Police And Malicious Prosecution

Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice
by Robert Henderson
QUOTE
The obnoxious  contraction of what is permitted has a further danger for the unwary. Although  the dictates of political correctness are in theory universal in practice they are applied with vastly greater enthusiasm against certain groups than others. In 2001 the  television presenter Anne Robinson made what was obviously a joke about the Welsh on a programme entitled Room 101. The idea of the programme was for those appearing to consign something or someone to Room 101, the place in George Orwell’s 1984 where “the most terrible thing in the world happens”. Anne Robinson consigned the Welsh with the comment “What  are they for?”. A day or so after the programme she became the subject of a  police investigation for inciting racial hatred and a file was sent to the  Crown Prosecution Service. Some weeks after it was quietly announced that she  would not be prosecuted. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1205551.stm)

Compare that eager  police response with that which occurred  after the current director-general of the BBC, Greg  Dyke who in 2001 described a meeting of BBC managers as “hideously  white”. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1104305.stm)

As the law  stands, the statement is unambiguously racist because Mr. Dyke is making a claim  about a recognized racial group and the use of the word “hideously” is  highly inflammatory. The extremely unpleasant nature of it can be seen by  substituting black or Asian for white: “hideously black”, “hideously  Asian”. Its effect can only be to incite racial hatred against whites. The  severity of the offence is greatly magnified by Mr. Dyke’s then position as the  head of our state funded broadcaster.

To test the pc  water I made a complaint to the Metropolitan police. They refused to act,  despite the fact that Dyke’s comment was not a joke and his public position is a  very important one. I tested the Metropolitan police a second time shortly afterwards  with a complaint against a Welsh Nationalist politician called John Elfed Jones  who had charmingly described the English who moved into Wales as a “disease”  and likened them to foot and mouth http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/aug/08/race.wales).  Mr. Jones is a  man of some public standing in  Wales. He is a former chief of HTV and Welsh Water, has held office in the Welsh Language Society and was involved in the creation of the Welsh Assembly. He is  a member of Plaid Cwmru. Thus, his remarks have more than ordinary public significance.

Again the police  refused to act, despite the fact that Jones’ political position gave his words  considerable significance in a part of the UK where firebomb attacks on the homes  of English settlers are part of the political landscape. From the refusal to  act in these two strong cases of clear racial incitement, it is reasonable to  conclude that only the “right” type of racial incitement complaint is  acceptable to the police. Complaints to the Commission for Racial Equality on the Dyke and Jones cases met with a similar refusal to act.

This form of oppressive  and partial behaviour by the police has steadily grown. Two years after the  Dyke case, on 9 November 2003, Cheshire Police acted with the greatest haste on  a complaint from “a member of the public” after the Bishop of  Chester, Dr Peter Forster, suggested that homosexuals seek psychiatric help to reorientate  their sexuality. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-201684/Police-quiz-bishop-gay-comments.html)

A day or so later  (11 October 2003) they were forced to announce that Dr Forster had committed no  offence – as any sane person knew – because the 1986 Public Order Act does not cover “hate crimes” based on sexuality. However, the Chief Constable  of the force, Peter Fay, expressed regret at Dr Forster’s comments and said  that it was the duty of everyone in an influential position to celebrate diversity,  viz: “We need to be very aware of the position of minorities in the county and make sure diversity is celebrated. Vulnerable minorities should feel they  are protected.”

The obvious  response to that statement is since when have the police had political comment  as part of their brief? The answer appears to be from now on virtually anything  goes. Nor does it need a particular crime to provoke such comment. Here is Chief  superintendent Paul Pearce of the Sussex force speaking in 2003:

“Recent events in the police service have  highlighted the continual need for a positive anti-racist and anti-discrimination  stance.

“Sussex Police is overtly hostile to those  who discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, skin colour, sexual  orientation, disability, gender, social class or any other inappropriate factor”.  (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/3228833.stm

Equally worrying  is the attempt by certain police forces to give quasi-official approval of a law  which does not exist. The Public Order Act 1986 covers so-called hate crimes, which the Metropolitan Police define as “abusing people because of their race, faith,  religion or disability – or because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual” (Daily Telegraph 10 11 03). In fact, the Act does not include any crime which  is committed for reasons other than racial hatred.

In 2005  prosecutions were brought against the BNP leader Nick Griffin and BNP member  Mark Collett for inciting racial hatred with evidence provided by the BBC (this from an organization which initially refused to hand over film of IRA killings  of two British servicemen in Northern Ireland) who secretly filmed a closed BNP  meeting in which Islam was represented as a menace to British society.   (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/police-investigate-bnp-documentary-over-violence-claim-553351.html).
The attempts at prosecution (there were two trials after the first one resulted  in a hung jury on three charges and acquittals on others), failed to convict, but sent out a clear message of the extent to which those with power in Britain  are willing to suppress free expression. It is not necessary to have any  sympathy with the BNP to see the dangers in allowing politicians (and it required a politician, the attorney-general, to sanction the prosecution) to  initiate criminal prosecutions against members of other political parties.

Sometimes the  police enthusiasm to be pc makes them the object of ridicule. In 2007 a  Lancashire shopkeeper found himself threatened with a public order offence for  displaying golliwogs in his shop window. The police seized the golliwogs  (doubtless for interrogation) and the shop keeper had to endure the suspense of  what would happen next. This turned out to be nothing because the police  admitted no crime had been committed. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-police-seize-golliwogs-in-racism-probe.do).
Farcical as the circumstances of this  episode was it is symptomatic of so many of these police “investigations” into  what they classify as hate crimes: the police investigated but no prosecution  or caution resulted. The effect of this behaviour, whether intended or not, is  to intimidate the native British who now commonly think they dare not say  anything critical about any ethnic minority, other nation, women or gays for  fear of feeling the heavy hand of the constabulary.

Two final recent  examples of this type of thing, both involving Islam. In April 2011, Andrew Ryan was convicted of a public order offence  for burning  a Koran in public. For this he was sentenced to 70 days imprisonment at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court. The sentencing judge, District Judge Gerald Chalk seems to have invented a new legal concept for he described Ryan’s behaviour as “a case of theatrical bigotry.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8459965/Man-who-burned-Koran-jailed-for-theatrical-bigotry.html). Whether one is in favour of burning books or not, it is difficult to see what meaningful crime Ryan had committed. He burnt a book considered holy by Muslims.  So what? The Christian religion is routinely publicly insulted without a flicker of interest from the police.  Effectively, a new legal status has  been given to Islam, a status not sanctioned by Parliament. It is worth adding  that Carlisle, in the far North-West of England,  has very few Muslims and few ethnic minorities  of any sort. It is doubtful whether many if any took offence.

The second case is  even more interesting. To begin with it involves a Muslim, Mohammed Hasnath. Until  the bombings of 7/7 Muslims were allowed to say and write virtually  without police intervention.  Since 7/7 there have been occasional  prosecutions of Muslims for violent words, prosecutions one suspects which  are  conducted to give a specious appearance of even-handedness in the  administration of the law.

Hasnath  was fined £100 for putting up posters which  read GAY FREE ZONE and had a Koranic reference condemning homosexuality (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8550178/Muslim-fanatic-fined-100-for-gay-free-zone-stickers.html).  Note first the light penalty imposed on him compared with Ryan, despite the  fact that the posters must have caused much more offence and been seen by many  more people than Ryan’s Koran burning. But so would the putting up of  posters   containing the anti-Gay passages in the Koran. If Hasnath had done  that would the police have intervened?  I  suspect nothing would have been done because to have prosecuted him for that would be a tacit  admission that the British authorities think parts of the Koran  breach the law.

The opportunities  for prosecutions based on racial hatred have been greatly widened to include  not merely incitement to racial hatred but to punish more heavily any crime  deemed to have a racial motive. As racism is defined ever more widely to include  virtually any distinction between peoples, the courts and the police have a very  great opportunity to include a racial motive in a prosecution. In addition,  there are growing calls for laws to extend to the areas which the Metropolitan  police fondly fantasize are already covered.
UNQUOTE
Police have power and the power to abuse power, a dangerous combination. They pander to the politicians in power because it helps them get away with murder as well as perjury etc. They are guilty of Malicious prosecution, Misconduct In Public Office and Perverting the course of justice.

 

Taking Action Against Police
Police don't know much law but they are keen on abusing your ignorance. Don't take it lying down. Get help from someone who has been there. He mentions the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is highly relevant.

 

Labour Vote Fraud Exposed, Police Collude With Perpetrators While Harassing Right Wing Candidates [ 1 May 2014 ]
Paul Weston is not the only Political Prisoner taken by corrupt police. There was poor little Emma West locked up in a lunatic asylum without the nuisance of charges, a trial et cetera. They broke her. Let us hope that Mr. Weston is stronger.

 

Malicious Police Prosecution Fails [ 27 March 2016 ]
An Englishman asks Islamic woman what the Brussels terror attacks were about She shrugs them off, then he is charged with inciting racial hatred contrary to Part III of the  Public Order Act 1986. The Crown Prosecution Service know a lot about Malicious Prosecution & general purpose corruption but decided that they wouldn't get away with it. Recall that the Director of Public Prosecutions, a sour faced ratbag Incites Rape Accusations But Protects Paedophiles
QUOTE
A man is no longer facing a social media race-hate charge after a message was posted on his Twitter profile about confronting a Muslim woman over the Brussels terror attacks. Matthew Doyle, 46, from South Croydon, was due to appear at Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court on Saturday.
UNQUOTE
The real reason for charging him is that he is an Englishman. More at Englishman Question Islamic Motives - Englishman Arrested By Racist Police. The Daily Mails Comments are sensible. Recall that Metropolitan Police chief, 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe is a malicious Racist, keen on harassing patriotic Englishmen but giving Pakistani racists a pass, especially if they are his little mate 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham.

 

Fire Man Does Three Years For Rape Because Police Ignored Blackmail Evidence  [ 16 February 2018 ]
QUOTE
A High Court judge has slammed police for ignoring key evidence after a retired firefighter was wrongly convicted of raping a 14-year-old boy. David Bryant spent three years in prison after he was convicted of an historic sex attack at a fire station in Christchurch, Dorset in 1977.

The 67-year-old's conviction was quashed in 2016 after it emerged that the complainant Danny Day was a fantasist who had sought medical help for lying. Now a High Court hearing has heard that police ignored a blackmail note sent by the accuser in which he threatened to make Mr Bryant pay 'one way or another'.
UNQUOTE
Corrupt, incompetent, malicious, idle or some combination? One commentator said that Dorset Police are bent as the South Yorkshire. Unkind but true enough.

 

Suspected Police Arrest Suspected Murderer Who Killed Suspected Burglar In Suspected Malicious Prosecution   [ 5 April 2018 ]
Two thieves break in. 78 year old householder kills one attacker. Police turn nasty. It's another chance to run a Malicious Prosecution. They did the same to Tony Martin and got away with it by suppressing the fact that the perpetrators were Gypsies. The Daily Mail is blocking comments to suppress truth about public indignation. Will a Jury be fool enough to convict? I seriously doubt it. Jury Nullification will be the route to go down. NB This nasty abuse of power is a reminder to make sure that you know about Resistance to Interrogation, especially Professor Duane's talk In Praise Of The Fifth Amendment Right Not To Be A Witness Against Yourself.

 

Metropolitan Police Harass Man Defending A Woman From  A Black Murderer  [ 2 February 2022 ]
QUOTE
The have-a-go 'hero' driver who mowed down and killed a knifeman while he was stabbing to death a mother-of-two will face no further action, Scotland Yard revealed today as the woman's family said they were 'delighted' that police had 'done the sensible thing'. 

Yasmin Wafah Chkaifi, 43, died after the 'terrifying' attack by ex-husband Leon Mccaskie, 41, despite the efforts of the motorist - 'Abraham' - who intervened by ploughing into him in Maida Vale, West London, on January 24................

Today, Scotland Yard confirmed the driver will 'face no further police action' after officers studied CCTV footage, spoke to witnesses and detectives and looked at the legal position on 'self-defence and defence of another'.

Abraham said today that he was 'grateful that they have taken this sensible course of action' and that he wanted to 'express my gratitude to the British public who supported me so vocally at this most stressful and trying time'.

In a statement released by his lawyer Mohammed Akunjee, Abraham said: 'I have learnt from my solicitors that the Met Police have taken the decision to take no further action against me concerning my arrest under suspicion for murder. I am grateful that they have taken this sensible course of action. 

'I will of course continue to assist them and any coroner's inquest should the need arise. I once again wish to express my gratitude to the British public who supported me so vocally at this most stressful and trying time. 

'I also wish to express my gratitude to my solicitor Mr Akunjee who supported myself and my family through this process. I hope that in my actions a message has been sent to society: should you see an evil it is a duty upon you to stop it with your hands, if you cannot then you should stop it by speaking out, if you cannot then at the very least you should hate it with your heart. May peace be upon you all.'......................

It also emerged after the attack that McCaskie had been due in court on January 27 for breaching a stalking order taken out to protect Miss Chkaifi, which barred him from contacting her. The stabbing took place nearly three weeks after a warrant without bail had been issued when McCaskie failed to appear in court on January 4.
UNQUOTE
The Metropolitan Police pretended that he was a murder suspect, en route to a Malicious Prosecution & life sentence. They did it before when an old man in Hither Green was attacked by Gypsy thieves - see Pensioner, 79, who coroner ruled LAWFULLY killed burglar. This guy was from Chechnya so he would have known that police are vicious & dangerous. Be aware that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is there to protect us against them. If you are arrested DEMAND a lawyer & say nothing until one is produced. Also read about Resistance To Interrogation In England. But of course the filth will be pussyfooting around Boris Johnson's party goings on. He matters; we don't.