|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 12:02:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 16:31:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 16:36:21 GMT
The Right to Petition should never have to be paid for to claim it or prove it. It would be like paying for the Doctor at the Poloce station. The tax payer pays for the Doctor because it's our right to have one. Therefore because The Right To Petition is not a defence against criminal charges or a Civil contest for County court or high court, but a Right provided for by Government legislation.. the Police must facilitate recognition of that right by their own police legal services and counsel. So that the rights claim is recognized and applied
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 18:31:11 GMT
When were the Police formed?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 18:39:00 GMT
Early Law Enforcement www.localhistories.org/police.htmlFrom the Middle Ages there were local officials in England called constables who were responsible for keeping the peace. Men took it in turns to take the post for one year and it was unpaid. Also if somebody witnessed a crime he was supposed to raise the alarm and all men were supposed to help catch the criminal. This was called hue and cry. It was abolished in 1827. From 1663 there were paid nightwatchmen in London. In the late 18th century many provincial towns also employed nightwatchmen to patrol the streets. Meanwhile in 1749 a London magistrate called Henry Fielding formed the Bow Street Runners to catch criminals. (They got their name because his office was in Bow Street). In the 18th century London was Britain's busiest port. So in 1798 the River Police were founded to protect cargoes. Police in the 19th Century However at the beginning of the 19th century many people in Britain were suspicious of a full time police force. They feared the government might use it to oppress them. Yet the Industrial Revolution meant that life was changing rapidly. Cities mushroomed and the old system became obsolete. The first modern police force in England was formed in London in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel. (Policemen were called Bobbies or Peelers after him. Sometimes they were called coppers from the old English word cop, meaning to grab or seize hold of). The first British policemen were not armed with guns. Instead they carried truncheons and rattles. (Policemen carried whistles from the 1880s). They wore top hats. (They were later replaced by helmets designed to protect the head) The Soldiers of the Parliamentary Armies would no doubt have been using and acting on the power of the law (or lack of it due to civil war) both sides were taking advantage of "The Courts" to whatever ends they sought. There were only one local constable who was not "Police" as we know it now. But voluntary. And on a rotating basis of serving.. "The Citizens" were (and still are also to this day) charged with enforcing the law and reporting crime. They only abolished the requirement to assist through compulsory requirement. Therefore... A person does have still by law the right to report crime, make Citizens arrests, and investigate crime FOR POLICING PURPOSES voluntarily. But not compulsory.. And when petitioning parliament.. About any matter it is a case and evidence brought directly to parliament. Not by way of the Justice's Jurisdiction... Therefore it is clear that the Subjects not only have the right to petition.. but with powers of Citizens arrests can also investigate crime and report it. And the law states that when a vehicle is being used for "policing purposes" the speed limit does not have to be observed. Also when transporting someone under arrest a seatbelt does not need to be worn. Also when vehicles are being used for policing purposes. The Chief Constable direction is not required. As you can report and investigate an offence... illegal road signs without need of permission of a chief constable just as you can make a Citizen arrest or report a crime without needing permission. It's a Right. Therefore all of my investigation work into illegal road signage is also under police purposes and my case is brought to Parliament through petitioning not through the courts. And anyone has the right to do it voluntarily
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 19:39:50 GMT
You have to understand that, in the 1600s and 1700s, they didn't have a police force. So the general public (subjects) assisted the voluntary constable with policing. In fact they would have actually done a lot of the enforcement of the law themselves.
So, a RIGHT, such as the 1688 Bill of Rights, Right to petition which brought matters directly to parliament, not by the Justices (courts) was not that huge a deal, because they themselves did a lot of the law enforcement anyway. In fact the Bill of Rights IS ABOUT "Evil Judges and Ministers" and Religious matters, Soldiers, all manner of Greivence.
Matthew Hopkins evil justice Jurisdiction against witches. Cavalier and Roundhead soldiers, MPs, all manner of subjects.
With the development and creation of the New Model army following Cromwell... after the Civil War.. the King would have been in a more secure position so giving the public the Right to petition was a safe move because of the greater security of the Army.
There were no police and policing (policy enforcement) being contributed to greatly anyway by the public... the Right to Petition was therefore just an alternative and different method to bring disputes other than by the courts. In fact specific protection from the courts...
And because the public would have had to carry out a lot of the policing procedures and proceedings anyway... Similar types of activities and investigations conducted for parliament not the courts. Wouldn't be such a big deal.
Anyway... now that since the 1800s we have a dedicated specialist police force... that protects us...
Really its ridiculous to think that its unsafe or u reasonable to recognize and apply the "Right to Petition" protection because of modern technology and communication there is so much surveillance, faster travel that its 100 times safer and tracked what we are doing.
So the police are just being childish by arguing the right. Or making excuses not to uphold it.
In fact... I believe the term "Specials" in the police voluntarily section does refer directly to gesture towards that time when the public did actually volunteer to assist the police, in fact it was a legal requirement
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 20:37:47 GMT
Hmmmmmmm.. According to this, in 1509 Henry VIII had 200 guardsmen And his Army consisted of 1544 men, a quarter of whom were foreign mercenaries www.warhistoryonline.com/history/8-military-reforms-king-henry-viii.htmlI am guessing that back then, they likely still had only 1 voluntarily local to uphold the law. And the King likely had Tax collectors employed "Guy of Gisborne type characters" And as for law and revenue... scholars likely just abides by the law and rule of the king, with reports going back about regular affairs. Which leaves the most part of the law to be kept by the public. This is when Ministers actually could participate in parliament, lawyers, ministers.. There were competitions for chivalry to recruit talent and train for the Army and tradition. So how many actual men came in 1066 at the battle of Hastings? Many of the Wessex Kings went on religious Pilgrimages to Rome, also demonstrating an exchange of Christianity and the remnants of names such as Aelfred which still landed reference to the Saxon and Anglo heritage I believe that the Majority of laws were upheld by the Subjects. Laws set out by Kings and practiced by the Subjects. Law enforcement has always been predominantly carried out by the subjects/public with administration by the King / Kings Bench. Obviously and the religious practices has always been to create and keep the peace, as that's the entire point of religion and faith with Bishops and Kings being interconnected and Kings being Crowned by Bishops, the Church ceremonies have in fact been the primary role of good conduct and behaviour among the public. It is only Courts and Law that focuses on punishments and fines as consequences for disobeying the law. Where as in contrast the Bishop and Christian priests preach forgiveness for sins and misconduct, not revenge.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 9, 2020 23:24:06 GMT
1.
WHEN PARLIAMENT PETITIONS COMMITTE CLAIM THAT: You cannot petition about a legal case.
It means that If a Criminal case or Civil case is going on, that Parliament Should Not Intervene.
What they are failing to acknowledge is that...
2. IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS PETITIONING PARLIAMENT OVER A CAUSE: The Courts Cannot intervene in those proceedings & circumstances concerning that petition.
So It actually is through the Right to petition that the "Justices" cannot make orders & hear cases concerning circumstances & requisitions of a Petition undertaking to Parliament.
THAT is the Law & Parliament are in fact Not fully enlightened or informed because they have not actually researched it completely. Not the Modern staff anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 10, 2020 3:24:58 GMT
Can you believe this? No wonder the court and Magistrates have no clue what they are doing with rights.. These Magistrates have zero legal knowledge en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate_(England_and_Wales)There is record of serious corruption with justices... let Alone Mathew Hopkins.. here in 1700s still problems... never mind Witches The District Judge was originally the Local constable.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 11, 2020 0:08:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 11, 2020 0:13:36 GMT
youtu.be/5kfzQPbj0KEYouTube randomly assigns a code to every upload. You don't choose your own video code, correct detective? Who can enforce the law & Rights recognition?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 11, 2020 1:32:58 GMT
I hereby believe DJ Watson of the East Midlands Circuit to be retarded in his knowledge of the law. And therefore not fit to sit cases with any competent ability
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 12, 2020 0:25:54 GMT
The Soldiers of "The New Model Army" literally bullied Richard Cromwell out of Protectorship because he was not a Soldier or experienced in War, as Oliver Cromwell had been. They used Force, intimidation and physical "presence" to take command. I believe Richard Cromwell could have had a significant influence and input towards the 1688 Bill of Rights drawing on his experience and knowledge of what had happened during the Civil War and Witch Hunting particularly in the East of England. The Right of the People to petition the Government, with protection not only from Evil Ministers and Judges (justices) Local justices of the peace and constables.. as well as Soldiers would make sense.. Because of serious intimidation and bullying that Soldiers had demonstrated in protests previously when he was removed as Protector. The articles on standing Armies are of significance.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 12, 2020 0:26:39 GMT
It is the year 2020. Since 1991 under John "Major" the British Government have been growing a network of "strategic camera gantrys" around the UK. Developed by the Armed Forces, radar and laser technology..
These Enforcement force meant systems have been spreading around the country, using a fine system and the law to force the public into obedient travel habits.. that have not been all straight forward. Much of this money has been used to grow the Navy and Armed forces... with money also going into redevelopment of traditional town centres into modern franchise landscapes.
Peoples driving licences have been threatened and taken from people who have been going to work and returning home from work.. despite laws that should have given effective defences for these members of civillian public. Who have not been at war. But engaged in public life.
We now have seen introduction of many new weapons, tasers and surveillance technology that these Armed Forces have used to capture and intimidate the Country classes and working subjects into obedient travelling practices.. that have not always been in line with the directions and design of the roads originally intended.
Devolution of roads has been required to retard the speed limits. Because of mistakes made by original designers the Government employed and developed.
New building projects, welfare ideas to keep the men busy and out of trouble in paid work has also been used with the assistance of alcohol advertising and widespread free houses around the country. Sport and football have played a huge part in the team play and social pursuits of Chief Police officers and their Mounted display exhibitions. In order to grow the teams and grow the side.
It has come to a stage where evidence has come to light of intent by the police authorities which are now a standing force, to have taken advantage of the general public...through manipulation of road signage and speed limits using Road traffic enforcement to put stress, intimidation and financial burden on the public with force. And the legal sector, Solicitors, Justices and Judges, Chief officers have benefited from their growing enforcement networks.
Therefore the Public are disarmed to act in defence against these forces and standing units of armed officers... if the Rights of the public are not upheld in order to bring the issues to parliament, without intervention by these Forces.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 12, 2020 1:03:02 GMT
There is no doubt that the 1688 Bill of Rights is there to protect the public...
From
1.The Army (forces, soldiers) 2.Judges, Justices, Constables, Justices of the peace (Courts) 3.Other members of the public 4. Ministers, Lords or the Queen 5. Religion, Bishops, Practices of faith and rights
When they are bringing Greivences to Parliament directly. Not by the Criminal or County Courts or Police.
But Directly to Parliament by petition.
Because it is inevitable that the matters will concern those authorities, or else the law itself... complaints and resolutions sought.
That clearly is the point of the Bill.
To Protect the Public from injustices. By the Government or their Agencies in order to resolve Greivences and Disputes against the Government and their agents..
Evil Ministers, Judges, Soliders, Constables,
This has been overshadowed by "Parliamentary Privileges" that Members of parliament themselves claim.. yet history shows the Bill actually is in fact containing serious protection for "The Subjects" themselves from the Government (courts) because the courts and prosecutions are the only means by which the Government could abuse and use to prevent the public bringing such Greivences against parliament fairly without punishment or obstruction
|
|