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?
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: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/racejustice.html (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: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Speeches/Pages/CPSRacistReligiousCrimesPolicy.aspx+CPS+racist+violence&ct=
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:
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: 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 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
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.