Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Acting agent or debt purchaser?
by Indebttoo Today at 11:15 am

» Geo Engineering, are we seeing another avoidable tragedy?
by Awoken2 Today at 10:43 am

» ...MP's should we sack them all?
by daveiron Today at 9:39 am

» Planning ahead for 25k debt
by daveiron Today at 9:25 am

» New three letters response
by Lawful rebel Yesterday at 9:11 pm

» Hoist Portfolio Holding Limited
by Indebttoo Yesterday at 8:38 pm

» Reality chat with peter howard and company
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 7:33 pm

» Vets Stealing Cats By Fraud
by assassin Yesterday at 7:12 pm

» Poor Old Ceylon
by assassin Yesterday at 6:55 pm

» My credit card come back alive
by Tiggy Yesterday at 6:21 pm

» Predictive programming and the music industry.
by Awoken2 Yesterday at 5:53 pm

» UK Column
by ceylon Yesterday at 3:21 pm

» Bank of Scotland
by assassin Yesterday at 1:06 pm

» Debt ban from travelling abroad?
by LionsShare Yesterday at 12:25 pm

» Is the propaganda failing?
by ceylon Yesterday at 11:40 am

» Let's Have Some Tunes thread.
by Awoken2 Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:32 pm

» KEVIN MARK ON TRUSTS AND COUNCIL TAX
by andre.rd Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:53 pm

» Vegas False Flag
by Awoken2 Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:05 pm

» Anyone know of a natural cure for High Blood Pressure?
by LionsShare Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:59 am

» Probally the most important link I have seen
by urchinatheart Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:55 am

» Should we ignore the divide conquer tactics & pull together
by Ausk Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:58 am

» ...Is it your turn to pay again?
by ceylon Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:32 am

» How can you beat fear ?
by Ausk Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:30 am

» Old member returns.
by assassin Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:15 am

» Police are told to stop rise of paedophile hunters
by assassin Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:14 am

» Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)
by Tiggy Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:47 pm

» Lowell CCBC claim form
by Tiggy Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:42 pm

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:37 pm

» Hi Annie from YT Annie logical channel
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:32 pm

» Water Distiller Recommendations?
by Lawful rebel Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:16 pm

» Want to save money? WATCH THIS
by mitch Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:53 am

» Manuka honey kills more bacteria than all available antibiotics
by Ausk Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:02 am

» Nottingham Workshop Saturday 20 January 2018
by Boudica Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:10 pm

» lawful rebellion
by daveiron Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:50 pm

» Bailiffs & Sworn Affidavit
by Ausk Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:13 am

» Court defence
by seamous87 Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:44 pm

» PACE Sections 11-15
by assassin Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:45 pm


Ask Why?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Ask Why?

Post by assassin on Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:49 pm

How many people ask why they are stopped by the police and how many of them actually realise it is often for nothing, so why can the police stop you?
They can only stop you if they have “reasonable suspicion” or ”reasonable cause” and while it can be for any reason it has been defined in law as reasonable cause to suspect you have committed a crime, are in the process of committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime; and these suspicions must be backed up with “reasonable” evidence, so I will ask again, why do the police stop people for nothing.

In many cases it is to gather information and they stop you to try to gather this information and in most cases the police know people will oblige, so why did they stop you and what reason do they have for stopping you? Now you really have to listen to what they say.
In many cases it is the basic psychological tactic which comes into play and they often still the usual excuses of “it’s a routine stop Sir” a routine stop? No such thing and they have openly admitted that by claiming a routine stop that they actually have no reasonable suspicion and the stop is both illegal and unlawful. Next we get the similar psychological B/S where they admit there are no offences committed and say “once we have your details you will be on your way” and often follow it up with such tripe as it will be much easier to give us your details and it will be much quicker, and once again this is all tripe as if you have committed no offences you are not obliged to even speak to them.

The PNC Check

Police do a PNC check on your vehicle and it gives them the following information:

1/ The registered keepers details such as name and address.
2/ MID database information which is if the vehicle is insured or not.
3/ DVSA database information which is the MOT and Tax status of the vehicle and if it has expired.
4/ If the registered keeper of the vehicle is a firearms certificate holder.

5/ If there are any warning markers on the vehicle and its driver.
6/ If there are any intelligence markers on the vehicle from the PND database.

Why is this information useful to know? Because if they claim they are stopping you to check your documents then you know they are lying as they already have this information and the only thing they can check is that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle. So, why does this matter, and what reasonable cause do they have to suspect you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle? In such an instance they can only ask you to identify yourself and provide a valid driving license.

We can clearly see that it is a fairly basic psychological tactic in which they are trained, and they are trying to inconvenience you at every turn, but the reason for the name and date of birth are more sinister. Once they have this they will run a check on you and this check is recorded on their systems so why is this so sinister, because in recent times it has come into the public domain that this personal information is used by psychological profilers used by the police to profile you and also that as contractors to the police they want to keep their lucrative taxpayer funded profits and always bias anything towards the police.

They will try to get you out of your vehicle, but why? Because they have no powers to enter your vehicle and they know it, so they can only gain YOUR consent and by complying with their demands you are deemed to have consented, and they try to crank up the psychological pressure on you. Usually it will be things such as “switch off your engine” and again you do not have to comply, this is usually followed up by “it’s for our safety sir” which is even more twaddle as even after a many years in engineering and lots of qualifications, even I have yet to see any car suddenly shoot off sideways and if they are stood at the driver’s side of your vehicle there is no risk to them from your vehicle. I have only ever seen vehicles go forwards or backwards and never sideways.

Under HSE legislation it is a criminal offence to deliberately put yourself or others in a position of danger within the workplace, so if it is so unsafe then why have they even approached your stationary vehicle, and why are they making such an assumption. All company employees are bound by this legislation and by their very nature all constables on duty are employees and not exempt from the law.

Next we can move on to other aspects of police fraud and fraudulent actions and most, if not all of what they do next is from the days when the police were regarded in high esteem and people would willingly consent to their requests without question, now things are a different matter as people become more educated in the law and what the police can and cannot do. Many police constables are also much more corrupt and people know it.

Under PACE and Road Traffic Act 1988 the police have a right to stop any vehicle, and it can also be for any LAWFUL REASON and they cannot simply just stop you for no reason, and here is the first issue, years ago they used to stop people for no reason and even today they still think they can do this even though the legislation says they cannot. Police can only stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion” which means most of the old “chancer stops” or “trying it on stops” are totally unlawful and illegal.

In many cases they will want your window wound down, but why? In many cases it is because they want to reach into your vehicle to grab your keys, we have already established that they cannot enter your vehicle without your consent and by reaching into your vehicle to grab your keys they have made an unlawful entry and committed theft by stealing your keys, two criminal offences already unless they have a Warrant of Entry which is unlikely.

More importantly is the fact that they have no powers anywhere in law to immobilise any vehicle under any legislation, so again what laws are they operating under in trying to snatch your keys and this is crucial to know.
Under the Criminal Law Act 1987 they have certain powers and these are that they have “reasonable” powers to prevent you from leaving the scene of the crime AFTER AN ARREST" and this is another crucial point to understand, if you are not under arrest then you cannot be detained.

Under PACE section 19 the police can seize anything they suspect as being evidence FROM PREMISES and under current legislation a vehicle is classified as “premises” under various legislation which has been reinforced by “precedent” and includes anything such as homes, workplaces, vehicles, oil rigs, and even boats. Nowhere does it state that they can seize the premises themselves, an interesting point to note.
Now we can clearly see how the police try to manipulate the meanings of legislation to give themselves an advantage and use vague and spurious language to give a misleading impression of their powers, and this is illegal and unlawful under both their codes of conduct and the codes of conduct for Civil Servants, both of which are applicable. Under both these codes of conduct they are required to act “with honesty and integrity” and they are 2required to remain impartial at all times” and to treat the public with courtesy and respect.

Let’s look at some of the legislation:


Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

19 General power of seizure etc.

(1)The powers conferred by subsections (2), (3) and (4) below are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises.

(2)The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and

(b)that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.

(3)The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and

(b)that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

(4)The constable may require any information which is [F1stored in any electronic form] and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible [F2or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form]if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that—

(i)it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; or

(ii)it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and

(b)that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed.

(5)The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any power otherwise conferred.

(6)No power of seizure conferred on a constable under any enactment (including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act) is to be taken to authorise the seizure of an item which the constable exercising the power has reasonable grounds for believing to be subject to legal privilege.


23 Meaning of “premises” etc.

In this Act—
“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—

(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;
(b) any offshore installation;

(ba)[F1any renewable energy installation;]
(c) any tent or movable structure; F2. . .

“offshore installation” has the meaning given to it by section 1 of the M1Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.

[F3“renewable energy installation” has the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004.]

The Law of Tort

What is a tort?

The law of tort is wide-ranging body of rights, obligations and remedies applied by the courts in civil proceedings. It provides remedies relief for those who have suffered loss or harm following the wrongful or negligent acts of others.

A tort is a civil wrong by the ‘tortfeasor’ that unfairly results in loss or harm to another. This makes the tortfeasor liable to the other. Tort is distinguishable from two other kinds of law – criminal law and contract law, and is dealt with by the civil courts.

Unlike tort, the criminal law are wrongs against society and is comprised in legislation and prosecuted by the authorities, and dealt with in the criminal courts. In contract law, the rights and obligations between the contractual parties are governed by the contract itself and not by the law of tort.

However, sometimes the line is blurred between tort, crime and contract law. For instance, violent offences against the person such as assault and battery can be prosecuted by the Crown; and a damages claim can also be brought in the civil courts by the victim.

Parties to an action in tort

Anyone can sue in tort if they suffered harm or loss as a result of someone else’s civil wrong. There is the potential for children to sue, including children who are born with disabilities due to harm inflicted prior to birth; and even a husband and wife can sue each other.

Claimants can sue a wide range of tortfeasor. The following are examples of different types of individuals and other parties who can potentially face an action against them under the law of tort:

•Individuals
•The Crown
•Companies
•Employers
•Employees
•Independent contractors
•Occupiers of premises
•Individuals who have caused damage to another’s reputation
•Dangerous drivers
•Individuals in the medical profession
•Occupiers of recreational premises

What are the elements of the Law of Tort?

Negligence

Whilst there are different types of tort, negligence is by far the most common tort for which claimants take legal action. There are four elements to the tort of negligence. Each of these must be present for a claim to be successful:
1.The negligent party owed a duty of care to the victim.
2.There was a breach of the duty of care.
3.Causation (the negligent caused the injury/loss).
4.Damage or injury occurred.

Duty of care

The defendant in a negligence action must have owed a legal duty of care to the claimant. There is a three-stage test to establish whether there was a duty of care:
•Is there a relationship of proximity between the parties?
•Was the injury to the claimant foreseeable?
•Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Breach of duty

For the tort of negligence to have occurred, the defendant must have breached the duty of care legally imposed on them. The ‘reasonable man’ test is usually applied to ascertain whether the duty of care has been breached. This is a objective test, and considered whether the behaviour of the defendant fell below the threshold of a “reasonable man”.

This will vary depending on the nature of the defendant. For instance, in a medical negligence case following a surgical procedure, the ‘behaviour’ – ie. the skills – of a specialist surgeon will be expected to be of a much higher standard than the skills of a junior doctor assisting. However, inexperience of itself will not be a valid defence: the defendant is expected to discharge his or her legal duty as a reasonably skilled and competent person.

Causation

Once a breach of the legal duty of care has been established, it must be shown that the loss, damage or personal injury was caused as a result, whether directly or indirectly. The question is: but for the actions or omission of the defendant, would the loss or harm have resulted?

Harm or injury

There must be some form of loss, damage or injury. This includes physical or mental personal injuries; financial loss; or damage to property. It can also extend to emotional distress or embarrassment.

Economic torts

Economic torts are defined as torts that have inflicted pure financial loss on someone. A primary example of an economic tort is ‘passing off’ in the course of business, whereby an individual or business attempts to pass off their goods as the goods of another – relying on the substantial goodwill associated with the original product or goods. A claim can be made for damages to compensate for the economic loss suffered.

Other claims in tort

Tortious claims also include nuisance, occupiers liability, defamation, trespass and breach of confidence.

Remedies in tort

There are two key remedies available for claimants:
•Damages
•Injunction

Damages

Damages provides financial compensation to the claimant for their losses. Damages can be broken down into the following subcategories:
•Nominal: where a tort has been committed but the victim has suffered no loss.
•Contemptuous: where the claimant is successful but the court considers that it should not have been brought and was without merit. A very small or derisory amount of damages may be ordered in such cases.
•General: to compensate for non economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress.
•Special: the claimant must plead these damages as part of the action and prove that the damage was in fact suffered. For instance, damage to property and medical expenses.
•Aggravated damages: if the court decides that the tort was committed in a malicious manner, ie. to harm the claimant’s character or question his dignity, then aggravated damages may be awarded.
•Exemplary or punitive damages: these may be awarded when the court finds that the action committed by the defendant is so serious that an example needs to be made of them.

Injunctions

In some cases, it may be appropriate to apply to the court for an injunction. An injunction is a court order prohibiting or requiring a certain course of action to be taken. This can be in addition to a damages claim.

Defences

The following are defences to tort actions:
•Vicarious liability
•Contributory negligence
•Volenti non fit injuria

Vicarious liability

Where a tort was committed by an employee while undertaking his or her duties of employment, i.e. there was a close and direct connection with the harmful act committed by the employee and what they were employed to do, the employee can deny liability and claim that the employer was vicariously liable.

Contributory negligence

This is a partial defence used whereby the claimant is accused of acting in a careless manner at the relevant time, and therefore contributed to the injuries or loss which they have suffered.

Volenti non fit injuria

Volenti non fit injuria effectively means ‘consent’. It means that the claimant cannot complain about what has happened on the basis he voluntary assumed the risk, ie. he has consented to the conduct (which otherwise would have amounted to a tort). For this defence to stand, it must be proved that the plaintiff acted voluntarily with the other’s agreement, and it was made in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved.


Assault & Battery UK

Assault and Battery are two different offences of common law.

An assault is - "any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful ad personal violence."

And a battery is - "any act by which a person, intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful personal violence upon another person."

Therefore a typical example of an assault would include where a person rides or drives at another person or shakes a fist under their nose, or points a loaded gun or knife at someone.By contrast, a battery requires that there must be some contact between the person who inflicts the violence and the victim.

Common assault is a common law offence.However by section 42 (and section 47) of the Offences Against the Persons Act (OAPA) a person committing any common assault or battery may be imprisoned or compelled to pay fines and costs.Section 42 therefore implies that there are offences committed either when someone is put in fear of unlawful violence (assault) or when there is an unlawful application of force to the person of another (battery).

In reality, common assault is only used in situations where a blow or another application of force is struck, but when no actual injury results.

Section 47 of the OAPA 1861 is concerned with assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.The assault may or may not include battery in the sense of actual contact with the victim i.e. if someone strikes another with their fist causing injury, this will be an assault causing actual bodily harm, as will striking a horse with a whip causing the rider to fall and injure themselves.

Actual bodily harm simply means some bodily harm.

Section 20 of the OAPA 1861 is concerned with unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting any grievous bodily harm upon another person.Unlawfully simply means without lawful excuse.

There are three possible lawful excuses, namely:-

a) Self defence

b) Accident

c) Consent

If any of these three ingredients are present then the defendant has a good defence in law. For the purpose of hunt sabotage it is only the first two which could apply.

Section 17 of the OAPA 1861 is concerned with causing grievous bodily harm (Grievous Bodily Harm simply means some serious harm. Wounding is any breaking of the skin).

The distinction between section 18 and 19 of this act is that there is an extra ingredient in the former which is commonly called "Specific Intent", that is the intention to cause really serious harm.

In many incidents it is not necessary for there to be a definition given of the specific intent to really cause serious harm. i.e. if the victim is sitting in their garden and someone approaches them from behind and splits their skull open with a pick-axe handle, then there can be no question of the intent to really seriously harm.

However, it's sometimes said that the definition includes a desire on the part of the assailant to cause really serious harm as opposed to the situation with section 20 where the assailant I simply reckless as to whether any such harm be caused.

The defence of self defence must be understood, it is obvious that a person in imminent danger of attack should be able to defend themselves. It must be stressed however that self defence does not include retaliation, revenge or retribution. Such acts would constitute an offence, and the fact that an assault might be in revenge or retaliation would only be useful in mitigation.

Remember that the force used by a person to defend themselves must be proportional to the force being used by the attacker. This is meant to be reasonable. Having said that, it should be noted that in the moment of anguish when a person is under attack, it may not be possible to weigh to a nicety the exact amount of defensive action and force required. Therefore if the reaction of the person under attack is an honest and instinctive reaction then that will go a long way towards satisfying the elements of reasonableness and necessity.

Battery UK

England and Wales

Battery is a common law offence within England and Wales.

As with the majority of offences in the UK, it has two elements:
Actus Reus: The defendant unlawfully touched or applied force to the victim
Mens Rea: The defendant intended or was reckless as to the unlawful touch or application of force

This offence is a crime against autonomy, with more violent crimes such as ABH and GBH being punishable under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

As such, even the slightest of touches can amount to an unlawful application of force. However, it is assumed that everyday encounters (such as making contact with others on the tube) are consented to and not punishable.

Much confusion can come between the terms 'assault' and 'battery'. While in everyday use the term assault may be used to describe a physical attack, this is indeed a battery. An assault is causing someone to apprehend that you will commit a battery. This issue is so prevalent that the crime of sexual assault[10] would be better labelled a sexual battery. This confusion stems from the fact that both assault and battery can be referred to as common assault.

There is no separate offence for a battery relating to domestic violence.

Whether it is a statutory offence

In DPP v. Taylor, DPP v. Little,[11] it was held that battery is a statutory offence, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This decision was criticised in Haystead v. DPP[12] where the Divisional court expressed the obiter opinion that battery remains a common law offence.

Therefore, whilst it may be a better view that battery and assault have statutory penalties, rather than being statutory offences, it is still the case that until review by a higher court, DPP v Little is the preferred authority.[13]

Mode of trial and sentence

In England and Wales, it is a usually tried as a summary offence under section 39 of The Criminal Justice Act 1988. However, where section 40 applies, it can be an additional charge on an indictment.

It is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1127
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Ask Why?

Post by assassin on Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:07 pm

My theory is this:

In this era of data/information gathering, the police are looking to reinforce their hand for the future and are looking to do this to by creating more false information about people and storing it on their electronic systems, and by gathering and storing such information they can state misleading information and use this information in the future as "reasonable cause" to stop people.

Let me explain:

If you go out regularly at night, or you regularly travel through a specific area such as a defined red light area, or you travel through an area with known issues then the po-lice will try to use this information as "reasonable cause" if and when they stop you.

You go out regularly at night, you may suffer with a sleep disorder, a disability or other lack of ability, or anything else, the po-lice will try to claim that by being out at night and want to know what you are doing as this is suspicious, this is none of their damn business and the only thing they can do is to stop you and use these nerfarious claims as they only need to know or suspect that you are involved in criminal activity, and backed with evidence of their allegations.

You travel regularly through a red light area to work; you have travelled the same route for years and in the last year it has been designated a red light area, and you work irregular hours, so why are you being stopped and what is suspicious about it, what is there "reasonable suspicions" and what crime do they think you are committing, and based upon what evidence.

You regularly travel through an area designated as a problematic area and much the same as the above applies.

In all cases the po-lice have no evidence and are operating on an individual assumption and trying it on, they have no reasonable cause and hope that this stored information reinforces their claims as they have no evidence of anything.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1127
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Ask Why?

Post by Ausk on Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:47 am

If they say " “it’s for our safety sir” ask them if they feel unsafe? If they say yes then tell them to go and stand somewhere where they feel safe.

you might also like to ask them if their employer has done a risk assessment on pulling vehicles over. If they dont know then tell them they should go and stand well off the road where they are safe until they can contact their employer and ask about a risk assessment for pulling cars over and what their responsbilites are in relation to that assessment.

Ausk
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 232
Join date : 2017-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Ask Why?

Post by assassin on Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:03 pm

This is all a play on words Ausk, under HSE legislation everyone has a duty NOT to deliberately put themselves in a position of danger in the workplace, and if one party is in the workplace and the other is not, this duty still extends to the party in the workplace by the party that is in the workplace.

If they feel unsafe they have admitted deliberately putting themselves in a position of danger and committed the offence themselves.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1127
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Ask Why?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum