One freeman and his seat belt - John Harris

Flying Colours, see my response below to your post, point by point.

Hello Concerned Citizen,
Unfortunately, I haven't the time now, to trawl through the eu direktives (Fuhrer Befehlen) that I have amassed. Suffice it to say, I have copied and pasted the examples below, and provide you here the website address to check it out - AND MUCH MORE - http://drjn.co.uk/ ---- I believe you will find that this site is of the eminent Mr NOAKES.

I have read through the site and found that most of it was a huge exaggeration of what has actually happened and in some cases twisted so much that they are lies. I will cover these below:

By the way, I did agree with the seatbelt part - and whilst seatbelts do save lives and prevent further injuries - it IS an example of how choice is being ever denied us. I'm a HGV driver - I've seen some bad things - for me, if you CHOSE not to wear a seat belt, then you have no claim on any insurance and any injuries are actually your own fault.

The government has to walk a very fine line in doing what it thinks is best for the people and also giving them choice. I agree, that sometimes, that choice is taken away from us, but only when it has gone through a set out process of debate within commons, lords and receives Royal Assent. The people who make the laws or push them through the process are our peers that we have chosen as our representatives to the House of Commons. That is the basis of a democracy.

However,
Personal experience has taught me, that the police and even the "plastic plod" - can actually do what they want - and argue about it later - even when they are completeley in the wrong!!
Today, it doesn't matter what the rule book says - as they make it up as they go along - especially plod.

The Police are not always correct and do make mistakes. The tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes being a prime example. It is disappointing that no one has been held to blame for that incident yet. However, it should not detract us from the good work that they do in majority of the cases. When John Harris made his stand against the fine, he made it completely to the wrong people and the wrong time to do so, and tied up valuable resources over such a trivial matter.

I'll leave you with the following for now -

Examples of how our lives have changed since we've been in the EU:
In the EU, (which means in Britain) government is above the law.
The EU's corpus juris now pervades right through our legal system. A policeman was let off by magistrates this year (2005) for driving his private car at 159 mph in Ludlow, Shrops. Under Corpus Juris the government are above the law and cannot be prosecuted The judge ruled correctly under EU law. 45,000 police officers got off speed cameras in this way in 2004, although their speeding killed 44 innocent people. (Daily Mail 27.12.05.)

That is a false statement. He was not driving his private car as stated above. He was driving a police vehicle. I am not going to get into whether he was right or wrong. You can read it all here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

It also wasn't a Corpus Juris by any means and nothing states within EU directives that the government are above law.

The Daily Mail article, (Daily Mail being such a fine example of non-sensationalism and true and accurate and balanced media outlet), is much ado about nothing. Yes, Police Officers do speed and go through red lights, but, surely, you do not oppose that? Those who do so without a reasonable excuse are and should be prosecuted as the Police is not above the law.

We have lost the right to freedom
The EU arrest warrant (signed by the Queen on 18th November 2003) allows us to be arrested without charge and held indefinitely with no right to see a solicitor, make a phone call, or even a right to a trial. You can simply disappear.

Again, I think is a twist of the real situation. Yes, anyone can be arrested by an EU Arrest Warrant, however, only if it has been issued by a member state and a common legal framework ensures that you have the same rights in the issuing country that you would do here. You do not just 'disappear'. The police have always have had the power to stop someone from seeing a solicitor or make a phone call, for exceptional circumstances and this has nothing to do with EU at all. That power can be given by a Superintendant (I think) and has to be reviewed regularly. If, for example someone gets arrested on suspicion of dealing drugs, the idea is to stop him or her making a phone call to warn someone to get rid of evidence. Which, I'm sure you'll admit, does make logical sense.

Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) 2005, we can now be arrested and held in the cells by any police officer for any petty offence, like dropping litter. Before it had to be an offense that carried a 5 year jail term. This also applies to all of the EU's 107,000 regulations. Do you know them all?

The litter dropping is the much loved sensationalist but not true at all used example of the powers given to police under SOCPA. Dropping cannot get someone arrested as it is not proportionate to the offence, unless one of the criterias of the pneumonic COP PLAN ID is met. (Google it if you want to know what it stands for.) An example of this would be for the offender to refuse to give their details for the court summons or they give what the Police believe to be fake details. (This is what John Harris could have been arrested for.) If the officer arrests someone for dropping litter and uses the Immediate and Prompt Investiation as the reason why the person has been detained, the Custody Sergeant will promplty release the person and have a coffee meeting with the arresting officer, without the coffee.. Oh, and again, this is nothing to do with EU or the SOCPA of 2005. These powers had been around for many years under Section 24 of PACE 1984 which is now defunct with the introduction of SOCPA.

The Civil Contingences Act 2004 allows government to confiscate anything you possess permanently; you have no right to object. This includes your house. It also gives government the right to forceably move its population around to different locations; you can be left with no place to call your own and live like a refugee. The only check and balance here is a Minister just needs to utter the words "This is a national emergency." If a demonstration or strike government doesn't like is being organised, they can cut off all communications in a town - phones, mobiles, the internet, TV, and block all access to that town including closing roads and railways. It has all the powers and more of Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933.

Again, yes, in theory it can happen, but if you actually read the Contingencies Act, you'll see the amount of red tape and checks and balances introduced to ensure that the powers are not abused.

We have lost the right to free speech
At the Labour Party conference the police held an 82 year old man, Walter Woolfgang, and denied him access to the conference under the EU's "anti terrorist" legislation because he had shouted the word "nonsense" at Jack Straw, who was speaking about Iraq. Terrified the true nature of the laws they have passed on behalf of the EU was escaping too early, the Labour Party stopped the police and begged the man to return to conference.

I do agree that sometimes, the Anti-Terrorism laws have been used too laxly for matters that are clearly not terrorism related. The example of Mr. Woolfgang being one of them.

On October 25th 2005 Miss Maya Evans was arrested under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, for a lone protest at the Cenotaph by reading out the names of the 97 British soldiers killed in the Iraq war. She was arrested by no less than 14 police officers and found guilty at Bow Street Magistrates Court on the 8th December 2005.

I actually oppose the new legislation that has been brought in that makes it an offence to demonstrate within certain areas without prior permission from the Police. I am not too sure about the process involved in getting that permission and under what grounds the police can refuse permission, however, I still see the need for it, with the amount of extremist demonstrations that have taken place in the area that has caused so much damage and mayhem to local residents, businesses and the general public. The arrest of Miss Evans was a completely disproportionate use of that power and not what it was intended for.

Would you hand over our nation, to be ruled by a foreign power, with oppressive laws like these, ? That's what's happening.

We have lost the right to protest
These laws make protest very difficult; if we did hold a General Strike and blockade Westminster it would now require some bravery: the powers the EU has demanded from our government enable it to respond in a way similar to the Chinese government's in Tiaanamen Square should it so wish.

Again, these powers have nothing to do with the EU.

It is no coincidence that since 2004, all MP's offices in Westminster are guarded by police with machine guns, inside and out.

I fail to see what that statement tries to point out.

The Governments "terrorism" deception
All these new EU laws, including massive "anti terrorism" acts (recently 2000, 2001, 2005) were passed with the pretence they were only directed at terrorists, or in the case of Asbos, ruffians who terrorise the streets. In each case they are used far more often against ordinary law abiding people, particularly to suppress dissent. (91% of those detained under Terrorism Acts are innocent and have been improperly arrested. Most of the remainder are charged with offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, but cover up over zealous arrests).

Again, these are not EU laws.

We have lost the right to life
Under EU law the "Shoot to kill" policy did not need democratic authorisation. Just two senior police officers authorised the police to kill British people. A democratic vote by Parliament was not required, but even that would not have legalised the killing under British common law. A recent victim was an innocent Brazilian, Jean de Menezes, shot dead in Stockwell underground station, even though he was being held down by police officers at the time of the execution. The police used dum-dum bullets, outlawed under the Geneva Convention because they blow a man to pieces inside.

Again, it is not a EU law. And as stated previously the accidental killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is a black mark in our history and I do hope that one day the persons responsible can be brought to justice.

The police can no longer be convicted for killing innocent people - Philip Prout shot at Lewannick in East Cornwall is just one of 30 people shot dead by police since 1992 when corpus juris crept in. At least one was shot in the back; most were no threat to anyone. Not once since 1992 has a policeman been convicted of any crime for these murders.

Again, this is nothing to do with the EU and the statement is a complete lie. The police can be convicted for killing people and for many other offences. Examples of it can be found all over the news. Just google it.

Have you noticed this growing police state?
In addition to many more laws than those above, add the 107,000 regulations, and whole bureaucracies such as VOSA building up networks of cameras and databases to record our movements and criminalise us when we can't comply. Persecution is no longer confined to motorists; under EU Corpus Juris our courts have become extensions of government power instead of independent arbiters of justice.

I completely fail to see what VOSA or ANPR cameras have anything to do with the EU.

Several things I'm going to pick up on here.

First of all, just because I disagree with you, you are assuming that I am a police officer.

Second of all, where does it say on Common Law that it is illegal to murder somebody? Or, where does it say that it is illegal for me to steal your identity and go in to your bank and withdraw your money?

Common law is generated by judges who look at past cases and the evidence in front of them to make a decision. As you know, defendants have the right to appeal against any decision by the lower courts and can, if necessary, be heard at crown courts, and be judged by their equals, i.e. a jury and that decision is binding.

The beauty of Common law is that it gives the law makers of this country the ability to modify the law to suit the needs of the society at any given point in time and for it to evolve. This is very important. If we do not have the safeguards in place that enables the law to evolve, all we are doing is condemning ourselves to be a society that does not better itself.

The Road Traffic Act of 1988, an Act of Parliament, which has not only passed Parliament and also House of Lords, has also received Royal Assent by The Monarch and thus, becomes law.

When an officer issues you a ticket, you do not have to accept it, and as per your much beloved Magna Carta, you can request that you are heard in court, albeit it initially gets referred to a Magistrates, which is still made out of lay man who are not professional judges. Again, as you know, you can defer yourself to a Crown Court.

Now, if you think that all 'minor offences' should be judged by their equals, then you're out of your mind and this debate is over. It would take years for things to be heard in court and the British legal system would grind to a halt.

So, when you made a scene and came up with such big words to a PC's on a service station, you were completely and utterly wasting everyone's time and then you complained that such a trivial matter took 6 officers (I've forgotten exactly how many now) to deal with. If you felt very strongly that you are not required to wear a seat belt, then, all you had to do was to co-operate with the officers, and then read the instructions on how to contest the ticket issued to you through the courts, where the matter should have been discussed, rather than on a roadside, wasting everyone's time.

I have no problem with people who question things. Only by questioning things can we better ourselves. What I do have a problem with are those people, who so blindly believe in something that even when they are shown evidence to the contrary, choose to ignore it. I'm not saying I've shown you anything to the contrary, but if and when you do get your day in court, I sure hope that you will be man and mature enough to accept that you were wrong and accept the courts decision, if it goes against you.

Dean, you may have some difficulty there. I'm not sure - others will be able to verify this - but I think you are purchasing fuel from the garage franchisee, at THEIR price - and not from Inland Revenue.

Reckon you would have to take that one up with Inland Revenue themselves.

It won't be long before everyone is on bicycles or using horses anyway.