Enclosed article regarding the proposed “Elected Police Commissioners.”I believe without doubt that the proposal to elect Police Commissioners as suggestedis not in keeping with our long standing Common Law Constitution and now is notthe time to introduce yet another layer of extra Governance on top of the veryexpensive layer of Governance brought about through the Localism Act setting upRegions in ENGLAND at this particular time, for those too will add greatlyto the costs for this Country’s Governance. As far the European Union is concerned,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are already classed as Regions of a federalstate.My main and deep concern is the proposed Oath, which is not in keepingwith our Constitution and completely contrary to what is indeed laid out verycarefully in our Common Law Constitution by which our Country is governed.Many have paid a high price to keep our very own Constitution, and for the sake of allthose that paid the supreme sacrifice with their lives, so it must continue and behonoured to do so.From a debate in Hansard 14th May 2012 it reads "The oath that we (That sit in Parliament) all take at the commencement of each Parliament is a solemn promise made to Parliament to show allegiance to the monarch as part of our constitutional arrangement. It is the product of a constitutional settlement and it already provides a constitutional lock on allegiance to the monarch".A summary of "The Parliamentary Oath" research paper produced by the House of Commons in 2000 states that,
It goes on ="
"even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons, or be raised to the House of Lords, without taking this Oath of Allegiance to the ruling monarch, and to her heirs, and successors. However, there would be nothing to prevent a Parliamentary majority debating a republic or from seeking to renegotiate the constitutional settlement since freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689".Proposed elected British Police Commissioners 29.10.2012
One of the unique characteristics of the police service in this country is that police officers are servants of the Crown—they are not servants of this Government, the previous Government, or the future Government. That gives them a unique constitutional position. Unlike teachers and other public servants, police officers are not employees. As servants of the Crown, they have more in common with members of the armed forces than with any other group of public servants. It is important to have an oath that retains that unique nature of the police service.
Anyone who is not prepared to swear an oath that they will serve the Queen, as do other police constables, should automatically exclude themselves from entry to the police service and as a candidate for an elected POLICE Commissioner. There may be a category of people who may like to join the police service but are not prepared to swear the oath, that being so, they should not be allowed to join the Police Service or
put themselves forward for an elected Police Commissioner.The British Police Service should be made up of British people. We are first and foremost British citizens and although the Maastricht Treaty allegedly made us EU citizens, it was gleefully made clear that, even the Queen is a Citizen of Europe, no doubt had our Queen been the first Queen Elizabeth, they might have left that House of Commons minus the intellectual part of their body. To most of the people in the United Kingdom, we are all indeed subjects of the British Crown, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Should citizens of other countries who owe their duty of citizenship or allegiance to another Head of State or nation state not be prepared to swear such an Oath of Allegiance, then they would not be fit to serve our Queen and Country as ANY member of our Police Force or as an elected Police Commissioner. First and foremost an elected Police Commissioner should have served time in the British Police Force.The wording of the proposed oath, on which Buckingham Palace may well have been fully consulted, enables all police officers to swear to serve the Queen but avoids citizens of other countries having to swear a constitutional oath that they could not make. I remind all in our Government and Parliament that the people have never had the opportunity to have their say on any EU Treaty before it has been ratified. Yet because of the EU Treaties the people are expected to welcome foreigners into our British Police Service and in top jobs with enormous pay, at a time when so many here in the UK are out of work, yet more of our money, billions of British pounds are still going to an organisation that want even more? There are plenty of people here in the United Kingdom that wants jobs without doubt those jobs should go to subjects of the Crown for the Police Service is indeed Her Majesty’s Police Force.What is the point in recruiting foreigners if they cannot swear their allegiance to the wearer of the British Crown? We do not want to change that, nor do we want a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers who are British citizens swear one oath and foreigners are allowed to join and not so swear? Haven’t any of you any idea why so many fought and gave their lives for all of YOU in the last World War?Why has the phrase, ''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'' been removed? Is that because the phrase might stick in the craw of some foreign policeman or a republican? Or is our Queen no longer “Sovereign?” To appoint a person as an elected Police Commissioner in Britain, that has never been in the Police and might even be from another Country is absolute vandalism of this Country’s Constitution and a deep unforgivable betrayal of the people of this Country and their Monarch by those we have elected in good faith.Perhaps I should remind Members of Parliament that no new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta 1215/1297 and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government’s own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that important message very clear. What Parliament does however, Parliament can undo.
Parliament states “no parliament can bind its successors” and most certainly what recent Parliaments have done, may be undone but not those long established Constitutional Common law documents. For instance once EU Treaties have been accepted and ratified not one tiny word can be altered. Why then should any of you think you may alter long established parts of our Common law Constitution? Likewise neither Magna Carta 1215/1297 nor the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 may be altered, that is why they have lasted so long and why we fought two World Wars to keep and why those that lost those wars now have new written Constitutions. I quote from the Government’s own paper, “it is arguable that the European Communities Act 1972 is “semi-entrenched”. For as long as the UK remains a member of the European Union, that Act cannot be repealed”.Perhaps not explained or brought to Members attention, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 holds the Oath of Allegiance to which British Governments and the rest of us swear to the Crown. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason. Both of these remain in full and no alteration may be made , thus the Oath of Allegiance may not be changed for the very reason between you, you have tried to alter to allow foreigners take their place where none should be allowed. Article 9 from the Bill of Rights, was used in recent memory by MP’s re protection of Members’ rights of free speech in Parliament.All the people have to do is remember their solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown, to protect and be true to the wearer of that Crown. The people do their Duty when and if the time comes when they are conscripted to go into battle to save the Crown, this Country and all in it from being taken over by foreign rule. We cannot expect foreigners to fight for us can we? Please note “All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realm forever”Is anyone going to tell the 60/70 million people of this Country that they have no Constitution? That it has been, unbeknown to them, destroyed/over-ridden? If that is the case, tell the people NOW. Most certainly tell Her Majesty and then tell the rest of her Majesty’s Commonwealth? Tell the Judiciary who sit in front of the Royal Coat of Arms? When was it repealed exactly? Was it as long ago as 1972? Was it when the Queen too was made a citizen of Europe? Did it end in the ratification of “Lisbon”?
Did a temporary British Government destroy our Constitution, our whole way of life for deeper integration into a European Union the vast majority of people do not want?The debates that all three major Political Parties have had over the years, the mind boggling debates in order to destroy our national Police Force in order to “fit in” with EU Legislation that has taken place over the years, never once setting out a referendum to see if the people agree to any of this, but just expect them to vote and PAY towards foreigners eventually taking up a post that a British experienced person could do, is sheer betrayal. To deliberately try to change our ancient Common Law Constitution that many before you have died, fighting to keep this Country free from foreign rule, to even rob our Monarch of today and all that may follow the title, ''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'' should bring shame upon you all. If none can swear their total true and faithful allegiance to the wearer of the British Crown none should be recruited at all.No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta 1215/1297, which pre-dates Parliament, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689, which came into force when Parliament was suspended. They are foundational statutes and remain in force, it being null and void to repeal them. Not explained fully to the people, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 still upholds the Oath of Allegiance to which British Governments and the rest of us so swear to the Crown. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason. It is indeed the greatest betrayal of all. None more so that those in Parliament that so swear before they may take up their seats in that Parliament even though the people have freely elected them. So be it and long may it remain so, for many have given their lives to keep is ever thus. We certainly do not want, nor can we have a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers and Elected Police Commissioners who are British citizens swear one oath and others swear another. Our Constitution does not permit it. What is proposed by those that have so sworn their solemn Oaths that are proposing a changed Oath for elected Police Commissioners, that from reading may well be a foreigner, is unlawful and absolutely contrary to our Constitution and Oaths of Allegiance to our Sovereign Lady, our Queen.Under your oaths of allegiance, in various long standing constitutional Documents makes very clear that this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.” Also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the Bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”. This law and its Oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament. This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned Oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any Bill contrary to our Common law Constitution and questionable also is the like of the European Communities Act 1972. the Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of England. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights. The implied repeal of our great statutes has been a cheat upon the people – they will be unforgiving when the truth is fully told.It is indeed time to leave the European Union. Anne Palmer. JP (Retired).
However, it can now be revealed that it has been run by a team from a
US-based neo-conservative think tank, the Fund for the New American Century,
funded in part by a variety of corporate donors with an interest in
public-sector privatisation.
The entire campaign team resigned yesterday within hours of being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph.
Lincolnshire may have been chosen because the county’s police are already “outsourcing” pioneers.
The troubled firm G4S has recently taken over key functions at the force, including its custody suites, central control room and firearms licensing department. G4S also plans a new central police station in a village outside Lincoln, with the existing city centre station closed and sold for housing.
After G4S’s security failures at the Olympics, Mr Barrett strongly backed the company, saying that the Lincolnshire deal was “working well.” He attacked his rival candidates, who suggested cancelling the deal, for making “bankrupt promises” and “playing politics”.
Investigation of Mr Barrett’s campaign website reveals that it is registered to a New York and Washington-based “political action committee”, MatthewPAC, part of The Fund for the New American Century, whose website says it is “dedicated to building America’s future by supporting candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation”.
The fund is expanding in Europe and is advertising for a UK-based “assistant to the executive chairman” on a salary of up to £55,000.
Mr Barrett’s campaign has also advertised for staff, speaking of the “sophisticated and wide-ranging support available from our US and UK-based consultants”.
The Sunday Telegraph has established that Matthew de Unger Brown, Mr Barrett’s “special adviser”, campaign manager and press spokesman until yesterday, is also chairman of the Fund for the New American Century.
“We support Republican candidates. It is a centre-Right organisation,” Mr de Unger Brown said. “I don’t think that neo-con would be an unfair description.”
One of Mr Barrett’s opponents in the election, David Bowles, another independent and former chief executive of Lincolnshire county council, said: “It is a very slick campaign but it appears that Mervyn is no more than a puppet.
"Every time I have tried to contact him, the response has always come back from Matthew and every time I’ve tried to meet him it’s been Matthew I’ve met instead.”
Mr Bowles claimed that last week Mr de Unger Brown asked to meet him to discuss the possibility of an electoral deal, with Mr Barrett becoming his deputy.
“Matthew told me that the funding for Mervyn’s campaign was coming from people with an interest in police sector privatisation,” Mr Bowles said.
“I was told that any deal including Mervyn would be conditional on that funding continuing, and I made it clear that I was not prepared to accept a penny.”
Mr de Unger Brown said that his organisation was also backing other Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) candidates elsewhere in England, Mr Bowles added.
Directly elected PCCs, one for each force area outside London, were part of one of the Government’s flagship policing reforms, intended to “sweep away” police bureaucracy and “give people real control” over their force.
The commissioners, paid up to £100,000 a year, will replace unelected police authorities and control police budgets and strategy, though “operational matters” will remain in the hands of the local chief constable.
Some analysts have long feared that a low turnout in the November 15 elections could hand “Trojan horse” candidates power and control over policing with only a few thousand votes. The Electoral Reform Society warned last month that the poll could become a farce, with turnout of just 18.5 per cent.
Mr de Unger Brown said last night: “The Fund for the New American Century takes, both in the UK and the US, funding from a variety of corporate donors.
“Mervyn Barrett for PCC has not taken — directly — any money from organisations that have any interest in commissioning outsourced services.” He refused to deny that money had been supplied via the fund.
Mr de Unger Brown said his campaign would comply with all disclosure requirements of electoral law, but under a loophole in Electoral Commission rules, independent candidates do not have to publish details of their donors until after the election. He declined to say which companies were providing funding, but said the campaign envisaged spending almost £100,000 by polling day.
A few hours after being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr de Unger Brown and his campaign team resigned.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy, Companies House records show, Mr Barrett established a new company, Trinity Advisory Ltd, based at his home.
It is not clear what the purpose of the company is or what advice Mr Barrett is offering and no accounts have yet been filed.
G4S said that it had not funded any PCC campaign.
Critics of the PCC elections have raised fears over the democratic accountability of candidates elected on very small turnouts.
“The focus on turnout could make us miss a real opportunity to debate the liberal consensus on how to tackle crime,” said Sam Chapman, a former police officer and unsuccessful candidate for the Conservative PCC nomination in Lancashire.
“There are police and other interests who don’t want PCCs and want to make this election unsuccessful. Some of the Government’s decisions have played into their hands.”
During the passage of the legislation, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which represents chief constables, pushed hard for drastic restrictions on candidates. Any conviction for a criminal offence carrying a potential prison sentence is a bar to standing, even if the person was not themselves imprisoned and even if they were a juvenile at the time.
One of the best-known figures to consider standing, the Falklands war hero Simon Weston, fell foul of the rule.
In the mid-1970s, as a 14-year-old, Mr Weston, who is now 51, was fined £30 and put on probation for riding in a stolen car, though he did not know it was stolen. Another well-qualified candidate, Bob Ashford, a former senior executive in the youth justice system, was forced out because of a minor conviction in 1966, when he was 13.
Other rules include a strict residential qualification which bars many potential candidates, such as the broadcaster Nick Ross, who do not live in the county where they want to stand.
The depth of the candidate problem is shown by the fact that virtually the only prominent figure left in the race is Lord Prescott, who is standing in Humberside, one of 41 police forces in England and Wales to be holding elections. “Some of the candidates are quite good,” said Mr Chapman. “But some are mediocre placemen, councillors and police authority members who are being very conventional.”
So what? many voters may say: policing should be left to the police. But with the scandal of Hillsborough fresh in the mind — and five chief constables, in the last six months alone, sacked, suspended, forced to resign or placed under investigation — it appears hard to believe that police leadership cannot be improved.
“The police have essentially been unreformed for a long time and chief constables are used to doing what they want,” said Mr Chapman.
“The pity of these elections is that there could have been a real debate about crime and policing, but we haven’t got it yet.”
The entire campaign team resigned yesterday within hours of being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph.
Lincolnshire may have been chosen because the county’s police are already “outsourcing” pioneers.
The troubled firm G4S has recently taken over key functions at the force, including its custody suites, central control room and firearms licensing department. G4S also plans a new central police station in a village outside Lincoln, with the existing city centre station closed and sold for housing.
After G4S’s security failures at the Olympics, Mr Barrett strongly backed the company, saying that the Lincolnshire deal was “working well.” He attacked his rival candidates, who suggested cancelling the deal, for making “bankrupt promises” and “playing politics”.
Investigation of Mr Barrett’s campaign website reveals that it is registered to a New York and Washington-based “political action committee”, MatthewPAC, part of The Fund for the New American Century, whose website says it is “dedicated to building America’s future by supporting candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation”.
The fund is expanding in Europe and is advertising for a UK-based “assistant to the executive chairman” on a salary of up to £55,000.
Mr Barrett’s campaign has also advertised for staff, speaking of the “sophisticated and wide-ranging support available from our US and UK-based consultants”.
The Sunday Telegraph has established that Matthew de Unger Brown, Mr Barrett’s “special adviser”, campaign manager and press spokesman until yesterday, is also chairman of the Fund for the New American Century.
“We support Republican candidates. It is a centre-Right organisation,” Mr de Unger Brown said. “I don’t think that neo-con would be an unfair description.”
One of Mr Barrett’s opponents in the election, David Bowles, another independent and former chief executive of Lincolnshire county council, said: “It is a very slick campaign but it appears that Mervyn is no more than a puppet.
"Every time I have tried to contact him, the response has always come back from Matthew and every time I’ve tried to meet him it’s been Matthew I’ve met instead.”
Mr Bowles claimed that last week Mr de Unger Brown asked to meet him to discuss the possibility of an electoral deal, with Mr Barrett becoming his deputy.
“Matthew told me that the funding for Mervyn’s campaign was coming from people with an interest in police sector privatisation,” Mr Bowles said.
“I was told that any deal including Mervyn would be conditional on that funding continuing, and I made it clear that I was not prepared to accept a penny.”
Mr de Unger Brown said that his organisation was also backing other Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) candidates elsewhere in England, Mr Bowles added.
Directly elected PCCs, one for each force area outside London, were part of one of the Government’s flagship policing reforms, intended to “sweep away” police bureaucracy and “give people real control” over their force.
The commissioners, paid up to £100,000 a year, will replace unelected police authorities and control police budgets and strategy, though “operational matters” will remain in the hands of the local chief constable.
Some analysts have long feared that a low turnout in the November 15 elections could hand “Trojan horse” candidates power and control over policing with only a few thousand votes. The Electoral Reform Society warned last month that the poll could become a farce, with turnout of just 18.5 per cent.
Mr de Unger Brown said last night: “The Fund for the New American Century takes, both in the UK and the US, funding from a variety of corporate donors.
“Mervyn Barrett for PCC has not taken — directly — any money from organisations that have any interest in commissioning outsourced services.” He refused to deny that money had been supplied via the fund.
Mr de Unger Brown said his campaign would comply with all disclosure requirements of electoral law, but under a loophole in Electoral Commission rules, independent candidates do not have to publish details of their donors until after the election. He declined to say which companies were providing funding, but said the campaign envisaged spending almost £100,000 by polling day.
A few hours after being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr de Unger Brown and his campaign team resigned.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy, Companies House records show, Mr Barrett established a new company, Trinity Advisory Ltd, based at his home.
It is not clear what the purpose of the company is or what advice Mr Barrett is offering and no accounts have yet been filed.
G4S said that it had not funded any PCC campaign.
Critics of the PCC elections have raised fears over the democratic accountability of candidates elected on very small turnouts.
“The focus on turnout could make us miss a real opportunity to debate the liberal consensus on how to tackle crime,” said Sam Chapman, a former police officer and unsuccessful candidate for the Conservative PCC nomination in Lancashire.
“There are police and other interests who don’t want PCCs and want to make this election unsuccessful. Some of the Government’s decisions have played into their hands.”
During the passage of the legislation, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which represents chief constables, pushed hard for drastic restrictions on candidates. Any conviction for a criminal offence carrying a potential prison sentence is a bar to standing, even if the person was not themselves imprisoned and even if they were a juvenile at the time.
One of the best-known figures to consider standing, the Falklands war hero Simon Weston, fell foul of the rule.
In the mid-1970s, as a 14-year-old, Mr Weston, who is now 51, was fined £30 and put on probation for riding in a stolen car, though he did not know it was stolen. Another well-qualified candidate, Bob Ashford, a former senior executive in the youth justice system, was forced out because of a minor conviction in 1966, when he was 13.
Other rules include a strict residential qualification which bars many potential candidates, such as the broadcaster Nick Ross, who do not live in the county where they want to stand.
The depth of the candidate problem is shown by the fact that virtually the only prominent figure left in the race is Lord Prescott, who is standing in Humberside, one of 41 police forces in England and Wales to be holding elections. “Some of the candidates are quite good,” said Mr Chapman. “But some are mediocre placemen, councillors and police authority members who are being very conventional.”
So what? many voters may say: policing should be left to the police. But with the scandal of Hillsborough fresh in the mind — and five chief constables, in the last six months alone, sacked, suspended, forced to resign or placed under investigation — it appears hard to believe that police leadership cannot be improved.
“The police have essentially been unreformed for a long time and chief constables are used to doing what they want,” said Mr Chapman.
“The pity of these elections is that there could have been a real debate about crime and policing, but we haven’t got it yet.”
