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)
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 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.