Total Visits

Thursday, 13 September 2012

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS SPECIAL - MERSEYSIDE’S PC COPPERS NICKED?



On the 19th May the English Democrats’ recent Liverpool Mayoral candidate, Paul Rimmer, went into his local police station at Toxteth in Liverpool, to ask them what the stripey flag that they were flying was about. He was told that it was “the gay flag”. After asking why Merseyside Police would fly the gay flag rather than either the Union Jack or the Cross of St George and quoting from the Old Testament, he left the station.

Almost immediately he was rather roughly grabbed by two burly policemen and told that he was being arrested for a “hate crime”, contrary to the Public Order Act. Paul pointed out that he had only quoted from the Bible and the Bible is in every court room in England, to which the PC responded that they were only obeying orders. Paul then reminded them that that is what the Gestapo had said! He was then dragged off in handcuffs to another police station to be photographed, finger printed and his DNA taken before having a police interview and held for six hours.

On the 19th July the Merseyside Police formally dropped any charges. Now it is our turn to counterattack!

Whilst waiting to hear whether any charges would be pressed, on my advice, Paul enquired from Liverpool City Council whether Merseyside Police had obtained permission under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement)(England) Regulations 2007. Very reluctantly, Liverpool City Council confirmed in writing that no such permission was obtained or even applied for. This means that it was Merseyside Police which had actually committed the criminal offence – not Paul.

In fact they have committed not one criminal offence, but the criminal offences of flying a non-permitted flag at 42 police stations across Merseyside.

Merseyside Police cannot even claim that they didn’t know about this law, as Freedom of Information Act requests have been made on several occasions previously about whether they had obtained permission in earlier years when they also flew this flag.

I am in correspondence with Merseyside Police’s solicitors and haven’t yet had the (probably apocryphal) response which allegedly police officers used to tell courts that the accused had confessed that “it was a fair cop gov, I am banged to rights!” – but I live in hope!

In addition to bringing a private prosecution against Merseyside Police, Paul also has civil claims, not only for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, but also for breach of his human rights in being arrested contrary to his right to free speech. He also has discrimination claims, not only on the grounds of religion, but also on the grounds of sexuality in preferring one sexuality over another contrary to the Equalities Act.

Merseyside Police have demonstrated an official bias towards support of a partisan position, rather than what an English police force should demonstrate - a determination to enforce the laws of England impartially!

The Chief Constable and Senior Officers of Merseyside Police have shown themselves to be not only slap dash in their compliance with the rules, but also politically correct hypocrites, willing to adopt a heavy handed approach to anyone who dares to exercise an Englishman’s traditional rights of free speech to criticise their politically partisan stance.

Pauls is delighted at the support that he has received from almost everybody that he has met in Liverpool since it became known that he and the English Democrats were leading the fight back against this particular manifestation of political correctness.

Last, but not least, we are now seeking funding to help Paul stand as the English Democrats’ Police Commissioner candidate for Merseyside with a mandate of Zero Tolerance for Politically Correct policing! Below are some extracts from our manifesto setting out the English Democrats’ policies on policing.

If elected he will root out the political correctness of Merseyside’s senior police officers. Focus the Force on traditional common-sense policing and maintaining law and order and catching real criminals! May be his slogan will be “Zero tolerance for political correctness in Merseyside policing!”. Paul does urgently need help with funding his campaign and with the financing of this case. If you would be willing to help with a donation whatever size, please click here>>> https://secure.artezglobal.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=16009&LangPref=en-CA&Referrer=direct/none

If Paul can raise the £5,000 to pay the deposit he will be in the running to set the priorities of Merseyside Police, decide their budget and he will have the right to hire and fire their Chief Constable. If you would like to help donate to the campaign to bring Merseyside’s PC police to book, please click here>> https://secure.artezglobal.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=16009&LangPref=en-CA&Referrer=direct/none

This is not about homophobia but it is about making sure that Merseyside Police obey the law and that they act in a way which maintains traditional English liberties with old fashioned firm but fair and impartial enforcement of Law and Order and that they do not act in a politically partisan way in support of multi-culturalist political correctness. Any support that you can give will be very gratefully received!

This case has now been formally commenced in the Liverpool Magistrates Court by “laying the information”. The text of the information is set out below.

Here is the text of Paul’s Information, starting the prosecution of the Chief Constable and the Superintendent in Charge of Toxteth Police Station and the Police Authority.

INFORMATION FOR ISSUE OF SUMMONS
Section 1 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 - Part 7 Criminal Procedure Rules 2011


CHARGE 1

Prosecutor: Mr Paul Rimmer, Modred Street, Liverpool
Defendant: Mr Jon Murphy, Chief Constable of Merseyside,
Police Headquarters, PO Box 59, Canning Place, Liverpool, L69 1JD
Charge: On the 19th May 2012 being the owner or occupier of premises namely Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool displayed an advertisement namely a Flag sometimes known as the "Gay Rights" or "Rainbow" Flag when no consent had been granted for such display
Contrary To Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Statement of Facts;

The Defendant being the Chief Constable of the County of Merseyside is the "owner or occupier" of the premises with authority to display, or not display, Flags at those premises. On the 19th May the Prosecutor observed that the Police Station in Admiral Street, Toxteth was flying a Flag of the type commonly referred to as the "Gay Rights" or "Rainbow" Flag. This Flag is not the National Flag of any country, nor is it the Flag of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations, any English County, or the Flag of any Saint. Under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder the owner or occupier of Premises requires consent from Liverpool City Council in order to display such a Flag. By a letter dated 12 June 2012 Liverpool City Council confirmed that no application under the Regulations had been made by or on behalf of the Defendant or any other person, for consent to display the Flag and therefore the display of the Flag was an offence under the Regulations"


CHARGE 2

Prosecutor: Mr Paul Rimmer, Modred Street, Liverpool
Defendant: Mr Gary Hilton,
Superintendent: Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool L8 8JN
Charge: On the 19th May 2012 being the occupier of premises namely Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool displayed an advertisement namely a Flag sometimes known as the "Gay Rights" or "Rainbow" Flag when no consent had been granted for such display
Contrary To Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Statement of Facts;

The Defendant being the Senior Officer in Charge of the above Police Station is the "occupier" of the premises with authority to display, or not display, Flags at those premises. On the 19th May the Prosecutor observed that the Police Station in Admiral Street, Toxteth was flying a Flag of the type commonly referred to as the "Gay Rights" or "Rainbow" Flag. This Flag is not the National Flag of any country, nor is it the Flag of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations, any English County, or the Flag of any Saint. Under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder the owner or occupier of Premises requires consent from Liverpool City Council in order to display such a Flag. By a letter dated 12 June 2012 Liverpool City Council confirmed that no application under the Regulations had been made by or on behalf of the Defendant or any other person, for consent to display the Flag and therefore the display of the Flag was an offence under the Regulations"


CHARGE 3

Prosecutor: Mr Paul Rimmer, Modred Street, Liverpool
Defendant: Merseyside Police Authority
PO Box 101a, West House, Mercury Court , Tithebarn Street, Liverpool L69 2NU Mr Gary
Charge: On the 19th May 2012 being the owner or occupier of premises namely Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool displayed an advertisement namely a Flag sometimes known as the "Gay Rights" or "Rainbow" Flag when no consent had been granted for such display
Contrary To Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Statement of Facts;

The Defendant being the Police Authority for the County of Merseyside is the "owner of occupier" of the premises with authority to display, or not display, Flags at those premises. On the 19th May the Prosecutor observed that the Police Station in Admiral Street, Toxteth was flying a Flag of the type commonly referred to as the "Gay Rights" or "Rainbow" Flag. This Flag is not the National Flag of any country, nor is it the Flag of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations, any English County, or the Flag of any Saint. Under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder the owner or occupier of Premises requires consent from Liverpool City Council in order to display such a Flag. By a letter dated 12 June 2012 Liverpool City Council confirmed that no application under the Regulations had been made by or on behalf of the Defendant or any other person for consent to display the Flag and therefore the display of the Flag was an offence under the Regulations"


Relevant parts, about policing policy, of the English Democrats’ manifesto are below:

1.6 The English Flag

1.6.1 We call for the compulsory flying of the English flag, the cross of St George, on all state-maintained public buildings in England.

2.11 Policing

2.11.1 Policing is an increasingly difficult job due to changes in our society, which now lacks the social cohesion and shared values that once gave us a mostly peaceful and well-ordered way of life. Our cities have become places where it is impossible to perform traditional communal policing.

2.11.2 English Democrats seek a return to a system of policing which recognises the principle that all citizens are treated equally. In their efforts to prevent crime and catch criminals the police should not be hindered and demoralised by unreasonable ideological constraints.

2.11.3 We should not lose sight of the fact that the basis for the maintenance of law and order in England rests on a firm foundation of active participation by law-abiding citizens. A relationship of trust and co-operation between citizens and police is essential to effective policing and the prevention of crime. With that in mind, it is reasonable to expect that policing should not be oppressive. The aim is a peaceable society in which liberty and justice can flourish.

2.11.4 It is essential that the police force be adequately trained and resourced.

2.11.5 Police forces should be more democratically accountable than at present. This would require the election of Chief Constables or the Police Authorities which appoint them.

2.11.6 English Democrats call for the creation of a scheme enabling businesses to pay for their security staff to train and register as Special Constables, their powers of arrest applying to their place of work and its neighbouring streets. Such registered security staff would be subject to Police staff performance monitoring and discipline.

2.12 The Legal System

2.12.1 The primary role of a legal system is to provide the means for settling disputes. It should enable those who suffer loss, in the form personal injury, theft, or damage to property, to be properly compensated by the party at fault. Laws, and the penalties for breaking them, should comply with the principles of natural justice.

As societies have become more complex, so have their law codes. To a great extent, this is unavoidable.

2.12.2 However, states and their governing elites are extending the reach of law into areas that infringe upon individual liberties. The result is a body of law which is more restrictive and complex than it need be. Many of the customs and principles of English law are being undermined in the political quest for greater conformity with Continental ideas and practices. Law is being used as a tool for imposing dogma. One of the consequences of these changes is that the police are increasingly being made the enforcers of political doctrine and moving further away from their traditional role of upholding the delicate balance between Order and Liberty.

2.12.3 In order to obtain justice, citizens must feel able to consult and employ the services of the legal profession. Many people are deterred from this by the procedures and costs of the present legal system. Improvements have been made in recent years but more needs to be done to make the system user friendly and efficient.

2.13.4 The English Democrats favours less law and a simplification of law. There are far too many matters currently covered by the criminal law. There should be a drastic reduction and rationalisation of the number and extent of criminal offences.

2.13.5 We must reform the jury system but not abandon it because the jury provides a democratic check on the legal system. The law is not the property of lawyers; it belongs to the people and should serve their needs.

Our preference is for a return to comprehensible, just and effective law. Given its current chaotic state, the law should be codified.

2.13.6 Once the criminal law has been properly codified, the English Democrats would ensure that the criminal law is vigorously policed and enforced.

2.13.7 Except in an emergency there should be a single annual implementation date for new law. This will help rectify the current muddled situation where no one can be sure, without considerable effort or expense, whether a clause of a new Act has been brought into force or not. Also, some rules, for example the Civil Procedure Rules, are being rewritten so frequently that new editions are being published more than once a month! This leads, not surprisingly, to the shameful situation where no-one, not even the judiciary, can be sure of the current rule in force without first making unreasonable efforts to research the point.

2.13.8 In order to avoid such excessive complexity developing again, a monitoring system should be devised which ensures that new law is unambiguously comprehensible and properly and efficiently enforceable. This could be a function of a reformed Second Chamber.

2.13.9 The English Democrats respect the right of victims of crime to defend themselves and their property against criminals. The English Democrats would extend the right of self-help.

2.13.10 The English Democrats believe that every victim of a criminal offence should have the right to address the court on the question of sentence and for the court to be required to bear the victim’s views in mind when passing sentence.

2.13.11 It is not acceptable that 100,000 hardened criminals commit over half of all crime in the U.K. Once a criminal is identified as beyond effective rehabilitation he or she must be kept out of the community until no longer a risk.

2.13.12Prisons should be designed and equipped so that prisoners are not subject to degrading conditions

3.19 Political Correctness

3.19.1 The English Democrats share the public concerns as to the harm caused to our society by political correctness.

3.19.2 The English Democrats unreservedly condemn this intolerant creed. We reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil. Political correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society.

3.19.3 One key aspect of political correctness is that a person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, and become focused on the deliberate subversion of English national culture and interests, the denigration of English history and of the English themselves, and the promotion of the objectives of minority pressure groups.

3.19.4 Political correctness is grounded in the capture of state institutions, with official spokespeople, legislative powers and sanctions for breaches of political correctness. It is this capture of state institutions which makes political correctness so oppressive and dangerous. This must end.

3.19.5 The English Democrats will take whatsoever measures are necessary to remove political correctness from both national and local government, including the various quangos and other government bodies funded either directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. These measures will include the following three steps:

3.19.5.1 Firstly, those educational establishments, legal establishments, quangos, departments or other government organisations that are promoting political correctness will be fundamentally reconstituted and/or have their funding withdrawn or, where appropriate and if possible, be closed down. In particular, the so-called Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be closed. Private organisations that promote political correctness will not be awarded government contracts.

3.19.5.2 Secondly, the English Democrats recognise that those institutions that are run by state appointees are the most detached from public opinion and are more likely to become politically correct. The English Democrats will, where practical, ensure that senior public employees, such as police chief constables and senior judges, are democratically approved by the community they serve. This will be achieved either via direct elections or via approval by democratically elected representatives. Many senior public posts will be subject to a maximum occupancy period, for such senior public employees to be accountable to the public will form a part of a bulwark against political correctness.

3.19.5.3 Thirdly, the English Democrats will carry out a review of all laws and regulations, and will amend or, where appropriate and if possible, completely repeal those laws and regulations that foster and promote political correctness.

3.20 St George’s Day

3.20.1 The people of England should be able to celebrate St George’s day as a National Holiday

23 comments:

  1. I think the police action was appalling

    ReplyDelete
  2. We were only obeying orders....hate crime...and this is in England. Donation to follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police and crime commissioners, er - who would want to commission crime - a bit of neuro linguistic programming going on there I think, have to swear to uphold all this equality and diversity guff so they will be probably be shackled before they start. I believe that the principal powers of commissioners are to hold chief constables to account and control the purse, both of which powers can be vetoed if enacted contrary to the wishes of the panel specially set up to 'monitor' the performance of the commissioner.

      It looks like any commissioner who actually wants to challenge the status quo will be quickly neutered.

      Delete
    2. The Police Commissioner will have the power to hire and fire the Chief Constable. That means, in business terms, that he is a fully empowered line manager.
      Don't worry the Oath will have no legal consequences and was only introduced by the last Policing Minister - the grossly incompetant Nick Herbert - as a PR figleaf.

      Delete
  3. Great news-time to stop the rot in our society.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You appear to have overlooked the bogus Charity "Common Purpose", it must be illegal for public bodies to fund their employees ( whatever their rank) to participate in CP courses, Common Purpose is a menace to Democracy,, it is actually a psyops-programme for pseudo-elitists for the eventual Barroso led super state of Europe. So now you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Known that for long enough.They are our Nazi Party.IMO we don't have a police service anymore.They are Schupos, Schutz Politzei,the Guard Police who stood by and watched the National Socialist Storm Troopers commit public order offences but in our case it's the Schupos who are doing it.History shows that if you are tolerant of fascists,they win.The time for talking is past,but things haven't got bad enough yet.Temeraire.

      Delete
  5. Donation in the post today.
    All good wishes.
    The Duke

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's actually hilarious!The police flying the gay flag!It's like something out of Monty Python.this country is just too weird to be believed.Will be sending this to all my friends round the World!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Over at UK Column they believe that the current revelations are designed to intentionally damage the image of the police, they might be right. Still the daft buggers have swallowed all this cultural marxism hook, line and sinker.

      Delete
  7. In defence of the decent bobbies, which there are the vast majority, they must weep when they have to do this kind of thing. I feel sorry for them, they are between a rock and a hard place. Many ex service men and women join the force and there can be nothing worse than have to implement this nation wrecking clap trap, especially defending those that loathe and despise our way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a disgrace, they are supposed to uphold the law yet the were blatantly breaking it by flying that flag without permission what in the hell is going on cant wait to people read this on twitter would love all their views!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Does anybody know whether they fly the St George's flag on 23rd April and whether it is normal for them to be instructed to do so? As for the rainbow flag, perhaps this will one day replace the union flag as that dotty woman, Shirley Williams, a few years ago spoke of Britain becoming a rainbow nation like South Africa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No they never fly the Cross of St George but they have threatened people who do!

      Delete
  10. Take heart from the fact that our police are not yet as politically correct as most in Scandinavia have become. Oslo's chief policeman has recently apologised to Muslims there for the video that has come out in the US and has caused rioting and mayhem all over the world, including the death of the American ambassador to Libya.

    I suppose he was terrified they might do the same in Oslo, now walking a tight-rope between Muslims threatening to turn an Oslo suburb into an Islamic state through force and an unknown quantity, those Norwegians who must remain silent but who sympathised with Anders Breivik, if not his methods.

    This is Oslo where Norwegian girls are forced to dye their hair black to make them less attractive to potential gang rapists among the New Norwegians. Actually Sweden now holds the record for this type of cultural enrichment. As for the video, the latest I heard was that it was the work of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had sought refuge in the States. Hard to blame him then is it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. In 1971 there was sociology research conducted on an intake of police trainees at Police Colleges including Eynsham Hall. That research was about the time Sir Robert Mark was warning "We no longer recruit the most able but the most malleable to be our police officers".

    I would think he meant the recruitment of officers who lack the moral fibre to recognise the difference between being given an order and being charged with a duty. The recruitment of officers susceptible to peer pressure and unable and unwilling to honour their oaths as independent ministerial officers of the Crown.

    Is it the case that concepts like "Institutionalized racism" were invented as red herrings to test recruits for malleability and gullibility ?

    The process, mass hysteria, by which "Institutionalized racism" was promoted to bogus reality was the Lawrence Inquiry.

    All I know about that is that Kent Police conducted inquiry of Met handling of the case.

    In August 97 Kent Police Authority had called on Chief constable for inquiry and report related to the 1989 bombing of Deal Royal Marines Barracks.

    This included matters of police handling of paramilitary training by alleged right wing activists in Kent and into similar training under the guise of sports training at Deal barracks 75 to 82. The Deal Barracks activity can now be alleged to have been unlawful as sec of State for Defence two years ago admitted it had no Crown Authority.

    Unlawful Drilling Act 1819.

    In 98 Jack Straw was asked to compel the report called for by Kent Police Authority.

    No answer was forthcoming until the Home Office was expedited by Sir Ronnie Flanagan of RUC in early 99. Who appears to have wanted Straw to take a position before confirming Kent Chief constable David Phillips as invigilator for the Ulster Rosemary Nelson murder inquiry.

    Straw refused to compel the inquiry called for by Kent Police Authority. David Phillips left the Rosemary Nelson case.

    Well was there gun running to far right groups in Kent and especially the Deal area. If so did this involve a notorious London family whose name is well known due to Lawrence case.

    so on the face of it Straw was motivated to support the pursuit of justice for Lawrence whilst showing no enthusiasm at all for a similar pursuit of justice for 11 murdered Royal Marines.

    Pressure in Kent continued and Kent's new Chief constable Mike Fuller was responding to crime complaints (Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 Deal Barracks) by silence. Justice Minister Jack Straw repealed the act.

    I was comfortable with the notion of the Crown having monopoly of armed force in UK. But apparently Jack Straw wants private armies and navies and thus to shift power from the Crown to the private sector.

    Lewisham Race Relations Council were informed that there was a compromise question over Kent Police investigating Met whilst refusing to make investigations in Kent that might not be unrelated.

    Ros Howells (baroness) was phoned and solicitor Imran Khan was faxed.

    Ros Howells response was "You have to admit that you whites have felt superior for centuries". Baroness Howells the model of non-racism ?

    I believe that Stephen Lawrence is of course equally entitled to justice as 11 Royal Marines. Sadly the same cannot be said of Jack Straw. Richard Card

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the interests of transparency, why not disclose the sections of the Bible quoted in full?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given that his comments were found by the CPS not to amount, even arguably, to an offence and so he wasn't charged this seems a perverse question.

      Delete
    2. In that case, what were the sections quoted?

      Delete
  13. What time of night did this pleb enter the police station and how many pints had he had?

    ReplyDelete
  14. nothing surprises me, it goes along side the arrest of mike whitby of the bnp, whose arrest was equally as shocking, but no surprise.
    keep at them, and good luck.

    ReplyDelete