want to admit guilt to that instead??
CU80 is 3 points
CD10 is 3-9 points
[Edited on 15/2/10 by Steve G]
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 02:18 PM |
|
|
More and more makes you want one of those in-car camera systems that Nitram has!
Good Luck MadButcher!
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by James
More and more makes you want one of those in-car camera systems that Nitram has!
Agree with you there James - would love to know if anyone has tried to use footage from these as evidence in defence. Can just imagine they'd be
deemed inadmissible!!!
All this just because some cop might need an easy target to meet the required statistics. As said - motorists are guilty until proven innocent
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 03:22 PM |
|
|
At least one speeding case has been thrown out of court because the young lads dad had fitted a GPS logging device to keep an eye on his driving.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
eddie99
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 03:32 PM |
|
|
I feel lots for you. I would be absolutely furious and im also guessing but i think the court have had so many people who were guilty trying to prove
innocent and failing so you may get put in that category and its your word against his.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
mad-butcher
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 04:33 PM |
|
|
Been advised to plead guilty and take the 3 points.
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 15/2/10 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
I'm not going to comment further on this as some people are just venting there own grudges on here but if you genuinely weren't in the
wrong mate, have your day in court. It's your entitlement. Forget the nonsense that a coppers statement is always taken above everyone elses. It
simply isn't true as I can tell you about of colleagues and myself who have lost cases for not being believed in court.
There are good coppers and bad coppers just as there are equally good and bad doctors, drivers, tradesmen, mechanics etc. etc. They are no
different.
If they were in the wrong mate, challenge it. Don't bother making a complaint unless it was about their attitude that was in the wrong, which
you may have felt it was in which case go ahead.
For what it's worth, in my force at least we don't have 'ticket targets' or 'arrest' targets anymore either and I
know of at least one other force that doesn't have targets either. So there's another myth dispelled!
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
