Police Tactics Understanding

Understanding is what its all about and in this little article we shall look at po-lice tactics and how they evolve and how and why they use them and how you can readily avoid them and turn the tables on them; this is not an in depth understanding and more of a stepping stone to avoiding them.

Most people fall into the category of intellectually stupid and what does this mean? Basically it means they have been indoctrinated by society into believing they have to answer to, or answer the questions of anyone in a uniform and once out of this mentality they can actually see their freedom and the po-lice know this and exploit it. They begin with the approach and in many cases this is pleasant and has to give the appearance of being pleasant and this is for good reason as they are evaluating you from the outset to see if they can get you talking and if so can they move this onto the next stage of getting you wound up so you will begin shouting and potentially threatening people or property, so let’s look at this in detail.

They approach with a pleasant attitude and hope you reciprocate and if you say good morning in response to their polite approach they have achieved their first objective of getting you talking and their evaluation of you has begun; this is followed by asking you some basic questions which are very carefully scripted and presented and they are merely ramping their evaluation up. These carefully scripted questions are termed two way response questions as whichever way you respond determines their next move and line of questioning and remember they ask questions for a reason and some very clever psychologists have scripted these questions which at this stage are still vague.
If you respond in a polite manner they can term you as polite and work on the assumption that they can get you talking and the more you talk gives them more opportunities to get you to self incriminate and this is their ultimate objective as you admit an offence in their presence and they witness this.
If you are hostile and unpleasant in your response then they work on another assumption and this is that they can be more aggressive and you will respond in an aggressive manner and they can get you on a section 5 public order offence, so basically a win win situation for the po-lice.

So what happens if you remain silent? Actually nothing as the po-lice first have to prove a criminal offence has occurred and secondly that you have committed that crime so at this stage it’s only an allegation and an unproven allegation and the police are bone idle and lazy and rather than investigate to see if a crime has occurred they opt for the easy route of getting you to self incriminate rather than investigating. This self incrimination has now become their default setting and deployed tactic. Investigations take time and resources and both time and resources cost money and remember that po-lice forces are private companies and private companies are there to make profits and not losses and if they can get you to admit to a crime they can run straight to arrest and charges and they are witnesses to your confessions and you are guilty in court. Courts are not there for justice as magistrates and crown courts are there to make money for their bosses and nothing else and there is no such thing as justice when money is involved as the only thing considered is “how much profit is involved”.
Golden rule, STAY SILENT AND SAY NOTHING.

Often they claim someone has phoned them to report you and many people phone the po-lice and in most cases this is NOT for a criminal offence but the po-lice respond but why? Actually the answer is very easy as it is for money and nothing else and sometimes they give themselves away by doing something and not asking why they are doing it. In any instance they want the name because they are making a financial claim against the name as the cestue que vie trust is set up in the name and they want to claim against it and nothing more. Let’s look at the nature of their claims and cut through the B/S and ask a straight question; who has made a claim or allegation, what is the claim or allegation and who exactly has it been made against as this is crucial to understand.
If the po-lice are unwilling to name the complainant then it is an invalid claim and no claim exists, what is the exact nature of their claim, oh he assaulted be by punching me in the face, and exactly who is this claim being made against, oh the man from 150 Acacia Avenue.
So someone unnamed has phoned the po-lice and made an allegation, they claim to have been punched in the face by a man living at 150 Acacia Avenue and straight away the po-lice take this claim at face value and assume it is a legitimate claim and act accordingly by going around to 150 Acacia Avenie and question a man who lives there about an incident. Let’s look at this again and enter variables; a man and woman live at the address and they have three grown up children, themselves adults and two males and one female so exactly which male is the claim being levied against. Lets throw in more variables, the residents have the builders in building an extension and there are 2 builders, 2 roofers, one electrician and one plumber with his apprentice and there are now 10 males at this address at the time of the alleged incident so which one is the claim being made against. You only need 8 score draws on the pools coupon.
Now hopefully you can see the variables and the next variable is a fraudulent claim and if you did hit someone then why as self defence may come into the equation if he assaulted you first and you defended yourself, and this is what the po-lice love as they can create contention and make it all about his word against you and get you arguing. They do this to create stress and they know that a stressed person is likely to self incriminate and two parties arguing can mean they draw the conclusion that it is a public order offence and you can both be charged and charged with a criminal offence so what’s the difference, they are going to make charges against both your cestue qui vie trusts anyway.

What is the usual rhetoric, generally they ask for your name and you refuse to give it and they ask WHY, and they are taught to do this to keep an argument going or start an argument and put you on the back foot and remember they are experienced in these tactics and you aren’t and by not speaking you instantly cut this avenue off. They often begin to make fraudulent claims and many say you have to give your name and date of birth as this is a favourite especially with PCSO’s who have little power and often act as though they are a constable, but they aren’t and hope their similar uniforms will convince you that they are the po-lice and you play ball.

Their often default claim is that they want your side of the story and note the words here, they, want, and story, as these are crucial to understand as they refers to the po-lice in general and specifically as the claimant against the cestue que vie trust, want because they would like you to tell them for several reasons. First it is self incrimination so you automatically admit this incident has taken place by giving your side, and secondly is the word Story as until you admit this incident has occurred it is a story or unsubstantiated claim and until you admit it has occurred and given your side and your name it would be invalid as they cannot prove something has occurred and who they are claiming against. Are the mists clearing yet????? They are getting you to consent to their services and that is all, if you actually give your side of the story you are actually consenting to them acting in this matter and charging your cestue que vie trust for their time; say nothing and you aren’t consenting.

Next we start with the excuses, we need your name “so we can run you through the system” so why would they need to run you through their system, and this often ties up with “giving words of advice” as they are both about one thing which is giving service or specifically giving you a service you do not need or have asked for, but one which your cestue que vie trust will be charged for. They claim you may be wanted or have an outstanding warrant so if they suspect this they should say so and give the evidence they are basing this claim upon and not simply taking the easy option of checking you automatically and acting upon an assumption as this is a plain fishing trip on their part, or is it. In reality this is making a false assumption of you being guilty of something and them building up future evidence against you which gives them ammunition against you.

Auditing is popular and a useful example to show what I mean as these people go around and act totally legally and lawfully and film from public spaces and they know what constitutes a public space and often carry the lawful precedents with them. Next you get certain individuals with the brains of a dead sausage, the security who have no brains and huge ego’s and certain management levels who are so used to giving their staff orders that they think they can do the same to you and these auditors see it all and often record it.
Next you get the brainless idiots who come out citing the law, is it the law they are citing, actually it is NOT the law as it is their opinion of what they think the law actually is, but isn’t and the first thing so many get wrong is that they think they have some right not to be filmed and the law says you can film what you can see from a public space. They come out shouting and showing hostility to try to verbally assault the photographers and then usually threaten them and it is all on camera and while some may threaten to bring a legal case against someone others are more sinister and make plain threats to assault someone.
Next we have the “this is private land” argument and if you can film what you can see from a public space they have no argument and if they don’t want people seeing what your business is doing then take it inside and make it private so it cannot be seen from a public or publicly accessible area and stop misquoting the law as you are committing an offence of Fraud by False Representation which is a criminal offence.

Then it turns to calling the po-lice; their claims and threats have failed and this is their last resort to try and intimidate and threaten you into doing what they want and I have watched some of these videos with great interest and a critical eye as some police come and tell those making the threats that you have every right to be there and film and they can do nothing. Those in the other camp are the ones to be concerned about as they often say that the land owners have asked us to come and find out who you are, or, those in the building felt uneasy, or, they don’t like their private vehicles being filmed and these who are abusing their position and the law as their only concern should be what law/s are being broken. They have already admitted they are working on behalf of the land owner and not upholding your lawful rights and this is a clear breach of the Police Codes of Conduct and the Nolan Principles but they don’t care as any claim is made against the Po-lice force and not them individually. Watching some of these type of videos is a way of learning the corrupt Po-lice tactics first hand.

Our final section is the play on words and peoples assumptions and I would say nothing and make no assumptions as po-lice are taught something called “deceptive strategy” and this is the use of words to make you assume you have to do something which you don’t and many people comply without reason or question.
This strategy operates very simply and uses the suggestion strategy of presentation and all this is a form of presenting something in a way which makes people feel as though they have to comply when in law they don’t hence the name of “suggestive strategy” and “deceptive strategy” as they are basically the same thing to make you voluntarily do something. They stop you for something which is not a criminal offence and hope you will voluntarily stay and if you do they ask if you have some form of I.D. as this is a simple question and many people will say yes and give the Po-lice their I.D. and you have voluntarily given it and also consented to them acting in a non criminal matter and running you through their system and providing you with a service and charging you for it.
If you simply ask what crime you have committed and they say you haven’t committed a crime then tell them to bugger off and if they turn to their other favoured rhetoric of “you are obstructing an enquiry and this is a criminal offence you have them saying there has been no crime committed. One other version of this is for the po-lice to say they are investigating to see if a crime has been committed, or they don’t know which crime has been committed then NO crime has been committed and they cannot detain you for a crime which has not been committed and that is from the High Court. If no crime has been committed then what are they investigating as there can be no investigation so therefore there is no obstruction.

Remember the po-lice know most people are ignorant generally and ignorant of the law and exploit this ignorance to their (financial) advantage.

JUst to add to the excellent post above:

Rice v Connolly: 1966
No Legal Duty to Assist a Constable

At common law there is no legal duty to provide the police with information or otherwise to assist them with their inquiries. Lord Parker set out three questions to be answered when asking whether there had been an obstruction of an officer in the execution of his duties: (1) Was there any obstruction of a constable? (2) Was the Constable acting lawfully in the execution of his duty? And (3) Was the obstruction intended to obstruct the constable in the execution of his duty?
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It is also in my judgment clear that it is part of the obligations and duties of a police constable to take all steps which appear to him necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime or for protecting property from criminal injury. There is no exhaustive definition of the powers and obligations of the police, but they are at least those, and they would further include the duty to detect crime and to bring an offender to justice . . it seems to me quite clear that the defendant was making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties, and that the police at the time and throughout were acting in accordance with their duties. The only remaining ingredient, and the one upon which in my judgment this case revolves, is whether the obstructing of which the defendant was guilty was a wilful obstruction. ‘Wilful’ in this context not only in my judgment means ‘intentional’ but something which is done without lawful excuse, and that is indeed conceded . . Accordingly, the sole question here is whether the defendant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that although every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place; short, of course, of arrest.’
. . and ‘In my judgment there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story someth ing which on no view a citizen has a right to do – and preserving silence or refusing to answer, something which he has every right to do. Accordingly, in my judgment, looked at in that perfectly general way, it was not shown that the refusal of the defendant to answer the questions or to accompany the police officer in the first instance to the police box was an obstruction without lawful excuse. ‘

Lord Parker CJ
[1966] 2 QB 414, [1966] 3 WLR 17
Police Act 1964 51(3)
England and Wales

Also " Asking a man or woman to lay claim to a legal person's name is Legal
Entrapment,unlawful and a crime"

Thats part 2 covered Dave.

Part 2

In the next section we have to understand some subtle differences and ask some relevant questions and not accept vague or misleading answers and be very specific to give the po-lice as little wiggle room as possible and this is for good reason; if you have an issue it will be tossed and turned by police, corrupt magistrates and they all close ranks against you and this part of proceedings becomes crucial.

Are the po-lice making a demand or a request? If you are not sure then ask and if they don’t answer then ask again forcefully and if they still refuse to answer of try to deflect you away from their failure to answer your legitimate question then clearly state “that is a request then” and clearly decline by saying “you failed to answer a legitimate question and your repeated failure to answer leads me to believe this is a request which I will decline” an d now things get tasty. Lawful precedents in the case of Rice V Connolly a lawful precedent was set in that there is no lawful obligation to help the po-lice and that under common law you have the right to remain silent and your common law rights are inalienable rights which cannot be removed and upholding a common law right cannot be construed as obstructing a constable. Statutory legislation they are relying on is Government law and is inferior to superior common law.

So, where do they go now other than walk away or threaten you, if they walk away then fine but it’s the ignorance which comes to the fore here as you need to highlight their ignorance and expose their fraudulent activities as you are now preparing your ground for a claim against the Police and their first retort is to arrest you for obstruction so call their bluff. Ask them for their number and their warrant card and if they refuse and fail to give their number, name, and warrant card they are acting unlawfully and illegally and anything they do from this point is inadmissible so if they say “all you need is my number” they are lying and breaking the law so let them do it and you have the evidence of their fraud and corruption.

I actually dare them to arrest me and mention that it would be a breach of my Human Rights, Common Law, and becomes unlawful as battery, assault, unlawful arrest, unlawful detention and kidnap are serious criminal offences and this makes me much more compensation and generally the po-lice laugh and say the claim will be against their force and not them directly.

How wrong they are as I now claim directly against the constable/s for their unlawful actions and everyone has been won and this precedent will see more claims against individual constables and not just their po-lice forces as you can bring a second claim against their po-lice force under vicarious liability.

Auditing is popular and a useful example to show what I mean as these people go around and act totally legally and lawfully and film from public spaces and they know what constitutes a public space and often carry the lawful precedents with them. Next you get certain individuals with the brains of a dead festering sausage, the security who have no brains and huge ego’s and certain management levels who are so used to giving their staff orders that they think they can do the same to you and these auditors see it all and often record it.
Next you get the brainless idiots who come out citing the law, is it the law they are citing, actually it is NOT the law as it is their opinion of what they think the law actually is, but isn’t and the first thing so many get wrong is that they think they have some right not to be filmed and the law says you can film what you can see from a public space. They come out shouting and showing hostility to try to verbally assault the photographers and then usually threaten them and it is all on camera and while some may threaten to bring a legal case against someone others are more sinister and make plain threats to assault someone.
Next we have the “this is private land” argument and if you can film what you can see from a public space they have no argument and if they don’t want people seeing what your business is doing then take it inside and make it private so it cannot be seen from a public or publicly accessible area and stop misquoting the law as you are committing an offence of Fraud by False Representation which is a criminal offence. I would suggest flying a drone over their premises if you have one and then see what happens, then think claim and compo.

Then it turns to calling the po-lice; their claims and threats have failed and this is their last resort to try and intimidate and threaten you into doing what they want and I have watched some of these videos with great interest and a critical eye as some police come and tell those making the threats that you have every right to be there and film and they can do nothing. Those in the other camp are the ones to be concerned about as they often say that the land owners have asked us to come and find out who you are, or, those in the building felt uneasy, or, they don’t like their private vehicles being filmed and these who are abusing their position and the law as their only concern should be what law/s are being broken. They have already admitted they are working on behalf of the land owner and not upholding your lawful rights and this is a clear breach of the Police Codes of Conduct and the Nolan Principles but they don’t care as any claim is generally made against the Po-lice force and not them individually. Watching some of these types of videos is a way of learning the corrupt Po-lice tactics first hand.

Our final section is the play on words and peoples assumptions and I would say nothing and make no assumptions as po-lice are taught something called “deceptive strategy” and this is the use of words to make you assume you have to do something which you don’t and many people comply without reason or question.
This strategy operates very simply and uses the suggestion strategy of presentation and all this is a form of presenting something in a way which makes people feel as though they have to comply when in law they don’t hence the name of “suggestive strategy” and “deceptive strategy” as they are basically the same thing to make you voluntarily do something. They stop you for something which is not a criminal offence and hope you will voluntarily stay and if you do they ask if you have some form of I.D. as this is a simple question and many people will say yes and give the Po-lice their I.D. and you have voluntarily given it and also consented to them acting in a non criminal matter and running you through their system and providing you with a service and charging you for it.
If you simply ask what crime you have committed and they say you haven’t committed a crime then tell them to bugger off and if they turn to their other favoured rhetoric of “you are obstructing an enquiry and this is a criminal offence" you have them saying there has been no crime committed. One other version of this is for the po-lice to say they are investigating to see if a crime has been committed, or they don’t know which crime has been committed then NO crime has been committed and they cannot detain you for a crime which has not been committed and that is from the High Court. If no crime has been committed then what are they investigating as there can be no investigation so therefore there is no obstruction.

Currently section 50 seems popular and this is anti social behaviour legislation and this is an ACT and as common law trumps acts of Parliament common law is the overriding legislation and it says you have an inalienable right to silence. Now we get the po-lice misinformation and mistruths as S50 gives the po-lice power to ask for your name and address but NOT your date of birth and common law as the over riding legislation gives you the right to remain silent and say nothing so let them arrest you as the first thing they do is caution you and say “you have the right to remain silent” so see the hypocrisy here. They arrest you for not giving your name then tell you that you don’t have to give it. It’s a no brainer.

S50 is a total screw up as regards legislation as it is actually very specific in requiring specific belief based upon evidence that a S50 offence has been committed and there has to be a victim/victims and sufficient evidence that such an offence has occurred and they cannot presume that you will engage in some anti social behaviour in the future as this simply doesn’t cut it. Performing any legal of lawful activity cannot cause alarm and distress and if people claim this against a lawful activity they its policing based upon people’s feelings and not the law and they police based upon law.

If the po-lice use section 50 of the Police reform Act then record them claiming they are using it and obtaining your details as often the po-lice claim they didn’t use it and you gave your details voluntarily and basically lie their way out of it

Section 43/44 is fairly common still and while S44 has been repealed some idiot po-lice still try and use it and hope you don’t realise they are lying and comply; section 43 is different and is still in force and has seen a case being bought because of it constantly being abused by the po-lice to illegally and unlawfully overrule peoples LAWFUL rights to remain silent.
In this case in the High Court a Judge ruled that a lawful activity was not sufficient grounds for suspicion and reasonable suspicion could not be used when people were undertaking lawful activities and everyone from IPCC/IOPC, and various po-lice associations put out advice to comply with this lawful judgement and basically not committing a crime is and cannot be used as reasonable suspicion. He consolidated his decision by clearly stating that any lawful activity cannot be used and to get actual prima facsie evidence of a terrorist related offence before reasonable suspicion could even be used, in addition to this he questioned if a constable should approach a suspected terrorist and suggested if they had reasonable suspicion of terrorism they should contact the anti terrorist squad and not approach the suspect and instantly quashed this abuse of the terrorism act.

Section 5 public order is another favourite in which they say your behaviour is causing alarm, distress or harassment  and nothing more, actually there is a lot more than their carefully constructed abbreviation of section 5 and I would suggest everyone reads it and fully understands it as more po-lice drop themselves in the doo doo over S5 offences.
S5 is defined as using threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour.
OR
Displays any writing, sign or other visual representation  which is threatening or abusive.

This section comes down to a couple of key areas, was it undertaken inside a dwelling, and did the offended have reasonable suspicion to think he could not be heard and cause alarm, harassment or distress to others, and did he/she intent causing alarm or distress to others. In simple terms it has to be undertaken outside and with the full intention of causing harassment alarm or distress and did the offender have reasonable grounds to make it public and it is this which caused the confusion.

This was put before the High Court as po-lice were knowingly abusing this section of law and claiming they were harassed alarmed and distressed by a persons actions and using this as reasonable suspicion but the High Court Judge ruled differently and to the letter of the law.
He said that no constable or po-lice officer could be offended as they were there to uphold the law and someone making threats and using abusive language was a part of their job remit and this instantly shut the avenue of po-lice being alarmed, distressed, or harassed down and stopped them using this as evidence for an arrest and basically anyone could swear, make obscene gestures and basically do what they liked in front of the po-lice. It got better as the po-lice used to assume people could hear something and be alarmed, or often approach members of the public and solicit a complaint from a member of the public and the High Court ruled that:

The po-lice could not solicit an response from the public.
And
That until any member of the public made an unsolicited complaint it couldn’t be upheld unless there was substantial proof of said offence.

This actually caame about when the police realised they were being filmed and live streamed and solicited an elderly gentleman passing by to make a section 5 complaint and he wouldn't; it was found that this gentleman was deaf and on his way to get batteries for his hearing aid and that the po-lice were making an assumption of something that couldn't occue because the gentleman was deaf and if he couldn't hear it then he couldn't be harassed, alarmed, or distressed and the po-lice shouldn't make such assumptions.


Let us look at some documents and specifically the Police Code of Ethics as they are legally bound by these:

1. Honesty and integrity
I will be honest and act with integrity at all times,
and will not compromise or abuse my position

2. Authority, respect and courtesy
I will act with self-control and tolerance,
treating members of the public and
colleagues with respect and courtesy.
I will use my powers and authority lawfully
and proportionately, and will respect the
rights of all individuals.

5. Orders and instructions
I will, as a police officer, give and carry
out lawful orders only, and will abide by
Police Regulations.

10. Challenging and reporting
improper behaviour
I will report, challenge or take action against
the conduct of colleagues which has fallen
below the standards of professional behaviour.

Yeah, right and I will believe it when I see it.

A very helpful and informative article that gives some footholds on the slippery slopes of deceptive strategy. Much appreciated.

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.
By stopping you without reasonable suspicion it becomes an unlawful detention and claim time.

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. In such an instance they can run a PNC check on your vehicle and if it is fully taxed, MOT’d and insured why are they assuming you have no driving license, where is their “reasonable suspicion” .

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.
What they never tell you is that they have to give you “service” and this is a service you don’t want, never asked for, and don’t need but they will still grab every opportunity to give it and the reason is actually very simple. Once they give you service they can charge you for it and you don’t even know you have been given a service and that you are being charged for it and they make a claim against your cestui que vie trust and this is the trust created when you are born and the reason people use the saying “slave to the system” as you are the slave and to their system.
This is also the reason po-lice like to give you words of advice as they have given service, or they like giving you orders or directives as this counts as service and boy are their bosses going to charge your trust for it. The reason they always try for the name is equally simple and this is because the trust can only ever be set up in the name and they need you to confirm your name and address as this is the service address for the name and your date of birth concludes it is you.

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 requests 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 minimal 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. They often think they are the law and it doesn’t apply to them, it does.

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, or they are arresting you.

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.
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 required to remain impartial at all times” and to treat the public with courtesy and respect. No hope of that with some of their ego's.

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 an 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.