On 14 Sep 2013 at 8:55pm Driver wrote:
Today I received a letter from Sussex Police, stamped envelope and all.
Enclosed was a letter informing me that I had been seen by a member of public driving whilst on my mobile phone. The letter stated the time, place and description of car and driver.
The only problem being, the time stated, my car was on my driveway. From reading the letter I am able to appeal the decision, however, I can not see how I can prove that is where my car was at the stated time.
Therefore my car is now on Police record so should another issue occur, this will now be used against me.
For some reason this whole system smacks of children on the playground, there doesn't seem to be any form of proof that the member of public DID see a driver on their phone. But there is also no way of proving innocence.
Surely the reporter, is actually carrying out a criminal offence?
False information? Lying?
On 14 Sep 2013 at 8:58pm Grandpa wrote:
If untrue, it is spite, or another form of Trollism.
On 14 Sep 2013 at 9:11pm Xplorer1 wrote:
Driver - You say "From reading the letter I am able to appeal the decision". what decision? Are you being charged? Cautioned? Warned?
On 14 Sep 2013 at 9:24pm When will it! wrote:
Fraudulent something off the net !
On 14 Sep 2013 at 9:50pm Dave wrote:
Surely you can produce your phone records to tell if you were actually making a call at the time and if so somewhere ther will be records of which cell you were in at the time which could prove you weren't near where you were supposedly spotted.
Original post smells pretty fishy tho
On 15 Sep 2013 at 12:04am Rocky wrote:
Don't worry about it. It's not what they think they know, it's if they can prove it. If you didn't do it, we'll let the bacon chase after their own tails. After all they haven't anything else better to do.
On 15 Sep 2013 at 12:15am really? wrote:
um, If real, why would they send it to the owner of the car, not the driver of the car.
On 15 Sep 2013 at 4:32am Mr Tech wrote:
If you use a smart phone with geolocation turned on, depending how you've set it up, you can often view your location history via your Apple or Google account.
On 15 Sep 2013 at 7:28am Driver wrote:
that's odd. I have been posting as "Driver", but did not send the above post.
On 15 Sep 2013 at 9:01am Ding dong wrote:
Looks like some else drives too. It's a small world.
On 15 Sep 2013 at 10:33am Rods Tiger wrote:
" I am able to appeal the decision", what decision ?
On 15 Sep 2013 at 10:58am Passeneger wrote:
Op Crackdown is great - I reported a Tuffnells delivery lorry for texting on the M23 last month and he was written to too. He strayed onto the hard shoulder twice so it was pretty dangerous.
The original driver doesn't state that he has never used the 'phone whilst driving so I guess he was guilty and the report just got the time wrong. Muppet!
Check it out here »
On 15 Sep 2013 at 3:44pm Nark wrote:
I just love operation crackdown it's given me lots of opportunities to grass people up that I dont like.I wanted to emigrate to East Germany when they had the Stasi secret police who really appreciated stool pigeons but the muppets pulled down the Berlin wall. With a bit of luck the EU socialist state will bring back the good old days and I will have lots of fun denouncing the people I hate.This will have to do in the mean time.
On 17 Sep 2013 at 10:52am ar10642 wrote:
The law says you are innocent until proven guilty, so unless there is more than one witness or there is some other compelling evidence I can't see they can do much.
This "crackdown" thing just looks like a fancy way to report a crime and send letters to people, and I can't see that this would change the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to a court of law. Although I Am Not A Lawyer.
On 14 Nov 2016 at 8:43pm Annoyed wrote:
Very annoyed. A neighbour reported me to operation crackdown saying as I was parking partly on the pavement, I was causing an obstruction in front of her house which is in a tiny end of 100 metre Rd cul de sac. NOT sure exactly who it was, another holiday home owner who's hardly ever there really abused me. It was nothing to do with her...the person who I think reported me always parks exactly where I did over night once as there was no parking that night anywhere in my st. I think she reported on me out of spite. she's back parking in the same place, causing the 'obstruction'!!
On 16 Jan 2017 at 7:33pm No proof wrote:
Operation crackdown = guilty until proven inmocent .
On 14 Mar 2018 at 9:19am Mo wrote:
I've been very ill for past eight weeks with flu plus complications and I receive a letter from Operation Crackdown saying 'that a male was seen driving my car/tailgating for some time/and overtook on hatchings at a junction'!! Now the driver in question is an ex ambulance driver/ex army with advanced driving skills running errands for me. What it doesn't mention is that the car being tailgated was being driven erratically and so slowly that my driver judged it better to get past someone so inept and potentially dangerous. I concede overtaking on hatchings is not acceptable but my car is new and he would having judged it that the manouvre would have been executed swiftly and without danger to anyone else. How about sending a letter to 'Miss Daisy' and telling them to keep to the 30 mile hour speed limit and drive straight. My car has not committed a felony and nor have I yet the details are to be kept for a year on their database. Is this even legal?? I thought the police resources were limited and yet they invest in a scheme so childish leaving them open to people reporting whoever, whenever! Do they have the funding for this type of venture? I should add that the letter states the misdemeanour as 'alleged'. I am a 73 year old woman who has never had a driving conviction. Never committed any crime whatsoever for that matter yet I have to receive a letter that is not only patronising but has bullying overtones. And that really hacks me off. I would like to meet the self right righousness police wannabee.