There was a recent thread about a confused RN medic who opted for trying conscientious objector status to avoid deployment. On the threads he came in for some understandable abuse. My position being that if he had a beef about medical priority guidelines then that defined his beef and his action should have been to make sure he understood the briefing and then, if necessary, argue on the issue. But that it was irrationalk to extrapolate from one issue to a position of avoiding deployment whilst others would have to deploy including one in his stead. I have drawn up some argument in a civil action arising from a murder case in Kent of 2008. I am doing this as a layman free of charge for the murder victim's father. A taxi driver in an unlit single track country lane had turned in a driveway having dropped his fares. As he drove back towards their gate his former passenger emerged from his gate and collapsed across the taxi bonnet. He had been shot twice by a shotgun. The cabbie phoned 999 and was told to wait for police response and he did so. Unknown to him police then had a risk assessment for themselves and the result was that the cabbie sat in that unlit lane with the body for 45 minutes till armed support got there. The other ploddies having been told to wait until armed support cleared the scene. Here is some of the general situation argument: "The constitutional position of the Constable, from Anglo Saxon Tything Man through the Norman Conquest through Magna Carta, Civil War, Bill and Petition of Rights, Act of Settlement and on to the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth 2nd determining that a Constable is an independent ministerial officer of the Crown. The office is acquired by oath to the Queen, sole fount of justice by her Coronation Oath to her people, and the office of constable is held conditional on defending the rights, freedoms and liberties of the Realm. The oath goes something like this I swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady, the Queen, in the Office of Constable without fear, favour or affection, malice or ill-will; that I will to the best of my power and ability cause the peace to be kept and will prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects and others, and that I will to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties [hereof?] faithfully and according to law. On that night each Kent constable decided to be bound by the risk assessment and not by their oath. wait 45 minutes for armed support to deploy, they decided that they could hide whilst Mr .......'s life could be at risk, waiting alone by the body for 45 minutes for the police response he had been promised. Whilst .......'s life was at risk. Whilst the neighbours in ........ Road were at risk. It was each individual constable's choice that night to betray the Queen by hiding away whilst her subjects were at risk. Not one manjack Kent police officer honoured the oath to the Queen and advanced to either shield or share the threat to Her subjects. In about 1971 Sir Robert Mark said we no longer recruit the most able as our police officers but the most malleable to make of them what we will. On the night of .........'s murder his words were proven prophetic as nothing more than a risk assessment made of Kent police what it will. Cowards all. Traitors to guarantor of peace and justice Her Majesty The Queen to whom they are sworn. The test of whether Kent Police acted unconstitutionally is met before even the murder inquiry team deployed. Police had hidden, left the public unprotected and had yielded a murderer a 45 minute clear run. But did the shooter run ? Police decided right away, at the crime scene, that he had run away and that he had not been within ................ during their 45 minute response time. Kent Police did not think about that in constitutional terms. They simply wanted to deny the public had been put at risk. And the flavour of the murder inquiry was set. The abundance of ensuing nil action decisions, such as ........ , was merely to dilute the initial decision. inter alia And their initiating cowardice was unconstitutional within the meaning of R v Bembridge 1783. In effect that holding officers, who betray the Queen, to account is essential to the continued existence of the Realm. It don't get more constitutional than that. Police should not in our realm be able to wave a white feather from the risk assessment bird's plumage and get away with it let alone represent it as a mark of professionalism. " The thing is no one can tell a constable to advance to close. But if he fails to do so, no matter all the BS about risk assessment, next day he should no longer be a constable. His choice. The Chief constable solicitors are citing the Stephen Lawrence case "Brookes v Commissioner Metropolis". IMO what happened in that judgment makes every sense. The Lords decided that defects in a police inquiry cannot be a basis for seeking damages. And I am citing the same judgment. Because the reason no damages can arise is that to enable that to be a basis for action in a litigious society would create a tension against the Constable Oath. Meaning police would be overcautious and ever mindful they could be sued for mistakes. Lord Steyn making the point that centuries of law and constitution determine that a Constable is there to preserve the Queens Peace, to protect life and property and to preserve evidence. So those (Roll on Seagull etc) who think police can benefit from their opwn risk assessments as a basis for betraying their oaths of duty ought to think on IMO. To believe that is to believe that police now can create their own reason to be overcautious, in their own interest, but the public cannot create reasons for police to be overcautious. So will we now see those who say it is OK for police to hold back to avoid danger but not for an RN medic ?