Section 69 of the "Ways And Means Act"

I wanted to introduce you to a less well known but really useful piece of legislation. It's the Ways And Means Act and, unlike most legislation which goes on and on, it only has one section: Section 69.

Section 69 states: "If you can't screw 'em one way, screw 'em another".

This law has loads or practical applications and here's a few examples:

1) You stop somebody driving a car which isn't theirs. But they state that they have the owner's permission. You speak to the owner who initially says, "yes, you're right officer. My car has been stolen. Thank you for finding it. Who was driving?" And you tell them it was their mate when they suddenly "remember" giving them permission after all. What can you do? You've caught sombody who's committed TWOC (taken without owners consent) which is a good collar. But now they're going to get away with it. But think! Section 69! You tell the owner that as the driver of the car wasn't insured, but that they had the owner's permission, then the owner has committed the offence of allowing an uninsured driver to use a vehicle on the road. The owner thinks about this then starts telling the truth and gives you a statement.
2) You're called to a house because the family are concerned about the woman who lives there. She's clearly barking with persecution issues and paranoia. She's made threats to harm herself because she's sure that "they" are after her. Now, because she's in her house, you've got no power to detain her and make sure that she receives the medical care she needs. So what do you do? You use Section 69 by engaging her in conversation from the end of her garden. Because she can't hear you she comes closer, into public, until she's also at the end of her garden. And then you detain her and take her to hospital. And she gets help instead of killing herself.
3) A group of youths run into an off licence and steal a crate of beers. The Police come running but the owner of the shop can't remember who, exactly, did the actual stealing and who was just there as part of the group. Around the corner you see somebody kind of matching the description holding a can of lager. He is arrested on suspicion of theft. The owner of the shop can't say for sure that he did steal the beer. In interview he denies stealing the lager, stating that he was only there looking on. He refuses to give any names and says "I was only drinking the lager, I didn't nick it!" As he says this, he has a smug look on his face. Damn him and his equally smug-looking solicitor. Another thief evades justice! But no! Section 69 comes into play. You have your own equally smug look and point out that he's going to be charged with handling stolen goods (the individual can of lager) which is actually more serious than the theft.

N.B. This used to be called "lateral thinking" until the government made it illegal for Police officers to think laterally by taking away all their discretion and making all decisions centrally.