Selective Prosecution

Selective prosecution is the idea that Nick Griffin gets prosecuted because he is a patriotic politician while the National Black Police Association gets away with it because it is run by foreign criminals [ e.g. Ali Dizaei ] and enemies of England. It is a form of Malicious prosecution just like Selective Enforcement. It is Malfeasance in office, used to pervert the course of justice.

Selective prosecution ex Wiki
In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In a claim of selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same illegal actions for which the defendant is being tried and were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted because of a bias. In the US, this defense is based upon the 14th Amendment, which requires that "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The United States Supreme Court has defined the term as follows: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.
It is clear enough that American law recognises the concept. English law may be different. The Crown Prosecution Service alleges that it will prosecute or not according to whether it is in the public interest - see which says
A prosecution is more likely to be required if:

  1. a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
  2. the offence was premeditated;
  3. the offence was carried out by a group [ e.g. the Conservative Friends of Israel ];
  4. the offence was committed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, a child;
  5. the victim of the offence was in a vulnerable situation [e.g. a taxpayer - Editor ] and the suspect took advantage of this;
  6. the suspect was in a position of authority or trust [ e.g. Her Majesty's Prime Minister - Editor ] and he or she took advantage of this;
  7. the suspect's previous convictions or the previous out-of-court disposals which he or she has received are relevant to the present offence;
  8. the suspect is alleged to have committed the offence in breach of an order of the court;
  9. a prosecution would have a significant positive impact on maintaining community confidence [ e.g. getting rid of corrupt politicians - Editor ];
A prosecution is less likely to be required if:
  1. the suspect has been subject to any appropriate regulatory proceedings, or any punitive or relevant civil penalty which remains in place or which has been satisfactorily discharged, which adequately addresses the seriousness of the offending and any breach of trust involved; [ An excuse for letting politicians steal - Editor ]
  2. the suspect has put right the loss or harm that was caused (but a suspect must not avoid prosecution or an out-of-court disposal solely because he or she pays compensation or repays the sum of money he or she unlawfully obtained); [ e.g. when a politician pays back fraudulent expenses - Editor ]

This has been abused to let politicians steal. So selective prosecution is practice not admitted policy.


Selective enforcement ex Wiki
Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those they desire favors from.

However, the converse can also be true. Police officer discretion is sometimes warranted for minor offenses, for instance where a warning to a teenager could be quite effective without putting the teen through a legal process which also reduces costs of governmental legal resources. Another example is patrol officers parked on the side of a highway for speed enforcement. It may be impractical and cost prohibitive to ticket everyone who is going any amount over the speed limit, so the officer should watch for the more egregious cases and those drivers who are showing signs of driving recklessly. These cases do give the police judicial power to some degree, but it is not possible for an officer not to use judgment at one level or another.
A fair article but abuses do happen. Police corruption does too.


Police Arrest Englishwoman For Banning Islamics From Her Beauty Salon [ 18 November 2015 ]
Because it is time to put her country first.


Police Refuse To Investigate Pakistani Racist For Abusing Jews [ 18 November 2015 ]
Are the police corrupt tools of a corrupt government? Have a look at Police Corruption or Police Brutality then decide. Or try the G20 Massacre to know about their enthusiasm for Perverting The Course Of Justice. Be aware that 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe, who is in charge of the Met refuses to investigate Racist criminals or even admit that he has been told about their crimes if they happen to be Pakistanis called 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham.


Salford Student Union President Incites Racial Hatred [ 1 July 2017 ]
A Muslim student union leader has claimed she would like to 'oppress white people' and has suggested there would be an Islamic takeover if more people read the Koran.

Zamzam Ibrahim, who was elected President of Salford University's Student Union in March, also suggested friendship between men and women is un-Islamic and is opposed to the government's anti-radicalisation strategy.

The Swedish-Somali student officer also described the government's Prevent strategy as 'disastrous' and 'racist'.
Is she inciting racial hatred contrary to the Public Order Act 1986. Will she be allowed to get away with it because she is a Third World parasite? Of course.