Direct Entry at Superintendent, British Constables

www.leadbeyond.police.uk...

YOU’VE PROVED YOURSELF IN THE CORPORATE WORLD
NOW MAKE POLICING YOUR BUSINESS.

www.commonpurpose.org.uk...

What is Leading Beyond Authority?

Many successful leaders learn to lead in roles or circumstances where they have clear authority, budget and accountability. When they move beyond this - leading peers, partners and stakeholders - the skills that brought them success may not be enough. To operate effectively they need a different approach to leadership - the ability to Lead Beyond Authority.

Leading beyond authority is commonly called sticking your nose in where it isn't wanted.


I suspect a large proportion of direct entry superintendents will be complete assholes who'll melt down when they encounter people who laugh at their concept of 'authority'. They won't have the experience to know when to back down. Not only that, this is the way for spooks to get parachuted in to sabotage policing at critical junctures, riots for example.

a reply to: Kester

This is why it's important to understand legal language. Police officers are enforces of legislation, which only applies when you contractually agree to it.

If an 'officer' speaks to you say NOTHING. They're employees of the British cooperation and they're not your friend. Their job is to make money. PoliceMEN are different.

The biggest lie we were ever told was that any legislation has ANY power 'over' us. It doesn't. Not one iota. The police can do anything they want, it doesn't mean they're any less a low level employee, a business for profit.

They can call themselves whatever they like, they're just offshoots of a corrupt system, and should be ignored accordingly.

if a saudi millionaire can get off with rape by accidentally tripping the law is a joke.
i know someone who got 3 years for 60 marijuana plants the law is a joke and should be ashamed of themselves

I know of someone who is young, a complete caner as in, likes her friend molly. Very wants to be in the police...... Totally the wrong kind of person, well for now.

The person needed for this nonse - sense is someone who is preferably free of any serious sexual deviance, unwilling unless they are forced. And really just has a need to please....

After all, these muppets aren't really required to think... Just tow the party line and speak nicely when needed....

E2a spellchecker corrected

a reply to: Joneselius

We had them in our street last night and this morning responding to mental breakdowns and loud threats to kill. They were very kind and caring. The only title used last night was 'This fella". I went and searched behind the houses while they took care of things at the front. It was friendly co-operation with them being paid and trained, and having sworn an oath to take action. Me just wanting to keep the peace in the street.

This morning when it started kicking off again the beefy neighbour on the other side added his contribution. "Do that again and you'll get knocked the **** out". It worked. Then the constables arrived for more mediation.

An accurate way to address a constable is

'street corner psychiatrist'

mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com...

I've found healthy co-operation with them has been far easier since I withdrew consent to statutes.

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Kester

Police officers are enforces of legislation, which only applies when you contractually agree to it.

If an 'officer' speaks to you say NOTHING. They're employees of the British cooperation and they're not your friend. Their job is to make money. PoliceMEN are different.

Are you saying that if I don't contractually agree to a piece of legislation, the police can't enforce that legislation against me?

Can you explain how a (police) officer is different to a policeman?

a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

Law doesn't require a written record because we know what we don't want done to us. Harm, fraud, damage theft. Law applies to all equally.

Statutes are written regulations which apply with consent. Consent is gained by trickery. 'Names' are recorded by the registrar and traded with private bankers for loans of fiat currency. These 'names' are legal fictions. When asked if you are Mr/Mrs/Ms, or other such 'courtesy title', you are being asked if you are a legal fiction. If you identify with the registered 'name' you are consenting to commercial activity within the business driven statutory framework. All based on the private bankers criminal banking system.

Calling statutes Law, and receiving some reward connected with that transaction, is fraud and therefore unlawful.

The entire legal system relies on confusing statutes and Law. They will not tell you the truth.


With the right attitude and right actions most attempts to gain consent from you for a commercial, statute and legal fiction dependent transaction will fail.

Since following these guidelines my co-operation with constables in random situations has improved beyond recognition.

a reply to: Kester

There's no problem with saying, "The legal fiction I use for commercial transactions is . . . " So they can check their records of you. Just make it plain you're not making any commercial transactions with them.

Is this just more "Policing as a business"?
It looks like the same meaningless corporate speak I see week in, week out, at work.

The problem with policing in the UK is that those at the top are highly politicized, doing the bidding of the politicians and not always following the true letter of the law, as impartially as they should. As long as they get their name in lights and a gong at retirement, that's what matters!

Policing should never, and cannot, be run as a business, unless of course this is just another step in the moves to privatize even more of the police services. We've all seen just how successful that has been in the NHS, with it's "CEO's" and other highly paid business execs running things into the ground, while reaping vast rewards at the taxpayers expense.

a reply to: Kester

Pah, Freeman nonsense...

For starters, it's based on a piss poor understanding of how Law is derived. In the UK, we have a form of Common Law, which is a mixture of Case Law (by precedent) and statutes (passed by parliament). This Freeman rubbish is based on a supposition that statutes are not law - they are. However, it is down to the Courts to interpret that Law which is how we get "Case law" (Common Law).

As for "consent" - this is nonsense too. They do not need your "consent" to charge you with any offence. Let's assume that you committed a crime and they arrested you. You stayed silent throughout the whole thing, not even confirming your name. What happens to you then? Well, assuming they have enough evidence, they'll charge you, put you on trial and throw you in prison.

At which point have you given "consent"? You haven't, because it isn't needed and has never been needed.

a reply to: Kester

Thank you for the time it has taken to write this reply. I have read it several times, but I think I will now have to lie down for a while. For reasons I can't fully explain yet, the significance of what you are saying is quite mind-boggling. I just need a bit more time to understand it all. As it happens, tonight I am meeting up with one of my pals who is a solicitor in the Newcastle law firm, Haddaway Mann. I'll ask him what his take on this is.

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale
As it happens, tonight I am meeting up with one of my pals who is a solicitor in the Newcastle law firm, Haddaway Mann. I'll ask him what his take on this is.

Hahaha, really? You're not pulling our legs on this, are you?

A law firm, called "Haddaway Mann" in Newcastle?

Bwahahahaha!

(FYI - I googled the name and found no such firm - I can only conclude you're having a laugh which, ironically, calls for the use of the geordie saying "Haddaway, man", meaning "you're talking rubiish"....)

a reply to: stumason

Yes, Stu, you rumbled me far too easily on that one! I can't claim to have originated it, either. That goes (as far as I know) to the late, great northeastern comic, Bobby Thompson, who used the fictitious law firm, Haddaway & Sh!te, in one of his jokes. Unfortunately the ATS filter wouldn't let me use the proper spelling, hence the change of "partner's name".

a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

Sorry, I went and spoiled it for you

It was funny, though