Police chief candidate welcomes impartiality oath (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

By definition a professional politician would never be considered impartial which is why this should have been a totally no political post, if it was indeed necessary in this form.

I understand the need for a professional policeman being elected as Chief Officer but not this mishmash.

If the government wish to have impartial crime commissioners why allow political parties to put up candidates? The reasons is simple the government don't like having limited control over Chief Constables so they have introduced crime commissioners to do their bidding.

Maybe Angus McPherson , or another senior figure who will tell us the truth, will clarify the position regarding MULTIPLE OATHS ? Many senior figures involved in the Police/Justice/Law sector, swear an oath on the Bible to carry out their duties and responsibilities in accordance with the Law. But a significant number of these people are also FREEMASONS, and have sworn an oath, again on the Bible to warn and protect other freemasons, in some cases over and above the Law according to credible information on the internet. How will a THIRD Oath, that possibly does not fit in with the requirements of previous oaths theyve sworn have any possible credibility ? It will be interesting to see if my comments receive a proper answer - or get removed despite being a very vaild matter to raise ?

As with everything, their own personal interests will come first so whatever they swear it wont make a bit of difference anyway.

Could well be correct ' house on the hill ', but in light of the supposed 'importance' of this new Police and Crime Commissioner post, lets see how those ' in power ' deal with the reasonable questions they are asked . I feel we should not CON DEMN them until they respond, its a case of being ' the better person', of course if they dont reassure us or our comments get removed we shall see that nothing is going to change for the better ! Watch this space - whilst its still there !

underdogs wrote:
Maybe Angus McPherson , or another senior figure who will tell us the truth, will clarify the position regarding MULTIPLE OATHS ? Many senior figures involved in the Police/Justice/Law sector, swear an oath on the Bible to carry out their duties and responsibilities in accordance with the Law. But a significant number of these people are also FREEMASONS, and have sworn an oath, again on the Bible to warn and protect other freemasons, in some cases over and above the Law according to credible information on the internet. How will a THIRD Oath, that possibly does not fit in with the requirements of previous oaths theyve sworn have any possible credibility ? It will be interesting to see if my comments receive a proper answer - or get removed despite being a very vaild matter to raise ?

Underdogs clearly demonstrating that they now nothing about Freemasonary or the oath that is taken.
Shame on you Underdogs for such out and out lies.

is mr macphearson going to give up is day jobs or be commissioner without pay

oh dear underdogs, you are clearly making it up as you go along. The police swear an oath to the Queen, and it's not on the Bible.

If yo're not sure of something do a quick search on Google, it will save you looking a bit of a tit.

€d wrote:
oh dear underdogs, you are clearly making it up as you go along. The police swear an oath to the Queen, and it's not on the Bible. If yo're not sure of something do a quick search on Google, it will save you looking a bit of a tit.

Stop giving Underdog the 3rd degree :)

ok, as long as he/she promises to post factual information ;)

Advocatus Diaboli - thanks !! It appears I stand corrected and detailed information ive read MAY not be correct ?? Has someone called out the heavy mob to bully me when I ask a genuine question ?However, the fact remains if Multiple Oaths of ANY SORT are sworn which contradict each other, which Oath do those in the Police/Justice/Law and other senior public office positions adhere to , is it the one thats suits their purpose at the time, and are those swearing the Oath given clear instructions to say forget Oath 1 and abide by new Oath 3 from now on. What is the expectation? Is there a freemason who is also a police officer.... available to answer these points ?

underdogs wrote:
Advocatus Diaboli - thanks !! It appears I stand corrected and detailed information ive read MAY not be correct ?? Has someone called out the heavy mob to bully me when I ask a genuine question ?However, the fact remains if Multiple Oaths of ANY SORT are sworn which contradict each other, which Oath do those in the Police/Justice/Law and other senior public office positions adhere to , is it the one thats suits their purpose at the time, and are those swearing the Oath given clear instructions to say forget Oath 1 and abide by new Oath 3 from now on. What is the expectation? Is there a freemason who is also a police officer.... available to answer these points ?

Regarding the Freemasons you are ABSOLUTELY incorrect.
For them loyalty is to a higher being, the Queen & Country - sworn on the bible. There is no oath of any kind sworn to support fellow masons over & above the law. You may be confusing this with the right to ask fellow masons to show SUPPORT for another mason who may be facing prblems relating to family, finances, illness, etc. No-one is EVER expected to or asked to pervert the course of justice or break the law.
(You didn't ASK if this were true about masons - you stated it as fact.)

RichardR1 wrote:
By definition a professional politician would never be considered impartial which is why this should have been a totally no political post, if it was indeed necessary in this form.

I understand the need for a professional policeman being elected as Chief Officer but not this mishmash.

Robbo, I think i understand your garbled post but why have you changed your username?

Ok, you've been banned but still want to mouth off about all and sunder but why 'RichardR1'?

You used to deride posters who had anonymous log-ins but now have adopted one yourself - what is wrong with you?

notscot wrote:

underdogs wrote: Advocatus Diaboli - thanks !! It appears I stand corrected and detailed information ive read MAY not be correct ?? Has someone called out the heavy mob to bully me when I ask a genuine question ?However, the fact remains if Multiple Oaths of ANY SORT are sworn which contradict each other, which Oath do those in the Police/Justice/Law and other senior public office positions adhere to , is it the one thats suits their purpose at the time, and are those swearing the Oath given clear instructions to say forget Oath 1 and abide by new Oath 3 from now on. What is the expectation? Is there a freemason who is also a police officer.... available to answer these points ?

Regarding the Freemasons you are ABSOLUTELY incorrect. For them loyalty is to a higher being, the Queen & Country - sworn on the bible. There is no oath of any kind sworn to support fellow masons over & above the law. You may be confusing this with the right to ask fellow masons to show SUPPORT for another mason who may be facing prblems relating to family, finances, illness, etc. No-one is EVER expected to or asked to pervert the course of justice or break the law. (You didn't ASK if this were true about masons - you stated it as fact.)

Underdogs, maybe if you had not stated as fact that multiple oaths were taken which conflict or that Freemasons “have sworn an oath, again on the Bible to warn and protect other freemasons, in some cases over and above the Law” then you would not feel the need to feel bullied.

For your information below IS the obligation that an individual takes when entering freemasonry. Each individual is warned prior to taking this obligation that there is nothing incompatible with your civil, moral, or religious duties.

Furthermore the obligation is NOT taken upon the Holy Bible but upon the “Volume of the Sacred Law”.

Freemasonry is non-sectarian and as such various religious books may be used as the “Volume of the Sacred Law” including the Qur'an, Torah, Guru Granth Sahib etc

I see no conflict of interest, either with law, civil or moral, the following obligation:

I, in the presence of the Great Architect of the Universe, and of this worthy, worshipful, and warranted Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons , regularly assembled and properly dedicated, of my own free will and accord, do hereby, and hereon, sincerely and solemnly promise and swear, that I will always hele, conceal, and never reveal any part or parts, point or points of the secrets or mysteries of or belonging to Free and Accepted Masons in Masonry which may heretofore have been known by me, or shall now or at any future period be communicated to me, unless it be to a true and lawful Brother or Brothers, and not even to him or them, until after due trial, strict examination, or sure information from a well-known Brother that he or they are worthy of that confidence; or in the body of a just, perfect and regular Lodge of Ancient Freemasons. I further solemnly promise that I will not write those secrets, indite, carve, mark, engrave, or otherwise them delineate, or cause or suffer it to be so done by others, if in my power to prevent it, on anything, movable or immovable, under the canopy of Heaven, whereby or whereon any letter, character, or figure, or the least trace of a letter, character, or figure, may become legible, or intelligible to myself or anyone in the world, so that our secret arts and hidden mysteries may improperly become known through my unworthiness. These several points I solemnly swear to observe, without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation of any kind, in the certain knowledge that on the violation of any of them I shall be branded as a willfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth, and totally unfit to be received into this worshipful Lodge, or any other warranted Lodge, or society of men who prize honour and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in this my Great and Solemn Obligation of an Entered Apprentice Freemason

Sounds like a load of pompous cheese

semitonic wrote:

RichardR1 wrote:
By definition a professional politician would never be considered impartial which is why this should have been a totally no political post, if it was indeed necessary in this form.

I understand the need for a professional policeman being elected as Chief Officer but not this mishmash.

Robbo, I think i understand your garbled post but why have you changed your username?

Ok, you've been banned but still want to mouth off about all and sunder but why 'RichardR1'?

You used to deride posters who had anonymous log-ins but now have adopted one yourself - what is wrong with you?

Perhaps Robbo is also a mason and the Adver asked him to use an anonymous log-in rather than ban him.

The Adver have certainly banned many others when it would have been more justifiable to ban Robbo

Quite right - sadly the adver seem to kowtow to Robbo's every request to ban other posters even though he has been kicked off this forum himself for being a bad-arse (as with every other forum he joins). Will there ever be an end to his beastliness? I think not.

Excellent to see the comments are on-topic for a change. Ooops, my bad, there's the usual percentage of 'we hate Rob' stuff etc. as always and no sign of any moderator intervention. Wonderful. Do you ever read this stuff, Stephanie?

In the vain hope of getting back on-topic - why do we actually need an elected Police Chief? In fact, has the oublic ever asked fr this? From what I can see, it's a politically originated concept that political people are standing for. How will this help the police to improve? How impartial can they be if they are active in any political party? Perhaps the Adver could run a story explaining the underlying thinking before we all get called to vote for people we have probably never heard of?

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

€d wrote:
oh dear underdogs, you are clearly making it up as you go along. The police swear an oath to the Queen, and it's not on the Bible. If yo're not sure of something do a quick search on Google, it will save you looking a bit of a tit.

Stop giving Underdog the 3rd degree :)

/trollface

"CONSERVATIVE Police and Crime Commissioner candidate" & "new oath of impartiality"
Now THAT'S a sum that doesn't add up.
(That would include N. Labour, Liberal, BNP, & MRLP, etc.).
I don't believe a candidate aligned to any political party could possibly be truly impartial.

Who would have thought that this article would cause such a flow of comments, some semi-vitriolic. It was the only topic of conversation in the public bar down at the "Jolly Gravedigger" last night - well, if I tell the whole truth, along with Prince Harry flashing his goolies in the "Sun"