Dealing With Corrupt Po=lice

It’s a commonly asked question, “should I report the police” and the answer is a resounding YES because in numerous cases you can report the police for many things and in a large number of cases they will uphold your complaint and you may receive compensation, so financially it can be worth your while reporting them.

When you report the police any complaint stays on their record for the duration of their service and if there are multiple constables involved in an incident you can kill multiple birds with one stone so to speak, and while these complaints may not affect a constables promotions within their force, they can come in useful in numerous defence cases as their records can be demanded and read out in any court appearance. If this is a jury trial it may often be enough to swing it in the defendants favour as the police regularly lie, withhold evidence, and try and act as judge and jury by withholding “relevant information” to cover up their inadequacies or failures to save their own necks.

Police operate in several ways and their main one is “suspicion” and in most cases they will stop you to get you talking and this is because that in 50% of cases they get a prosecution through an admission, and remember their end game is only to get a conviction and they aren’t really bothered how they do it because if they do it illegally they simply lie to cover up this fact. Do I have to talk to the police? NO, it isn’t illegal to refuse to talk to the police and you cannot be prosecuted for it, you have an inalienable right to remain silent so use it, neither can you be prosecuted for obstruction, perverting the course of justice or even resisting arrest for refusing to speak to them, so remain silent.

Case law (legal precedent) states:

NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY A POLICE OFFICER THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT COMMITTING AN OFFENCE

Hepburn V Thames Valley Police 2002

It is the job of the police to investigate an offence and have “reasonable suspicion” that you have committed an offence before they even stop you, and the operative phrase here is “reasonable suspicion” as in most cases they never have it and take the only other chance they have which is to get you to confess or admit to an offence you have not committed.
Can the police detain you to ask questions? NO and this is confirmed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which states:

REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION CANNOT BE PROVIDED BY……… REFUSAL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ASKED

PACE Sec 2.9 code A

What are their normal tricks! “We want your side of the story” or “just tell us the truth” or “if you lie to us you will be in even more trouble” or “honesty is the best policy” or similar statements then remember it is all psychological clap trap to get you to talk so you self-incriminate, and remember all they want is a conviction and nothing else. If they begin with the “it will be easier on you if you confess” then remember this is also a lie as any concessions you may get for admitting to an offence only happen AFTER you have been charged with an offence.
You only ask one question which is “am I under arrest” and if the answer is no, or not at the moment, or we are detaining you to ask questions, then walk away or drive off as you now know that they cannot detain you to ask questions which is backed by legal precedent. Remember they are only asking you questions to get you to incriminate yourself, and the phrase “reasonable suspicion” as in most cases they have none and this is followed by an unlawful detention.

If they try to detain you after not arresting you and make claims such as “when we have your details you can go” or “we still need the questions answering” or anything else then they are guilty of unlawful detention and you can make a complaint about unlawful detention, and get compensation, this starts at £500 currently. If they use words or actions to make you believe that you may be arrested if you use your lawful right to leave, or prevent you from leaving if you are not being arrested then this constitutes the offence of BATTERY and this is another offence which you can make an official complaint about and receive compensation. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the offence of battery does not require them to touch you, it only requires you to believe that by leaving you will be harmed by them or prevented from leaving by their actions which would normally be them walking in front of you to deliberately obstruct you and prevent you from leaving. If the police tell you that you have to provide your details then they are committing ASSAULT and FALSE IMPRISONMENT by implied threat of force, and both can be complained about and you will receive compensation.

If they grab you or touch you in any way then this becomes ASSAULT and assault is a crime in itself and they are guilty of the offence as by not arresting you they have no reason to detain you, let alone using force to prevent you from leaving the scene of an incident.

Terrorism is the “in vogue” excuse for so many things at this time and like so many things it is a way to apply pressure to you and it is something the police are using against people filming in public, so they can get their details, it cannot be used to obtain someone’s details or as a reason to seize filming equipment, and this is backed up by the Terrorism Act.  

Section 41 of the Terrorism Act states:

A constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist

If a constable reasonably suspected someone of being a terrorist they would simply go out and arrest them and not use this act as leverage against someone who was filming in a public place who used his/her rights NOT to provide them with details. In most cases terrorists would be arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad who would have considerable evidence through surveillance or intelligence or a combination of the two, and usually under a warrant which would include a warrant of entry where they would raid a property to arrest suspects in a contained environment, and with potential evidence within the property. They are unlikely to let a dumb ass plod even get near you if they suspected you as a terrorist.

Why don’t they like being filmed because as public servants, and the rights to film in public places and anything that can be seen from a public place, usually means that they have something to hide and they don’t want any evidence of their illegal actions, and in most cases they will tell you to stop filming, try to grab your camera, or threaten seizure of your filming equipment. What rights do they have?  Police policy states:

The retention of all items of property taken into police possession must be for no longer than necessary and must be fully justified.  

You have every right to film in a public place and anything you can see from the public place, and you have the right to film the police as they are public servants and you DON’T need their permission to film them; they can only seize anything of “evidential value” which means that you must have caught the actual crime they are attending on camera. Where the police demand you stop filming them and then try to claim they will seize your recording equipment automatically means that the seizure is purely malicious and out of spite which contradict the two most important words of “fully justified”. If they persist you can simply inform them that you are not giving them your recording equipment as it is a malicious seizure and not fully justified and an abuse of process and you will be seeking to take an action against them which is usually sufficient. This is reinforced by the Human Rights Act.

What happens if you are stopped in your or another vehicle? Again reasonable suspicion comes into play so the first question you should ask is “what is the reason for the stop” and under no circumstances are you obliged to open your door or turn off your engine if you don’t want to. You should only lower your window slightly and only enough so they can hear you and you can hear them, in ALL cases not enough so they can put their hands into your vehicle and grab your ignition keys as they will, hence the reason they want you to put your window down so low. ALWAYS lock your doors and keep them locked. They should tell you what alleged offence they claim you have committed and your next question should be for them all to provide their warrant cards containing their name and photograph which MUST be provided upon request or demand. If they claim they are stopping you for an offence and they have made such an allegation you must determine the authenticity of their claim and it must be specific, let me explain, often the po-lice use vague and fluffy language such as “manner of driving” or “it’s a routine stop sir” or anything other than a specific offence then they are trying it on, but why. They will try to get you to talk so you incriminate yourself and remember they hear excuse after excuse on a daily basis and they are only after a conviction.

The only reason you need to leave your vehicle is if they are going to search you, or they are arresting you, which leads onto another point, if they ask you to get out of your vehicle and sit in the back of their vehicle you ALWAYS REFUSE as they have no authority to put you into a police vehicle unless you are under arrest. Remember they have vehicles which are rigged with all manner of audio and video equipment and they show you footage in an attempt to get you to talk and record you on audio visual equipment admitting an offence, and remember that once you are in their vehicle you are unlawfully detained as their vehicles have the child locks activated and they have to let you out of the vehicle from the outside door handles.
If we read the legislation it makes it clear that po-lice can only enter your property if they have a warrant or if they have reasonable suspicion under certain aspects of legislation to do so, anything else is an unlawful entry. If we go even further into the legislation (PACE) it clearly states that a vehicle is defined as property and nowhere does it state that the po-lice can take anything other than evidence of an alleged offence so why do they try to grab your keys. Unlawful entry and theft covers both these offences, and they try to justify it claiming “it’s for our safety” which of course is total rubbish as anyone who knows about Health and Safety legislation (ME) will know that it clearly states that it is an offence to deliberately put yourself in a position of danger. Here is a clear offence admitted by the po-lice themselves.

One area commonly asked about is the “interview under caution request” made by various bodies such as the po-lice, local councils, and by far the worst offender, the DWP and these are only an example of many organisations that can “invite” you to such an interview, so what do you do, DO NOT ATTEND.
Take a look at the wording, we are inviting you and we are requesting, and remember one thing here, a request and an invitation can be declined so do so, they will make various claims such as it being in your best interests or bring along any substantiating documents to support your claim. In reality it is very simple; if they had enough information to make an arrest they would have already made an arrest, or if they had enough information to stop your benefits they would already have done so, what they are doing is to get you to admit to an offence you may not have committed and are bringing along more information which only benefits one person and that is the investigator.

Right from the outset their intention is fear, they try to make you believe that you are the main suspect in a crime and use fear and threats and other forms of intimidation to force you to comply with a request. Most people hit the computer search button and are directed mainly to charity sites who always favour the “authority” irrespective of who it is, so avoid these alleged charity or other dubious sponsored debt sites, so let’s look at the law.

Every interview under caution must be conducted to strict criteria and this must begin with the caution “you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something, you may later rely on in court” and this is telling. You do not have to say anything, so don’t, don’t even bother to confirm your name, address, or date of birth as this gives them joinder and the last thing you want is to give them joinder; similarly, never begin to answer questions and then begin saying no comment. If you begin to answer questions you are confirming their authority “by action” and you don’t want this. Never let them take photos, fingerprints or DNA swabs as these are your intellectual property and you retain all rights over them.

Any such interview should be conducted professionally and with full respect for your rights and these are set out under PACE and Human Rights legislation but in most cases it will be a desk jockey from the council or DWP asking them and believe me they don’t even know their own rules, so do you think they will respect your rights. They will often claim that a negative inference will be drawn from your refusal to answer questions, yet the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act says something totally different in sections 34-38.

Any failure to answer questions only applies during questioning.

In the case of R V Hind 2005 the judge summed it up nicely and set a legal precedent by stating:

No adverse inference can be drawn from an answer that was not given to a question that was never asked.

So by not speaking and answering any of their questions you are actually in a much better position if they intend taking a case to court.

Forced confessions are another bone of contention as in many cases all they have is threats of penalising you in some way and this is all they have, this is why most authorities make fraudulent claims to it being in your best interests to attend, because it’s in their best interests to attend, how else are they going to get the evidence other than your own self-incrimination. Forcing someone into a confession is actually governed by section 76 of PACE and sections of the Human Rights Act, any confession obtained by oppressive means it is inadmissible in court and this was demonstrated in the case of Sanders V UK where it was ruled that any penalty used by the suspects refusal to answer questions infringes on a person’s right “not to self-incriminate”. Interviews under caution have an unconditional right to silence and the Burdon is on any investigator to prove you committed an offence, and not upon you to prove your innocence.

One common po-lice action in recent years is issuing Po-lice Information Notices and these can be for anything ranging from alleged harassment to neighbour disputes and it doesn’t matter what they try to issue them for, be under no illusions here as it is the po-lice acting as judge, jury, and executioner. By accepting such a notice you are admitting to guilt and nothing else, and despite po-lice claims to the contrary it is put on a file and is retained by the po-lice, so you never accept them under any circumstances and if they try the usual tactic of threatening you with arrest you call their bluff and tell them to arrest you and you will follow it up with a civil tort. If they actually had any reasonable suspicion of a crime and that it was an indictable offence they would have already arrested you, so be fully aware that they are in the last chance saloon and their only hope of getting you to admit to an alleged offence is to get you to admit to it by accepting a PIN (consenting in action). In many cases they will even write one out and keep trying to get your name, if someone else gives it to them then it is inadmissible as YOU are the only person who can identify yourself and only YOU can confirm your own identity, without a name then who is the PIN addressed to? It is worthless. You never accept such notices and certainly never sign one as often they assume a name and even put it on the notice and try to get you to accept it. If they apply such pressure on you to sign it you can use a couple of tricks and the first one is to write V.C. before the signature as this is the abbreviation for the Latin term vi coactus which means you have been forced into something and the signature is invalid. Secondly you can use ellipses which are basically three dots or full stops and these are placed before the signature and VC to give:

… V.C. john smith  

Ellipses basically mean the paper or notice was signed under duress and this is confirmed TWICE as the ellipses are the first confirmation of duress and the second confirmation of duress is vi coactus, so with two forms of confirmation of duress the signature is invalid even though one of these is sufficient.

Offence types are the most important aspect to learn as there are summary offences, triable either way offences, and indictable offences and it is crucial to know the difference as only an indictable offence is an arrestable offence, but most triable either way offences are termed as arrestable offences, so learn the difference. If a po-lice officer threatens to arrest you for invoking your right to remain silent or for a summary offence then you know he/she is trying it on and you have an instant claim against the Chief Constable, so make a complaint and as a minimum you have the constable for NOT acting in the execution of his/her duties, unlawful detention, and battery so we have the trilogy which means a starting price of £1000 compensation.

In all cases you need to record the incident, if a constable is in a public place, on your property, and is in uniform or identifies him/herself as a constable and produces a warrant card, you have every right to film them; even if they don’t want you to film them. If they have their hands on CS spray (class 5 firearm) or a taser, or even their truncheon or have it withdrawn, it becomes an aggravated assault and the claim value goes up.

Basically, when you make an official complaint to the IPCC (with the independent part being laughable) they will not listen to your complaint as they only ever deal with the select few of the most serious complaints, they accept complaints and pass them back to the force you are complaining about. Now we have basic nepotism as the same plod you are complaining about are the ones who are investigating your complaint, and if you have reason to complain you should expect an impartial hearing as only recently a case came into the media where the same cop was investigating a complaint about himself which is a clear breach and proof that it is nothing more than a smokescreen.

When you make an official complaint and any subsequent claim it is better not to do it immediately to prevent any harassment from the po-lice, in my experience it is better to collate all your evidence and write out the facts IMMEDIATELY as the memory can be fickle with time. You then wait for several months and then submit your complaint, but why? Po-lice are corrupt and by bringing an immediate claim they know what you are doing and they will fudge their pocket books and write out fraudulent statements as you have informed them of your intent and even dispose of evidence to help them win any subsequent case. In short you give them time as this helps prevent them from doctoring evidence and removing evidence and destroying it as they would if they knew a claim was coming; this isn’t infallible but it removes a lot of the risks of them tampering with anything.

Police And Criminal Evidence Act

17 Entry for purpose of arrest etc.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any other enactment, a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose—
(a)of executing—
(i)a warrant of arrest issued in connection with or arising out of criminal proceedings; or
(ii)a warrant of commitment issued under section 76 of the M1Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980;
(b)of arresting a person for an [F1indictable] offence;

18 Entry and search after arrest.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a constable may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an [F1indictable] offence, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates—
(a)to that offence; or
(b)to some other [F1indictable] offence which is connected with or similar to that offence.
(2)A constable may seize and retain anything for which he may search under subsection (1) above.
(3)The power to search conferred by subsection (1) above is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering such evidence.
(4)Subject to subsection (5) below, the powers conferred by this section may not be exercised unless an officer of the rank of inspector or above has authorised them in writing.

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.

22 Retention.

(1)Subject to subsection (4) below, anything which has been seized by a constable or taken away by a constable following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 above may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.

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.

24 Arrest without warrant: constables

(1)A constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b)anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
(c)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;
(d)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

28 Information to be given on arrest.

(1)Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.
(2)Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.
(3)Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.
(4)Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.
(5)Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed—
(a)that he is under arrest; or
(b)of the ground for the arrest,
if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given.

41 Limits on period of detention without charge.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 42 and 43 below, a person shall not be kept in police detention for more than 24 hours without being charged.
(2)The time from which the period of detention of a person is to be calculated (in this Act referred to as “the relevant time”)—
(a)in the case of a person to whom this paragraph applies, shall be—
(i)the time at which that person arrives at the relevant police station; or
(ii)the time 24 hours after the time of that person’s arrest,
whichever is the earlier;

assassin wrote:It’s a commonly asked question, “should I report the police” and the answer is a resounding YES because in numerous cases you can report the police for many things and in a large number of cases they will uphold your complaint and you may receive compensation, so financially it can be worth your while reporting them.

unless it is deemed a directional and procedural error and then you're f*cked with out a leg to stand on.

No you're not as long as they make the error and you have evidence of it.

Well thats a coincidence assassin , Today i received via ebay a GoPro camera which I have bought for the specific purpose of filming public officials .

As soon as the weather picks up I intend to start conducting what is called in the US 'First Amendment Audits'
I would advise folk take a look at these on youtube ,as these audits are becoming very numerous in the US.
Of course some of their laws are different ,but the basic principles are the same.

Thanks for the above info Assassin its put a lot of the info into one place ,I just need to brush-up on the terrorism act a little more ,as I am sure they will try using that one. But at the end of the day it all comes down to them being able to articulate any alleged offense.

your info is very good assassin (don't appreciate the edit of the post btw its that effin U again stirring up trouble )
daveiron happy hunting with your gpro don't forget your backup stealth cam, what is it a smiley face or a button?

Got that all covered ,Go Pro, two phones & a video camera.

Every interview under caution must be conducted to strict criteria and this must begin with the caution “you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something, you may later rely on in court”

In every TV Licence video I've noticed that the 'Inspector' only reads out the caution when they have obtained all available evidence/notes and completed their 'form' .  Is this *rse about face or what?

Mike, an excellent point and another abuse uncovered.