A Claims Solicitors Honest Opinion

It began with a neighbour’s relation who was visiting and had a problem with her vehicle, she came to me with my neighbour to have a look at it, and I immediately diagnosed it and fixed it within minutes, and then she informed me she was a solicitor during general chatter.

I asked what sort of law she dealt with and the hammer blow came, she said general law when she and two friends began, but now at least 75% of her workload is civil torts for claims against public authorities such as the Po-lice, local authorities (councils), Immigration, and Human Rights cases. I asked why this was the bulk of her work and she said they are all so corrupt it is easy money for them as they all engage in covering up the events and try to be clever in doing so, and this is their first mistake. In being clever there will be an order from above which will be a verbal face to face order so no electronic evidence is left, and they have deniability to any content of any such conversation taking place and they simply say it is general chatter and they bumped into each other.

I asked if she would be surprised at anything she heard about the po-lice and she said NO, and claimed they are the most corrupt of the lot as they fabricate evidence, lie with aplomb, always back each other up regardless and this is the very reason Po-lice recruiters always advertise using the words “of the right sort” or similar during recruitment campaigns. She also went on to say that they are well versed in distraction techniques to deflect away from a specific issue and they will usually wait and pounce in specific areas as they never want filming on CCTV, home cameras, detainees mobile devices, and the worst are in car recording devices such as dash cameras as they are all visible. She claimed that in many cases one constable acting unlawfully will have at least one other threatening people filming with seizure of mobile devices unless they delete the footage they have recorded, and if you have a dash camera in a car they will often do a search of the vehicle on fictitious grounds and the SD card from a dash cam will disappear. She further claimed that it is a combination of fear and the loss of a device which people may rely upon which usually works in conjunction of the supposed po-lice authority and a threat of being arrested for doing something perfectly legal and the general abusive and hostile nature of the po-lice in such situations. She went on to say that they practise a tactic of individual isolation which is where they try to isolate an individual from a group, or if it is a couple they work on a spouse or weaker partner to get the other to comply, and it is all basic psychology using several tactics at once. She went even further and said that where these tactics are unsuccessful they will always threaten to arrest everyone and this tactic is used to make the weakest crack to absolve them and implicate everyone else. I did ask why and she said young mothers think of their children and these are a very powerful weapon for the po-lice, disabled people are targeted because losing a spouse who cares for them leaves them unattended, and potentially at risk from serious injury or even death, and again this is a powerful weapon. She claimed that any psychological tactic the police can use; will be used and in most cases this is designed to make people crack under pressure so they admit to something they didn’t do, or it is to implicate others, even if they lose one prosecution. She also said it is a numbers game for the Po-lice and explained that if they lie to arrest a group of four people for nothing and one cracks, they still get three arrests/ prosecutions they wouldn’t have got.

I asked what was/is the most commonly abused legislation and she said section 165 of the road traffic act, so I asked why; she made an interesting comment, and claimed that the po-lice could fabricate so many claims which couldn’t be verified, and that most people were under a misapprehension. I asked what this was and she claimed most people think the po-lice can stop a car whenever they like and they cannot, to make a legal stop the po-lice must have “reasonable suspicion” or “reasonable cause” and this must be a genuine reason to stop any vehicle. She claimed it can be for any reason, but it must be a real suspicion and that this myth is perpetuated by the po-lice and the media so people believe it and comply with them without questioning a totally illegal stop. She claimed from here they try to exacerbate a situation or try to create other situations so they can justify themselves if later questioned by others such as defence solicitors or barristers and to dupe the general public such as a jury in a court trial, and it is all a play on words.
She claimed this is exactly what happens when the po-lice stop a vehicle, they claim it is under section 165 of the RTA; but the stop is illegal as you cannot stop a vehicle under 165 as this is only invoked once a legal stop has been made, so the stop and claim itself is fraudulent and illegal. She even went on to claim a report from the College of Policing states that Teresa May was fully aware of this and took measures to prevent this abuse by po-lice during her time as Home Secretary and even threatened to introduce additional legislation to stop this po-lice abuse.

NOTE: I HAVE SEEN THIS DOCUMENT AND CAN VERIFY THIS, I READ IT IN 2016.

She began to reveal some interesting facts, she claimed that most people are illegally stopped at night because fewer people are about which means less chance of witnesses seeing something illegal, and many CCTV cameras in private hands don’t work in the dark or have limited ranges in the dark, and they know this. In addition she claimed the po-lice can use more illegal tactics and fraudulent claims and use drink driving as a prime excuse for stopping somebody as they know that most people drink and will have some alcohol in their system, and they use this as justification for an illegal stop, even if they are within the drinking limits for driving. I asked her about drinking and she said that it is mainly down to indoctrination and common perception, most people accept that the police have authority over them through indoctrination, and most people have been duped into thinking and believing most people are drunk at night, and are caught drink/driving at night. She went further and said that most people caught driving over the legal alcohol limit were actually caught between the hours of 7.00am to 11.00am which is in the morning and not at night, hence common misperception is a better choice of wording to use.

I asked for an example:

She said a genuine po-lice stop for an alleged drunk driver would be the po-lice following a suspect vehicle for a prescribed length or distance to note their style of driving, if the po-lice suspicions were correct they would have the in car camera switched on to record the event. They would also turn on any personal or body cameras they would be wearing as the main evidence would be the in car camera and supplementary evidence is the body worn camera, and this proves the po-lice are making a genuine stop based upon a genuine suspicion, basic verification. She then claimed they do it by the book and the video evidence proves this.

For a fraudulent stop they bring it back to the lowest denominator which is word of mouth and a fraudulent claim and they do this in several ways, first there is no verification of their claim as they never turn on any recording device so no evidence exists and we have to rely solely on their word. If there is only one occupant of a suspected vehicle and two officers, you have a word ratio of 2:1 in favour of the po-lice and the perceived honesty of the po-lice over the honesty of the occupant or suspect, and this pervades in the lower courts as they nearly always take the word of the po-lice. If the suspect has some form of recording device then this contains evidence and must be snatched for two reasons; if it had some evidence which can be twisted to the advantage of the po-lice then it is retained and used against the suspect, if it shows the po-lice as corrupt it must be destroyed. Once it is destroyed you are back to the lowest denominator which is the word of two officers against the one word of the suspects, and the po-lice know this and it switches to a “balance of probability” scenario, and the po-lice know they will win in the courts in most cases, so it is worth pursuing the case as the odds favour you as the po-lice.

I asked if evidence is doctored or goes missing, she claimed this happens more times that people would believe, an officer or officers will make up a fictitious claim to stop someone and make a stop, they know it is a fictitious claim and it will be suppressed by others within the po-lice. I asked what she meant and she said any defendant would be presented with a hand written statement if and when their solicitor arrives and often any solicitor can pick it to bits, but the po-lice don’t care as this document, in many cases will disappear or never be disclosed upon request by a defence team. If a suspect has been beaten and physically abused in bodily positions where it is visible, then suddenly there will be no custody CCTV available and the po-lice know how to make this disappear and the defence team are missing two vital pieces of evidence which weakens their defence case. I asked what other scams they pull and she surprised me again, she said someone up the chain of command will give an order for this information to disappear as in most cases these initial witness statements are made by two officers sitting alongside each other and openly discussing what they are going to write. If circumstances show the po-lice as liars, which they often do, then the false statement cannot be disclosed as the po-lice know they will caught out committing fraud and they often shred it and write out another fraudulent statement by hand and change all the details which are incriminating for purposes of covering up the po-lice crimes, and for submission to the CPS for a charging decision. She went on to say that the po-lice always load the evidence by cherry picking out the juicy parts only to form a statement of key facts which is biased against the defendant, and not a true representation of the facts as their sole intention is prosecution and justification of an arrest.

I asked how they do this? She said Google earth is a great po-lice abuse tool as they can view the scene of an alleged incident, other officers can scour the area covertly, and a combination of the two usually highlights all the flaws in their statements. I asked what she meant, she said if there is a claim relating to speed as an example, they can use Google Street view to find out where speed limits change so they can manipulate their statements to suit the environment, or to see what properties have CCTV which can disprove what they are claiming, and adjust their statements accordingly. She went further and said that Google Street View can often disprove an officers claims of what he/she saw as foliage may be hanging over a road, or that they may claim a vehicle stalled and assume it is a manual gear change, then find out it is an automatic gearbox and cannot stall as it won’t even have a clutch pedal, police lies exposed. She said police on the ground may see signage relating to something, or the road may have central refuges and refute their claims of people wandering over a white line as they often claim they do to create a fictitious claim of suspected drink driving. I asked why drink driving, and she gave an interesting answer, it is because of section 17 of PACE and abusing their powers, as under this section it defines what po-lice can and cannot do, for drink driving it gives po-lice the legal right to enter a vehicle without a search warrant, whereas a stop for speaking to a driver does NOT give them any powers to enter a suspect’s vehicle and any entry to, or damage to a vehicle is illegal and dealt with by way of a tort. She went on to refer to section 23 and said this defines what is classed as a vehicle and to look it up for myself. She went even further and said it has to be a claim of an indictable offence and not a summary offence as a summary offence claim means they have no powers of arrest, no powers of entry to a vehicle and they can only get someone out of a vehicle voluntarily by asking them or threatening them. If you refuse to get out of your vehicle because it is only a summary offence, you are within your rights to do so and any attempt by the police to get you out is Misfeasance in Public Office at the very least, and often it is much worse as they always use threats of smashing a window or even try to smash a window to try to get you out, and this is a criminal and not a civil offence as criminal damage to property is.
She said any threats are criminal offences of assault as words or threats are clearly defined, and that assault is a criminal offence, it they physically touch or lay hands or other items on you such as truncheons or CS spray it becomes battery, so even threats are a criminal offence.

I asked her if she would be surprised if she was told that po-lice have tried to kill people, she laughed and said not at all, she said in a huge number of cases that po-lice intentionally try to kill people so I asked how, and the response was amazing. She claimed that positional asphyxia is the most common way po-lice try to kill people as contrary to legislation and their own guidelines which states that people must be kept standing at all times to prevent positional asphyxia, yet in most cases the po-lice get people onto the floor and jump on their backs which is a clear breach of legislation and their own policies and guidelines. She stated that people of large build, small build, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and people with disabilities should never be put face down onto the floor, then she told me to look at social network sites and see what the po-lice do. She said in most cases the po-lice force people onto the floor and sit on top of them which is highly illegal and the video evidence is sufficient proof of attempted murder of a suspect, and yes I have subsequently looked and seen it for myself and can confirm this. She went on to say that when a suspect is put onto the ground and sat on they often have to throw the po-lice off to breathe and at that point the po-lice claim they are assaulted which makes a mockery of us all being equal in the eyes of the law.

Frightening but not really surprising, just further confirmation that this country is fast becoming a Police State, perhaps some of us should start to consider the need to carry weapons to defend ourselves with ???

Comments anyone ?

That plays right into their hands Jock, while I see your point, it still often gives them the reason to target you and to give them more disinformation to put on their corrupt systems against your name.

I found it refreshing to see someone on the inside be so honest about the depth of po-lice corruption, and even more so when I found out why she was so willing to expose it so freely.

For what its worth the situation in the same in Aus from reading the expose of one cop and other material.

The only way to cure this kind of thing is to make it a 20 year sentence to knowingly being a party to this kind of thing. 30 years for officers who knowingly or ought to have suspected and failed to adequately investigate.

What this lawyer has said does teach us is that by learning the law relating to road traffic and similar stops, in addition to the law of tort, we will be able to defend ourselves better in court, achieve good results and slowly begin to peg these bastards back over time.

If we don't do this we cant expect others to do it for us. Our silence is acquiescence, agreement.

Is it illegal to plant a listening device or transmitter in ones own car in the UK?

Imagine pressing a button when we get pulled over and the convestation with the police is transmitted to a remote recording device.

Thanks for that Assassin

no ausk , also there is an app that lets your device record to the "cloud" and appear to be turned off, so they might not realise its recording them and destroying/removing sd card wont stop it anyway.

Ausk

Here in the UK you can record any data in video or audio format in a public place, if we put this into context with what this solicitor told me, this is in a vehicle on a public road and means you can video and audio record the po-lice and anyone else for that matter in the UK in any public place.
Issues arise when corrupt po-lice see you video or audio recording them and their unlawful actions and this is where they have to destroy this evidence, you can however take other precautions to video or audio record them without them knowing, and Lopsum has given a nice example of where you can use this sort of thing to your advantage.

If you video or audio via live streaming using a device which live streams and records directly to an SD card or similar, and they sieze your device and it is returned minus its SD card you can show this was a deliberate action of theft, perverting the course of justice, and perjury and still have the video or audio of the events to reinforce your claim and give proof of their illegal actions.

What you have said assassin when you were talking with that solicitor is correct over here in victoria about the police needing a good reason to get us to pull over and search our vehicle. There was an article where a magistrate dismissed a case as the police at the time had no evidence to back their claim.

I just had to post this, I know it's old but what a classic.

Lopsum wrote:no ausk , also there is an app that lets your device record to the "cloud" and appear to be turned off, so they might not realise its recording them and destroying/removing sd card wont stop it anyway.

Thanks for that Lopsum, I'll do a search.