LOTS of victims have suffered from the non-investigation of crime and discovered that this is due to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Chief Constables and the Law Society.
The training school definition of a constable’s job is:
- The preservation of life
- The protection of property
- The detection of offences
- The placing of offenders before the courts.
Regarding the MoU:
- Firstly the police are answerable to the law and only the law, second when the police agree up front a course of action they limit what they can do, this is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Because they have to be able to go where the evidence leads them without Favour Fear Malice or Ill will. The memorandum prevents them doing that by restricting what they can do and where they can go.
- I would suggest they have subverted the police service from their constitutional role as protectors of Her Majesty’s subjects.
- I would suggest Sedition at Common law is the Major Crime against the state they are guilty of.
Another victim sent me these Nine Principles of Policing:
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
And Diana Mitchell, Director of CASIA writes:
Do all those that complain about the above know that a copy of it can be found by going to www.casia.co.uk
I am putting in my fivepenneth because it is the Memo with the police that I feel most cross about.It was Lilly Lewy who found out about the Memo 2002/3. A policeman made a remark which made her curious so she started asking questions and the truth came out.
This is an extract from the Memo. “ In taking steps to pool information on default and dishonesty the Law Society is conscious of the need to maintain the flow of information between its departments and police forces. It also recognizes that the provision and exchange of such information can assist the police to take a clear view of a suspect’s activities. “
Now this is supposed to be an investigation which has been triggered by a victim complaining about his possibly criminally acting solicitor. What is shocking is that the victim will have no idea that this investigation is going on as those who complain to the police rarely hear anything about their complaint.
Why is the victim not asked for his views and his evidence? Why is he ignored?
The Law Society can influence the police in favour of the solicitor and against the victim and he will never know anything about it.
What has also made me very cross is the £100,000 compensation that the Metropolitan Police gave to the barrister for the damage to his reputation when he was arrested – and given so quickly too – in three months! The cases of physically injured victims drag on for six years. Not only that, he was hoping to get another £2-3,000 ,000!