Why is this fcuker not in court for breaking the law?

#1
Times linky

TREVOR PHILLIPS is facing renewed turmoil at the government’s equality watchdog after his staff revolted against a proposed “sting” to expose racism in the British National party (BNP).

Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was forced to sanction an internal investigation after executives criticised the entrapment campaign, claiming it was “illegal, unethical and unprofessional”.

Insiders at the commission say three regional executives were asked to find black and Asian “agents” who would approach BNP councillors with purported complaints about poor council services.

The executives were also asked to recruit “agent provocateurs” from ethnic minority groups to apply for membership of the far-right party.

....

The BNP plot has infuriated some commission staff, who said it had put them at risk of reprisals from the far-right party. It will refocus attention on Phillips’s troubled stewardship of the super-quango, which was set up two years ago to merge the government’s race, equal opportunities and disability watchdogs.

Kay Hampton, one of six commissioners to quit this year, described Phillips’s leadership style as “better suited to a political organisation than a human rights one”.

He has also alienated many left-wingers in the race relations lobby with his outspoken critique of Labour’s multiculturalist agenda.

The new row came to light in July as the commission was preparing a High Court action against the BNP’s constitution, which barred ethnic minorities from membership.

The rise of the BNP since its success at the European elections in June has set alarm bells ringing at the commission.

According to commission officials, Tim Wainwright, the commission’s director of regions, held a telephone conference call on July 10 with three executives in charge of its operations in the south of England, the west Midlands and northern England.

One official said: “They were asked to find members of the minority community to go and join the BNP and to complain to BNP councillors about the quality of local services.

“Legally it was just not right. They were asked to do it and they refused.”

Another source added: “They were instructed to get ethnic minorities to join the BNP. Once their membership was refused, they should persuade them to complain against the BNP and ask the commission to take legal action. This was clearly an example of deliberate entrapment.”

A commission insider said there were now concerns that those asked to take part in the operation could be exposed to reprisals from supporters of the BNP. “They are worried about their security, they think anything could happen,” he said.

Clifford Stewart, head of the commission’s operations for the south of England, who was present during the conference call, said he could not discuss the matter in detail because it was under investigation.

“If anything did happen, then it was unauthorised and nobody acted on it,” he said.
 
#2
Because unlike the United States in which tainted evidence is excluded as 'fruit from the poisoned tree', entrapment is not actually against the law if confined within proper limits. There is no system in the Kingdom under which there is an automatic right to exclude evidence which has been illegally or improperly obtained but the court retains a discretion to exclude such evidence if it considers that it has exceeded certain bounds.

To this end, recent guidance was given in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2000 [2001] UKHL 53.

The English law on entrapment has not been modified by the right to a fair trial under art 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998). Under English law, entrapment is not a substantive defence to criminal proceedings, but where a defendant can show entrapment the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of process or exclude evidence pursuant to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Of those two remedies, the grant of a stay, rather than the exclusion of evidence at the trial, should, as a matter of principle, normally be regarded as the appropriate response in a case of entrapment.

A prosecution founded on entrapment is an abuse of the court's process. Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances is an affront to the public conscience.

In deciding whether conduct amounts to state-created crime, the overall consideration is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the police or other law enforcement agency is so seriously improper as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Circumstances of particular relevance are the nature of the offence, the reason for the particular police operation, and the nature and extent of police participation in the crime. The greater the inducement held out by the police, and the more forceful or persistent the police overtures, the more readily may a court conclude that the police have overstepped the boundary. It will not, however, normally be regarded as objectionable for the police to behave as would an ordinary customer of a trade, whether lawful or unlawful, being carried on by the defendant.
 
#3
What if BNP cllrs do act fairly for all the people ?

And if BNP gives as its reason for refusing an application for membership that they believe the applicant was ill motivated ?

Trevor Phillips could try getting white officers to apply to the Assn of Black Police Officers or protestant officers to the Catholic Police Guild or white electricians to apply to Delta ?

I had to laugh at the Race Relations people position that they feared a backlash from the far right.

This whole country faced the backlash of the far right when it stood alone against the ultimate racist Mr Hitler.

The least immigrants to UK should do is to try to live up to our great and superior traditions.
 
#4
All organisations, be it the 'Wheetappers and Shunters" or the "Mess-Tin Preservation Society" have rules which regulate the criteria for joining and for removal if its conditions of membership are broken.

If an individual is found in breach of the terms of his or her membership, providing those rules are objectively reasonable then those in default are subject to sanction. As long as the rules are applied fairly and reasonably regardless of ethnicity, then it is difficult to impeach any organisation on the grounds that it has acted in breach of procedural propriety, or of failing to apply natural justice or has acted irrationally.

All organisations of whatever persuasion have individuals who will want to join for improper motives and most have procedures for detecting and dealing with them.

I think you will find that the courts in this country are pretty even-handed and are well able to detect those instances where the legal process is being abused in furtherance of political ends as many have found out to their cost(s)! 8)
 
#5
In Neue Arbeits STAZI state, any action is permissible to root out 'thought crime'.
 
#6
Oil_Slick said:
In Neue Arbeits STAZI state, any action is permissible to root out 'thought crime'.
I agree very much with the sentiment but it is simply not true that Labour are responsible for introducing a system under which illegal or improperly obtained evidence is both relevant and admissible in Criminal Trials. The Kingdom has a long and venerable history in this area:

“It matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.”

(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501).
 
#7
(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501). I did once use this at DCM in days when Judges Rules were The Way It Was Done. After trial within trial, accepted but proviso it had been obtained by trick not quite amounting to duress. He went down.
 
#8
Iolis said:
Oil_Slick said:
In Neue Arbeits STAZI state, any action is permissible to root out 'thought crime'.
I agree very much with the sentiment but it is simply not true that Labour are responsible for introducing a system under which illegal or improperly obtained evidence is both relevant and admissible in Criminal Trials. The Kingdom has a long and venerable history in this area:

“It matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.”

(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501).

Indeed, but my ire was directed more at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
 
#9
I am not an expert on this but someone who is tells me that the offence can't be created but can be "laid on". For example if police know that so and so is selling drugs an under cover officer can be introduced to him and buy and the offence is complete.

What TG is suggesting is in effect a test purchase operation, and if they allready had intelligence that individual councillors were being discriminatory would, i would submit to the court, be totally legal.

Trotsky
 
#11
BlueDanubeWalt said:
Because he's a black racist..pure, simples, evident..!!

 
#12
Trotsky said:
I am not an expert on this but someone who is tells me that the offence can't be created but can be "laid on". For example if police know that so and so is selling drugs an under cover officer can be introduced to him and buy and the offence is complete.

What TG is suggesting is in effect a test purchase operation, and if they allready had intelligence that individual councillors were being discriminatory would, i would submit to the court, be totally legal.

Trotsky
I would concur that view. The ridiculous situation that here arises is that most operations of this character are, by their very nature conducted in secret.

In this case, the world and his wife are on notice.

If I were arguing for the Commission and for its admissibility in evidence before a judge I would point out that such evidence that has been obtained is more probabative than prejudicial since the organisation targeted has been given ample opportunity to accommodate changes in its application procedures, having been put on notice by the extent of the publicity involved.
 
#13
Trotsky said:
I am not an expert on this but someone who is tells me that the offence can't be created but can be "laid on". For example if police know that so and so is selling drugs an under cover officer can be introduced to him and buy and the offence is complete.

What TG is suggesting is in effect a test purchase operation, and if they allready had intelligence that individual councillors were being discriminatory would, i would submit to the court, be totally legal.

Trotsky
Surley they would have to wait until someone actually tried to join the BMP and were turned down for racist reasons and then complained to have adequate evidence of an illegal act to justify the entrapment ( Test purchase operation).
 
#14
Iolis said:
“It matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.”

(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501).
Didnt a judge in more recent times say the same thing?

'Evidence is evidence, howsoever obtained.' (Pickles?)

Could the BNP simply refuse membership to anyone on the grounds of being mentally unsound? (as anyone of colour would likely be if they wanted to join the BNP!*)

ISTRC from my dim and distant past when I was involved in local politics, it always attracted the 'eccentrics' and bin rummagers. We used to routinely decline their membership applications on those grounds and it was according to rules we had written down somewhere. Were we acting illegally? Would it be illegal now?

*Come to think of it anyone white would likely need their bumps felt too!
 
#15
walt_of_the_walts said:
Iolis said:
“It matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.”

(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501).
Didnt a judge in more recent times say the same thing?

'Evidence is evidence, howsoever obtained.' (Pickles?)

Could the BNP simply refuse membership to anyone on the grounds of being mentally unsound? (as anyone of colour would likely be if they wanted to join the BNP!*)

ISTRC from my dim and distant past when I was involved in local politics, it always attracted the 'eccentrics' and bin rummagers. We used to routinely decline their membership applications on those grounds and it was according to rules we had written down somewhere. Were we acting illegally? Would it be illegal now?

*Come to think of it anyone white would likely need their bumps felt too!

That's no way to talk about Whet! :wink:
 
#16
scoobydont said:
Trotsky said:
I am not an expert on this but someone who is tells me that the offence can't be created but can be "laid on". For example if police know that so and so is selling drugs an under cover officer can be introduced to him and buy and the offence is complete.

What TG is suggesting is in effect a test purchase operation, and if they allready had intelligence that individual councillors were being discriminatory would, i would submit to the court, be totally legal.

Trotsky
Surley they would have to wait until someone actually tried to join the BMP and were turned down for racist reasons and then complained to have adequate evidence of an illegal act to justify the entrapment ( Test purchase operation).

I'd say cooborated intelligence would be enough ... and as we know they leak like a sieve anyway.

You couldn't do it on spec.


On a personal level I will waste no time losing sleep over this. My dislike of the liberal left is nothing on my feelings for the dangerous extremes, left or right!
 
#17
Iolis said:
Oil_Slick said:
In Neue Arbeits STAZI state, any action is permissible to root out 'thought crime'.
I agree very much with the sentiment but it is simply not true that Labour are responsible for introducing a system under which illegal or improperly obtained evidence is both relevant and admissible in Criminal Trials. The Kingdom has a long and venerable history in this area:

“It matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.”

(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501).
However if you get it by tapping his phones then that's another thing entirely...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C The NAAFI Bar 16
N The NAAFI Bar 68
brettarider The NAAFI Bar 16

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top