CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: "Pete Ansbro", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yes, the formal freedom of the Borough is required to >parade or march. My town had such a march last Sunday when the freedom of the town was given to USAFE. The march was headed by a very happy young policemen, followed by US services personnel carrying M1 rifles, empty or otherwise. As part of the bunfight, the Air Force's precision drill team, when not throwing their M1 Garands over their shoulder to someone 8 feet behind/up in the air etc, did let off a number of blank rounds. Which makes me wonder ... As this was in the town centre and possibly on the highway, would someone have to give permission and if so, who? And isn't always an offence to discharge a firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a highway? (Nothing against our allies, just musing on the technicalities.) Pete -- Hmm, I'm not sure firing a blank is technically "discharging a firearm". The idea was that discharging a round of ammunition within 50 feet of a highway was unsafe as it might hit something, I assume. Discharging a firearm means to "expel" a shot, projectile, or other missile. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, the formal freedom of the Borough is required to parade or march. However, the police are not required. I think the point was that civil law takes precedence over the military and that is the case. The military hand the accused serviceman to the civilian authorities for processing and trial except where the offence is one contained within the military. Regards Jerry Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Formed >bodies of troops with fixed bayonets may not enter a >town unless their unit has the "freedom" of the Borough. >This is one of the greivances against standing armies >which the Bill of Rights addressed. I don't know whether that's correct or not, for example, what about the Rememberance Day parades? Agreed, they are generally unarmed. When a unit is given the freedom of a city, they are granted the *right* to *parade* through the town at any time of their choosing. (Obviously they don't do this. :) Otherwise, they have to be specifically invited by the local authority. The document granting the freedom often speaks of "with bayonets fixed and band playing". When a unit has this freedom, it is usually exercised annually (said he, who's done a few. :) --Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner "Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for the police leading a military parade thats usually for traffice control not to show their pre-emienence over the military. Jerry, That is not the only reason IIRC. Formed bodies of troops with fixed bayonets may not enter a town unless their unit has the "freedom" of the Borough. This is one of the greivances against standing armies which the Bill of Rights addressed. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't disagree that the police use of the word 'civilian' is sometimes used in an insulting manner. I believe it should not be. However, I think you [jim] wrong in your belief about the military not having a roll in civil order or policing. They do not normally do it but its less than a century since cavalry with swords and infantry with fixed bayonets cleared rioting strikers on our streets. The military defer to the police on such matters today but are not precluded from such activity as is the case in post war Germany. Enforcement of the provisions of the Riot Act was in place in the forces until around 1970 and 'Internal Security Training' forms a part of basic training in the UK military. Its not a role the military relish as you say but there are preparations for it. The police are in effect a civilian force and presence in our society and that is the way I believe they should remain. Policing should be by consent and not coercion (at least for the vast majority of the population who don't commit crime). As for the police leading a military parade thats usually for traffice control not to show their pre-emienence over the military. Regards Jerry -- Setting up checkpoints manned with armed officers, which is what West Mids did a couple of days ago, has got to be "coercive"! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[] >Not quite true the British police are and always have >been an armed force (most of the time its been the staff >- AKA truncheon - though the original Robert Peel >constables carried swords). A quick look at the Police >Act 1964 makes you realise that the laws and regulations >applied to police officers are more akin to the military >than the civil service or local government. >[.] > >I am not briefed to comment on the above, but the fact of >the matter is that the Police are a "Civilian Entity". I >know it is a silly example, but a I understand a Police >officer must preceed any Military parade, not only to >make sure the road is clear but to set the precedence of >Civil Law. --rest deleted-- [...] Steve, & Jim, I agree Jim's assessment, and further, upon looking-up the term 'Police' in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., I find this: "Branch of government which is charged with the preservation of public order and tranquility, the promotion of the public health, safety, and morals, and the prevention, detection, and punishment of crimes. See also Internal Police; Peace (Peace officers); Sheriff. Under the heading of 'police officer', is this: "One of a staff of persons employed in cities and towns to enforce the municipal laws and ordinances for preserving the peace, safety, and good order of the community. Also called "policeman" or "policewoman"; "patrolman" or "patrolwoman", or "peace officer". See also Peace (Peace Officers)." Under the heading of 'civilian', is this: "Private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the armed services, or (in England) the church. One who is skilled or versed in civil law." There is no heading under "armed service". Under "Army" is this: "Armed forces of a nation intended for military service on land." So, it would appear, upon close legal inspection, that the term 'civilian' as used by the police -- on their form -- refers to anyone not specifically required to possess arms as a duty under oath while in military service to their nation. I suppose that the term 'private citizen' (or subject) might well have been a more appropriate term to employ. ET -- Well, I have to disagree with that law dictionary to the extent that the police do not punish people, the courts do, unless a caution is considered to be "punishment". I suppose they hand out tickets, but in theory you have to consent to that otherwise you go to court. The police are not a military force IMO, and I hope that as many people as possible share that opinion, because going by the cabinet papers you can look through in the PRO there are plenty of people in Government who seem to think the police are their own private army. The classic example in the distinction between the two was the Iranian Embassy siege. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: "Jim Franklin", [EMAIL PROTECTED] [] Not quite true the British police are and always have been an armed force (most of the time its been the staff - AKA truncheon - though the original Robert Peel constables carried swords). A quick look at the Police Act 1964 makes you realise that the laws and regulations applied to police officers are more akin to the military than the civil service or local government. [.] I am not briefed to comment on the above, but the fact of the matter is that the Police are a "Civilian Entity". I know it is a silly example, but a I understand a Police officer must preceed any Military parade, not only to make sure the road is clear but to set the precedence of Civil Law. The Military have no automatic role in civil peace-keeping in UK unless called in by the civil (or possibly political) authorities. It is not a role they relish. The Military role could be defined as; the application of violence, against the Queen's enemies, to achieve politcal ends once diplomacy has failed - certainly not the role of the Police. Again, their use of the word "Civilian" is unacceptable, even downright offensive. Jim Franklin Orpington KENT. UK PGP key on request Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police a 'military' force?
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not quite true the British police are and always have been an armed force (most of the time its been the staff - AKA truncheon - though the original Robert Peel constables carried swords). A quick look at the Police Act 1964 makes you realise that the laws and regulations applied to police officers are more akin to the military than the civil service or local government. Remember a Chief Constable exercises a lot of control on the life of any police officer, on or off duty. This includes authorising where they might live and even who they can marry! Let alone discharge of debts, etc. For many years the police have been part of our community however in more recent years the swing to a more 'militarised' or perhaps 'paramilitary' style of organisation, equipment and demeanour has occured. As a trainee constable I was always taught that we policed by consent, now in many areas the police appear to be almost policing by coercion, not that many yet but its spreading. I bet most gress roots police officers don't like it though even when I was a probationary PC there were some who regarded panda cars as reconaissance vehicles and the vans as troop carriers. Regards Jerry Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
