LEGAL MAFIA 10
|Man hating feminist at the heart of British INjustice system who let lawyer
who abused young boys avoid jail
Alisons Saunders and Greville Janner. Abuse against young boys doesn't matter to
FULL ARTICLE HERE
The feminists who are turning British justice against men, writes barrister LAURA PERRINS
The Crown Prosecution Service is meant to be one of the guardians of the British public. Its duty is to tackle criminality without bias, regardless of the background of either perpetrator or victim.
Its guiding spirit should be the famous, blindfolded figure of Justice that stands on top the Old Bailey, reflecting the ideal that we’re all equal before the law.
But, as a barrister myself, I fear the service is sliding towards the status of a noisy pressure group in the grip of feminist dogma.
No longer the stern, impartial bulwark of our legal system, it now appears to be increasingly driven by fashionable politics and ideological fads.
That’s certainly the outlook that shines through the CPS’s annual report on Violence Against Women And Girls, published earlier this week. In triumphant language, the document spells out a lengthy catalogue of success for the modern feminist agenda.
‘More than 100,000 defendants were prosecuted for domestic abuse, with over 75,000 convicted — the highest volumes ever recorded,’ reads one passage.
‘Domestic abuse, rape and sexual offences now account for nearly 19 per cent of our workload, an increase over the past six years from just under nine per cent,’ declares another.
Much of this focus on offences against women has been driven by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, who took up her post in November 2013, and has since been regularly embroiled in controversies over her decisions, such as her refusal to prosecute the late Labour peer Lord Janner on multiple allegations of paedophilia.
But it is her attachment to a doctrinaire brand of feminism that is the most disturbing feature of her CPS leadership.
This is the public official who stated last year that any woman who wakes up in bed with a man, with no memory of the previous evening because of drunkenness, should go to the police if there is the slightest suspicion that an assault may have been committed. In the same politically correct tones, she has published complex guidelines on sexual consent which, she boasted, ‘take us well beyond the old saying that “no means no”.’
In Ms Saunders’ brave new world, a rape suspect may have to show the steps he took to establish that consent was ‘fully and freely given’, which rather inverts that age-old British tradition: innocent until proven guilty.
Hardline feminists may be glorying in Ms Saunders’s tenure. The rest of us should surely be concerned that the organisation is in danger of losing its sense of purpose and proportion.
I am not, of course, arguing that crimes against women should not be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. In the name of genuine justice, such an approach is essential, and it is true that in the past, prosecutors often ignored offences such as rape within marriage and domestic violence.
But what profoundly concerns me is the CPS’s lack of balance.
Amid all the eagerness to celebrate the prosecution of offensive tweeters and misogynistic bloggers, the questions have to be asked: are similar resources being put into the fight against other crimes, such as theft and burglary?
Is the same energy devoted to incidents where men are overwhelmingly the victims? Grievous bodily harm, for example?
The feminist lobby likes to talk grandly about gender equality, but the reality is that in this focus on women’s rights, men increasingly receive a raw deal.
In practice, the CPS — and much of the rest of the political establishment — now gives the impression that offences against women are treated with more robustness than those against men.
We see that in the rash of new legislation designed to meet the demands of the feminist creed.
Indeed, the CPS report this week is full of references to recent laws, including the Malicious Communications Act (under which ‘revenge porn’ cases are prosecuted) and the offence of ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’, which is aimed at domestic abuse.
Yet most of this legislation is not necessary, since personal abuse and harassment are already against the law. Was the recently introduced Modern Slavery Act — designed to fight people-trafficking, where most of the victims are female — really necessary? We already have a barrage of anti-slavery legislation that covers these sorts of crimes.
The feminist lobby is endlessly demanding new laws to signal their virtue and campaigning zeal, and the CPS, under Alison Saunders, is only too happy to accommodate them.
A prime example is the legislation against female genital mutilation (FGM). There was no need for yet another Act, for this vile form of misogynistic torture was already covered by a host of measures, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Predictably, it has had no impact beyond garnering favourable headlines from progressive newspapers such as The Guardian.
There has not been a single successful prosecution. The only attempt to bring charges — against London doctor Dhanuson Dharmasena — was a farcical case that rightly ended in humiliating failure when the jury acquitted him in just 25 minutes.
There is also an element of hypocrisy about the CPS’s action in areas like this. After all, the organisation is fully signed up to the political establishment’s loud demand that we should all embrace multi-culturalism and celebrate diversity.
As a result of this prevailing mood, any challenge to any ethnic minority practice, however odious, was treated as a form of racism. It is little wonder that, in this climate of political sensitivity, alien customs like FGM, domestic servitude, human trafficking and forced marriages all flourished.
This approach reached its nadir in the Rotherham child abuse scandal where, for more than a decade, predatory Muslim gangs were allowed to attack and groom vulnerable white girls with impunity because the authorities were too fearful of accusations of Islamophobia.
With this shameful record, it’s a bit rich of the CPS to now posture as the champion of female emancipation. The CPS’s strategy is not only unfair to men, who are, in fact, by far the biggest targets of crime, but it also undermines the concept of due process under the law, one of the pillars of our justice system.
When referring to offences against women, Alison Saunders and her underlings peddle political jargon about the problem of so-called ‘victim-blaming’ — where a woman is blamed for a sexual assault against her — as if the only reason more prosecutions are not secured is because the criminal justice system is insufficiently feminist. Such an insidious approach ignores the age-old notion of establishing the burden of proof.
A rape suspect sometimes walks free, not because of ‘victim-blaming’ by the defence, but because he’s genuinely innocent.
But perhaps the biggest disservice of all is done to women themselves. The CPS appears determined to create a mood of infantilised hysteria, where threats lurk for women around every corner, where masculinity is nothing but a reservoir of violent anger.
Ms Saunders said on Tuesday that social media had built ‘a new landscape for controlling, sexually motivated or other forms of inter-personal offending’.
Yet the internet has also been a tremendous force for liberation, helping modern women to enjoy more choices and freedom than in any previous generation.
With this relentless message, the CPS seems to want to trap women in victimhood, whipping up fears and exaggerating dangers. There is something offensive about its urge to sweep all kinds of crime, from brutal rape to nasty texts, into one vast category of female misery.
The shallowness at the heart of this outlook was highlighted recently by a CPS campaign against rape which compared sexual consent to having a cup of tea. ‘You wouldn’t force or pressure someone into having a cup of tea, and you can tell when someone wants a cup of tea or not,’ said Ms Saunders in pushing the initiative.
That’s the naive quality of argument and poor leadership we have to endure in our legislation.
This week’s intellectually flawed report simply reinforces how badly her service has lost its way.
Laura Perrins is co-editor of Conservativewoman.co.uk
|Lawyers the child procurers for paedo's
|Lawyers protected BBC's predatory paedo Savile while alive and now they get to rifle his estate on death
One perfect example as to why these evil bastards are the biggest terror threat on the planet.
Many men pushed to suicide when stripped bare after divorce.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Every time a reporter tried to investigate Savile his lawyers were very prompt in threatening aggressive legal action
Lawyers 'get £2.5million of Jimmy Savile's estate leaving just £1million for the paedophile DJ's victims'
Lawyers will allegedly receive £2.5million of Jimmy Savile's estate, leaving just £1million for the victims of the paedophile DJ.
Law firm Osborne Clarke claimed costs of £1.8million for its work for NatWest bank and the running of the compensation scheme, while lawyers for the claimants will be paid £689,000, according to court papers.
A payout of just over one million has been agreed for the 78 cases of abuse made solely against the estate, meaning each victim gets an average of £13,000.
Child abuse survivors' representatives and a Labour MP criticised the legal fees, calling for judges to speak out against lawyer's charges.
NatWest bank applied to be allowed to make the payments to the claimants and their lawyers under the compensation scheme at the High Court in London on Thursday. They then applied to be relieved of their role of executor.
Mark Cunningham, QC, appearing for NatWest, told Mr Justice Warren that the estate was currently worth £2,042,000 - with £1,033,000 to be paid to claimants and £689,000 to their representatives.
Due to other costs, the amount left would be around £141,000 - which will be divided among defendants such as the BBC, the NHS and Barnardo's, which had already paid out damages.
It emerged after the Jimmy Savile's death that the paedophile broadcaster had assaulted hundreds of children.
Savile had an estate reported to be worth around £4million when he died in 2001 aged 84 without ever facing prosecution.
Savile sexually assaulted victims as young as five at NHS hospitals during decades of unrestricted access, reports say.
He abused 63 people, who were aged between eight to 40, connected to Stoke Mandeville Hospital from 1968 to 1992, according to the Stoke Mandeville report.
Claimants and their solicitors can expect their payments next week after a written judgement, though Justice Warren has said he will grant the application.
Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, told the Sunday Times: 'Arguably the only people who really win in these situations are the lawyers - they take the lion's share of the money in estates such as Savile's.'
John Mann, the Labour MP who has campaigned against child sex abuse, called the sum an 'absurdly large amount'.
Liz Dux, specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon who represented 168 of Savile's victims, said: 'What has been most important in all of this was that those Savile victims whose claims have been accepted, will receive their compensation in full. There will be no deductions.
'All parties including the Savile Estate wanted this matter concluded as quickly and cheaply as possible but the actions of the Savile Trust, who were the beneficiaries under his will, have been to constantly try to block the victims receiving a penny in compensation.
A payout of just over one million has been agreed for the 78 cases of abuse made solely against Saville's estate, meaning each victim gets an average of £13,000
Savile had an estate reported to be worth aroudn £4million when he died in 2001 aged 84 without ever facing prosecution
A payout of just over one million has been agreed for the 78 cases of abuse made solely against Saville's estate, meaning each victim gets an average of £13,000
'Sadly, it has been the actions of the beneficiaries of the Estate which has led to the escalation of costs due their continued opposition of the settlement scheme.
'Fortunately, the Courts have defeated their efforts. Justice has prevailed and those who Savile abused can now hopefully achieve closure.'
Osborne Clarke's costs for Thursday's two-hour High Court hearing were said to be £61,000, however a spokeswoman for the firm said the sum did no represent costs for the hearing.
They claimed the firm's fees 'comprised less than half the figure' and were not just for the two-hour hearing, but for the necessary work taken to make the application.
They added that under the scheme, 166 claimants will be receiving £2,306,636 - a figure covering claims against the estate, NHS, BBC, Barnardo's and mental health charity MIND - not those solely against the estate.
The law firm said: 'The £1.8million figure is inaccurate as taken out of context, and does not represent only Osborne Clarke fees, which are only a proportion of the overall figure.'
The overall sum included third-party costs.
|How the UK's freemason cops let crooked lawyers steal with impunity
A memorandum of understanding between Britain's masonic cops and lawyers via the terror cell of
the Law Society ensures cops wont investigate millions being stolen by crooked lawyers. This is a
rare example that seldom appears in the controlled media especially the lawyer controlled BBC
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Memorandum of Understanding between cops and law society
Fraud-accused Coventry councillor (lawyer) Philip Townshend never questioned
An ex-deputy council leader accused of ripping off a vulnerable woman was never interviewed by police over the allegation, the BBC has learned.
Coventry councillor Philip Townshend, who died last year, took out a mortgage on the elderly woman's house without her knowledge, a source said.
A relative branded the police inquiry "disgraceful".
West Midlands Police defended its investigation but declined to say why no interview took place.
His daughter Kirstie Logan-Townshend, 26, refuted the allegation, and said police "made a mistake" by not interviewing him sooner as "he would have cooperated fully".
Mr Townshend was able to get the mortgage as he had been granted power of attorney over the homeowner, who was in her 70s, the BBC understands.
'Whiter than white'
An allegation of irregularities in her finances was made in May 2015, said police, and the case given to an investigating officer in July.
When Mr Townshend, a solicitor, died last October, aged 57, he had not been interviewed, a Freedom of Information (FoI) request revealed.
West Midlands Police said four officers had worked on the investigation, but would not explain why Mr Townshend had not been questioned.
A relative of the woman said: "He should have been brought in at the first opportunity.
"He was being paid by the public purse and should have been whiter than white, holier than thou."
A source told the BBC Mr Townshend applied for equity release on the property, which was priced at £325,000 according to Land Registry documents.
Mortgage papers and bank statements were held by police, according to an FoI request released after a BBC appeal.
The documents show Mr Townshend benefitted to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds, a source said.
A court ordered Townshends LLP to be wound up in January 2013, according to Companies House documents
Before his death, Mr Townshend allegedly told a mortgage company which attempted to take possession of the home it would be vacant, even though the woman still lived there.
It ceased repossession proceedings when it was made aware of the alleged fraud, a source said.
The councillor's former company, Townshends LLP solicitors, was wound up by court order and still had unpaid debts of more than £688,000.
By March this year, liquidators had found "no areas for recovery", according to official documents. The firm's biggest creditor was HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
Police also had a warrant application to search Coventry City council house, but it is not known if the authority was searched.
However, police said any suggestion of a "cover up" was "wholly inappropriate and does not reflect the complex and protracted nature of the investigation".
The force, which declined to provide further details of its investigations, said its inquiries covered "all relevant parties".
Ms Logan-Townshend said: "If police had not investigated, they would have faced scrutiny because he was a public figure. They raided my home as well.
"I knew all his sides and this allegation would have been completely out of character."
The Solicitor's Regulation Authority (SRA) began to investigate Mr Townshend in May 2015 but stopped when he died. A spokesperson said "no further work or action could be taken" now.
At an inquest in April this year, a coroner ruled Mr Townshend died of natural causes.
Mr Townshend became a councillor in 1999, served as a school governor and held the role of Chair of University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust for five years.
He is set to become the first recipient of a posthumous degree from the University of Warwick next month.
|Unbelievably lenient sentence for homosexual lawyer whose boyfriend died from chemsex drugs
The VILE homosexual scum employed as lawyers and BBC producers and a judiciary only to happy
to dish out paltry sentences for 'CHEMSEX' death. Hedonistic drug induced lifestyles of the legal scum controlling
the laws that destroy heterosexual men
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Disgraced homosexual lawyer whose boyfriend died after he gave him drugs for a gay "chemsex" party has resigned as a barrister
A barrister whose teenage boyfriend died from a lethal cocktail of "chemsex" party drugs has been sentenced for drug possession.
Henry Hendron bought £1,000 worth of mephedrone and GBL from BBC producer Alex Parkin for parties at his City of London apartment, the court heard.
On 20 January, the 35-year-old lawyer woke to find his 18-year-old boyfriend, Miguel Jimenez, dead beside him.
Hendron has been sentenced to 140 hours of unpaid work after pleading guilty.
He was charged with two counts of possession with intent to supply.
Parkin, 41, from west London, also entered a guilty plea for supplying Hendron with the drugs.
He lost his job at the BBC two days later.
A post-mortem examination found the cause of Mr Jimenez's death was a lethal mix of mephedrone and GBL (gammabutyrolactone).
The Class B and Class C drugs were seized by police when they searched the couple's flat in Pump Court, Temple.
Text messages were recovered showing they discussed the drugs, with Mr Jimenez at one point exclaiming to his boyfriend: "Blimey - and I'm the Colombian."
The Old Bailey heard Hendron had admitted buying the drugs but only to share with his boyfriend and sell on to friends at cost price.
Investigators later linked him with BBC Radio 3 producer Parkin who was arrested at his home in Manchester Street.
In mitigation for Hendron, barrister Timothy Cray said the mother of Mr Jimenez had forgiven his client.
Lawyer Dominic Bell highlighted letters in support of Parkin from the controller of BBC Radio 3 and presenter Max Reinhardt.
Sentencing Hendron and Parkin to 140 and 200 hours unpaid work respectively, Judge Richard Marks QC said the pair were involved with "what has been described as the gay chemsex scene".
He said the "tragic and untimely death" of Miguel Jimenez had led both Hendron and Parkin to experience how "very dangerous unlawful drugs can be".
|Corporate rags get round to expose destructive powers of lawyers
A subject most rags avoid due to the total control the law society has over the global media .
Something we ourselves have refused to avoid as victims of their global monopoly mafia. Divorcing
men face ruin as they are forced to pay for their own lawyer and also pick up the astronomical bill of their
golddigging ex wife's lawyer. NO REGULATION just totally unchecked corruption.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
‘Astronomical, unjustifiable': Law firms are slammed for charging up to £1,100-an-HOUR in fees that are restricting access to justice
The fees of the best-paid lawyers have now reached £1,100 an hour and are acting as a dead weight dragging down the economy, a new report warns.
The study accused the biggest law firms of rigging the market by keeping their charges secret and calculating their fees by the hour in a way that ensures inefficiency.
It has also been claimed the 'astronomical' and 'unjustifiable' fees are restricting access to justice
The report by the right-leaning Centre for Policy Studies think-tank suggested that British corporate lawyers are now the most expensive legal advisers in the world.
Partners at 'magic circle' firms are now billing clients an average of £850 to £1,100 an hour, according to the study's author Jim Diamond. He told the Independent that was nearly double the £498 to £598 in real terms the firms were billing in 2003.
Mr Diamond also said many firms bill for 'unit time', meaning a partner may count sending just a one-word email as a six-minute time unit and charge £110 for 30 seconds' work.
He claimed that last year a partner at a top-50 law firm in central London even charged his client £2,800 for a drink at a wine bar after billing it as a seven-hour working day at £400 an hour.
And a business was charged £44 for sandwiches by a top-15 law firm at a lunch attended by only two of the client company's representatives. The firm then added its hourly rate to the £22 per head sandwich fee, according to Mr Diamond.
He said the fees being charged by top City law firms were 'astronomical and unjustifiable'.
At a time when judges and legal professionals are protesting against cuts in taxpayer-funded legal aid on the grounds that they restrict access to justice, the real barrier that prevents companies and people fighting wrongdoing is the scale of the lawyer’s fees, Mr Diamond said.
The report said: ‘Hourly rates for a lawyer at a top London firm can now exceed £1,000, the highest level ever recorded.
‘The top City firms charge almost the same amount per hour as their American legal cousins except that the UK firms charge their clients in sterling.’
It added that everyone ends up paying the bills for overpriced lawyers.
‘The high level of legal fees is an efficiency drain on commerce,’ the study said. ‘British industry is forced to suffer a deadweight loss as excessive amounts of time and money must be spent dealing with legal issues.’
Mr Diamond said the scale of lawyers’ charges was ‘high enough to restrict access to law, particularly for smaller business clients for whom bills can be prohibitive’.
The report pointed to three main reasons for the high fees of corporate lawyers.
One is the complexity of the legal system and the British tax code, which has trebled in size since Gordon Brown became Chancellor in 1997 and now runs to 22,000 pages.
Another reason is that the lack of any published rates for commercial legal advice allows law firms to control their prices.
Mr Diamond said: ‘Transparent pricing is vital for a marketplace to function fairly and efficiently. Yet it does not exist within the market for UK commercial law.’
There was also limited competition between the most powerful ‘magic circle’ City law firms, the report said.
‘The remarkable similarity in the rates charged by each of the magic circle law firms suggests a shortage of competition between them – the differential between hourly rates charged to clients tends to be in the region of only five per cent,’ it said.
‘While there is no suggestion of collusion between the companies, which would of course be illegal under competition law, such close price similarly is indicative of a less than perfectly functioning market.’
Mr Diamond added: ‘Remuneration on a time basis rewards inefficiency.’
High legal costs which are piled on to the loser in any court battle drive the rival parties to try to ensure the other said pays them, he noted.
‘The result is inevitable – a civil justice system which is exorbitantly expensive,’ the report concluded.
All five magic circle firms last night declined to comment on the report's claims.