A civil debt (not a criminal matter) of £6,000 for business rates leads to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JNCjxwwIs

The body language exhibited by the police in the above video report demonstrates extreme arrogance, the type of behaviour and attitude the Nazis would be proud of. Sadly, in Britain today this example of policing is no longer the exception – it is rapidly becoming the rule - you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

The bankers and corporations have plundered £billions, and they walk free, even with golden handshakes for failure

MPs commit an act of fraud for unjustified claims for expenses for sums significantly larger than £6,000, and a simple apology ends the matter and no punishment follows. Now many of them are currently seeking re-election to their lucrative posts.

HMRC chased me for a falsely claimed and unjustified debt of £3.57 for Income Tax during the last tax year, whilst HMRC happily ignores unpaid tax by large corporations owing £millions.

The BBC agents, Capita, regularly (monthly) send threatening letters and demands for a TV Licence we don't need or want. The BBC and Capita assume we are guilty of watching live TV without presenting any evidence. At the same time there are very serious questions demanding police investigations within the BBC itself - and nothing is done - move along there, nothing to see here is the message.

The message is becoming increasingly clear, if you are part of the establishment or the corporate world then you are above the law; the rest of us are expected to take whatever official criminal abuse is thrown at us. And currently a large section of the establishment is seeking our votes.

I have read some of tosh on this site before, but ........

Whilst I agree that (on the face of what has been reported here) this probably should have been a Court Baliff eviction and not a Police one. However, when taking into account the aggressive thugs that surrounded and verbally abused the Police Officers - perhaps it was decided to use the Police in order to maintain the peace.

As for the Police 'body language' being arrogant? We must have been watching two different videos. I thought the Police Officers show considerable restraint against a barrage of abuse from the yobs. Would you have been able to stay silent if abused like this at work? I am not sure I would be

The guy actually owed £75,000 - a matter which has been spun to £6k to assist the anti=Police message this you tube video is presenting.

Yes, SOME Bankers are corrupt. And yes SOME Politicians are bent - but I am not sure what that has to do with this individual's case. What is clear from that tape is the Police on the ground acted professionally and subdued a potentially volatile situation by not rising to the bait.

I think the issue here is that the police may be exceeding their powers. They're supposed to be maintaining the peace; I've a feeling they have no right to assist with enforcement action.

To Jon:
You have correctly identified the big issue here; the police have acted outside the law, and outside their oath of office.

It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, therefore as you rightly suggest, the police should be maintaining the peace and protecting property. Not smashing their way into a private home and evicting the occupant and depositing his belongs by the front gate. The police have acted completely outside of their jurisdiction, they have broken their oath of office, and they caused untold misery to a member of the taxpaying community who rightly should have expected the police to protect him and his property. On top of all that, every one of those police officers involved in that re-possession have left themselves wide open to counter charges in a criminal court, and so has the senior officer responsible for issuing the orders to his officers to carry out the re-possession.


To SOT:

I hope that you never find yourself facing police dressed in combat-type clothing and body armour, armed with several pieces of heavy equipment designed to smash in doors and windows of your home, and showing total disregard for your well-being and of your home and property simply because you happen to be accused of owing a relatively small sum of money.

Bailiffs should have presented the accused with a proper court order bearing an embossed court seal clearly containing the name of the issuing court, and a wet signature of the issuing court official. The bailiffs should also have issued the court order to the accused in the presence of a police officer. The police officer should only be present in order to maintain the peace and to protect property. In this case the police have severly damaged property and evicted a lawful occupier and all this was carried out without reference to a valid court order.

It is a fact that bailiffs these days are not all presenting the correct court orders to the accused. I have seen copies of false document bailiffs are using to repossess properties they have no legal right to claim, documents that do not bear an embossed court seal, neither do that carry a wet sinature from a court official. They are a photocopy that does not have a court seal nor the name of the issuing court, neither do they carry a wet signature of a court official. False documents are frequently printed off from a download from the internet, such documents bear a photocopy-type imitation court seal with no court name. It is fraud!

The police are just as guilty as the bailiffs when they support evictions based on false court orders. And when challenged as to the validity of the supposed court order the police are invariably ignorant of the the requirements that relate to official court orders. Which is why the evicted occupant in the video says at the end of the video he will be challenging the eviction from his home. Hopefully the policeofficers concerned will find themselves up before a criminal court and found guilty of engaging in illegal action - and loose their jobs and pensions.

The truth is, officialdom are deliberately using illegal procedures and false documents to 're-possess' properties they have no legal claim to. Bailiffs, courts, and the police are all relying on the ignorance of Joe Public in order to steal property from legal owners and occupiers for the benefit of the banks.

It's crucial to know here whether or not the police were acting lawfully.

No-one can be imprisoned for a debt; you can be imprisoned for refusing to pay council tax but not for not being able to afford to pay council tax. I don't know what the position is with relation to business rates.

I would imagine the police could only take the action seen in this video if they had a warrant for the man's arrest or to enter the premises. That would seem to be to be very unusual, though I see towards the end of the video the campaigners supporting him say the action was taken under the Insolvency Act, so it may well be that the council have used some clever legal machinations here.

I dont agree that the supporters who turned out were behaving like thugs at all. There is one that possibly looks a bit thuggish, but that's just down to being a bit overweight and suffering hair loss.

Business rates are a killer, and far too high and I have enormous sympathy for small businesses trying to find the money to pay them. A £6,000 business rate debt is pretty small and I'm amazed it's resulted in this kind of drastic action.

My view is this:

1. If the police are somehow acting lawfully, that means the council have acted in a ruthless and heartless fashion against a struggling small businessman.

2. If the police are acting unlawfully, that's criminal behaviour on their part and the man should urgently be seeking redress.

Justice banker style.

No mention of these two criminals having been subjected to a platoon of body-armoured, smash-hammer wielding Tactical Aid Group heavy mob to evict these crims from their homes. No mention of their meagre possessions having been unceremoniously dumped in the street. No prison sentence for defrauding £3,000,000 from a taxpayer funded bank. No, they receive almost gushing sympathy and pity from the judge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fered.html
£2,500 as a percentage of this man's assets and income is a flee-bite compared to being evicted from your home for a relatively small alleged debt of £6,000.

The story is reported here also:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/judge-takes-p ... ml#WxWtGRT

" We must have been watching two different videos"

Indeed we must have been SOT because I can see no evidence whatsoever of 'aggressive thugs surrounding and verbally abusing the police officers ', nor can I see any evidence of a 'barrage of abuse from the yobs'. Quite the opposite in fact. I thought the reaction from the onlookers was remarkably restrained and well behaved. Since when does saying "shame on you" equate to a barrage of abuse ?

The only aggression I can see in that video was shown by the police turning up mob-handed, with an array of tools and smashing someones door in. To complete the humiliation they then dumped what I assume were personal belongings in black bin liners in the front garden. How respectful is that ?

The Met have a long history of overstepping their powers and abusing warrants which sometimes they keep pet judges on tap to obtain.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/ope ... 90281.html

Story is about when they obtained a warrant to enter a safe deposit premises. Once in rather than target 3 boxes they had the warrant for they opened dozens on a fishing expedition looking for illicit contraband ect.

Granted they turned up trumps and found a handgun and some illegal drugs, but they also confiscated gold and other valuables placed there by WW2 refugees who had to escape Germany in a hurry.
The onus was then on these people to prove ownership of said items and valuations to see if any tax was paid.

All is in the article.
Incidentally they also seized the property of a Russian billionaire who challenged the validity of the warrant in the High Court. They settled this case and returned his property before the case could be heard and a precedent set.

So yes the Met does overstep the mark when it suits them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... fraud.html

Gilligan pulls no punches in the report about the removal from office of the lying mayor fraud Rahman from Tower Hamlets.

He suggests in this article that the Met is up to its eyeballs in corruption in that part of London and attempted to close down the election court.

Methinks we need an op Countryman 2 perhaps?

It really is totally outrageous. Remember too that the established parties were well aware of all this but turned a blind eye. It was left to private individuals to risk a £1million legal bill to bring this to court. They said that the police claimed to have received NO COMPLAINTS..... even though they had lodged multiple complaints on the day of the election.