Another excellent use of police resources and taxpayers money....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1455523,00.html - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1455523,00.html

How police used £10,000 to stalk route of an apple-eating driver By Helen Nugent

< =text/>NI_MPU('middle'); A NURSERY nurse was fined £60 yesterday for holding an apple in her hand while driving around a bend after police used a spotter aircraft, a helicopter and a patrol car to win the case. Northumbria Police went to extraordinary lengths to gather evidence against Sarah McCaffery, 23, who had missed breakfast and grabbed the apple to eat on her way to work. Magistrates ruled that she had not been in full control of her car. Miss McCaffery was also ordered to pay £100 costs at the tenth court hearing of the case. Chris Kay, for the prosecution, said that the bill was £425, not including the aerial photographs and the squad vehicle’s video. The full cost of bringing the case against Miss McCaffery is thought to have been about £10,000. The cost of keeping a helicopter flying for an hour can reach £500. The police claimed that their helicopter was already on operations in South Tyneside when it took the photos, so the additional cost was just £66. Geoffrey Forrester, for the defence, told South Tyneside magistrates that Miss McCaffery had been driving in dry conditions, that there was no traffic or pedestrians and that the manoeuvre was carried out perfectly. The dispute between Miss McCaffery, who lives in Hebburn, and the police began on December 4, 2003. In an interview given before yesterday’s court hearing, she described how she took the same route to work in her Ford Ka as she had done for four years. As she negotiated a left turn with an apple in her right hand she was still in second gear when she saw the blue lights of a police car. PC Lee Butler had spotted her driving with her right hand by her face and believed that she may have been using a mobile phone, the court was told. When he discovered that she was holding a half-eaten apple, he issued her with a £30 fixed-penalty ticket. The nurse, however, said before yesterday’s 2½-hour trial: “I wasn’t speeding or swerving around. It was a small apple and I had both hands on the steering wheel when I turned into the road. The apple was in my right hand but I could still hold the steering wheel and steer the car.” The court was told how police brought in a fixed-wing spotter aircraft to fly over Miss McCaffery’s route to work and take photographs. Later the force’s helicopter repeated the exercise before a patrol car made a video of the journey. Mr Forrester said: “Nothing illustrates the nonsense of this case more than the resources that have been thrown at it.” Ken Buck, the chairman of the bench, concluded: “We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left-hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control. We are therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this case is proved.”

i was illustrating the gross waste of taxpayers money on getting a "nick" on such a frivolous case

There is usually more to the stories than meets the eye.After a local paper did a interview with the criminal, and she decided to appeal--the upstanding Full force of the Police Authority Trafpol section , decided she MUST be taught a lesson, and be Seen to be convicted of the offence.13 month,s its taken for the Law to be Ridiculed-instead of 2 Mins safety advice AT the time.

Lets hope the the voters  remember this story, at the Council & General Elections , when they will be told Council tax must increase if you want Crime to be reduced.

this story REALLY REALLY  gets my back up

 the police force are an absolute joke in this country .

we had a woman reverse into our van a couple of weeks ago and she drove off . even tho i got hold of cctv footage and 2 witnesses proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did it the police wouldnt do anything about it . we now have to find £1000 to repair the damage she caused .

When the law was passed making holding a mobile phone illegal I made Wendy 2 bets.

1. Most offenders would ignore law.

2. Soon ANYTHING held in hand would be considered dangerous.

I suppose she was lucky they didn't charge her with public order offences for the noise eating the apple made, or threatening an officer with an offensive apple - doesn't say if it was an english apple or not - hey, immigration could have got involved if it was a foreign apple under the new laws! Hows it go? "the law is an ass? At times that is an insult to asses everywhere! IanT

Its just pathetic.

Teach her a lesson, yep that sounds about right.

Real crime ?, the authorities are frightened of criminal rights.

And Rhys...be quiet, theres a good chap, one of the few places I can still enjoy a fag is in my own car.

daddy cool wrote: we had a woman reverse into our van a couple of weeks ago and she drove off . even tho i got hold of cctv footage and 2 witnesses proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did it the police wouldnt do anything about it . we now have to find £1000 to repair the damage she caused .

can't you take her to the small claims court or something?

Didn't know yours was still not settled Nigel! What with the "apple" incident and the funds allocated to it it makes you wonder how they "prioritise".

Spoke to a friend today who had the front passenger window smashed in and radio broken trying to knick it while at work. Car was on a busy car park with CCTV.

SOCO said thieves don't open doors anymore as many cars alarmed, as friend had covered hole up with plastic (raining) car was damp so no fingerprints possible, ie it was friends fault! Surely a soaking wet car from rain would have been difficult to "dust"?

Only good news was on news you can now use lethal force on scumbags! IanT

Rhys wrote: ..does that mean you can run over 'chavs'? (in the heat of the moment, of course )

try it and see what happens.  the justice system may not be behind you but at least there will be one less chav on our streets.  thanks for that.  any more volunteers?

rubberknees50 wrote: Only good news was on news you can now use lethal force on scumbags! IanT

Only if lethal force constititues reasonable force. Also it not true to say that 'you can now use' either since this has always been the case. The only thing that has happened is that the law has been clarified to avoid any confusion.

Nigel wrote: OR...its coming up to an election and grinning git is a bit worried !

LOL...Cynic!

if you want to murder someone, just invite them into your house, kill them and then just make up some cock and bull story to the police how that they were trying to rob you and you feared for your life

notice how guns and knives were mentioned.. i thought people were banned from keeping handguns after Hungerford/Dunblane etc. ?

they used an example of putting a robber in a pit, dousing them in petrol and setting them on fire...

well, maybe that seemed "reasonable" to the victim at the time

Can I refer you all to the topic about windscreen wash fluid, think I'll buy a super soaker and a few gallons of BMW windscreen wash......"But officer, I was on my way to wash my windscreen when he attacked me with a lighted cigarette" (sorry Nigel)     Can but hope for a "result" come election time, maybe talk about starting another war with Iran and smear campaigns will tip the balance.  Having talked to several NHS footsoldiers don't think he'll be getting their vote and I doubt if muslim community will either! IanT

indeed.  george dubya wont be happy until he's stamped a big "property of USA"  mark everywhere.  like our government, he has no effective opposition since the "ruskies" (the 'might' of which was grossly overestimated by the west in the name of propaganda, sounds familiar...)

Peter Fenwick wrote: Only if lethal force constititues reasonable force. Also it not true to say that 'you can now use' either since this has always been the case.

thats interesting, Tony Martin wouldn't have been banged up for shooting a scumbag if that was the case

at least this clarification of the law should make the ratbags think twice before ransacking someones house or mugging a poor old lady, lest they get a perfectly legal and justified "cap in their ass" - you step outside the law, you face the consequences, and don't expect the pigs or the beak to be on your side.

if carlsberg made laws.... lol

Stephen

Tony Martin would still have been jailed.  The law still takes into account the threat posed to the individual by the "intruder" or "orginating offender".

Mr Martins' case has been used in many white papers prior to any changes and he would still have gone to prison - the reason being that he chased, and shot in the back, an unarmed and retreating intruder.  His intention, given in statements to the police, was to kill the intruder, regardless.

These aren't changes in law either - they're merely the re-emphasis of guidelines.

If the intruder had been, say, running at Mr Martin (armed or not as it happens) then it would have been a different outcome altogether.

Coasting wrote: Stephen Tony Martin would still have been jailed.  The law still takes into account the threat posed to the individual by the "intruder" or "orginating offender". Mr Martins' case has been used in many white papers prior to any changes and he would still have gone to prison - the reason being that he chased, and shot in the back, an unarmed and retreating intruder.  His intention, given in statements to the police, was to kill the intruder, regardless. These aren't changes in law either - they're merely the re-emphasis of guidelines. If the intruder had been, say, running at Mr Martin (armed or not as it happens) then it would have been a different outcome altogether.

Exactly, the line between reasonable and unreasonable is when it stops being acting out of fear and becomes revenge

Tony Martin was in the second camp.

I don't know what all the fuss about this is for. I've always understood the situation. I think the confusion was started by politicians looking to score points and the media looking for sensationalism.

If politicians/news papers tell us that if a burgler breaks in we will be sued or sent to prison if we try to defend ourselves the people believe them even if it isn't true.

Peter Fenwick wrote:   ...what all the fuss about this is for. I've always understood the situation. I think the confusion was started by politicians looking to score points and the media looking for sensationalism.

Nail.  Head.  Hit.

Election on its way, we'll do this, you can do that....a load of spin basically.

Fact is, if you want to hit a burglar with ANYTHING if he lunges for you - you'll never go to prison.  You can shoot him too - if you're unable to see if he is armed when coming at you...

But best not to do it when he is running away from you and you know he is unarmed....

Prefer hole in celing to hole in head, the SA's don't mess around!

Saw an ad for an SA car alarm once, when triggered a flamethrower fired down and out from both sills for the full lentgh. Impressive! Wendy

Wendy

A flamethrower.......?

Sounds like the sidepipes from an original Dodge Viper to me!

Fantastic!

I want one, no two!

Think how easy it would be to de-ice the drive on a morning...