South woman PAYS $1,500 TTD 'cellphone' charge

[pugboy]

drivers using cellphones now is about the same as before the law was passed

[Greypatch]

ah next one here EXCELLENT

Man fined for using cellphone while driving

Monday, November 21 2011

A Sangre Grande man who failed to pay a $2,000 fine for using a mobile phone while driving and for driving without his Certificate of Insurance, now has to pay an additional $500, after he appeared before a Sangre Grande Magistrate.

Antonio Belfon was on Friday ordered by Sangre Grande Magistrate Aden Stroude to pay a $2,500 fine for the two charges.

Belfon pleaded guilty to the charges. He was asked by Stroude why he failed to pay the fines for the traffic tickets which were issued on August 23.

Belfon was ticketed by PC Gabriel Jones, of the Sangre Grande Municipal Police, who saw the accused speaking on a cellphone.

while driving his car along the Eastern Main Road, in the vicinity of Paul Street, Sangre Grande, PC Jones stopped the vehicle and told Belfon of the offence he committed. Belfon told the policeman he was talking to his boss on the phone.

When asked to produce his Driver’s Permit and Certificate of Insurance, Belfon explained that his employer had only purchased the car the day before and did not take out any insurance on the vehicle.

The officer issued Belfon with two tickets, which carried a fine of $2,000.

Belfon failed to pay the fines and when he appeared before Stroude, he was fined $2,500 or 60 days imprisonment if he fails to pay.

He was not given additional time to pay the fine.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/crime_and_court/0,150968.html

[hustla_ambition101]

Police Constable files complaint
By Nalinee Seelal Monday, November 21 2011

A police constable assign-ed to the Northern Division has reported to the Police Social and Welfare Association that he was verbally abused by a senior officer while talking on his cellphone as he was driving a marked police vehicle on the Priority Bus Route on June 2.

The constable was subsequently transferred from the Arouca Police Station to the St Joseph Police Station one day after the incident and he is also challenging this.

The constable is claiming that he was subjected to oppressive behaviour on the part of the senior officer while in company with another constable and a sergeant on June 2.

Newsday understands that Deputy Police Commissioner Mervyn Richardson was assigned to probe the senior officer. Contacted yesterday, DCP Richardson refused to give details on the matter.

Sources at the Police Social and Welfare Association said they are taking a keen interest in the matter since police officers driving marked police vehicles are not debarred from using their cellphones while driving.

They added that when police officers are sent out on duties senior officers request their cell numbers so that they can contact them while they are out on the beat. Officers are questioning why the constable from the Northern Division was subjected to such treatment by a senior officer who should have known better.

The association is planning to make available to the aggrieved constable all the resources they have at their disposal to have this matter thoroughly investigated in the interest of justice.

The constable claims he was driving the marked police vehicle on the Priority Bus Route when he received a telephone call from another senior officer at the Arouca Police Station who requested that he give his estimated time of arrival at the station.

The constable, in his statement, claimed that while giving the information to his senior, the officer in question, who was driving an unmarked police Tuscon SUV, put on his siren and pulled across the constable’s marked police vehicle, demanding that he pull over.

When the officer complied in the vicinity of the Mt Hope traffic lights, he was verbally abused for using his cellphone while driving.

He added that the officer instructed him to drive to the Arouca Police Station but on reaching Tunapuna he was instead asked to report to the office of Senior Superintendent of the Northern Division Stephen Ramsubhag.

According to the officer he was again verbally abused and the next day at at about 3 pm, he received a telephone message that he was transferred to the St Joseph Police Station. The constable sought legal advice and wrote to the Association about what transpired and requested that a full scale probe be carried out into the matter.

Newsday understands that it was only after the intervention of the Police Association that DCP Richardson was appointed to probe the allegations of the constable. Sources revealed that the constable was not contacted by the investigator up until yesterday.

Yesterday, president of the Police and Welfare Association Sgt Anand Ramesar said he was aware of the complaint by the constable.

“The response to the complaint, as provided by police regulations was not being followed as it relates to the time in which an investigator should have been appointed and for the process to commence. The Association would have written the Commissioner of Police indicating their concerns and requesting that the regulations be complied with. It is unfortunate that allegations of this nature are being made against an officer who holds a very high position in the police service,” Sargeant Ramesar noted.

The constable who made the allegation is still on active duty in the Northern Division but could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Did the law exempt police officers?

[wagonrunner]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

[hustla_ambition101]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

Buh UML say with a foreign commish all dem thing done

[rollingstock]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

The Act clearly states that it does not apply to police officers on duty, the same as seatbelt legislation. Educate yourself before making a stupid statement.

[Stephon.]

Lmfao!

[wagonrunner]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

The Act clearly states that it does not apply to police officers on duty, the same as seatbelt legislation. Educate yourself before making a stupid statement.

there fore the law does not apply to them.............so.............

Police
---------
The Law

pity comprehension isn't a requirement for beating up. take your own advice pissant
http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/A/above_the_law_264.htm

[K74T]

[Stephon.]

:smoke:

[rollingstock]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

The Act clearly states that it does not apply to police officers on duty, the same as seatbelt legislation. Educate yourself before making a stupid statement.

there fore the law does not apply to them.............so.............

Police
---------
The Law

pity comprehension isn't a requirement for beating up. take your own advice pissant
http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/A/above_the_law_264.htm

The police are not above the law. By stating that it leads to persons thinking that the police are acting in a high handed manner.
The fact is they are not above the law but the law made special concessions for them taking in consideration the nature of their job.

Yuh cud understand that pissant or yuh wha mih draw a diagram?

[Bizzare]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

The Act clearly states that it does not apply to police officers on duty, the same as seatbelt legislation. Educate yourself before making a stupid statement.

there fore the law does not apply to them.............so.............

Police
---------
The Law

pity comprehension isn't a requirement for beating up. take your own advice pissant
http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/A/above_the_law_264.htm

You make absolutely NO SENSE by using that to say police officers are above the law when that's what the law states.
Do you know what "above the law" means??
You can't be above the law when the law itself makes provision to make what you're doing legal. That's acting within the law. Makes sense?

[VexXx Dogg]

Did the law exempt police officers?

not sure if aware of address!

Police
---------
The Law

The Act clearly states that it does not apply to police officers on duty, the same as seatbelt legislation. Educate yourself before making a stupid statement.

there fore the law does not apply to them.............so.............

Police
---------
The Law

pity comprehension isn't a requirement for beating up. take your own advice pissant
http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/A/above_the_law_264.htm

You make absolutely NO SENSE by using that to say police officers are above the law when that's what the law states.
Do you know what "above the law" means??
You can't be above the law when the law itself makes provision to make what you're doing legal. That's acting within the law. Makes sense?

Touche'

[hustla_ambition101]

It's a stupid provision though, police officers in other countries wear seat belts and use hands-free, ours should be no different since they rarely catch whoever they chasing anyway. With the jackarse driving that is synonymous with the TTPS coupled with they fact that they are skittled away anytime they are involved in an accident is even more reason not to exempt them.