Police

[Sherlock]

Ah me, where to begin?

 

Once again, please take it as moot that the following are my own personal views, and do not reflect those of my esteemed employers.

 

The website to which Master Lookin has, so kindly provided a link is, in my personal and professional opinion, both misleading and egregiously in error throughout (an understatment, trust me).

 

To wit, when an Officer requests your details, you may not, necessarily, be required to provide them. However, where an Officer REQUIRES your details, I am afraid, dear sir, that you are. You see, there are a number of statutes and situations where to fail to do so is an arrestable offence, in and of itself.

 

Where you are involved in a reportable road traffic accident, there is a legal requirement to provide your details to Police.

 

Where you are detained in terms of Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, there is a legal requirement to provide your details.

 

So too with Section 60 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act (suspected theft), Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act (detained on suspicion of having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment), and so on.

 

Even where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting you have been witness to a crime, there is a legal requirement to provide your details, if such requirement is made of you.

 

In many such instances, Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, provides an Officer with the authority to demand your details. To fail to do so may well see you arrested (although obviously common sense and discretion would be expected to play a large part in any such decision making process). These are not powers which we conferred upon ourselves. They are, on the whole, results of Acts of Parliament, wherein your democratically elected representatives have agreed that such are required.

 

The use, however - as I have already stated - should be proportionate to the incident at hand.

 

Whatever the reason for arrest or detention in terms of Section 14, once taken into custody in such circumstances, Police have the legal authority to question you, to fingerprint and photograph you, and to take DNA from you whilst in custody. (Believe me, good folk, this is quite necessary, in order to establish that the person is who they pertain to be and, more importantly, this process often provides significant evidence in serious cases, which thereby allow the enquiry to move on and often be detected, i.e. rape or other serious sexual offences - although dishonesties such as housebreakings also often benefit. In such instances, where the offender is brought to justice as a result, I find it difficult to know what else we might do that would appease Master Lookin, et al. Perhaps asking politely might work?!). Unlike some of our English cousins, should the case not proceed, or you be found not guilty of a reported offence or crime, ALL your samples (fingerprints, photograph and DNA) pertaining to that incident MUST and WILL be destroyed. There are, to my knowledge, no incidents where such samples have been kept, for to do so is, in itself, unlawful, and renders the body doing so liable to suit.

 

Master Lookin, I heartily recommend that you read, and digest, the quote appended to my signature. I, personally, bear it in mind at all times, and I suggest that you do likewise, else your entire life may become a steady series of misunderstandings and misapprehensions. With all due respect, sir, it is always best to know just a little of what you speak, before you do so.

 

Might I also humbly suggest that Masters Icke and Gerrish may not be entirely objective in their own colourful views, and a balance may be required in formulating your - no doubt - rather exciting and intriguing view of the world as you know it.

 

I close in assuring you, sir, that, contrary to your outlandish and quite unfounded claims that we are whipped into a frenzy by NLP, or ruled by a secret caste composed of Common Purpose members (perhaps Moloch worshipping, highly evolved lizard folk?), we are - rather boringly - merely men and women, like any other. We wear a different set of clothes, and have a required level of training in order to carry out a necessary, often difficult and unpleasant - yet no less noble - profession, however we are, and remain, your humble servants.

[Sherlock]

Post script.

 

Admiralty Law? Corporate Law?

 

My dear sir, you have me - and, I do not doubt, all my colleagues - at a disadvantage. For we are not, to the best of my knowledge, ever involved in either. (I cannot remember the last time I arrested an Admiral!!)

 

Might I suggest you try CRIMINAL law (the clue is in the title), composed of Common Law (Scottish, of course) and Statutes (aren't what they seem? They are, my good fellow, just what they seem. Words, in black and white, which deal with legal matters. I am puzzled as to how they could be perceived as other?! ).

 

My dear, dear fellow, capitals are advised in noting details for the very reason so obviously surmised by our peer, Master Pleepsie, whom you then so casually disparage for stating an obvious truth. As the tutelage of copperplate handwriting is no more - alas for our educational system - capitals serve best in recording important details such as the identity of a person whom you may intend to report for a crime or offence, or the victim of a crime you intend to investigate ("Now then, what was the name of that victim again, erm MacDonald? MacDougall? MacDonell? Alas, I cannot read even my own scrawl! Damn you, teacher!")

 

While I am on the topic, how do I, as a public servant - even attempt to defend myself from any complaint or accusation, when I may not - in your world - even be entitled to know to whom I am talking? Please advise...

 

I fear your views in this respect - whilst you are, indubitably entitled to hold same - are as misinformed as they were on the matter of "drug taking demoted/transferred Police Officers" (I still await the names associated with this baseless and scurrilous accusation, as your PM's - whilst filled with bile and insult - have declined to provide same), or paedophilia being legalised throughout the EU (the latter being particularly distasteful to me, given the professional nature of my involvement in many such enquiries, and my personal knowledge of the victims of same).

 

None of the foregoing is intended as criticism, and if read as such, I humbly apologise. I merely seek to attempt to understand (and I can say that, in this instance, I do not) and to remain, as ever,

 

Your humble servant.

[JohanofNess]

While I am on the topic, how do I, as a public servant - even attempt to defend myself from any complaint or accusation, when I may not - in your world - even be entitled to know to whom I am talking? Please advise...

 

 

Don't use block capitals when you write it down.

[insouciant]

You may write all of the above but do not forget, as per the provided link

 

"Man made Statutes, Acts, By-Laws, Rules are fictions." !

 

And looking at the suggested dialogue with the police on the event of being stopped this bit amused me:

 

"Ask him again "Am I free to go ? AM I FREE TO GO ? AM I FREE TO GO ?"

 

They'd probably forget about asking for your name and address and go straight to getting you sectioned!

[Sherlock]

Master Ness

[justlookin]

Ah me, where to begin?

 

 

To wit, when an Officer requests your details, you may not, necessarily, be required to provide them. However, where an Officer REQUIRES your details, I am afraid, dear sir, that you are. You see, there are a number of statutes and situations where to fail to do so is an arrestable offence, in and of itself.

 

But am i correct in assuming that Statutes and the Law are different things? And that I would be required to agree (basically give my consent by sayin "my name is ....") to become the fictitious JOE BLOGS before any action can be taken against my PERSON. As the police force is a corporation. Business can only be carried using the PERSON. (Thats why it always say PRINT YOUR NAME). By printing your name you forfeit your natural rights as a man or woman, and consent to the rights of the PERSON.

 

Where you are involved in a reportable road traffic accident, there is a legal requirement to provide your details to Police.

 

Where you are detained in terms of Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, there is a legal requirement to provide your details.

 

So too with Section 60 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act (suspected theft), Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act (detained on suspicion of having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment), and so on.

 

Even where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting you have been witness to a crime, there is a legal requirement to provide your details, if such requirement is made of you.

 

There is a difference between Legal requirement and Lawful Requirement.

 

In many such instances, Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, provides an Officer with the authority to demand your details. To fail to do so may well see you arrested (although obviously common sense and discretion would be expected to play a large part in any such decision making process). These are not powers which we conferred upon ourselves. They are, on the whole, results of Acts of Parliament, wherein your democratically elected representatives have agreed that such are required.

 

Acts of Parliament are not Law.

[Pleepsie]

justlookin wrote:

Acts of Parliament are not Law.

An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/acts.cfmhttp://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/acts.cfm

 

Just felt like writing something worthwhile.

[justlookin]

If you don't believe me about the police force being a business check out the Dun&Bradstreet website.

 

Try typing in House of Lords (its a business for profit)

NewLabour (its a business for profit)

Police Force (its a business for profit) Not a service

DVLA (its a business for profit)

 

 

Post script.

 

Admiralty Law? Corporate Law? shock

 

My dear sir, you have me - and, I do not doubt, all my colleagues - at a disadvantage. For we are not, to the best of my knowledge, ever involved in either. (I cannot remember the last time I arrested an Admiral!!)

 

Why do they call it a 'Dock'?

[Sherlock]

Is it just me, or am I arguing an immutable set of facts with a wholly intransigent and obtuse opponent?

 

Master Lookin, you are not correct in assuming that statutes and law are not the same thing. That is why they are called statutory laws (statutes is an Americanism, or may sometimes be used as shorthand).

 

There is no "fictitious" person. If you are having your details noted lawfully (contrary to your erroneous definition, they are one and the same: "legal adj 1 lawful; allowed by the law. 2 referring or relating to the law or lawyers. 3 created by law. ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Latin legalis." source Chambers Dictionary) it is you the person to whom they refer, not some fictional person. Crime reports are statements of fact, as provided by witnesses testimony, which may be proven, and other corroborative evidence. They are not to be found next to Danielle Steel and John Grisham in the public library. I do not even begin to understand where this misapprehension has arisen from, nor how it can be maintained in the face of rationalisation of fact. Piffle and tosh, sir.

 

On to your next erroneous point: The Police Forces (Plural, for there are many, not one - see I could be petty also, however it is a tiresome attitude to maintain, so I shall not) are not corporations[/i]. I know not where you have read or formed this view, however it is utter nonsense. We are not a business - if so, what is our product? Is the NHS a business? Or the Fire Service? We are public servants. Again, sir, piffle and tosh.

 

And finally: Of course Acts of Parliament are Law, for it is from such circumstances that Statutory Law originates. Common Law is historical, originating from interpretation of the biblical sins (murder, theft, etc). Where new laws are required by a changing, developing society, Axcts of Parliament are passed and become Statutory Law. And, yes, I am sorry to inform you, they govern you every bit as much as Common Law, else why would folk be arrested for drink driving (I do not believe they had motor vehicles in the 1800's, for instance, therefore the introduction of new laws became necessary in the face of abuse of such vehicular transport - such is Statutory law). Yet again, piffle and tosh.

 

May I make a suggestion, sir, in order to test your mettle, the courage of your convictions and your boundless depth of knowledge of all things legal and lawful? If you drive, then next time, weave your car from side to side in front of a police vehicle. When you are stopped, behave exactly as you have advised others. When you are thereafter arrested and held in custody until the next lawful sitting of the Court (and this you shall be, should you refuse to lawfully provuide your details when required), you may have this pointless debate with the Sheriff. Should he yield to your argument, I shall do likewise. Aleister Crowley advocated "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". This is very close to your own view, however, I do not suggest likewise, as it is not much of a defence in Court!!

 

Forgive me if I doubt I shall see, or hear of, such shenanigans any time soon.

 

As ever, I remain,

 

Your humble servant.

[Sherlock]

A dock originally referred to a walled enclosure, such as was used for the building and repair of ships, or the holding pen wherein an accused was held during trial. It's useage in such circumstances dates back several hundred years, and has no other link to the sea, insofar as I am aware.

 

Your humble servant.

[ScotFree]

Hi Sherlock, Girls and Boys,

 

I heard you talking aboot me and just popped in to chat.

Sherlock seems to think he knows about "Law".

 

Ladies and Gentlmen of the jury.

I quote from

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2006/5/12fitch.html

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if I were a patient lawyer, I'd make this closing argument into a long-winded speech about the inadequacies of our criminal-justice system, .................. But I am not a patient lawyer. "

END QUOTE

 

I am at your service:

Dave Allison

http://www.spanglefish.com/freemanscotland/

[i have no truck with anonymity unlike ....]

[nederlander]

^ Oh jesus, the cavalry has arrived!

 

[ScotFree]

Is it just me, or am I arguing an immutable set of facts with a wholly intransigent and obtuse opponent?

 

Errr........ YES

 

 

 

Master Lookin, you are not correct in assuming that statutes and law are not the same thing.

 

CORRECT

 

That is why they are called statutory laws (statutes is an Americanism, or may sometimes be used as shorthand).

 

WRONG See definitions Black's Law Dictionary 8th. Edition.

 

 

There is no "fictitious" person. If you are having your details noted lawfully (contrary to your erroneous definition, they are one and the same: "legal adj 1 lawful; allowed by the law. 2 referring or relating to the law or lawyers. 3 created by law. ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Latin legalis." source Chambers Dictionary) it is you the person to whom they refer, not some fictional person. Crime reports are statements of fact, as provided by witnesses testimony, which may be proven, and other corroborative evidence. They are not to be found next to Danielle Steel and John Grisham in the public library. I do not even begin to understand where this misapprehension has arisen from, nor how it can be maintained in the face of rationalisation of fact. Piffle and tosh, sir.

 

WRONG: There is no "fictitious" person. If you are having your details noted lawfully

 

There is NO requirement anywhere to give your details to ANYONE.

These "Laws" are FICTIONS.

 

 

 

On to your next erroneous point: The Police Forces (Plural, for there are many, not one - see I could be petty also, however it is a tiresome attitude to maintain, so I shall not) are not corporations[/i]. I know not where you have read or formed this view, however it is utter nonsense. We are not a business - if so, what is our product? Is the NHS a business? Or the Fire Service? We are public servants. Again, sir, piffle and tosh.

 

 

The Police Forces, NHS, Fire Services, ................

are CORPORATIONS.

 

 

And finally: Of course Acts of Parliament are Law, for it is from such circumstances that Statutory Law originates. Common Law is historical, originating from interpretation of the biblical sins (murder, theft, etc). Where new laws are required by a changing, developing society, Axcts of Parliament are passed and become Statutory Law. And, yes, I am sorry to inform you, they govern you every bit as much as Common Law, else why would folk be arrested for drink driving (I do not believe they had motor vehicles in the 1800's, for instance, therefore the introduction of new laws became necessary in the face of abuse of such vehicular transport - such is Statutory law). Yet again, piffle and tosh.

 

 

QUOTE "Yet again, piffle and tosh."

 

The Laws of God, The Universe, Nature and Physics.

Do no harm.

Do not steal.

Do not make false contracts.

THESE ARE THE ONLY LAWS

all else man made Statutes, Acts, By-Laws, Rules are fictions.

 

 

 

 

May I make a suggestion, sir, in order to test your mettle, the courage of your convictions and your boundless depth of knowledge of all things legal and lawful? If you drive, then next time, weave your car from side to side in front of a police vehicle. When you are stopped, behave exactly as you have advised others. When you are thereafter arrested and held in custody until the next lawful sitting of the Court (and this you shall be, should you refuse to lawfully provuide your details when required), you may have this pointless debate with the Sheriff. Should he yield to your argument, I shall do likewise. Aleister Crowley advocated "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". This is very close to your own view, however, I do not suggest likewise, as it is not much of a defence in Court!!

 

YOUR COURT IS A FICTION

made by Master over Freemen.

 

Forgive me if I doubt I shall see, or hear of, such shenanigans any time soon.

 

>>Shenanigans are trickery, mischief, or underhanded actions.

often to be seen practised by members of the Law Society, Police, Judges

et al.

 

 

As ever, I remain,

 

Dave A

 

Your humble servant.

[Sherlock]

Thank you, Master Allison, for proving my point. Blacks's Law is an American publication, dealing with American laws and legal definitions. If our Scottish laws and definitions differ from our English cousins, it is obvious that they also differ from our American counterparts, do you not agree?

 

Hmm. You question my knowledge of law, and underscore your questioning with a quote from a piece intended to be somewhat humorous (allegedly, I might add). That makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

 

As to the issue of corporations, this is a designation or label propounded by you and your Freeman peers, for which I can find no authoritative source (unless Andy Williams thought so also? A fine melody, if somewhat trite lyricism, yet I fail to see what legal bearing the song "Born Free" has on anything at hand. Unless we are lions, who but dream we are men ).

 

And as for the "all laws are fiction" and so called self published "Notice of Understanding..." malarkey, then I say again, piffle and tosh, sir. I do not always like the law of gravity, or that my eyes are blue, however these are immutable facts, however much I may dispute these. Similarly, whether you like it or not (and by careful deductive reasoning, I would say not ) the Law does, indeed, apply to you, be it Common Law or Statutory. To suggest otherwise could be perceived as irratiobdl or arrogant at best, and delusional at worst.

 

On the subject of Statutory law, I would direct you, sir, to www.statutelaw.gov.uk or www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm

 

Both deal with laws (yes, laws, for I am truly sorry to upset you, however this really happened and these laws have been passed, as previously described) pertaining to this fair country of ours, and to all those herein, be it Freemen, or mere mortals like the rest of us.

 

Finally, I was not talking about you, sir, I was questioning Master Lookin as to his (still) erroneous assumptions and statements made herein. Unless you are he, or his virtual ventriloquist.

 

I remain, as always,

 

Your humble servant.

[ScotFree]

Sherlock, I do appreciate the eloquence of your language. It is rare these days but eloquence

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloquence

Eloquence (from Latin eloquentia) is fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.

 

but eloquence forcible or elegant is no guarantee of Truth.

 

If you are a member of the Police Force, you will know that everyone is Equal before the "Law".

 

You will know that habeas corpus is being removed from Your "Laws".

 

Your "Laws" have been built over centuries by despots and criminals.

Police in this country (and most others) use these "Laws" to steal from the enslaved.

 

Recently the largest theft in history from banks has occured,

but the Police do nothing. Instead they "Police Laws" like,

My village has a distillery, yet a By-Law makes it an offence

to drink alchol outside this distillery or indeed anywhere outside in the village.

 

"Your Laws" are the laws of the Bully Boy Gangster.

 

Please Sir,

Can I park here? Can I smoke in the pub?

Please Sir,

Can I build a shed on MY land? Can I drive without a seat belt?

Please Sir,

Can I put garden rubbish in the bin?

Please Sir,

Can I laugh?

Asbo bans laughing

The Scotsman.Serious matter as Asbo bans laughing

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Serious-matter-as-Asbo-bans.4629265.jp

 

The "Statutes and Acts ......" are designed to bring about a Police State.

The "Statutes and Acts ......" are working well.

 

King John of England would be very happy with the present "Laws"

 

Tony Bliar introduced 3000 new laws

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=blair+introduced+3000+new+laws&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

 

so much so that NO Person can know the laws and is often guilty of breaking "Laws" unknowingly.

 

All men are equal.

Can I arrest you NO.

Can you arrest me NO.

 

This country the UK is in Revolt Sir.

While some will use violence, the Freeman Movement,

it is Very large now, will not use violence.

The paradigm shift in Law & Politics has started and will grow as did all mass movements, like christianity, Islam, Communisim,

though unlike those, The Freeman Movement has TRUTH.

 

Best wishes,

DaveA