www.conservatives.com/Video/Webcameron.a...a1-a2ba-83f19a7c92a6

Stunning video - watch it here !

If you ever wondered how dictatorial the POLICE are here is the evidence.

The early morning knock on the door.

All journalists are now fearing a knock on the door if they criticise SMITH and BROWN - Littlejohn in the Daily Mail is having a massive go at the Government today asking for a dissolving of Parliament and election.

This is a FISHING expedition to undermine the opposition parties in our democracy. This video shows the one raid in all its glory.....please forward the link to anyone in your mail links.

All decent people must stand together for freedom on this issue.

Some years ago there was an awful TV series on busting paedophiles and even then any sensible person winced at the pure joy and childish delight expressed by police in a raid - lots of shouting to terrify and noise and beastliness - easy to understand in the brain dead - what fun - join the police.

And very, very reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

And, of course, a great story for the TV crews following.

I have to say the police in my case behaved very well; quiet and gentle, polite and well behaved. No ripped up floor boards. No seizing of or looking at computers ("we don't need those - this is an allegation from long before they were invented" - which I found extraordinary).

I suspect that may have been because they knew I had done nothing wrong.

These days it's a matter of routine to take computers, regardless of the age or nature of the allegation. There is always a chance they may find something which they can use against you if the original intended charge fails.

That is my point JC - it was absolutely "routine" then (2000) too, and illustrated to me that they knew the allegations were false.

They searched my house a second time in 2001 after the second set of publicity provoked claims - and still didn't look at or seize computers.

Even then I said to my defence team "this is extraordinary; if they seriously thought I was an abuser, wouldn't they want to see if I was still "at it"?"

To which they answered "they know they would find nothing on the computers and we would have everything time dated so it would have been a plus for us - so they simply didn't take them".

Isn't that a disgrace?

You are right JK - if the POLICE seize your computers and stuff and then find nothing at all it undermines their "allegation" completely because in any case they rely on one person's word against another.

Therefore it is safer for them not to take the computers if they genuinely want to go to court.

It works the other way as well - with LORD LEVY and GREEN they have taken loads - this means MAX publicity when they know that they are unlikely to go to court for any reason - same reason they took the stuff from the Forest Gate 2 terrorists.

Many journalists never get back their computers in such situations I might add.

Once they have gone to the trouble of taking Computers and then finding nothing their case is very badly holed against anyone.

So it looks as if they a ) knew they would go to court whatever and b) they knew you were innocent in your case. It stinks.

It can go both ways. If the police seize your computer but find nothing, they can just keep quiet about that or say it was not relevant. On the other hand, if they don't look at your computer they could be accused of not investigating thoroughly enough.

When I was on the force, few people had computers but there were other things which could be seized such as diaries, letters, phone records (with warrant), etc.

If Jonathan's computers were not considered then it does suggest that the officers involved were not convinced by the allegations against him. This makes it extra sad that the case went as far as a conviction. I know of one case from the early 90s where the investigating officers were absolutely convinced that an accused care worker was innocent, but they had instructions from a higher level that there had to be a successful prosecution due to the amount of time, expendature and publicity involved. The trial went ahead with zero evidence. I thought the accused man had a very good case, but the barrister closed the defence early, before even half of the defence evidence had been heard, and the man was convicted. So, there are definately some strange things which go on behind the scenes. The objective is to get a "result". Truth and justice usually have nothing to do with it.