101 Statute for Cops

Discuss issues relating to the Police Force.

101 Statute for Cops

Postby huntingross » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:19 pm

To keep it simple so debate doesn't need to rage on for pages and pages.

1. To pre-fine someone in England is contrary with the Bill of Rights Act 1688, "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme".

2. To pre-fine someone in Scotland is contrary with the Claim of Right Act 1689, "By imposeing exorbitant fines to the value of the pairties Estates exacting extravagant Baile and disposeing fines and forefaultors befor any proces or Conviction"....."All which are utterly and directly contrairy to the knoune lawes statutes and freedomes of this realme".

3. ANY Act (and I mean that in all senses of the word) which prevents a subject from enjoying their right to travel within the UK is "contrary and inconsistent" with the Acts of Union 1706 and 1707 Article 4 -

"That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

and Article 25 -

"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

That means parking tickets, FPN's, PCN's, driving licences, car insurance, MOT's, road tax, speeding and so on....infact ANYTHING which restricts our "FULL FREEDOM".

Nothing more needs to be said or done, this is black and white. These are Constitutional Acts and are paramount.

Obey the Law, uphold the Law.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby Farmer » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:24 pm

unfortunately, you are no longer a 'Subject', but a 'citizen'.
If you're scared of 'them' poisoning 'us' with some shit then maybe you haven't noticed the shit they are already poisoning us with.
- prajna - fmotl.co.uk forum 2011
User avatar
Farmer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:07 am

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby kevin » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:27 pm

Farmer wrote:unfortunately, you are no longer a 'Subject', but a 'citizen'.


did I agree to that?
kevin
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:38 pm

I don't recall agreeing to either to be fair, Kev! :giggle:
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby Hoops » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:01 pm

huntingross wrote:To keep it simple so debate doesn't need to rage on for pages and pages.

1. To pre-fine someone in England is contrary with the Bill of Rights Act 1688, "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme".

2. To pre-fine someone in Scotland is contrary with the Claim of Right Act 1689, "By imposeing exorbitant fines to the value of the pairties Estates exacting extravagant Baile and disposeing fines and forefaultors befor any proces or Conviction"....."All which are utterly and directly contrairy to the knoune lawes statutes and freedomes of this realme".

3. ANY Act (and I mean that in all senses of the word) which prevents a subject from enjoying their right to travel within the UK is "contrary and inconsistent" with the Acts of Union 1706 and 1707 Article 4 -

"That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

and Article 25 -

"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

That means parking tickets, FPN's, PCN's, driving licences, car insurance, MOT's, road tax, speeding and so on....infact ANYTHING which restricts our "FULL FREEDOM".

Nothing more needs to be said or done, this is black and white. These are Constitutional Acts and are paramount.

Obey the Law, uphold the Law.


I wouldn't dream of arguing with you, you clearly understand it more than I. This is an implement of fact that you use to support an argument of ideology. Alongside this sits what exists as the prevailing method, as empirically demonstrated in fact and action the country over. That which exists sits at odds with your implement of fact. That is not a statement that it should or should not, just a statement of fact. When we as a group of individuals discuss issues affecting policing, law, etc, I find it harms a progressive exploration when the line is blurred between what is addressed under the framework that exists, as opposed to the actions judged as you would have that framework were your implement of fact (the constitutional acts) widely observed as you think they should be.

Just my observation, not a thread topic :peace:
Hoops
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby huntingross » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:35 pm

Hoops, this is not a statement of ideology, merely a method of placing fundamentals on the table....constitutional statutes....which clearly conflict with the statutes you solemnly believe you should uphold as a "force".

If you believe these "rules" that I have highlighted do not apply to you or me, then say why, in preferrence to the ones that you believe do apply to you and me.

There are statutes which you uphold and there are statutes that you appear to disregard, why would that be.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby Wise Haven » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:46 pm

Here is the answer:

Communis error no facit just. A common error does not make law.

Those laws that contradict the, un-repealed, Bill of Rights Act 1688 are explicity in error Ab initio (from the beginning)
Wise Haven
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby Hoops » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:38 pm

huntingross wrote:Hoops, this is not a statement of ideology, merely a method of placing fundamentals on the table....constitutional statutes....which clearly conflict with the statutes you solemnly believe you should uphold as a "force".

If you believe these "rules" that I have highlighted do not apply to you or me, then say why, in preferrence to the ones that you believe do apply to you and me.

There are statutes which you uphold and there are statutes that you appear to disregard, why would that be.


I merely mean to state that there are two states of legal existence - what IS practiced every day is one. That includes common law statute law, tickets, etc etc. There is also then that which you WOULD instigate, or believe SHOULD be being adhered to under ancient constitution or whatever that exists already but is not being observed lets say...thats all I mean by an ideology and an existant framework. :peace:
Hoops
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby huntingross » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:00 pm

Hi hoops

Maybe I haven't asked a straight question.

Why do the police not uphold the statute laws of the land ?

And the ones you do uphold and quote, PACE (for example) in blatant controvention of laws which make it very clear these Acts restrict our full freedoms ?

Less than two years ago I knew nothing of these laws, somewhat sarcasrically (it appeared) you claim I know more about them than you do....I find this dis-engenuous as it is your job to know, and ignorance is no defence.

So now that it has been drawn to your attention, what do you as a policeman have to say.....we hear and see police "nailing" people every day in clear breach of Acts that you know are designed and written to protect their freedoms.

What makes these "ancient" acts unworthy of your full attention every day you and your colleagues are "out there" serving the subjects of the land.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: 101 Statute for Cops

Postby Hoops » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:33 pm

There was genuinely no sarcasm mate, and it harks back to what I have been trying to say about ideology versus practice. I police based on the statutes and PACE and the case law and the generally accepted and observed laws of the land as exhibited in practice. That's why I don't argue that there may well be predating law and constitution that is not practiced. It is a bit like language. It is evolving, and what the dictionary contains does not cover the language that is spoken.

I understand that when I say ideology you will state that it is not ideology but standing constitution. Again, I don't disagree. But if it is not practiced, it is not. I cannot pluck a book of constitutional law and start policing to that rather than accepted practise - it comes back to asking me to arrest the prime minister - you may be able to quite reasonably point to a law book, but in the real world it makes no difference - your argument to have it observed would not be made to me as a bobby, but to the courts, the home office, the government - because to observe it, the police would have to be told they could - that is where we can be human, use discretion, be respectful all we like - and this is very important. But we are not wild west sheriffs, and we have to tow the party line. THAT is the bit you don't like, and the part I am not so obtuse as to not understand. But you change the party line, not cause disaffection in the rank and file if you want change.

I can sense the tide of 'you should follow your oath, stand up to the evil government and not dishonour your office, revolt' etc. But this is not the real world, not today, and not by one bobby, and not even something I believe in anyway. That is the honest truth.
Hoops
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:41 pm

Next

Return to Police Jurisdiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron