https://ediovision.blogspot.co....m/2020/03/legal-grey
Legal grey area on illegal military action on british soil
#Facts ???
MACA act can only be used in a support role to maintain infrastructure like food not stand armed on the streets of britain threatening to kill #Fact they have no legal authority to do so neither does the government not even the queen can overturn it and make it otherwise. #WakeUp
The government policy that regulates military help is called Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA), governed in law by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. MACA is broken down into three broad areas, each of which has its own specific governing principles and legislation. The one that would have most relevance in the is “military aid to the civil power”, which provides armed, emergency support to the state to help maintain law, order and public safety. (but not kill anyone)
The law gives the government the legal right to ask the military to provide aid to civil authorities should the need arise. This aid can take the form of niche capabilities – such as when army Green Goddess fire engines were called in during strikes by firefighters in 2002 – or manpower, which can be armed or unarmed. The military were quickly co-opted, under this law, for their specialist capacities when Gatwick Airport was closed in late December 2018 by reports of drone sightings. (which was just another distractionary measure to keep the sheeple looking elsewhere)
A member of the army patrolling parts of London with police after the Manchester Arena bomb in May 2017. Philip Toscano/PA Archive
Troops were also deployed under this act in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena attack in 2017 to guard several high profile sites across the country. In that case, the deployment of uniformed, armed soldiers seemed, on the surface, to be a proportionate response to the threat of further terrorist incidents. But this sort of deployment is not the niche capability that the MACA framework is designed for and could leave soldiers in a legal grey zone. (facts it leaves them open to tort law and criminal law cases)
Unlike the police, soldiers are trained to fight in conflict situations where lethal force is necessary. In contrast, the police routinely also use force, but to maintain order and protect life and property. (and do not kill people for panic buying toilet rolls)
If the army was used to maintain public order, it could lead to them controlling crowds and potentially making arrests. The MACA policy framework allows for the military to be used in a civil response role – but is less clear about its use in a role that requires less than lethal force. That sort of policing of public disorder is properly and rightfully the responsibility of the police. (and not some trigger happy mentally programmed killers who have already killed for their self imposed senses of nationality and pride)
The last time the British army attempted such a public order role was during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Incidents such as Bloody Sunday – where 14 people died after British paratroopers fired on a march in Derry – stand as proof that the militarisation of public order policing is fraught with risks. Policing starkly divided emotions, frustrations and opinions on CV is a difficult task, but one principally for the police.and fyi the bloody sunday victims and families were paid out 1 million piounds because the army acted illegally by killing civillians https://www.belfasttelegraph.c....o.uk/news/northern-i
#WakeUp
