PRIM and PROPER? On the Openness and Transparency of Courts – from the Cradle to the Grave

13 01 14 TyrannyOnce again: you only believe it when it hits you yourself or someone you know:

  • Norman Scarth had to flee the country he nearly died for in WWII, for he did not get justice during 17 years he experienced as harassment that included imprisonment
  • his crime: using a recording device without having asked for permission first
  • today he was sentenced to 28 days but suspended for a year – so it won’t happen unless he breaks the law again.

In response to mailing everybody who had signed the petition to free him, Mike wrote that he also had to flee the country, after his mum became a victim of the Court of ‘Protection’ and the Office of the Public ‘Guardian’ in the UK.

  • Their story is one of unfortunately many where officials make sure they can put their hands on any of the assets involved.

On Monday I was in court to support Andrea Higgins whose two daughters were taken: 

  • one after seven months
  • the other six days after her birth.

Since the hearing was secret, I waited outside and spoke to a lady whose nephew is supposed ‘not to have capacity’ and thus can’t decide for himself what he wants. Only barristers, solicitors and doctors benefit, while victims and rescuers suffer…

Similarly, in the case of this boy who is supposed to take drugs and it requires a McKenzie Friend to fight for him and his father.

What gets to me is the utter hypocrisy:

  • behind the veil of secrecy
  • in the name of justice
  • in the “interest” of the child…

About Sabine McNeill

I'm a mathematician, software designer, system analyst, event organiser, independent web publisher and online promoter.
This entry was posted in Corruption, McKenzie Friends and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to PRIM and PROPER? On the Openness and Transparency of Courts – from the Cradle to the Grave

  1. Colin Peters says:

    Is this just craziness or a form of legal blackmail.?

    “today he was sentenced to 28 days but suspended for a year – so it won’t happen until he breaks the law again.”

    Breaks what law?

    Recording a court hearing solely to ensure that the law is adhered to and that justice is served. Is that really breaking the law? To have, if required, an accurate recording in the event of an appeal. Is that really breaking the law?

    Is this really a crime and is Norman Scarth threatened with, should he do it again, off you go to prison?

    A great many right minded people are of the same opinion as Norman Scarth, that ALL court hearings should be open to audio recording.

    The cat has long been out of the bag and it is a known fact that the official court recordings are very often tampered with before being allowed public circulation.

    There is a chap known to many of us, by the name of Charlton Harris, who has the hard proof,- confirmed by experts -, that the actual court audio recording of a case he was involved in, was such an instance.

    Just Google ‘BentJudgeJamesGoss’ to bring up Charltons website and the proof of his experiences re. judicial fiddling with the recordings.

    To avoid injustice and ensure that a publicly employed and publicly funded judiciary stick to the rules and the facts, the British public MUST be allowed to make recordings.

    It should be a right. If it is not so, what have the judiciary got to hide?

    • EXCELLENT comment, Colin!

      The 3 judges found his two contempt of court allegations ‘proved’. So he had broken the law in their view by using a recording device.

      How many signatures do you think we need to present to Their Lordships so that (y)our views can be brought home to them not just by Norman?

      I refer to ABOLISH the BAN on RECORDING COURT PROCEEDINGS on http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/abolish-the-ban-on-recording-court-proceedings.html

      • Colin Peters says:

        Thank you Sabine.
        How many signatures do we need?
        A hell of a lot more than those we have already got!!!
        But, how do we do it?
        It’s a hard life since, from what I can discern, it’s only fellow victims who are actually signing the petition and contibuting their opinions towards the cause.
        Of these, the ones who choose to sign themselves as ‘Anonymous’ are not making any valid contribution at all.
        Twenty people willing to name themselves and form a united front against this corrupt legal and judicial system are worth more than a million ‘Anonymouses’
        If we are ever to gain the interest and support of what to date has proven to be an apathetc and disinterested public, then we must nail our names to the mast.
        When did you last vote for ‘anonymous’?

        • Well, for the signatures, the NUMBERS count at first glance.

          BUT: there are excellent comments and I shall collect them and send them to Their Lordships as soon as Norman’s judgement is out. It is expected to be online in 3 weeks.

          Until then Twitter should maybe help to get people to sign.

  2. Anonymous says:

    This happened in the case of Maurice Kirk where a transcript did not show true reflection of what was said. For some strange reason he is being denied access to the recordings.

    • JM says:

      same here…and i didn’t even know they were recording to me until i saw who i presume was probably ajudge reach over and flick a switch as i left on eof the proceedings…

      I’m also banned from leaving the country, by anonymous psycopaths.
      when i used to travel interanlly. catch a train always some psycho in a mask waiting to punch mein the throat. so i stopped travelling. hardly any reason to do now nor the means

      breaking into houses, attacking people and selling trophy footage to TV companies for entertainment is surely illegal? 60 minute fucking makveover as well…? they’re not ebven g-men, so how the smeg do they get away with it? they ever do that crap to me i wd be jailed for life as i wd immediately murder several of them at least….
      law won’t portect you are you rproperty or your home, you have to yourself….but defending yourself is illegal? i think not, but irrelevant

  3. JM says:

    there is also this, raping women and men as well by sounds of it—-quite happy to be public about it! consenting to have sex with one person is not the same as consenting with a completely different person….

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/undercover-police-tricked-women-into-sex-like-james-bond–judge-8456385.html?origin=internalSearch

    The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is one of the most secretive judicial bodies in the country. It is independent of the British government and is used to decide on complaints against surveillance by public bodies.
    That means the tribunal can investigate anything from council snooping to national security spying – making it the only body which can investigate MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
    The tribunal was established in 2000 by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Currently headed by the Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Mummery, it has been criticised for being highly secretive. It is exempt from freedom of information requests, it holds most of its hearings in private, there is no obligation to take oral evidence and many of the final judgements are not published.
    Those submitting claims against surveillance have complained that they are usually unable to contest the evidence against them because they cannot see it. It also rarely finds in favour of claimants. Between 2000 and 2010 of the complaints we know about only ten were upheld out of 1120.

    They have it all stiched up.

  4. Pingback: PRIM and PROPER? On the Openness and Transparency of Courts – from the Cradle to the Grave |

  5. Anonymous says:

    Is it not time to look at forming “The People’s Court”
    Even the “People’s Police”
    If the Court’s and the Police don’t act in the interest of Justice; what is the alternative?

  6. Respiridone has been the subject of a number of Class Actions in the US where it is manufactured. Judges who preside over these court cases should be aware of what is happening worldwide and not reliant on information provided by those with a vested interest. If only the UK equivalent of the FDA would follow the US example.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s