Police have seized a potential £1 billion “treasure trove” of cash, drugs and guns in an unprecedented raid on concrete vaults holding 7,000 safety deposit boxes.


The police simply crack open 7,000 safety deposit boxes on suspicion? And anyone who is "innocent" has to go and claim their goods back?

Whatever happened to privacy?

13 thoughts on “Eh?”

  1. It would seem so, yes:

    “The investigation – codenamed Operation Rize – has been running for two years and included intensive work with lawyers to ensure they were able to seize all of the boxes.

    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. “

    You can’t object to that kind of thing now! It’s for the children!

  2. The worked intensively with lawyers to find a judge pliant enough to allow them to open all the boxes.

  3. “Officers have secured the concrete and steel vaults and will take several weeks to remove each box, using angle grinders, to a secret location where they will be prized open with diamond-tipped drills.”
    Whatever happened to the Telegraph’s sub-editors? Prized in this sense is the American (incorrect) spelling of prised. Ah the wonder of spellchecker software.

  4. ” Prized in this sense is the American (incorrect) spelling of prised.”

    American spellings are not incorrect. They are different spellings. Although I accept that the use of an American spelling in an English newspaper is incorrect.

  5. “Prized” is NOT an “American misspelling” of

    We start out by misspelling “prise” as “pry” and, from there, it’s a stunningly simple step to misspell our past tense, quite logically, as “pried” (in which we take quite justifiable pried; you might say that our “pried” knows no bounds). Of course, we do say “prise” on certain occasions (such occasions always being the present tense, third person, singular) but we spell it “pries.” Are we in any way surpriesed?

  6. It must be quite galling for Tim to not be able to blame the EU for this. But then of course, privacy is only asserted by the undeserving.

  7. Not only claim them back, but also (presumably) prove how they obtained them in the first place.

    Otherwise everything goes to the One-eyed bandit.

  8. They must have evidence that the business was being run as a front for money laundering, hence arrest of the owners and seizure of all the assets. If you are surprised by this you really ought to read up on the Serious & Organised Crime Act. If any police officer suspects that anything you posess has been obtained via the retention, realisation or disposal of the proceeds of crime then they can seize it and it’s up to you to prove your lawful possession, including prior payment of any taxes, duties, etc.

    No wonder the Police had to check with lawyers, they couldn’t believe what they were reading themselves.

  9. Actually the worst aspect of this piece is the photograph that accompanies it.

    Why do these goons feel the need to parade around our city streets toting unfeasibly large machine guns?

    Were they expecting to be opposed by an artillery regiment when they raided a safe deposit facility? I hardly think so.

    And is it really sensible to consider the use of such weaponry in a crowded airport terminal? Again, it certainly is not.

    This is just macho posturing, designed to frighten people and show how important and scary our police have become.

    It’s showing off, it’s not remotely useful, and it’s highly dangerous.

    It has to stop.

  10. When I was asked what I wanted as a retirement present, I said an AK-47. People thought I was joking. Alas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *