The End Times of Albion: Interacting with the Staatliche Gedankenpolizei — A Survival Guide

The essay below by Seneca III is the latest in the “End Times of Albion” series.
Previously: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Interacting with the Staatliche Gedankenpolizei — A Survival Guide

The End Times of Albion, Part Four

by Seneca III

Staatliche Gedankenpolizei is German for ‘State Thought Police’. Hereinafter they will be referred to by the acronym ‘STAPO’.

Previously, records released to The Times newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act show that by October 2017 more than 3,400 people had been arrested under the provisions of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for online comments alone…

…and therefore it should come as no surprise that many others have been arrested and prosecuted for committing Thought Crimes in person in real time such as in the recent case of the middle-aged lady in London who was initially arrested for wishing someone a ‘gay day’ in what might even be a carefully orchestrated set-up in revenge for her public online humiliation and exposure of the fearful Dhimmitude of the Metropolitan Police in Hyde Park some weeks previously, as was reported here, and the consequences explained in the immediate aftermath here.

What is particularly suspicious about this incident is the fortuitous (for the STAPO case) appearance of an eventually hostile witness who appears to have at first presented himself to the accused as a witness for the defence. That is what led to her unnecessary violent arrest and eventual prosecution for ‘perverting the course of justice’, which in itself is rather ironic when one considers the way the STAPO went about the process of her arrest, interrogation and charging. As they do.

However, I do note some inconsistences or lacunae in the account the victim gave in the taxi going home, possibly owing to the lack of a specific time scale of events throughout this story or her understandable distress having immediately prior to the journey escaped from an ordeal that she had neither experienced before, expected nor understood.

For example: When was her phone confiscated, and when was it returned so that footage could be posted on the Internet? Who was the second person in the taxi with her on the way home, and why and what was her motivation? At what stage did the victim speak with the person whom she presumed was a witness on her behalf, and whose eventual recantation appears to have given grounds for the charge of ‘perverting the course of justice’?

These things give me cause for concern as to what precisely was going on there.

Whereas over the years I have come to understand and thus become inured and hardened to the ways and means by which the Establishment and its enforcement arms have gradually turned my homeland into a Marxist-Islamofascist tyranny, I can nevertheless empathise with this woman’s distress, fear, confusion and susceptibility to intimidation.

Although she is at least a couple of decades younger than I, she will also have been born into and grown to maturity during a time when the police, on the whole, adhered to the rule of law and its prescribed procedures as applicable to their authority and actions, still much in line with the original precepts as laid down by Sir Robert Peel, founder of Metropolitan Police in 1829, but, alas, no more. (See Annex).

Admittedly, the Met does have a long history of a certain amount of corruption within its ranks, but the majority of it, with certain notable exceptions, has been in pursuit of personal financial gain. That is not unusual within large groups of people who have been vested with powers and authority beyond those of the man in the street — Parliament is a perfect example of this syndrome. And now, thanks to the machinations of these two entities, Parliament and the Police, we face a future of harshly imposed subjugation to the ideologies and activities of various alien multicultures and their equally deviant enablers and protectors.

The law as it pertains to arrest


The police arrest procedure

If you’re arrested the police must:

  • identify themselves as the police
  • tell you that you’re being arrested
  • tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
  • explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
  • explain to you that you’re not free to leave

[This applies whether they are attempting to arrest you in your own home or in a public place and in the former case you have certain unalienable rights:

Also, depending on whether they are attempting to arrest you for an indictable offence (thus a right to a trial by jury) or, as in this case, a summary offence (a trial in a Magistrates’ Court) defines whether or not they have a legal right (indictable offence) to enter your home, including by forcing their way in or by breaking down your door, or no right at all for a Summary offence.

Furthermore, as she was not told anything at the time of arrest as to what offence she was to be charged with (a summary or an indictable offence), she was totally within her rights to refuse them entry anyway. S III.]

Hint. Watch this video as many times as necessary to steel your minds and prepare yourselves for what may soon be coming to your door.

And if you are foolish enough to let them in, bear this in mind…

…Police powers to use reasonable force

If you try to escape or become violent, the police can use ‘reasonable force’, e.g. holding you down so you can’t run off.

You can also be handcuffed.

The police have powers to search you when you’re arrested…

…which is precisely what happened in the case in question. NEVER, I say again NEVER let them into your house voluntarily, particularly as again in this case they refused to tell her what she was being arrested for, tell her what crime they thought she had committed, explained why it was necessary to arrest her and explain to her that she was not free to leave.

Note: Perverting the course of justice as defined by the second of the three actions below is an indictable offence that must be tried before a jury.

  • Fabricating or disposing of evidence
  • Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
  • Intimidating or threatening a judge

Which again raises a faint and probably false suspicion in my mind that all of this just might be a set-up rather than a coincidence, and more and more indicates that this charge was cooked up after her arrest and interrogation (without legal representation?) and did not exist when the STAPO thugs first came fishing.

A possible upside to this whole sorry saga is an indication that these intellectually destitute STAPO clowns were not aware that by using that particular charge her case must be heard in a trial by jury where she should have competent legal counsel representing her.

Or, more probably, after the CPC has had a good look at the case, it will tell them to quietly drop it, because they don’t have a leg to stand on, and anyway the stupid plonkers have already let too many cats out of the bag.

If that happens she and her friends and supporters should not let it end there, but go for the jugular. We shall see.

The law as it pertains to custody


Your rights in custody

The custody officer at the police station must explain your rights. You have the right to:

  • get free legal advice
  • tell someone where you are
  • have medical help if you’re feeling ill
  • see the rules the police must follow (‘Codes of Practice’)
  • see a written notice telling you about your rights, eg regular breaks for food and to use the toilet (you can ask for a notice in your language) or an interpreter to explain the notice
  • You’ll be searched and your possessions will be kept by the police custody officer while you’re in the cell.

Your rights when being questioned

The police may question you about the crime you’re suspected of — this will be recorded. You don’t have to answer the questions but there could be consequences if you don’t. The police must explain this to you by reading you the police caution:

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence…”

[Testicles — if you haven’t said anything at all, that is your legal right, nor can you be expected to formulate your defence until you fully understand the charge and your legal counsel has been able to obtain whatever information is available according to the rules of disclosure (which is rarely easy to come by because of the obstructionism, evasions and prevarications employed by the police and the CPS[1])

Do understand that they’re trying to frighten and intimidate you yet again, so SAY NOTHING because ‘Anything you do say may be given in evidence’ and it will be, but it will be whatever they tricked you or frightened and confused you into saying during the interrogation. Beria’s NKVD were simply physically brutal thugs and had nothing on the trained, ingrained sophistry and downright duplicity of our lot. —S III]

…and you’ll usually be taken to a police station, held in custody in a cell and then questioned.

After you’ve been taken to a police station, you may be released or charged with a crime.

How long you can be held in custody

The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you.

They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, e.g. murder.

You can be held without charge for up to 14 days If you’re arrested under the Terrorism Act.

When you can be released on bail

The police can release you on police bail if there’s not enough evidence to charge you. You don’t have to pay to be released on police bail, but you’ll have to return to the station for further questioning when asked.

You can be released on conditional bail if the police charge you and think that you may:

  • commit another offence
  • fail to turn up at court
  • intimidate other witnesses
  • obstruct the course of justice

This means your freedom will be restricted in some way, e.g. they can impose a curfew on you if your offence was committed at night.

How you can get free legal advice

You must be told about your right to free legal advice after you’re arrested and before you’re questioned at a police station. You can:

  • ask for the police station’s ‘duty solicitor’ — they’re available 24 hours a day and independent of the police
  • tell the police you would like legal advice — the police will contact the Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC)
  • ask the police to contact a solicitor, eg your own one

You may be offered legal advice over the phone instead of a duty solicitor[2] if you’re suspected of having committed a less serious offence, e.g. being disorderly. The advice is free and independent of the police.

Being questioned without legal advice

Once you’ve asked for legal advice, the police can’t question you until you’ve got it — with some exceptions.

The police can make you wait for legal advice in serious cases, but only if a senior officer agrees.

The longest you can be made to wait before getting legal advice is 36 hours after arriving at the police station (or 48 hours for suspected terrorism).

You have the right to free legal advice if you are questioned by the police.

Complaining about your treatment by the police

Contact the police force you want to complain about if you’re unhappy about how the police have treated you.

Police forces must refer certain types of complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).


This incident I have just reviewed is not just a product of a couple of rogue elements operating in isolation. Rogue elements can only exist if their leadership has itself gone rogue, albeit in more subtle and well-concealed ways. Consequently, if these two apparatchiks and their immediate superiors and mentors, who must have framed and approved the arrest and the charge(s) laid against this woman, are not fully investigated, including for the possibility of collusion in initiating and organising her Hate Crime, ‘have a gay day’ moment, and then prosecuted to the full extent of the law for misconduct in public office, then there will have been established a precedent which will become a commonplace, acceptable norm.

If the Independent Office for Police Conduct can be motivated to investigate and report in full on this incident, then there may be hope. If not, nothing will happen and things will only get worse.


If you are uncertain of your rights and feel you do not have the stamina and willpower to resist the depredations of the STAPO, then say and do nothing and stay well clear of this firefight; it is not a place for you.

If otherwise you feel that you now have nothing left to lose but your children’s chains, then these things you must do to prepare yourself for the present time and what the future holds for you. It will not be easy.

1.   Keep your affairs in clear order so those you should have appointed to administer them in your absence can do so with ease and full understanding.
2.   If you have dependents and/or pets, put arrangements in place such that during any enforced absence at the hands of the STAPO they will be cared for by your family, your immediate circle of friends or any other support group that you may have. You do not need the weight of worry on your shoulders in this sense, because the STAPO will either know or spot this and use it to pressure you, on promise of immediate release on bail, if you will admit to whatever crime they have dredged up and are desperate to get you to admit to. To get you to commit seppuku through voluntary self-conviction is their objective because it makes their lives so much easier.
3.   Attend to your general physical heath at all times, particularly your dental health, because if you are incarcerated and in pain and despite your right to medical attention the STAPO understand full well that prolonged pain and the debilitating effects of other illness, even for a matter of a day or less, can weaken your resolve to exercise your right to remain silent, and they have been known to defer getting you your rightful medical attention for as long as they think they can get away with it; they have more excuses for their actions and inactions than a stray dog has fleas. Keep fit as best you can, it is one of the most powerful weapons in your armoury of resistance.
4.   Through your legal advisor whenever possible, demand and maintain your right to hold free the materials necessary in order write to down and record your experiences and observations whilst incarcerated, and to do so without harassment, oversight, censorship or confiscation. They may try any of these ploys, even apparently by accident, because you are likely to have information on their tactics that they wish to prevent coming to the attention of a judge, magistrate or jury in any future public court case. The more they understand that you will not accede to the pressures they are putting on you, the more likely they will back away from trying to further intimidate you.
5.   Believe. Believe that this course you have set yourself in your pursuit of freedom will in some small way contribute to the realisation of that freedom for those who follow you. It will.


As I was putting the finishing touches to this article, news arrived about Tommy Robinson’s arrest outside of the court in Leeds where the trial of an alleged rape gang was coming to its conclusion started. Whereas previously I had intended to write about the similar Telford atrocity later downstream, I am bringing it forward to next week, as this an appropriate time to do so.

— Seneca III, raging, raging against the dying of the light in what is now the Middle Gulag, this 26th day of May 2018


Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet, FRS (5 February 1788-2 July 1850) was a British statesman of the Conservative Party who served twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1834-35 and 1841-46) and twice as Home Secretary (1822-27 and 1828-30). He is regarded as the father of modern British policing through the Police Reform Act, and as one of the founders of the modern Conservative Party.

Police reform act

It was in 1829 that Peel established the Metropolitan Police Force for London based at Scotland Yard. The 1,000 constables employed were affectionately nicknamed ‘bobbies’ or, somewhat less affectionately, ‘peelers’. Although unpopular at first, they proved very successful in cutting crime in London, and by 1857 all cities in the UK were obliged to form their own police forces. Peel developed the Peelian Principles which defined the ethical requirements police officers must follow to be effective. In 1829, when setting forth the principles of policing a democracy, Sir Robert Peel declared: “The police are the public and the public are the police.”

The nine Peelian Principles were as follows:

  • To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  • To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  • To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  • To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  • To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  • To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  • To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  • To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  • To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Unfortunately, Peel did not foresee that intimidation would become the principal mechanism of civic control through the use of State-sponsored spurious arrests followed by draconian charges sometimes adjudicated in secret courts.

Where art thou now, Sir Robert? We are so desperately in need of you.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

2.   Don’t. Insist on having a solicitor present during all interrogations. — S III

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

22 thoughts on “The End Times of Albion: Interacting with the Staatliche Gedankenpolizei — A Survival Guide

    • People in Oz say they have similar problems with leftists and culture enrichers.

      OTOH, at least they are awake to the fact of China’s plans for their country.

    • Summary of the Quora item: Be under 30 and have a “shortage skill” and you will be OK. As most of us here are over 30 (in order to see the dangers we are facing you mostly have to be over 30!) it isn’t an option unless we already have relatives there.

  1. Great essay.

    I can only add one point and that is to be extra vigilant, paranoid even, if you have minor aged children.

    It is the one point of leverage they know can be used to force cooperation – threatening the children.

    Trust no one from the authorities or social services with regards, ever, unless they are fully trusted close friends already. You might literally have to create a legal barrier to their wish to involve themselves in your family affairs – if you are feeling pressured or hassled, find out how to create that barrier.

    I just cannot reiterate this strongly enough, you will easily be dealing with some sick people in position of authority, and if they have decided to pick on you, they may threaten your family and children directly, legally, knowing that you know there is nothing you can do to stop them because at that moment in time, for whatever reason, you are captive to their authority ( else you would not be there talking to them, right ?), and because they have the power to initiate investigation based on their own invented suspicions . They will catch most people off guard in that way, just by suggestion, opening an accusatorial line of enquiry in the discussion etc., and you would have to sit there not losing your temper and gob it as people who know nothing of your family, people who are obviously not of good intent, start talking on behalf of your children who they have never even met, but would surely want to, and knowingly against your wishes, all so as to demean you or shake your self confidence.

    I have faced this on five completely distinct occasions from supposedly unrelated services – unless you are of strong mind, you will probably end up thinking you are the one at wrong. In my case I live a very simple documented and open reality, and know that there is nothing to go against me – but you still have to deal with the idea of sick minded people trying to interact with your children, possibly looking to invent a case.

    Not fun.

    The police will advance until there is a physical barrier they would have to break to continue. So I have had them force open a garden gate with a makeshift latch without breaking anything, but illegal all the same to do so, and push in a door I had my foot behind also, also illegally. So fit a sturdy chain latch if you think you might ever have or want to discuss with police at the door…or else just put on some headphones with nice music and guess it must be the neighbours or something – you’ve done nought wrong so they got the wrong address and you don’t even know if it is police or people pretending to be, and don’t want to find out either etc. It tends to wind them up being ignored though.

    Anyway, I sound like a real troublemaker here, but really I am generally quite ” quiet and refined ” a person, so there.

    • Excellent point, Anon. Thank you, and I would add that cases/accusations/charges involving minors are often heard in Secret Courts where reporting of the process, verdict and punishment, if any or not, are totally forbidden.

      This brutal veil of silence descends like an iron curtain and it is forever on pain of swift, arbitrary conviction and incarceration for bringing it into the light of day in the public domain, as was the fate of TR on Friday last.

      Nothing will change until everything is changed.

      • cases/accusations/charges involving minors are often heard in Secret Courts where reporting of the process, verdict and punishment, if any or not, are totally forbidden.

        I just read of one yesterday. And the boy is suing the bureaucracy responsible. He was kidnapped in VIetnam, brought to the UK where he was imprisoned in a pot farm and not fed very well. When the police found the place they arrested him and he was tried in secret and sent to a juvenile pen where he was raped. He is terrified to be sent back home because his family has been threatened if he returns.

        I found it:

        Needless to say, he has severe PTSD.

        But why was the Gruniad permitted to report on this secret process? Is it because he’s suing?

      • Until you live something like this you just would not believe it, it really is beyond the comprehension of most people… sure, people know that authorities can be dangerous and they tend to make their way around them in life and hope they will simply be left alone, and maybe that works for most people:

        You know, I have lived all over the place, on the street to high class, many countries, even commited a few irrelevant misdemeanours without more being made of them, and had not had any trouble anywhere through all of that. However from the day a family member threw my name to the local authorities (maybe well meaning or not, but certainly without discussing with me first) to force their point of view, well that is like now over fifteen years of unwanted attention and hassle since then that has ricocheted around my life and that of my family (for basically nothing). No charges of any kind , just endless delays and threats and manipulation, but most of all an uncertainty, menace and distrust introduced from outside and on purpose – once you are on their radar they just don’t let go but sit there waiting, even encouraging, because their purpose is to expressly ensure that from that point on they are going to be your life’s reference – that is their ambition, it gives them power and influence, they get paid ( by us!) to do that.

        Think about it. All authorities have to do is wait for details ( of any kind) of people to land on their desk, one way or another, and they then set about involving themselves, mostly at their own discretion, into organising any circumstance according to their views. The media raises a cause, say Islamophobia, and hey presto they are landed with cases against Islamophobes and that becomes part of their range of targets in society.

        But all of this would be irrelevant if there was freedom of information, if proceedings were open to scrutiny, because they would not dare go about as they do now – it would not stand the light of day.

        They know this, and that therefore makes the actions of silencing freedom of information already purposefully corrupt.

        When you cannot openly report against your own authorities, when the information needed to do so is silenced, or even just delayed, you are being told very clearly that you are not the one in charge, and never will be, that they are the ones who will decide on any accountability if it must exist.

        People know all of this subconsciously, which is why when the forced contract they tolerate is then blatantly breached, such as with the arrest of Tommy, a lot more comes to the surface than just a simple case of judicial error. It is like saying that all that people had put up with in the name of being civilised is for nothing more than to be later mocked and trampled on.

        Maybe this is inevitable now though – once you remove the critical point there is no way of telling if it has been passed.

        • The case of the Vietnamese slave boy, and your case, not to mention Tommy Robinson’s, seem to stem from a tax-funded, unaccountable, tenured bureaucracy. I would imagine the most benign specimen of bureaucrat would simply be the shiftless, lazy time-puncher who doesn’t care one way or another. It sounds like that was the type of bureaucrat who handled the case of the boy from Vietnam being kept in slavery on a cannabis farm. His case was faintly different from the usual cannabis criminal, so the bureaucrats simply put him into the criminal category, rather than investing the minimal amount of effort into finding out his individual circumstance.

          The actively malevolent bureaucrat is high on verbal intelligence, but low on virtually any other skill, especially social skills, and has a narcissistically high self-image. So, he tries to show his relevance and importance by bullying the vulnerable people unfortunate enough to fall into his attention. In his mind, his ability to control the circumstances of his victims through the police powers makes him the equivalent of the real alpha male like Trump who gets his power through personality and productivity.

          The United States started a very bad course when it enacted civil service tenure for federal bureaucrats, leading almost directly to the Deep State. The Deep State sees itself as a country within a country, with the bonus of not having to worry about where their funding comes from.

          Another example of devastating bureaucracy is tenured professorships. Tenure allows an academic to not worry in the least if he or his students are actually productive. Not surprising, tenured professors see themselves as the real university, with students and parents as the window-gloss justifying the tremendous waste of taxpayer money dumped into the university.

          Tenured professors form a Deep State of their own, and act amazingly similar to the intelligence Deep State: they form a closed world, reject dissenting opinions, and their primary goal is to enhance their own incomes and prestige. The rationale for tenure is that academics will be free to investigate where the facts take them, which is actually hilarious in these days of 98% Democrat faculties.

          The most dangerous bureaucracies, by an easy order of magnitude, are the international bureaucracy with formal regulatory (law-making) powers, such as the UN, the EU, the International Court of Human Justice, NATO, and the regulatory apparatus anticipated for NAFTA. These bureaucracies will worm themselves into dictatorial authority. The most dangerous part is, they will systematically pick off the weaker countries that resist them, so their goal is to be a truly universal government, all-powerful, faceless, with unlimited funds and zero accountability.

          An example of this is the senseless bombing of Serbia into submission by a criminal NATO force authorized by the master bureaucrat and criminal, Bill Clinton. The EU is all but threatening police actions against Hungary and Poland for not accepting migrants, although the coercion and intimidation schedule got set back by the election of Trump. On the other hand, Trump seems more enthused at the brandishing of military power, rather than the restraint of it.

          Anyway, I’m sad to hear about your experiences, although it fits in with my concept of the vast, totalitarian structure all countries are preparing for themselves. A country with entrenched bureaucracies is like a severely dysfunctional family, where there is always a victim that provides a rationale for the dysfunctional behavior of the family.

          • No need to be sorry for me because I am past accepting any form of apology. I have blogged up a part of my story elsewhere (as a defensive measure) and if you read it you might understand why – those responsible would have to raise someone from the dead before they obtained any respect from me. I don’t link that blog here because I am cautious and do not want the personal attention, the contest is ongoing and may lead to an international trial of one or more states, some proceedings are launched but final jurisdiction is not chosen, probably Switzerland as it is one of the few places left that any basic rights can be guaranteed during process – I have no wish to alert anyone who might interfere in that development, am a single father raising three children and ensuring a basic normality of our lives comes a strong first.

            It’s heavy though, very heavy.


  2. I’ll add one more thing.

    Nowadays, you really do not know where someone in authority might be coming from. They might come at you from completely unexplainable angles. These are ONLY my own experiences :

    Local establishment trying to meet targets.
    Someone offended by your apparent success.
    Competition within establishment where you end up being of use or being perceived as an advantage to an opponent.
    Money and influence of controlling your “case”.
    Corruption on behalf of someone who bears a grudge against you.
    Members of authority who are on power trips.
    Members of authority who wish to stir discontent in society because they see that as a way to destroy the society they do not like – i.e. purposefully bringing disrepute and loss of confidence in governance.
    People who do not like your nationality.
    People who are drunk on duty, armed and improvising.
    People who will use you for their own peculiar entertainment, playing their own vain games because they can, because they are in a position of decision that they think you rely on.

    And more.

    You get to figure it out later, on reflection – they know that and feel they can always get away with their wrong, if they even understand it as wrong. They usually do get away and think themselves right or clever because most people don’t want to or can’t later turn back and challenge them.

    That is how hopelessness sets into society – no one sees it as worth their time changing, people see it as just too much to try to change it. When society stops regulating itself properly it becomes unbalanced, more corrupt, and may eventually blow.

    • I don’t think a sturdy chain latch at the door would keep the police out if they were intent on breaking down your door. You know, they have those battering rams. But you could build an armored safe room/panic room inside your abode. Keep a rocking chair in there because you want to be comfy while you’re listening to the police trying to get you out of there.

      • What a nice idea. A bedroll, food, an air vent, canned food, and auxiliary lighting. What a cool idea. I’ll bet many pols have such a bolthole.

          • I have appraised two mansions. One had a “Safe Room” in the basement whose entrance was 3/8″ armor-plated steel that was covered by bookshelves to hide it. The other was a bomb shelter (literally) that was apparently re-purposed as a wine cellar.

            I suppose that if your are to hide out for an extended period pf time you might as make yourself comfortable. The first mansion’s safe room was also the wine cellar.

      • Not if they had authority to force entry, no.

        Often they don’t though. Laws depend by country, someone might tell you if UK rules are same as France – which I am familiar with :

        Unless the police are in hot pursuit after a crime, or unless there is a crime actually being committed within a property at that moment, the police have to have judicial authorisation to enter without the permission of the owner, and they have to present that written authorisation first before demanding entry. If you open the door without a latch, they will (and do) grab you outside of procedure. If there is a latch, they actually have to break entry – a clearly illegal act in that circumstance that they refrain from.

        I will look up for UK rules, but the point is that you are making sure they follow procedure correctly, you are making sure that their actions have judicial oversight and accountability – not just getting up close to someone and arresting them for whatever reaction to their presence they want to make up as motive for arrest.

        Civilised procedure for an insult would be to ask someone in for questioning first, or even an order to appear in court under a charge – not just turn up threatening to break their door down due to what could easily be an invented accusation.

        If the police want to be the way they appear to be in these cases, no one has any obligation to make it easier for them – not when they are abusing their authority.

        And that is my point.

        • So a quick look at UK law (THIS IS INFORMATIVE ONLY) :

          Reasons police may force entry into a home.

          Arresting a person for an indictable offence: section 17(b);
          Arresting a person for an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986: section 17(c)(iii); and/or
          Saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property: section 17(e).

          (I add – an indictible offence is basically a serious crime ( gbh, robbery etc. ) so I will assume that the lady arrested was summary procedure )

          Officers must exercise caution and be clear regarding why the offence reasonably suspected is one under section 4 (fear or provocation of violence) and not section 5 (harassment, alarm or distress). There is no power to enter and search without a warrant in respect of section 5.

          So it seems her arrest would be section 5 – harrassment or similar, hence no right of entry for arrest.

          You can see the margin of play in this. If she had a latch then she could have spoken to the police and heard their reply, said she was not sure what that meant and would call a lawyer to attend etc., or if she was sure just tell them to their faces their warrant did not permit forceable entry, that the conversation was being recorded.

          I think you get the point.

          Is a true to life account that explains how the police levered a circumstance.

          I can tell you this happening is not fun, you are confronted with an authorised force that is acting of its own will outside of law, and it carries that presence with it into your home instead of professional discipline, judgement and concern – if you are not cautious at first, by the time you note it is not as should be you are likely to be already overpowered and indefensible, leaving a long trek to pick up the pieces legally if you are up to it, which is no recompense at all.

          So read up and learn basic rights, how to best handle a circumstance, it matters especially if you feel you are an object of unwarranted attention.

          I cannot do all the research here for people, but I am certain it is all available on the web for those who look. Don’t just stick to one source or article, read around to get a fuller more informed view.

          • Let me summarize my understanding of what you and Seneca are saying.

            The police often don’t have the right to break down your door. A latch provides a clear legal lock to your door, even if it can be easily broken by physical force.

            If the police show up without an actual warrant, or maybe even with a warrant, you’re better off not opening the door for them. Make them break it down. If they didn’t have the authority to break into your house, then their illegal action becomes the focus of the case, rather than whatever charge they cooked up.

            If they do break into your house, do not resist them physically. I don’t think simply not opening your door constitutes resisting arrest, so don’t give them the opportunity to add a resisting arrest charge.

            So, except for having your door broken, not opening the door is a win-win. In terms of your legal case, it might help you, and can’t hurt you (except for your door).

          • That more or less sums it up.

            Your home is your place of private protection, is fully recognised in most laws and countries as firstly that. For forcible entry to be used it has to be fully authorised beforehand, failure to follow that legal procedure is a crime. If you open a door it is taken as allowing the police entry and to act on your property as they see fit and by invitation.

            If they do have authority to force entry, I do not think it adds up against you if they have to. In fact a person may honestly state that according to the level of illegal entry into private property taking place by police, they felt threatened that by opening the door they might be subjected to unjust or illegal use of force.

            It is not pleasant to feel besieged in your own home, or terrorised by police outside of it – this sort of encounter should be minimalised by sensible procedure.

            Unfortunately it is not, and by my guess creating confrontation and upset at people’s homes is just part of the panoply of tactics used to demoralise the population into subserviance.

            Each to their own choices, all I
            am able to do is forwarn people, and let them know that their experience of the sort, if that occurs, is not just a personal attack on them, but part of a wider policy of abusive action. I am worldly enough of a person to handle a circumstance like that as well or better than most people, and I can tell you it even left me lost and grasping for answers, has taken a lot of thinking and reading to place into a context in my life that does not disturb me so much, to accept that the trusted world of authority that seemed to keep social order was unanswerable and corrupt.

            That is a frightening realisation for one person to reach.

  3. I seem to remember being taught that Peel had problems getting a Police force accepted because the English were sufficiently aware of what happened on the continent where the Police were aleady being used as the ruling elite’s paramilitary enforcers. We English didn’t want that!

    Peel therefore had to build his new force on the older English office of parish Constable. It also explains why Principle 7 reads:
    “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. “
    The rot had set in when the Police were allowed to others as “Civilians”, a term that clearly by context excluded them. I don’t know how far back that happened, I certainly remember my father protesting about it well before the abolition of beat patrols (on foot, and not in pairs).

    • Oops, last paragraph should read in part “… Police were allowed to refer to others …” and not as shown above.

    • From my perspective, the police rot began when the police force was given the autonomy of a civil service bureaucracy.

      The argument for civil service is that having all government employees serve at the pleasure of the current elected executive gives the executive too much power and makes the life of the public “servant” unstable.

      It’s analogous to the argument for tenured professors: having the faculty serve at the pleasure of the administration gives the administration too much power over them and academics should able to carry out their academy without having to worry about a job.

      Unlike us proles, who “waste” our entire lives trying to produce value for our employers so they will continue to pay us.

      I think a good reform for any government is to eliminate civil service altogether, and make every government employee serve (or not serve) at the pleasure of the elected official. Representation of the voter is the feedback of the responsive government, and taking any section out of the feedback imperils the entire claim that the government represents the people.

      My reading of your very brief summary suggests to me that the big difference between Peels police force, and the constabulary, is that the constabulary served at the pleasure of the crown; Peel’s police had somehow dug out the right to an “independent” (that is, tax-funded) existence, independent of the discipline of political oversight.

      Peel’s lip-gloss claiming that the British police simply represented the traditional duties of citizens seems to have been a cover for the supreme bureaucratic mole stealthily extending his empire.

Comments are closed.