Daily Archives: 2011-08-26

Drink-driving councillor assaulted police officer in Lowestoft

A newly-elected councillor caught drink driving was yesterday banned from getting behind the wheel for two years and ordered to pay more than £800 by magistrates.

Andrew Draper, 37, of Martin Close, Carlton Colville, was three times over the legal limit when he was stopped by police in Lowestoft.

The Waveney District councillor for the Worlingham ward, who was elected in May 2011, later kicked out at a police inspector – hitting him in the chest and knee – when he tried to put handcuffs on Draper.

Tess Mann, prosecuting at Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court yesterday, said Draper was arrested in Beccles Road on August 12 after he was seen “accelerating hard” in a car. Police followed the vehicle and it later overshot two kerbs as it pulled in at the Tesco express service station.

When police asked Mr Draper if he was aware he had “gone across the two kerbs”, he later said: “Do you know I am a councillor?

Draper was then taken to Lowestoft police station by Insp Stephen Bunn and PC Claire Davey, but on the way he “became agitative” as he tried to make a call on his mobile phone.

PC Davey told Draper he coudn’t use the phone, and the vehicle was soon stopped. Insp Bunn then tried to put handcuffs on Draper, but he was “kicked” firstly in the chest and then “directly on the knee,” according to Mrs Mann.

Spray was then used to “calm” Draper and later, at Lowestoft police station, he gave a breathalyser reading of 107mcg of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The legal limit is 35.

James Hartley, for Draper, said his client – a Lowestoft life-guard – had been based on the town’s south beach during the air show. At the end of the second day of the festival, he had a drink with colleagues, before cycling home. About 11pm, Draper was hungry and with no food in his house, “unfortu-nately, he went to Tesco express by car,” according to Mr Hartley.

Mr Hartley added that Draper “very much regrets his actions” and this was “a very unfortunate lapse”.

Draper, who pleaded guilty to drink driving and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, was disqualified from driving” for 24 months and ordered to pay £815 in fines, costs and compensation. He has since resigned from the cabinet, but remains a district councillor.


Leave a comment

Posted by on 2011-08-26 in Crime, Police


Taser deaths raise concern in Britain


The extreme techniques employed by the British police to capture suspects have sparked serious concerns among the public and campaigners who have been warning about a “disturbing rise” in arrest deaths.

The warnings come after three people were killed by Taser guns and pepper spray in separate confrontations with police during the past eight days.

The UK police launched inquiries into two deaths which happened during separate arrest attempts in Cheshire and Bolton, where officers deployed Tasers and pepper spray to facilitate their arrest scheme.

Last week, the first death happened in Cambria, where a body builder, Dale Burns, became the first person in Britain to die after being subdued by a Taser. He was shot three times with a 50,000-volt stun gun.

On Monday, a 25-year-old amateur rugby enthusiast, Jacob Michael, collapsed and died after he was hit in the face with pepper spray and later subdued by up to 11 officers as he tried to avoid arrest for affray.

On Tuesday, a 53-year-old, named locally as Philip Hulmes, was hit with electric probes from the police weapon after barricading himself in his house.

Home Office figures show that Tasers were deployed 1,279 times over a three-month period between January and March 2010 compared to 594 times between April to June 2009.

Campaign group Inquest said there had already been five deaths in circumstances that involved police use of force excluding firearms this year – compared with four throughout 2010.

“For too long there has been a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect yet the police do not seem to have learnt the lessons from these previous deaths”, said Helen Shaw, a spokeswoman for the organization.

“Whilst we await the outcome of the inquests and investigations into these recent deaths it is imperative that the police are reminded that they cannot act with impunity”, added Helen.

Campaigners say police officers are resorting to the horrible weapons very swiftly and recklessly.

“I believe Tasers are being used far too readily by police forces. There needs to be a recognition that Tasers are a lethal weapon and should only be used in very limited circumstances, if at all”, said Sophie Khan, a London-based lawyer with GT Stewart Solicitors.


Norman Scarth: Rusty The Sheriff calls for support (2011-08-21)

Rusty The Sheriff calls for support in efforts to raise a Habeas Corpus Writ alleging unlawful detention for audio recording in court. 85 yr old WW2 Veteran Norman Scarth has been imprisoned for 6 months for recording the proceedings of his own court appearance.



The office of Constable … Explained!


“submitted by Dan Hughes on Tue, 07/07/2009 – 18:22 At this point I would like to publish the Oath that all Policemen and Policewomen swear in this country (PCSO’s etc do not swear an Oath as TPUC has confirmed many times) – the Oath is known as the “Attestation” in the force and it goes like this!

Its printed here:

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 looking at that Oath I see that it speaks only of “serving the queen in the office of Constable”

So lets look up the definition of a Constable:

CONSTABLE – An officer, generally elected by the people, who possesses power as a conservator of the peace at common law, and by virtue of various legislative enactments.

He may therefore apprehend a supposed offender without a warrant, as treason, felony, breach of the peace, and for some misdemeanours less than felony, when committed in his view. He may also arrest a supposed offender upon the information of others but he does so at his peril, unless he can show that a felony has been committed by some person, as well as the reasonableness of the suspicion that the party arrested is guilty. He has power to call others to his assistance or he may appoint a deputy to do ministerial acts.

A constable is also a ministerial officer, bound to obey the warrants and precepts of justices, coroners and sheriffs. Constables are also in some states bound to execute the warrants and process of justices of the peace in civil cases.

In England, they have many officers with more or less power, who bear the name of constables; such as, lord high constable of England, high constable, head constables, petty constables, constables of castles, constables of the tower, constables of the fees, constable of the exchequer, constable of the staple, etc.

In some of the cities of the United States there are officers called high constables, who are the principal police officers where they reside.

Blimey … thats interesting! Lets take a closer look at this then …

So we see that a “Constable” is “an officer, generally elected by the people”?

I would love to know if there is common law or old law that confirms that every Police Constable has to be elected by the people, if this is true then it means overnight that every Policeman and Police woman in the land is UNELECTED and therefore is NOT a Constable! Ooh somebody please tell me its true!

We go on …

“who possesses power as a conservator of the peace at common law”

Hot damn – there it is in Black and White that a Constable is responsible primarily for upholding the peace under COMMON LAW.

Also take a look at the Attestation published earlier, it says …

“I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property;”

So even in the Oath the Constable took he confirmed that he himself/ she herself had the job of keeping the peace and preventing offences against people and property, in other words, preventing “Harm or Loss” under common law.

Also, the definition of Constable goes on to say:-

“and by virtue of various legislative enactments”

Well, as we have all learned I am sure, “Statute / Leglislation are merely a set of rules given the FORCE of law by the consent of the governed”

So even though the Definition says “by various legislative enactments” those very legislative enactments are impotent unless we give our consent to be governed by them. I certainly don’t!

You will also notice that the Attestation sworn by Constable says this;-

“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.”

Its says … “ACCORDING TO LAW!”

Statue and legislation is NOT law! Merely a set of rules (not law) given the FORCE of law (same power as if law SUBJECT TO) by the CONSENT (means agreement and recognition of that FORCE of law) of the GOVERNED (by you and without which the FORCE of law does not apply).
NOWHERE, I Repeat NOWHERE in the Attestation (Oath) of a Constable does it mention or speak of STATUTE or LEGISLATION! Therefore by default no single Police Constable in this land has agreed to uphold Statute / leglislation in their Oath.

Its interesting that in the USA there are some people now confronting Police officers and putting them on notice of their Oaths the uphold the LAW (Not Statute / Legislation) I have links to videos on Youtube of this happening if you need them.
I digress, lets get back to the definition of a Constable where it says;-

“He may also arrest a supposed offender upon the information of others but he does so at his peril, unless he can show that a felony has been committed by some person, as well as the reasonableness of the suspicion that the party arrested is guilty.”

WOW!!!! … so from what I am reading here is that there is a price to pay if a Constable makes an arrest without being able to show that a felony has been committed along with the reasonableness of the suspicion that the arrested party is guilty.

I am now going to start researching the office of Constable in great detail if it means we can hold these Peace officers to account in the event that they try to enforce their corporate statutes upon us in blind disregard to common law.

I just found this in respect of UK common law:-

I am amazed by this line:

Common Law:

Cannot be stopped by police officer unless there is an intention to arrest. Citizens have no duty to answer questions. Rice v Connoly 1966 QB: cannot arrest for refusal to answer questions and no legal duty to accompany police officers.

Ergo, next time I get stopped I will let the constable know that I have no legal duty to go with him!

I feel a lot more reading is required on this subject, the office of Constable is an ancient and honourable office that has been twisted and abused by the Corporate governance machine and its time we took the office back for ourselves.

I will keep you all updated as I find out more! I Don’t know it all and if any of you feel like helping me out with knowledge then please email me via the site.

“Keep ‘em peeled”

Ray: St.Clair”


Dies after he was pepper-sprayed and arrested …

These deaths are becoming routine.

“‘They seemed to be kneeing him in the back of the head. I counted 11 cops. They were all sat on him, giving him a kicking and giving him side digs. There was one woman officer, the rest were men, and she was getting her kicks in as well.



Leave a comment

Posted by on 2011-08-26 in Uncategorized


Riots are not political


Leave a comment

Posted by on 2011-08-26 in Uncategorized


14 Conspiracy Theories That The Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts

Interesting …


  1. Fukushima Uninhabitable
  2. U.S. Military Attack On Libya
  3. Widespread Use Of RFID Chips In Humans
  4. $2000 Gold
  5. Obama Wants To Impose Backdoor Amnesty
  6. U.S. Government Provides Weapons For Mexican Drug Cartels
  7. Fluoride Is Harmful
  8. The Federal Reserve Favors The Big Banks
  9. Cell Phones Linked To Cancer
  10. The Credit Rating Agencies Are Corrupt
  11. Prescription Drugs Kill A Lot Of Americans
  12. Bisphenol-A Is Linked To Infertility
  13. The “Super Congress” Is In The Pocket Of Wall Street Interests
  14. The Targeting Of Christian Groups
%d bloggers like this: