h-rtitle.gif (7604 bytes)

Crime - Organised - Institutionalised - Corruption - Fraud - Protection Rackets, run and managed by judicial chair occupants, in a free-for-all state of abundance. Note below the arrangements between the administrative, the judiciary and the media; read of the all-embracing guarantee in place, in contempt of all law : the root shall be pointed to.

WHERE IS JUSTICE? Read below:-

"The court has inherent jurisdiction to stay an action which must fail; as, for instance an action brought in respect of an act of State"

*Link from here to founder's tribulations in 1972-75 and marvel at the creativity of allegedly honourable officers of Justice and the Law in the mother of all PSEUDOdemocracies

  • And by extension any act of any public servant who is appointed, retained and maintained by other public servants for all of whom, the state, as employer, is ultimately responsible, including abusers of judicial chair occupancy. Hence, the billions paid out as covered in the affidavit which visitors can link to directly from here [*Link].
  • Link also from here to the founder's conclusions as of 1972-75 when the great Metropolitan police were seen to be nothing but accessories to and abettors of the rampant fraud and corruption through the courts organised and processed to fruition while Members of Parliament were -as they still do- promoting the waffle that amounts to nothing short of:-

'independence of the judiciary to act in contempt of ALL LAW (national and international) in a pseudo-democracy.

*Link from here to proof of the parts the police play in promotion and expansion of the criminal activities instigated, processed and imposed on society by the legal circles. Read of assertions by a typical hypocrite, none other than the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark QPM, when he spoke of FALSE RECORDS / FORGERIES by the legal circles while delivering his famous Dimbleby Lecture on BBC-TV in November 1973, 15 months after he received true copy of THE FORGERY advanced and promoted by the licensed criminals : solicitors and barristers for their evil ends in the case that opened Andrew Yiannides' mental eyes to the realities of life in the United Kingdom, a typical PSEUDOdemocracy. Can anyone enlighten Andrew and the millions of victims of the legal circles WHY NO PROSECUTION of the solicitors & the barristers in 1972 or thereafter?.

  • With such a facility in place (the words we point to above) and arrogant abuse of public office, can anyone assert, or argue, that Mr Andrew Yiannides, the founder of human-rights, was not right to determine that Justice has been abducted and that she is held captive in the dungeons maintained by her abductors who rape her daily in their courts? (>Hence the c reation of www.jusaticeraped.org <)
  • ALL Member States of the European Union are subject to the ruling which visitors, readers and researchers can access in the explicit page /yourrights.htm

*Link from here to the realities - in due course also a link to the warning (indirect but nonetheless very clear) for thinkers to recognise 

  • On 3rd March 2008 >someone's birthday< we released a House of Lords PRECEDENT CASE and reveal deliberations by their Lordships in respect of FRAUD - DECEPTION - CONSPIRACY & IMPLIED LIES BY KEEPING SILENT about any wrong imposed on any other.
  • >>> IN THE MEANTIME we have been naming and shaming a number who know of and engage in much more than just approve wrongs imposed on Mr & Mrs Average, the millions of taxpayers, in our allegedly civilised country / state / province / district of the European Union created by politicians, without reference to the taxed for fraud sucker-serfs, allegedly for the benefit of the citizens from FRAUD & CORRUPTION, among other promotions.

Needless to say the case entailed activities and practices by solicitors as Mr Andrew Yiannides was subjected to, decades later, by an old school friend, Mr Kypros Nichola of Nicholas & Co. in London. Mr K. Nichola bluntly abused the trust placed in him and indulged, in tandem with others, in criminal activities intended to cause the damages that were imposed on the targeted 'serf' by accredited - by the Law Society & Bar Council - allegedly Honourable Officers of the Supreme Court, the courts maintained by successive elected governments in the United Kingdom, one of many pseudodemocracies. In due course another revelation relevant to the arrogant 'inherent jurisdiction', through which to deny, obstruct justice & impose all manner of criminally created states on 'the serfs', who are taxed for the cost of maintaining criminals in public office, in pseudo-democracies.

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF AFFAIRS, successive irresponsible Lord Chancellors and Home Secretaries who ignored and ignore all complaints and submissions by victims of the organised crimes we point to and expose in our pages, irrespective of the evidence and the law pointed to, by the victims of it all, the citizens who are called upon to pay taxes for the maintenance of criminals in public office.

[*Link from here to our exclusive page, covering confidential fraud as arranged THROUGH THE BEST KEPT OPEN SECRET in alleged democracies, European States. Elsewhere the foundations and corner stone upon which the operatives built the societies of their making using the bricks and mortar we cover in this and other pages. The visitor should not be under any illusion that the stars in the theatrical productions, covered in our pages were by any stretch of the imagination 'humans' who were / are gifted with any attributes that distinguish 'true humans' (>thinkers<) from animals.

Fraud in court  Council staff use Forgeries   Misconduct in Public Office. 2 cases relative to applicable law One Protocol says it ALL It betrays arrogant intentions Law Provides for THEFTS and it covers Judges too Judges' duties   TIME 4 CHANGE   & CHALLENGES Site CONTENTS - Table of Contents & ongoing work Your Rights & OBLIGATIONS to Society SITE SEARCH facility for any specific element / issue of concern to visitors / readers
COURTS : their Facilities Abused For ORGANISED CRIME : FRAUD Solicitor's Perjury & Victim Ignores it all Just like the Law Society always does Blackmailed or is it Just Conditioned & Subjugated Victims who join the club ? We name Lovers of blunt fraud through courts - Users of the facilities 4 illicit gains Local Authorities & FRAUD on 'serfs' the Taxpayers who are kept in the dark Police Party to & Endorsing Criminal Acts, Activities Arrogant Fraud FALSE Records & Contempt of Law by the legal Circles & Public Services The crafty ones & Vexatious Litigant PLOYS for the rewarded silent

* Information FOR victims who wish to co-operate by EXPOSING & CHALLENGING abusers of Public Office *

family.uk-human-rights justiceraped.org dssfraud.htm confraud.htm dadscare.htm contract.htm converts.htm MensAid
solicitorsfromhell.co.uk chancellor.htm theyknow.htm solfraud.htm sheknows.htm 4deceit.htm convicti.htm forward.htm


*Link from here to evidence. *Link also from here to a case when the abusers of the courts' facilities abandoned their plans for another targeted family

IMPORTANT INFORMATION for all victims of malpractice - misconduct - negligence, etc. TO NOTE

In the civil justice system in England and Wales, a judge presides over the proceedings that are argued by the opposing sides through the adversarial process. The process enables the court, judge, to reach a conclusion as to the truth of the facts in dispute. Thereat it is for the judge to apply the law to the facts proven, established at court.

The system as evolved is covered in the page 'English Legal System' and remains the same after the Woolf reforms.

An explicit Affidavit [*L] plus exhibits and
     letters to a Chief Inspector of Police
          one to solicitors
[*L] and another to the Lord Chancellor [*L] evince
               ORGANISED CRIMES
(Access and read the letter to the police in September 2006 [*L])

Access & read from one of a number of letters to the Prime Minister : * I believe that New Labour will deliver us from the wrongs we have been suffering for far too long. Use of our resources in terms of human potential and capabilities can and should be channelled through rights not wrongs, through positives not through negatives. It is our produce and ingenuity we can sell to others not the minefields of corrupt and bankrupt public services. * [*Link from here to the page, note the steps taken to ensure the Prime Minister forwarded / delegated submissions and evidence received at 10 Downing Street to the right Minister / Ministry because the submissions were in respect of ORGANISED CRIMES

3rd March 2011 added link [*L] to the BBC-TV Dimbleby Lecture in 1973 as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark prepared & presented to the sucker-serfs


In October 2010 the coalition (Con-Lib-Dems) Government's Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC, in an interview to 'COUNSEL'* [*L] qualified that his priority was to address the issue of 'the police distancing themselves -systematically we add- in cases of fraud and directing the victims -who report such matters to the police, as the law commands- to instruct solicitors. The government (the A.G, naturally) also the media are invited to access the Dimbleby Lecture (BBC-TV November 1973) as delivered by Sir Robert Mark QPM [*L] and the page where we point to the fact -and the evidence- that TWO Lord Justices sitting at the Court of Appeal, indulged, in usual manner : in blunt and arrogant contempt for the law [*L] when addressing issues of the very nature the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself ALSO INDULGED in over a year before the famous lecture; yet he had the audacity to refer to criminal activities, by the legal circles, such as he alluded to in the course of his Television Lecture which he delivered on TV for the sucker-serfs to ponder upon, as his contribution towards the 'dust in your eyes sheeple' services. From here link [*L] also to the case when the police created their own false records as their contribution towards the creation of false states intended to obstruct / block Andrew Yiannides from securing employment in an area he could have been contributing positively towards the creation of considerate humans / thinkers, as the material facts, including letters, published at the website evince. 


hrbnrsml.gif (1162 bytes) Victims of Organised Crimes Against the citizens in our allegedly civilised democracy, a pseudo-democracy, are invited to Access the DECLARATION in our pages. Use it to challenge whosoever failed to execute his public duties in accordance with the terms of the retainers attached to the fat salaries they received under false pretences.


3rd March 2011 added link to the words of a typical police hypocrite


(Citizens Against Maladministration In Law Application)

email:- camila@uk-human-rights.org

Page created February 1997

Revised: August 23, 2012
Associated pages list:
/policomauth.htm [the police complaints cover-up centre of operations] /crimesin.htm [reckless defaults & EVIL lies by police] /contempt.htm [documented evidence treated as trash] /

home page for an introduction to Complaints against the police

Evening Standard - London
lesjl99r.jpg (86177 bytes)
Read the text below

CORRUPT ==> Detectives

CORRUPT ==> Judges

CORRUPT ==> Lawyers

CORRUPT ==> Government Ministers

It all sounds very familiar.
Where did we hear of such matters?

One reads below of the common factor; of the facts of life, recognised by most victims of the abused public services we point and relate to in our pages. The Evening Standard article below refers to 'a contender' whose credentials and record of success somehow were by-passed by one who was instructed to investigate such matters in the UK in 1998. [*Link to earlier investigation news]

Corruption is target for Met’s would-be chief

by Lucy Lawrence

Corrupt detectives, judges, lawyers, government ministers and top businessmen are the reason that organised crime still exists, says the leading contender to become the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police next , year.

Peter Ryan, Commissioner of Australia’s New South Wales Police, who is in England to be interviewed as a candidate to take over from Sir Paul Condon, believes that rooting out corrupt detectives is the only way to stop the activities of professional crime rings.

He told the country’s leading police officers today that getting rid of corrupt policemen was dealing only with part of the problem, when some of the leading people in society were also involved. Mr Ryan’s commitment to end police corruption will win him favour with supporters of Sir Paul, who retires in January.

The Commissioner set up the Met’s "Untouchables" last year estimating that between (*FXXX) 100 and 200 officers were involved in corruption. Last month, Deputy Commissioner John Stevens, who led the drive, announced that Scotland Yard had broken the back of corruption.

Since Mr Ryan became head of the New South Wales force in 1996, the 55-year-old former Manchester policeman has attracted headlines for stamping out corruption and fighting the drugs gangs that threatened Sydney’s hosting of the Olympic Games next year.

In a speech to the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr Ryan said: "The term organised crime often conjures up the images of Al Capone and the Mafia; however in the modern society, organised crime is far more sinister and aligned with corrupt police. "The traditional approach of targeting corrupt police officers, however, only solves half the problem. Removing corrupt police, yet not targeting the criminals in association with those police is not proactive.

"The exposures of organised and corporate criminal activity has involved ministers of the Crown, members of the judiciary and leaders in business and commerce, with many of the worst cases of police corruption involved in a similar complex web." 

© Associated Newspapers Ltd., 14 July 1999

The capabilities and purposes of the police are clearly depicted in 'The system the operatives have been running for far too long. One thing is for certain, however, the average citizen CAN work things out, especially WHY AND WHAT FOR*. We emphasise the simple fact that ALL ARE RELYING ON JUDICIAL CHAIR OCCUPANTS TO PERVERT & CORRUPT, to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE to/for 'THE SERFS' who are kept in the dark by the media barons and the Intellectual Prostitutes they retain and maintain for such services to ill-educated non-thinkers, the conditioned 'serfs of the days of the 'attempted' New World Order'. A world without principles and morals, societies based and founded on greed and false economies, all resting on worthless bills of exchange and the transfer of assets to 'those who participate in the scams and CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS THROUGH THE COURTS'. [*Link to the arrogant attitude of abusers of the legal system / courts in the United Kingdom, and consider the words of Thomas Jefferson we publish in our Home Page].

Victims, visitors, readers and researchers should access information on the role of the media in all pseudo-democracies. [*Link from here to the words of an insider & *Link also from here to plans denied & proclaimed false]
  • Victims, recognise how and who responsible for the ever-present contempt for the law and the rights of the taxpayers who are simply treated as 'serfs' of the Middle Ages.
  • Victims, USE YOUR RIGHTS and let the tax-payers know of your own experiences and tribulations as a result of the RAMPANT ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE & PUBLIC SERVICES, such as the media (controlled by persons who are serving 'other plans for the sons of men on planet earth' than what the serfs are being sold by hypocrites and sycophants (*FX) and state funded 'set-ups' meriting support, so long as the established practices are not challenged in any way. We add that many the state set-ups that were / are created to allegedly assist the citizens (oops... 'serfs / sucker taxpayers).
  • Diligent victims, readers and researchers will no doubt recognise 'the scheme of things', on reading the Lord Chancellor's (Lord Irvine) representations to the Home Affairs Select Committee in November 1999. [*Link from here to the official record of the submissions]
  • No one can possibly ignore his Lordship's promotion of 'volunteers who were raring to go, all ready to operate as users and maintenance engineers of the system as is'.
  • One has to consider the fact that the provisions for 'fraudsters club recruits' to expand the operations of the ORGANISED CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDS, on the taxpayers was / is reckless and ill conceived, [*Link from here to the page where we expose the irresponsible arrangements for blackmailing victims of the legal circles to conversion from victims to lovers of the constructive frauds].

We point to the exclusive page where we expose it all. ARROGANTLY ORGANISED FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES with the INTENDED CORRUPTION OF ILLITERATES IN LAW, 'victim-citizens', who consciously entertain invitations / offers from persons who converted to lovers of the fraud & corruption we expose in the exclusive page and evidence published in our pages.  

Through an act or an omission the commission of a crime: - [*Link to precedent case *Link to an even better precedent]

This and the other pages listed above* [*Link] are dedicated to issues arising out of police activity and or inactivity as the case may be. refer to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the sections we publish) and consider through an act or AN OMISSION, the torment and torture the abusers of their public office (MISCONDUCT.*...) impose on their targeted victims, as Mr G.H Scriven qualifies in his affidavit and statement of facts(GSA). The Stephen Lawrence* protracted saga and case brought to the forefront issues that lead to an Inquiry. We submitted our views and a copy of 'The Breeding Grounds - case'(*F?). Copy of the briefly stated case (as published in our pages) had been sent to the Rt. Hon. Paul Boateng. Mr Andrew Yiannides, when making his submissions to the debate "Can We Trust The Judges", set-off by commenting on the repetitious references to INHERENT RACISM IN THE POLICE & THE COURTS SERVICES, by the previous speaker, from Bradford. Because the Shadow Speaker on Legal Affairs in the House of Commons interrupted Mr. Yiannides, it was considered prudent to forward a copy of 'The Breeding Grounds - case' to the Rt. Hon, Paul Boateng due to the fact that the case / document exposes more than enough.[*Link from here to image of the brief letter received by Mr Yiannides thereafter]. It suffices to establish who does or does not perform (their public duties) within the Law Enforcement Agencies maintained by successive UK governments over the years.  All feel free to, and indeed do, act as they please within the confines of the well known self regulating institutions they look up to and rely upon.  Such as the police investigating the police and reporting to alleged independent laymen.  Persons who are dependent on the 'experts who manipulate the system and or rely on such other provisions the 'experts' invariably call and rely upon.  We name but one such provision, the so called Public Immunity Interest status bestowed by our judiciary on matters pertaining to and arising out of police investigations.  Do refer to our fair comment on such obstacles to morals and Democracy. 

Open government and adherence to Parliament's LAW?  
SECRETS between alleged servants of the public in matters of public interest and in particular questionable activities such as INSTITUTIONALLY ORGANISED & INSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CRIME?
Need we to ask Why and What For if NOT part of the overall plans for the sucker-serfs?
  • Sir Paul Condon, QPM, had to shoulder and bear much during his term of office, especially because of the Stephen Lawrence saga. [*Link from here to the page where we point to the fact that our submissions to the inquiry were considered of interest to the legal circles, yet we have converts, stooges and charlatans asserting and promoting to others, vile opinions about the relevance of our contribution in such important issues].
  • He was requested to consider the facts pleaded in respect of the realities pleaded in the Summons* issued out of Edmonton County Court, to note the fact that the Plaintiffs reported violence by the First Defendant on at least three previous occasions.
  • On each and every occasion the First Defendant boasted he had the police in his palm; at least one of the assaults was reported by British Telecom.
  • The police ignored it all and defaulted to act, inclusive of subsequent defaults and failures'.
  • MOST CONVENIENT indeed the OMISSIONS* to prosecute the conniving, fraudster, the cruel and violent First Defendant in the action which the police ought to have prosecuted, as their retainers command.
  • The police also defaulted after the violent assault when 'the targeted serf' sustained injuries caused by the First Plaintiff, following the attempt by the First and Second Defendant to create a fraudulent insurance claim for alleged water leaks, as covered in The Summons*, pleaded by the targeted and intended victims of organised crime. [*Link from here to the explicit affidavit exposing it all]
  • Blunt criminal activities which the Metropolitan Police through reckless defaults in the execution of their public duties endorse and promote, as they work in tandem with recognised and reported criminals. [*Link from here to the element which all fraudsters club recruits charlatans ignored and failed to address just like the page where we expose the facilities they all fell in love with]
  • The most corrupt police force in the United Kingdom, Mr G H Scriven deposed in his affidavit. [*Link from here to the ploy used to present to the naive and gullible 'reasons and grounds for the silence of a convert and recruit to the system as is].
  • The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry brought much out into the open.
  • What of the instance when C.I. John Stalker was removed from the shoot to kill inquiry?
  • What of the FORGERIES BY THE POLICE and WHY was Chief Inspector  L.P. Harris removed from the investigation* as soon as he committed himself to a full investigation, Sir Paul Condom ? [*Link from here to the page where we released an explicit letter from C.I Harris, who WAS to proceed to a full investigation related to attempts intended to obstruct & eliminate Andrew Yiannides care of the Eve in his life].
  • Figments of imagination Sir Paul Condon, Sir John Stephens, Sir Ian Blair ?
Shoot to kill policy & Stalker Investigation... the Lawrence MURDER & police inexcusable defaults... POLICE FALSE RECORDS & CI Harris' commitment relegated to the trash cans by the great Met.. metamorphosis of the law as read by abusers of trust and public offfice... FORGERIES by Haringey Council for theft of rents owing to the targeted & the usual police defaults... LAW & ORDER PRINCIPLES ???
The citizens of this great nation and HISTORY cannot possibly ignore the decision by Strasbourg about the very 'shoot to kill' policy which policy C.I. John Stalker was obstructed to deal with, honourably.
  • The European Court of Human Rights, years later, discredited us, as a state, for the shoot first and ask questions later policy'. 
  • Where be Human Rights, values and the citizens aspirations, while corrupted policing and law enforcement policies endorse and even instigate crime that rules supreme in our allegedly civilised society?
  • Come on, treat not the citizens of this great nation as morons of the lowest denomination, in the mould of the promoters of the society of their own choosing; the society of their making as the architects and builders of it.
  • Access and read carefully "The Background to it all"*; the question WAS and remains simple.
  • "Why should the ordinary citizen act any different?". [*Access from here the explicit words of Isocrates from his work 'Aeropagiticos']
The fish begins to rot in the head, it is said, Sir.
While investigations, by the Yard*, were ongoing (1998-1999) we remarked: -
  • 'It is time to consider how low and how far reaching such bad influences from above and from within the bastions of our alleged Law and Order bodies.
  • The damage and the effect on the DISILLUSIONED ordinary citizens, cannot possibly be ignored, as our founder pointed out as long ago as 1972 and we quote in the 'Background to it all' page*. [*Link from here to the page]
  • Fail not Sir, to observe that we dedicate this web-site to the young woman caused to take her own life because of the greed of the cruel man your subordinates worked for and with, for their very own personal reasons, while electing to ignore the facts, the evidence and 'The LAW.
  • The very words of the departed young woman evincing why and what for.

Reproduced below the Dimbleby Lecture as delivered by Sir Robert Mark, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, on 6th November 1973. The public delivery, well over a year after the FORGERY created and promoted by the legal circles at the Royal Courts of Justice, HAD BEEN REFERRED TO HIM. We refer to THE FORGERY the legal circles introduced and PROMOTED, AS LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE, TWO YEARS AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS resting and founded on commercial fraud. We refer to the case that OPENED Andrew Yiannides' eyes to the realities of life in the United Kingdom. Needless to say the Commissioner himself, FAILED TO ACT and thus he was noted to be negating in the execution  of his public duties IN CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT'S LAW, just as all of his subordinates had done before him, commanding of the victim to refer the FORGERY to him personally. 

The Listener
Thursday 8 November 1973

Volume 90 No 2328 9p

Crime: Sir Robert Mark. Criminology:

Stan Cohen 613, 622

Two modern wars: Martin Bell and Neal Ascherson

618, 620

Mailer: seen by Richard Poirier, Phillip Whitehead

626 636

Auden’s last interview. J. W. Burrow: Tolkien lives?

629~ 634

Ronald Bryden reflects on a children’s novel about sex


Sir Robert Mark gives this year's Dimbleby Lecture

Some of you may think it rather odd that a policeman should be chosen to give a lecture in memory of a television broadcaster. No two jobs could be further apart. Richard Dimbleby excelled at giving facts and opinions to the public. Whatever achievements policemen can claim,, the ability to communicate is certainly not one of them. We share with another more famous service tradition of silence. Perhaps in our case this arises from agreeing with the Book of Proverbs that even a fool when he holdeth his peace is counted as wise. But I don’t think that our silence has been altogether a good thing. People are very interested in sin and crime, and this curiosity is continually satisfied by the journalist, the crime novelist, the film and television producer. Most of them are understandably more concerned to entertain than to enlighten, but it is largely from them that you get your ideas about the Police.

Most people rarely have anything to do with the Police. Most of you don’t break the law – at least not in ways likely to attract our attention. Even in London, the chances of first-hand contact are not high. Of London’s eight million citizens, we last year arrested about 148,000, counting everyone, teenagers, children who were never prosecuted, offenders of all kinds from serious criminals to drunks. That’s only about seven or eight arrests in the year for every member of the Force –a figure that might be surprising to some of you. Those who come to us as victims, their homes burgled or their cars stolen, are also comparatively few. The result is that most of you have impressions on the Police vaguely fashioned by crime stories, by Dixon or Barlow, and the chances are that these impressions will be pretty far from the truth.

There can be no doubt about the importance of the Police. In theory your safety and liberty depend upon the laws and the Constitution, but in practice the decisions of Parliament and the courts would count for very little if the Police were not there to enforce them. Some people think that this makes us a powerful body. ‘Power’ is an emotive word, particularly in relation to the Police. It suggests a right to punish at will, free from effective control. In fact, of course, we have no such power. Our development has always been conditioned by two conflicting needs: one, to maintain order and protect people: the other, to ensure that we ourselves so not act unreasonably or oppressively. For this reason the Police have always remained few in number and answerable to the general law. WEE have no special immunities. A policeman who breaks the law is prosecuted and punished just like anyone else. The only power we posses is the power to inconvenience by bringing people before the courts and even then we are at risk if we use that power improperly or unfairly. The fact the British Police are answerable to the law, that w act on behalf of the community and not under a mantle of government, makes us the least powerful, the most accountable and therefore the most acceptable Police in the world.

It is true to say that a policeman discharges responsibilities than that he exercises powers. He is only an ordinary member of the community who has undertaken certain duties on behalf of his fellow citizens. These responsibilities have grown wider and more complicated. When most people were humble, ignorant and poor, it was comparatively easy to do our job without effective criticism. Authority as such was respected. But society today is better equipped to question political motives and decisions, and dissent is now a vehicle of social change. But of course, this new freedom is bound to create stra8ins within the community.

The problem is aggravated by other factors. We are an insular and conservative people, asked in one generation to become a tolerant multicultural society. Inequality of opportunity in jobs and housing doesn’t make the change any easier. So the maintenance of order, particularly in the great cities, is now one of our most important duties. It differs significantly from maintaining order in an earlier age. Dissent nowadays originates not so much from the slums as from highly educated radicals and organised labour. It enjoys wide public support and is viewed by the courts at all levels with tolerance that would have astonished their forbears. The brief imprisonment of five London Dockers last year is a far cry from the Tolpuddle martyrs. This doesn’t mean that there is support for the extremist. The terrorist or the urban guerrilla, though eminently newsworthy, is a nuisance rather than a threat to society. He may injure or kill, he may destroy property, but his activities are certain to alienate the community from his cause.

Of all the problems with which the Police have to contend, undoubtedly the most continuous id the prevention and investigation of crime. But you must remember that this is only one part of our system of criminal justice. You should think of it as having four successive stages. First comes the enactment by Parliament of the criminal laws. Secondly, the task of the Police to enforce them. The third stage is the criminal trial, where the question of guilt is decided. Finally, there is the question of what to do with the guilty. Each of these four stages has usually been considered in isolation. Each tends to be the province of a different group of people. Politicians make the laws, police enforce them, lawyers run the trials, and the prison or probation service deals with convicted offenders. None of these groups is obliged to give much thought to the problems of the others or to consider the working of the system as a whole.

This is unfortunate because the different parts of the system are intimately connected. It’s no good Parliament passing laws if the Police can’t enforce them. There’s no point in catching criminals if the system of trial is so ineffective that it lest them go free. Savage punishments serve no purpose if very few offenders are actually caught and punished. Equally, Parliament and the Police are wasting their time if penalties are so small that it pays people to on offending. Put like that, you may think these points self-evident, but in practice people often fail to make the necessary connection. That is why I’m going to have quite a lot to say (and I ought to make it clear that I am saying it on my own responsibility) about aspects of justice which you may think are strictly not the business of the Police: the criminal law, the system of trial and the question of punishment. These things all affect our work to an extent which is not sufficiently realised.

Take for example the criminal law. Our attempts to enforce some laws are bound to be regarded by some people without enthusiasm or even with downright hostility. In fact, the only crimes we can tackle knowing that we shall have your full support are those which provoke a sense of public outrage. Murder in the course of theft or rape, violence against women, children or old people, robbery, are obvious examples. But these are few in number: only about 3 or 4 per cent of crime. By contrast, trying to enforce controversial laws, like those about illegal immigration or trade disputes, provides reactions ranging from pained criticism to physical resistance. Those who oppose new laws don’t abandon their opposition when the laws reach the statute book: they redirect it against the Police. However illogical or unfair, we must accept this as a fact of life. People often feel so strongly about the issues which provoke demonstrations or strikes that they find it difficult to see why they shouldn’t give forcible expression to their views. But the use of force in these situations is a serious threat to our democracy. WE cannot allow some people to use or condone violence which denies freedom to others. Free speech and the right to work are among the rights guaranteed by the law, and it’s the duty of the Police to uphold them. We often find this task extremely difficult. It calls for tact, firmness, tolerance and self-control to an extent not always appreciated. You may remember that the summer of last year we had some lively demonstrations by London dockers. As a result we were accused by the right wing of being weak, vacillating and indecisive, and by the left of being unreasonable, arbitrary and brutal. Perhaps that means we got it about right. At any rate, there were no significant casualties –except perhaps the truth.

It’s almost as difficult to deal with offences which people, for one reason or another, don’t feel strongly about or don’t think of as morally wrong. Motoring offences are the best example, but the same thing can be said of crimes like evading tax or fiddling expenses, which are difficult to detect, so that those who are caught look as if they have been unfairly singled out for punishment. We tend to be criticised both for enforcing laws and for failing to enforce them. People sometimes expect results, which the state of the law and public opinion simply will not allow.

A good example of this is the recent campaign about pornography. The Metropolitan police were accused, unsuccessfully, of failing to exercise their powers to enforce the laws against pornography. It was said that we could clean up Soho in a few days if only we were willing to do so, and despite the pressure of business in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, priority was given to deciding the issues involved. The truth is that pornography is very difficult to control. The point at which it becomes unlawful is almost impossible to define, so that contested prosecutions are rather like a game of chance. There is no power of arrest and cases take a long time to come on – at present, several months in the lower court and a year in the higher. Hard-core pornography remains available at particular premises despite police action. One address in Soho has been raided no less than 35 times in the past 12 months, the occupant no doubt having decided that the profits outweigh the risks. Prosecutions can be lengthy and expensive, and even if successful the penalties are usually no more than a light tax on an extremely profitable trade.

Don’t think that I am criticising the lightness of these fines. They are mostly determined by the maximum penalties open to the courts. We are short of men and even if we weren’t, we must have some scale of priorities. If the rate of convictions and the penalties are any indications of how seriously the community regards obscene publications, it’s hardly sensible to expect of us to put hundreds of men onto cleaning up Soho. They would only increase the backlog of cases awaiting trial. There have even been suggestions that pornographers buy immunity by corrupting the Police. This would be a most unbusinesslike thing to do. It’s far cheaper to pay fines than to incur the expense and risk of trying to bribe a policemen.

Our experience with pornography shows that some activities, even if most people think them undesirable or offensive, cannot in practice, be stopped. The most one can hope for is to regulate the way in which they are carried on. Gambling, brothel-keeping, unconventional sexual practices are all in this category. There is no certainty that very severe penalties would suppress them. The demand will always be there. A more likely effect is that they would be driven underground, raising the cost to the consumer and the profit to those willing to take the risks. The incentive to oppose or corrupt the police would be greatly increased. Prohibition in the United States, which created a climate in which gangsters could thrive, is the classic example of a self-defeating attempt to eradicate the ineradicable.

What is needed is to find the right balance, to achieve a degree of control acceptable to the public and, at the same time, enforceable in practice. Those who frame new laws sometimes give insufficient weight to the difficulties of enforcement. They devote much care and time to debating the moral implications, but assume, often quite wrongly, that people can be made to obey them. Once enacted some laws are dumped like unwanted babies on the back door of the police station with little or no inquiry as to their eventual health. Some of them are found to be stillborn and others are dying for lack of teeth. Public criticism of their ineffectiveness is usually directed at the Police rather than at difficulties over which they have no control, such as the process of trial.

What about our system of trial? In particular, the trial by jury of serious offenders. I suppose that most of you believe that our system of trial is the best in the world. If it doesn’t quite attain perfection, it’s only because of the fallible human beings who celebrate the sacred rites in the temple of justice. I use these rather heavy religious metaphors because the public’s confidence in our present system of trial by jury is essentially a matter of faith. It is based on practically no evidence whatever. No one has ever thought it necessary to make a full practical and impartial investigation of how the system works. Indeed, in the present state of the law no such investigation is possible.

Take, for example, the jury, the very heart of the criminal trial. There is very little reliable information about how and why juries arrive at their verdicts, because no one is allowed to listen to the discussions in the Jury Room. Lawyers obviously believe that public confidence in the jury would be undermined if this were allowed to happen. I find that curious. If exposing the truth about the jury would destroy the public’s belief in its value, then surely it’s high time that belief was destroyed. I cannot think of any other social institution which is protected from rational inquiry because investigation might show that it wasn’t doing its job.

Let me make it clear that I’m not making an attack on trial by jury. What I’m complaining about is the atmosphere of sacred mystery which always obscures any discussion of the jury. Of course, I have my private views about juries, based on my own experience. For example, I think that it’s very important to retain juries in offences against the state, like trials under the Official Secrets Act. On the other hand, I find it difficult to imagine a more inefficient way of trying a complicated fraud case. But these are my own views, and I don’t claim they are more scientific than those of other people, who may think differently. The fact is that no one has the evidence upon which it would be possible to make a fair assessment. What I would like to see is a careful study to provide us with the material with which we could we could evaluate trial by jury. And I would like to see the study cover the whole system or criminal justice.

What we do know about trials in higher courts doesn’t justify any complacency. Indeed there is one fact I cam mention which should be enough in itself to demand some kind of inquiry. This is the rate of acquittals. Of all the people in England and Wales who plead not guilty and are tried by jury, about half are acquitted. You may perhaps say to yourselves: ‘Well, why nor? Perhaps they really were innocent. How do the Police know that they are guilty? But things are no quite so simple. For one thing the English criminal trial never decides whether the accused is innocent. The only question is whether, in accordance with the rules of evidence the prosecution has proved that he is guilty. –and this is not the same thing. There may be all kinds of reasons why the jury do not think that the prosecution has proved guilt. They may think that he probably did it but that the defence has raised some reasonable doubt. Or sometimes a piece of evidence which would have put the matter beyond doubt is not available, or is excluded by the rules of evidence. Occasionally they are just taken in by a false but plausible story, or by an exceptionally persuasive advocate. You must not, therefore, think that anyone who is acquitted must have been innocent. There are many other possible explanations. But one thing is certain. Every acquittal is a case in which either a guilty man has been allowed to got free or an innocent citizen has been put to the trouble and expense of defending himself.

There must be some rate of failure. We can’t always expect to convict the guilty or never to prosecute the innocent, But, in my opinion, a failure rate of on in two is far too high. In the absence of any reliable research, no one can say with any certainty why the acquittal rate is do high. A fairly high number of acquittals are undoubtedly by direction of the judges, as soon as they’ve heard the prosecution case. Since 1967, cases are no longer sifted effectively by a magistrate, and the higher courts are cluttered up with cases which should never have got there at all. This probably accounts for what seem to be an increase since 1966 from 39 per cent to about 50 per cent in acquittals,. And tends to obscure the problem I’m discussing.

My own view is, nevertheless, that the proportion of those whom experienced police officers believe to be guilty is too high to be acceptable. That opinion is admittedly not universal. Many people, particularly lawyers, would disagree. When Sir Elwyn Jones, the former Attorney General, was once asked why the acquittal rate in some Welsh counties was as high s 90 per cent, he said: ‘Well, ladies and gentlemen, Welsh juries are generally in favour of justice, but they’re not bigoted about it.’ I wouldn’t deny that sometimes common sense and humanity an acquittal which could not be justified in law, but this kind of case is much rarer than you might suppose. Much more frequent are the cases in which the defects and uncertainties in the system are ruthlessly exploited by the knowledgeable criminal and his advisers.

Forensic Brilliance
The object of a trial is to decide whether the prosecution has proven guilt. It is, of course, right that in a serious criminal case the burden of proof should be upon the prosecution. But in trying to discharge that burden, the prosecution has to act within a complicated framework of rules which were designed to give every advantage to the defence. The prosecution has to give the defence advance notice of the whole of its case, but the accused, unless he wants to raise an alibi, can keep his a secret until the actual trial. When the Police interrogate a suspect or charge him, they have to keep reminding him that he need not say anything, If he has a criminal record, the jury are not ordinarily allowed to know about it. Most of these rules are very old. They date from a time when, incredible as it may seem, an accused person was not allowed to give evidence in his own defence, when most accused were ignorant and illiterate. There was no legal aid, and, perhaps most important, if someone was convicted he would most likely be hanged or transported. Under these conditions it’s not surprising that the judges who made the rules were concerned to give the accused every possible protection. But it is, to say the least, arguable that the same rules are not suited to the trial of an experienced criminal, using skilled legal assistance, in the 20th century.

The criminal and his lawyers take every advantage of these technical rules. Every effort is made to find some procedural mistake which will allow the wrongdoer to slip through the net. If the prosecution evidence is strong, the defence frequently resorts to attacks on prosecution witnesses, particularly if they are policemen. They will be accused, as a matter of routine, of perjury, planting evidence, intimidation or violence. What other defence is there, when someone is found in possession of drugs, explosives or firearms, than to say they were planted? Lies of this kind are a normal form of defence, but they are sure to be given extensive publicity. In many criminal trials, the deciding factor is not the actual evidence but the contest between a skilled advocate and a policeman or other witness under this kind of attack, which is often part of what Lord Devlin calls ‘the world of fantasy created by defence counsel at a loss for anything better to do on behalf of his client.’.

The advocate for the defence are, for the most part, only doing their job. They are there to get their client off. In a hopeless or unpopular case, this can be a distasteful task. To be a criminal lawyer needs professional knowledge, integrity and, when acting for the defence, moral courage. Whatever his personal feelings about the case, the lawyer must devote himself to the cause of his client with all the persuasion and skill at his command. At the same time, he owes a duty to the cause of justice and the ethics of the profession. He must not put forward a defence, which he knows to be false. It is not for a defence lawyer to judge his client’s case. However unlikely his story may sound, he is entitled to have it heard. But it’s a different matter for an advocate to say things, which he knows to be deliberate lies. To do this is not to take part in the administration of justice but to defeat it. Most lawyers observe very high standards. They manage to serve both their clients’ and the public interest honourably and well. So much so that most of them tend to be frankly incredulous when it is suggested that there are some other lawyers who do not. The kind of behaviour I have in mind is often easy for the Police to recognise but almost impossible to prove.

We see the same lawyers producing, off the peg, the same kind of defence for different clients. Prosecution witnesses suddenly and inexcusably change their minds. Defences are concocted far beyond the intellectual capacity of the accused, False alibis are put forward. Extraneous issues damaging to police credibility are introduced. All these are part of the stock-in-trade of a small minority of criminal lawyers. The truth is that some trials of deliberate crimes for profit –robbery, burglary and so on- involve a sordid, bitter struggle of wits and tactics between the detective and the lawyer. Public accusations of misconduct, however, have always been one-sided, with the result that doubts about the criminal trial most centre upon police conduct, as if the Police alone had a motive for improper behaviour. Let there be no doubt that a minority of criminal lawyers do very well from the proceeds of crime. A reputation for success, achieved by persistent lack of scruple in the defence of the most disreputable, soon attracts other clients who see little hope of acquittal in any other way. Respected Metropolitan detectives can identify lawyers in criminal practice who are more harmful to society than the clients they represent.

A conviction said to result from perjury or wrongdoing by police rightly causes a public outcry. Acquittal, no matter how blatantly perverse, never does, even if brought about by highly-paid forensic trickery. Of course, I speak in general terms. I would like to be more specific, for obvious reasons I can’t be. I’m conscious, too, that people who make general accusations can be said to be willing to wound and yet be afraid to strike. This doesn’t mean that such general accusations ought not sometimes to be made. They are often made against the Police, no doubt for similar reasons, nor are they always without substance.

I ought perhaps to give you two examples to illustrate what I mean. The first is a form of questioning to smear a member of the Flying Squad of unblemished character giving evidence in a strong case. ‘Are you a member of the Flying Squad? And is it not a fact that four or more members of that Squad are presently suspended on suspicion of corruption?’ Before the judge can intervene, the damage is done. The jury is influenced by the smear in direct contravention of the principles governing the criminal trial. That kind of theme is played extensively and with infinite variations.

The second example is what Conan Doyle would have called ‘The Curious Case of the Bingo Register’. This was a case in which a hardened criminal burgled a flat and wounded one of the elderly occupants very badly. He was identified and arrested: he denied the offences and was remanded to prison. A month after committal for trial, his solicitor disclosed an alibi defence which suggested that he was playing bingo at a club on the night of the offence and had signed the visitors book. Inquiry showed that the prisoner had actually signed the book at the foot of the relevant page, but that, unfortunately for him, the two preceding and the two following signatures were those of people with different surnames who had visited the club in one group and signed the book together. The signature could only have been entered later, therefore, and it would seem, must have been written in prison. The prosecution notified the defence of their findings. Defence counsel thereupon withdraw from the case, as indeed did the instructing solicitor. The prisoner, on the advise of his new solicitor and counsel, pleaded guilty and the matter rested there. It was not, of course, possible to prove who had take the visitors’ book to prison although the prison authorities pointed out drily that only a visit by a lawyer or his clerk would be unsupervised and such visits had occurred. This was , in fact, a painstaking attempt to establish a false alibi for a dangerous persistent criminal. The police looked upon the case as remarkable only in that they were able to prove the falsity of the alibi.

Because of its technicality and its uncertainty, the criminal trial has come to be regarded as a game of skill and chances in which the rules are binding on one side only. It is hardly surprising that a policeman’s belief in its fairness should decline as he gathers experiences, or that he should be tempted to depart from the rules. The detective is the person most affected because it is he who regularly bears the brunt of the trial process. In theory, he’s devoted only to the cause of justice. He likes to think of himself as having no personal interest in acquittal, or sentence, and that his career is not affected by the outcome of his cases. In practice this is a gross oversimplification. Most detectives have a strong sense of commitment. It would be unnatural if they did not feel personally involved in some of their cases, and it would be untrue to suggest that they are not sometimes outraged by the results. All are under occasional temptation to bend the rules to convict those whom they believe to be guilty, if only because convention has always inhibited them from saying how badly they think those rules work. A few may sometimes be tempted also to exploit the system for personal gain. A detective who finds general acceptance of a system which protects the wrongdoer can come to think that if crime seems to pay for everyone else why not for him? The next step may be to demand money for not opposing bail, for not preferring charges, for omitting serious charges for a share in the stolen property, and so on. Not many, even of those who regard the system with cynical disillusion, give way to that kind of temptation, but it’s no help to pretend that it doesn’t happen. As a policeman, I believe in the virtue of confession for ourselves no less than for our customers. In the past we have paid heavily and unnecessarily in loss of public confidence for trying to conceal or minimise the wrongdoing of a very few. I think it absolutely essential to expose it and deal with it ruthlessly. Even a little corruption of that kind does untold damage to the reputation of a service which little deserves it.

Complaints against the Police
A few of you may have heard of the new A10 Branch that we in the Metropolitan Police have created to deal with complaints against policemen. I think that most people who have had any dealings with A10 will agree that it has demonstrated beyond any doubt our willingness and ability to deal swiftly and effectively with our own wrongdoers. Well over a hundred officers have left the Force, voluntarily or otherwise, since the change of system for investigating complaints. We realise, however, that that the procedure has one major drawback, It looks like a judgement of policemen by other policemen. So long as this remains the case, some of you may understandably, be sceptical. No one likes to accept the verdict of a person thought to be a judge in his own cause. That is why the Home Office are trying to devise a system of outside review of such investigations which will have everyone’s confidence. It isn’t easy, but the sooner that this obstacle to public confidence can be overcome, the better –for the Police more than anyone else. I think that an independent review will do much to dispel such distrust as remains. False accusation against the Police in court are all the more effective when juries know that similar accusations have sometimes been shown to be true. It is sad but understandable that opposition to some of the recent proposals for reforming the system of trial has been based less on evidence or logic than upon distrust of the Police.

But when you consider the arguments put forward in defence of the present rules of trial, it is important for you to appreciate that there may be vested interests in their continuance. The practice of criminal law, either by solicitors or a barrister, is not a public service. It is done for money. The more subtle the rules and doubtful the outcome, the more opportunity to for the advocate to show his skill on either side. On the other hand, if the criminal trial were less of a game, lawyers would not be able to have so much effect on the verdict. I can’t help thinking that that would be a good thing. It is wrong that a man should need an expensive lawyer to establish his innocence. Nor should skilful lawyers be able to secure the acquittal of the guilty.

Consider the implications of the famous BBC Television Face to Face interview between Mr John Freeman and the late Lord Birkett. Freeman asked:
Do you happen to remember how many successful murder defences you undertook in your career at the Bar?
If it doesn’t sound immodest, it’s easier to remember those in which I failed.
Well how many did you fail in?
Well, three, I think.
Out of many dozens?
Out of many dozens, yes.
Now I want to ask you: did you yourself always believe in the innocence of your clients when you defended them?
To be quite frank, no.
Would you think it was your duty as counsel to use every possible trick within the law to get a man acquitted?
Well I don’t like the word ‘trick’. I would be against tricks of all kinds. But I think if you would alter the question to saying, ‘Do you regard it as your duty to do everything in your power, within the rules, to get him acquitted?’ I would say yes.
Have you ever got a man acquitted, or a woman acquitted, on a murder charge whom you believed in your heart to be guilty?
Any regrets about that?

Those of you who are unfamiliar with the process of criminal justice may now find it easier to understand Dr Johnson’s comment that the lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes. You may also find it easier to understand that when lawyers and policemen speak of justice they are not necessarily speaking of the same thing. The lawyer is often speaking of fair play according to the rules. The policeman is speaking of the establishment of the truth, with which the system of criminal justice is not necessarily concerned. This at least can be said: those police officers who are closely concerned with our present system of investigation and trial do not share the complacency with which it is viewed by lawyers generally.

Many people think that the answer to crime is to punish more severely, but I doubt whether this is often true. Failure to deal with deliberate crime doesn’t have much to do with the penalties being inadequate. The real causes lie in the inefficiency of the earlier stages of the process –the stages of investigation and trial. I don’t think that professional criminals carry on their trade because they take a light view of the punishments which the law may inflict. It is rather because they think that they have an excellent chance of escaping punishment altogether. There’s a fair amount of evidence to encourage them in this belief. Some of the most notorious post-war criminals have had the better of many encounters with the law, chalking up several acquittals before the final downfall. Of course, I’m not saying that punishments do not matter. There’s no point in convicting people if you then put them on the back and let them go. But I do think that our present scale of punishments would, in most cases, be perfectly adequate if only we could improve the rates of detection and of conviction.

Demands for heavier punishment s seem to me to reflect frustration at our apparent inability to check the growth of crime, particularly those crimes involving violence. But they always stop short of emotional appeal and blind belief. Few people seem aware, for example, that a high proportion of crimes or violence are cleared up because the identity of many of the wrongdoers is known at the outset and because the Police, understandably, give a high priority to the remainder. The overall picture of crime is not at all what you might suppose from newspapers and television. The most troublesome aspect has been the increase in crimes of violence motivated by theft, which now shows signs of diminishing or at least levelling out, and the extent to which young people indulge in violence often without rational motive. But the remainder of e picture ought not to be distorted by emotion. It has, in fact, a number of encouraging features.

There is no crisis in law and order, whatever people may say. We are still a generally law-abiding nation. Our criminal law now values life more highly than property. Since the war it has been adapted to current attitudes and standards to a quite remarkable extent. Betting, gaming, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion present few serious problems to the Police as compared with the aura or corruption, distrust and resentment generated by some of those activities in the Thirties. We continue to look on the private possession of fire-arms as vaguely anti-social and their use by criminals as outrageous. The Police themselves object to being armed, other than for exceptional and dangerous tasks. We are free from political interference in operational matters. Our non-elective judges are similarly free from political interference and rightly enjoy a world-wide reputation for integrity and impartiality. The effect of crime on the individual who experiences it, though unpleasant, has never been more widely offset, either by private insurance or the welfare state. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board last year paid more than 3 £3 million to the criminally assaulted. There is nothing in our present situation to justify hasty or extreme change, notwithstanding the emotion aroused by reports of particular crimes like mugging and bombing. That some change is necessary is, I think, beyond doubt, but it should reflect consideration of system as a whole, and it should aim at increased effectiveness rather than more severe punishment.

The more effective the law in establishing the truth, or if you like, responsibility, the less people will want to hit out with drastic penalties. There are, I think, two needs. The first, obvious and not controversial, is an increase in Police manpower, in London in particular. The second, highly controversial, is a change in both investigation and trial to make the discovery of the truth more likely. That might be achieved by relating the credibility of the accused person, at least to some extent, to his spontaneity rather than to that period of reflection and consultation between arrest and trial which has produced some of the most ingenious, predictable and profitable fiction of our time.

Unwillingness to make the law more effective will inevitably provoke demands for harsher punishments and will increase the pressure on the Police to use more arbitrary methods. You can already see this in the United States, where a society of great wealth and outstanding achievement is marred by a system is marred by a system of justice notorious for ineffectuality, corruption and violence. A land of opportunity indeed – not least for the criminal, the lawyer and the gunsmith. If we in Great Britain are to police by consent, rather than by the paramilitary system they have in the United States and many other countries, we must avoid a drift to alienation of police and people. Our system of justice must be respected by the people for being effective without being unjust, and maintained by a police force that is efficient without being repressive.

Some people cling to a curious, old fashioned belief that there is something vaguely improper in a policemen talking about the law the courts and lawyers. No doubt the General Staff felt the same way about the infantryman on Somme. But, as Lord Devlin said, ‘the Police have a right to demand that the path they must tread should clearly be clearly designed to lead to a just result for the community for whom they act, as well as for the accused.’ You simply cannot ask men to do one of the more difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs of our time, and expect them not to reason why. Or if you do, you will be unlikely to attract and retain the kind of men you want. The policeman knows as much about crime and investigation as anyone. Of course his view should not necessarily prevail. But it should be heard. It may be the verdict of a minority, but our system of justice is too important to be left to any to any one section of society, lawyers or police. It should be the concern of all.

The Dimbleby Lecture, entitled ‘Minority Verdict’, was broadcast on BBC1 on 6 November.

Most vile and offensive, over the past FIFTY YEARS, was the manner with which the police at Hornsey police station  (North London - Haringey Division) treated Mr Andrew Yiannides over a two month period during the time of the ongoing threat to life, the reported contract on the life of the First Plaintiff. BUT WHY SHOULD THE POLICE CARE, they are there for fan and games; to scorn and laugh at the victims of crime; they are there to serve other ulterior plans and objectives for the society they are meant to serve; they are busy creating THEIR OWN and not Parliament's intended society, at least, as far as 'the serfs' are told by politicians. Also as the serfs are  informed when reading the outpourings sold by hypocrites who operate out of the media beehives of false  . TORMENT AND TORTURE is their game; for them, too, the 1988 Criminal Justice Act*, was/is printed in invisible ink, just as it was for all who were involved in the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.  They are not alone because persons they rely upon to absolve them of any wrongdoing are no different.  In "The Downing Street Years"* copyright law existed not and fair comment was called for. The editor of the Sunday Times, at the time, declared the Court of Appeal ruling, "This is a thieves' charter".  Our fair comment was more to the point WHY AND WHAT FOR, such contempt for Parliament's Laws. The Law IGNORED by judicial chair occupants who then purport to enter into judicious rulings, such as IGNORING forgeries, ignoring the Law, and ignoring the purpose of the Forgeries in order that there be no end to the CRIME CHAINS they endorse and even instigate through gross abuse and Misconduct in Public Office and life. Law and ORDER?

We publish below a report in 'The Times' it relates to deaths of persons in police custody.... Respect for life?  In due course full particulars of how an attempt on the life of our founder (one of two instigated and embarked upon by persons in public office).  It was embarked upon by the Metropolitan Police using the Eve in his life and in the process two innocent children suffered; part of their suffering is covered in our pages on the Police Complaints Authority* and the part it plays in the promotion of the society of their choosing.  Vile activities from within the Law Enforcement Agencies and the legal professions, in contempt of Parliament's Law and all moral teachings. The PCA ignoring forgeries by the contemptible criminals employed by the Metropolitan Police, endorsing the 'dismissal of C.I. Harris after committing himself to a full investigation.*  The PCA even endorsing the suppression of documents lodged and filed with a Government Department; an indictable offence,  Sir Paul, under 'The LAW'  published on these web site. It is one thing to 'act' incompetently and or recklessly, and it is another to INDULGE in blatant CRIME, such as Summonsing the victim of CRIMES in pursuit of the usual fraudulent income generating theatrical productions. Or as the case was in "The Police Summons the Victim"-case* the attempted theatre. Justify if you can the organised denials of rights from within the 'legal/judicial/police Mafia that has been  operating freely in the United Kingdom. Remember the fraudsters at the Magistrates Court failed to award any costs to the victim. Simply because citizens in the United had and have no rights; however,  the thieves of the citizen's rights merit reward in our corrupt 'courts' no matter what; Mr Scriven qualifies in his Affidavit and Statement of Truth and facts. Any citizen can work out how much it would have cost the victim citizen IF HE retained members of the self perpetuating cancerous growth industry© (legal boffins) to represent him and to save him from the 'clutches of the CRIMINALS and the activities of all from within the Metropolitan Police and the Magistrates Court (plenty of ACTS and OMISSIONS; refer to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for clarification and statutory provisions our LEA's ignore).

CRIMES reported to the police ignored; the police follow up their defaults (whatever their chosen cause and reasons) by FALSE statements to third parties; secret documents and alleged police records proper by the criminals who indulge and maintain such attitudes. They used to rely on the promoters of the denials of rights (judicial chair occupants) and of their proclamations resting on presumed justified Public Interest Immunity Orders ('the public servants' and officials' "Criminal's Charter" ').   We and others challenged such obstacles and they were exposed for what such really were/are. Nothing but obstructions to rights and with intent INCOME GENERATING VEHICLES for the circles from within which the judicial chair occupants rise to public office. Misconduct in public office* through abuse of position and contempt of all principles of Law; national and international.  And members of the police asserting and promoting the very issues as  promoted by the Metropolitan Police,  'We can only deal with this IF YOUR solicitor contacts us'. (Read 'The Breeding Grounds-case'* and land on terra firma; it exposes the WHY AND WHAT FOR the existence in our society of the so called Law Enforcement Agencies).

Crime is not a private or civil matter. It is the duty of the police to investigate diligently and properly. Any dedicated to office and DUTY TO THE PUBLIC senior police officer ought not to have ignored the capabilities of the officers who elected to authorise and Summons the Victim of crime. The victim went to report a hit and run DRUNK DRIVER who drove away from the accident he caused with substantial damages to the victim. The police simply Summonsed the victim to court; the corrupt, the incompetent and or at the very least the lazy parasites the Metropolitan Police maintains at high cost to the public purse were seeking to create and generate work and income for their mates down the road. It was not one, it was not two, it was not three IT WAS / IS TOO MANY instances when the Metropolitan Police elected NOT TO ACT within the remit of their public duties. And yes IT WAS ONE TOO MANY by the abusers of public office; the experts at promoting and instigating CRIME in the Metropolis with the blessings of the other wing of the Law Enforcement Agencies, the occupants of judicial chairs who misconduct in public office and between them creating / building the societies of their own making, as followers of the teachings from the most vile of works ever published.

Link to and read the citizen's response and the comments, we publish, to a letter an illiterate civil servant* sent to the victim of all in 'The Breeding Grounds-case. That civil servant was/is retained in the Lord Chancellor's office simply to forward ad nauseam pronouncements exonerating CRIMINALLY MOTIVATED judicial chair occupants through and because of the much abused 'judicial chair holding' under the guise of alleged judicious rulings meriting 'independence' of other influences and or interference; fallacies and FORGERIES because of INTENT, if any police officer knows the Law. The abuses exposed through the farcical Pinochet theatrical presentations, the Lloyds names hearings and the 'undeclared interests of purported 'impartial and independent of other influences' judicial chair occupants expressly point to the facts of life within the Law Enforcement Agencies. CRIME IS CRIME and FRAUD is FRAUD.

  • The LAW is 'The LAW'.
  • Treat not the citizens and The Law with contempt.
  • The citizens are no longer serfs of the middle ages, nor are we still in the 'Yes Buana' empire days and era.
  • It is in the latter period that this nation build up the reputation of which our founder writes in "The Background to it all".
  • It is time to return to MORALS, honesty and 'The LAW'*.
  • Those who are meant to serve 'The LAW' must abandon CRIME themselves. 

The article below, from 'The Times' of Friday February 15 1980, very clear.

polcudea.jpg (96513 bytes)
Back to Police:
full investigation the undertaking by C.I Harris
  • Over the last 25 years more 'freedoms at and with the right to life (A2) and the citizens treated as disposable paper napkins'.
  • The article succinct and clear.
  • The capabilities and recklessly maligned activities of the police are clearly covered in 'The Police Summons the Victim" (PSV) & their parts in "The Breeding Grounds-case"* as evil as the states come.
  • In due course more particulars will be made available through these pages as to how the Metropolitan Police, those who failed the victim 'family of four', in the latter case, by design, used the Eve in the life of our founder in order to lead to an attempt on his life in the Steve Biko mould; police cell.
  • The attempt was one of two, the second attempt  was instigated by other, defaulting for years, public servants who nonetheless relied on others to precipitate the intended 'demise of their targeted victim'.
  • All because of the work and research through which to expose the relentlessly promoted fallacies.
  • Nothing but self promotion in respect of the Law Enforcement Agencies the members of which indulge in contempt of The LAW and the rights of the citizens in pursuit of other goals that between them they set their sights on without any mandate from the citizens.
  • The citizens, gave the strongest possible mandate to New Labour to proceed as it promised while in opposition in 1995.
THE POLICE exist in order to protect the public from crime and criminals, NOT TO MISUSE or ABUSE public office.
  • Mandate for the police includes investigating and bringing about the prosecuting of KNOWN / IDENTIFIED CRIMINALS ALSO from within their own midst.
  • ANYONE breaching ANY LAW of Parliament, whosoever the person be; from the lowest to the highest in the legal circles and services.
  • From the lowest to the highest 'judicial chair occupants', too. No one is above the law.
  • The mandate and remit under which the police should operate does not include setting up themselves as arbitrary rulers, on the crimes they ought to investigate for successful prosecutions.
  • None from among them should be seen to be acting as an obstacle / obstructers to justice, as indeed were the scenarios in "The Breeding Grounds-case"*, until the succinct and explicit Appeal was lodged at the county court*.
  • Providence it may have been that on the very day the 'Daily Mirror' carried the headlines "British Justice BLIND DEAF DUMB"* care of the corrupted system the operatives have been running for far too long.
  • One thing is  for certain, however,  the average citizen knows WHY AND WHAT FOR*. 
metcom0r.jpg (42989 bytes)

Visitors who accessed and read the promotions by Mr. G. Ebert in respect of a letter he received, [*link to details from here] from Charring Cross police station, should consider what the letter on the left clarifies. The promotions, for that was the net product of Mr Ebert's ranting, were challenged appropriately. [*Link from here to images of 'the promoted letter from the police by the alleged victim-challenger and images of the challenge to & the response from the Lord Chancellor's Department].

The letter on the left qualifies that responsible for the police is the Home Secretary and NOT the Lord Chancellor as Mr. G. Ebert was running around with the letter he was promoting years later (after the letter on the left was received by the founder of human-rights Mr. Andrew Yiannides.

Visitors, readers and researchers should access, from here, the letter to the Home Secretary in 1996. Also the letter form the Prime Minister's private office in November 1999 and Mr Yiannides' letter to the Prime Minister in December1999. All letters can be accessed in the Home Office page. There we also published an explicit letter to the Rt. Hon. Frank Field MP, ex Minister, it led to a very important article by the Home secretary, which realities alleged victim-challengers buried in the dark corners of their corrupted mindsets. Hence the reason why we have charlatans promoting rubbish and acting as subliminal indoctrination operatives & maintenance engineers of the system, as is.

Victims of Organised Crime through abuse of the Courts' facilities should *access, from here, the letter to the Home Secretary in 2002 

pacbatbr.jpg (127374 bytes)



pcaw00r.jpg (162121 bytes)
  • ALL persons we expose in our pages elected to ignore THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO REPORT (to 'the serfs' = taxpayers), THE ABUSERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE & PUBLIC FACILITIES when the media Baron's and the Intellectual Prostitutes* [*Link] thus establish their endorsement of the organised fraud through abuse of the courts facilities, we expose and point to in our exclusive page, linked to from here.
  • They all did so because of their love for the rampant fraud on the national budget (the uninformed taxpayers) as covered in the exclusive page, which page ONE & ALL SIMPLY IGNORED.
  • Not one ever bothered to address the issues we expose in the explicit page, despite the fact that we have been pointing all of our contacts, since May 1992, to it all.
  • Visitors, readers and researchers are urged / invited to access and read the letter which the Hon. Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, Mr. Norman Scarth sent to the founder of human-rights, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, reproduced in the page .org/4deceit.htm.
  • The author's statements, such as 'what for and why he sought additional assistance', spell out his parts as a lover of it all.
  • Common sense dictates, that he should have directed his request to his partners in deceptions aplenty, all of whom engage in fraudulent misrepresentations AND WILFULLY TO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSING, FROM THE TAXPAYERS, THE FACTS OF LIFE RELATIVE TO THE RAMPANT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES.
  • All the while one and all were / are engaging in the scenarios we cover in the exclusive page, which page the author and his partners in fraud aplenty, simply shoved in the dark corners of his/their perverted / corrupted mind(s). 
Link to:  Police Complaints Authority    Breeding Grounds - case Stephen Lawrence   CAMILA Project
Link to:  Affidavit/Statement of Facts  Justice Blind Deaf & Dumb   Police Summons Victim The Law
Link to:  Removal of Inspector Harris    Yard meant to Investigate  HomePage    Background
Link to:  Crown Prosecution Obstruct Justice
Link to:  Criminal Justice Act 1988 - TORMENT & TORTURE by officials / public servants


Back to HomePage

The creator of this website was inviting victims to access URrights & join him there with other victims to expose & challenge abusers of trust & public office until the providers of the facilities >ning.com< introduced new terms and conditions for the provision of the facilities. Access from here and read of the imposed states by the brains behind ning.com and consider only one element "WHY OBSTRUCT & HINDER THE DOWNLOAD of the existing material at URrights.ning.com >the intellectual properties of the creator of that presence on the Internet and those who joined him there? Read below of the unacceptable conduct and behaviour by the reckless abusers of trust, who set out to obstruct and blackmail the creator of URrights.ning

Persons who are genuinely concerned and object to the ways they were / are being treated by alleged servants of the publicand the law >in any PSEUDOdemocracy, or whatever states / conditions they are subjected to< by abusers of public facilities and public office >as we cover in our web-pages< should contact webmaster@human-rights.org for information relevant to the creation of similar facilities for INFOrmation on URrights, for facilities for URrights EUrope and for a NETwork of URrights activists.

  • APOLOGIES to friends and persons who could not access URrights following the recent changes by the providers of the facility (ning.com) Andrew Yiannides created and used the portal to create the presence on the Internet for the group of victims / challengers who joined with him to expose and challenge the arrogant and blunt abuse of public services in all allegedly civilised societies > PSEUDODEMOCRACIES <.

  • The changes related to the introduction of charges for the facilities, included the facility for ning.com to archive the material at URrights; also the facility to download the archived material to the creator's system (computer) while the creator and his group of friends considered which of the level of charges and service the group was to adopt.

  • HOWEVER the creator, Andrew Yiannides, WAS UNABLE TO DOWNLOAD THE ARCHIVED MATERIAL and all attempts to engage the providers and their staff in reasonable explanation as to WHY THE FAILURES TO CONNECT / DOWNLOAD from the ning.com servers THE ARCHIVED MATERIAL, were contemptuously ignored.

  • Emails to the Publicity, to the Promotion, to the Public Relations, also to the Chief Executive's Office merited no response whatsoever from anyone acting for ning.com

  • In the circumstances Andrew will appreciate any information related to the problems covered above. Andrew will also appreciate any information relative to exchanges with or email postings, from ning.com to existing members.

  • EXISTING URrights members, victims of the legal system, victims of solicitors and the courts should access the updated pages at .org/solicitors.htm and .org/solfraud.htm by using the links from the list below.

Below pages where we expose known lovers of it all, users and maintenance engineers of the system as is

.org/1999dfax.htm .org/1ofmany.htm .org/2lipstalk.htm .org/4deceit.htm .org/absolute.htm .org/abusers.htm
.org/account4.htm .org/actors.htm .org/actors2.htm .org/adoko.htm .org/bankers.htm .org/beware.htm
.org/blunket1.htm .org/chaldep1.htm .org/confraud.htm .org/contract.htm .org/convicti.htm .org/courts.htm
.org/corruptcourts.htm .org/crimesin.htm .org/dreamers.htm .org/evesused.htm .org/evilones.htm .org/famfraud.htm
.org/govolso.htm .org/guesswhy.htm .org/len.htm .org/mauricek.htm .org/media.htm .org/solfraud.htm
.org/solicitors.htm .org/someplan.htm .org/someploy.htm .org/thefacts.htm .org/theproof.htm .org/thenerve.htm
.org/twisted.htm .org/uaccount.htm .org/ukmm.htm .org/uwatchit.htm .org/watchit1.htm .org/yourtax.htm
  • Every single person we name and expose in the above pages elected to ignore THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO REPORT (to 'the serfs' = 'the taxpayers'), THE ABUSERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE & PUBLIC FACILITIES. All were/are relying on the Intellectual Prostitutes, from within the media, to keep it all in the family closet.
  • All, as typical twin-tongue hypocrites carry on complaining about the media for failing to report & for suppressing the facts and the realities they allegdely reported to the hard of hearing, to the otherwise committed angels blowing their silent trumpets for decades, all ready and gearing to welcome the expansion of the New World Order.
  • Of such parts the contributions from and failings of the persons we name and expose, AS IF THEIR OWN SILENCE, THEIR FAILURES  & THEIR BLUNT OBSTRUCTIONS to the work and other actions by the creator of this website, Andrew Yiannides, treated by one and all as if non-existent with the exception when the wily Norman Scarth, set off to abuse the trust he was allowed to benefit from, while his parts and questionable activities / performance were under scrutiny, specifically after HE FAILED to publish the full transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing HE WAS ALLOWED TO RECORD* [*Link from here to the food for thought page created by Andrew Yiannides, in the first instance].
  • Not one ever bothered to address the issues we expose in the explicit page, despite the fact that we have been pointing all of our contacts, since May 1992, to it all.
  • Visitors, readers and researchers are urged / invited to access and read the letter which the Hon. Secretary of the Litigants In Person Society, Mr. Norman Scarth sent to the founder of human-rights, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, reproduced in the page .org/4deceit.htm* [*L]
  • The author's statements, such as 'what for and why seek additional assistance', thereby spelling out his parts as a lover of it all.
  • Common sense dictates, that he should have directed his request to his partners in deceptions aplenty, one & all engaging in fraudulent misrepresentations AND NOTED TO HAVE, WILFULLY, BEEN SUPPRESSING, FROM THE TAXPAYERS, THE FACTS OF LIFE RELATIVE TO THE RAMPANT ABUSE OF THE COURTS FACILITIES as the failure of all to co-operate as covered and pointed to at:- [*L]. One and all fallen to the facilities for fraud aplenty on the taxpayers and the corruption of illiterates in law, the conditioned victims of the legal circles & courts who fall to the blackmail element attached to the REWARD for keeping the realities away from the taxpayers; just like the media and the Ministers responsible for the application of long existing law to the criminal activities we cover in our pages, do.
  • All the while one and all were / are engaging in the scenarios we cover in the exclusive page, which page the author of the letter which Mr Norman Scarth sent to Andrew Yiannides, afforded us the opportunity to address the issue of the contributions of his partners and affiliates in fraud aplenty on the taxpayers; despite the reminder one and all, named in the new page simply shoved it all in the dark corners of their devoid of grey matter skulls, their perverted / corrupted mind(s)

On Sunday morning, the 19th September 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the Liberal-Democrats in the course of the BBC TV politics programme, spoke of the coalition government's commitment to address the element of waste and fraud through the public services sector. We trust and hope that the elements we expose in our pages and the parts adopted by the conditioned victims of the legal circles, the persons who engage in PROMOTING & EXPANDING THE ONGOING CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ON THE TAXPAYERS, THROUGH ABUSE OF THE COURTS' FACILITIES, will be on the top of the list of government priorities.
Visitors, readers & researchers are urged to access the letters to Minister Frank Field [*L] after he had been directed by the Prime Minister to think/do the unthinkable.
Link also from here [*L] to the explicit letter to the Home Secretary in December 1998 with submissions arising out of the RAMPANT HOUSING BENEFIT FRAUD
On Tuesday 23rd November 2010, 'the Guardian' in its Comment & Debate page carried an article by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. In the evening of the same day the Deputy Prime Minister addressed a large audience at Kings place in respect of the government's changes on university students fees / loans.
Access from here the page where we reproduce an image of 'the Guardian' article & consider the simple fact that we, alone, have been asserting and proclaiming our objections to the theft of funds from the national budget leading to the ever-increasing annual deficit in the state's balance of payments.

ACCESS:  http://www.justice-uk.human-rights.org/ (For an important message at this Community-on-Line web-site) & thereafter,
Access also http://www.law.society.complaints.and.human-rights.org/ (Judge instigates Fraud On Tax Payers - he knows not the difference between 'imposed' & 'no undue influence'). APOLOGIES FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THIS WEBSITE.It appears that the beneficiary of the work, both for applications to the courts in the United Kingdom and the submissions to the European Court for Human Rights* [*Link from here to the Statement of Facts submitted to the ECoHR], arranged with the providers of the free web space to erase the Intellectual Property of Andrew Yiannides, the founder of the human-rights Community-on-Line, without any reference to the creator of the website and owner of the Intellectual Property!
鼯font> Copyright subsists on all material in our web-site, owned by the authors of same.
Visitors can refer to these pages in any non commercial activity, so long as attribution is given as to source. License to use, for commercial or other specific use of the material, shall have been secured in writing first, from the owners of any property and material from these pages. No material shall be reproduced in any form and by any means without prior agreement and or license in writing from the copyright owners. The Press are invited to contact us if they wish to publish material in the Public Interest, As We Do.
For any problems or questions regarding this web-site contact:  webmaster