Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Discuss issues relating to the Police Force.

Re: Cps & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Postby huntingross » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:10 pm

Thanks Musashi. This analysis ties up a few loose ends. For me at least.

Police Constables become ‘Officers’ when they are appointed by the Chief Constable. This is when they become employees of the Limited Company trading as Association of Chief Police Officers – Company No. 03344583. This company has “use of 'Limited' exemption” and is “Limited by guarantee”.

Companies and employees of, are easily identified by the requirements of Companies to have –

Presidents / Chief Executives (or other title of responsibility)
Secretaries
Treasurers
Officers

Clear – Crystal.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Postby holy vehm » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:28 pm

:yes:
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Postby musashi » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:28 pm

In the spirit of vicarious liability - and as the cops want to claim that they are crown servants - it occurred to me to address tort claims to the queen, as principal to her malfeasant, misfeasant nonfeasant agents. My hitherto immaculate law book has misled me as to what we may or may not petition the Crown for. It told me it was only for breach of contract and property held. Then I found the Crown Proceedings act, 1947. We may, in fact, sue the crown for many things. I attach a Pdf here and I'd appreciate it if at least some of you went through it.

The relevant part, for me, seems to indicate that I cannot sue the crown for torts committed by the police as they are not "Wholly paid" out of the Consoldiated Fund. (Back to the Consolidated Fund Act, 181!) but i would not mind a second opinion.

Part 1 (6) No proceedings shall lie against the Crown by virtue of
this section in respect of any act, neglect or default of any officer
of the Crown, unless that officer has been directly or indirectly
appointed by the Crown and was at the material time paid in
respect of his duties as an officer of the Crown wholly out of the
Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, moneys provided by
Parliament, the Road Fund, or any other Fund certified by the
Treasury for the purposes of this subsection or was at the
material time holding an office in respect of which the Treasury
certify that the holder thereof would normally be so paid.


So, is this further evidence that the police are not crown servants? Or not? How is someone "inderectly" appointed by the crown?

Musashi.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Postby huntingross » Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:12 pm

Musashi. Whilst I digest your reference, the following is an extract from my communication with the Queen.

Sir Hugh Cairns drew attention to Blackstone's Commentaries – 3 BL Comm 254: "That the King can do no wrong, is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English Constitution: meaning that, in the first place, whatever may be amiss in the conduct of public affairs is not chargeable personally on the King, nor is he, but his ministers, accountable for it to the people; and, second, that the prerogative of the Crown extends not to do any injury; for, being created for the benefit of the people, it cannot be exerted to their prejudice. Whenever, therefore, it happens that that, by misinformation or inadvertence, the Crown hath been induced to invade the private rights of any of its subjects, though no action will lie against the sovereign (for, who shall command the King?), yet the law hath furnished the subject with a decent and respectful mode of removing that invasion, by informing the King of the true state of the matter in dispute: and, as it presumes, that, to know of any injury and to redress it are inseparable in the Royal Breast, it then issues as of course, in the King's own name, his orders to his judges to do justice to the party aggrieved." Held: Erle CJ said: "The maxim that the King can do no wrong is true in the sense that he is not liable to be sued civilly or criminally for a supposed wrong. That which the sovereign does personally, the law presumes will not be wrong: that which the sovereign does by command to his servants, cannot be a wrong in the sovereign, because, if the command is unlawful, it is in law no command, and the servant is responsible for the unlawful act, the same as if there had been no command." Tobin v The Queen (1864) 16 CB (NS) 310.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Postby musashi » Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:23 pm

HR, I take the point, but that was in days gone by and the CP Act 1947 changes all that. So says my law book - Oxgford dictionary of Law - and so says, apparently, the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act.

Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Cops & Guns & Dogs & Dope

Postby musashi » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:41 pm

Going through Halsbury's; on the police (see my old post on this site) I found this and thought I should post it to wrap the thing up.

See the Firearms Act 1968 s 54(3) (as substituted and amended) (where a member of a police force is deemed to be in the service of Her Majesty) (see CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE); and the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Act 1976 s 1 (where a constable of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is deemed to be a person in the service of Her Majesty) (see CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE).

Musash.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm


Return to Police Jurisdiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron