The Police…. are they just a Private Political Army?

If I was asked the question ‘do we need the police on the streets’? Then I would answer yes we do. If I was asked ‘are the police actually doing their jobs properly’? I would answer yes they are. Now this might confuse a few of you, but please bare with me. Firstly, things have got more than a little out of hand and we certainly need peace keepers on the streets, it’s just a shame we don’t have any – but that will come about soon enough. Secondly the police are doing their jobs properly, because they are doing exactly what they were constructed and designed to do – it’s just most of us do not know the history of the police, their conception, their role and purpose so are making completely un-informed opinions – so maybe it’s time to be informed.

There is a misconception amongst many of us that I have witnessed many times, including this past weekend. Where many of us assert that the police – amongst many different elements of the world and it’s components – were in some way at sometime set up for the greater benefit of us all. And the people playing the roles within these elements have somehow become misguided in their duties. This I am afraid is far from the case. The conception of such things as governments, the police, the courts and many other elements used daily to deceptively oppress any peoples of any lands were of design. They were designed specifically in their roles and purposes. There is no lapse of duty when the duty was to do as they do now and was all along. So if this is the case, how can a lapse occur? It may be wishful thinking on our part if we perceive that this is not the case. We may harbor some misconception that a certain element of our own kind would not set out to do this deliberately! That they would not do this to the members of the very family they in turn belong too. But alas it is true that this is the case. It is certainly honorable for us to do so, but not all act with the same amount of honorability as we may do ourselves – even though at first it may seem that way. This serves to prove nothing more than that the use of dead words is a very powerful attribute when trying to keep true misconceptions at bay. Especially when we refuse to except that there could be a very different ‘story’ to be told that is not the recognized story being told!

As far as I can tell there is a very definite them and us syndrome at play which involves 10% of the populace against 90%. Not created by ‘us’, created by ‘them’. Most of you reading this will be in the 90% bracket as I am. Our job is to serve the needs of the 10% without question or argument and to maintain that they can live the life styles they ‘think’ they are entitled too off of our backbones. We ‘must’ at all times keep the machine turning before anything and the machine must take priority. We must do all the jobs that are lower than them to do and we must ‘obey’. This is called ‘legal slavery’ and comes by the name of ‘democracy’. As in all forms of slavery it ends in ‘violence’ of some sorts or at least ‘torture’ if we DO NOT do as we are told when we are told. This is done by a ‘private political army’ called the ‘police’ who are used to enforce this violence upon us and a ‘legal system’ to torture us by incarceration, loss of property or money. This is done for what are predominately ‘victimless crimes’. This only happens to the 90% through a legal system designed specifically to do this. The other 10% have their own unique ‘legal system’ that counteracts the other if at any time they fall foul of it by mistake. The 10% are members of a ‘club’ and to be a member, you have to be in some way on the ‘pay role of the church’ of which there are two very distinct types. The private political army (police) know that the ‘club’ use a certain language to identify themselves. In such cases they MUST revert back to their role – which is to simply protect this element not persecute them. Which to be honest history shows they were designed to do in the first place. They MUST only ever persecute those of the 90%. The 10% are the ‘socially dominant’ (aristocracy being the top element) with a sliding scale down of privileges depending on your ‘status’ within the machine. The 90% are made up from the working classes and middle classes who keep the machine running at each level again depending on their ‘status’, which is determined by their ‘position’ in life.

Now I could be talking complete tripe and if that is your opinion then you are ‘entitled’ to it. But what if all I am saying is true? The following words I have taken from my book which was to be called ‘180 degrees’. This was to be a fact based book trying to show, that all we are told is in fact 180 degrees from the actual truth. But I decided that it is not for me to tell you what is true or not, that it is simply for you to decide if you want too. So I have decided to publish what I have written on the net, as I have now started a new book and I am 13 chapters in. this book is a fiction called ‘The Prophesy of Sion’. I am now taking what I have discovered over the last few years and I am writing it into a story. It is for you to decide what may be true and what may be false and no one else. The fact has always remained that I certainly have no right to tell what may be what.

Just to answer a question I am asked all the time; I have no idea when the book will be completed. I have no way of funding it now and I am in talks with someone regarding buying a 10% share in the book to give me the necessary funds to be able to finish. Unfortunately this has fell through, so now I will be returning back to work. To be honest I am very prepared to do this, but not in the way I used too. I will carry on writing the book, although my time will be limited. So subsequently it will take much longer to complete, but so be it, now this is the case.

Please enjoy….

The Police…. are they a Private Political Army? You decide!

A little history of the police and how they came about I feel is needed now, so let’s start with the Bow Street Runners who were founded in 1749/50 by author Henry Fielding – a little issue over the date it seems, not to worry. The Bow Street Runners were very similar to a group called the ‘thief-takers’. All though the thief-takers were unofficial of course…wink wink. The thief-taker would solve petty crime for a fee. A private individual would hire them to capture anyone accused of a crime. At this time, with a rising crime rate and newspapers to bring it to the attention of the public – a bit of de jar vu here, oh well not to worry. Thief-takers came about to partially fill the void or in some cases widen it. Bringing those accused of a crime to court, or in their words at the time ‘justice’. They were a bit like bounty hunters who were paid by bail bondsmen to catch suspected criminals who had skipped a court appearance. Those, who had supposedly forfeited (punishment for breach of contract) their bail, whereas thief-takers were generally hired by crime victims. Both thief-takers and bounty hunters also collected bounties offered by the government acting as go betweens negotiating the return of stolen goods for a fee. Most of them were corrupt themselves – no shock there – extorting protection money from the criminals they were supposed to apprehend.

Perhaps the most notorious thief-taker was a man called Jonathan Wild who operated in London around the 1720’s. He led a gang of thieves and would arrange for the return of property actually stolen by his own gang. To maintain the belief he was working completely legitimately, he would even hand over some of the members of his gang. They would inevitably end up being hung on the ‘Tyburn Tree’ (24 could be hung at once shaped like a triangle at the top) situated where Marble Arch is now. Jonathan was hung there himself at Tyburn when this was discovered in 1725. The government funded rewards were corrupting influences that lead directly to the Mac Daniel scandal, which occurred in 1754. It came to light that a gang led by Stephen Mac Daniel had been prosecuting innocent men to their deaths in order to collect reward money. Supposedly, it was an unintended consequence of the government’s rewards for the capture of criminals.  Before those rewards were instituted, thief-takers depended primarily on privately-funded rewards from victims seeking return of stolen property or other restitution. However, this scandal started the move towards the formation of salaried public police force that did not depend on rewards.

Although, as I said before the Bow Street Runners were similar to the thief-takers, this represented a formalization and regularization of existing policing methods. What made them different from the thief-takers was their formal attachment to the Bow Street magistrates’ office. The fact that they were paid by the magistrate with funds from central government. They worked out of Fielding's office and the court at No. 4 Bow Street, and did not patrol but served writs and arrested offenders on the authority of the magistrates. Sometimes even travelling nationwide to apprehend criminals. Although the force was only funded intermittently in the years that followed, it did serve as the guiding principle for the way policing was to develop over the next eighty years. Bow Street was a manifestation of the move towards increasing professionalization and ‘state control of street life’ beginning in London – hold on a minute state control of street life? Maybe it would have been more pertinent to address the issues of why street life was alive with so much crime! Obviously resulting from the way people were made to live and the conditions they suffered daily. Especially whist others of supposed better ‘status’ lived the life of riley! – sorry going off on one, but it does seem so ludicrous unless of course it was being done for another reason. Were certain members of the ‘establishment’ buying their way into positions, that would allow for them to continue their corrupt ways from high office?  - please allow me to elaborate.

Charles Hitchen was a thief-taker (unofficial policeman) in 18th century London who for a time set up a business as a joiner. He married Elizabeth Wells in 1703. The couple lived on the north side of St Paul’s Churchyard in the city of London. Elizabeth’s dad died in 1711 and Elizabeth inherited property from him which she sold. Charles used the money from his wife’s inheritance to ‘buy’ the position of Under City Marshal for £700 in 1712 – hold on a minute ‘buy his position’? There were two city marshals who had a staff of 6 men, their job was to police the city regarding prostitutes, vagrants and unlicensed tradesmen. The city marshal received all paid fines as well as a £100 salary from the lord mayor of London. This seems to have only encouraged the marshals to increase fines, rather than decrease crime – sounds very familiar in the world of PCN’s (Penalty Charge Notices) we now live in. Charles Hitchen was not the first to abuse and use his position to perform legal theft, known today as a ‘precautionary principles’ which inverts the very principles of justice and negligence which is so obvious now. I wonder if people still ‘buy’[1] their way into positions of high office, with a  little back hander here a little one there, nudge nudge wink wink – or a funny handshake here or there? Charles Hitchen begun to extort bribes from brothels and pickpockets to prevent them being arrested. In particular leaning on thieves making them fence their stolen goods through him. At one time 10 Downing street was a café where criminals took their stolen goods to fence them – nothing much changes eh!  

With the growth of paper money transfers, the early draught notices and "notes of hand" (agreements to pay the bearer) pickpockets were causing larger and larger economic losses to traders and merchants. Charles Hitchen, like Jonathan Wild later, acted as a "finder" of stolen merchandise and negotiated a fee for the return of the stolen items. Charles Hitchen regarded this matter as commonplace enough, that he began to boast of controlling dozens of thieves and actually tried to extort protection money out of tradesmen to prevent their being robbed. The complaints were so loud and frequent enough that the board of aldermen investigated him in 1712 and relieved him of his duties in 1713. Whilst keeping him in his title and salary, because he had to keep what he had PAID for. Charles Hitchen enlisted Jonathan Wild to help him keep control of his thieves while he himself was out of action. In April of 1714 Charles Hitchen was reinstated. This story carries on leading to Charles Hitchens being arrested, tried and convicted of sodomy in 1727. It can be found on the internet if you would like to read the rest it in full.

Needless to say the system of crime prevention and law enforcement [2] (‘precautionary principles’) had hardly changed since medieval times. JP’s or Justices of the Peace were appointed by the Crown and had been since 1361. These were assisted by thief-takers, constables and watchmen. The constables only worked part time and were very unreliable as the pay was so bad. Watchmen were called Charley’s after King Charles II who introduced them. The problem with Charley’s was that they were useless. The lord mayor of London, Matthew Wood said they spent very little time patrolling. Instead they would be in their boxes playing cards, going to pubs with prostitutes or sleeping. He also added that some of them took bribes from criminals – oh I could add such a comment here regarding this but I shall hold my tongue for now. All I will say is that history always seems to repeat itself and nothing much changes by ‘degree’.

Henry Fielding, as I have said formed the Bow Street Runners in 1750. Henry being a famous author (author of Tom Jones) became chief magistrate at Bow Street Court in 1748. London was growing fast and so was the crime rate and something was needed to be done. He wrote a report about the rise in crime and published it in 1751. The inquiry into the causes of the late increase of robbers broke down the problems:

1.      Too many people coming to London expecting an easy life

2.      Corruption in the government

3.      People were choosing crime rather than hard work

4.      The constables were mostly useless – only 6 out of 80 were worth keeping on

Do you not find it interesting that second in the list is corruption in the government – shock horror whatever next – surely the government cannot be corrupt, there the government? I feel this was actually wrong, as the second should have been the first, the first should have been the forth – you get the idea as being a list of relevance. In 1754 Henry’s half brother John took over the reins as to speak, he remained the chief magistrate until 1780.

Timeline of John Fielding and the changes he tried to make and made. In 1755 it was suggested Londoners should pay a subscription to fund a special horse patrol, this was rejected. In 1763 in was suggested London should be divided into six areas with their own patrols and police stations, this again was rejected. £600 was given by the government to hire an eight man patrol to patrol the highways, this supposedly ended highway robbery, but was not continued. In 1772/3 a general preventative plan was drawn up. £400 was used to co-ordinate information from gaols and JP’s, which was published in a newspaper called the Hue and Cry. In 1792 London was divided into seven districts. In 1798 the river Thames police were set up. In 1805 fifty four armed men were employed to patrol the highways, they became known as ‘Robin Redbreasts’ because of the red coats they used to wear. In 1829 London had 450 constables and 4,000 watchmen (Charleys) for a population of 1.5 million. It was decided that something bigger was needed, so enter centre stage the ‘Peelers’.

The socially dominant (aristocracy) decided they needed protection from us the inferiors as we were known. Because street life in London had become so bad, there was need for an organized recognized police presence on the streets. The state (government) needed ‘state control of the streets’ as they were not prepared to give up their way of life and the luxury of this binging funded by crime in the first place. Instead of putting money into the communities to give the poorest of the communities a better standard of living, it was far easier for them to devise and conjure up a method of being able to control street life. Even though the conditions many lived in stayed the same for the reasons given, the socially dominant would be fully protected and so would their possessions. This was also engineered as I can see it to keep the stream of revenue flowing from the implementation of fines and forfeitures upon the poor. Also of course the ‘protection money’ being forced upon the tradesmen, merchants, brothels and prostitutes. As it is most evident this was a very lucrative business to be in. And of course there will always be palms that have to be greased in the seedy halls of governance, to allow this process to function properly. Oh you might say I am just being cynical and yes in some ways I am, especially when you realise that this process has been going on for a very long time as I do. To be honest it’s hard not to be. I would like to raise a few points now that I have highlighted through the recent text.

[1]Do you not find a resemblance here of what happens and has happened many times regarding people within positions of power being found out for mischief’s they have committed. Then only to be put back in another position of power, or indeed the same position. Seemingly never prosecuted for the fraud they have committed being allowed to carry on that fraud. Many incidents of this ilk lurk in history and many have come to light recently. This is not just in central or local government, but through all the walks of governance, including the police on many occasions. Is the process of buying positions of power still relevant – oh indeed so. Many peers who now reside within the house of lords are there as popular peers. Peers who have bought their way into a position of power with bought titles. A hand shake here and there to secure an increase in status to secure that their merchant Endeavour’s continue on behalf of themselves and their most evident ‘share holders’. Crossing the hands with silver that needed to be endowed with such to acquire the means to carry on such practices to the detriment of us. This also includes you the reader no one escapes the cage!

Most you will find come from and are still involved in a corporate structure bringing that structure with them to only increase the depth of how the structure is corporatized. There are no mistakes within who becomes a lord and who doesn’t. There is certainly no account for the amount of corruption they may have committed in the past or continue to do so! In fact this is something that is relied upon, so they are fully aware that these corrupt practices are something that is needed and should be number one on any CV of any applicant. The amount of money they can use to grease the palms that need greasing is also a very relevant factor. This certainly dictates what position they will hold, more being more and the likes of. Subsequently when these people are found out by whatever mechanism at play, they are just reappointed. This done because it is far easier to re-appoint someone who is already aligned to the corruption than look for someone to bring to the fold who is not. There is always the re-installing of those who were corrupt and found out previously to rely upon. When enough time has elapsed so the indiscretion is no longer in the mind’s eye of the populace as recent appointment within the lords evidences. Mr. Mandleson being a prime example of this. Look at any election and you will see those who have the most money to produce the best campaign will without doubt gain the power they set out to acquire. This happens because it is orchestrated to be this way. The decision was made long before the party even started!

The acquiring, being the factor of position and power being dictated by the relevant use of money to acquire that position in the first place. If this is manipulated and orchestrated to service the needs of those who require as a must the acquisition of power, then all that dictates this is the provisions used by the salesmen and the amount of money being thrown at the sales pitch. These people are control freaks, why would anything be left to chance? An election is chance is it not? All throughout history those who have required an elevation of stature have dictated the end by the means. They simply rely upon how much money they have to play with. You must speculate to accumulate when selling your soul to the corporate devil!  As many are prepared to pave their way to these positions by crossing the palms with silver, then this fact was realised by the ‘share holders’. The fact that by using the corporate sector money making machines and their insane lust for power, that would give the vehicle needed to arrive at the desired destination. Money corrupts everything and everyone it ever comes into contact with. It is without doubt the route and engine of all corruption – sorry going off the plot for a while I will be back on track soon.

[2]The most powerful devise ever conjured up and used in my opinion is the ‘precautionary principle’. This is the principle that inverts the very existence of justice and negligence – as I have said before. The catch phrase that has been used so blatantly throughout history is ‘it’s being done for your own protection’!! This the mantra, the slogan the catch phrase of the sales pitch. This simple catch phrase has been used to dupe everyone into a belief system that it is being done for this reason. Even though to a few it is the complete opposite. These few have always been silenced throughout history for stating this fact. The silencing of the few has always been done for very simple reasons. Basically to suppress what is being said and to show what will happen to you if you too voiced some form of rejection. This allowed for  a process of containment and acceptance through fear of reprisal. All though this may upset a few of you, an early example of this was the ‘man on the cross’.

To voice such would be seen as an act of sedition, treason or at the very least non-compliance. This would have to be stamped upon if the populace were to be contained within what was being conjured up. It seems to me that any system of crime prevention and law enforcement was only ever developed, as I have said before, to allow for the continuance of profiteering from the crime in the first place. A system of protection devised to protect none other than the rule makers themselves from those the laws apply too. Who are supposedly committing the crimes in the first place! To be honest reality suggests in more ways than one that the true criminals are those who make the laws. What sense would there be in preventing the crime if you profit from that crime handsomely? Surely all that would be needed was for the instance that justice and crime prevention was seen to be done. But does not reality suggest that it is not actually being done. So in effect the populace would be happy because they were duped into believing this was the real solution to the problem, without the real problem being addressed or even coming into realisation by most. Those who did realise the real issue and how to correct this problem were not prepared to do such because their life styles and their elevation of status resided on the problem never being solved. The implementation of even more laws, legislation and rules would just perpetuate the problem not solve it. Even though they seemed to be addressing the issues by such use of these mechanisms, there never seems to be quite enough done. This to be honest is the desired outcome. Even if you do not for one minute except anything I have suggested, just look at the problems within your own communities. No matter what ‘rule’ is applied, things only ever seem to get worse. If this is the case which it is, then have you ever wondered why this is?

Back to the subject at hand the police; introduction of the metropolitan Police 1829.

Even though we could not imagine life without a police force which raises many questions, what we see in history is the fact that many people were objecting to the forming of such an entity. Some people held dear to the fact that if the people wanted a police force they should do it themselves and not allow the government to do it for them. Allowing for the election of police constables to be done by the people. Electing members of their communities who they trusted and knew of. This allowed for the idea that all ‘policing services’ (as they should have been known as and were for time) would only be made up of people the community on a whole trusted to do such a job. It is said “we must never forget they are public servants and in being such their job is to uphold and not enforce law” – but sadly this is a misconception. It was also feared that the police force would be used to arrest opponents of the government. Wow that is the understatement of the year, what year, any, as far as I see it. Stop protests and destroy free speech – I was saying! It was thought by many that the idea of a police force belonged to a foreign country. Never to be applied to the shores of this land. It is now painfully obvious that the government were not prepared to do anything to create a better standard of living for the working class. Moreover ‘their’ living standards and maintenance of stature resided on such never being corrected. The socially dominant demanded more organized regulated police force was needed, so to provide this enter one of their own Sir Robert Peel.

In 1822 Robert Peel became the Tory home secretary. He introduced a number of reforms to British criminal law. He was known mostly for the metropolitan police act, but also reduced the number of crimes punishable by death amongst others. In 1812 Robert Peel established the Royal Irish Constabulary which in the words of those who seek control had proved to be a great success. It became obvious to Robert Peel that something similar was needed in London. He founded the Peelers who were called as such after their founder. This was the start of the metropolitan police force. They were created via the metropolitan police act of 1829 which set up an organized police force for London, with 17 divisions, each with 4 inspectors and 144 constables. It was to be controlled from Scotland Yard and answerable to the home secretary and not the people. Controlled and only answerable to the government shock horror!! These men became the model to be used to create all the provincial forces. Firstly in the London boroughs and then into the counties and towns after Robert Peel put through the County Police Act in 1839.

The public did not react very well to the Peelers. In fact they hated them complaining that many were of poor quality, made up from men who were nothing more than drunks and bullies – a bit like the masters they served.  Now, now John that’s a bit harsh. Harsh it maybe but nonetheless true. Also are we still talking about the 1800’s because it seems more like present day. Also please let me add that I am in no way tarring every constable with the same brush, I am just trying to give an over view of why and how the police were constructed. But nonetheless this does seem to be an attribute that is relied upon in the recruitment of new ‘officers’, not my words ‘their’ words.

Of the first 2800 new policemen, only 600 kept their jobs. In fact the first ever official policeman given the badge number 1, was sacked after only 4 hours for being blind drunk. According to accounts recorded in 1833 a PC by the name of Robert Culley was stabbed to death after the police broke up a political meeting. The case against him resulted in the jury finding the man not guilty and subsequently acquitted him of all charges against him. A newspaper awarded the jury medals for doing so! Also according to the same accounts, at the same time the Justice of the Peace’s were also very angry and dismayed that they had no control over the police. Which clearly was showing that the police could be lead to do what the judiciary felt could be deemed not according to the rule of law. The legislature and the judiciary and all aspects of such must at all times stay independent of each other. This has to happen to avoid the occasion to arise where there would be the issue of a conflict of interests. Which in effect allows for no justice of any form to prevail. Eventually however the impact upon crime, particularly organized crime led to an acceptance if not an approval of the Peelers. Whether that was true or not cannot be substantiated, as the only reliable source the people could measure from was unfortunately the same as today which was the media. At that time only newspapers. They were even known then to publish statistics from the government that were just verbatim and not fact, that could not be substantiated by anyone just being accepted as being fact. I am still not sure we are just talking about the early 1800’s.

Even though then, as you see today the newspapers were playing devils advocates on occasions. Supposedly being un-bias. But in reality this again is nothing more than a smoke screen to gain the populaces trust. As now the media are told never to cross the line. If they do, or the people responsible for such articles do, they are almost certainly relieved of their positions. Replaced for someone who will toe the line. Who will conform to an established standard or political programme. 

What is quite obvious to me is the fact that the police were to be used as a political police force. They were to be used to force the policies of the government upon us. As I have mentioned before the need for the force in the first place was created by the government to control street life and bring it under full state control. As I have shown you the people in the positions of power did not want for the street life of London or anywhere else to get any better. They relied upon it too much to substantiate their lifestyles and give reason for their existence in the position of power they held and the need for the position in the first place. This seems very sad but is absolutely true. They truly believe that they are themselves of greater dignity than the people who were forced to live upon the streets. The police were developed to protect them and their possessions from this reality. It is quite obvious that they were never developed to protect the people as a whole. Simply looking at the word police do you not see the word policy spelt slightly differently, but certainly meaning exactly the same? The need for the force arose as well because the government were not prepared to increase anyone’s standard of living. Surely all of us are entitled to the same standard of living across the board. Regarding the issues of crime they professed to be such a problem, by doing this surely it would have alleviated much of it – if not all – if life for the working classes was better.

Crime is bread through poverty! This quite obviously is seen throughout history and still exists on a world wide scale. Governments of all countries to this day still invest vast sums in crime prevention instead of solving this issue by raising the standard of living. I know I seem to be going over this point quite a lot, but this is very important to realize, considering how the police were to evolve and what they would evolve into. Vast amounts of tax payers money is still spent every day protecting those in power and those who were. What I would like to ask you is protecting them from what? Some of you will use the unsubstantiated terrorism argument. Again please provide the evidence that has not come from someone who is in fact under this form of protection? I am sure you realise the truth now as nothing ever changes only evolves to suit its new environment. These people needed to protect themselves from us and in return create money making machines (corporations) to stealth tax us in the process under forms of control that we cannot resist. And if we do resist, they call who; the ‘police’ – resulting in a perfect system. 

By alluding the populace regarding their true functions the police gained a form of consent from us to do the jobs they were perceived to be doing. Even though within this there lies a dark secret to their real purpose. Which most of us are completely oblivious of. A constable has a common law legal duty to serve and protect. In pretence this is to be applied to everyone, but in reality it only applies to those who are a member of the socially dominant element. Members of a very specific club of people, headed up and controlled by the advocates for the share holders. I was fooled at first as many of us were that there actual duty was to serve everyone as a whole, and there was no element of segregation to the common law legal system. But in reality the common law legal system is in fact a separate legal system that applies to the club and the club alone. In their own words “the likes of the inferior have no business with it or using it, for it was never intended for them to use”. Ask them for your selves, ask them – is there a tier system of law with two uniquely different types, set up for two uniquely different elements? You may not get an answer, but you will without doubt get the 10 second death silence whilst they rack their brains for an answer that will either confuse you or pacify you.

As the police evolved so did their structure, as the pyramid type hierarchal corporate basis evolved within their ranks. Creating these ranks as is such within any ‘corporate’ structure. Creating two distinctly different elements; one being a common law legal protection system for the club and the other a fully fledged corporate structure that was to be applied to the populace. The populace are controlled and persecuted by one structure, whilst the members of the club would enjoy and benefit from the common law element as their ultimate protection if all else failed. The corporate element has always existed within the police as the police were set up on a corporate basis. They are controlled and managed via policy created by the ‘the company’, which has been in existence since the time of the first statute of Westminster. Even before hand in the law of mort main which can be seen as far back as Richard I in 1189. As far as I can now see the police have always been a corporate element with a corporate structure that was very much needed to be hidden from everyone for their acceptance to occur properly. I feel many suspected that this was the case and were subsequently silenced, set up or ridiculed in the media for generally something that was untrue. If the information has to be published verbatim from the issuers who happen to be the ones who need to do the silencing in the first place, the obvious occurs, as is most relevant today. As I have said the police were there to protect the wishes and designs of the socially dominant and continue to do the same now through a construct called class division – entitlement. Because the process worked so well the government decided to move to calling the police ‘officers’, which as I can see is the arrogance of the government in full display as less and less people questioned because of what was happening to those who questioned.

Interesting enough I remember when I used to work for a man called Pete who ran a small building company. Pete had a knack of getting work from the upper demographic as he called it. This resulted in us building some very expensive extensions and other projects. At onetime Pete had a job running converting a house into flats long before my time as a carpenter with him. We sat one day having lunch and talking about this and that as we used to do, when the subject matter got on to the police and our experiences with them. Pete said he had a mate who worked within the police force and helped him out once regarding a flat conversion he was doing. He said even though the job was secured every night there was a spate of incidents where people were breaking in and stealing stuff and generally making a nuisance of themselves. Pete said he called his mate in the police to ask him to get an alarm system installed at the premises that would alert the police if there was a break in. This alarm system was linked directly to the police.

Now I knew these alarm systems existed as I used to work on alarm systems some years ago – haven’t always been just a carpenter – but the only ones I knew about were called the Red Care system. The alarm system was connected to a monitoring system through British Telecom that monitored the line every 5 seconds in case it was cut. In the event of the alarm being activated it would send a signal to a central monitoring station who would then in turn alert the police in that area of the activation. The police would respond to the alarm and send a patrol as soon as they had the man power to do so. This was the only system I was aware of and because of the cost involved you only seemed to find this system on shops, banks, and houses who could afford the service in the first place. The alarm system that Pete was relating to me about was slightly different. This alarm system went directly through to the police in that area and bypassed the central monitoring station, a very direct service. Subsequently Pete’s mate within the force organized one of these alarm systems to be installed at the flat conversion site because of the problems there. 

In the early hours of one morning Pete received a call from the police to say that they had responded to an alarm call and they were at the premises and could he attend as the key holder. Pete arrived sometime after the call and was greeted by a constable who had attended. I must say at this point that the building that Pete was converting was a three bedroom end terrace style house. The constable went on to say everything seems to be ok, as the alarm must have scared off who ever had attempted to break in. But would Pete open up just so he and them could check that nothing was missing or that no damage had been done. Pete did as he was requested and everything seemed to be fine. As Pete and the constable walked down the drive after investigating the building the constable turned to Pete and asked a question. The constable inquired of Pete on how he had got the alarm system in the first place. Pete answered by saying he had contacted the police to ask for one because of the problems he was suffering. Pete not wanting to get his friend in trouble said exactly what his friend had told him to say in the event of Pete being asked how the alarm system came about. Pete said the constable was quite puzzled by his answer and replied “this seems very strange, because these alarms systems are not for the likes of you or this type of building”. Pete being Pete inquired who were they for and for what type of building, being very intrigued by the constables answer – if not a little stunned. The constable declined to answer.

Even though Pete knew the class divide existed evidenced by what his friend had told him to say regarding the alarm system, Pete was stunned to realise to what extent the divide took. Pete said he was tempted to question further, but knew his questions would fall on deaf ears. What was most evident to Pete and to me as he related this story was the fact that the police quite clearly discriminate between people and the property they own. The constables comment regarding the ‘likes of you and this type of building’ quite clearly insinuated that Pete was not entitled to have the alarm system with this type of protection offered. I did not know then how important this story would become. It truly evidences the fact that there is a class divide at play that the police are quite aware of and are following relating to your status. Depending upon this status or to say how you are deemed within that status reflects to what level of service you will receive, or not receive, as the case maybe.

They say they are here to serve you, well according to their latest ad campaign they are and yes in a lot of respects that is true if they were truly honest about what is actually contained within that service.  Please remember service can also be defined as; work done by one person or group that benefits another – person being oh so apt here! To serve you with a PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) is not to benefit you. It only benefits the originators of the PCN, who are the real aspect being served. The misconception of service seems to be something very much relied upon to create the illusion they serve the people as a whole. When the very apparent truth is they only serve one very specific element. The harsh truth is they have only ever served them. This is the exact reason they were created in the first place! Although you may feel I am being very cynical about the police, what is a stark reality if only to me, is that the truth regarding the police as an issue speaks volumes. The truth concerning their conception, implementation and of course their corporate structure. You all must realize by now that the police are funded by you ‘the taxpayer’. Or should I say ‘the inferior’! So the reality is that you are paying for them to protect the aristocracy and service you with penalties for victim less crimes that they reap the benefit of…. Priceless!   

So in reality it begs the question of any constable – who is your duty too? Under the common law legal system they have a duty to serve and protect, but is that duty only to serve and protect those that common law legal system actually applies to? To uphold the common law legal system surely means in effect to uphold a law that those who are protected by such are served and protected by these measures? Again also to serve the needs of the political establishment and this is relative to again the word status. Those being the ones who have political persuasions and move in such circles receive the services and protection of a political police force. This being not just politicians! Any one considered to have a element of stature generated from the status they perceive they have risen to. Their political biases are needed to create the foundation for the status in the first place. The police were always a fully fledged political police force. Since their conception they have arrested many people for political reasons, although at first it did not seem that way. They were to change from constables to police officers for very specific reasons. As the political strangle hold being applied needed protecting and in turn would need a complete corporate police force to do as such. Even though under the common law legal system they would have to still swear an oath to the sovereign to maintain they would always be true to the political elite, the socially dominant, the advocates and any other lower ranking member of the club. This was to create the illusion that they were there for the people as a whole. But the reality is as history suggests, they were nothing more than a private corporate political force to be used for the deeds of those in political power at the whim of the socially dominant.

The word ‘officer’ was adopted to mainly strike fear into the populace. This was to be accompanied by stark uniforms and then bright reflective clothing to reflect they had a form of assumed power under oath. But what was the oath for….more on this soon. Other methods of this can be seen throughout history with knights of the realm dressing in such attire to show their elevation of status. Which were in effect an ancient form of the police we now know. Doing the bidding and the deeds of those who professed they had power over the rest of the people. With the people in turn having a fear of anyone who was dressed as such, because of an assumed power they possessed being maintained by nothing more than a deception. The dress code was said to be there to create a stark contrast between who was an officer and who was not – something you will probably feel should have happened for numerous reasons – the most obvious being identification. The uniforms I feel were for a much needed reason that is not so obvious to some being used entirely for intimidation, as the knights dress was. In both cases you are seeing nothing more than costumes worn by actors who are acting out a role daily. But intimidation was needed to enable the actors to gain a form of respect.  Albeit through fear from the people, which was in fact an acceptance forced via intimidation. Just because the actor puts on a costume does not mean they adhere to the rules of fair play. What if fair play does not exist in the rules in the first place?

I have spoken to many constables who have either left the service or who have retired. They often speak quite openly at their disgust of what the service has become. Unfortunately  unaware they were fooled everyday regarding the job they were actually doing. Most you talk to are blissfully unaware of this fact and if they have realized this fact they will not speak out until such time as their ‘pension is assured’. Again not my words ‘theirs’! I was deceived also by this talking many times of how the police under common law have a duty to serve and protect everyone who dwells on this island. Unaware of the fact they are not here to do that at all.  I would ask policemen and women if they knew the difference between a policeman or woman and a police officer? To which the answer is there is not a difference which they would answer with. I would reiterate that there was a difference. But after looking at the history of the police whilst writing the book it became quite obvious that I was wrong and the answer they were giving was in fact the truth. I accept I was wrong about this fact and in doing so have unearthed what I feel is the real truth regarding this issue.

A police officer; someone who is appointed or elected to an office and who holds a position of trust, no truer words have ever been spoken. In relation to this they certainly can be trusted to do the bidding and complete the wishes of their political masters. The office of police officer (constable) is someone appointed to serve the political elite and swears an oath, an attestation to do as such. It reads like this;

 " I . . . . . of . . . . . 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."

So let’s take a quick look at this oath. They swear that" I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable”….* The Queen; the crown; the office; a corporation sole, a corporation consisting of ‘royal prerogatives’ powers (a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group), in which supreme power in the UK is legally vested. The ‘person’ filling it at any given time is referred to as the sovereign (a king or queen). * Oxford Dictionary of Law 6th Edition Page 142. So in respect of this part of the oath it quite clearly states who they are swearing the oath too. A corporation. But not any corporation. The one that actually has supreme power in the UK legally vested in it. This is also made up of common law functions under a common law legal system and in practice it is the ‘minister’, and not the sovereign, who today caries out these common law powers and is said to be the Crown when doing so. The police quite obviously swear an oath to a corporation that is controlled by ministers and not the sovereign themselves. So in effect the oath is to always carry out the corporations wishes even if without doubt they are not the wishes of the sovereign her/himself. What is being done is in the name of….always seems to be in the name of something. “….upholding fundamental human rights….”I find this most interesting….or is it just me, oh well we shall see.

Have you ever looked at the human rights document? Here’s an excerpt from the Human Rights Act 1998 have a little read;

Article 2Right to life

1          Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life       intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2          Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

You will notice I am sure that parts 2 (a)(b)(c) are very interesting. Do you see it does not use the words man, woman or child it uses ‘person’….more on this in a bit. What I find interesting is you have no right to life if you are deemed to be attacking someone violently and the police can according to this have the right to take life in defence of another (a) – seems fair enough. So does this mean it also applies to police officers if they are attacking someone violently that they also forgo their right to life if the attack is deemed as unlawful? But what is deemed as unlawful? Or does this imply that they are immune from this? Certain events in recent history seem to point to the fact they are, especially on tube trains, peaceful protests and incidents regarding such. Does (b) relate to shooting someone who escapes, or at least tries to escape lawful arrest? What if the arrest is unlawful? Again who determines such, is it not the very people they work for, who make the laws indiscriminately to suit their political needs? I find (c) the most interesting “….quelling a riot or insurrection.” An insurrection; organized opposition to authority, showing as long as what you protest, post about or complain about is not ‘politically based’ and against the ‘political status quo in authority’ you have the right to life. If you do the opposite and actually protest about the political machine and its rules of conformity you instantly forgo your right to life – and people say to me this document is a good thing! Maybe those who profess such should actually read the bloody thing again and this time not just read the parts they want to ignoring anything that they feel is not important.  Because to be honest, what you think is not important is in fact all you should be reading – but please remember folks it is only being done for your own protection!

The oath to me is obvious in its conception and what it really stands for. The use of such has always been to the people as a wholes detriment and not to its benefit. Moreover we see this fact happening before our eyes whenever we are confronted by the boys and girls in blue…. or should I say black with aluminous yellow jackets and vests including night sticks, pepper spray and tazers to name but a few of the devises the police now seem to carry as part of their daily costume. Their attitude and manners are now at a all time low, with police not being given their jobs through the ability to use such virtues as politeness, but evidenced by the fact on how rude, forceful and obnoxious they can be to the public. Especially if you ask the wrong questions! For which many of my friends have been arrested for with the police claiming they are ‘obstructing an officer in his duty’. I hope you can all see who that duty really is too! The police officers on the streets now are nothing more than they always were a corporate employee. In effect a revenue collector or agent of revenue collection. I am not saying for one minute that all the police are like this and I have evidence to the contrary. What I am saying is there are far more bad guys than good, especially the new ones as they are being trained specifically to act and react in a manner that is not acceptable by any means.

If you are still under the illusion that a police force is something we needed all a long and still need today? Then I am afraid you are no more ready to accept the truth of any of the matters I may discuss, or form opinion on. This is not a bad thing it just shows you how deluded we can become accepting any reality we find ourselves amerced in. We never seem to question the obvious, the simple elements that would in fact solve all the issues as a race we now are trying to resolve. The precautionary principle has been played to death and no doubt it will be some more. The police in their entirety were designed to combat this issue so the ones who profess to believe they are better than the rest of us can sleep easy at night with a developed force of protectors guarding over them and their possessions. But as in most cases this still isn’t enough as the ‘lion’ they need so much often turns against the handler and a new development would need to occur if this was to actually happen – is this on the cards? Oh very much so, but may be this is something you have to realize for yourselves and in time I am sure you will.

I did not write this to anger you. Nor did I write this to insight hatred towards the police in any way. I actually wrote this to do the complete opposite.   x