August 11, 2011

The Oath of Constable

Just so you know...

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.

Do you see anything in that Oath that says I, Officer Dibble, of Copperville, will serve and protect you, Joe Public?

Me neither.

Different oaths for different countries here.



Anonymous said...


"do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen...."

That's the important part. The Queen, as pointed out by John Anthony Hill (7/7 Ripple Effect) has not only committed treason, but failed in her coronation oath on numerous occasions. Coppers serve royalty and the elites. That's why they were created.


Anonymous said...

Fully get both your and Harbinger's points, Captain, but nevertheless the attestation can actually be quite useful for the simple fact that it does not say "I will uphold the rights of corporations and other dead fictional things whenever they demand money via menaces".

So it pays to remind policymen of this fact, especially when accompanying corporate revenue collectors. C.f. any Veronica: Chapman video for more detail. They won't get the Queenie/treason argument but they should get the attestation when "reminded" of it. (If you know this already I apologise :-) )

I have it printed out for use in just these circumstances.

The current form came with the Police Reform Act 2002 which changed the attestion from the 1996 version. The previous one said this:

"I, ... ... ... ... of ... ... ... ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects; 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."

Notice "Our Sovereign Lady", which is the most important change in the current version: it was changed because the govt allowed foreigners to serve in the UK police force which was not the case historically. This of course paves the way for Europol or whatever, does it not?

It also replaces "favour or affectation, malice or ill will" with "fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people". Probably ECHR/HRA related...



Captain Ranty said...


You are 100% correct.


Captain Ranty said...


Odd that. The 1996 version, I mean.

We ceased to be subjects in 1981. And in laymans terms, "Her Majesty's subjects..." can be translated as "Brenda's stuff".

Her "stuff" does not include the proles.

We belong to Pope Benny.

The HRA point is good too. I agree.


bollixed said...

The fundamental basis of Human Rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948· I had this 'debate' with a Constable last week after he refused me my rights (I got it in writing) as a free man and defended himself by claiming his decision was based on his best understanding within his training blaa blaa blaa. Ignoring the specific elements of my original complaint that I will be following up on in a formal complaint against the Constable, it was obvious that he was covering his backside (having already admitted I had a good case) and hiding behind the police corporation as a bonded Agent/Employee....whatever. He was actually a really nice bloke for whatever that's worth but he was VERY aware of his post-2002 oath.

Lots more to this that I will publicise as and when I get the main result I'm after.

Anonymous said...

Spot on. We're just the mugs who pay for their personal security. Why do people not see that?

I think the general publics level of annoyance is up at the moment especially when I truly believe that they are tightening the grip to try and quell the tension a bit and now we're in for a bit of rough ride despite the state of the economy and the blatant thievery happening in Europe these days and having to put up with ridiculous acts of violence, thievery, robbery, burglary and pointless vandalism. Watch what happens at the next peaceful demonstration of peoples basic rights to protest.
It scares me they would try and take that away or the Police are ordered to go in hard on innocent citizens wasn't there a gathering on 20th August?

Genuinely without advocating any action, what you do is your business and in my opinion only; how the hell has it got like this? It puzzles me how we tolerate that we pay loads more over the wholesale price of gas and electricity than other "european" countries? VAT is 20%? on top of income tax? National Insurance? Price of insurances? We are no longer enjoying the benefits of being employed but have families to feed and a mortgage to pay. On top of the price of fuel. Then you have to contend with supermarkets try do a psychological number on you weekly. (shop local it's better quality and would get cheaper if people made it worth running a local business) What are we leaving our children?



Anonymous said...

CR, I have worked out that dichotomy: having dug around a bit, the attestation was originally part of the 1964 Police Act and was "re-stated" in the 1996 version. Oh, I get the rest of what you say; however whilst we may know that they don't ;) rather deliberately! I also have no doubt that the attestation will change again in some point, to better reflect the planned future. :-|

If there was an earlier version, say from Peel's time, it is not present on However I have found a couple of antecedents; oaths sworn by high constables and petty constables in the time before there was a police force:

"You shall swear, that you will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord the King in the office of Constable for the township of ... in this manor, (hundred or county) for the year now next ensuing, or until you shall be thereof discharged by due course of law; you shall see the King's peace kept, and keep all such watch and ward as are usually accustomed and ought to be kept; and you shall well and truly do and execute all other things belonging to the said office according to the best of your knowledge. So help you God." (Joseph Ritson, The Office of Constable, 1791)


"You shall well and truly serve our sovereign lord the King, and the lord of this leet, in the office of Constable and and for the hundred of, &c, or parish of, &c, for the year ensuing, or until you shall be thereof discharged according to due course of law; you shall well and truly do and execute all things belonging to the said office, according to the best of your knowledge. So help you God." (Williams' Law Dictionary 1816)

The latter is stated as being set out in Acts of Parliament referred to as "Stat. 13 & 14 Car. 2" which I assume correspond to the "Vexatious Arrests and Delays at Law Act 1661" and the "Act of Settlement 1662" passed during the reign of Charles II. ("Carolus" in Latin.) The latter does not contain an oath but does refer to certain functions of the position, and I cannot find the former.

Ritson states that the position of constable was an invention of the Statute of Winchester and not common law: "And though Fitzherbert, and Crompton after him, have asserted that they [constables] were conservators of the peace at the Common Law; and though it is said in other books that 'not withstanding the opinions to the contrary' the high constable was an officer at the Common Law and the Statute of Wynton [Winchester] only enlarged his authority, yet no one has hitherto produced the least evidence in support of such assertion." This probably comes from Blackstone who says that high constables were created by Wynton and petty constables during the reign of Edward III, and the latter "replaced" the offices of headborough and tithing-man which dated back to Alfred the Great (though Blackstone writes that they were still extant in his time). No idea whether that's the case, but Parliament fiddling and messing about again? Good lord...

Sorry for drifting a bit from your original posting, Captain, but interesting nonetheless...



Anonymous said...

Having conversed with you long ago on oaths. They are only for those within the fraternity applied to.


If they did, the riots by these thugs would have been quelled shortly after they began.

Did not see any pillage in areas of real wealth.(Did you?).

Blacks against asians, lovely, lets sit back and watch the fireworks.


Went out today, all around Birmingham. White, black, asian. Not any friction, non whatsoever.

Sat with one and all, no problems. I remember someone saying "everyone you meet is a potential friend". So I have that outlook in life now.

Met many today.

My conclusion...

Divide and rule is the mantra.


Agent pravocatuer comes to mind.

Think they are clever CR. The streets dont belong to them, no matter how many cameras they have. They dont belong to the braindead arseholes either.

Always smile my friend, have no fear. The ferryman takes all, even those that think they are superior.


Woodsy42 said...

Interesting that if you take the change in oath at simplistic face value (yes I know it goes deeper but look at it) - the original one only applied to protecting "persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects".
So they had no responsibility at all towards illegal aliens or armed invaders from outside the commonwealth.
I think that is an important change.

Bil said...

Very interesting wording it contains.

Why the woolly ECHR stuff: with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people ?? Why not just keep the peace? Why does it need more than that?

Why 'to the best of my power'? What power? Who grants it?

What 'offences' against people and property?

'According to' what 'law'?

Interesting - how does stop and search fall into keeping the please? How is my great freedom as an Englishman, allowing me to proceed unhindered to carry out my lawful business protected by this oath?

All very strange.

Ex-RAF myself and re-reading my oath of attestation shows why the military should not be deployed on the streets :

"I, xxx, Swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and bear True Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in Duty bound, Honestly and Faithfully Defend Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all Enemies and will Observe and Obey all Orders of Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and other Officers set over me."

(pissed me off on the day I attested that there was no mention of defending the realm and the people - but that's the rabid republican in me).

So as I see it it's up to the local community to police itself - its their duty.

Bill Sticker said...

"cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"

Ahem. Isn't that 'protect and serve'?

James Higham said...

So, in effect, we do not have a police force.

pitano1 said...

no WE`dont,what we have are the policy enforcment officers,for.



FrankC said...

Re. Harbinger's post (the very first) and as amended by TSL, this American super cop (Brattan?) would not be able to take the oath or attestation of a constable, unless he changed his nationality (most unlikely), and is therefore disqualified for consideration as boss of the Met.
Theresa May please note.

Anonymous said...

Seen this, Captain?

New guidance for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on How to deal with a Freeman

Guess things are hotting up a bit over there. I wonder what their attestation is - if they have one.

@FrankC - Call Me Dave is supposed to have wanted that but was "overruled", but I read that in the MSM so you never know where the grains of truth are if any exist at all. Bratton is currently chairman of Kroll, the private security firm that, amongst other things, recevied millions from the MOD during the Iraq War and apparently......was in charge of WTC security prior to 9-11!

FFS, you couldn't make it up if you tried.

It's possible that part of the establishment want the ACPO chief, Sir Hugh Orde, to be the next Met commissioner, that's the real reason as to why he's on the airwaves all the time at the moment. Unsurprisingly, he's also a Common Purpose stooge.

Heads they win, tails we lose.



Anonymous said...

uphold the law not statutes,but that depends if you are dealing with a policeman or police officer

Dioclese said...

With respect, CR, I think the bit about preventing all offenses to people would cover that.

Anonymous said...

Dioclese, Not at all. There are many statutory 'offences' that harm no one at all.