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

Note:  I don’t know who Tony Shell is. But this is a most     interesting analysis of how our laws and their enforcement have been     made into instruments of politically correct tyranny. SIG

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

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 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 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 are 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.


Notes and References

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 12th 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:   (downloaded  from  Google  cached  copy,  2nd 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 19th March 2008. This includes a direct reference to the original CPS document ‘Race For Justice ’. Source:


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

6 ‘Racism and Race Crime Redefined’, by Mark Easton, BBC News Home Editor, Wednesday 8th November 2006. Source: text/html

7 ‘The Hidden White Victims of Racism’, by Brendan Montague, The Sunday Times, 12th 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, 24th December 2009, source:

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 12th 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 contained extensive recommendations regarding “best practice” to be adopted by the CPS in its working contacts with witnesses, and the victim’s family, following the killing of a member of the minority community.

16 ‘In Britain’s Courts, Does It Matter If You’re Black Or White’, by Sean O’Neill, The Times, 3rd 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, 13th 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, 3rd March 2004, Hansard volume 418 cc899-910, source:

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:

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 12th 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.

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

  1. stan ayers

    My wife was accused of racially aggravated hate abuse in 2006 and served an eviction by the London Boro of Merton.The Local Authority used petition eveidence by a group of neighbours in collusion with the the community police bobby who somewhat embellished the report.I had moved down there to Mitcham and was attacked by the Guyanan lady next door and another Jamaican lady splitting my mouth open with a metal bar.Yet her husband filmed self defence and edited the attack and this was presented to court as if I was the perpetrator of the attack.My wife collapsed and overdosed nearly killing herself and I remained to help her despite being served injunctions banning me from 200-400 yards from my homeby a Judge in Croydon as my wife implored me to stay.As we had different names the Judge refused to accept we were married and banished me on to the streets.I decided my obligations lay with my sick wife and continued living in the house.The neighbours called the police another false allegation I was attacking my own wife.
    In the early hours in july 2006 the police forced enrty into the house kicking the door in and smashing into my face splitting my head open.There were 10 officers storming the property.3 burst through the hallway rushing me into the kitchen.My wife was bundled into the living room.I tried to defend myself from illegal arrest.I was forced into a kneeling position and batoned 4 times and kicked and punched mercilessly prostate on the ground while 2 WPC’s were giggling.I rember being punched by an asian officer in particular who did not exist and then the hancuffs were wound so tight my hands were blleding in the ratchets.I was charged with assaulting a police officer and breaking the injunctions.I was found not guily by 3 magistrates at Wimbledon Magistrates Court as I was denied Crown Court.I was charged with the same offences in Civil Court and found guily .I was given a month suspended sentence but the eviction was overturned as a breach of human rights and I was allowed home after 1 month living on the streets.
    I deny any wrongdoing and provocation was obviously being used by a coordinated action to remove us from our home.
    My wife has nevr recovered and is still very ill.
    In 2008 the council tried again when our house was broken into by a Pakistani neighbour on the other side who threatened to kill me among other strange sounds.The police advised me to erect security cameras and the council then served a comittal proceedings on me for having no planning permission.The commital was lobbed through the letter box.
    I mentioned before the Community police Officer served the eviction in 2006 and was suspended for perjury for embellishing the statements.
    He was involved again in 2008 as my barrister warned me and claimed he served the documents by hand which was rejected by Judge Barnett now presiding over the Croydon Riots and the case was dismissed.I was arrested the following night as I returned home from work by the Same PC Weston at 11pm charged with calling the Guyanan woman again a black —-,and riding my bicycle into her oncoming car at the end of the close forcing her into the road.It was again a complete lie and the expansion of the lie undid the the lie under cross examination when the Judge reaffirmed the woman if she was found to be lying she would go to prison instead of the defendent.
    The Judge awarded me costs against the local authority of 12000 pounds.
    The cost of my defence was 12000 pounds on earnings of 18000 pounds whereas a prosecution is free using the legal services of the Local Authority where this woman used to work as midwife or district nurse.
    I began to take an interest in politics afterwars and Tony Blair and David Blunketts Criminal Justice Bill.
    This article surely confirms the attempt to compromise Common Law,and the prejudice prevalent in the CPS and CJS.
    Which secret policy unit concocted this secret policy?
    Who is actually responsible for my imprisonment,eviction and the ruin of my marriage and my wife’s continued eviction after 6 years.She weighs 5 stone and these people have virtually killed her.I have nothing left and feel so angry.

  2. djwebb2010

    The CPS should be closed down, with local police stations handling prosecutions as they used to. I don’t know why private prosecutions shouldn’t be easier too.

  3. I’m told Tony Shell is involved in nationalist politics. Well, when anyone writes an article that argues so well for equal justice, the Libertarian Alliance takes interest.

  4. John Warren

    Not only that DJ, the police should be obliged to return to logging all ‘possible’ reported crimes in an official hard-back ledger. One kept securely under the duty officer’s desk of every police station in the land. (My father’s name went in one in the 50s for scrumping a farmer’s apples – and rightly so) Writing notes down on a jotting pad, or on a electricity-reliant computer screen, must be temptingly easy to alter after the fact.

    From my own everyday observations, and by just talking to friends of course, it’s become very clear that the UK immigration problem has become volatile. To continue obliging the average UK citizen to put up with a huge and unending influx without muttering a word against it, seems somewhat illogical. Trendy threats of legal action, coupled with possible incarceration should they fail to comply with current rafts of hastily drafted laws, does little more than increase fear.

    Of course Keir Starmer is way too politically biased to be running the CPS – reading up on his career to-date is all it takes. Such obvious left-wingers rejoice at seeing dim-witted white women (Emma West for instance) tremble in fear of being thrown in the can. Daring to air immigration concerns in public (no matter how misdirected or foul-mouthed) is like waving a red flag at both the new-breed of the Old Bill and the completely out-of-it judiciary. However, the really weird thing is that after Mr Starmer has ended his rejoicing and the cell doors slams shut, he’ll then do all within his considerable power to keep a young black lady – who’s an illegal immigrant, convicted fraudster and someone who was perfectly prepared to use a forged passport and perfectly content to rob the public to the tune of £30,000 – in a flat in Chelsea and then set her up with an income and all paid for by YOU.

    And the girls’ name is Miss Joy Chishimba… out of Africa. (She’s a wonderfully caring sort I’m sure who loves her mother and all of mankind too – like I do)

    There’s got to be something wrong there – surely?

    Does it not occur to the CPS that these English women have witnessed their local area being over-run by people of a vastly different culture. They are very deeply distressed about it all just the way millions of us are. Even more deeply, when no one in authority will admit there’s a bit of a problem… let alone address it.

    Well, rest day again tomorrow folks. It might rain they say. Shame. Think I’ll drive to the coast.. it’ll not matter so much there.

  5. Two nuggets of experience about the CPS rather set the scene for what is happening. These took place years ago in the first year or so of the service when the majority of the lawyers were extraordinarily green and frankly of dubious competence in some quarters.

    I was defending a case when I was given an offer by the prosecution before lunch and it was then summarily withdrawn after lunch upon instructions from the prosecution lawyers “boss”. Clearly, the lawyers for the CPS were not in full charge of their cases. Has this changed since then? Probably not administrative and political interference was there from day one. This is perhaps one of the most egregious parts of the case against the CPS; prosecutors should be independent of the state and most of all “ministers of justice”. My pupil master now one of her Majesty’s judges made it very clear to me that the role of the prosecutor was foremost to prosecute not persecute and that justice was the primary objective so far is that is possible. If you appear for the state you have a higher duty than just representing the state and that is to ensure justice is done. This might all seem very old-fashioned but in my experience it was the way it should be done. To drive this point home, if the case for the prosecution is thoroughly defective it is the duty of the prosecutor to offer no evidence and stand the case down, not just please the local police service solicitors and bash on regardless.

    The CPS is part of the government and thus cannot in any sense of the word be seen as an outside contractor as was the case for prosecutors in the “good old days”. While the original way of doing things may be a model of perfection that wasn’t always achieved it was the least a reasonable aspiration now long lost at the local level in the CPS. One hopes that the justice administration point still exists in the more serious cases.

    On another occasion at Wells Street magistrates court the case I was covering was adjourned over the lunch hour and my client skipped bail and did a runner. Nothing unusual in that you would’ve thought, but the CPS practitioner did his pieces in front of me. He poked his finger at me and threatened me with arrest for aiding and abetting the bail breach by my client. Silly sod was so green did not seem to understand that prisoners in court after surrendering to bail come under the control of the prison service not their barristers. Even went further to threaten me with being reported to the Bar Council that I politely pointed out to him was probably defamatory if not just plain stupid.

    From day one the CPS has had problems much like the Serious Farce Office and it has evolved into a dubious politically correct organization which of course is no surprise. That the CPS takes against the indigenous population on some mission of supposed justice is par for the course and should surprise absolutely nobody.

    What should be done about it? Very simple really, save a bundle of money abolish it. Allow the local police service to hire solicitors and barristers on a case-by-case basis for the prosecution work that they have to undertake of a more serious nature. Petty prosecution work must be returned to the hands of suitable local police officers trained to present court work dealing with the usual daily round of drunks and other minor criminal matters as was the case in years gone by. It worked extraordinarily well and was fast and efficient. Don’t believe the blather that professionalism was needed; the police prosecutors in the main were more than adequate for the job.

    The CPS has suffered from political interference and social engineering policy objectives that have no business within such an organization. Of itself it has signally failed to be an impartial prosecution service it has fallen into becoming, from time to time, a persecution service which is grounds enough for shutting its doors.

    The work won’t go away it will just be allocated at lower prices outside the civil service where it deserves to be. The original somewhat privatized method of operating prosecutions worked just fine and never needed the dubious district attorney model for conducting prosecutorial work. It doesn’t work that well here; professional prosecutors develop deep-seated biases about the way they conduct their work. There is a blending of prosecution and persecution which is totally inappropriate.

  6. thanks for speaking on my behalf .

  7. Pingback: The Failings of the Crown Prosecution Service | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG