Article Index

“Police probe far-right ‘yellow vest’ group that intimidated Anna Soubry…

Senior Met officers have studied the group’s own video, which shows them harassing the pro-Remain MP, and believe a public order offence may have been committed.”.

The Observer 23rd December 2018.

A spokesperson for the Yellow Vest Movement made the following observations about this press report.

“Senior Met officers”, particularly those employed in the Palace of Westminster, should know that British subjects have inherited a long tradition of freedom of speech in the form of “Heckling” politicians in public places:

“Politicians speaking before live audiences have less latitude to deal with hecklers. Legally, such conduct may constitute protected free speech. Strategically, coarse or belittling retorts to hecklers entail personal risk disproportionate to any gain. Some politicians, however, have been known to improvise a relevant and witty response despite these pitfalls. One acknowledged expert at this was Harold Wilson, British Prime Minister in the 1960s:...”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler

The legal definition of “heckling” is “Petitioning” the Crown in the person of any of Her Officials.

It is a request from a person or persons to public officials asking that some authority be exercised to grant relief, favours, or privileges.

Request for relief from the tyrannical imposition of EU legislation which is incompatible with the traditional rights of the British people are certainly covered by this.

The legal protections which hecklers enjoy include:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, the statutory form of the Declaration of Rights, goes further in not just recognising the Right to Petition for redress of grievances. It makes clear that attempts to prosecute British subjects for doing so are illegal:

“Right to petition.

That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall...”.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/…/WillandMar…/1/2/introduction

Those anonymous “Senior Met Officers”, and the Speaker of the Commons, would be well advised to go to the corridor leading to the Commons chamber in the Palace of Westminster where they will see a life size depiction of the Declaration of Rights being read to William and Mary as a condition for their election as the first Monarchs after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Next to it is another of the people acclaiming the seven Bishops who had been unlawfully imprisoned for Petitioning James II.

They should also note that in the January 2017 “Brexit” Judgement the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Bill of Rights:

“Para. 44. In the early 17th century Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74, Sir Edward Coke CJ said that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”.
Although this statement may have been controversial at the time, it had become firmly established by the end of that century. In England and Wales, the Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed that “the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall” and that “the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall
authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall”...”.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/…/d…/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

Constables hold individual responsibility for the exercise of their office which means that no senior officer can order the arrest of anyone. The constables who were present when Ms. Soubry was petitioned dealt with the situation as they thought fit.

For those reasons, if those “Senior Met officers” reasonably suspect that offences have been committed they still have their Warrant Cards and should do something about it personally.

Thus is the latest incident in which senior officers, like the Acting Commissioner who hid in his car while a brother officer was murdered, have failed to do their duty either by supporting the constables on the scene or exercising their authority to put what they believe to be a crime before a Jury. Shame on them. Their names should be made public and justice should be done against them without letting them evade it by retiring.

Press Release Ends.

Add comment