Trying to get my head around something...a Police officer visited my home on friday with contact details for another officer in a different town (same force) and saidf I had to ring them but they did not know why.

I eventually spoke to them and I have to go to the station (9 miles away) next week. The officer said I am allowed a Solicitor if I want (I guess this is standard?).

All I know is that the issue regards 2 messages I supposedly sent via Facebook.

Last year I had a conversation with someone on Facebook chat where they were ranting about how they were going to kill me because I'd said something sexual to their cousin who was 14 via FB. I explained that I had not said anything sexual and accepted the FB friendship despite not knowing the person (clearly a mistake). Following a series of 'death threats' (I don't have copies of these). I blocked this friend, her cousin and anyone else with the same surname that I could find on FB.

This all strikes me as a complete waste of time but regardless, if I had sent these messages (which I srongly believe I did not but have not seen them), has any law been broken?

Sadly one of the many problems of this new communications era. Good luck to you if you are innocent of any offences.

I would ignore them or at least make them come to me.

Something similar happened to me 2 years ago during a legal dispute when I left a message on the rival's answering machine telling them that if they got entangled in legal actions they could lose their home because of the costs.

They decided it was a threat and I had the same thing-a policeman ringing me to ask me to go and talk about it..I said no way Jose and never heard another thing from them.

result-that person is now being hauled back into court in 2 months and will probably have to sell their home to pay the costs.

Threaten to sue..everyone..that's what I do.

Thanks folks - I find the fact that the officer that visited my home had no idea what it was about and that I've had to be desperately calling this other officer to find out. It also seems crazy that I have to travel 9 miles to see them when there are three Police stations with 1 mile of my home - surely it could all happen here!?!

Of course only knowing that it is about "Nuisance facebook messages" (she said 2 messages but quickly backtracked)...I have no clue who is the offended person or what I might have said to them if anything.

they are obligated to follow up complaints but more often than not they would prefer the matter to fade away.

Don't contact them..let them do the running. In a week they will have 100 other annoying problems to chase up.

Ian wrote:
Thanks folks - I find the fact that the officer that visited my home had no idea what it was about and that I've had to be desperately calling this other officer to find out. It also seems crazy that I have to travel 9 miles to see them when there are three Police stations with 1 mile of my home - surely it could all happen here!?!

Of course only knowing that it is about "Nuisance facebook messages" (she said 2 messages but quickly backtracked)...I have no clue who is the offended person or what I might have said to them if anything.

Similar incident happened to me - but the police station was 29 miles away !

They are probably investigating alleged harassment.

The suggestion that you bring a solicitor probably indicates that you will be arrested, while they investigate.

In the vast majority of these cases they then bail you, and after a period drop the investigation (as happened in my case) because there was not a shred of evidence.

Then started a major battle to regain my DNA (taken at time of arrest). We were stonewalled until I issue Judicial Review proceedings and the police quickly gave me my DNA back - and cancelled all references to it on P computer - just four days before they were due in the High Court!

The very last thing the police want to do is face a Judge and explain their unlawful behaviour (but they will almost certainly stonewall UNTIL you back them against a wall).

Mubarek's Gestapo would be impressed !

Well that was an evening of fun! I decided to go, I simply wanted to get it over with. My girlfriend took me and waited outside. The female officer met me told me the offense was "sexual messages to someone under 16" and arrested me. I asked for a duty solicitor and he was very nice.

I'd only taken my phone (to call partner when finished) and nothing else. They seemed annoyed I'd not taken keys. Turned out they wasnted to search my flat so I said they could call girlfriend, they refused as "she might race back and destroy stuff!. Eventually they did call her and she was with them in under 5 minutes as still nearby (they were going to force entry otherwise).

Interview was annoying, originally a male and a female but then it ended up being just the initial officer who made contact, myself and my solicitor. Charge seems to concern two phrases, one about being horny and one about being well built. I said I had not said these things. Interestingly the officer highlighted a quote "shame you are not older" which I answered surely worked against their charge. Meanwhile they turned the charge in to 'Sexual grooming of a person under 16 with intent to meet'. I'm guessing the hasty searching of my flat is to find some backing for this charge as no meeting was arranged in the conversation? Also not technically grooming as the conversation is a two way one with 'both' parties speaking in this nature. and no real attempt mde to befriend anyone. What they showed me was a mundane but slightly sexual chat.

They seemed to want to claim I use my partners phone - I don't. In the search they took away two semi broken laptops (waiting for me to see if there are any documents I want to keep if this is possible); my partners laptop (which we both use) and a laptop my mother gave me a month ago (brand new and untouched). They found 4 phones (one mine and 3 of my partners, one her dead dads, the other two work phones). They took 1 memory stick with photos of days out on it.

They chucked photographs from a bookcase over the floor, plugged in a therapy light, carried the VCR halfway around the flat (they thought it was a hard drive)

There is NOTHING remotely related to anything illegal on any of these items and never has been.

Thus I'm on bail awaiting further news.

Though the Police were friendly the whole things was a shambles. One officer told my partner that I'd been dishonest with her (I've not I've told her my version of events)...he also phoned her to ask her where computer stuff was in the flat - I had already told him. The female officer told me my partner did not know what it was all about and thought it was about a threat I received. The conversation she had with the officer, she divulged what she knew regarding who and what which if it were not the charge would have been not good for me but as I'd told her the truth this is what she correctly believed it was. I guess they were goading us?

They also blocked our cats litter tray with stuff meaning she was 3 hours without a toilet.

I've known about this interview for two weeks and guessed correctly who made the allegation based on a series of irrational threats I received from a relative of this girl. It is the only thing it could have been and the Police station was in this girls home town. Thus, though I never imagined this wild search would occur why didn't they just arrest me in the first place and search my home then? Why prolong this all so much? The alleged message was sent in October/November 2010. I've had no contact with these people since then. Its confusing because on the one hand it seems they are taking it very seriously and on the other it all seems a bit random.

Any thoughts I'd truly appreciate

I told you so !

You will, in all probability never hear anything further - or they will simply sontact you and say that they are "not proceeding" (which tends to indicate some guilty but no evidence).

PS - In the meantime, your DNA is now on the database !

if it's as you say I think the matter would have to be dropped...no case to answer although they will string it out.

The copper's actions sound like pretty standard..it's all matter of fact to them and they try to niggle you every now and then.

Personally I avoid anyone under 40 like the plague these days and cross the road if a 30 something walks towards me.

I think teenagers should really be banned and that would solve the problem (and no Beiber either as well..a bonus !)

Can't have teens experimenting with social inter-action with adults like they have for 1000s of years.

Veritas - we won't be meeting for a BBQ anytime soon, I'm 31

Forgot to mention, the first cell they put me in had no lighting, I was left in a small dark room for about half an hour with no way of asking lights be put on.

They also confiscated my fleece (it had no cords). I questioned this but they said they took all outer garments as standard. As the cell and interview room was so cold it meant I appeared almost nervous in the interview because I was shivering so much. Thus on the recording I won't sound as I should have.

I've nothing to hide and thought I should tell my boss next week just in case there are any ramifications - like missing work to attend bail.

Also - how does bail work? They said that the laptop work will take 5 months or more but have given me a bail date of 10th March. Do I turn up and get sent away or do they contact me beforehand?

do you mean a court date on the 10th March?...it will just be a mention. If you have a solicitor (and you should) he would probably go and you won't need to. Bail will be continued.

If there is nothing untoward on your computer it sounds like you have little to worry about. Grooming would have to be that..over a period of time..just saying something once or even twice to somone underage would not be proof of grooming.

I am meant to be returning to station for a second interview or whatever but
Sergeant said due to backlog it will take much longer to look at computer etc.

I've not met anyone online in real life in almost six years. I met my lovely girlfriend on a dating site then. Though nothing illegal will they really be digging up my attempts to woo women six to ten years ago? Rather stupidly in hindsight I always took social networking to be just that and somewhat nothing to do with my real life.

I have on occasion acted silly role plays with people I have not met but not minors and my language is more sophisticated than teXt talk which is the case they are claiming. I like to test my faithfulness to my partner as I would hate for either of us to be with each other just because it's easy.

Presumably evidence of me flirting with mature women shows a healthy interest in mature women? or do they twist stuff like this or visits to hot housewives dot com to work in their favour?

Ian wrote:

Forgot to mention, the first cell they put me in had no lighting, I was left in a small dark room for about half an hour with no way of asking lights be put on.

Also - how does bail work? They said that the laptop work will take 5 months or more but have given me a bail date of 10th March. Do I turn up and get sent away or do they contact me beforehand?

Re 1 - Your human rights have been abused ! Make a complaint !

Re 2 - I assume you are on 28 days bail? You have to turn up (or face arrest). They will then either bail you again, or say they will contact you later, and just turn up out of the blue when they decide (if they decide) to make an arrest.

It's all great fun for the piglets - wasting people's time and making them just through hoops !!!

Well, not called Ian today as there is some justice even if only very rarely, thus I'm an occassional poster here and not the 'newbie' I cunningly disguised myself as

After about 90 phone calls to about 90 people these past two days I finally find out for certain that there is no need to attend bail as no evidence. Likely to be the case in some strange fabricated scenario but I am surprised as there seems to be some twisted obsessions with giving people labels and telling them they are something that they have not, or never will, be.

I'd like to think that if when a case has been dropped and is completely over that (a) someone might actually tell the 'suspect' and (b) they might at least tell them when they ask. But, nope, no one in the entire UK Police force actually had access to any record of any of this whole case, officers denying it ever existed, claiming there is no electronic record blah blah blah. I signed countless things during this process and several times saw my own details on screen!

What a load of b******* and what a waste of even more of our taxes (and indeed my phone bill).

Anyway, its good to be a regular nice chap again - though I was never otherwise

barnthebarn wrote:
I'd like to think that if when a case has been dropped and is completely over that (a) someone might actually tell the 'suspect' and (b) they might at least tell them when they ask.

This is largely because the police don't believe that anyone is innocent - they just are not proved guilty (yet !)

barnthebarn wrote:
What a load of b******* and what a waste of even more of our taxes (and indeed my phone bill).

What did I say ?

It's actually a result for the piggies - as they have managed to add someone else to their police-state DNA database.