Whose Police are our Police Forces? (2)

My article yesterday posing this question has brought forth a quick response from Edward Spalton who writes:

“Surely to goodness, David “The People’s Police”, “The People’s Court”
and more or less anything prefaced by “The People’s..” has a long enough
history of describing perfectly beastly institutions! (which always
belonged to “the party”, whether with swastika or hammer and sickle. But
as the party was the vanguard of the people, I suppose it was true
enough within the ideologies concerned. I am amazed that even David Blunkett’s  ideologically attuned ear had not picked that up.”

Edward enclosed an article he wrote, one which appeared in the British Church Newspaper a few months ago, the text of which I reproduce with his permission

”  The Guardian of the Law -

Police Constable or Political Correctness?

Edward Spalton August 2012

COMPARE AND CONTRAST the following (as they used to say in examination papers).

I …….do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of Constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties faithfully according to law.

I…….do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

 These are the old and new forms of attestation for a Police Constable,  In earlier times the attestation would  have begun “I  ….  swear by Almighty God” , just as a witness usually does in court where  a similar solemn affirmation is  provided as an alternative but not as the sole form.  I have known Christian people, as well as atheists and agnostics,  who prefer on conscientious grounds to affirm rather than to swear an oath. So let us merely note  this  evidence of the  suppression of a Christian  form  as a normally  expected feature in the public sphere, controlled by the police.

The first thing that strikes the reader is that “Our Sovereign Lady The Queen” is downgraded merely to “The Queen”. One wonders why this was done and who decided it.  Changes in such things are only made for a deliberate purpose and not by accident.  It is not really a Cavalier versus Roundhead point, as the same principle would apply to the symbolic head of state of any sovereign nation, however appointed.   Why has the head of state and hence the state itself been downgraded from its sovereignty?

The simple answer is, of course,  because Her Majesty the Queen is no longer sovereign and we are no longer a free people. The process began with the European Communities Act of 1972 . Ministers, who were solemnly sworn to uphold the sovereignty of the Crown against all foreign powers whatsoever, persuaded Parliament to pass this Act by a narrow majority. Mr Heath told the nation in 1971 that “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”.  This reassured many people .  Put simply, he lied. Every senior minister of all parties at the time and since knew that he lied and has continued to live that lie.

The situation of the Queen and Crown was made crystal clear by the Maastricht Treaty. On 9 September 1993, the author Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter (of Guinness Book of Records fame) laid evidence before the Magistrates at Hexham, alleging the offence of treason against  Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude , the signatories of the treaty.

The nub of the matter was the creation of so-called EU citizenship. “…According to Article 8 (of the treaty) Her Majesty the Queen becomes a citizen of the European Union (confirmed by the Home Secretary – Hansard 1 February 1993) and is therefore “subject to the duties imposed thereby”, subject to being arraigned in her own courts and being taxed under Article 192 of the integrated treaty and thereby effectively deposed as sovereign and placed in a position of suzerainty under the power of the “European Union” – therefore the said Rt. Hon Douglas Hurd and the said Rt. Hon Francis Maude are guilty of treason”.

They laid information on seven more charges, quoting statute and precedent. In the Scottish courts they relied on S1 of the Treason Act 1795 – Whereas it is an offence “within the realm or without …to devise…constraint of the person of our sovereign…his heirs or successors” and “to enter into measures tending to overthrow the laws, government and happy constitution of the United Kingdom”…

Unfortunately, treason can only be prosecuted by the  Crown Officers – the Attorney General in England who, as a cabinet minister, was a key part of the plan to overthrow our happy constitution!  No response was made to the information laid until Parliament had passed the Maastricht Treaty Bill. The authorities then claimed that this made everything all right retrospectively.  The fascinating story of this case is told in “Treason at Maastricht”, now available at very modest cost on Kindle.

The next alterations in the wording of the  constable’s oath make no improvement on the original. “Fairness and integrity” are hardly legally quantifiable and add nothing to “without  favour or affection, malice or ill will”. “Fundamental human rights” however are a different matter entirely. The EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights is part of the Lisbon Treaty, in fact the supreme  constitutional law of our country – overriding  Magna Carta and everything else, until Parliament or a judge says otherwise.

This  EU Charter makes it an offence to try to take away any rights specified in the Charter – a document which a British Minister once characterised as having the legal significance of the Beano – another huge lie amongst many.  These rights include  the right to petition the EU parliament .  Many people have campaigned for years for Britain to leave the EU and return to self governing democracy.  The Queen’s subjects would then no longer be “citizens” of the EU and so would no longer have the right to petition the EU parliament.  That is a right we are definitely attempting to abolish. It comes rather close to treason against the EU which now has “legal personality” enabling it to prosecute.  When the Politically Correct PCs of the new dispensation come calling, they will not lack for evidence!”

No doubt Edward Spalton will respond to all comments posted……..


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

5 Responses

  1. malvoisin says:

    A very good article although it overlooks one important point, which is the Queen ratified the treaties and is therefore also guilty of treason.

    • What is it about the term “Constitutional Monarchy” that is so difficult for you to understand. The Queen is a figurehead. Any legislation that is referred to her is done so as a matter of courtesy. The traitors are the politicians.

      • malvoisin says:

        I understand it very well, you are right the politicians are traitors, but the fact remains that the Queen still had to ratify these treaties by her signiture in full knowledge of what these treaties meant, therefore giving her consent to acts of treason. What part of that do you not understand?

  2. Edward Spalton says:

    Thank you for the comments. I point out that the law is what you can get a judge to say on the day with a good chance of somebody to enforce the judgment..

    Without taking sides in 17/18th century politics, our present situation is rather like that of Britain under the Hanoverians. There were ferocious treason laws with very painful penalties for anybody who supported the Stuart claim.
    Yet , if Bonny Prince Charlie had pressed on to London from my home town of Derby instead of turning round, there is every likelihood that he would have been well received. The Hanoverians were already packing their bags! Then, the the same judges, who would have cheerfully hanged, drawn and quartered Jacobites, would have found that law at fault and reversed it! Like everybody else, Judges, like everyone else, like to keep their jobs. .
    Yes, the constitution has been wickedly subverted but to right the wrong you first need either a parliamentary majority or a New Model Army (or both)

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012