Submission by Ivor Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle. www.ivorcatt.com/97.htm
The Committee will focus their
inquiry on the question of whether current investigation practices give rise
to a risk of miscarriages of justice, particularly in cases where the alleged
abuse occurred many years ago. The Committee will not investigate individual
cases, but it will address the following issues:
Trawling, which results from pressure on police to
convict, must end.
The CPS has as a matter of policy to always
prosecute in certain PC classes of cases. This is disastrous, and must end.
This straight bribery of criminals to convict
innocent people must end. In Germany, the removal of compensation for
criminal injury led to a collapse of the number of cases.
I do not understand this term.
A time limit must be introduced, preferably three years.
Risbridger was sent by AAFAA, a false allegations
organisation, to speak at the October 2000 Conference
We were invited to a Home Office conference on sexual offences in the family, where I found that none of the 50 invited people present had the concept of a false allegation. At that time, Melanie Phillips published in the Sunday Times that the Home Office was desperate to jail more men and did not care how.
It took me six months to force the 21mar00 admission out of Home Office officials that no one in Government had as part of their remit consideration of the alleged problem of false allegations, see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/03072.htm
One reason why I added the item from Ill Eagle, below (Appendix 1), is that at the Home Office 1999 Sexual Offences Review in Leicester, to which I was invited, those attending connived with Home Office officials in corrupting all key relevant words, not only DV, but also the definitions of Rape, Incest, etc. This corruption of terminology by Betty Moxon and her team in the Home Office as a result of radfem pressure, which can now be seen in their recently published documents, will have caused multiple miscarriages in the criminal courts. That was the purpose of their corruption of key terminology.
I am in correspondence with falsely convicted prisoners. I strongly oppose the practice in Britain of incarcerating innocent prisoners twice as long as the guilty. The idea that admission of guilt is the first step in reform must be rooted out. Far from being part of prisoner reform, it is in fact a system of bribery, or coercion, of prisoners by which police and lawyers cover up their errors. The procedures to which an innocent prisoner is subjected when he finally gives in and falsely confesses (as recently my policeman correspondent in Northern Ireland did) are appalling. They have to attend horrible training courses, always run by radfem ideologues, on how to not rape again. Bear in mind that to a radfem, all sexual intercourse in our patriarchal society is rape, so all the men they confront are guilty. These radfem bigots must be got out of our jails, where they will obviously like to congregate. In the first instance, research should go into the increase in the suicide rate among prisoners subjected to their training courses.
My book The Hook and the Sting, see my old website, http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xk1hs1.htm
goes in detail into the fact that there is no procedure in the English courts for pursuing perjury. As a result, the family courts are awash with perjury, but I do not know how bad the situation is in the criminal courts. I enclose (Appendix 2) the section about the courts’ support for perjury below. I pursued perjury in the courts and in the CID for two years, and ran into the sand. So have many of my associates.
Neil Hamilton gave an excellent speech at the 2001 conference that I chaired. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/2001.htm
He is not going to let the matter slip, and will continue to research into the bureaucratic procedures leading to and buttressing false allegations and false imprisonment. He said he would keep in touch with another speaker at my conference who had been falsely imprisoned for two years on a rape charge. Already, Neil Hamilton’s knowledge of key areas needed by the Home Affairs Select Committee is first rate, and the Committee needs his oral testimony in April.
Ivor Catt. Editor, Ill Eagle. 27feb02
Ill Eagle is at www.ivorcatt.com/98.htm
Ill Eagle 8, may00
Violence by "not noticing" next?
The ever-broadening definition of DV by the Home Office (HO) suggests we should organise a Competition among ManKind members for the next kind of behaviour or inaction which will be classified as DV. Ideas please? - Ed
Amongst a plethora of HO press releases comes GPADV (Gov't Policy Around Domestic Violence). (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/cpsu/domviol98/htm" dated 9dec99)
This seems to invent new categories of abuse perpetrated by men, including "financial-abuse". This is a wholly sloppy and ambiguous report which begins by citing the unsophisticated definition first used 7 years ago by the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). The same HASC that forbade the input of any men's group view point.
Overlooking for a moment the ritualistic mantra in GPADV where the HASC notes that "in most cases the abuser was male and the victim female", HASC also states that DV occurs "in all social groups and classes". While it may occur in all, it is more common in some.
However, the real delight comes at para 2.4 (page 2 in a 10 page release) which declares that DV can take many forms including: actual violence, threatened violence, intimidation and "physical violence accompanied by intimidation" plus "humiliation and deprivation which can include keeping a woman without money". Para 2.4 also lists as DV degradation, mental and verbal abuse, isolation, systematic criticism and belittlement.
GADV states that he definition of DV was crystallised in April 1999 for use in all police forces, but that it is intended for "statistical purposes only". To counter this, GPADV suggests ".... Organisations are encouraged to make their own definitions according to local needs and circumstances."
Thus, once again it appears that the Home Office is out of control and countermanding Parliament.
[We are in an extremely dangerous situation. Melanie Phillips (20feb00) observes that "The government wants more men convicted and doesn't care how." - Sunday Times, sect.1 p7 - Ed ]
The Hook and the Sting.
The courts’ support for perjury.
…. Lawyers have none of them bothered to think through the traumatic effect on a victim when presented with either perjury, forgery or bribery of witnesses, and then finds that police and lawyers are indifferent to his predicament and insist on ignoring his protestations. This gross misbehaviour occurs in our courts in most divorce cases. One good reason why courts have to be secret is to hide this misconduct. We have to give it to Lord Denning that he emphasises the need for open courts to prevent judges from misbehaving.
My letters on the subject were published in "The Friend", the Quaker journal, on 14th July 1995 and 15th September 1995;
Affirming, as a Quaker.
The discussion about taking the oath (23 and 30 June) misses the point. The point is that our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated.
Circuit Judge Stockdale said, when I had a hearing specifically to ask for my allegations of perjury to be investigated, that the court had no such procedure, that it was a matter for the CID. Thereafter, after two years pursuing the CID, the CID said it was a matter for the courts.
It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure. Two solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. Lord Mackay apologised to me for other failings of the creaking court system. However, he made no comment on this point. It disappears in the crack between court and CID. In these circumstances, discussion of the oath is academic, and reinforces a spurious appearance of normalcy, bypassing the three inquiries - Nolan, Scott, Woolf, particularly Woolf.
The reason why the legal profession welcomes perjury is that it exacerbates an adversarial situation and increases costs. Costs, not law or justice, is the object of the tortuous exercise.
Affirming, as a Quaker.
On 14 July you published my letter saying that '.... our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated .... It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure.' Nobody has written in. This makes the legal profession an anti-social group, happy to continue to trade in lies. In particular, the damage inflicted on millions of children of divorce by these irresponsible people is devastating.
Leading divorce barrister Ray Tooth, earning £250,000 p.a., tries to distance himself from the stench of perjury. Dominic Egan, in "Legal Business Magazine", jan/feb94, profiles Tooth's views on ".... how the [divorce] situation might be improved. .... First, he would like to see prosecutions for perjury against the parties who seem to think nothing of lying on oath, both in court and on affidavit." Tooth cannot enjoy his massive gains if they continue to be made out of fantasy, not fact, law and justice. Also, he is a very good lawyer. Perjury is a great leveller, since it pits one standard, false stereotype against another. Tooth believes he would do better if he could get involved in real cases with real people, which do not occur in our family courts.