COULSON VERDICT: Britain moves on from no Rule of Law to the new rule of law.

The Slog.


Suddenly, perjury is OK if it isn’t ‘germain’

The Slog suggests an answer to why our judiciary is no longer independent, no longer to be trusted -in fact, merely the stinking reflection of a culture floating along in the sewers.

Major top-hat-tip to Peter Jukes, one of the few diligent, creative and inspiring journos we have left. On Twitter today, he points out that almost every press title and news station covering Andy Coulson’s ‘acquittal’ has him found not guilty of lying under oath. This is quite wrong: the Scottish judge used a dodgy precedent, got it wrong, and acquitted the former Newscorp phone-hacker of materially lying under oath. But split infinitives are as nothing compared to the disgrace of divided Judicial loyalties.

Follow the link for a proper forensic account of this new travesty from Tommy Sheridan’s lawyer. It explains…

View original post 456 more words


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to COULSON VERDICT: Britain moves on from no Rule of Law to the new rule of law.

  1. T says:

    Evidence? now we have it now we don’t .. .. seems strange to take a case into court with no evidence. Maybe someone changed the mind of the prosecutor, how could they do that? . maybe if there are some spare bombs left over from Iraq? .. or maybe someone sent him the life story of Dr David Kelly? .. maybe he just fancied a couple of weeks off and went on holiday.

  2. In Regina v M. Harvey, Bingley Magistrates’ Court,1994/95, I was called only as an ‘Expert Witness’, but was able to prove most vicious & spiteful perjury (for most ulterior motives) by powerful Prosecution Witnesses. The story is told in my book, ‘CAUSE for CONCERN’, Part Two, PERJURY BY PEOPLE WITH POWER’. It is available on the internet via the link
    In consequence of my exposure of the perjury, the victim of the malicious prosecution was acquitted on all ten charges. See pages 49-50 of the book, where I wrote,
    – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – –
    In due course Inspector Hennigan (of Keighley Police) wrote to say that ‘after great deliberation’ they had decided not to pursue the matter. In his penultimate paragraph he said “You might feel that justice was done with the subsequent ‘Not guilty’ verdict”. The same view expressed by others, “All’s well that ends well”.
    This puzzles me. If perjury was such a serious crime for the people mentioned on Page 45, why not in this case? I draw an analogy. In a wages snatch a security guard is badly battered, but the robbers drop the swag as they run away. The police know who they are, but decide not to prosecute. The robbers didn’t succeed, the security guard is recovering, – so all’s well that ends well.
    Sorry but it isn’t. Margaret Harvey suffered greatly for 8 months, & her business was ruined by the adverse publicity. People remember those first day headlines better than they remember the acquittal.
    – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – –
    My efforts to have the perjurers answer for their crimes proved futile – BUT THEY CAUSED THE FIRST BLACK MARK AGAINST MY NAME!

  3. peter oakes says:

    Now there,s a thing ? Jonathan Aitken fell “on his trusty sword of truth” and got
    a year or more inside, probably shared a cell with Lord Archer they were perjurors

  4. peter oakes says:

    It is also reminisce of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss perverting justice
    by falsifying the court records Re; King of Saudi Arabia ( See; The Times)

    Their lordships found that Dame Elizabeth had ” misdirected herself” as
    she took early retirement to save facing a prosecution ! and they wanted
    to put this proven criminal in charge of the Rotherham Sex Abuse inquiry ?
    talk about a “rigged jury” we now have a New Zealand judge on the job !

    The establishment wanted an Aussie judge, but got wind of the public claim
    of it being a Kangaroo court of inquiry ?

  5. colinpeters2 says:

    I was a Litigant In Person and immediately before the giving of the judgement my opponents barrister conceded that his client had lied to the court.
    This alone should have won the case for me, but, no. Judge Arthur Hutchinson simply waived it away with a, “Very well”, and proceeded with his perverse outcome driven judgement.
    This was outrageous! Surely it was an abuse of process to ignore a criminal act that has been committed right under ones judicial nose!!!

    • Welcome to the club of ‘eye opened victims’.

      Nobody can make up the degree of deception we’ve been subjected to. Both individually and collectively.

      There’s only one way out: become spiritually stronger and stronger for more and more effective fighting back, i.e. exposure, exposure, exposure!!!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s