On the 19th May the English Democrats’ recent Liverpool Mayoral candidate, Paul Rimmer, went into his local police station at Toxteth in Liverpool, to ask them what the stripey flag that they were flying was about. He was told that it was “the gay flag”. After asking why Merseyside Police would fly the gay flag rather than either the Union Jack or the Cross of St George and quoting from the Old Testament, he left the station.
Almost immediately he was rather roughly grabbed by two burly policemen and told that he was being arrested for a “hate crime”, contrary to the Public Order Act. Paul pointed out that he had only quoted from the Bible and the Bible is in every court room in England, to which the PC responded that they were only obeying orders. Paul then reminded them that that is what the Gestapo had said! He was then dragged off in handcuffs to another police station to be photographed, finger printed and his DNA taken before having a police interview and held for six hours.
On the 19th July the Merseyside Police formally dropped any charges. Now it is our turn to counterattack!
Whilst waiting to hear whether any charges would be pressed, on my advice, Paul enquired from Liverpool City Council whether Merseyside Police had obtained permission under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement)(England) Regulations 2007. Very reluctantly, Liverpool City Council confirmed in writing that no such permission was obtained or even applied for. This means that it was Merseyside Police which had actually committed the criminal offence – not Paul.
In fact they have committed not one criminal offence, but the criminal offences of flying a non-permitted flag at 42 police stations across Merseyside.
Merseyside Police cannot even claim that they didn’t know about this law, as Freedom of Information Act requests have been made on several occasions previously about whether they had obtained permission in earlier years when they also flew this flag.
I am in correspondence with Merseyside Police’s solicitors and haven’t yet had the (probably apocryphal) response which allegedly police officers used to tell courts that the accused had confessed that “it was a fair cop gov, I am banged to rights!” – but I live in hope!
In addition to bringing a private prosecution against Merseyside Police, Paul also has civil claims, not only for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, but also for breach of his human rights in being arrested contrary to his right to free speech. He also has discrimination claims, not only on the grounds of religion, but also on the grounds of sexuality in preferring one sexuality over another contrary to the Equalities Act.
Merseyside Police have demonstrated an official bias towards support of a partisan position, rather than what an English police force should demonstrate – a determination to enforce the laws of England impartially!
The Chief Constable and Senior Officers of Merseyside Police have shown themselves to be not only slap dash in their compliance with the rules, but also politically correct hypocrites, willing to adopt a heavy handed approach to anyone who dares to exercise an Englishman’s traditional rights of free speech to criticise their politically partisan stance.
Pauls is delighted at the support that he has received from almost everybody that he has met in Liverpool since it became known that he and the English Democrats were leading the fight back against this particular manifestation of political correctness.
Last, but not least, we are now seeking funding to help Paul stand as the English Democrats’ Police Commissioner candidate for Merseyside with a mandate of Zero Tolerance for Politically Correct policing! Below are some extracts from our manifesto setting out the English Democrats’ policies on policing.
If elected he will root out the political correctness of Merseyside’s senior police officers. Focus the Force on traditional common-sense policing and maintaining law and order and catching real criminals! May be his slogan will be “Zero tolerance for political correctness in Merseyside policing!”. Paul does urgently need help with funding his campaign and with the financing of this case. If you would be willing to help with a donation whatever size, please click here>>> https://secure.artezglobal.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=16009&LangPref=en-CA&Referrer=direct/none
If Paul can raise the £5,000 to pay the deposit he will be in the running to set the priorities of Merseyside Police, decide their budget and he will have the right to hire and fire their Chief Constable. If you would like to help donate to the campaign to bring Merseyside’s PC police to book, please click here>> https://secure.artezglobal.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=16009&LangPref=en-CA&Referrer=direct/none
This is not about homophobia but it is about making sure that Merseyside Police obey the law and that they act in a way which maintains traditional English liberties with old fashioned firm but fair and impartial enforcement of Law and Order and that they do not act in a politically partisan way in support of multi-culturalist political correctness. Any support that you can give will be very gratefully received!
This case has now been formally commenced in the Liverpool Magistrates Court by “laying the information”. The text of the information is set out below.
Here is the text of Paul’s Information, starting the prosecution of the Chief Constable and the Superintendent in Charge of Toxteth Police Station and the Police Authority.
INFORMATION FOR ISSUE OF SUMMONS
Section 1 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 – Part 7 Criminal Procedure Rules 2011
CHARGE 1
Prosecutor: Mr Paul Rimmer, Modred Street, Liverpool
Defendant: Mr Jon Murphy, Chief Constable of Merseyside,
Police Headquarters, PO Box 59, Canning Place, Liverpool, L69 1JD
Charge: On the 19th May 2012 being the owner or occupier of premises namely Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool displayed an advertisement namely a Flag sometimes known as the “Gay Rights” or “Rainbow” Flag when no consent had been granted for such display
Contrary To Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Statement of Facts;
The Defendant being the Chief Constable of the County of Merseyside is the “owner or occupier” of the premises with authority to display, or not display, Flags at those premises. On the 19th May the Prosecutor observed that the Police Station in Admiral Street, Toxteth was flying a Flag of the type commonly referred to as the “Gay Rights” or “Rainbow” Flag. This Flag is not the National Flag of any country, nor is it the Flag of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations, any English County, or the Flag of any Saint. Under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder the owner or occupier of Premises requires consent from Liverpool City Council in order to display such a Flag. By a letter dated 12 June 2012 Liverpool City Council confirmed that no application under the Regulations had been made by or on behalf of the Defendant or any other person, for consent to display the Flag and therefore the display of the Flag was an offence under the Regulations”
CHARGE 2
Prosecutor: Mr Paul Rimmer, Modred Street, Liverpool
Defendant: Mr Gary Hilton,
Superintendent: Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool L8 8JN
Charge: On the 19th May 2012 being the occupier of premises namely Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool displayed an advertisement namely a Flag sometimes known as the “Gay Rights” or “Rainbow” Flag when no consent had been granted for such display
Contrary To Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Statement of Facts;
The Defendant being the Senior Officer in Charge of the above Police Station is the “occupier” of the premises with authority to display, or not display, Flags at those premises. On the 19th May the Prosecutor observed that the Police Station in Admiral Street, Toxteth was flying a Flag of the type commonly referred to as the “Gay Rights” or “Rainbow” Flag. This Flag is not the National Flag of any country, nor is it the Flag of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations, any English County, or the Flag of any Saint. Under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder the owner or occupier of Premises requires consent from Liverpool City Council in order to display such a Flag. By a letter dated 12 June 2012 Liverpool City Council confirmed that no application under the Regulations had been made by or on behalf of the Defendant or any other person, for consent to display the Flag and therefore the display of the Flag was an offence under the Regulations”
CHARGE 3
Prosecutor: Mr Paul Rimmer, Modred Street, Liverpool
Defendant: Merseyside Police Authority
PO Box 101a, West House, Mercury Court , Tithebarn Street, Liverpool L69 2NU Mr Gary
Charge: On the 19th May 2012 being the owner or occupier of premises namely Admiral Street Police Station, Toxteth, Liverpool displayed an advertisement namely a Flag sometimes known as the “Gay Rights” or “Rainbow” Flag when no consent had been granted for such display
Contrary To Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Statement of Facts;
The Defendant being the Police Authority for the County of Merseyside is the “owner of occupier” of the premises with authority to display, or not display, Flags at those premises. On the 19th May the Prosecutor observed that the Police Station in Admiral Street, Toxteth was flying a Flag of the type commonly referred to as the “Gay Rights” or “Rainbow” Flag. This Flag is not the National Flag of any country, nor is it the Flag of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations, any English County, or the Flag of any Saint. Under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder the owner or occupier of Premises requires consent from Liverpool City Council in order to display such a Flag. By a letter dated 12 June 2012 Liverpool City Council confirmed that no application under the Regulations had been made by or on behalf of the Defendant or any other person for consent to display the Flag and therefore the display of the Flag was an offence under the Regulations”
Relevant parts, about policing policy, of the English Democrats’ manifesto are below:
1.6 The English Flag
1.6.1 We call for the compulsory flying of the English flag, the cross of St George, on all state-maintained public buildings in England.
2.11 Policing
2.11.1 Policing is an increasingly difficult job due to changes in our society, which now lacks the social cohesion and shared values that once gave us a mostly peaceful and well-ordered way of life. Our cities have become places where it is impossible to perform traditional communal policing.
2.11.2 English Democrats seek a return to a system of policing which recognises the principle that all citizens are treated equally. In their efforts to prevent crime and catch criminals the police should not be hindered and demoralised by unreasonable ideological constraints.
2.11.3 We should not lose sight of the fact that the basis for the maintenance of law and order in England rests on a firm foundation of active participation by law-abiding citizens. A relationship of trust and co-operation between citizens and police is essential to effective policing and the prevention of crime. With that in mind, it is reasonable to expect that policing should not be oppressive. The aim is a peaceable society in which liberty and justice can flourish.
2.11.4 It is essential that the police force be adequately trained and resourced.
2.11.5 Police forces should be more democratically accountable than at present. This would require the election of Chief Constables or the Police Authorities which appoint them.
2.11.6 English Democrats call for the creation of a scheme enabling businesses to pay for their security staff to train and register as Special Constables, their powers of arrest applying to their place of work and its neighbouring streets. Such registered security staff would be subject to Police staff performance monitoring and discipline.
2.12 The Legal System
2.12.1 The primary role of a legal system is to provide the means for settling disputes. It should enable those who suffer loss, in the form personal injury, theft, or damage to property, to be properly compensated by the party at fault. Laws, and the penalties for breaking them, should comply with the principles of natural justice.
As societies have become more complex, so have their law codes. To a great extent, this is unavoidable.
2.12.2 However, states and their governing elites are extending the reach of law into areas that infringe upon individual liberties. The result is a body of law which is more restrictive and complex than it need be. Many of the customs and principles of English law are being undermined in the political quest for greater conformity with Continental ideas and practices. Law is being used as a tool for imposing dogma. One of the consequences of these changes is that the police are increasingly being made the enforcers of political doctrine and moving further away from their traditional role of upholding the delicate balance between Order and Liberty.
2.12.3 In order to obtain justice, citizens must feel able to consult and employ the services of the legal profession. Many people are deterred from this by the procedures and costs of the present legal system. Improvements have been made in recent years but more needs to be done to make the system user friendly and efficient.
2.13.4 The English Democrats favours less law and a simplification of law. There are far too many matters currently covered by the criminal law. There should be a drastic reduction and rationalisation of the number and extent of criminal offences.
2.13.5 We must reform the jury system but not abandon it because the jury provides a democratic check on the legal system. The law is not the property of lawyers; it belongs to the people and should serve their needs.
Our preference is for a return to comprehensible, just and effective law. Given its current chaotic state, the law should be codified.
2.13.6 Once the criminal law has been properly codified, the English Democrats would ensure that the criminal law is vigorously policed and enforced.
2.13.7 Except in an emergency there should be a single annual implementation date for new law. This will help rectify the current muddled situation where no one can be sure, without considerable effort or expense, whether a clause of a new Act has been brought into force or not. Also, some rules, for example the Civil Procedure Rules, are being rewritten so frequently that new editions are being published more than once a month! This leads, not surprisingly, to the shameful situation where no-one, not even the judiciary, can be sure of the current rule in force without first making unreasonable efforts to research the point.
2.13.8 In order to avoid such excessive complexity developing again, a monitoring system should be devised which ensures that new law is unambiguously comprehensible and properly and efficiently enforceable. This could be a function of a reformed Second Chamber.
2.13.9 The English Democrats respect the right of victims of crime to defend themselves and their property against criminals. The English Democrats would extend the right of self-help.
2.13.10 The English Democrats believe that every victim of a criminal offence should have the right to address the court on the question of sentence and for the court to be required to bear the victim’s views in mind when passing sentence.
2.13.11 It is not acceptable that 100,000 hardened criminals commit over half of all crime in the U.K. Once a criminal is identified as beyond effective rehabilitation he or she must be kept out of the community until no longer a risk.
2.13.12Prisons should be designed and equipped so that prisoners are not subject to degrading conditions
3.19 Political Correctness
3.19.1 The English Democrats share the public concerns as to the harm caused to our society by political correctness.
3.19.2 The English Democrats unreservedly condemn this intolerant creed. We reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil. Political correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society.
3.19.3 One key aspect of political correctness is that a person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, and become focused on the deliberate subversion of English national culture and interests, the denigration of English history and of the English themselves, and the promotion of the objectives of minority pressure groups.
3.19.4 Political correctness is grounded in the capture of state institutions, with official spokespeople, legislative powers and sanctions for breaches of political correctness. It is this capture of state institutions which makes political correctness so oppressive and dangerous. This must end.
3.19.5 The English Democrats will take whatsoever measures are necessary to remove political correctness from both national and local government, including the various quangos and other government bodies funded either directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. These measures will include the following three steps:
3.19.5.1 Firstly, those educational establishments, legal establishments, quangos, departments or other government organisations that are promoting political correctness will be fundamentally reconstituted and/or have their funding withdrawn or, where appropriate and if possible, be closed down. In particular, the so-called Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be closed. Private organisations that promote political correctness will not be awarded government contracts.
3.19.5.2 Secondly, the English Democrats recognise that those institutions that are run by state appointees are the most detached from public opinion and are more likely to become politically correct. The English Democrats will, where practical, ensure that senior public employees, such as police chief constables and senior judges, are democratically approved by the community they serve. This will be achieved either via direct elections or via approval by democratically elected representatives. Many senior public posts will be subject to a maximum occupancy period, for such senior public employees to be accountable to the public will form a part of a bulwark against political correctness.
3.19.5.3 Thirdly, the English Democrats will carry out a review of all laws and regulations, and will amend or, where appropriate and if possible, completely repeal those laws and regulations that foster and promote political correctness.
3.20 St George’s Day
3.20.1 The people of England should be able to celebrate St George’s day as a National Holiday
