Wrongly Given a Warning by the Police

luckwudaveit

rev_henry wrote: »

No damage caused to your good self.

Personally I'd rather the police stopped people who look like they might have been on the phone rather than err on the side of caution.

I can see your point but it depends on what they had seen and how the subsequent questions are asked. Up until this point I had respect for the police and complied with their requests yesterday, answering all of their questions honestly.

What has annoyed me is how they approached the situation and this thread is now probably going OT, but I never once swore or interrupted him. He repeatedly did not allow me to give full answers and used foul language. One rule for them, one rule for us.

If I ever have the misfortune to be stopped again, I will adopt the "no comment" route, except for name, address & DOB.

McClane54

wouldn't bother making a complaint, police run state, they can do whatever the hell they like and get away with it!

Lum

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Speculative stops to "see what confession we can get" is the worst possible form of policing, no matter how seriously you view the possible offence, because it grants the authorities a free hand to bully and intimidate people for any reason they wish.

And this is why people are losing respect for the police these days. I suspect in any future encounters, the OP is going to be a lot more cautious and volunteer a lot less information.

Wig

feedthegraph wrote: »

To be honest, although the OP was [strike]it seems[/strike] innocent, I'm glad to see the police being pro-active in the use of mobiles, even to the extent that the suspicion exists that you were using a mobile..

Corrected that for you... There's nothing seemingly about it..the OP was innocent.

Wig

luckwudaveit wrote: »

What has annoyed me is how they approached the situation and this thread is now probably going OT, but I never once swore or interrupted him. He repeatedly did not allow me to give full answers and used foul language.

What foul language was used? Give context.

Wig

They'd have a job pulling this one on me....I don't have a mobile phone

[Deleted User]

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

I can't see what you have changed :huh:

Joe_Horner

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I can't see what you have changed :huh:

He changed this bit:

So they saw him with his hand to the side of his head. That is NOT sufficient grounds to stop someone going about their lawful business, then question them in a way designed to try and coerce a confession unless we're now living in Saddam's Iraq.

to this:

So they saw him with his hand to the side of his head. That is sufficient grounds to stop someone going about their lawful business, then question them in a way designed to try and coerce a confession unless we're now living in Saddam's Iraq.

Hence my reference in my follow-up to Constable Savage of urinating in a public convenience / coughing without due care and attention fame

The curious thing is, what he's ended up saying is that it's ok if we develop a more oppresive Police State than Mr Hussein had if it's done to stop people using their phones while driving.

I'd be really interested to hear his views on how to deal with a more serious crime like smoking in a workplace. Hanging without trial I guess?

.

Trebor16

Wig wrote: »

Corrected that for you... There's nothing seemingly about it..the OP was innocent.

And you witnessed the incident?

Wig

There's not much point coming to a forum board and lying about what happened to you today asking for advice on what to do next. Any advice you get is going to be useless. So unless you (as a reader and contributor to MSE) assume everyone is a troll, you have to believe everyone is telling the truth. To do otherwise makes no sense.