A short flight over a cuckoo's nest

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

First of all apologies for a poor English.

A STORY THAT STILL DISTURBS

Four years ago, a former owner of some properties in the 11th department, in France, entered on this forum, starting ...certain discussions, apparently pointless, in a bombastic and intentionally irritating style.
You've guessed, I'm speaking of Glycon.
It was during the promotion of the movie Bloodline, which was about to have its American premiere at the beginning of May 2008.
It was the time when, here on Arcadia, and on other websites, fiery debates had started over the authenticity of Ben Hammott's so called discoveries.
The malicious style, the heavy language that stirred irritation, drew the attention of Sandy Hamblett who contacted Glycon.
What followed it's known.
During the period that preceded the European premiere of the movie bloodline (September 2008) Sandy and Glycon have held an intense correspondence. A face to face meeting even took place in London.
Now, it is already known that in reality, the obnoxious Glycon has had the public attitude we know and has cultivated his entire relation with Sandy... with the goal of finding out information directly from the source and of publicly exposing the hoax of the team Sandy was part of. We are speaking here of a hoax whose details were directly known by Glycon but which he couldn't expose due to an ongoing official investigation of the French authorities.
Sick with the charade he played, in October 2008 Glycon put his cards on the table, making public statements accompanied by evidence. Trying not to use official evidence, Glycon made public only those materials obtained from his personal investigations. He used evidences from his own correspondences with Sandy Hamblett, photos and video material, whose publication was intended to determine those that associated themselves to Willkinson's fraud to show fair play and tell the truth.
The unanimous reaction on Arcadia was of disapproving with Glycon's methods of obtaining information, these being considered immoral.
Transforming itself into a veritable Hammott fan-club, a great part of the Arcadia forum members have reacted disproportionately. Glycon was talking about the elements that gave proof of a criminal act while the Arcadia members were sanctioning the methods used in exposing the felony. Most of the Arcadia members transformed to ad-hoc febrile supporters of WIlkinson and Sandy Hamblett, on the mere motif they proved to be enjoyable people who didn't seem to fit into a criminal profile. These characters' popularity made to be violently rejected any discussions, that might have put to doubt their personal morality and/or authenticity of Ben Hammott's cause. What happened next?

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

EFFECT no 1 : The advantages gained by Wilkinson's Team.

Through the mere fact that it could be considered a gliconesque method, any intention of putting to doubt the "discoveries" was discouraged. Any serious debate on the subject of authenticity was abolished.
This status quo offered team Hammot et Co the possibility of buying time as much as possible, without being required to produce evidences!
The myth appeared, according to which, Hammott et Co cannot produce evidences since the owner of one of the lands vandalized by the team... is opposing. In this manner, emerged the idea that the path to a great discovery that might change the perception of Christianity ... is obstructed by the malevolent owners and/ or by the French authorities (DRAC) that ignore such an important discovery.
I'll give here a quote from the taking of a stand of one of the members of Arcadia whom I'm reluctant to name:

Quote:

[…]“In Ben's case, he is not making such grandiose claims about the tomb he found....he is asking if it is a simple Templar tomb perhaps? Ben is facing the same issues though, regardless how old how valuable the site proves to be:

1.) First is Ben's own credibility. Is he a liar? A thief? A kook looking for fame, sensationalism and cash?

2.) The tomb is "fake".

3.) The artifacts are "fake", planted, or forged.

4.) The property is owned by someone else.

5.) The Governement takes no interest.

6.) The sanctity of private property becomes the overiding issues. Who now owns the land and what are their "rights", what are the rights of Departments of History and Antiquities, which differ from country to country and site to site?
Ponder this: If Tutankhamun's tomb was suddenly discovered unopend and untouched under an apartment building in Cairo that is owned by an Irish Catholic developer investing his life savings into a Cairo Muslim neighborhood (hypothetical of course) What would the issues be? I know one of them: forbidding others access to the information because they might "worship" and venerate the grave , thus promoting their beliefs in saints and heros and relics of another religion in competition with the State or popular religion. My guess is that Tutankhamun was not Jewish, Muslim or Christian, but these religions would become major issues.”[…]
[…]”I can tell from reading these threads that in fact ben Hammot acted very responsibly under the circumstances. he made every effort to protect the tomb, even from the land owners if need be,,,until the correct authorities could take interest enough to proceed with validation. In fact, I greatly admire Ben for getting as far as he has gotten ....much further than I got with my research into Roza Bal.”[…].

I'll retake the most edifying quote :

Quote:

[…]”I can tell from reading these threads that in fact ben Hammot acted very responsibly under the circumstances. he made every effort to protect the tomb, even from the land owners if need be,,,until the correct authorities could take interest enough to proceed with validation.”…

Thus, every discussion being abolished, the delaying in producing evidences made possible the apparition of Ben Hammott's book and implicitly gaining material advantages from sales. The market success of the book is indeed disputable. But it's not the success that is important but the intention of obtaining money from a fictional tale presented as being real.

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

EFFECT no 2: The moral compromising of the Arcadia community and implicitly of the interest in the research of the myths related to RLC/RLB, Sauniere ...etc.

After the Glycon episode, the Arcadia forum entered the age of the politically correctness dictatorship.
Politically correctness, has functioned in only one way. That of giving advantage to Bill Wilkinson and/or advantaging a declared or undeclared agenda of the community. I'm speaking of a community newly constructed through the removal of the recalcitrant elements.
This policy has irritated many valuable users on this forum.
Some felt the need to leave, detaching themselves from the more and more alienated atmosphere of the forum, others were just banned, because they bothered a majority that subscribed to a very visible agenda. Some of those that remained, have always felt the discomfort created by the dictatorial bursts imposed through this politically correctness, which is translated in only one manner. "The fist in mouth" policy!
They lived all the time with the unsettling feeling that on Arcadia took place certain abuses quietly accepted by those that remained.
Many know that what is happening on arcadia has nothing more to do with RESEARCH.
That you have to be attentive to every word not to destroy a certain "harmony" imposed by the self-sufficient acceptance of a story which (to be honest) no one in their right mind believed.

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

USERS ON ARCADIA

Indeed, there are also users on Arcadia that are not seriously interested in RESEARCH in terms of debating ideas based on critical sense and fundamental rules of scientific study.
These consider that any approach is good with the condition of not being an academic one.

On the other hand, as in the case of Miss Hamblet, she would desire to make a grand discovery just like Carter. She herself declared this.
Even more, she would desire for this discovery to be recognized by ... the academic circles. There is nothing wrong in this, with the condition that you don't force such a discovery. You cannot break out of anonymity by manufacturing Tutankhamun.

Ah …and btw Sandy the story of the two Rennes is beautiful and complex enough. There was no need for you to ruin it with the stupid thing you've done. Just try to imagine how what you've done looks like, seen from the point of view of those that know the real story that is there...
Well, I'll help you imagine.
Stupid, hilarious ... embarrassing...

So Sandy ,Bill ,Ben… your hysterical attitude is understandable. It is your right to defend. It is the conservation instinct. What awaits you is not to be desired for anyone. Firstly, the public opprobrium. Secondly ... the LAW.
It is also normal to have supporters which out of compassion or other reasons ... have empathized with you. This empathy is justified by the fact that each one of them realizes that you are in a very ... very difficult situation. It is true that there are some that support you out of vanity, for the mere fact they followed you blindly, hysterically ...and now it's hard for them to back down.
It's them I'm thinking about now...

What will they do when everything will clear out?
They, from this moment, should define well their positions because the end becomes more and more predictable.
…But returning to users …
There are users that frequent the Arcadia community just out of the desire to propagate their beliefs.
These are the "believers”.
They distinguish themselves through a crypto-religious agenda, or one that blends everything into a hallucinating moussaka of ideas and try to adjust the story of the Rennes les Chateau mystery, to their own agenda. Most of them being the new-age kind.

The principle according to which the "Research" or Arcadia functions is:
I BELIEVE because I LIKE IT!
During time Humanity has learned from its own mistakes.
That's how institutions appeared, that is how laws appeared.
There are written and unwritten laws.
The unwritten laws were called ... common sense laws.
Because in the name of FAITH so many mistakes have been done, people found a minimal formula through which to define common sense:

IF I BELIEVE IN IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS ALSO TRUE!
WHAT I LIKE DOESN'T MEAN IT IS ALSO CORRECT!

That is why I think it is the time for a very good defining of this forum's orientation.
-Is it a medium of serious research, based on some minimal criteria of scientific analysis (attention! not necessarily academic)?
- Is it a fan club of the one night celebrities of a sub mediocre documentary production called Bloodline?
or
-Is it a crypto-religious community, apparently heterogonous, that tries to find an ex-clinic environment to express its frustrations...?

If the last two are chosen, no one should expect in the future, for this community to be taken seriously by anyone.
It's just about killing time, doing something more interesting and pseudo-intellectual in front of the computer. From an objective point of view it could be said that there are enough entertainment mediums and/or therapeutic institutions around us ... without the necessity to transform the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery in a reason for organizing a socialization group that resembles increasingly more with an AA meeting.
Therefore, it should be noticed that the standard value of debates has dramatically declined. The value of representativeness has also declined.
If a few years ago, certain renowned personalities would have been dispose to seriously participate to debates, this possibility has disappeared along with this forums transformation into a Ben Hammott fan club.
Any form of credibility has been compromised.

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

I wonder what is the logic and elementary good sense of those that now ask for proofs that Ben Hammott is a hoaxer giving the fact (first of all) that HE, the one who pretended to have made an extremely important discovery ... has not produced any proof that a real discovery ever took place.

What are we really speaking about?
About a person, who dizzy with the perspective of being filmed by a Hollywood team, starts producing coffers that contain objects obtained from the relics' black market and many bottles with messages like in the worst movies?

About a person who in extremely dubious conditions has produced a film that presents us with a semi mummified corpse? If the story of the tomb proves to be a con (even on the basis of the precedence enounced by Andy Gough in his stand) the natural question arises:

In what circumstances did Wilkinson obtain a corpse?
Actually the correct question would be ... in the jurisdiction of which country would Mr. Wilkinson prefer to be put to trial? In what measure, cumulatively, all the criminal offenses committed by Wilkinsons fall upon his acolytes? In what manner can Sandy Hamblett be exonerated of the implication in this fraud? There still are correspondence notes and filmed images, that prove more than a firm support of this lady for Ben's "cause".

In what measure Bill Kersey, the incontestable author of the famous notes, cam be exonerated of the guilt of producing fake proofs which to support:
1. A false story, on which time, space and money was spent from the budget of the Bloodline movie (actually it is the story that buried the Bloodline movie).
2. A false story, on which Bill Wilkinson wrote a book which he sold to make money.

A useful exercise for those that know French, it is interesting to read briefly some of Kersey's "translations" from French. These reveals an unmistakable "stylistic signature".
Beyond all these things that are in fact related to law, to pure criminality, the most shocking aspect is the reactions of some members of the Arcadia community. To paraphrase Roger, they evolve spectacularly from pathetic to sublime and slip back to embarrassing.

How can a mentally sane person to pretend to be taken seriously and even worse to ... support someone just because:
1. He had access to Chateau Hautpoul.
2. He loved the book.

First of all, anyone can visit Chateau Hautpoul with the condition of having the patience to listen to old Marius' stories. Just as Mr. Ferral will always be willing to report strange things to any ignorant that wishes to make a sensational film about the "mystery"...
In what concerns the book, many funny things could be said regarding the questionable tastes of a person crazy about a book written by a semi-analphabet.

By this we can understand that Ben is loved for being an ignorant, because he is part of the masses and has the courage to defy the rules. It is very romantic, I could say even heroic, but all these have nothing to do with authenticity. Ben could eventually receive an award for originality but that's it.
The truth is more relative the more popular it gets.

The problem everyone should ask themselves is if:
-Bill Wilkinson is a person with behavioral problems.
-Bill Wilkinson is a person that does anything to become famous.
-Bill Wilkinson is a mentally sane person, but is taking pleasure from making fun of people...
-Bill Wilkinson is a professional that does these things because he has someone behind him.
In this last point the problem of resources is posed.
Thus, if there is no one behind Bill Wilkinson, why is he willing to invest so many resources to direct all these hoaxes?
Fame?

Everything that Bill Wilkinson intended was to create a myth upon which to write a book and then sell? The final goal was to make money from selling the book? Did the money obtained from the selling of the book cover the expenses needed to elaborate all these hoaxes?
Obtaining advantages as a result of selling a lie is called felony. This felony was committed by a PERSON to whom other persons associated themselves. The association makes them directly or indirectly ACCOMPLICES.

Mr Gough ,this is an ethic statement:

Quote:

Just a reminder that we cannot call people liars, fakes, frauds or the like in our posts. We can disagree, but not slander, no matter how righteous we think we are. Failure to adhere to this principle may result in the deletion of your post and suspension from the forum.

This imposed - on the fly - rule of game, leaves room for a policy with multiple standards and adjustable to different agendas!!
In no case to the competition of IDEAS, to RESEACH, to DEBATES and in no case to the TRUTH!!!
Andy, the policy prohibiting ... the sanctioning of a person suspected and/or proved of having committed a crime, also logically attracts COMPLICITY, even if it could be considered a passive complicity.
You cannot sanction a fraud if you don't speak of the charlatan!
The fraud was not done by volatile, theoretical or abstract beings.

It's NOT the same for IDEAS. Which we can or not put to debate. A fraud is being done by real people among us.
They have rights and obligations just as the rest of us.
But unlike us, they understand the rights as a possibility to cheat on others.

Deceits can be big or small.
If everything Bill Wilkinson did will be confirmed we are not talking only about felony but also about relapsing. Few are those that know the real ins and outs of the "hammott afair" in the Aude valley, but there are many that consider that in the end...even if debunked, the problem can be reduced to a minor offense or to a bad but elaborate joke.
Well now, for those that are close to the "Hammott case" it is known that this fraud has extreme implications, which in time will be proven ... It is also known that the entire affair was about to create ... at least a diplomatic scandal...

And because I've started with the story of an obnoxious justiciary who doesn't want the private properties in France to be trespassed in the name of pseudo-archeology, let us end in a malicious note. No one should complain that the apples are sour. The story of Rennes le Chateau is not hard to digest. Is just the ones serving the menu that have absurd claims. Bon appétit!

Sorry , I couldn't help myself to write a loooong and mischievous article.
Old habits die hard !
Glykon…

Sheila · **Posted:** 16 Mar 2012 9:43 pm

well said.

Pilrig · **Posted:** 16 Mar 2012 9:49 pm

Glykon bombastic and irritating ? Basically he was a prat.

Pilrig · **Posted:** 16 Mar 2012 9:55 pm

Boris Bollocks

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

Pilrig wrote:

Glykon bombastic and irritating ? Basically he was a prat.

Renne · **Posted:** 17 Mar 2012 10:11 pm

Jake/Hugo used to talk about Glycon.

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

It seems nothing was understood from what Andy pointed out here, sanctioning the defectuous reaction of the Arcadia community...

Quote:

The enormity and severity of the deceptions seems lost on the Rennes-le-Château community at large, as if an apology can make amends for a dozen-plus years of fraud. In addition, criminal offenses may have been committed.

As proof, before the appearing of Bill Willkinson’s Big Lie update ... this had appeared...

Quote:

And for people like Glykon (who hid behind pseudonyms […]

Sandy, if you remember ... we have discussed this long ago and have agreed together that there is no need for me to use my real name. It would influence too much the course of things and it wouldn't be fair.
Anyway, I'm convinced you wouldn't want to know this name. You have too many nightmares already...
But if you insist on knowing it, you know very well where to find me. We can discuss in private or through intermediaries.

An attack is not always the best defense and an exaggerated behavior could attract the attention towards some background issues. Conventionally (and conveniently) the public is disposed to ignore these background problems given the fact that it is satisfied with only one culprit.
In general the anger of the masses is extinguished by finding the most convenient scape goat. It's not the case here as there is no "anger of the masses". There is not even a sincere indignation.

Quote:

Who is the bigger fool? The one searching for it, or the one who created a fake to sell it?

Leaving aside the doubtful morality of your statement, the correct questions would be:
Could Ben have done this without the concurrence of those that believed in him all the way...?
Who is the most guilty, the one who committed the FELONY or those that encouraged him in continuing the fraud?

Sandy Hamblett, where does your indignation actually come from?
From the fact that it is all a hoax?
Or from the fact that it has been proven that everything is a hoax?
Would you have preferred never finding that out?

The atmosphere created after the last night's confession, I mean the new spirit that now animates Arcadia, made me think of a very funny and somehow surrealist aspect of the situation.
Bill Willkinson, was complaining of his financial problems.
The funniest thing would be for Ben to publish another book about how he has planned this entire hoax and earn big money from it. Indeed in this case these would be honest earned money.

Leaving the joke aside, I have a more serious proposal.
Actually it could become serious in an year or two when things will quiet down and maybe the lustration will (or won't) make it's necessary effect.
Thus I propose to you, to play your own roles in a movie about how genuine facts can be presented as being hoaxes and how hoaxes can be presented as genuine.
Unfortunately, because the production is non-commercial, no one will draw any profit from it. Not even FAME can be assured...

So, more than ten years ago I started the production of a movie based largely on the work of two authors very well known to the enthusiasts of the RLC phenomenon. In fact a part of the story of this movie is related to this so called mystery.
The production I'm speaking of here has been partially suspended on the grounds that certain shootings had as scenery known places from the Aude valley that have become very crowded since 2003.
Waiting for better times, filming could resume soon. Unfortunately, it seems that certain sequences from this movie have gotten through unauthorized channels to certain protagonists of the Bloodline movie (others than the BBS team) who already know what it is about...
The first characteristic of this movie, is that it is conceived as a FICTION in which real charachters are used, that reproduce more or less real happenings.
The second charachteristic is that one of the authors has completed his basic work 43 years ago, but the other one has added an epilogue a few years after. This last contribution made possible for the narrative thread to gain sequels...
And it has.
Others came and added little by little every ten years.
That is why, the third charachteristic and most important is that ... the story is written with every event that is related with the mystery of the two rennes. A last episode was consumed right here under our eyes. Surely there will be sequels...

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2012 3:18 am

Hey Boris
I will put my two cents in here

It seems all of us here on the Arcadia Forum are being grouped together in the defectuous reaction

You have to understand the Shock we are in here
give us a break

for many years we have been told this was all true and now told all is false
We are not a lynch mob
Remember this is just a forum
its not a court
So give us some slack

I will admit to you that I do not think everything has been explained
Will we get an explanation...time will tell

rs2008 · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2012 7:30 am

lovuian wrote:

Hey Boris
I will put my two cents in here

It seems all of us here on the Arcadia Forum are being grouped together in the defectuous reaction

You have to understand the Shock we are in here
give us a break

for many years we have been told this was all true and now told all is false
We are not a lynch mob
Remember this is just a forum
its not a court
So give us some slack

I will admit to you that I do not think everything has been explained
Will we get an explanation...time will tell

Hey lov., don't include me in the shocked brigade, imo it was just a matter of time.
"Defectuous"...full of defects, what do you mean exactly?

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2012 8:33 pm

rs2008 wrote:

lovuian wrote:

Hey Boris
I will put my two cents in here

It seems all of us here on the Arcadia Forum are being grouped together in the defectuous reaction

You have to understand the Shock we are in here
give us a break

for many years we have been told this was all true and now told all is false
We are not a lynch mob
Remember this is just a forum
its not a court
So give us some slack

I will admit to you that I do not think everything has been explained
Will we get an explanation...time will tell

Hey lov., don't include me in the shocked brigade, imo it was just a matter of time.
"Defectuous"...full of defects, what do you mean exactly?

I too RS2008 suspected wrongdoing but what is sad is how many people devoted to the mystery
got pulled into this hoax. I'm talking about the people and you don't want to accuse anybody
without the facts. A forum is not a courtroom. It is a discussion group. It is going to sink in soon enough.
The outrage will come

rain · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2012 9:26 pm

Why didn't Mr Boris Balkan/Glykon being Ground Zero and in the middle of the action go to the police himself?

How many years has been since he's tracked everyone involved he must at the very least have a room full of incriminating evidence to present to the local Law Enforcement officers.

Here let me help - it's not too late - it's never too late Mr. BB maybe you can see fit to get off your A* and give 'em a ring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_France

Quote:

Law enforcement in France

Law enforcement in France is conducted at the national and municipal level, and is the responsibility of a variety of law enforcement agencies. Three agencies operate at the national level, and at the local level each commune is able to maintain their own municipal police. Paris does not have its own police municipale and that the Police Nationale provides these services directly as a subdivision of France's Ministry of the Interior. Only certain, designated police officers have the power to conduct criminal investigations, and such investigations are supervised by investigative magistrates.

Contents
[hide] 1 Organizations 1.1 Agencies
1.2 Other agencies
1.3 Police vs Gendarmerie

2 Procedures 2.1 Administrative policing
2.2 Judicial policing

3 Rights and limitations
4 Officers and agents of judiciary police
5 See also
6 References

[edit] Organizations

[edit] Agencies

France has three national police forces:
Police Nationale, formerly called the Sûreté, a civilian force; it has primary responsibility for major cities and large urban areas run under the Ministry of the Interior; its strength is roughly 150,000 agents.
Gendarmerie Nationale, a gendarmerie; it has primary responsibility for smaller towns and rural areas, as well as all military installations; run by the Ministry of Defence but under operational control, for most purposes, of the Ministry of the Interior); its strength is roughly 100,000 agents.
Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, a civilian customs service more commonly known as the Douane, under the Minister of Budget, Public Accounting and Civil Servants; its strength is roughly 20,000 agents.

Those three agencies are the only ones legally capable of making full arrests or serving search warrants. A similar diffusion exists, or has existed, in several other countries following the French system.

[edit] Other agencies

the municipal policemen can notice all the breaches but cannot investigate. There are also local polices in the rural zones, as for the rural policemen the " rural police " as such does not exist. Note the heterogeneousness of local polices both in means and in equipment.
Rural communes may also form a garde champetre which is responsible for limited local patrol and protecting the environment
The Penitentiary Administration (Administration pénitentiaire) operates Équipes régionales d’intervention et de sécurité (SWAT teams)
In Wallis and Futuna, there is a territorial guard as well as royal police.

[edit] Police vs Gendarmerie

The existence of two national police forces with similar goals and attributions, but somewhat different zones of activity, has at times created friction or competition between the two. Their merging has sometimes been suggested.

Since 1941, the division of the zones of activity between the Police and the Gendarmerie was that cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants were handled by the Police, and the remaining ones by the Gendarmerie; however, with the development of suburban dwellings, this had increasingly proved inadequate. Furthermore, the shifting of a town from a Police to a Gendarmerie zone was often controversial, because, typically, a gendarmerie unit serves a wide area. A redistribution of authority was thus decided and implemented between 2003 and 2005. Large conurbations will be handled entirely by the Police. Rural and suburban areas, and some smaller cities with populations ranging from 5,000 to 16,000, will be handled by the Gendarmerie.[1]

In addition, the Police and the Gendarmerie have specific zones of authority:
the Police handle questions about the admittance and continuing stay of foreigners (border police);
the Gendarmerie handles all matters regarding the military, the police at sea, the security of airports, and the security of certain public buildings (Republican Guard).

In French, the term "police" not only refers to the forces, but also to the general concept of "maintenance of law and order" (policing). There are two types of police in this general sense:
administrative police (police administrative): uniformed preventative patrols, traffic duties etc., with limited powers of arrest.
judicial police (police judiciaire): law enforcement and investigation of crime, with full powers of arrest.

Thus, the mayor has administrative police power in a town (i.e. they can order the police to enforce the municipal by-laws), and a judge has police power in their court (i.e. they can have people who disrupt the proceedings expelled from the court room).

Until 1984, the National Police was involved in the prehospital care and casualty transport (Police secours). The prehospital care is now performed by firefighters; however, mountain rescue is performed by the Gendarmerie PGHM (Peloton de gendarmerie de haute montagne) and the National Police CRS (Compagnies républicaines de sécurité; Republican Security Companies).

Some other countries follow this model and have separate police agencies with the same role but different jurisdictions.

Local Police or Gendarmerie precincts may not be capable of conducting complex investigations. For this reason, both the Police and the Gendarmerie maintain regional services dedicated to criminal investigations (police judiciaire); these are known as "regional services of judiciary police" in the Police, "research sections" in the Gendarmerie. In addition, both the Police and the Gendarmerie maintain laboratories dedicated to forensics. Most criminal enquiries are conducted by the Police. Justice may choose either service; sometimes, if the judiciary is disappointed by the results or the methods of one service, it may give the enquiry to the other service.

The National Police also features some central offices with national jurisdiction, charged with specific missions, such as the national anti-terrorist division.

Both the Police and the Gendarmerie have SWAT teams. The Gendarmerie has the foremost and best-known, the GIGN; the Police has the RAID and the GIPN groups. The Gendarmerie also has armored and paratroops squadrons.

Both the Police and the Gendarmerie have riot control forces: the CRS for the Police, the Gendarmerie Mobile for the Gendarmerie (which are often mistaken for the former). They intervene throughout the country.

One justification for the maintenance of a military force handling matters of civilian police is that the military cannot unionize, contrary to civilian civil servants such as the Police, which may make management easier. The gendarmes found a workaround by forming associations of spouses of gendarmes.

The gendarmes each have a free housing inside their respective gendarmerie stations, which is not the case for the police.

[edit] Procedures

[edit] Administrative policing

The police administrative comprises a variety of actions undertaken under the direction and supervision of the executive branch, notably the prefect, police and gendarmerie forces conduct a variety of actions ensuring public order. They include:
directing road traffic
channelling street demonstrations
positioning riot control forces (CRS or Mobile Gendarmerie)

[edit] Judicial policing

The police judiciaire comprises a variety of actions undertaken under the direction and supervision of the judiciary. They include:
pursuing and arresting suspects
interrogating suspects in some phases of judicial enquiries
gathering evidence
serving search warrants

These actions must follow the rules given in the Code of Penal Procedure (Code de procédure pénale), articles 12 to 29.

In order to better fulfill these missions, some sections of the French National Police (police judiciaire) are specialized in criminal enquiries; the Gendarmerie counterpart are the sections de recherche (research sections).

[edit] Rights and limitations

The powers of French Police and Gendarmerie forces are constrained by statute law and jurisprudence. The rules of procedure depend on the stage of enquiry:
Crimes committed in flagrante delicto, in which a suspect was found committing the crime, or pursued by witnesses, or found in possession of objects from the crime or other probable cause.
Preliminary enquiries — it is unclear whether a crime, or which crime, has been committed, but there exist good reasons to believe this might be the case.
Judicial information — an investigative magistrate (a judge, external to the police) supervises an enquiry on a case where it is certain, or at least very probable, that a crime has been committed.

In particular, outside of crimes in flagrante delicto, law enforcement forces may not conduct searches or arrests without a specific commission from the investigative magistrate.

Not all law-enforcement officers are capable of making full arrests or conducting searches; these powers are, by law, restricted to those have special legal qualifications (see next section).

[edit] Officers and agents of judiciary police

The procedures that police and gendarmerie officers follow when conducting criminal enquiries are set by the Code of Criminal procedure (Code de procédure pénale) and applicable jurisprudence. Criminal enquiries are conducted under the supervision of the judiciary (depending on the phase, under the supervision of the public prosecutor or of an investigative judge).

There are 3 judiciary qualifications : "officer of judiciary police" (officier de police judiciaire or OPJ), "agent of judiciary police" (agent de police judiciaire or APJ) and "agent of judiciary police assistant" (APJ adjoint). The qualifications of OPJ and APJ can only be exercised if they are affected to a position where these are needed, and, for the OPJs by nominal decision of the general prosecutor of their area. These prerogatives are temporarily suspended when they engage, in an organized force, in an operation of public order (i.e. riot control)
Mayors and deputy mayors are OPJs. This disposition is rarely used.
In the National Police, these are qualified as OPJs: the commissionners and above ranks;
the titular members of the corps de commandement nominally listed in a joint decision by the Ministers of Justice and of the Interior;
members of the Corps d'encadrement et d'application who have completed 3 years of service, and are nominally listed in a joint decision by the Ministers of Justice and of the Interior.

In the National Gendarmerie, these are qualified as OPJs: commissioned officers
non-commissioned officers having completed 3 years of service, nominally designated by a joint decision by the Ministers of Justice and of Defense.

These ministerial nomination decisions may only be taken after the approval of a specific commission. The current rules also warrant the completion of an examination pertaining to legal matters.

Most other members of the National Police and Gendarmerie are APJs. The remaining members of the National Police, as well as members of municipal police forces, are APJ assistants.

Only OPJs may perform full arrests or serve search (this includes any body serach more invasive than a external palpation) and put somebody in custody ("garde à vue") for 24 hours ; APJs may only assist them in these talks. In case a suspect has been apprehended by an APJ, he/she must be brought before an OPJ for a full arrest. According to the law, any citizen can apprehend the author of a crime or of an offence that can be punished by a prison sentence (citizen's arrest), and lead him/her to an OPJ (this includes APJ, APJ assistants). However, this is problematic in case of a "simple" citizen due to the estimation of what can be punished by a prison sentence or not, and due to possible abuse (abuses are a restriction of the individual freedom and can be sued for illegal confinement).

The quality of officer of judiciary police may be withdrawn by the Judiciary if the officer has behaved in an inappropriate fashion. The general prosecutor grades OPJs, and these grades are taken into account for possible promotions.

[edit] See also
Constabulary
Justice in France
Police

[edit] References

1.^ Premier-ministre.gouv.fr
(French) Legal analysis of the goals of administrative policing
(French) Code of penal procedure Statute part
regulations Decrees in the Council of State
Simple decrees
Administrative decisions

(French) Direction centrale de la police judiciaire, Aspects de la criminalité et de la délinquance constatées en France en 2004 par les services de police et les unités de gendarmerie, vol 1, vol 2 (PDF); to be published by La Documentation française

lcremote · **Joined:** 15 May 2008 6:00 pm **Posts:** 375

lovuian wrote:

You have to understand the Shock we are in here
give us a break

Oh please. The only shocking thing is how eager some people are to believe the ludicrous.

But don't give up hope yet! Mr. Ludicrous himself is still holding out. The possibility remains that the confession is the hoax!

__________________
lcremote - certifying Bill Kerseys genuine certification of Ben Hammotts genuine discoveries.

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Mar 2012 9:58 pm

lcremote wrote:

lovuian wrote:

You have to understand the Shock we are in here
give us a break

Oh please. The only shocking thing is how eager some people are to believe the ludicrous.

Consider who you're telling this to! :lol:

TCP

TCJ · **Joined:** 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm **Posts:** 1566

rain wrote:

Why didn't Mr Boris Balkan/Glykon being Ground Zero and in the middle of the action go to the police himself?

Because, if true, the long winded, exhibitionist, and overtly narcissistic displays would soon be without an audience.

What panache to accuse virtually a whole forum community of being naively duped.
My clear relocation is that the number of skeptics far exceeded the "true believers" in here and which still includes the time beyond all the arguing which sent many off and away.

rain · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2012 6:49 am

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

I could use numerous quotes that couldn't be interpreted even as sophism. These are just line of words that are getting nowhere. And don't even show originality. They are part of a trend

Quote:

Because, if true, the long winded, exhibitionist, and overtly narcissistic displays would soon be without an audience.
What panache to accuse virtually a whole forum community of being naively duped.
My clear relocation is that the number of skeptics far exceeded the "true believers" in here and which still includes the time beyond all the arguing which sent many off and away.

Observation: You are out of date, out of topic. Have we met before? cause I don't remember...
But from what I remember, McMurphy didn't need his pavilion colleagues' help to administrate his medication.

Passing over this embarrassing moment, I have to confess to you Rain, that I remember you from your first posts. You were shy and wrote nonsense. Just like now. The most notable evolution came when you started using more and more often Wikipedia.
In rest ... you are sympathetic with the wrong persons. You appeal to humanity and decency were there isn't the case for it... Did you ask yourself the question if those that you defend now, would gratuitously return the service? I assure you they wouldn't. I know them personally and can guarantee to that.
...But to answer to the question. Because I like explaining to YOU...

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

Quote:

Why didn't Mr Boris Balkan/Glykon being Ground Zero and in the middle of the action go to the police himself?
How many years has been since he's tracked everyone involved he must at the very least have a room full of incriminating evidence to present to the local Law Enforcement officers.
Here let me help - it's not too late - it's never too late Mr. BB maybe you can see fit to get off your A* and give 'em a ring.

Exactly a room full of incriminating evidences, no. But there is a pretty consistent dossier. Give them a ring was never necessary.
Things don't work that way.
Certain state institutions took notice by themselves and there was no need of anyones contribution to it.
Wilkinson, but especially those that are behind him have entered in the attention of certain governmental agencies long before the police was implicated.
And when I'm referring to governmental agencies, I'm not referring only to those of the french state.
I repeat what I have already said many times on this forum.
In certain circles (official and unofficially) it is very well known that if things wouldn't have quieted down in time there would have been the risk for everything to be taken seriously and provoke a severe diplomatic conflict.
There is also the unpleasant aspect of the interest and implication of different religious sects (some extremely dangerous) that have large ramifications in organized crime.
Sects similar with those evoked right on this forum, are the first beneficiaries of the different activities -"Hammott et Co" type. They find their legitimacy in exactly this type of "discoveries".
In what regards my connection with a police representative, the last contact on the theme of this case we are speaking about here, was in May 2009. Andy remembers probably this episode because he too should have been to that meeting, in Alet les Bains. Unfortunately, because of certain misunderstandings ... Andy's presence wasn't possible anymore.

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

Given the complexity of the case and the number of those directly or indirectly involved, most of the times is customery to resort to agreements in order to avoid no return situations. What must be understood is that the authorities of a state apply the law. If there weren't any agreements between plaintiffs and authorities, the discussion now on Arcadia wouldn't have taken place.
On the other hand, the sad and worrying aspect is that, any attempt to reach a decent agreement with the BBS group has failed. And I mean it has failed in several turns. Sandy has been warned several times that she might be the victim of a hoax. She reacted as we all know it..
In the last few days it has been said many times that this is a Forum not a Court.
It is the the most erroneous opinion and the most disadvantageous.
Both for the main culprits and for the accomplices.

The discussion on Arcadia offers the possibility of a decent resolution without the reaching of a no return situation.
The sleep of Arcadia produces monsters.
The debate on Arcadia, offers an alternative to a debate in front of the Law.
A preventive and reasonable alternative...
Given the gravity of the situation, those that in this moment make a common front with the indictable... bring them the greatest disservice. They confiscate them the possibility to confront themselves with what they really are, incouraging the illusion that they are victims...

Eastern Europe was invoked.
In many countries of the former Soviet Bloc the Law of Lustration had functioned.
This law is more a moral law.
It says, among other things, that those who, under the protection of a permissive regime (in this case a political one), made themselves guilty of offenses that have affected the community, to retire from public life... and stay quiet for a while...
This is what it should be requested from Bill Willkinson, Sandy Hamblett, Bill Kersey and those that supported their "cause". To have the decency to retire for a while from public life...
To avoid the temptation to transform themselves from criminals to martyrs. What they did is embarrassing not heroic.

rain · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2012 1:32 pm

Boris Balkan · **Joined:** 12 Feb 2009 6:26 pm **Posts:** 42

Reread carefully the post and you will realize that I avoided naming the one who said it...

Quote:

Passing over this embarrassing moment [...]

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2894

Quote:

...transform themselves from criminals to martyrs.

This is the part that disturbs me most. Already there is anticipation for Ben's installment of "How I Hoodwinked the RLC Community."

Haven't we rewarded enough bad behavior?

Arcadia Discussion Zone

A short flight over a cuckoo's nest

Who is online