I'm going to have to do a separate update about what actually happened to me during my visit to answer bail.....

Spoiler alert: This almost 10 hour encounter included instances of deliberate indifference to my welfare while under their custody, which even prisoners of war have protected against by the Geneva conventions.

At this point we believe he offices committed 9 distinct crimes agents me during this encounter and that's not even counting the things which are linked to disability direct and indirect discrimination.

But dealing with the direct aftermath of the illegal entry and improper search of my home which took place on the 4th of March, once more together with the usual trials and tribulations of an early morning police raid on a blind & autistic person, the only major difference between this and unlawful arrest the previous unlawful arrest is that last time they just denied my carrer access to administer my medication, this time around they forcibly prevented me taking my prescription medication I'm that would have prevented the need for medical intervention. 

Once again an ambulance had to be called as a direct result, but it was actually the unnecessary and unreasonable seizure of my ,+ £1,000 adapted mobile phone in these circumstances which I find the most distressing & just like last time, this has caused and still continues to create needless and completely preventable misery, this action served no lawful purpose and is objectively clear evidence of indirect discrimination contrary to the Equality Act (a policy which has a disproportionate adverse effect on the disabled), direct discrimination (the actual aggressor is not being treated similarly), and of the Human Rights Act (Articles 3, 7, 8, 14: and Protocol 1, Article 1 have all been broken.)

HRA 1998

• Article 2: Right to life
• Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
• Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour
• Article 5: Right to liberty and security
• Article 6: Right to a fair trial
• Article 7: No punishment without law
• Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
• Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion
• Article 10: Freedom of expression
• Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association
• Article 12: Right to marry and start a family
• Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
• Protocol 1, Article 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
• Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education
• Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to participate in free elections
• Protocol 13, Article 1: Abolition of the death penalty.

Police officers cannot simply go about  denying detainees basic comfort and safety or executive unjustified intrusions into personal security and certainly not without due process of law. 

They have a duty to assume responsibility for the safety and general well-being  which is triggered when the state takes a person into its custody and holds them against their will, part 5 of PACE.

It is the states affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on their own agency that triggers the protections of the due has guaranteed in as part 5 of pace .

There must exist an affirmative duty to protect the detained person while the state has imposed such restrictions on their freedom where they are unable to act on their own behalf.

This duly goes beyond the simple lack of due care by an official & in fact covers eveey level of deliberate indifference towards a confined individuals safety and the deliberate indifference does not require a finding of express intent to harm, but only to demonstrate something beyond ordinary lack of due care for the prisoners interests or safety.

So any detention event where the official disregards a known or obvious risk that is very likely to result in the violation of a prisoners rights as set in part 5 of PACE is by definition a huge problem for the Constabulary that supervised the detention.