Yes but why are you now labelled on the system as a terrorist, also your numbet plate will be flagged with that info too, your reg will set off alarms when you pass anpr cameras. You need to do a freedom of information request regarding all documents containijg your name that are in police possesion
The spotters arrogance is beaming, and 3 outa 3 officers admitted not seeing any interactions with the mobile phone just ridiculous absolute tyrant piggy morons
EVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME IN EDGEWORTHSTOWN AND DUBLIN IRELAND LONGFORD AND EVERYBODY IS DIFFICULT FOR ME ON RUclips IF EVERYBODY HATES ME REPORT ME IF EVERYBODY LIKES ME THEN DON'T REPORT ME TO RUclips AND BAN ME! HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIFFICULT HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN BEANS!!!! COME ONNNNNNNNNN!!! BAN ME NOW EVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME COME ONNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
@@valdazisEVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME IN EDGEWORTHSTOWN AND DUBLIN IRELAND LONGFORD AND EVERYBODY IS DIFFICULT FOR ME ON RUclips IF EVERYBODY HATES ME REPORT ME IF EVERYBODY LIKES ME THEN DON'T REPORT ME TO RUclips AND BAN ME! HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIFFICULT HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN BEANS!!!! COME ONNNNNNNNNN!!! BAN ME NOW EVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME COME ONNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
They were hoping for a guilty by post plea, because they know most people won't risk getting a harsher sentence by taking it to court. The fact you got all this evidence that shows that no one actually saw any definitive proof of an offence is fantastic. Well done mate.
@@GrounDLifteR . The spotter stated that all he saw was AB's hand between his legs, he could have been scratching his nuts. He clearly stated that he did not see AB use or actually touch the mobile phone. Unless there is an actual legal definition regarding touching being considered as using ( as is the case in Queensland, Australia) no offence has occurred. The simple fact is that the filth rely on people being frightened of retaliation and so they pay up and shut up. AB did a great job here exposing the fact that the Police will happily lie and conspire to keep the revenue flowing.
Last year, I was pulled over for allegedly having no insurance. However, I did have insurance; I was using the Cuvva app for temporary insurance. The app allows you to insure your car only when you need it, with options ranging from 1 hour to 2 hours, 1 day, 1 week, and so on. Since I don’t drive my second vehicle (a van) that much, I purchased a 1-day policy just to get it running for a bit. For some reason, insurance policies from Cuvva take a while to appear as "green" on AskMID. I showed the officer my policy and the time I purchased it, proving that I was insured, but he refused to accept it. They confiscated my van and took me to court. I had to pay £1,500 for a solicitor to represent me and £200 to recover my van from the police yard. I won the case immediately in court; the judges were quite annoyed with the police for wasting their time. What a stressful and frustrating experience it was. Also, i managed to recover just £300
@@grahamfitzjohnA few years ago I was on jury duty. The judge outlined the case, it was about an arrest the police made on an individual. Straight away I knew I wouldn't believe the story the police were to present. Sure enough the two plod through their statements at the time of the arrest were different. I knew even without hearing the police statements to trust my gut instinct. The individual was found not guilty, and I was glad I played my part in the individual having not been found guilty. For all I know the individual might have been as guilty as sin, however, if he was, all the police had to do was a least get their stories right at the time of the incident. Simply, they just can't be trusted to tell the truth.
If they are found out to be lieing. They should be sacked End of How many have they set up Maybe lost their jobs Lost their driving licence Maybe jail Not to mention the increase in car insurance Maybe lost their homes Divorce All because they lied Sue them Get them sacked
He was definitely using his phone. there’s no doubt about it. Just because he’s often in the right doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. This time, he clearly was, and he should take responsibility and accept the penalty. Driving in this manner is reckless and leads to fatal accidents far too often. it has to stop. If a trained and experienced police officer observed him using his phone, I’d trust ibis judgment over AB’s protestations on this occasion.
@lightningtwostrikes4317 The trained experienced police officer did not see him use his phone as the trained experienced police officer admitted. Maybe you should take your head out of your rectum before you talk rubbish.
@@lightningtwostrikes4317what do you mean there is no doubt about it? If there was zero doubt, he’d have been taken to court and likely convicted in the way of a fine and points on his licence, but that didn’t happen..
He cautioned you about anything you later rely on in court, and then refused to listen. You definitely need to make a request for all information held on you by the police.
As long as you have no criminal convictions you can have all that information removed from the PNC and more importantly PND. Otherwise, the police will continue to harass you. That’s why you never ever give details except you have to by law.. which is when driving or suspected of an actual offence not imaginary offences like auditing a police station.
Policing at it's very best. 3 sworn officers didn't see or witness any offence and yet can LIE to a Judge that they did. Welcome to REAL criminals in action.
So one officer says " He believes you may have touched something he could not see " ... 2nd stops you and sees a phone and assumes you may have used it ... The 3rd officer gives you a ticket on the basis of an incident that never happened ...... This seems very dangerous and very corrupt to innocent people , Both officers admit they didn't have evidence and the 3rd was not bothered ............. And if you went to court and the judge didn't believe you and you were convicted then that chain would have convicted an innocent person ....
Simply just never trust anybody, even own kids or parents been known to 💩 on each other, best friends forever get jealous, Simply just trust yourself only is the way forward. Not the best way to live but deffo the safest. Good luck in life, u all need it, especially from now till 2030
Fun fact.. You were stopped on Meteor Way. The name of the road comes from a Gloster Meteor aircraft which was statically displayed at the RAF 276 Squadron (Chelmsford) Air Cadets base which is located on er Meteor Way. Sadly the aircraft is long gone.. I'll get my coat..
The belligerence of these cretins is unbelievable. All those officers, all the vehicles and a whole car park seconded, for what? So they can make things up??
They give you an option to pay the fine or go to court, if you pay the fine you admit guilt but if you don't pay it then they recon you must be innocent and don't send you a letter.
@MacksCurley so many people, especially vulnerable people, will just pay to make the stress of it go away for them. Others won't go to court because of the suggestion the spotter ( the arrogant grass) suggested, in case that came out in court, so they just pay. Paying is not an admission to guilt. It is more a feeling of helplessness against a very corrupt system I would imagine and a pat on the back to all who bring in and fill the coffers no matter how they do it.
Arrogant set of bastards, the spotter was arrogant to the point of being rude and the other was speaking out of the side of his mouth. The most anoying part is how willing they are to waste so much of everybodys time and money when they have no evidence, it means nothing to them to inconvenience people and ruin their day, they get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of it. A clear case of revenue collecting for the council.
The issue is, imagine the amount of others they make up lies about and they just acceot the fine and points because theyre scared of appealing and going to court. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
This is one for the Black Belt Barrister. Issued a ticket for using your phone, yet no officer saw you using your phone. What has happened to the UK police.
@@simonsmith6158 .... Yes you are correct, there is more to him than meets the eye. he does not speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
It seems to me that these clowns are entrapping you and also incriminating you over a non related offence that never existed . I am unsure as to whether they need to give warinng on Traffic Activity . Surely the Officer claiming the offence must be required to give the penalty, notice or summons other wise its is simply hearsay . Where is the evidence body cam or traffic cam. I'd make a civil claim on harassment Well Done AB for standing your ground
PLAIN CLOTHES CONSTABLE, ASKING A UNIFORM CONSTABLE, TO STOP A VEHICLE FOR A ALEDGED RTA OFFENCE, BECAUSE THE PLAIN CLOTHES CONSTABLE HAS NO AUTHORITY IN THE UK, TO STOP A MOTOR VEHICLE, WITHOUT A UNIFORM CONSTABLE WITH HIM... ENTRAPMENT 🤬🤬
The big "T" covers so many bases... Vote Conservative, voted Labour but regret it, dislike Jaguars new advert own a phone with a camera, own a phone or camera or just be alive and not wanting to get trampled on all apply for being a "T" it seems.
It wasn’t based on hearsay, it was based on a witness statement of a constable (the spotter), which would be sufficient had he actually seen AB use his phone, but as he admitted he hadn’t, that clearly should’ve been the end of the matter.
@PK-dt3xf a witness statement which, had it been written down and used as evidence, would have been perjury, as the muppet spotter admitted on camera, he'd not witnessed AB using his phone.
@@PK-dt3xfit wasn’t a witness statement, it was a radio call to another officer, who then told the charging officer - hearsay, on top of hearsay and assumption! A WS would need much more detail, including exactly what the evidence was for the charge; which this didn’t have. The charging officer should be the person who witnessed the ‘crime’ so that the ‘defendant’ can challenge their case with them, not with an uninvolved stooge! And the days of a police officer’s word being sacrosanct has long passed as, due to the work of auditors such as AB, there is masses of video evidence that they lie, conspire, and fabricate bogus charges as a matter of routine.
@@ianm8383 It would not be deemed hearsay because the constable that claimed to witness the offence would be the one attending court and giving evidence as stated at 6:22. Of course in this case he didn’t actually see AB touch his phone so there would be no chance of a conviction, however, drivers are regularly convicted based purely on what a constable claims to have seen, and that is not hearsay. Thankfully some magistrates know police cannot be trusted but unfortunately there are still far too many that will take the the word of a constable as gospel.
5:00 I am aware, as AB already pointed out in this video, that in the UK if you are stopped while driving a vehicle on the public roads you are obligated to provide your I.D. But my interpretation of that is that the I.D. is provided for the purpose of verifying your license to drive the vehicle and that you are insured on it, etc etc. When the Police process your I.D. further to investigate previous offences, and things of that nature, it would seem to me that they abuse your personal data as that was not the purpose for which it was collected. If they stopped you on the street, not driving the vehicle, they would have no right to check you out in that manner without justifiable cause. So in my view, when they extended the processing of personal data beyond the requirements of the road traffic act, they abused personal data (perhaps it breaches GDPR, I am not sure) and I would say also abused their powers. It would be interesting to see what happened if anyone ever challenged it in that regard.
Fair point, as soon as he asked about the terrorism 'arrest' that could be construed as conducting a separate investigation and the official warning re self incrimination should have been stated again. I laughed when he said that it was just a conversation, yeah sure.
let me get this right , you got a ticket for using a mobile device while driving but none of those officers saw you actually touching a mobile phone !!!!!!! . they all know how stupid it is , look at their answer , "thats what court is for" !!!!! . absolute idiots !!!
Obviously, you haven’t experienced the life changing consequences caused by somebody driving while messing with a phone on their lap rather than concentrating the road.
@@lightningtwostrikes4317 So go and catch people that are actually doing that? Have you seen the ones that use a HGV to catch people doing it while driving? Awesome job. Here, they are just trying to give you points and a fine while saying they didn't even see anything. You can tell he is a liar too, only reason the one collecting evidence wouldn't have a camera.
The police are not there to define guilt or innocence. They do not prosecute. They merely collect evidence. It's up to a court to decide guilt or innocence.
I sadly had a similar situation. Not all (in fact most) people can’t handle the thought of going to court against a police officer statement. I couldn’t at the time and took points and a fine for something I didn’t do! It was at that moment having respected police all my life I realised they could be corrupt!
Fascinating that Road Pirate #1 conflates "investigated" and "arrested". Exactly what you'd expect from someone handing out tickets based on hearsay and lies. Good job on getting Road Pirates #2 and #3 on record admitting that there's no case to answer. Very few people would do that.
Explain why there is no case to answer? He was seen fiddling with something (or indeed nothing) between his legs. When stopped a mobile phone was seen between his legs. Can you draw a conclusion from that? What would "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" think? NB, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that AB actually touched his ph
@@reb0118 no case to answer, because there’s no evidence. He may have been touching the phone or just scratching his bollocks. Only one person knows the answer and it’s not a magistrate.
Even if he was arrested an arrest isn't a conviction. I could give a piss what you've been arrested for because cops will arrest you if you mock them or look at them funny. What you've been convicted of is all that matters in the end.
So nobody's seen you actually use a mobile phone, but the arrogance of these officers is, we'll see you in court... How can you be sent to court when no officers have actually seen you committing an offence ???. Absolute Madness.
I have a video of a Wiltshire police officer using her mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle and a letter from Wiltshire police saying that’s not enough evidence to prosecute her. I can send them both to you if you want brother!
That spotter has got bloody good eyesight to be able to see you/ drivers driving down a road, hands in between your legs, apparently "tapping" on your phone. The officer saying "Go to court and prove your innocents, why don't they just issue tickets to everyone that drives down the road and let everyone go to court
I love that you went and gathered your own evidence and immediately the officer admitted that he didnt see you playing with your phone🤣😂🤣see you in court😂🤣😂🤣😂
Precisely!!! You're innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. If you are innocent, why go to court? The french system is guilty first, prove your innocence.
My son in law had his phone in the top dash console and when he took a corner it slid and bounced out. he grabbed it mid air and put it on the passenger seat. Filth behind him seen him grab it in his mirror and pulled him over. He explained had he was not using it and the screen was not even on and had it fell on the floor at his feet then it would have been a bigger distraction trying to get it off the floor . They could not give a toss and still did him. Gotta get that fine money in and justify their existence.
I was speaking to a bloke in Australia who nearly got into a physical fight with Police because they saw him pick up a diabetic kit and put it in a more secure place in the car while at traffic lights. He told them it wasn't a mobile, they said it was and it got pretty heated, bearing in mind that he had no need to assist them in their investigation. In the end his son intervened and showed them what it was as he was worried that the Police would drag his dad out and give him a flogging............... I don't use my mobile while driving but what I do have is a 'shop dummy' plastic item that looks just like my mobile phone, and so if it ever came to an allegation I can just produce the toy.
Why hasn't the spotter got a camera so the court can see what he sees? But they won't because then they can twist the law can't they? Corrupt idiots, just about making money!
@@AuditingBritain remember only play the parts in court that are the questions asked and the answers given by them, not the surrounding conversations of what if etc as they will try use any excuse to stitch you up It's irrelevent if the phone was inbetween your lap you could have been looking at anything or simply doing head streatch at time to prevent stiffness whilst maintaining forward view, as for your hand being down where he says can he see through doors from 20foot as you drive by at 30mph? how did he see your hands ask him to describe exactly what he seen, as soon as he says could have been object immediately as hearsay same for the other coppers too one that given you the ticket, did you see me move my phone as you walked up to the window, did you see me using my phone, did the other officer confirm to him as the ticket being issued you used your phone when passing him and when and if they lie between themselves him saying other copper seen you on phone and him saying between your lap go hell for leather ask them outright which of them is lying throw as much doubt in the judges mind no guilty can only be called. of course take a lawyer though.
11:00 "See you in Court". That the cock-sure attitude that creates disengagement with the Police, given he already stated he didn't actually see you using your mobile phone. How proud his superiors must be, not!
Their superiors are the ones getting pressure from the bureaucrats and they do not have the balls to stand up and tell them that policing is about more then revenue.
Sadly our time is worth nothing when you have to prove your innocence! If they make a mistake, waste court time, waste your time then there needs to be compensation!
At least they admitted you weren't guilty of they offence they reported you for, on camera. You'll be in court for about 3 minutes I expect, with such overwhelming evidence that you are innocent.
@@ImBaudits Nope , they are doing their job , and catching phone users , which is what their set up was all about . I can't understand why people defend phone use while driving . It is dangerous and illergal.
My dad was charged because a 'cop saw him using his phone' he went to court & asked to see evidence. Cop said he most definitely was using 'his phone'. Dad replied to the magistrate I DONT OWN A PHONE & here is a letter proving that from all mobile networks! We need a law that says if not on video then no one goes to court as cops word is usually a lie! DAD WON!
You can have 100 phones and no mobile network lol. Also companies don't know who is using a burner phone with pay as you go top up cards Also I could drive using my friends phone and say well I don't own one.
I had something similar. It went to court where they lied constantly! I had to get phone records showing no use. The case was thrown out. It cost me a lawyer and time and expenses. I received no recompense.
Call all 3 officers into court to be cross examined by your defence lawyer as to what they seen as all 3 would have to admit they hadn't seen you touching your phone at any time. Also get a freedom of information asking regarding terrorist arrests
The fact that he never identified it was a phone in his interaction with you speaks volumes and it disproves the allegation . I would put a complaint in that people may well be issued fines for assumptions. That is outrageous and these people need bringing to task for serious charges based on nothing more than speculation. The attitude of those officers was condescending and dismissive, bordering on disrespectful. The “See you in court” comment was particularly egregious, and said for no reason than to end the conversation by inferring your point was irrelevant and that he simply didn’t care.
Crazy that they can take you to court for this, but when Cycling Mikey sends them video evidence of people on their phones, half the time they get sent a warning letter.
Just to be clear, the court process is NOT there to assist the Police with fishing trips. The court process is is designed to deal with matters based upon evidence. Both officers out on the road both admitted that they didn't actually see you touching your phone. "It was a white male wearing Jog Bottoms and a black puffer jacket that robbed the post office", there's a bloke fitting that description "Your nicked mate, nobody actually identified you as the culprit, but you're white and you have job bottoms and a black jacket, it's near enough so you'll do". Later in court "Officer what evidence do you have that this bloke robbed the Post Office", "Well he was wearing the same sort of gear as was described by the pensioner who partially witnessed the crime" "send him down......No not the bloke in the puffer jacket, the copper for wasting court time".
They are so corrupt it is unreal. Surely there needs to be some sort of investigation on these practices? Their eyes should not count for a traffic incident as there is no proof. So case closed
Worst person to try and scam 😂😂😂😂😂 This was absolutely hilarious again A. B You're a genius and comedian and highly intelligent wonderful human being all rolled into one Asgardian body 😜
The dismissive way they are speaking to you ,and their sheer arrogance is only trumped by the way in which the policeman could not prove you were useing a phone ,but implicated that you were undertaking a sexual act ,They really are odious ,pathetic creatures we employ to uphold the fewcpathetic laws we have ,good man AB ,proud of you
I was never issued a fine.
Thx for the info 👌🏼
Absolute disgrace.
Yes but why are you now labelled on the system as a terrorist, also your numbet plate will be flagged with that info too, your reg will set off alarms when you pass anpr cameras. You need to do a freedom of information request regarding all documents containijg your name that are in police possesion
@@AuditingBritain that’s good news.
Wonder why 🤷
Harassing motorists instead of dealing with serious crime . . . this is why the public don't respect the police any more.
Even police hate traffic police
@@Chasemcloud5745 Any verifiable evidence to support that?
@@Dean-t9g yes
It's their job! That's what they do.
I heard on an AUDITORS video something very shocking from a police officer when he said they treat everyone as an UNKNOWN RISK SCARY.
The spotters arrogance is beaming, and 3 outa 3 officers admitted not seeing any interactions with the mobile phone just ridiculous absolute tyrant piggy morons
Totally agree what a nasty bit of work
@@tc5042he’s a prick and the type to lie , he’s very offensive.
Loved the spotter - seemed like a stand up lad.
EVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME IN EDGEWORTHSTOWN AND DUBLIN IRELAND LONGFORD AND EVERYBODY IS DIFFICULT FOR ME ON RUclips IF EVERYBODY HATES ME REPORT ME IF EVERYBODY LIKES ME THEN DON'T REPORT ME TO RUclips AND BAN ME! HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIFFICULT HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN BEANS!!!! COME ONNNNNNNNNN!!! BAN ME NOW EVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME COME ONNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
@@valdazisEVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME IN EDGEWORTHSTOWN AND DUBLIN IRELAND LONGFORD AND EVERYBODY IS DIFFICULT FOR ME ON RUclips IF EVERYBODY HATES ME REPORT ME IF EVERYBODY LIKES ME THEN DON'T REPORT ME TO RUclips AND BAN ME! HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIFFICULT HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN BEANS!!!! COME ONNNNNNNNNN!!! BAN ME NOW EVERYBODY FUCKING HATES ME COME ONNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
They were hoping for a guilty by post plea, because they know most people won't risk getting a harsher sentence by taking it to court. The fact you got all this evidence that shows that no one actually saw any definitive proof of an offence is fantastic. Well done mate.
Talk about open-shut!
I didn't see you using your phone, see you in court.
You cant make it up.
Pathetic ain't it 😮
He said clearly the colleague saw the phone use and the colleague is in the court
@@GrounDLifteR . The spotter stated that all he saw was AB's hand between his legs, he could have been scratching his nuts. He clearly stated that he did not see AB use or actually touch the mobile phone. Unless there is an actual legal definition regarding touching being considered as using ( as is the case in Queensland, Australia) no offence has occurred. The simple fact is that the filth rely on people being frightened of retaliation and so they pay up and shut up. AB did a great job here exposing the fact that the Police will happily lie and conspire to keep the revenue flowing.
Disgusting behaviour no wonder this country is fucked.
It's farked because the mugs do what they are told.
They took the vaccine.
They stayed in.
They voted Starmer.
They voted Khan.
They pay TV licence.
Getting them to admit that on camera sealed it for you I reckon. Great stuff, AB.
They don't care if one fish escapes the net they set.
Last year, I was pulled over for allegedly having no insurance. However, I did have insurance; I was using the Cuvva app for temporary insurance. The app allows you to insure your car only when you need it, with options ranging from 1 hour to 2 hours, 1 day, 1 week, and so on.
Since I don’t drive my second vehicle (a van) that much, I purchased a 1-day policy just to get it running for a bit. For some reason, insurance policies from Cuvva take a while to appear as "green" on AskMID. I showed the officer my policy and the time I purchased it, proving that I was insured, but he refused to accept it.
They confiscated my van and took me to court. I had to pay £1,500 for a solicitor to represent me and £200 to recover my van from the police yard. I won the case immediately in court; the judges were quite annoyed with the police for wasting their time. What a stressful and frustrating experience it was. Also, i managed to recover just £300
@@RafaelMichaelJackson Can't do hearsay in a court. If that was the case, you owe me £1 million pounds....OW UP!!!
Video uploaded one hour ago and there is a comment from 15 hours ago. Hmmm
@@surfwidow It is just a money grab. Most people are probably going to pay before it goes to court
How horribly arrogant the 'spotter' was... unreal...
They were all obnoxious,
@@nicktheegg Bet they fit up millions every year with fake evidence and threats
Bless AB for opening our eyes
9:58 - I'd have been very tempted to say I was playing with something between my legs, but not a phone 😂
Completely agree. Fart sniffers teacher's pet.
Bullied at school.
If you are ever on a jury in court. Disregard every statement made by the police. It doesn't appear that it's based on any actual fact.
Oh i will
That is about the most rediculous comment I have ever read on you tube . You are a numpty
@@grahamfitzjohncalling someone a numpty from someone who can't even spell ridiculous.... haha the irony!
@@grahamfitzjohnA few years ago I was on jury duty. The judge outlined the case, it was about an arrest the police made on an individual. Straight away I knew I wouldn't believe the story the police were to present. Sure enough the two plod through their statements at the time of the arrest were different. I knew even without hearing the police statements to trust my gut instinct. The individual was found not guilty, and I was glad I played my part in the individual having not been found guilty. For all I know the individual might have been as guilty as sin, however, if he was, all the police had to do was a least get their stories right at the time of the incident. Simply, they just can't be trusted to tell the truth.
@@markowhit4604 😁👍👍👍
To not actually witness the offence, followed up by "see you in court" as a stock reply is absolutely disgusting.
As if he’s the one actually going to go into court as well.
If they are found out to be lieing. They should be sacked
End of
How many have they set up
Maybe lost their jobs
Lost their driving licence
Maybe jail
Not to mention the increase in car insurance
Maybe lost their homes
Divorce
All because they lied
Sue them
Get them sacked
We’d have no police force left 😂
Revenue collectors, no wonder they are hated.
I suspect you of using your phone while driving, you have two options pay the £10 fine or sit in court all day. That is how to make an income.
Exactly that.
He was definitely using his phone. there’s no doubt about it. Just because he’s often in the right doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. This time, he clearly was, and he should take responsibility and accept the penalty. Driving in this manner is reckless and leads to fatal accidents far too often. it has to stop. If a trained and experienced police officer observed him using his phone, I’d trust ibis judgment over AB’s protestations on this occasion.
@lightningtwostrikes4317 The trained experienced police officer did not see him use his phone as the trained experienced police officer admitted. Maybe you should take your head out of your rectum before you talk rubbish.
@@lightningtwostrikes4317what do you mean there is no doubt about it? If there was zero doubt, he’d have been taken to court and likely convicted in the way of a fine and points on his licence, but that didn’t happen..
He cautioned you about anything you later rely on in court, and then refused to listen. You definitely need to make a request for all information held on you by the police.
That’s because only the police are allowed to talk down to us.
We must zip it 🤐
Section 16312345
As long as you have no criminal convictions you can have all that information removed from the PNC and more importantly PND. Otherwise, the police will continue to harass you.
That’s why you never ever give details except you have to by law.. which is when driving or suspected of an actual offence not imaginary offences like auditing a police station.
@@shookoneldn300He does have convictions though..
@
Too bad.. I hope it’s not malicious prosecution.. We all know police lie and manufacture crimes..
@@robotsonmars1989for what?
AB was arrested for filming which makes police accountable for the first time , get it right officer .
Policing at it's very best. 3 sworn officers didn't see or witness any offence and yet can LIE to a Judge that they did. Welcome to REAL criminals in action.
So one officer says " He believes you may have touched something he could not see " ... 2nd stops you and sees a phone and assumes you may have used it ... The 3rd officer gives you a ticket on the basis of an incident that never happened ...... This seems very dangerous and very corrupt to innocent people , Both officers admit they didn't have evidence and the 3rd was not bothered ............. And if you went to court and the judge didn't believe you and you were convicted then that chain would have convicted an innocent person ....
The Chinese Whispers approach to law enforcement.
@@MartinHiggins1972and RUclips. He touched someone? Expert witness mikeyf gives evidence.
Had it not been someone as clued up as AB, it’s likely they would’ve ended up with a conviction for an offence that the police never saw happen.
@@PK-dt3xf Surely it's immaterial whether the police saw it or not. The point is whether he did it or not. Fiddling with phones is highly dangerous.
@@reb0118 nice spelling you halfwit
Why do most Officers in these videos have personality bypasses. They treat the public like something on the sole of their shoe. Well done AB 👏
Probably because that’s the type of people that want to be police.
Thirty plus years of customer service and eight years filming in public.
Most people behave that way
Wonder how many more motorists they have ripped off and prosecuted with that scam absolutely disgusting !!
They havent got a leg to stand on in court. 3 officers admitting to not seeing you using your phone yet still issue you a ticket for it
Great Post AB. Back to your best. Keep up the good work.
Spotter just blew his credibility out the window
So if you had to go to court the pc would say I don't remember you as I stopped a lot of cars that day.
@@MacksCurley . He would also deny having the conversation or making the admission, and the chances are that the Court would accept his evidence.
@@johnvienta7622 Yes, even though the courts know eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.
NEVER TRUST TYRANTS
Simply just never trust anybody, even own kids or parents been known to 💩 on each other, best friends forever get jealous, Simply just trust yourself only is the way forward. Not the best way to live but deffo the safest. Good luck in life, u all need it, especially from now till 2030
@@richard308 TOO TRUE FELLA
@@richard308💯% 👏👏👏
Tread carefully AB they are out to get you for what you do for a living.
Exposing their lies, bullying, hypocrisy, corruption etc.
Fun fact.. You were stopped on Meteor Way. The name of the road comes from a Gloster Meteor aircraft which was statically displayed at the RAF 276 Squadron (Chelmsford) Air Cadets base which is located on er Meteor Way. Sadly the aircraft is long gone.. I'll get my coat..
Speaking with them before they had a chance to get their story right sealed it for you.
Truth will always set you free
Yes it was extremely lucky AB managed to speak to them individually.
Unfortunately many people are languishing in jail bc of false reports and bent cops. Never to have the truth revealed and them set free.
The belligerence of these cretins is unbelievable. All those officers, all the vehicles and a whole car park seconded, for what? So they can make things up??
To make money
To make money
Make £££
its so disturbing how willing they are to terrorise the public with their dishonesty.
They give you an option to pay the fine or go to court, if you pay the fine you admit guilt but if you don't pay it then they recon you must be innocent and don't send you a letter.
@MacksCurley so many people, especially vulnerable people, will just pay to make the stress of it go away for them. Others won't go to court because of the suggestion the spotter ( the arrogant grass) suggested, in case that came out in court, so they just pay. Paying is not an admission to guilt. It is more a feeling of helplessness against a very corrupt system I would imagine and a pat on the back to all who bring in and fill the coffers no matter how they do it.
Arrogant set of bastards, the spotter was arrogant to the point of being rude and the other was speaking out of the side of his mouth. The most anoying part is how willing they are to waste so much of everybodys time and money when they have no evidence, it means nothing to them to inconvenience people and ruin their day, they get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of it. A clear case of revenue collecting for the council.
What a bunch of bastards, theirs just no getting through to them no wonder they are disliked by so many.
The issue is, imagine the amount of others they make up lies about and they just acceot the fine and points because theyre scared of appealing and going to court. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It seems in this country we are guilty until proven innocent.
This is one for the Black Belt Barrister. Issued a ticket for using your phone, yet no officer saw you using your phone. What has happened to the UK police.
Wouldn`t trust him
"See you in Court". What a cheeky thing to say. Appalling attitude.
They're just revenue collectors at this point. Never actually solving crime.
@@simonsmith6158 .... Yes you are correct, there is more to him than meets the eye. he does not speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The black belt “barrister” has likely never appeared in court on such a matter in his entire life. He s a complete sham.
what a character that spotter is I'm sure his parents must be very proud of him?
Dad was probably a pig
They will they are probably as bad as him like father like son
You spelt 'character' with far too many letters. C*N*.
300,000 sperm and he was the pick of the bunch.
The way he said "I'll see you in court" was very arrogant and confident that the judge will side with him.
It seems to me that these clowns are entrapping you and also incriminating you over a non related offence that never existed . I am unsure as to whether they need to give warinng on Traffic Activity . Surely the Officer claiming the offence must be required to give the penalty, notice or summons other wise its is simply hearsay . Where is the evidence body cam or traffic cam. I'd make a civil claim on harassment Well Done AB for standing your ground
PLAIN CLOTHES CONSTABLE, ASKING A UNIFORM CONSTABLE, TO STOP A VEHICLE FOR A ALEDGED RTA OFFENCE, BECAUSE THE PLAIN CLOTHES CONSTABLE HAS NO AUTHORITY IN THE UK, TO STOP A MOTOR VEHICLE, WITHOUT A UNIFORM CONSTABLE WITH HIM... ENTRAPMENT 🤬🤬
"So you're a terrorist?" Great conversation starter
The big "T" covers so many bases... Vote Conservative, voted Labour but regret it, dislike Jaguars new advert own a phone with a camera, own a phone or camera or just be alive and not wanting to get trampled on all apply for being a "T" it seems.
...to which an appropriate response would be, "No. Are you a steaming pillock?"
and the cops dont even have guns lol
Cops hope you admit it. It boost their numbers. CPS should kick it out.
Officer gave a ticket based on heresay...Solid as a wet tissue of lies...
It wasn’t based on hearsay, it was based on a witness statement of a constable (the spotter), which would be sufficient had he actually seen AB use his phone, but as he admitted he hadn’t, that clearly should’ve been the end of the matter.
@PK-dt3xf a witness statement which, had it been written down and used as evidence, would have been perjury, as the muppet spotter admitted on camera, he'd not witnessed AB using his phone.
If it’s thrown out of court then sue them for lieing
@@PK-dt3xfit wasn’t a witness statement, it was a radio call to another officer, who then told the charging officer - hearsay, on top of hearsay and assumption! A WS would need much more detail, including exactly what the evidence was for the charge; which this didn’t have. The charging officer should be the person who witnessed the ‘crime’ so that the ‘defendant’ can challenge their case with them, not with an uninvolved stooge!
And the days of a police officer’s word being sacrosanct has long passed as, due to the work of auditors such as AB, there is masses of video evidence that they lie, conspire, and fabricate bogus charges as a matter of routine.
@@ianm8383 It would not be deemed hearsay because the constable that claimed to witness the offence would be the one attending court and giving evidence as stated at 6:22. Of course in this case he didn’t actually see AB touch his phone so there would be no chance of a conviction, however, drivers are regularly convicted based purely on what a constable claims to have seen, and that is not hearsay. Thankfully some magistrates know police cannot be trusted but unfortunately there are still far too many that will take the the word of a constable as gospel.
5:00 I am aware, as AB already pointed out in this video, that in the UK if you are stopped while driving a vehicle on the public roads you are obligated to provide your I.D.
But my interpretation of that is that the I.D. is provided for the purpose of verifying your license to drive the vehicle and that you are insured on it, etc etc.
When the Police process your I.D. further to investigate previous offences, and things of that nature, it would seem to me that they abuse your personal data as that was not the purpose for which it was collected. If they stopped you on the street, not driving the vehicle, they would have no right to check you out in that manner without justifiable cause. So in my view, when they extended the processing of personal data beyond the requirements of the road traffic act, they abused personal data (perhaps it breaches GDPR, I am not sure) and I would say also abused their powers. It would be interesting to see what happened if anyone ever challenged it in that regard.
Fair point, as soon as he asked about the terrorism 'arrest' that could be construed as conducting a separate investigation and the official warning re self incrimination should have been stated again. I laughed when he said that it was just a conversation, yeah sure.
let me get this right , you got a ticket for using a mobile device while driving but none of those officers saw you actually touching a mobile phone !!!!!!! . they all know how stupid it is , look at their answer , "thats what court is for" !!!!! . absolute idiots !!!
Guilty before proven innocent !!!! How pathetic …..that’s crazy policing!
Obviously, you haven’t experienced the life changing consequences caused by somebody driving while messing with a phone on their lap rather than concentrating the road.
@@lightningtwostrikes4317 So go and catch people that are actually doing that? Have you seen the ones that use a HGV to catch people doing it while driving? Awesome job. Here, they are just trying to give you points and a fine while saying they didn't even see anything. You can tell he is a liar too, only reason the one collecting evidence wouldn't have a camera.
The police are not there to define guilt or innocence. They do not prosecute. They merely collect evidence. It's up to a court to decide guilt or innocence.
@@lightningtwostrikes4317 You know the cops are lying, their mouths were moving.
@@lightningtwostrikes4317 .........................................WAKE UP.
whats the difference between a hedgehog and a police van?... a hedgehog has the pricks on the outside.
Lmao 😊😊😊😊
Everyone is seemingly happy to waste a lot of time and money. This spurious stuff keeps them in a job
Good on you AB, for challenging those liars. So happy for you.
I sadly had a similar situation. Not all (in fact most) people can’t handle the thought of going to court against a police officer statement. I couldn’t at the time and took points and a fine for something I didn’t do! It was at that moment having respected police all my life I realised they could be corrupt!
Fascinating that Road Pirate #1 conflates "investigated" and "arrested". Exactly what you'd expect from someone handing out tickets based on hearsay and lies.
Good job on getting Road Pirates #2 and #3 on record admitting that there's no case to answer. Very few people would do that.
Explain why there is no case to answer? He was seen fiddling with something (or indeed nothing) between his legs.
When stopped a mobile phone was seen between his legs.
Can you draw a conclusion from that? What would "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" think?
NB, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that AB actually touched his ph
@@reb0118 no case to answer, because there’s no evidence. He may have been touching the phone or just scratching his bollocks. Only one person knows the answer and it’s not a magistrate.
Even if he was arrested an arrest isn't a conviction. I could give a piss what you've been arrested for because cops will arrest you if you mock them or look at them funny. What you've been convicted of is all that matters in the end.
@@ChristianAkacrobut you will be finger printed and DNA’d even if innocent.
@@ChristianAkacro . Absolutely correct. Just a pity that about 99% of Police do not understand that fact.
'A tad pointless.' Yet he still gets paid out of my tax money.
exactly. This is where tax money goes... For clowns standing around claiming to have seen you look down while you drive... WTAF
What a bunch of arrogant tosspots!
Aren't they just 😮
The second copper was so cocký and they wonder why the public hate them so much
You're such a legend AB. Two thumbs up.
Revenue Collectors 🤬
or dangerous drivers using their phones ?
@@grahamfitzjohn sounds like you are one of them thieves.
Pedophile protecters, terrorists
@@grahamfitzjohn Nah, they never actually get dangerous drivers. They don't investigate crime anymore, they're useless revenue collectors.
Good lord, all of their attitudes are absolutely disgraceful!
10:20 so you are not allowed to scratch your bollox when driving now 🤔🥴
Nah lad, scratching your bolox is now 3 points and 50 fine. Or go to court and explain to the judge about your itchy bolox and roll the dice.
My wife ever ever did !
@@danhanley1313 it’s 6 points, 3 per nut, or 9 if you’re unlucky and come from the Isle of Wight.
I will rewatch this for days. So funny!! And I commend you on your polite and calm attitude. I’d have been shouting. Nice one!!!
How many other unlawful tickets did they give out that day
So nobody's seen you actually use a mobile phone, but the arrogance of these officers is, we'll see you in court... How can you be sent to court when no officers have actually seen you committing an offence ???. Absolute Madness.
Nothing better on a Sunday morning in western Canada than a cup of tea and a new video from A.B.
Awww thank you ☺️
@@AuditingBritain yes and from London AB, love your Sunday vids 💙
Ha ha I'm exactly the same. Made a nice brew of Kenco coffee ☕ with some flapjacks. Absolute bliss
How come there aren't any auditors in Canada? I thought there would be plenty.
@@MrChr1sBangkok There's plenty... go and look for them!
I have a video of a Wiltshire police officer using her mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle and a letter from Wiltshire police saying that’s not enough evidence to prosecute her. I can send them both to you if you want brother!
Oo, yes please!
@ what’s your email address?
That spotter has got bloody good eyesight to be able to see you/ drivers driving down a road, hands in between your legs, apparently "tapping" on your phone. The officer saying "Go to court and prove your innocents, why don't they just issue tickets to everyone that drives down the road and let everyone go to court
One says the other saw you while the one didnt actually see but neither did the other one. These cops are funny af
I love that you went and gathered your own evidence and immediately the officer admitted that he didnt see you playing with your phone🤣😂🤣see you in court😂🤣😂🤣😂
Absolutely disgraceful! All of them should be dismissed and prosecuted.
Deported, imo.
Love you spreading awareness about traffic laws, very interested in this part. THANKYOU AB
Should of said you had crabs and needed to itch your knackers, 😂
The ending of the video had me in tears of laughter 😂
AB definitely number 1.
It appears there are two police computer systems that keep record of your details. I would be doing a SAR on both of them AB
Go to court to prove your innocence when there's no proof of any guilt?were these coppers having a laugh😆 absolute jokers🤡🤡🤡😁
Precisely!!! You're innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. If you are innocent, why go to court? The french system is guilty first, prove your innocence.
@@leavemyrightsalone that sounds just like a Uk magistrates court.
@@DMC888 It should all go to a de jure court with 12 jury. EVERYTHING!!
Proper attitude that bloke. Supposedly a public servant.
A crown servant
@@abujuwayriyyahto serve and protect the public
"Items useful for terrorism" ... more like "Tools used for telling truth." I believe that AB will always be on the right side of history💪🙏
like a police uniform and sirens? AB maybe moonlighting as a copper? :D
My son in law had his phone in the top dash console and when he took a corner it slid and bounced out. he grabbed it mid air and put it on the passenger seat. Filth behind him seen him grab it in his mirror and pulled him over. He explained had he was not using it and the screen was not even on and had it fell on the floor at his feet then it would have been a bigger distraction trying to get it off the floor . They could not give a toss and still did him. Gotta get that fine money in and justify their existence.
I was speaking to a bloke in Australia who nearly got into a physical fight with Police because they saw him pick up a diabetic kit and put it in a more secure place in the car while at traffic lights. He told them it wasn't a mobile, they said it was and it got pretty heated, bearing in mind that he had no need to assist them in their investigation. In the end his son intervened and showed them what it was as he was worried that the Police would drag his dad out and give him a flogging............... I don't use my mobile while driving but what I do have is a 'shop dummy' plastic item that looks just like my mobile phone, and so if it ever came to an allegation I can just produce the toy.
These traffic stops have absolutely zero to do with safety
Sound to me like you need to do a Freedom of Information Request on your police history!
nice of the police officer to admit he didn't actually see you using a phone. so just there to bully drivers
.....................Exactly, I rest my case.
Thick as mince. He lost the case right there without even realising it.
Change your car pal, if they suspect who you are a prolific auditor, they'll put a marker on your car.
Already done
@@AuditingBritainWhat, put a prolific marker on your car?....😂
Why hasn't the spotter got a camera so the court can see what he sees? But they won't because then they can twist the law can't they? Corrupt idiots, just about making money!
@@johnpeace23good point
@@AuditingBritain remember only play the parts in court that are the questions asked and the answers given by them, not the surrounding conversations of what if etc as they will try use any excuse to stitch you up It's irrelevent if the phone was inbetween your lap you could have been looking at anything or simply doing head streatch at time to prevent stiffness whilst maintaining forward view, as for your hand being down where he says can he see through doors from 20foot as you drive by at 30mph? how did he see your hands ask him to describe exactly what he seen, as soon as he says could have been object immediately as hearsay same for the other coppers too one that given you the ticket, did you see me move my phone as you walked up to the window, did you see me using my phone, did the other officer confirm to him as the ticket being issued you used your phone when passing him and when and if they lie between themselves him saying other copper seen you on phone and him saying between your lap go hell for leather ask them outright which of them is lying throw as much doubt in the judges mind no guilty can only be called. of course take a lawyer though.
11:00 "See you in Court". That the cock-sure attitude that creates disengagement with the Police, given he already stated he didn't actually see you using your mobile phone. How proud his superiors must be, not!
His superiors will be just the same, if not worse. That's the inherent problem...
Their superiors are the ones getting pressure from the bureaucrats and they do not have the balls to stand up and tell them that policing is about more then revenue.
Sadly our time is worth nothing when you have to prove your innocence! If they make a mistake, waste court time, waste your time then there needs to be compensation!
At least they admitted you weren't guilty of they offence they reported you for, on camera. You'll be in court for about 3 minutes I expect, with such overwhelming evidence that you are innocent.
Ridiculous they’re happy to waste the courts time tho, they need to be disciplined 🙄
@@ImBaudits Nope , they are doing their job , and catching phone users , which is what their set up was all about . I can't understand why people defend phone use while driving . It is dangerous and illergal.
@@grahamfitzjohn Thank you for your opinion officer. Glad you are here to back up your fellow, corrupt officers. Keep that thin blue line strong....
🖕
@@grahamfitzjohn Nobody here is defending phone use while driving.
@@grahamfitzjohnIt was playing with his privates whilst driving, which is perfectly legal.
My dad was charged because a 'cop saw him using his phone' he went to court & asked to see evidence. Cop said he most definitely was using 'his phone'. Dad replied to the magistrate I DONT OWN A PHONE & here is a letter proving that from all mobile networks! We need a law that says if not on video then no one goes to court as cops word is usually a lie! DAD WON!
This is fiction
@@PedroGonzalez11111Yes it is
You can have 100 phones and no mobile network lol. Also companies don't know who is using a burner phone with pay as you go top up cards Also I could drive using my friends phone and say well I don't own one.
these are the professionals we pay to protect us from harm and to stand up for our rights
I had something similar. It went to court where they lied constantly! I had to get phone records showing no use. The case was thrown out. It cost me a lawyer and time and expenses. I received no recompense.
bullies and gangsters
Call all 3 officers into court to be cross examined by your defence lawyer as to what they seen as all 3 would have to admit they hadn't seen you touching your phone at any time. Also get a freedom of information asking regarding terrorist arrests
💯% 🎯
It will be a Data Subject Access Request on personal data being held on AB by the pigs.
It calls into question the record of all the police constables involved. They were all so willing to cut corners
Body camera
Radio traffic between the cops
They will be found out as lies
Good on you AB standing up to these tyrants👊
The fact that he never identified it was a phone in his interaction with you speaks volumes and it disproves the allegation .
I would put a complaint in that people may well be issued fines for assumptions.
That is outrageous and these people need bringing to task for serious charges based on nothing more than speculation.
The attitude of those officers was condescending and dismissive, bordering on disrespectful.
The “See you in court” comment was particularly egregious, and said for no reason than to end the conversation by inferring your point was irrelevant and that he simply didn’t care.
Dont forget this is Essex police. I think you will find its the same police force knocking on Alison Pearsons door.
Given the speed of the passing traffic, how could the spotter see anything going on in the drivers lap?
AB go to court and win the case. Then sue them.
Entrapment as using plain clothes as spotters
Crazy that they can take you to court for this, but when Cycling Mikey sends them video evidence of people on their phones, half the time they get sent a warning letter.
Pirates 🏴☠️ stealing time, money, and energy without giving a flying puck. What a disgusting profession!
Yet another auditing video to get me through my Sunday
That copper that pulled you over has a right attitude on him. No wonder the police aren't respected these days!
Just to be clear, the court process is NOT there to assist the Police with fishing trips. The court process is is designed to deal with matters based upon evidence. Both officers out on the road both admitted that they didn't actually see you touching your phone. "It was a white male wearing Jog Bottoms and a black puffer jacket that robbed the post office", there's a bloke fitting that description "Your nicked mate, nobody actually identified you as the culprit, but you're white and you have job bottoms and a black jacket, it's near enough so you'll do". Later in court "Officer what evidence do you have that this bloke robbed the Post Office", "Well he was wearing the same sort of gear as was described by the pensioner who partially witnessed the crime" "send him down......No not the bloke in the puffer jacket, the copper for wasting court time".
"See you in court." Aka "I won't be there."
Hypocrisy is rife in this one.
AB on behalf of all your subscribers
I would like to say a massive thanks for an unexpected sunday morning treat ❤️👍🏼❤️
They are so corrupt it is unreal. Surely there needs to be some sort of investigation on these practices? Their eyes should not count for a traffic incident as there is no proof. So case closed
Worst person to try and scam 😂😂😂😂😂
This was absolutely hilarious again A. B
You're a genius and comedian and highly intelligent wonderful human being all rolled into one Asgardian body 😜
That "spotter" couldn't of seen anything in someones lap out on that road with cars traveling at that speed.
*couldn't have
The rage of the public will ignite,
When?
Iv been waiting since covid
you should always check their tyres, Ball joints, universal joints and brakes on their vehicles
Touch a phone and you get fined...
Touch a 14 year old girl you've been grooming and you get fork all...
What a GREAT COUNTRY!!!
The dismissive way they are speaking to you ,and their sheer arrogance is only trumped by the way in which the policeman could not prove you were useing a phone ,but implicated that you were undertaking a sexual act ,They really are odious ,pathetic creatures we employ to uphold the fewcpathetic laws we have ,good man AB ,proud of you
The predators became the prey.