Does this seem disturbing to you?

[ChippedHammer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2066470/Safety-deposit-box-raids-yield-andpound1bn-of-drugs,-cash-and-guns.html

So it looks like jackboots and co decide to storm this place 'looking for criminal loot' and decide to rifle through and keep everyone safety deposit boxes. My my, it seems England has well and truely gone down the shitter.

Members of the public who have innocently and legally stored their valuables were “inevitably” going to get swept up in the disruption, it was predicted. Police said they could use a freephone number - 0800 030 4613 - to claim back their goods.

Mr Yates added: “This is an unprecedented operation and my officers have worked tirelessly and methodically, advised throughout by leading counsel, to ensure that this is the right action to take.

If my box and contents had been taken by the cops I would be spitting blood!

[Bugger]

Another reference for the story is: http://www.worldreports.org/news/136_british_police_raid_private_safety_deposit_box es

What, raids by the London Metropolitan Pigs on ALL 7,000 SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES at three safe deposit depots in London?? That just HAS to be a "fishing expedition"! The great majority of those safe-deposit boxes would have been hired by quite ordinary innocent people, to store important documents like title deeds and other deeds and wills and ownership documents, valuable family jewelry and heirlooms, gold/platinum bullion and coins, and cash awaiting payment or banking or disbursements.

Besides, if the Pigs (or workmen hired by them) lost or stole any of the items in the safe- deposit boxes, the depositors or their insurers could sue them for millions of pounds, for the losses and for breach of the Privacy Act. And, in all or nearly all cases, the owners of the safe-deposit depots, Safe Deposit Centres Limited, who had been operating for 20 years, would have absolutely NO knowledge of the nature or value of the items deposited, which constitutes a perfect defense (and grounds for civil action against the Pigs running to millions of pounds for loss of business) for the two men arrested and the one who was out of the U.K..

To justify the "fishing expedition" raids, the Pigs would have had to have convinced some gullible Magistrate (I doubt that a High Court Judge would have been so gullible) to issue search warrants on EVERY deposit-box in the three depots, a total of 7,000 separate search warrants!! The official statement about the raids being "an unprecedented blow against UK and global organised criminal operations" etc. is just pure lying propaganda. I do not know what the laws regards issues of search warrants in the U.K. are, but the raids on that scale certainly could not have legally happened here in New Zealand under our NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1990 and local Court precedents ruling against "fishing expeditions", or in the U$A under the Fourth Amendment of the U$ Constitution.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

The Met police didn't need a fishing expedition since the operation was a private safe rental for the public and not subject to various banking regulations. There are wheels within wheels here --- one reason for the popularity as the very thing that attracted Met scrutiny: it was private and only certain types enjoyed it's services. This would be laughable in the USA as the diversity of the very element that would use such a thing precludes the use of a centralized structure.

In the USA there are low-functioning shit-for-brains that make enormous amounts of capital for several months prior to an arrest for beating his "spouse". The drooling idiot has all his shit all over the domicile anyway.

[sbovisjb1]

So basically (If I read the article correctly) this institution (the way it was set up) was suspect and all we have are sensationalists crying wolf.

[megalomania]

It sounds like they use some legal trickery to get at those boxes. Indeed this was not a bank, more like a storage locker. Once they arrested the owners, they probably lumped their buildings under the same search warrant, which naturally includes all the boxes.

Hmm, now I am regretting keeping my dozens of kilos of China white and stolen Van Gogh collection in the same safety deposit box as my murder weapon collection... What kind of dumb ass keeps that kind of stuff in a safety deposit box anyway?

This sounds like that movie that came out not too long ago... The Bank Job. The UK government wants some evidence on a mobster that he has stashed in a safety deposit box, but they can't do it legally. MI5 puts the legal squeeze on some chick to coerce her to organize a heist and break into the bank.

[akinrog]

First, I would like to answer the title, yes it's not only very disturbing, it's extremely disturbing.

the depositors or their insurers could sue them for millions of pounds, for the losses and for breach of the Privacy Act.

I don't think this is the case, you may claim anything during an insurance claim, but it's your duty to prove existence of a valuable.

In my experience, the Bank says they have limited liability (restricted to a certain amount) and nothing more.

Even if you place in your deposit box the Hope Diamond, their liability shall remain same, unless you explicitly have your imaginary Hope Diamond be insured. Regards.