Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You woke my whole household claiming your iPhone was at my address according to your iPhone tracker, which as I told you was not inside my property and advised to look around outside ,hope you found it and as I advised last night call police befor you come knocking on my door telling me you can't beat technology and your phone was in my home.if I found a phone I would hand it in to a police station,hope you have reported lost phone ,so it's blocked and useless to anyone .
I was shopping en route to some elderly relatives and found someones phone in Morrisons car park. I decided to do the right thing and walk over to Peckham Police Station to hand it in. I stuck a note to the post nearby to say what I had done should the owner return looking for it. There was a long queue to be seen, I waited for over half an hour in the company of rowdy people I would rather not have been around. When I did get into the secure area, the desk officer tried for ages to unlock the phone to see if they could find a number to ring to find the owner, they couldn't unlock it, so I then had to fill in the "found" form. Got back to my car and defrosted food ..... I WOULD THINK TWICE IF IT HAPPENED AGAIN.
I've found phones on two occasions and have been able to find a number on there saying 'home', or 'sister' etc and been able to return the phones to grateful owners. But I can also understand why people pin protect their phones too. Surely if the IME number is registered the police can trace the owner.

Must be quite upsetting to have someone demanding their phone back when you don't have it. Gloves1980 seems insistent despite it being quite obvious that phone trackers are not that accurate.


Also, not that it matters for this thread, but Gloves1980 seems to sign off both Janet or James in different threads.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Do you have a link to this? The only one i could find was on the 24th July
    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...