Eeeek....police?

Billy_Bullocks

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Can you imagine the outcome in court if someone was prosecuted and the CPS stated that although the specific thing that they were being charged with wasn't stated in any legislation, there were examples of similar but different things in there!

Yes, the prosecutor would stand up and say the crown offers no evidence.

Car_54

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Can you imagine the outcome in court if someone was prosecuted and the CPS stated that although the specific thing that they were being charged with wasn't stated in any legislation, there were examples of similar but different things in there!

I don't follow your thinking. This part of the law in this case is quite clear.

Section 4 states unequivocally that a device which transmits and receives data IS covered by the prohibition.

Section 6 simply lists some things which are covered, for clarity. It does NOT say (or even suggest) that anything not listed is excluded.

BTW the rest of the regulation is less clear. It prohibits use while driving, but does not explain what is meant by 'use' or 'driving'

silverwhistle

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Similarly the present mobile phone bogeyman hysteria will get replaced with something else in due course that the righteous cult will then be jumping up and down about, busy little bees the righteous ones.

I would so laugh if someone using a mobile phone went in to the back of you - assuming no injuries, of course..