Monday, Nov 28th

Last update:08:21:32 PM GMT

You are here: Christian Doctrine Society and Culture The Police Officer’s Oath:- NOT Being Upheld in the UK by Some

The Police Officer’s Oath:- NOT Being Upheld in the UK by Some

E-mail Print PDF

This paper is written following the outrageous action taken by police officers against critic of Islam, Tommy Robinson, because they were so obviously and alarmingly acting illegally, albeit at the command of their superiors, who themselves are acting on behalf of politicians and a treasonous attitude towards Islam. This paper is not particularly about Robinson… he is just a current flashpoint. Nor is it about our hard-working and dedicated police officers who obey law and wish to honour their oath. The issue is about the ability to speak and to hold an opinion. We are on the verge of a massive clamp-down on free speech; Christians already know about this, but it is getting worse.

It is my contention that though ordinary police officers obey their superiors, as they should, we are now at a point in history when the police must not use the excuse, as have soldiers in the past, of “Just doing my job”, regardless of morality, ethics, law, and good sense. Soldiers can no longer (at least officially) get away with gunning down innocent people; indeed, Westerners now go over the top NOT to prove soldiers have acted well, but to appease foreign parties and make sure they are imprisoned. Now, some police officers are acting like automatons, as they “only do their job”. In this particular case – acting like guardians of sharia, though most do not realise it.

I KNOW there are a majority of decent law-abiding police officers (including Muslims), but I ALSO know that new intakes of officers, particularly if they are very young, are being brainwashed by their superiors, as per government demand, to uphold immoral, unethical and harmful behaviour by Islamists and homosexuals. The UK oath taken by police officers is as follows… when we apply it to the actions of the arresting officers of Robinson, it simply doesn’t ring true.

“I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”


Similar oaths are uttered in a number of other countries. No doubt the individual officers mean to uphold the law… but what do they do if their superiors order them to arrest someone contrary to law or to their oath? Sadly, the Robinson case shatters the oath and shows that officers are being used as ‘strong-arms’ to further a political agenda illicitly. At what point do police officers refuse to act on such orders?

In the video, the arresting officers are heard throwing out the spurious charge: “breach of the peace”; with a less clear accusation of “inciting a riot”. It is obvious to anyone watching this in real time that neither charge was true. Robinson was doing nothing illegal, nor was he putting his life in danger in a quiet street with almost no other persons present. It is my view that, against the oath they took, the officers did not discharge their duties with fairness, integrity or impartiality. There was no upholding “fundamental human rights” nor was there “respect” for Robinson. All viewers could see was police intimidation. I respect police officers and they deserve and must get our fullest support. But, not when they act outside the law and do not stand firm against the wrong orders of superiors.

My Personal Interpretation. Note that mention has been made about Robinson’s suspended sentence. It is a legal fact that if he contravened the terms of his sentence he could be judged guilty and sent to prison. But, note what happened… Robinson was doing nothing wrong outside the court, so he could not be arrested legitimately. So, to enable the authorities to get him arrested they needed an excuse – I am not talking about the officers sent to make the arrest in absurd numbers, but the higher officers given the order to do so by political masters.

As I have noted, Robinson did nothing illegal, yet he was arrested on a trumped-up charge. I doubt this was the officers’ own doing. By arresting him, the authorities had a ‘reason’ to put him before the court; the reason was to put him behind bars and not to have access to the media or internet, upsetting the pro-sharia pro-Islam mood of politicians. Even the court appearance was stupendously out of order! Robinson had no lawyer. So everything was completed within a few hours, and he was sent immediately to prison! This is unprecedented and strongly implies a political motive.

The stark illegality of this move is especially noted when we know that police and courts do nothing when Muslim families and friends intimidate witnesses, even when police are present! Or, when large numbers of Muslims riot or scream death threats. Where Islam is concerned, Muslims hold the winning card, because they are almost immune from arrest or police action.

When I was on jury duty, at the end of the trial, I and my fellow jurors were taken via a secret tunnel to the opposite side of the road, because a large number of the then sentenced criminal was waiting to intimidate us. So, nothing was needed to further protect us. But, when Muslims intimidate witnesses, etc., nothing is done; they appear to be free of normal police action, unnacountable.

Interestingly, the oath taken by British Transport police is very similar to that taken by their colleagues, except that they also pledge allegiance to the Queen, plus a few more statements. Someone contacted the BTP higher management and asked them to define every word in the oath. It is a right thing to do – just as we now question what is meant by the general police oath… because, at the moment, some police have let down that oath and the need to be honest and open with the public. Also interestingly, general police bodies were angry when the oath to the Queen was dropped ( ) . This is because the oath was ‘Eurofied’.

WHY was the oath to the Queen dropped? To help police recruit foreigners. Were European foreigners used as a front, so Muslims could be employed… because they only obey Allah, as the first paragraph implies (October 2001)? Notably, police officers at that time were “suspicious” as to why their employing authorities wanted to do this. Mention was made of easing restrictions on EU nationals, but, in light of current totalitarianism, it could also have been a way to open the door to more Muslim applicants, though Muslims openly say they do not obey non-Islamic laws.

That, though, is not the issue in this paper. The issue is that the officers arrested Robinson on trumped-up charges that must have come from superiors acting on behalf of vested interests (government). One police officer dared to ask WHY he should uphold laws and actions not covered by his oath (  ). His question was treated almost dismissively, with the words “If you read and interpret it correctly, then you will find that the terms and wording is all encompassing and refusing to uphold them will be dereliction of duty.” This is a very convenient way to say “Shut up and just get on with it” and “You haven’t read the oath properly, Dumbo… keep asking questions and you’ll find yourself out of a job”.

The main clause in the oath is that the officer must discharge his duties “according to law”. Even when a particular law is an ass, or wicked? How far does a Christian officer go to comply with such a law without sinning? If a particular law is wrong, does he or she circumvent that law and take a better stance, without compromising his position, using discretion and wisdom? And if he or she dared to oppose a command by a superior, as would a soldier asked to do something bad, would he or she be intimidated, blocked for promotion, or simply got rid of, like a whistleblower? Yes, of course he would!

Section 50 of the Act encompassing this oath requires compliance with regulations set by the Secretary of State. One set of regulations is the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, containing a variety of behaviours officers must adhere to ( ). These behaviours include (see same files):

“Honesty and Integrity: Police Officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

Orders and Instructions: Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Discreditable Conduct: Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct: Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour. Ministers are bound, as another type of public office holder, in much the same way, by the Ministerial Code 2010.

Under Common Law, if a public officer wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglects to perform any duty they are bound to perform, by Common Law or Statute, then they are guilty of the offence of misconduct in a public office.”

Taking each of these behaviours into account, it is obvious in the Robinson video taken at the time of his arrest, that the officers did not act with integrity, but abused their positions. They did NOT carry out lawful orders and instructions – the viewer can plainly see this! Since when is it lawful to arrest someone on charges of breach of the peace, when he is simply standing alone on a pavement talking into his mobile? Since when does a man incite a riot, when he is not in contact with any other member of the public and keeping to himself?

WHY did these officers not challenge orders given to arrest Robinson, orders from superiors whose own behaviour was suspect if not illicit? Or, is this kind of behaviour now to be likened to the famed joke about a suspect who “fell down the stairs”? And to take it even higher, remember that the Home Office and other ministers are themselves bound by the Ministerial Code 2010. Thus, they cannot order a police chief to tell his constables to arrest someone on a political whim. And, under common law, a constable who makes such an arrest is him or herself liable for misconduct in a public office!

Wilful misconduct includes betraying public trust – and the fact that viewers of the officers making such an astounding arrest (and the judge following it up with a kangaroo-court imprisonment) went viral worldwide is sufficient proof that the arrest was dreadfully and legally wrong. To my mind the precedent of R v Dynham (1979) is sufficient to call all the arresting officers to book, because all the officers watched or aided the arrest, which was illicit. Thus, they acted according to the command of superiors and not according to the strict letter of the law. Perhaps the following comments are useful (  ):

“Each individual 'Police Force' is a commercial company, it has NO AUTHORITY to enforce anything, any more than a McDonalds or a BurgerKing has. The men & women that work under the banner of their local 'Police Force' have two separate roles. When they take up their occupation, they take an 'oath of office' pledging to uphold the 'Common Law'. That oath, and nothing else gives them the Authority to act to enforce 'Common Law'.

'Common Law' DOES NOT authorise them to do anything connected with so-called 'Government' Statutes & Acts and so they have been trained to use 'Legalese' to entrap UN-INFORMED members of the Public! To be fair, it is highly likely that even the members or the Police Force are aware of what they are doing and do not understand the difference between 'Legal Statutes' (which are optional) and the 'Lawful' Common Law requirements which apply to EVERYONE and are NOT optional.

PLEASE DON’T GET US WRONG - A lot of Policemen and Policewomen do a great job and assist members of the Public, sometimes above and beyond the requirements of their job - opposing bullying, intimidation, fraud etc. and comforting in cases of bereavement or injury. BUT, the commercial companies who control the Police Force are working extremely hard to end this sort of positive behavior, using ridiculous Health & Safety regulations as an excuse, even to the extent that Police Officers are instructed for example to stand by and watch somebody drown and not attempt to save them! This is not the choice of the 'Officer' but the instructions of the owners of the company.

SO, because these thousands & thousands of 'invented' offenses don’t apply to ANYBODY unless they agree to be bound via 'consent' it becomes essential for a 'Police Officer' to (possibly without knowing) persuade a member of the Public to agree to subject him/herself to these unnecessary restrictions and agree to pay invented cash penalties to the local commercial company called the 'Police Force' or 'Constabulary'.”

And, under common law, for an arrest to be justified there must be a victim. WHO was the victim outside the courthouse when Robinson was arrested? Only Robinson! He did not assent to his arrest for disobeying a statute (which officers cannot represent). Thus, his arrest, though vaguely ‘legal’ was NOT lawful.

I do not recollect any officer asking Robinson “Do you understand?” (What this means in technical jargon is “Do you agree to standing under me?” That is, allow the officer to do what he is doing). Robinson did NOT answer such a question, so he did not consent to the line being taken. Therefore, this was an illicit act by the officers.

Then we have the Police Commissioners, who now also pledge an oath (  ). One clause says “I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime, and work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice.” What about protecting a lone person speaking into his mobile, and not in a crowd, when he is reporting on a rape trial? Where was Robinson’s safety? What about HIS voice (and ours)? Another clause says the Commissioner must ensure “transparency of… decisions.” There was no transparency in the ganging-up on Robinson. It looked more like a Stalinist scooping-up of a man who rejects official collusion with what is wrong.

It must be remembered, even by police officers, that they only have powers under Common Law. A person cannot be arrested under Statute Law, unless he agrees to it! Nor can the officer have authority over another person unless that person agrees to it. The mere fact that one is a police officer does not give authority to arrest under Statute Law. It is obvious that even police chiefs are unsure of the distinction, as we see in 

Thus, policing is by consent not by political collusion. Robinson gave no consent to be arrested on a false charge. The above link adds:

“Common law

This is law, and everyone is subject to it (whether they like it or not). It treats everyone as an equal and defines standards which uphold the human condition. It is based upon certain original codifications (e.g. the Magna Carta 1215) and decisions made by judges down the ages. Common law is applicable to each and every human being as a sovereign individual. What is meant by that is each and every one of us is entirely responsible for our own actions.

And that means police are fully responsible for every action they take, and everything they do to any other person. If they take any unlawful action having been given an order to do so, then whoever gave that order was an accomplice.

Consequently it is incumbent upon each individual to ensure that any order carried out is lawful. The onus is on the individual to check this first, because it is their action.

Common law says so. (And so did the Nuremberg Trials after WWII – “I was only obeying orders” was not a defence).”

The comments above, made by a lawyer, then says:

“The police – whose primary job is to keep the peace – are being used in two, distinct, modes: Firstly as Peace Officers (where breaches of the peace occur), but mostly as Policy (i.e. Statute) Enforcement Officers … the latter not actually being their job. The reason is pretty simple. When taking the oath of duty, they swear to “uphold the laws of the land” (Common law) … they do not swear to “uphold the laws of the sea” (Policy/Statute law).

Thus the Police Service, who remain as deceived as everyone else about what is going on, are being used and abused to “policy enforce”, which does not engender respect because people inherently know “it isn’t right”. This is because Common law has always been derived from a sense of fair play and equality for all.

If the Police Service were to return to their actual sworn duty, keeping the peace and upholding Common law, respect would return at the same time.”

Tommy Robinson was bundled off the street by a large number of officers and swiftly judged without having access to his lawyer. He was then quickly sent to prison, where his life is probably in grave danger. One peer of the realm warns he will hold the Home Secretary (a Muslim) personally responsible if anything happens to Robinson. My concern is not so much with Robinson, but with what comes next. Already, a day or two ago, an elderly lady had her door pushed in by officers, who arrested her because she asked the police questions: ‘WHY is it that ONLY Muslims are allowed to take over a public park to hold prayers, when no-one else is allowed such a freedom?’ For asking the question, she was arrested! On what grounds? A video of the police showed them to be belligerent and hostile. WHY? Their attitude is not how I have always perceived the police… it was far more sinister, unprofessional.

Therefore, I add to that warning that Christians who are police officers should remember their limitations under Common Law. They are NOT there to enforce policies set by police chiefs who themselves obey government. Nor are they there to obey sharia demands, or to turn a blind eye to Muslim crimes.

A lot more needs to be said about police officers and the way they are manipulated, probably unwittingly, to arrest people because of policies rather than under Common Law. ‘Policy enforcement’ is NOT part of their job, so they have no right whatever to arrest anyone simply for speaking out against Islam, or when reporting on a court case that is accessed by any member of the public. Be warned – what happened to Tommy Robinson is potentially the fate of everyone in the UK who refuses to accept the policies of Islam or of a godless government that do us all harm.

Speak out, before the consequences of silence are fully realised. There are critical and genuine police officers, who deserve our respect. But, there are also those who, like previous bands of soldiers, use the excuse “I was just obeying orders”. The latter might indeed keep their jobs – but their obedience to policies is leading us down the road of silencing social dissent and even holding to an opinion. Any Christian who cannot see the urgency of dealing with this is blinded to truth.

Final Note: This is what SHOULD happen…

An officer should not just arrest a person because their superior tells them to do it. It is up to the arresting officer to be satisfied there is sufficient reason for the arrest and with most offences you will need to ensure there is a necessity (Code G of PACE) for the arrest. The officer is individually responsible for arrest and taking that person’s liberty. My question, however, is NOT with this normal and legal process. My concern is with officers ‘on the ground’ being used to fulfil the demands of higher authorities whose aims are political.

I KNOW this happens; I came across it time and again in my own working lifetime, when superiors made illicit demands. It was up to me to resist. However, the police force is unique because it must obey orders that come down the line from superiors. If they do not listen there are ways and means used to get rid of officers (as there are to get rid of ANY employees).

There is a ‘two-step’ process to the arrest and detention of an individual:

Firstly, the officer needs sufficient grounds and necessity for the arrest to be made (as mentioned above).

Secondly, upon arrival in custody the officer will provide those grounds to the custody Sergeant who must be satisfied with the grounds and necessity the officer provides to them, before they authorise the continued detention of the defendant.

Those of us who watch the various series of programmes about police see and hear this frequently. Regardless of what the policies or procedures from the police commissioner or chief constable it should never replace actual law.


A person can be arrested for breach of the peace if the arresting officer thinks the person is going to be harmed if the arrest is not made. Therefore, by making the arrest the officer is actually protecting the person from themselves. However, as said above, the video showed an almost empty street scene; Robinson was on his own speaking quietly into his mobile ‘phone. He was not in personal danger, and even if he was arrested to keep him safe, it would not have ended with him being transported immediately to a court to be sentenced and jailed that same day!

If the arrest was for his own safety, then he could have been transported to a police station and then released into safety. I know of no other prisoner being arrested, sentenced and sent to prison within hours on the same day! Note that retired police officers have documented online their horror and shame at what happened, and have recorded that the arresting officers were way out of line.

The marks of a political agenda are found in the swiftness of the various actions, with no true reasons given for the arrest or detention or court appearance. It seems to many around the world, including myself, that it was all a ‘set up’, politically motivated, to get Robinson out of the way without access to the media or the internet, so that the Islamic agenda is followed.

Anyone watching the video of the arrest can tell there was no reason behind it, only a pretext. The arresting officers, in my opinion, should question their own oath and their reasons for following orders. Sadly, what they did has dented their integrity and the earned appreciation of the public. That, my friends, is up to their own consciences.

Am I, and other critics, wrong in our assumptions? I do not think so, but time will tell. We will see many more similar arrests in the future, as government tries to silence those of us who speak out against Islam. We expect this kind of police behaviour in totalitarian states… so when it happens in the UK, what else can we call such police actions, but fascist, totalitarian, and politically energised? I urge all police officers, especially Christians, to be very aware of their duties and oath, and not to follow any agenda, Islamic or ‘other’, because orders are passed down from the top. 

© May 2018

Published on

Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
United Kingdom