FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Police to seize mobiles in every car crash UPDATE
Police to seize mobiles in every car crash UPDATE
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *john121 OP Man
over a year ago
staffs |
Nothing new in this, mine was seized on the 6/6 following the collision i was in and I wasn't the guilty party.
Took 3 weeks to get it back while they wrote to the network provider, it's not just calls or text logs it's all activity and it's the mast sites too..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!  "
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?"
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008? 
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts."
I doubt many, if any people here, have images that are both 'pornographic' AND 'extreme' as defined in the act, so there's nothing to worry about. If you have such images then you deserve what you get ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts.
I doubt many, if any people here, have images that are both 'pornographic' AND 'extreme' as defined in the act, so there's nothing to worry about. If you have such images then you deserve what you get ??"
As those judgements are up to the magistrate who views the image and the part where causing grievous bodily harm is NOT the same standard as that of Assault occasioning GBH and should also be up to the magistrate to interpreter I for one would not be that sure...
But then what do I know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts."
I wasn't laughing in the first place.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts.
I wasn't laughing in the first place. "
As I'm too lazy to read said act would anyone be kind enough to enlighten me as to what it is please  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts.
I wasn't laughing in the first place.
As I'm too lazy to read said act would anyone be kind enough to enlighten me as to what it is please "
Sorry I haven't read it either . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash"
Is that not allowed then?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
Is that not allowed then? "
According to sub section 6.8 clause 5 in the wanking off whilst driving your car act 2014 it states you can only do that in designated areas (wank pits) which are provided every 10 miles along stretches of main roads
Don't you know nuffink? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash"
 Exactly!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do they need to take your phone if they can check everything with the provider anyway?
Thats a really good point
"
I'm sure someone will come along and explain it shortly - in detail |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
Is that not allowed then?
According to sub section 6.8 clause 5 in the wanking off whilst driving your car act 2014 it states you can only do that in designated areas (wank pits) which are provided every 10 miles along stretches of main roads
Don't you know nuffink? "
It appears that I know even less than I previously thought and that wasn't much |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do they need to take your phone if they can check everything with the provider anyway?"
Can the provider give details of web browsing? And those would only be partial anyway with wifi available to switch to. Plus, can they log activity on payg phones or just contract ones? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
if they are taking the phone because of a car crash can they legaly just mooch around in it for dodgy pics etc or does the search hve to be specific to the reason they conviscated it for?"
I don't know but I do know they breathalysed my friend at 8 am after pulling him over because his mot had lapsed, so in that case they can check for other offences. This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about this sort of action. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
Enough. I've actually looked into this and the news reports are inaccurate. The Association of Chief Police Officers have put this on their site:
Following wide reporting that guidance has been issued to officers to examine or seize mobile phones after every road traffic collision today (Saturday, July 26), the National Policing Lead for Roads Policing, Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, has issued the following statement:
"At no point have I issued guidance to officers to seize mobile phones from drivers at the site of every road traffic collision.
"It is fair to say that we as a service are looking at ways of making officers and drivers more aware of the difference between the offences of driving while not in proper control of the vehicle - which is a distraction offence - and driving while using a mobile phone. Part of this process involves making sure officers know the best means of using information within a driver's mobile phone when building evidence for a successful prosecution, such as finding from call or text logs if the phone was in use at the time of an incident.
"It has been standard practice to seize mobile phones from drivers at the scenes of very serious collisions for some time as part of the information and evidence gathering process, but it is not now, nor will it be, standard practice to seize phones from drivers after every collision.
"Drivers must continue to be aware not only of the risks posed by being distracted by mobile phones while in control of a car, but the serious penalties which they will face if they are caught. We are unequivocal in our determination to keep all road users safe."
ENDS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash"
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
"
Yes I have heard that. I wonder what the liklihood of them taking action would be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Yes I have heard that. I wonder what the liklihood of them taking action would be."
oh the irony of being held to account for having marks from consensual activities by members of the judiciary.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thats why they invented Hands Free....so you can drive without using your hands obviously. It is so much easier to wank and/or put mascara on with such appliances."
Warning applying mascara whilst wanking may be hazardous to your credibility |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Yes I have heard that. I wonder what the liklihood of them taking action would be.
oh the irony of being held to account for having marks from consensual activities by members of the judiciary.."
which I think ties in nicely (see what I did there) with the argument I was having earlier on a similar subject. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thats why they invented Hands Free....so you can drive without using your hands obviously. It is so much easier to wank and/or put mascara on with such appliances.
Warning applying mascara whilst wanking may be hazardous to your credibility "
it entirely depends where you're applying the mascara  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Yes I have heard that. I wonder what the liklihood of them taking action would be.
oh the irony of being held to account for having marks from consensual activities by members of the judiciary..
which I think ties in nicely (see what I did there) with the argument I was having earlier on a similar subject. "
Knot sure I sore (only in a mild way) that one? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
"
Not true. Not if consensual.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
they may come unstuck with taking the moblie after a car crash, if your a doctor or in any other job which you must have phone with you at all times? wait till some one take this to court. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Yes I have heard that. I wonder what the liklihood of them taking action would be.
oh the irony of being held to account for having marks from consensual activities by members of the judiciary..
which I think ties in nicely (see what I did there) with the argument I was having earlier on a similar subject.
Knot sure I sore (only in a mild way) that one?"
it's only sort of connected I was bemoaning the fact that we are observed or watched in so many cases now and the reason is always "for your own good" or "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Not true. Not if consensual...."
BDSM can lead to a conviction for Assault. The leading case on this is R v Brown, otherwise known as the 'Hammer Case'. This involved a group of chaps nailing things that not many people would want nailing. Whilst it is still good law, I'm not convinced that a Judge wouldn't distinguish a lesser case from this precedent.
I'll go and have a lie down now.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Not true. Not if consensual....
BDSM can lead to a conviction for Assault. The leading case on this is R v Brown, otherwise known as the 'Hammer Case'. This involved a group of chaps nailing things that not many people would want nailing. Whilst it is still good law, I'm not convinced that a Judge wouldn't distinguish a lesser case from this precedent.
I'll go and have a lie down now. "
So it is possible that having an entirely consensual picture of myself (for instance) with marks on my arse from being spanked could land my other half up before the beak? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"
So it is possible that having an entirely consensual picture of myself (for instance) with marks on my arse from being spanked could land my other half up before the beak?"
As the law currently stands, yes. However, I'd say this is more theoretical than realistic.
I learnt this a few years ago. Not through coming unstuck, but through work. My gaffer is doing a law degree and I do the reading for him and type up his essays whilst he dictates them to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So it is possible that having an entirely consensual picture of myself (for instance) with marks on my arse from being spanked could land my other half up before the beak?
As the law currently stands, yes. However, I'd say this is more theoretical than realistic.
I learnt this a few years ago. Not through coming unstuck, but through work. My gaffer is doing a law degree and I do the reading for him and type up his essays whilst he dictates them to me. "
I see. Thank you.
You're sort of doing a law degree by default then
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Not true. Not if consensual....
BDSM can lead to a conviction for Assault. The leading case on this is R v Brown, otherwise known as the 'Hammer Case'. This involved a group of chaps nailing things that not many people would want nailing. Whilst it is still good law, I'm not convinced that a Judge wouldn't distinguish a lesser case from this precedent.
I'll go and have a lie down now.
So it is possible that having an entirely consensual picture of myself (for instance) with marks on my arse from being spanked could land my other half up before the beak?"
In the eyes of the law you can not consent to assault... If you are spanked etc, that is an assault... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nothing new in this, mine was seized on the 6/6 following the collision i was in and I wasn't the guilty party.
Took 3 weeks to get it back while they wrote to the network provider, it's not just calls or text logs it's all activity and it's the mast sites too..
"
The dates of this are quite relevant, in April the European court ruled the use of data from phone companies as illegal, the UK government wrote new laws just before parliament broke up in July saying that the retention was for serious crime and terrorism, so on the 6th June the Police were knowingly breaking the law using phone records for a traffic incident. hmmmmmm...
note this does not prevent them looking at the actual phones logs but if they did get data from the phone company then it was wrong of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Not true. Not if consensual....
BDSM can lead to a conviction for Assault. The leading case on this is R v Brown, otherwise known as the 'Hammer Case'. This involved a group of chaps nailing things that not many people would want nailing. Whilst it is still good law, I'm not convinced that a Judge wouldn't distinguish a lesser case from this precedent.
I'll go and have a lie down now.
So it is possible that having an entirely consensual picture of myself (for instance) with marks on my arse from being spanked could land my other half up before the beak?
In the eyes of the law you can not consent to assault... If you are spanked etc, that is an assault..."
Yes I had heard that too. It sure is a minefield. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You can remotely wipe iPhones from the find my iphone app .. Can they still find photos etc if you do this? "
I would imagine that it is possible to recover deleted files, but as rooting an Apple phone means jailbreaking it which damages the phone you could probably demand a new phone if found not guilty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts."
ffs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"
In the eyes of the law you can not consent to assault... If you are spanked etc, that is an assault..."
You can be deemed to have consented to be assaulted, but in a limited number of areas, such as playing a contact sport. However, if one of the players deviates from the rules of the game and you are harmed, it can be deemed an assault and charges pressed.
My gaffer needs to remember stuff like this for an exam in September, but I'm the one that has the photographic memory  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nothing new in this, mine was seized on the 6/6 following the collision i was in and I wasn't the guilty party.
Took 3 weeks to get it back while they wrote to the network provider, it's not just calls or text logs it's all activity and it's the mast sites too..
"
If that's the case why did they need your phone as all they need is your number and network provider and check with them on your activity, time and location? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nothing new in this, mine was seized on the 6/6 following the collision i was in and I wasn't the guilty party.
Took 3 weeks to get it back while they wrote to the network provider, it's not just calls or text logs it's all activity and it's the mast sites too..
If that's the case why did they need your phone as all they need is your number and network provider and check with them on your activity, time and location?"
The relative time & location info is spurious, as it's fairly clear they were at the scene of the accident when it happened |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nothing new in this, mine was seized on the 6/6 following the collision i was in and I wasn't the guilty party.
Took 3 weeks to get it back while they wrote to the network provider, it's not just calls or text logs it's all activity and it's the mast sites too..
If that's the case why did they need your phone as all they need is your number and network provider and check with them on your activity, time and location?
The relative time & location info is spurious, as it's fairly clear they were at the scene of the accident when it happened"
If its the person they are claiming to be also if its their phone not someone elses it wouldn't be the first time fairly clear wasn't actually accurate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They'd have a field day looking at my internet history!
Ditto...!!!
Oh well none of its illegal and my phone is always in my bag when I'm driving. I wonder where you stand if a passenger is using your phone and how you would prove it?
Really? Do you know about Sect 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?
Have a read, (including the appendices) then lets see if you are still laughing. also have a read of the accepted defences to charges under Sect 63 and note that they do not apply to the photographer or anyone in possession of the images of such acts. ffs "
Is that directed at my post or the law? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
Not true. Not if consensual...."
No true.
You cannot consent to harm outside e of certain sporting activities. There's a famous case from a bunch of gay guys and thier bdsm video. Serving prison now despite the "victims" all standing up in court saying they were fine and it was consensual.
Plus it breaches other laws because you filmed or photographed it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If its the person they are claiming to be also if its their phone not someone elses it wouldn't be the first time fairly clear wasn't actually accurate. "
Phone records won't be admissible as proof of ownership or proof of ID. according to the OP the police accessed his network location and usage info. in June this year which was an illegal act by the Police.(illegal between April and July)
I do think it's ironic that the Police broke the law to establish the OP hadn't broken it though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Has anyone seen the photo doing the rounds of someone (no idea if it's a policeman or not) driving a police vehicle with a mobile to his ear?"
He wasn't wanking and steering with his feet was he? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has anyone seen the photo doing the rounds of someone (no idea if it's a policeman or not) driving a police vehicle with a mobile to his ear?
He wasn't wanking and steering with his feet was he? "
Of course he wasn't how dare you suggest such a thing. He was being given a blow job with a brick on the accelerator and a monkey steering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *john121 OP Man
over a year ago
staffs |
"Why do they need to take your phone if they can check everything with the provider anyway?"
it can take a few days to get the information depending on how cooperative your provider is..
you cant even get up bang up to date billing which is nearly always a few day behind..
plus if you think about it the evidence is there live on your logs on the handset.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"plus if you think about it the evidence is there live on your logs on the handset.."
Which is why this has come up now, the new laws passed earlier this month don't allow the Police to access phone company records for minor crime enquiries.
Browsing logs are not so easy, each app may be a browser, but they may also read the net without you touching the phone, plus I don't think there is any way of knowing what time you READ a received text. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do they need to take your phone if they can check everything with the provider anyway?
it can take a few days to get the information depending on how cooperative your provider is..
you cant even get up bang up to date billing which is nearly always a few day behind..
plus if you think about it the evidence is there live on your logs on the handset.."
so u don't delete it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"Why do they need to take your phone if they can check everything with the provider anyway?
it can take a few days to get the information depending on how cooperative your provider is..
you cant even get up bang up to date billing which is nearly always a few day behind..
plus if you think about it the evidence is there live on your logs on the handset.."
Even more confusing now....if the evidence is in their hands why would they need to see anything from the provider....on the other hand, why do they need your phone if they can get details from the provider.....which brings it full circle
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do they need to take your phone if they can check everything with the provider anyway?
it can take a few days to get the information depending on how cooperative your provider is..
you cant even get up bang up to date billing which is nearly always a few day behind..
more evidence = stronger case
plus if you think about it the evidence is there live on your logs on the handset..
Even more confusing now....if the evidence is in their hands why would they need to see anything from the provider....on the other hand, why do they need your phone if they can get details from the provider.....which brings it full circle
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not reading it either because I doubt very much if having fabswingers in your browse history or the run of the mill porn sites would matter a jot
Unless you were wanking off to them whilst driving and then caused a crash
No but having some bdsm pictures of you or your friends in your camera history would be.
Pretty much any whipping/spanking pictures where there's marks could be actuated upon.
"
Wonder why fab allows them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"plus if you think about it the evidence is there live on your logs on the handset..
Which is why this has come up now, the new laws passed earlier this month don't allow the Police to access phone company records for minor crime enquiries.
Browsing logs are not so easy, each app may be a browser, but they may also read the net without you touching the phone, plus I don't think there is any way of knowing what time you READ a received text."
Phones used to have read reports for messages that worked similarly to delivery reports so the technology is there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
While the Police can only obtain user data from the network provider for intelligence reasons when a serious crime is being investigated, they can simply ask for a statement or if the provider objects, a production order for any crime capable of being tried at either a crown court or magistrates court. Also, the phone itself can be interrogated for usage data such as time of calls received or made, time of messages accessed or sent etc....in other words, your phone will grass you up if you were using it during the time of the accident.
You have to draw a line between material that the police or other agencies may obtain by way of trying to proactively follow lines of intelligence in respect of serious crimes in order to catch someone 'at it' as opposed to snooping on your calls when you have had an accident. All they are trying to do is ensure that you were not stupid enough to be using your phone while driving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse. "
Its the standard, no matter how many powers the police have they always want more...
I am pretty sure that if you refused to let the police take your phone they would claim that you had either resisted or obstructed them in the course of their duty or and arrest you for that or under sect 8 of the public order act. They would then take you to a police station and hold you while they made their investigation (examine your phone) before releasing you on police bail...
You need to be very strong willed and have a very good lawyer to be able to tell the police to get lost without it costing you dear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse. "
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse.
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it "
My best friend is a barrister. So I'll have to ask her. Pretty sure they don't have the power but may well be wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse.
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it
My best friend is a barrister. So I'll have to ask her. Pretty sure they don't have the power but may well be wrong. "
find out the prices he/she charges can you lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse.
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it
My best friend is a barrister. So I'll have to ask her. Pretty sure they don't have the power but may well be wrong.
find out the prices he/she charges can you lol"
I can get her advice for free. Pretty certain that under existing law the police don't have the power to seize a phone by the roadside. Not unless they suspect terrorism or drug dealing. Those don't apply in a simple RTA.
I definitely think I'd argue the toss.
I was once asked by a security guard to look through my bag (ok not quite the same thing) as the alarm went off as I left the shop.
I refused. He said he'd have me arrested. I said go ahead and I'll sue the fuck out of you. But you are not looking through my bag. You're just a guy in a uniform.
Turned out the silly woman serving me hadn't removed a tag though I had a receipt which I happily showed him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse.
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it
My best friend is a barrister. So I'll have to ask her. Pretty sure they don't have the power but may well be wrong.
find out the prices he/she charges can you lol
I can get her advice for free. Pretty certain that under existing law the police don't have the power to seize a phone by the roadside. Not unless they suspect terrorism or drug dealing. Those don't apply in a simple RTA.
I definitely think I'd argue the toss.
I was once asked by a security guard to look through my bag (ok not quite the same thing) as the alarm went off as I left the shop.
I refused. He said he'd have me arrested. I said go ahead and I'll sue the fuck out of you. But you are not looking through my bag. You're just a guy in a uniform.
Turned out the silly woman serving me hadn't removed a tag though I had a receipt which I happily showed him."
My mistake I think you are correct for an RTA . If they suspected a crime tho they can then like you said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse.
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it
My best friend is a barrister. So I'll have to ask her. Pretty sure they don't have the power but may well be wrong.
find out the prices he/she charges can you lol
I can get her advice for free. Pretty certain that under existing law the police don't have the power to seize a phone by the roadside. Not unless they suspect terrorism or drug dealing. Those don't apply in a simple RTA.
I definitely think I'd argue the toss.
I was once asked by a security guard to look through my bag (ok not quite the same thing) as the alarm went off as I left the shop.
I refused. He said he'd have me arrested. I said go ahead and I'll sue the fuck out of you. But you are not looking through my bag. You're just a guy in a uniform.
Turned out the silly woman serving me hadn't removed a tag though I had a receipt which I happily showed him.
My mistake I think you are correct for an RTA . If they suspected a crime tho they can then like you said."
I'm not sure if I am correct or not. Often people don't stand up for their civil rights as they don't know them. I'm genuinely going to be asking my friend as soon as I see her next. I want to be certain so I can politely tell the police to get stuffed and quote w law at them.
Many of our rights have been eroded in recent years. Sometimes you just need to make a stand even if only a minor one.
Not that I'm planning on being stopped by the police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you're not charged with a crime can they simply take the phone at the roadside without a warrant or court order?
I'd be tempted to refuse.
then they arrest you for obstruting a police officer and still take it
My best friend is a barrister. So I'll have to ask her. Pretty sure they don't have the power but may well be wrong.
find out the prices he/she charges can you lol
I can get her advice for free. Pretty certain that under existing law the police don't have the power to seize a phone by the roadside. Not unless they suspect terrorism or drug dealing. Those don't apply in a simple RTA.
I definitely think I'd argue the toss.
I was once asked by a security guard to look through my bag (ok not quite the same thing) as the alarm went off as I left the shop.
I refused. He said he'd have me arrested. I said go ahead and I'll sue the fuck out of you. But you are not looking through my bag. You're just a guy in a uniform.
Turned out the silly woman serving me hadn't removed a tag though I had a receipt which I happily showed him.
My mistake I think you are correct for an RTA . If they suspected a crime tho they can then like you said.
I'm not sure if I am correct or not. Often people don't stand up for their civil rights as they don't know them. I'm genuinely going to be asking my friend as soon as I see her next. I want to be certain so I can politely tell the police to get stuffed and quote w law at them.
Many of our rights have been eroded in recent years. Sometimes you just need to make a stand even if only a minor one.
Not that I'm planning on being stopped by the police. "
I will make it a point to get stopped by tomorrow to experiment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Like any powers that be they can have a mooch as you might have hidden files on the phone, a mate of mine smashed his phone up rather than hand it over to customs as he went through security to get into work at heathrow. He had pictures and videos of him and his wife having sex, customs officer would not let him through without him giving up his phone. So yes they can have a good mooch through your phone, for as long as it takes them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Like any powers that be they can have a mooch as you might have hidden files on the phone, a mate of mine smashed his phone up rather than hand it over to customs as he went through security to get into work at heathrow. He had pictures and videos of him and his wife having sex, customs officer would not let him through without him giving up his phone. So yes they can have a good mooch through your phone, for as long as it takes them."
Not without good reason - and it may be different at customs. We are talking about being asked roadside after an RTA. Bloody invasion of privacy tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
