Crime Farming

More on crime farming ,well worth listening to .

This is fairly typical, they try to block the case by stalling it to the point where it is statute barred and then shout "you're too late" and this is typical of all po-lice forces.

As for the CPS; in an increasing number of cases the po-lice never submit any evidence to the CPS and bring charges themselves and they only bring the CPS in at the last minute as only the CPS can prosecute the case and not the po-lice.

As for not submitting the evidence as required under the required protocols, they routinely do this and claim they submit "relevant evidence" as another course of another play on words to try to dismiss people and fob them off in the hope they simply go away and forget the case. Who are the po-lice to judge what is relevent or not? they are required to submit ALL of the evidence to the CPS and let the CPS make a charging decision, so basically they only submit evidence which is relevent to getting a prosecution and witholding or destroying evidence which is detrimental to getting a prosecition.

Lady Angela Rafferty QC highlighted this issue in her position of chair of the BAR council when she highlighted the issue of detriment to innocent people accused of crimes they hadn't committed and despite this they were still found guilty in the magistrates courts and when hte cases went to appeal in the crown court they were upheld, but why? In many cases the po-lice have the clerks to the magistrates clerks in their pockets and the clerks heavily influence the magistrates decisions, and when it goes to appeal in the crown court you mainly get a district judge and two magistrates sitting and hearing the case. Are the magistrates going to overturn a decison by their fellow magistrates? and if we look at the magistrates and crown courts they are part of a private company called HMCTS which includes the tribunals service, and they are based in Leek, Staffs.

Transcripts are another issue full of contention as the po-lice transcribe them themselves and do this incorrectly, and Angela Rafferty, the CPS, and the College of Policing have criticised this as pure fraud as the transcripts often do not reflect what was said in the taped interview, they are heavily redacted, manipulated by including opinion instead of fact, and heavily omit taped evidence from the transcript where it is detrimental to the prosecution.

Another example of Crime Farming,

assassin wrote:This is fairly typical, they try to block the case by stalling it to the point where it is statute barred and then shout "you're too late" and this is typical of all po-lice forces.

As for the CPS; in an increasing number of cases the po-lice never submit any evidence to the CPS and bring charges themselves and they only bring the CPS in at the last minute as only the CPS can prosecute the case and not the po-lice.

As for not submitting the evidence as required under the required protocols, they routinely do this and claim they submit "relevant evidence" as another course of another play on words to try to dismiss people and fob them off in the hope they simply go away and forget the case. Who are the po-lice to judge what is relevent or not? they are required to submit ALL of the evidence to the CPS and let the CPS make a charging decision, so basically they only submit evidence which is relevent to getting a prosecution and witholding or destroying evidence which is detrimental to getting a prosecition.

Lady Angela Rafferty QC highlighted this issue in her position of chair of the BAR council when she highlighted the issue of detriment to innocent people accused of crimes they hadn't committed and despite this they were still found guilty in the magistrates courts and when hte cases went to appeal in the crown court they were upheld, but why? In many cases the po-lice have the clerks to the magistrates clerks in their pockets and the clerks heavily influence the magistrates decisions, and when it goes to appeal in the crown court you mainly get a district judge and two magistrates sitting and hearing the case. Are the magistrates going to overturn a decison by their fellow magistrates? and if we look at the magistrates and crown courts they are part of a private company called HMCTS which includes the tribunals service, and they are based in Leek, Staffs.

Transcripts are another issue full of contention as the po-lice transcribe them themselves and do this incorrectly, and Angela Rafferty, the CPS, and the College of Policing have criticised this as pure fraud as the transcripts often do not reflect what was said in the taped interview, they are heavily redacted, manipulated by including opinion instead of fact, and heavily omit taped evidence from the transcript where it is detrimental to the prosecution.

 

That's a lot of unsupported claims. Please provide the evidence you base them on.

The evidence is all around you if you bother to look, there was the Tom Crawford case for example, in this case the Judge ordered that thr correct paperwork (aka the reposession order) was presented to the court, it never was; the nearest they ever got was an inspector claiming he had seen it, he was caught lying as no such document existed and could be produced.

More recently there was the Liam Allen case in December 2017 in which the CPS stopped a rape prosecution against him when the prosecution demanded that all the evidence be produced, and when it was produced the CPS had to stop the case as the witheld evidence proved he didn't do it.
There was also another sexual assault case in the same week in which exactly the same thing happened.

As a result of these cases the CPS and HMIC investigated and found that in 55.5% of cases they investigated, the po-lice witheld, fabricated, or destroyed evidence, this was followed by Angela Rafferty QC in an official capacity ac chair of the Criminal Bar Council who stated that this had gone on for years and referred back to a document produced by the po-lice in July of 2017 which clearly showed it went on and it produced the evidence.

Its all out there in the public domain if you bother to look for it.

Tom lost his house because he didn't pay the endowment, no other reason.

WokeBro wrote:Tom lost his house because he didn't pay the endowment, no other reason.

and why did he believe he didnt have to pay the Endowment ?

I don't know. It was his wife who made 2 payments then stopped. Ask her.