When the second police constable in the video is asked by Ken Livingstone, “Has a crime been committed”; the policeman replied, “No it hasn't”. So why was Ken Livingstone effectively being threatened by the police?
I think the answer is a complex one:
1: The police are very badly trained and largely ignorant of all law. They don't understand that they are primarily 'peace officers' who are there to protect the peace, people, and property. The police increasingly see themselves as 'enforcers' for the Establishment and their corporative colleagues.
2: The police are badly led by commanding officers who have been heavily influenced by the political charity Common Purpose's training courses; where the the police are trained to work BEYOND THEIR AUTHORITY in order to achieve a political outcome.
3: Badly trained police who are largely ignorant of Common Law, are encouraged to be aggressively authoritative when dealing with the public, who are also largely ignorant of their Common Law rights, as are the courts and the 'legal profession' either ignorant or dismissive of Common Law. Statute Law should be subject to Common Law, but ignorance allows for the overriding of the supremacy of Common Law.
4: The constant barrage of incorrect assertions from the political class, the media, and the Establishment that the British people don't have a written constitution based on God- given liberties and freedoms, when we do, it just isn't written in one document.
5: The high levels of ignorance by the public and the police has allowed an assumed authority to impose what we now see as aggressive corporative police state to develop without any checks and balances. Aggressive policing that we are now told is for our own safety, protection, and well-being.
6: In these generally lawless times there is a ready willingness to apply aggressive assumed authority by large sectors of officialdom and corporations who are unaccountable to the public. At the same time, we, the people, have been conditioned to accept all assumed authority without question.
An example of assumed aggressive authority is the BBC's use of threats, intimidations, demands for money with menaces, and the abuse and misuse of the Police and Criminal Evidence 1984 Act (P.A.C.E) against anybody who dares to state that they don't want the BBC's output. And here too we see that the courts are also on the side of the BBC because the courts appear to be either ignorant of the law applying to the TV Licence, or willingly supportive of the aggressive assumed authority practised by the BBC and its TV Licensing agent, the Capita corporation. Even visiting TV Licence sales staff can now be seen now wearing clothing with the word "ENFORCER" across the back of the wearer. A sales person who 'enforces'; what is going on? Will we soon have double glazing and solar panel ENFORCERS threatening us at our own front doors? Will we soon have to prove to the police that our car has never been driven at 100mph on British roads? Are we now to assume that we are all guilty until we can prove our innocence on every matter of law?
|