Friday, 18 January 2013

**OUTRAGE** UK Police #Activist Rapes #SECRETTRIALS

Police mass rapes of social justice campaigners to be covered up in judgement casing OUTRAGE amongst lawyers, never mind the VICTIMS, nor social justice campaigners, WORLDWIDE!

Yes, yes!  If the police send an undercover officer to RAPE YOU; your case may NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, not in the ALL NEW NAZI UK COURTS SYSTEM; where it's increasingly obvious, if you have ANYTHING to do with SOCIAL ACTIVISM, you're FAIR GAME for UNFAIR TRIALS.

It seems like the FBI Targeting of Occupy Wall Street protesters, just got a WHOLE NEW LEG of INjustice in the UK.  EXTRADITION AND GUNS AT THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY, for CONSENSUAL sex with a Swedish woman, in Sweden, and SECRET TRIBUNALS if you're BRITISH, and get RAPED by the BRITISH POLICE.

Let me be 100%; I feel 100% CERTAIN, that NON of these women or men, would have consented to the sex if they had known the employment status of the SPIES, concerned.

But in England; RAPE ALL YOU WANT, as long as you're a member of the POLICE, that is!  No problem, your 'case' (unlike ANY OTHER RAPE CASE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM), will fall to NOT be heard in OPEN COURT, but in SECRET TRIBUNAL!

EXCERPTS

"Women who had relationships with police spies win partial legal victory

Judge rules half of the women's cases can be heard in open court but half must be first heard by secret tribunal

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 January 2013 14.01 GMT

Ten women who say they were deceived into having sexual relationships with undercover police officers have won only a partial victory in their fight to have their case heard in the high court.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said the lawsuit alleged "the gravest interference" with the fundamental rights of women who had long-term relationships with police officers sent to spy on their political groups. The judge rejected an attempt by the Metropolitan police to have the whole case struck out of the court.

However, in a mixed ruling, the judge said that half the cases in the legal action should first be heard by a secretive tribunal that usually deals with complaints against MI5.



---

Although Ian Fleming, the writer of the Bond series, did not dwell on "psychological harm he might have done to the women concerned", the judge said fictional accounts such as these point to how "intelligence and police services have for many years deployed both men and women officers to form personal relationships of an intimate sexual nature".

Lawyers for the Met had attempted to have all 11 cases struck out of the court, arguing they constituted an abuse of process and should instead by heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), a little-known complaints body.

However, they achieved only a partial victory.

In his ruling, the judge said that claims against two police officers - Mark Kennedy and a second spy who posed as Mark Jacobs - should first be heard by the IPT. Both of these officers were deployed after 2000, and some of the claims allege their activities constituted a breach of theHuman Rights Act, which came into force in October that year.

However, the judge said that other claims for damages under common law, including torts of misfeasance in public office, deceit, assault and negligence, should be heard by the high court.

He temporarily stayed high court proceedings pending the conclusion of cases at the IPT. The special tribunal was introduced in 2000 to examine complaints from the public about unjustified state surveillance within what it calls "a necessary ring of secrecy". Complainants do not see the evidence put forward by the state and have no automatic right to an oral hearing. Neither can they appeal its decision.

Lawyers for the some of the women described the decision to send half of the cases to the tribunal as an "outrage".

Continues


The White Rabbit!






















No comments :

Post a comment

Only members (obviously) can comment; no moderation; direct to page.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.