Police oath meaning .. who do you serve?

emma gomez made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Defence Police should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Ministry of Defence Police,

1. The police make an "Attestation" as follows All UK Police
Officers
swear this "Attestation"

"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."

What is the definition of serve?

What is the definition of the Queen, which Queen are you referring
to?

What is the definition of Constable?

What is the definition of people?

What is the definition of discharge?

What is the definition of offences?

What is the definition of property?

Are International laws higher than domestic laws?

6. Why is the following law not being given due diligence and who
is
responsible for enforcing it?

1. Article 25.3(c) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
which
includes the phrase "including providing the means for the
commission of
the crime", the 'means' incorporates the money, materials, weapons
and
armed forces personnel needed to commit one or more of the 4 ICC
crimes
(genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression).

2. Section 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001 or
Section 2 of
the International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001. This
legislation
makes it a criminal offence in Britain to engage in "conduct
ancillary to
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and the
legislation goes
on to define ancillary conduct as behaviour which falls under The
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

3. The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal provides the relevant
precedent in
the section quoted in the article

" It was submitted [by the defendants] that international law is
concerned
with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for
individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act
of
state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but
are
protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the
opinion
of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That
international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals
as well
as upon States has long been recognised…

The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have
international
duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience
imposed by
the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain
immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State,
if the
State in authorising action moves outside its competence under
international law…”

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

Yours faithfully,

emma gomez

MDP-Sec-DPO (Harney, Ronald Mr),

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Gomez,

 

Please see attached.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Ron Harney

Data Protection Officer & Freedom of Information Manager

MDP Secretariat

Military: 94667 4399

Civilian: 01371 854399

Fax:       01371 854080

Email: [1][email address]

or        [2][email address]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]

MDP-HQ SEC DP DEP D,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Gomez,

 

Please see attached in response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Many thanks and kind regards

 

Lorraine

 

 

 

 

 

emma gomez left an annotation ()

Dear Lorraine

I find it very hard to believe that you do not know the meaning of your attestation or that you have no idea who the queen is that you are serving. I agree there are many queens on the planet and it is important that we do not assume who that is and can agree on who is being served. Can you not answer any of the questions in this request?

Many thanks

Emma Gomez

NIFFLAGAN: the Sovereign left an annotation ()

Not that they will admit it. But they dont even follow the oath they swear to uphold, the common people do not regard it as an attestation, it is blatantly an oath to swear allegiance to the Queen, our sovereign lady if you will, to protect her people; her "subjects" if you will. Im sure your fully aware that police (officers) are just agents of the government, who disguise themselves as "constables" through the Oath, and then disregard it the moment they take office and duties. Nowadays their prime duty is to draw up revenue and bump up arrest rates etc.