Joint Committee on Human Rights

[frankgallagherwasere]

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta...man_rights.cfm

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by Andrew Dismore MP, consists of twelve members appointed from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Committee is charged with considering human rights issues in the UK but cannot take up individual cases.

These are the people/groups we should be attacking with evidence of collusion and the withdrawal of peoples right to a fair trial by Defence teams NOT defending their clients interests but those of the judicials and state.

It needs multiple case evidence to prove its a national scandal and not just individual and local and should be aimed directly at the abuse by those who offer legal aid. An e-petition proves nothing and isnt the way to fight for justice. Fact facts and more facts is what these people understand and media press coverage to back it up.

[Rights Fighter]

The All-Party Group for False Allegations was formed in the late 1990's. Unfortunately they are not the law-makers in this country.

http://www.richardwebster.net/thenewinjustices.html - Scroll down about 3/4 of the page

In a rare example of real democracy at work, the cause has been taken up by local Crosby MP Claire Curtis-Thomas. Initially uncertain of how to respond to the burgeoning movement of protest within her own constituency, she has now become a fierce and formidable critic of police trawling methods. With help from former Crosby MP, Baroness Shirley Williams, she has set up, and now chairs, an all party parliamentary group with more than fifty members to scrutinise sexual abuse investigations and to question the validity of the process whereby ‘individuals are convicted on verbal testimony alone without any corroborating evidence’.

Although the all party committee has a broader brief than the recently announced Home Affairs Committee inquiry, Claire Curtis-Thomas remains deeply concerned by police trawling. She has warned about the huge danger that, whether deliberately or not, ‘the police will plant suggestions, producing narratives that fit their case, rather than the truth. What happens is a kind of indirect collusion, which develops through witnesses’ unrecorded contact with members of the same police team. Often they’re very vulnerable, because they’re interviewed in prison. Some of them are being exploited in exactly the way suspects were 20 years ago, before suspect interrogations were taped.’


THE COMPARISON which Curtis-Thomas draws here with the kind of injustices which arose from oppressive questioning of suspects is an apt one. But the roots of the current injustices go deeper. Although extending mandatory tape-recording to include witness interviews would undoubtedly help, it cannot in itself cure the problem. For the real causes of the current crisis, as the terms of reference of the Home Affairs Committee implicitly recognise, lie in the ready availability of compensation for those who complain, the failure of the CPS to properly scrutinise evidence, and the current state of the law itself.

Prominent legal authorities such as Professor Colin Tapper have already warned that the erosion of the ‘similar fact’ principle has allowed prosecuting barristers to place before juries highly prejudicial evidence of the most dangerous and unreliable kind. Ultimately, if current injustices are to be halted, it is not simply the Home Affairs Committee, but the House of Lords itself which must address this issue.

It might seem that, with two parliamentary committees now addressing the problem, and with the Lord Chief Justice himself apparently sharing their misgivings about police trawling, it is time for FACT, FoDB and the twenty or so other grass-roots organisations which have grown up to combat false allegations, to wind down their operations. However, this is not the case. For these groups now face the most difficult task of all, as the case of Stephen Downing itself should remind us.

[frankgallagherwasere]

As always everyone questions Mr Plods actions and not those who are supposed to defend their clients. None of these issues would arise if the Law Society didn't instruct their own members to not question Plod/CPS in court about failure to follow procedure and conduct an adequate and thorough investigation. Also their co-operation in hiding so many facts about the cases they are supposed to be defending against. I know this cos my Barrister told me so Im only repeating his words !!

Because of these issues the problem and issues are far more serious as all parties are politically managed by the same master - The Home Office. Its collusion and corruption from the very top.

What I said was this is easy to prove with multiple case examples, and someone like yourself knows this is all too common. Even today and even after so many court cases that have highlighted the many issues, many still get caught and convicted by - trawling, informing accusers of what to say and of the inemtpitude of ones defence to defend them.

The actions of the judicial is a national scandal, nothing short of corruption as they too earn from the many cases of injustice, they too are rewarded financially for results. Its no different from the Banks gaining huge bonuses for their dubious investment policies then expecting the taxpayer to bail them out when they make a mistake - was it a mistake? I dont think so....

But the single most important issue is once one is caught and convicted the system refuses to accept its failure, it hides it and mitigates it when it knows all too well of the malicious practices of its many members - after all thats how it instructs them to behave. And of course you cant take your defence team to court and there is no reliable body to complain too or who can conduct and meaningful investigation into the many issues we have all faced.

Closed shop as one would say. And if one is knowingly allowing one to defraud the government (falsely claim compensation) thats a criminal offence !! This can be aimed at the Police who investigate, the CPS how bring cases to court and the Judicial for not attempting to question the accusers/crowns true objectives. They are all criminals if one was to apply criminal laws proportionately and properly!! The innocent get the blame for the true actions of the true criminals in our society.

[Rights Fighter]

As always everyone questions Mr Plods actions and not those who are supposed to defend their clients. None of these issues would arise if the Law Society didn't instruct their own members to not question Plod/CPS in court about failure to follow procedure and conduct an adequate and thorough investigation. Also their co-operation in hiding so many facts about the cases they are supposed to be defending against. I know this cos my Barrister told me so Im only repeating his words !!

What utter tosh! I've seen plod time after time squirming on the stand when they have been proved to have lied. The recent case in Birmingham was one of many I have attended where this has occurred. That police officer rushed out of court sucking on his inhaler as he had an Asthma attack after being rigorously cross-examined by our man's QC.

Some years ago I watched a cocky officer swagger up to the stand only to leave with his face bright red and face hung down after it was put to him that he had deliberately placed evidence that would have assisted the defence case into a folder marker "not to be disclosed to the Defence".

In my November appeal during a break the officer literally roared at prosecution counsel to argue the defence grounds for appeal. She refused to saying "there is nothing to argue. I cannot argue" and he shouted "well find something!!!!!"

He was soundly told off by the Crown.

Officers are often proved to be lying or hiding evidence at trial. To say that the Law Society instructs their members not to "question Plod/CPS in court about failure to follow procedure and conduct an adequate and thorough investigation" is utter bunkum.

Further the Law Society does not instruct their members to hide so many facts about the cases they are supposed to be defending against. if that were true then everybody would be found guilty.

[frankgallagherwasere]

We all know there are good and bad in all aspects of life and good trials and like ours none events. No one questions the good we only question and ask for answers on the BAD amoungst them.

As for the Law Society instructing its members - multiple case evidence would support this alone - maybe thats for others to comment on rather than just me, I can only go on our case. I would love to see court transcripts of what questions are asked in various cases and build a common question template up - I cant dont have access to them and isnt that what Barristers should do and have?

RF Im not trying to be negative here, Im trying to help everyone and look for answers to why we are such easy targets of prey and why so many get wrongfully convicted - thats all.