Suspected affair - Tracking a mobile phone

bertiewhite

A lad who used to work for me taped a mobile phone to the underside of his ex's car and tracked it.

It was subsequently found when she took it to get the exhaust looked at and he ended up getting 100 hours community service.

motorguy

Comms69 wrote: »

Yes, yes it is. Most stalkers are 'verifying their belief'.

And no, its not the primary reason why stalkers stalk :-

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/stalking-behavior-victims-seeking-help-040513

What Is Stalking?


At its core, stalking consists of repeated attempts to gain control over or terrorize someone. Stalking exists on a continuum. On the lower end, it might involve repeated phone calls, letters, or email contacts. In its more extreme manifestations, however, stalking might involve repeatedly going to a person’s house, making threats against a person, harming pets, stealing possessions, or interfering with a person’s relationships with friends, family, or coworkers. Stalkers may alternate between patterns of domestic violence and stalking.

Comms69

motorguy wrote: »

No, if her husband says hes going to X, Y or Z, then its not unreasonable to confirm that, particularly given there is already reasonable suspicion.

Whats the alternative? Do nothing? Challenge him with no evidence so he can deny it and just be more careful next time? Because what you're saying seems to be that to do *any* checking makes you a stalker?

Ok, to start with, yes it is totally unreasonable!


The alternative is to end the relationship, because the trust is gone.


Just FYI here's the law


Offences in relation to stalking
(1)After section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offence of harassment) insert—
“2AOffence of stalking

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and
(b)the course of conduct amounts to stalking.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person’s course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if—
(a)it amounts to harassment of that person,
(b)the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and
(c)the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.
(3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—
(a)following a person,
(b)contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c)publishing any statement or other material—
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,
(d)monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e)loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f)interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g)watching or spying on a person.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to six months.
(6)This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 2.”


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/7/crossheading/stalking/enacted

Comms69

motorguy wrote: »

And no, its not the primary reason why stalkers stalk :-

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/stalking-behavior-victims-seeking-help-040513

What Is Stalking?


At its core, stalking consists of repeated attempts to gain control over or terrorize someone. Stalking exists on a continuum. On the lower end, it might involve repeated phone calls, letters, or email contacts. In its more extreme manifestations, however, stalking might involve repeatedly going to a person’s house, making threats against a person, harming pets, stealing possessions, or interfering with a person’s relationships with friends, family, or coworkers. Stalkers may alternate between patterns of domestic violence and stalking.

You've quoted an opinion - which by the way still includes the bits you're trying to defend. I've quoted the law.

motorguy

Comms69 wrote: »

Ok, to start with, yes it is totally unreasonable!

The alternative is to end the relationship, because the trust is gone.

Fantastic advice!

End the relationship because you "think" theres an issue, when in reality there might not be? It might all be perfectly innocent.

Comms69

motorguy wrote: »

Fantastic advice!

End the relationship because you "think" theres an issue, when in reality there might not be? It might all be perfectly innocent.

There is an issue. SHE DOESNT TRUST HIM....

motorguy

Comms69 wrote: »

Ok, to start with, yes it is totally unreasonable!


The alternative is to end the relationship, because the trust is gone.


Just FYI here's the law


Offences in relation to stalking
(1)After section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offence of harassment) insert—
“2AOffence of stalking

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and
(b)the course of conduct amounts to stalking.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person’s course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if—
(a)it amounts to harassment of that person,
(b)the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and
(c)the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.
(3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—
(a)following a person,
(b)contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c)publishing any statement or other material—
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,
(d)monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e)loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f)interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g)watching or spying on a person.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to six months.
(6)This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 2.”


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/7/crossheading/stalking/enacted

The law isnt black and white its about context.

For example, i've just loitered outside at lunchtime, does that make me a stalker?

Also, you've managed to extract "stalking" from under the category of harassment.

It relates to stalking as harassment. The O/P is not attempting to harass their husband.

motorguy

Comms69 wrote: »

There is an issue. SHE DOESNT TRUST HIM....

That is a symptom, not a cause.

The cause is his current secretive behaviours.

Treat the cause, and the symptom goes away.

Polmop

Does he have snapchat on his phone, their is a maps function on that where you can see where your friends are

jayII

motorguy wrote: »

No, if her husband says hes going to X, Y or Z, then its not unreasonable to confirm that, particularly given there is already reasonable suspicion.

Whats the alternative? Do nothing? Challenge him with no evidence so he can deny it and just be more careful next time? Because what you're saying seems to be that to do *any* checking makes you a stalker?

Of course it's unreasonable!

It's not unreasonable if I check where my child (under 18), (or a legally 'vulnerable adult' I'm responsible for) goes to, because I am safeguarding their wellbeing, which is my moral and legal responsibility.

It is not reasonable to stalk /follow /check up on /interfere with the liberty and legal behaviour of another competent adult, just because I might not like their choices! It's irrelevant whether that adult is my significant other or just someone else want to have control over. We (thankfully) do not live in a country where infidelity is illegal and where partners 'own' each other!!

In my opinion, once the trust is gone you either talk to the person and jointly try to rebuild the trust, or you decide to live with things as they are (open relationships anyone?) or you walk away with your head held high and a huge sigh of relief!