Paedophile Rings Inquiries Section 5 Criminal Law Act 1967, Constable Oath and Official Secrets Act

Richard Card made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Home Office did not have the information requested.

Dear Home Office,

Could you disclose the position and legal advice to Home Secretary concerning Official Secrets Act and "orders" to police to drop criminal inquiry into paedophile rings.

(1) The Constable Oath and constitutional position as an independent ministerial officer of the Crown. Surely the statute law of Official Secrets Act cannot authorise an order to a Constable to betray the sole fount of justice HM the Queen ? The constable has but one master the Law itself.

(2) The only "Order" binding on a constable is a judicial warrant. An order to commit crime (Concealing knowledge and belief of arrestable offences) is unlawful ?

(3) The Queens Peace. An order to drop inquiry into an offence against the person would amount to an order to suspend the Queens Peace. Treason ?

(4) A constable obeying such an unlawful order would be committing a ten year imprisonable offence Section 5 Criminal Law Act 1967.

(5) Has any constable ever applied for Judicial Review of an unlawful order or is it the history that every manjack constable broke his oath and left children unprotected and denied justice for no other reason than they were "Told to".

I would like to say that I feel sorry for Theresa May. She is trying to stop a tide of sewage with a sieve but at least she is wielding the sieve which is more than all the plod coming out of the woodwork now, whining about Official Secrets Act and what they have kept quiet about, ever did.

If you at the Home Office think the sorry history of police is impressing people then think on. Dunblane tragedy. And out come the plod who had been "Ignored". Paedophile inquiries and out come the ex plod telling us how they were backed off and expecting our admiration and sympathy.

(6) Article 2 ECHR. And what is the Home Office position on this one ? Police breaking the UK Article 2 commitment to protect life for no other reason than to safeguard their careers and pensions and because they were told to.

This is an important and topical public interest point. The New Years Honours list features BBC personality who admits to historical knowledge about Savile. But to have kept quiet because she was only a woman. Has she been given immunity from Criminal Law Act as part of the New Years Honours award ? An MP is asking for Official Secrets Act to be suspended for some ex Special Branch officers so they can speak out about their paedophile inquiries. Is this a red herring or a misunderstanding of law and the office of constable ?

We read about "Untouchables" in paedophile rings. In our country which has a principle that no matter how high you are the law must be above you. This primacy of law, the constable only master, is subject of the Coronation Oath of HM the Queen as custodian of the Queens Peace and SOLE fount of justice in mercy.

So what is the position about the constable oath since 2000. Why has "Sovereign" been removed. My oath was "I will well and truly serve our SOVEREIGN lady the Queen". By which I recognised the lifelong duty of Constable oath and the Queen as SOLE fount of justice in mercy.

As you know from time to time I uphold the oath by applying to Attorney General for a quash of the suicide verdict handed down on Matron Mary McGILL 1972 Sue Ryder HQ Cavendish. She had ileac crest bruising after being in the company of Leonard Cheshire in the final 19 hours of her life. Something the inquest was not told. This is an indicator of anal assault. But what do we see in Savile Inquiry. Abuse at the Sue Ryder child hospice Leeds. The one Sue Ryder Home being investigated in isolation and the remainder of the charity kept free of police inquiry ? Official Secrets Act again ? And the reason I ask is that my inquiries revealed grounds to suspect that Special Branch were protecting the charity from police inquiry through liaison with MI5. And if Special Branch were snooping on all police interest in the charity then pound to a penny they knew about Savile abuse at the Sue Ryder Leeds child hospice AT THE TIME it was taking place in the 1970s. Could thatbe the reason for the isolated nature of the Sue Ryder child hospice Savile abuse inquiry.

Please do not tell me that Home Office has no position on the above issues. The constable authority is the CROWN (the family created at Coronation of people and monarch) it is NOT Govt it is NOT Home Office it is NOT MI5. It is the constitutional position. If constables come out of the woodwork now and admit to betraying their only master, the law itself, then let us treat them accordingly. Section 5 Criminal Law Act 1967 and ten years in prison.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the Home Office FOI Requests mailbox.

The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 provides public access to
recorded information held by the department.

If you have submitted a valid FoI request, we will acknowledge your
request within 48 hours, and aim to provide the information requested
within 20 working days as specified under the FoI Act

PLEASE NOTE

If you have a general immigration enquiry, or require an update on a
specific case, you should contact UKVI directly, contact information can
be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... and
[1]https://www.gov.uk/visas-immigration

General enquiries should be directed to
[2][email address]  

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/visas-immigration
2. mailto:[email address]

FOI Requests, Home Office

Richard Card

 

Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.

 

This has been assigned to caseworker (case ref 33911) who will respond to
you in due course

 

If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Thank you

 

FOI Requests

Home Office

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI Responses, Home Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Card,

 

Please see the attached clarification concerning your FOI request – 33911.

 

Regards

 

 

Home Office

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Responses,

Thank you for your reply.

I am asking you to disclose the constitutional position in law the Home Secretary takes when there is a conflict between constable sworn duties and secret public interest decisions (Or decisions guised as such) stopping inquiry (such as in the paedophile cases). For example were such orders susceptible to judicial review under the Crown ? if so then we can condemn every manjack constable who obeyed unlawful orders that did not have Judicial (Crown) authority.

The power to direct and control constables is limited that such direction and control is consistent with the oaths of office each constable takes to the Queen (sole fount of justice in mercy)

There must surely be a guidance, a duties of Home Secretary office specification or a Judge led inquiry terms of reference guidance that addresses this issue.

It is straightforward. No matter how high you are the law must be above you. The Crown is the authority for admin of justice and constables. If constables accepted that some people are "Untouchable" and backed off to "Order" placing people above the law (Thus betraying any number of unprotected children to abuse and even murder) They have divided their oaths. They should no longer have remained constables and they should have been charged with Treason.

The only way govt can make constables into civil servants is if we are defeated at war and a new constitution is imposed. Since we have not been defeated we are a constitutional monarchy. I am sick to the gills of retired coppers whinging on about Official Secrets Act and performing as if they were victims of a corrupt command system. A constable is not subject of a command system he alone is criminally answerable to the Queen for the discharge of duty in accordance with the oath of office.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Requests, Home Office

1 Attachment

Thank you for contacting the Home Office FOI Requests mailbox.

The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 provides public access to recorded information held by the department.

If you have submitted a valid FoI request, we will acknowledge your request within 48 hours, and aim to provide the information requested within 20 working days as specified under the FoI Act

PLEASE NOTE

If you have a general immigration enquiry, or require an update on a specific case, you should contact UKVI directly, contact information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... and https://www.gov.uk/visas-immigration

General enquiries should be directed to [email address]<mailto:[email address]>

show quoted sections

Home Office

Mr Richard Card,

Reference : T771/15

Date: 15-Jan-2015

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Thank you for your e-mail of 13/01/2015 4:05:41 PM.

The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Ministry of Justice.

We have therefore transferred your e-mail to Ministry of Justice, who will
arrange for a reply to be sent to you.

Transfer Desk

show quoted sections