Devon Patriot

Why is it that Only Indigenous White Folk are Charged, Tried and Convicted of Racism?

When was the last time you read in a newspaper details of a person from an ethnic minority being convicted of racism; yet virtually everyday we hear of indigenous Britons being given grossly excessive sentences for relatively trivial offences, merely because there was a perceived racial element to misdemeanour?  Have you noticed on the news that whenever an ethnic minority has been the victim of a crime, the police always announce that they are investigating the possibility of a racial motive!    

When a criminal offence has been committed do the police treat indigenous Britons more harshly than they do ethnic minorities?  Is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) more likely to charge a white indigenous Briton for a racially linked offence than an ethnic minority?   Do judges pass harsher sentences on indigenous Britons than for a similar offence committed by an ethnic immigrant?  To answer these questions a review of the activities of the police, CPS and judiciary over the past few decades needs to be undertaken to see if there are trends in their operational procedures that confirm our fears.

The Police

Up until the time of the Steven Laurence murder and the now discredited Macpherson Report, the police forces in the UK were run on professional lines with the integrity, fairness and honesty of their officers the keystones of their operations.  They were non-racist, as in those days racism and hate-crimes were not in their, or indeed any-ones vocabulary.  That doesn’t mean to say that they were all paragons of virtue; like all organizations there will always be the occasional rogue within their ranks.  In general people had confidence in the police forces, and there was mutual respect between the police and the public at large.  All this was to change with the publication of the Macpherson Report.

The report published in 1999 as a result of alleged police irregularities with regards to the Steven Laurence investigation came up with the following recommendation:

A Racist Incident is “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

What this meant is that any offence committed by an indigenous Briton against a person of foreign ethnicity would automatically be construed as a racist crime even if no such motive was apparent – a vindictive ethnic immigrant only had to invent a racist factor for it to be classed as a hate crime.  The affect of this ruling on policing within the UK has been catastrophic, with the changes in policing that included:

·          Reduced level of policing in areas with a high immigrant population.  Hence the creation of Islamic, or Negro, ghettos in inner-city areas where law and order has virtually broken down as they are now no-go areas so far as the police are concerned.  This, together with the prohibition of stop & search of immigrants, is the main reason for the failure to tackle gun and drug related crime; and until this policy is reversed these problems will only get worse.

·          The police apprehending an ethnic minority could themselves be subjected to malicious accusation of racial abuse; hence their reluctance to effectively police immigrant ghettos.   A malicious accusation of racial harassment by an ethnic could cost a police officer his career, so a confrontation with an immigrant would be avoided at any cost. 

·          More rigorous policing of the indigenous British community with respect to perceived hate-crimes.  If a white Briton committed a minor offence, which in most circumstances would only warrant a police caution, the chances of bringing criminal charges against this person would be greatly enhanced if the victim could be incited to incorporate a racial element into the minor misdemeanour.

As part of their training all police officers undergo a course of politically-correct indoctrination in Diversity Awareness and other topics that empower the immigrant yet discriminates against the indigenous Briton.  Most police officers must feel uneasy attending these hateful courses; but when their wages and pension are at stake - they just do as they are told.

In Padstow local people had for centuries celebrated Darkie Days, an event in which people black-up their faces and march through the town singing songs, and collecting money for charity.   It was part of Padstow’s heritage and had no connection what-so-ever with negroes or the slave trade – in fact its roots go back to the 1400s and the mummers.   

Darkie Days in Padstow

However, in spite of this being an ancient tradition of Padstow, the police chose to harass the marchers and spectators with accusations of promoting racial hatred, in that they blacked their faces in a manner that belittled people of African ancestry and sung songs that contained the word nigger.  An attack on a people’s heritage and culture would be construed as an act of racism if it were directed at the immigrant community, yet in this instance the victims of racism (The mummers, who are white.) are themselves accused of racism.

This occurrence clearly indicates that the police are no longer impartial in their methods of policing, but are controlled by the dictates of a politically-correct ruling elite who have no interest in the feeling or wishes of the indigenous people of these islands.  

   

 The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Once the police have collected all the evidence relating to a criminal offence, it then goes to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if the offender should be brought to trial and what the charges should be.  It is the CPS that ultimately decides whether any racial element should be included in the list of charges brought against an offender, and from past cases it is apparent that they are not impartial in this matter.

Tohseef Shah spayed onto a War Memorial the words “Islam will dominate the World”. The CPS only brought charges of criminal damage.  They did not submit a charge of inciting racial hatred.

In Bournemouth, Harry Hammond displayed a placard saying “Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord”. He was violently assaulted by “Gay Rights” activists; he was thrown to the ground and his placard destroyed. The CPS brought public order charges against him.  His assailants were not charged with any offence!

In the picture for the offence of writing on the war memorial the words Islam will dominate the world, the CPS didn’t consider this to be racially or religiously aggravating – even though Islam is a religion!   Consequently, Tohseef was given a conditional discharge and a small fine for criminal damage.   In Harry Hammond’s case he was just exercising his right for freedom of speech, in which he caused no harm or offence to anybody.  He himself was the victim of a violent hateful assault, yet his assailants were not brought to justice.  This is clear indication that the CPS is enacting a political agenda for the promotion of ethnic and homosexual causes against the interest of the general population.

Why is the CPS so biased against the white indigenous population, particularly men?  To answer this question one only needs to look at the type of people employed by the CPS.  In a recent Freedom of Information request to the CPS, it was revealed that 34% of their work-force were non-white, and 66% were female; furthermore, of the Crown Prosecutors 25% were from the ethnic minorities.  This hardly gives one confidence in the impartiality of the CPS, and one can only conclude that it is an institutionally racist organisation.  

The Judiciary

The actions of the judiciary has certainly not been impartial over the past few decades.  With the advent of mass immigration it has become apparent that the judiciary, when passing sentence, apply the rules differently according to ethnicity, religion, sex and political beliefs – with white indigenous males being the recipients of the most draconian sentencing.    

A typical example of over lenient sentencing is illustrated in the following diagram, which concerns a violent racist assault by four drunken Moslem women on a white Christian woman.  During the attack they shouted out the words “Kill the White Slag!” and violently assaulted Rhea Page such that she was unable to immediately return to work, so losing her job.

Four Drunken Moslem Girls Assault White Christian Woman in Racist Attack

Below are the pictures of the Somali assailants and their ages.   

  

Hibo Maxamed Aged 20	Ambara Maxamed Aged 24
Ayan Maxamed Aged 28	Ifrah Nur Aged 28

These women were charged with causing actual bodily harm, to which they pleaded guilty.  The CPS failed to bring charges of racial aggravation, even though they were heard to call the victim a white slag.

Judge Robert Brown in his judgement at Leicester Crown Court, sentenced each of these women to a six month suspended jail sentence and 150 hours community service; so they effectively walked free.  His reason that as Moslems they were not used to the effects of alcohol!  Would a white Briton get away with those remarks as an excuse for drunken behaviour?

In contrast to the case detailed above, we have the case concerning John Hennigan who was imprisoned for 21 months for breach of an ASBO issued in 2005 for putting a swastika on the front door of his council house.

John Hennigan sentenced to 21 months imprisonment for breaching an ASBO

It was said in court that he made a Nazi salute and called black people coons and niggers.  The trial was presided over by Judge Nicholas Cooke, shown in the picture below, who made the following comments in sentencing Hennigan:

‘not upholding some culture of political correctness’ but ‘preserving public order’ and dealing with unacceptable behaviour. He added: ‘In this crowded public house in this city you gave a Nazi salute and spoke provocatively of Jews. The Holocaust was a crime against humanity of enormous magnitude. ‘Behaving in the way you did was appalling. You spoke of black people as coons and niggers. ‘The use of such terms is grossly offensive and conjures up memories of the slave trade, again a crime against humanity of enormous magnitude.  Behaving in such a way was likewise appalling.’ The judge said Hennigan’s antics were also an affront to those who fought against the ‘racist evil of Nazism’ in the Second World War and ‘insults the memories of those who sacrificed themselves’.

Judge Cooke’s summing up of the case was quite outrageous.  By implying that Hennigan’s comments about coons and niggers conjures up memories of the slave trade is totally ridiculous and clearly marks him as a politically-correct bigot who has no understanding of the real slavery that was endured by the white working class of Britain during the 1800s.  Even the jury were not unanimous in its verdict, with only 10 out of 12 finding him guilty; if another one person had found him not-guilty, then the case would have collapsed.              

However, further examination of the case reveals that all is not as it appears.  In fact Hennigan was himself the victim of verbal abuse, and only reacted as he did out of sheer frustration.

Hennigan entered the Magpie pub in London and ordered a drink, but the pub manager Paul MacAllion, told him in a most offensive manner to get out of the pub.  To which Hennigan responded “If my mum and dad came down would they be barred too?  Or do you just serve blacks and Jews?”  On leaving the pub Hennigan directed a Nazi salute to the pub manager. 

Intelligent people would agree that Hennigan’s response was proportional to the abuse he had received from the pub manager; he offended nobody or caused harm to anyone – he merely broke his ASBO conditions.  For this he was imprisoned for nearly two years at considerable cost to the tax-payer. 

If the judges in each of these cases had conducted the trials fairly, impartially and without personal prejudice then the Somali girls would have been jailed for two years and Hennigan would have been freed.

The problem with the judiciary is that they are unaccountable to the general public, once appointed they are virtually immune from public accountability.   Perhaps judges should be elected such that they represent the views of the general and not those of the politically-correct legal establishment.

Conclusion

Clearly, there are gross inconsistencies in the manner in which the police, CPS and judiciary treat people of different races, political views, sexuality and religion.  One may even conclude that there is an institutional conspiracy directed towards the indigenous peoples of Britain to demoralise them in such a manner that they will accept second class status, compared to immigrants, just for a quiet life free from accusations of racism, homophobia or Islamophobia.  

How can we as individuals influence the manner in which law and order is implemented within the United Kingdom?  I don’t know the answer to that question, but if we are vigilant in scrutinising the actions of the courts and where inequalities are apparent, complain to the relevant authorities.   Maybe this will bring about the required changes to the legal system.  Maybe!


Addendum

Below is a paper published by Tony Shell, which identifies the faults in the current judicial system, and the reasons why they occured.

 Is The Crown Prosecution Service Using Racist Bigotry To Foment Hate, and to Undermine Common Law?

A False and Racist CPS Narrative

Research published by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2003, and subsequently used in the preparation of major policy and procedure guidelines for the Criminal Justice System (CJS), incorporated the lie that it is native English people who commit all racist or religious hate crime: ¹ The CPS chose to give credence to such jaw-dropping stupidity, despite the fact it’s own analysis of prosecution case-files (of “racially aggravated” offences) emphatically contradicted such a perverse opinion. ²

The willingness of the CJS to give approval to such bigotry was subsequently demonstrated by the publication of a report by the Attorney General’s Office in June 2006. ³ As recently as March 2008, the Attorney General gave an effective (and very public) endorsement of that overtly racist CPS position. ⁴

The endorsement by the State of such falsehoods are a clear indication of an extreme, anti-native (racist) culture, now deeply entrenched within the CPS – and widely adopted within the CJS, for England and Wales.

However, the CJS has been faced with the problem of a growing awareness within the national press, of members of victim’s families, and of the public, of the false and malevolent picture of “hate crime” being presented. ^{5 6 7} The threat of a full exposure of the lies being promulgated would presumably explain the sudden change of tack by the CJS, and the introduction of new ‘initiatives’.

For example, from 2008 onwards the Ministry of Justice crime reports (re. CJA 1991, sect. 95) no longer included any data on the ethnicity of the perpetrators and victims of murder. ⁸ This made it much more difficult to check (and challenge) the grotesque claims being made by the CPS. In addition, previously published Ministry of Justice and HM Police crime reports, that contained that important information, were removed from the official Ministry of Justice website. ⁹ It would appear there has been a deliberate and systematic effort by the CJS to hide from public view the true facts concerning racist crime.

In 2009 the CJS launched a new project to encourage people to report (in particular) “hate crimes”, and for the CPS to create ‘scrutiny panels’ to re-examine previous case-files in order to improve the future “hit rate”. ¹⁰  However, the true purpose behind this initiative was inadvertently revealed by a CPS spokesman during the project launch, who stated: “It is vital that all communities have confidence that their complaints will be taken seriously, including hate crimes, which disproportionately affect minority groups.”

This was yet another lie by the CPS. The presentation of a false “proportionality” argument is a crude political device – one that cynically uses bogus analysis, so that consequences of difference in demographic numbers can be used to unjustifiably stigmatize the majority, native population.¹¹   It is therefore yet another blatant lie used to present a ‘problem’ requiring (of course) an extreme political solution.

The Ending of Common Law

It is the fixation on the “disproportionate” experience of crime that reveals a destructive political purpose.  That purpose is to subvert Common Law – to replace the expectation of an equivalence of good behaviour between all individuals, to a political philosophy in which behaviour is required to be measured between “communities”.  In terms of a racist political agenda, it provides an entirely bogus justification for the creation of an unbalanced and aggressive system of law enforcement directed against the native population.

Most worryingly, there are also other ways in which the CPS and CJS are seen to be actively working to subvert Common Law.

In 2004, in testimony before Parliament, the CPS boasted it was “a champion for justice and the rights of victims”.¹²  In addition, in response to questions raised by the House of Commons Justice Committee in early 2010, the CPS described it’s activities in “championing” victims as a part of the “Prosecutors’ Pledge”. ¹³   However the notion that the role of the CPS (or, indeed, any part of the CJS) is to act on behalf of the victim is fundamentally wrong – the role of all parts of the CJS, as prescribed by Common Law and Constitution, should simply be that of helping to ‘keep the peace’. ¹⁴      Not least, the CPS perception of victim-hood is clearly tarnished with anti-native bigotry and racist prejudice.

The response of the CPS to individual incidents of racist violence is therefore very revealing. From CPS reports it is seen that the CJS believes “lessons learned” (in regard to racist hate crime) applies only to offences committed against members of minority groups. It is because of such racist reasoning that the CPS will take exhaustive measures to tailor its procedures, practices and guidelines in response to racist killings – though not (of course) where the victims are from the native, majority community. ^{15 16 17}

A Racist Executive and Judiciary

In testimony to Parliament, the CPS has openly declared an extreme political purpose: “ … the CPS also plays a significant role in protecting diversity through its responsibilities in prosecuting hate crimes including racially and religiously aggravated crimes.” ¹⁸  Notably the purpose is to support a divisive political process that vigorously promotes cultural debasement. As a part of that process, the racist epithet of the “white” people is used as a fatuous reference to the English and the Welsh. The CPS adopts this racist vocabulary to demean, and to deny any recognition of a native population. ¹⁹ It is by such behaviour that the CPS gives succour to an eliminationist political philosophy.

In 2004 there was an especially brazen attempt by Government to subvert Common Law through the offices of the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Home Secretary – by introducing localized ‘community politics’ into the prosecution process. ²⁰  There is also evidence that, at this time, the CPS was implementing major policy changes directly from the Labour Party manifesto, with no prior debate within, nor scrutiny by, Parliament. Quite clearly the CPS was keen to operate as an agency of the Labour Party.²¹ It was therefore not surprising to see the extraordinary contempt held by the Labour Government for the Parliamentary Justice Committee (tasked with oversight of CJS conduct and performance). ²²

There is an aggressive political agenda for the use of agencies and staff of the CJS as State-enforcers of ‘progressivism’. We therefore find recommendations for officers of the CJS (including judges, prosecutors and ancillary staff, and the police) to undergo various forms of political indoctrination, including “diversity and race training”. ²³  The purpose is to assist agencies within the CJS (such as the CPS) enforce extreme, and un-consented, social change. Notably the concern is only for “the safety and well being of ethnic minority communities” – clearly implying that the perceived threat comes only from the majority, native population.  The “safety and well being” of the English is of no interest to a racist anti-native CJS. ²⁴

The CPS clearly believes that sentencing should also incorporate a racist bias: “ … as part of CPS role in sentencing, it is important to acknowledge the impact of a racist offence, especially a killing, on the wider Black and Minority Ethnic Community … ” ²⁵ Again, the assumption that the perpetrators of racist crime are (only) to be found in the majority community, demonstrates the bigotry and prejudice that permeates throughout the CPS. And, through an introduction of a racist dimension to sentencing, there is again revealed a clear intention to undermine Common Law.

Such behaviour is now deeply entrenched within the CJS (and, especially, within the CPS), and simple changes of Government (of whatever political persuasion) are unlikely to alter this very disturbing situation.

Fomenting Hate and Violence?

Unfortunately the behaviour of the CJS, as outlined in this report, sends entirely the wrong message to minority BME populations and their support organizations. With the English being falsely characterised as an especially racist and violent people, the concern is that such behaviour is certain to increase social tensions.

The BME population are persuaded by such CJS strategy to feel fear and loathing towards the native population – whilst the native population become increasingly angered and frustrated by such behaviour by the State. And quite obviously the CJS will know this.

The evidence is of the CJS having been inculcated with extremist ideology. In particular, previous research has shown close collaboration between agencies of the CJS, and extremist political groups. Those groups are known to be pursing a ‘progressive’ ideology that concocts political justification for an extremely malevolent agenda – including virulent anti-native hatemongering based upon lies and distortions, and the injection of various hate narratives into the Criminal Justice System. ²⁶

Challenging CPS/CJS Behaviour

Therefore the question is – what is to be done to challenge (and stop) such behaviour by both the CPS and the CJS, and (most importantly) to stop the covert dismantling of Common Law?

Any response needs to include making the public aware of an extreme anti-native racism, now deeply entrenched within the CJS. Most particularly, attention should be drawn to the politics behind this agenda, where expressions of dissent (or protest) are seized upon by the State as crimes requiring special, exemplary punishment.

Any responses necessary to expose State tyranny should be appropriate, effective, and lawful. This includes bringing these facts to the attention of all those required to attend a court of Law, and (most especially) to the members of the jury. The culture of anti-native racism within the Criminal Justice Systems needs to be very directly and very publicly challenged.

END

1      ‘Race For Justice – A Review of CPS Decision Making For Possible Bias At Each Stage of The Prosecution Process’, Published by The Crown Prosecution Service; paragraph 62 (see also paragraph 69): “This [the CPS research results] is not so surprising as, typically, racist crime is perpetuated against African Caribbean and Asian people by white people and only in a minority of cases are white people the victims of racist crime”; paragraph 141, second sentence: “The CPS is committed to ensuring that prosecuting advocates make full use of the provisions of the legislation and send a signal to would-be perpetrators of race crimes, no less than to minority ethnic groups, about the vigour and thoroughness with which it will prosecute racist and religious crime.”  The term “minority ethnic group” is used instead of “victims” – reflecting the racist perception of victim-hood of the CPS. The document’s original issue date is given as the 12^th October 2003.  It has therefore been a key part of CPS policy for more than eight years.  As of the date of this report, the CPS Review document ‘Race for Justice’ continues to be published in the public domain, source reference: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/racejustice.html (downloaded from Google cached copy, 2^nd December 2011).

²     ‘Race For Justice – A Review of CPS Decision Making For Possible Bias At Each Stage of The Prosecution Process’, Published by The Crown Prosecution Service – section ‘Race Cases, paragraphs 63 to 72 – included the Table of Results. The CPS analysis shows 370 cases of “racially aggravated” crime, of which 311 were described as “white” (that is, 84% of defendants were from an ethnic population comprising 92% of the total) and 57 were described as “BME” (that is, 15.4% of defendants were from the minority ethnic population comprising 8% the total). Therefore the number of “white” defendants was (marginally) less than expected, whilst the number of “BME” defendants was overrepresented by a factor of almost 2.

³     ‘Report of The Race For Justice Taskforce’, The Criminal Justice System – Attorney General’s Office, June 2006.

⁴     ‘CPS Racist and Religious Crimes Policy’, an address by the Attorney General, at the The Mermaid Conference and Events Centre, on the 19^th March 2008.  This includes a direct reference to the original CPS document ‘Race For Justice ’. Source: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Speeches/Pages/CPSRacistReligiousCrimesPolicy.aspx+CPS+racist+violence&ct= clnk

⁵     ‘In British Courts, Does It Matter If You’re Black or White?’, by Sean O’Neill, The Times, Saturday 3^rd December 2005.

⁶     ‘Racism and Race Crime Redefined’, by Mark Easton, BBC News Home Editor, Wednesday 8^th November 2006. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6128466.stmmime text/html

⁷     ‘The Hidden White Victims of Racism’, by Brendan Montague, The Sunday Times, 12^th November 2006.

⁸     See, for example: 'Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System -A Ministry of Justice publication Under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991': Edition 2008/09 [pub. June 2010]; and Edition 2010 [pub. October 2011].

⁹      'Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System -A Ministry of Justice publication Under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991': in particular, Chapter: ‘Victims and Homicide’ and related, tabulated crime data. This covered the period 1997 to 2007. Fortunately this information has previously been downloaded and retained for future reference.

¹⁰   ‘Government Accused of Encouraging People To Report Each Other For “Hate Crimes”’, by Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor, The Telegraph, 24^th December 2009, source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6873922/Government-accused-of-encouraging-people-to-report-each-other-for-hate-crimes.html

¹¹   This can be demonstrated by way of a simple ‘thought experiment’. Assume 10 per cent of the population consists of a single minority ethnic/racial group, and the remaining 90 per cent are from the native population.  Then, all things being equal, we would expect that the majority native population to experience nine-fold fewer incidents of racist crime (from the minority community), spread over nine-fold greater population size. In other words, based on ‘proportionality’ argument, the experience of racist crime for a member of the native population ought to be at least 81-fold less than that experienced by a member of the minority population. In fact this is a conservative figure, given that the minority population consists of several distinct ethnic/racial/religious groups who will also exhibit inter-group racist crime. However the actual crime data is very different, showing that a member of the native population’s experience of racist crime is only (approximately) 6-fold less than that experienced by a member of the minority population. Therefore, from a ‘proportionality’ point of view, this is at least 14 times greater than expected. These figures are consistent over the last 14 years (from 1997) and are based on Home Office, Ministry of Justice and British Crime Survey crime data.

¹²   ‘Terrorism and Community Relations’, Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee, Written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 14 December 2004, HC 165-II, Published on 7 January 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited, section 10 Memorandum Submitted by The Crown Prosecution Service, page EV20

¹³   ‘The Crown Prosecution Service: Gatekeeper of The Criminal Justice System: Government Response to The Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2008-09’, House of Commons Justice Committee, Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12^th January 2010, reference HC 245, Government (CPS) response to recommendations 14 and 15

¹⁴   For example, the journalist and researcher Peter Hitchens has warned: “The idea that the courts act on behalf of the victim is false. They act to enforce the Queen’s peace, the property of us all, and the law of the land, also the property of us all … The idea that the victim and the court are in some way on the same side is a worrying and totalitarian one, reminiscent of the sort of state where the public prosecutor demands a heavy sentence. Such states do not have independent judiciaries.” See: ‘The Abolition of Liberty – The Decline of Order and Justice in England’, by Peter Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2004 (first published 2003), pages 205 and 207

¹⁵   For example, in the CPS document: ‘Handling Sensitive Race Hate Crime’, CPS Merseyside, Equality and Diversity Unit, May 2006. This 22-page ‘lessons learnt’ report was produced as a result of the racist murder of Anthony Walker in 2005. The report ¹⁶ ‘In Britain’s Courts, Does It Matter If You’re Black or White’, by Sean O’Neill, The Times, 3^rd October 2005. The mother of racist murder victim Christopher Yates commented: “But it seems to me that we have experienced a different measure of justice than they [Anthony Walker’s family] have experienced.”

¹⁷    ‘Exclusive: I Can’t Forgive My Son’s Knife Crime Killer’, by Julie McCaffrey and Louise Baty, The Mirror, 13^th October 2008. The trial judge described the stabbing to death of Richard Everitt in 1994 as “an unprovoked racial attack”. Clearly the CPS/CJS believed that no lessons were to be learned, despite the fact that the victim’s family had to move from London to the North of England, following threats made to them in the street.

¹⁸   ‘Terrorism and Community Relations’, Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee, Written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 14 December 2004, HC 165-II, Published on 7 January 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited, section 10 Memorandum Submitted by The Crown Prosecution Service, pages EV22

¹⁹   And akin to the use of the term “Arabs” as a description of the native Palestinian people.  The purpose is to deny ‘a people’ any proper recognition of their identity and native entitlements.

²⁰    ‘Crown Prosecution Service’, House of Commons debate, 3^rd March 2004, Hansard volume 418 cc899-910, source: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2004/mar/03/crown-prosecution-service

²¹   ‘Minutes of The CPS Board Meeting on 18 May 2005’, item 2: Director’s Update; The Queen’s Speech, The Crown Prosecution Service, source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/minutes/minutes180505.html+cps+diversity+conference&ct=clnk

²²   ‘The Crown Prosecution Service: Gatekeeper of The Criminal Justice System: Government Response to The Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2008-09’, House of Commons Justice Committee, Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12^th January 2010, reference HC 245, ‘Special Report’ section, and the Committee comment: "...we wish to record our dissatisfaction with the timeliness of replies to our reports from the Attorney General’s Office. We reported on certain provisions within the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill in June 2008 but did not receive a substantive response until July 2009, more than 12 months later.  We recognise that some Government responses to select committee reports are sensibly deferred if they relate to major initiatives or proposals which are being finalised within a reasonable timeframe.  However, in this instance we see no case for delaying a substantive response for over a year.”

²³   ‘Report of The Race For Justice Taskforce’, The Criminal Justice System – Attorney General’s Office, June 2006. For example, see page 10, under ‘Recommendations’.

²⁴   ‘Race For Justice – A Review of CPS Decision Making For Possible Bias At Each Stage of The Prosecution Process’, Published by The Crown Prosecution Service – paragraph 141, first sentence.

²⁵   ‘Handling Sensitive Race Hate Crime’, Crown Prosecution Service – Equality and Diversity Unit, May 2006, Lessons Learnt page 17.

²⁶   As detailed in research reports: ‘MET Police Outsourcing Security Policy Decisions To Un-vetted University Group?’, by Tony Shell, February 2012; and in ‘State Instigated, false Flag Terrorism’, by Tony Shell, October 2011.