Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • pushing40
    • By pushing40 5th Mar 18, 1:56 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 62Thanks
    pushing40
    Suspected affair - Tracking a mobile phone
    • #1
    • 5th Mar 18, 1:56 PM
    Suspected affair - Tracking a mobile phone 5th Mar 18 at 1:56 PM
    Hello. I need some advice/information.

    I suspect my husband might be having an affair. Occasionally, he will go somewhere for the evening and tells me he's going out with a friend, but I suspect he's not.

    Is it possible to track his whereabouts based on his phone? He has an iphone. I did a quick google search and there are several companies that claim they can tell you the location of any mobile phone - for a fee. If I pay the fee, will I be able to see the location of his phone?

    I know there are various apps that enable this, but I believe (tell me if I'm wrong) that it would require him to install the app on his phone and authorise me to view his location.

    If he has "location" turned off on his phone (which I suspect he does have turned off) would these websites work, or are they a money making scam?
Page 4
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:23 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    Yes, yes it is. Most stalkers are 'verifying their belief'.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    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?
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • bertiewhite
    • By bertiewhite 6th Mar 18, 1:25 PM
    • 1,110 Posts
    • 1,222 Thanks
    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
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:25 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    Yes, yes it is. Most stalkers are 'verifying their belief'.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    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.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 1:29 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    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?
    Originally posted by motorguy


    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
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 1:30 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by motorguy
    You've quoted an opinion - which by the way still includes the bits you're trying to defend. I've quoted the law.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:36 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    Ok, to start with, yes it is totally unreasonable!

    The alternative is to end the relationship, because the trust is gone.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Fantastic advice!

    End the relationship because you "think" theres an issue, when in reality there might not be? It might all be perfectly innocent.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 1:37 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    Fantastic advice!

    End the relationship because you "think" theres an issue, when in reality there might not be? It might all be perfectly innocent.
    Originally posted by motorguy
    There is an issue. SHE DOESNT TRUST HIM....
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:40 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    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
    Originally posted by Comms69
    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.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:41 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    There is an issue. SHE DOESNT TRUST HIM....
    Originally posted by Comms69
    That is a symptom, not a cause.

    The cause is his current secretive behaviours.

    Treat the cause, and the symptom goes away.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Polmop
    • By Polmop 6th Mar 18, 1:43 PM
    • 560 Posts
    • 770 Thanks
    Polmop
    Does he have snapchat on his phone, their is a maps function on that where you can see where your friends are
    • jayII
    • By jayII 6th Mar 18, 1:44 PM
    • 38,158 Posts
    • 107,075 Thanks
    jayII
    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?
    Originally posted by motorguy
    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!
    Fighting the biggest battle of my life. Started 30th January 2018.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:44 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    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
    Originally posted by Comms69
    The bit you didnt high-light (conveniently) was :-

    The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

    Exhibiting one particular trait of that does not mean you are harassing someone.

    You're taking it literally when it isnt meant to be. For examples, if you were to take that as the letter of the law, according to you "(b)contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means" automatically makes you a stalker?
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 1:46 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by motorguy
    No, this is an offence in it's own right.


    POFA 2012 was an act which introduced a lot of legislation in one go. So many of the sections are inserted into other existing acts of parliament.


    To summarise you think this behaviour is ok, I think it's a serious criminal offence.


    If I'm wrong the OP doesn't suffer, if you're wrong it's up to 51 weeks in prison (that's via the magistrates court with a 97% conviction rate)


    I don't see the point of debating it with you further. If the gender roles were reversed this wouldn't even be questioned.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 1:49 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    The bit you didnt high-light (conveniently) was :-

    The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

    Exhibiting one particular trait of that does not mean you are harassing someone.

    You're taking it literally when it isnt meant to be. For examples, if you were to take that as the letter of the law, according to you "(b)contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means" automatically makes you a stalker?
    Originally posted by motorguy
    When you know, or ought to know, it would amount to harassment - yes.


    I didn't highlight it because it wasn't relevant to this point. It was there for you to read, I didn't edit anything out.


    You seem fixated on them being married and therefore it's not harassment. Most stalkers are or were previously romantically involved with their victim.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:49 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    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!
    Originally posted by jayII
    I am not saying track them with a device however i dont think its unreasonable to confirm where someone is. Otherwise surely you're just giving someone free reign to do as they please within a relationship if they have a mildly plausible cover story.

    Doing that is how so many people end up as doormats in abusive relationships as their partner feels they can do what they want and they are afraid to challenge them.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 1:50 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    That is a symptom, not a cause.

    The cause is his current secretive behaviours.

    Treat the cause, and the symptom goes away.
    Originally posted by motorguy


    It's neither a symptom, nor a cause, it's an outcome of a long dead relationship.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:53 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    When you know, or ought to know, it would amount to harassment - yes.


    I didn't highlight it because it wasn't relevant to this point. It was there for you to read, I didn't edit anything out.


    You seem fixated on them being married and therefore it's not harassment. Most stalkers are or were previously romantically involved with their victim.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Its totally relevant because you chose to highlight the bits that *only* supported your argument. Those are example scenarios given of harassment. Extracting one or two out of context does not prove your point.

    The act of stalking is predominantly about exerting control over (usually) an ex partner. Checking where someone is, in the context of getting reassurance that they are doing what they say they are doing is not stalking / harassment.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 1:55 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy
    It's neither a symptom, nor a cause, it's an outcome of a long dead relationship.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    I would be fairly confident that if i started working late every friday night my wife at some point would query it.

    That does not mean i'm in a "long dead" relationship. Far from it.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Mar 18, 2:00 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    I would be fairly confident that if i started working late every friday night my wife at some point would query it.

    That does not mean i'm in a "long dead" relationship. Far from it.
    Originally posted by motorguy


    If you told your wife that you were required to work late, and she came to check up on that. Ye, your relationship is dead.


    In trusting relationships, loving ones. Your wife would instead have you a nice meal ready, after a long day (and no that not sexist, I'd say the same if roles reversed)
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 6th Mar 18, 2:00 PM
    • 16,765 Posts
    • 9,938 Thanks
    motorguy

    To summarise you think this behaviour is ok, I think it's a serious criminal offence.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    No, i didnt say i condoned tracking the person with a device. I have repeatedly said i wouldnt do that. I did say it was not unreasonable to check what the other person was doing, under the circumstances.


    If I'm wrong the OP doesn't suffer, if you're wrong it's up to 51 weeks in prison (that's via the magistrates court with a 97% conviction rate)
    Originally posted by Comms69
    97% conviction rate on cases brought before them, having passed the Public Prosecution Service, and having passed any police investigation and charges being raised. "Yeah i checked up on where my husband was last friday night" - 51 weeks in prison! Nonsense. Frankly nonsense.


    If the gender roles were reversed this wouldn't even be questioned.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Eh? The O/P is female, checking on her husband. I'm male. Either way round i dont see it as unreasonable.
    Last edited by motorguy; 06-03-2018 at 2:02 PM.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

44Posts Today

3,103Users online

Martin's Twitter