[NB: this isn't really protest, direct action and demos, but I thought folk who frequent this forum might have more awareness than average of legal rights, and I also didn't know where else might be the right home for it.] Say you happen to be having a conversation over the phone with a cop who is supposed to be investigating a crime committed against you and he says he's called you to ask you for more details... and you're talking for quite a while, and then he just happens to mention to you that the other person has made some allegations against you. You ask what the allegations are, but the cop refuses to say. So you've apparently been accused of numerous crimes, but the cop won't tell you what they are. [They also didn't tell you at the beginning of the conversation that there were accusations against you, didn't give you any kind of caution in that respect.] You freak out a bit and say you think you need to end the conversation if you're being accused of crimes that they won't even tell you about because you probably need to seek legal advice. You phone back and speak to someone else to try and clarify what's going on, and they mention counter-allegations and you being 'interviewed under caution'. I've just Googled and come across this: "Interviews under caution Once police have grounds to suspect someone of an offence, the person must be cautioned before being asked any further questions. Unless this is done, the suspect's answers, or silence, cannot be used in court. The interview should take place at a police station unless delay in bringing a suspect there would be damaging. A person cautioned is told: 'You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.'" What it means when you are quizzed by police If there are (counter-)allegations against me, shouldn't the police officer have said so at the beginning of the conversation, and shouldn't he have cautioned me first?