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
1829 Royal assent to the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 was given and the Metropolitan Police Service was established on September 29, 1829 in London as the first modern and professional police force in the world.
From 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
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
1688 Bill of Rights - The right to Petition - It is the Right of the Subjects to petition the Queen & all Commitments & Prosecutions for doing so are illegal.
I 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.
There is record of serious corruption with justices... let Alone Mathew Hopkins.. here in 1700s still problems... never mind Witches
Towards the end of the 18th century, the absence of an adequate police force and the quality of local justices became matters of concern. Justices received no salary from the government, although they could charge fees for their services. They were appointed from prominent citizens of property, but a shortage of landed gentlemen willing to act in London led to problems. In Middlesex, for example, the commission was increasingly dominated by merchants, tradesmen and a small number of corrupt magistrates, known as "Trading Justices" because they exploited their office for financial purposes. A Police Bill in 1785 failed to bring adequate supervision of justices. However, the Middlesex Justices Act of 1792 set up seven public offices, in addition to Bow Street, London, with three justices in each, with salaries of £400 a year. The power to take fees was removed from all justices in the city. Six constables were appointed to each office, with powers of arrest. This was the origin of the modern stipendiary magistrate (district judge).
The District Judge was originally the Local constable.
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
A Justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower or puisne court, elected or appointed by means of a commission (letters patent) to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are (or were) usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs
In 1195, Richard I ("the Lionheart") of England and his Minister Hubert Walter commissioned certain knights to preserve the peace in unruly areas. They were responsible to the King in ensuring that the law was upheld and preserving the "King's peace". Therefore, they were known as "keepers of the peace".
An act of 1327 had referred to "good and lawful men" to be appointed in every county in the land to "guard the peace"; such individuals were first referred to as conservators of the peace, or wardens of the peace. The title justice of the peace derives from 1361, in the reign of Edward III. The "peace" to be guarded is the sovereign's, the maintenance of which is the duty of the Crown under the royal prerogative. Justices of the peace still use the power conferred or re-conferred on them since 1361 to bind over unruly persons "to be of good behaviour". The bind over is not a punishment, but a preventive measure, intended to ensure that people thought likely to offend will not do so. The justices' alternative title of "magistrate" dates from the 16th century, although the word had been in use centuries earlier to describe some legal officials of Roman times.
In the centuries from the Tudor period until the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the JPs constituted a major element of the English (later British) governmental system, which had been termed sometimes squirearchy (i.e., dominance of the land-owning gentry). For example, historian Tim Blanning notes that while in Britain the royal prerogative was decisively curbed by the Bill of Rights 1689, in practice the central government in London had a greater ability to get its policies implemented in the rural outlying regions than could contemporary absolute monarchies such as France – a paradox due especially to JPs belonging to the same social class as the Members of Parliament and thus having a direct interest in getting laws actually enforced and implemented on the ground.
Being an unpaid office, undertaken voluntarily and sometimes more for the sake of renown or to confirm the justice's standing within the community, the justice was typically a member of the gentry. The justices of the peace conducted arraignments in all criminal cases, and tried misdemeanours and infractions of local ordinances and bylaws. Towns and boroughs with enough burdensome judicial business that could not find volunteers for the unpaid role of justice of the peace had to petition the Crown for authority to hire a paid stipendiary magistrate.
The Municipal Corporations Act 1835 stripped the power to appoint normal JPs from those municipal corporations that had it. This was replaced by the present system, where the Lord Chancellor nominates candidates with local advice, for appointment by the Crown.
Until the introduction of elected county councils in the 19th century, JPs, in quarter sessions, also administered the county at a local level. Their many roles included regulating wages and food supplies, managing roads, bridges, prisons and workhouses and undertook to provide and supervise locally those services mandated by the Crown and Parliament for the welfare of the county. To this end they set the County Rate, where one was set at all.
Women were not allowed to become JPs in the United Kingdom until 1919, the first woman being Ada Summers, the Mayor of Stalybridge, who was a JP by virtue of her office. In October 1920 Summers was appointed a JP in her own right, alongside other pioneers including Miriam Lightowler OBE in Halifax. Emily Murphy of Edmonton, Canada, preceded her by some three and a half years. Now in the UK, 50% of JPs are women.
In special circumstances, a justice of the peace can be the highest governmental representative, so in fact 'gubernatorial', in a colonial entity. This was the case in the Tati Concessions Land, a gold-mining concession (territory) in the Matabele kingdom, until its annexation by the British Bechuanaland protectorate
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.
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.
There is no doubt that the 1688 Bill of Rights is there to protect the public...
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
Administrator: There are some problems with my hosting site. Images will not be able to be displayed within threads until & resolve the issue. I am working on fixing it. Sorry about this
Feb 22, 2020 15:39:42 GMT