NEWS: London Cops Use Copter, Plane, And Video Cars To Convict Driver Of Eating Apple

Police in London used a spotter plane, helicopter and video-equipped patrol car in an effort to convict nursery nurse Sarah McCaffery. Her crime? Eating an apple while driving. After going to more than 9 court hearings, and a two hour trial, McCaffery was fined 60 pounds.



The copter alone must have eaten up 1000's. How much time did they waste in police manpower for this? If I was a citizen of London I would be outraged at this shameful waste of resources. The court time alone must have wreaked havoc.

Um....early April Fools?

....it cost something like £10,000 for the time spent using the Helicopters, patrol cars and court costs.......

Unfortunately its the way things are in the UK, they see the motorist as a revenue earner - speeding fines etc.

But not in this case!!

Spacemunkey

Originally posted by Flinx
Um....early April Fools?

Nope, absolutely true. Happened in Newcastle and has cost the taxpayer in excess of £10,000.

The police have been quoted as saying that they feel they acted properly and will do what ever it takes to prosecute dangerous drivers.

Now, I wonder what would happen if they pursued real criminals with this kind of zeal......Hmmm..........

First a bloody apple causes man's fall from grace in the eyes of God, now it does the same for London police in the eyes of all sane people.

Seriously though, there are questions that need to be asked before we go believing something so outrageous.
1. Was the filming of road conditions a primary assignment for the aircraft, or did some officer just ask a buddy to snap some photos while he was up doing his other work?
2. Is the law new? Were the police under pressure to set a precedent or make an example?
3. What was the woman's driving like when she was pulled over? Police often understate an infraction to be fair, but this causes incomplete reporting of the facts and allows a chance for the offender to weasel out from under the charges sometimes. If this was the case, then the officer might have asked fellow officers to gather info while they were about their business, allowing him to make sure he got the ungrateful offender convicted.

Its just as well they didn't have any around when I was a field engineer. The onliy chance I had to eat (usually Cornish pasties and sandwiches) was on the road. They would have caught me at it at least once a day.

What a joke :shk:

this is outragous!!!!


not being funny, but i smoke when I drive and have done for years... there is more danger of me dropping my ciggy and having a crash than that nurse eating and apple...

another thing, there is a ban on the use of mobile phones whilst driving and also in petrol stations... why is it then that the police have telephone in the vehicles that the use to communicate with the control centre whilst in motion (seen it on a reality tv program) and also personally seen a police officer at a petrol station waiting at the counter to use the petrol card and use there radios to comminicate what the mileage of the vehicle is!!!

very hypocritical, one rule for them and another for us...


"F \/ ( K tha police!"

what do they do with drivers who chew gum?

You cant eat and drive?

These people are obviosly hardened career criminals and should be removed from society immediatey... well done our brave boys in blue and the CPS
I remember a couple of years ago there was another case where a woman stopped at a red light and, while waiting for the lights to change, she took a swig from a bottle of water. The ever vigilant and brave boys in blue booked her too.

Seriously, common sense just doesn't play a part these days. The police are more interested in getting the easy targets which help them reach their "targets" of convictions and solved crimes.

I don't understand, was this a sting operation to get her, or were these things on patrol and were all involved in convicting her?

The way I read the article I don't think the air assetts were being used at the time of her citation. They were used later to gather evidence of traffic conditions and road surface conditions on that street.
I didn't have an aircraft but I've done this myself to defend against tickets.

I really think that these aircraft were not primarily tasked with this mission. I'm guessing that some overzealous traffic cop asked his buddy in the traffic 'copter to snap a picture of that road if he had any "down time" during the day.

Putting that aside though, yes the police are extremely overzealous about citations. Many places set high quotas for citations which officers must fulfill. Politicians are behind this because it's a hidden tax.

The best part of a traffic citation though is the kangaroo court. You pay a court fee which raises your fine by a total of 20% or more- justice costs. A judge arbitrarily decides your guilt all on his own. You are not entitled to any legal advice what so ever unless you hire a lawyer. Best of all, I have had a judge threaten to lock me up for perjury when my story contradicted the police officer's- I had to recant my true testimony to save myself an additional fine!

You gotta hand it the Brits - they go after those accused of high crimes and misdemeanors with unmatched zeal. Just like the ones that walk around with electronic gear nabbing those who do not possess a license to watch television.

Ok, now i've seen everything... I wonder what the penalty is for chewing gum.. Ridiculous.

Perhaps the offense was for eating something that wasn't fried.

(I know first hand the oxymoron that is British cuisine)

It makes me wonder why on earth would the police spend thousands to convict someone of eating an apple when they hardly fined the person anything. Why use a helicopter when a cop with a video camera standing on the street corner would have done the same job.

[edit on 1/25/2005 by cyberdude78]

Originally posted by cyberdude78
It makes me wonder why on earth would the police spend thousands to convict someone of eating an apple when they hardly fined the person anything. Why use a helicopter when a cop with a video camera standing on the street corner would have done the same job.

Its because the average policeman is incredibly stupid and has no sense of reality. If they want to something, they will do it even if it defies all sense of logic.

Sorry it has been one of them days

[edit on 25-1-2005 by switchblade]

Well if it means that much to you I'll edit my post. Anyhow I'm just shocked that police can get a warrant for this kind stuff. I'm sure that taxpayers will be screaming for blood after this.

heh heh...kind of an empty gesture since the full quote is contained in switch's response.

Interesting nobody protested Flyer's extremely offensive "the average cop is stupid" quote. (I guess I just did)