Police Complaints and the IPCC

My idea is to overhaul the police complaints system and by so doing, restore public trust and confidence in British police services, particuarly the appalling Nottinghamshire Police 'Service'.

At present complaints against the police have to be made to a 'Professional Standards' Directorate (PSD) or if made directly to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission; the complaint is then forwarded to the relevant PSD for 'investigation' before the complainant has any right to appeal. Sadly, following the De Menezes whitewash and many other well-documented cases in the UK, the public have come to see the IPCC has nothing more than paid apologists for the police.

The system is fundamentally flawed and favours the police at every stage because police officers cannot be trusted to 'investigate' their fellow officers and almost always arrive at a conclusion that favours the police. If the police complaints procedure was radically changed to create a fair system that is not biased to the police, then public trust in the police/IPCC could be restored.

The proposal therefore is that all complaints against the police be handled entirely by the IPCC from the very outset and the police should only assist the IPCC in an administrative role by providing access to documents, evidence and to interview the officers who have been complained about  and this should be done in an impartial manner by all concerned.

The IPCC is not 'independent' and in its current guise resembles just another institutionally corrupt New Labour quango with a remit to cheat the public of anything remotely resembling truth and justice. The IPCC is perfectly capable of dealing with complaints against police officers from the outset and if the police object to the change in the complaints system, this will prove that they want to maintain the current biased system and retain the IPCC as mere puppets for public relations purposes….

There is widespread anger against the police in Britain and the New Labour years were a disaster for police and public relations and public trust has collapsed. By overhauling the current system to hand power and responsibility for police complaints to the IPCC, then the public would understand that the coalition government is deeply serious about changing the legal system in Britain. This in turn would cause public trust and confidence in the police and IPCC to grow. It is also imperative that IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick is replaced because he was and remains a New Labour supporting flunkie with a love affair for the police and which he has demonstrated by his actions at the head of the IPCC.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to overhaul the police complaints system and by so doing, restore public trust and confidence in British police services, particuarly the appalling Nottinghamshire Police 'Service'.

At present complaints against the police have to be made to a 'Professional Standards' Directorate (PSD) or if made directly to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission; the complaint is then forwarded to the relevant PSD for 'investigation' before the complainant has any right to appeal. Sadly, following the De Menezes whitewash and many other well-documented cases in the UK, the public have come to see the IPCC has nothing more than paid apologists for the police.

The system is fundamentally flawed and favours the police at every stage because police officers cannot be trusted to 'investigate' their fellow officers and almost always arrive at a conclusion that favours the police. If the police complaints procedure was radically changed to create a fair system that is not biased to the police, then public trust in the police/IPCC could be restored.

The proposal therefore is that all complaints against the police be handled entirely by the IPCC from the very outset and the police should only assist the IPCC in an administrative role by providing access to documents, evidence and to interview the officers who have been complained about  and this should be done in an impartial manner by all concerned.

The IPCC is not 'independent' and in its current guise resembles just another institutionally corrupt New Labour quango with a remit to cheat the public of anything remotely resembling truth and justice. The IPCC is perfectly capable of dealing with complaints against police officers from the outset and if the police object to the change in the complaints system, this will prove that they want to maintain the current biased system and retain the IPCC as mere puppets for public relations purposes….

There is widespread anger against the police in Britain and the New Labour years were a disaster for police and public relations and public trust has collapsed. By overhauling the current system to hand power and responsibility for police complaints to the IPCC, then the public would understand that the coalition government is deeply serious about changing the legal system in Britain. This in turn would cause public trust and confidence in the police and IPCC to grow. It is also imperative that IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick is replaced because he was and remains a New Labour supporting flunkie with a love affair for the police and which he has demonstrated by his actions at the head of the IPCC.

Open the CPS up to private case submissions

Having been assaulted and the police involved, the police refused to investigate the assault and hence criminal proceedings came to a halt.

[Civil proceedings were successful]

Currently the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not take on cases submitted to them by members of the public.

Members of the public should be entitled to do this.

Why is this idea important?

Having been assaulted and the police involved, the police refused to investigate the assault and hence criminal proceedings came to a halt.

[Civil proceedings were successful]

Currently the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not take on cases submitted to them by members of the public.

Members of the public should be entitled to do this.

Independent doctors only to investigate deaths involving police

As the death of Ian Tomlinson so closely echoes the death Blair Peach, it is obvious that nothing has changed in the space of  30 years. Any doctor assigned by the police to do a post mortem is not an unbiased observer. Any evidence is not properly collected as would be the case if the post mortem was carried out in a normal manner.

 

A police officer is there to enforce the law, not stand aove it.

Both the doctor and the CPS who then use the suspect Post Mortem to cite a "conflict of experts" as a reason to squash any further progress of the case and allow the police office to get away with murder.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

As the death of Ian Tomlinson so closely echoes the death Blair Peach, it is obvious that nothing has changed in the space of  30 years. Any doctor assigned by the police to do a post mortem is not an unbiased observer. Any evidence is not properly collected as would be the case if the post mortem was carried out in a normal manner.

 

A police officer is there to enforce the law, not stand aove it.

Both the doctor and the CPS who then use the suspect Post Mortem to cite a "conflict of experts" as a reason to squash any further progress of the case and allow the police office to get away with murder.

 

 

 

Government should review the six month limit for common assault

There appears to be a six month limit for pressing charges in common assault cases which appears to be present  as a civil liberty safeguard to the defendent.

Sometimes, for quite legitimate reasons, the CPS might need to take more than six months to investigate a more serious crime, and then they might have to conclude, again for legitimate reasons, that such a prosecution is untenable and meanwhile the chance to press for a common assault charge might be lost in those rare cases where a common assault would indeed be appropriate.

I must stress that I am talking about a hypothetical case that could arise in the future. I do not wish to talk about or express any opinion on any case which might already have occurred. I am not a lawyer so I have had to glean the law from media sources. I hope my idea below is based on correct facts and I hope someone can correct me if not.

My idea is that I would like the government and parliament to order a review of the law on that common assault cases six months to see whether justice is best served in keeping the law as it is or whether it would be better to allow extension of six months for those cases in which the CPS is investigating a more serious crime.

Why is this idea important?

There appears to be a six month limit for pressing charges in common assault cases which appears to be present  as a civil liberty safeguard to the defendent.

Sometimes, for quite legitimate reasons, the CPS might need to take more than six months to investigate a more serious crime, and then they might have to conclude, again for legitimate reasons, that such a prosecution is untenable and meanwhile the chance to press for a common assault charge might be lost in those rare cases where a common assault would indeed be appropriate.

I must stress that I am talking about a hypothetical case that could arise in the future. I do not wish to talk about or express any opinion on any case which might already have occurred. I am not a lawyer so I have had to glean the law from media sources. I hope my idea below is based on correct facts and I hope someone can correct me if not.

My idea is that I would like the government and parliament to order a review of the law on that common assault cases six months to see whether justice is best served in keeping the law as it is or whether it would be better to allow extension of six months for those cases in which the CPS is investigating a more serious crime.

Is there justice in the UK

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

Why is this idea important?

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

Repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

We petition to restore the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before punishment and the repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act (POAC)
 

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC calls the POAC “a law more draconian and manifestly unjust than anything ever devised by a State in modern times”
He continues that this “legally complicated, draconian and unjust system” has come about “mainly because Parliament does not send enough time , or use enough care, in vetting the laws us before it by civil servants and politicians-goaded as they are by the tabloid press with little understanding of the consequences of what they do”

 

1) Search warrants under POAC.

Warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be issued to ‘the Occupant’. Someone who is merely suspected of involvement in a crime, without any evidence or complaint and without anyone having been charged or convicted of a crime, and any person who lives in an adjacent named property in the same building can have all movable assets seized

The police already have enough power to search and seize property relating to a crime they do not need the wide ranging powers given by the search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

 

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation, before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is a gross injustice.

 

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is impossible in these circumstances.
Whilst the Crown has virtually unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

 

4) Confiscation Order

The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and senior staff receives bonuses


Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is not necessary as laws already exist for the confiscation or the proceeds of crime and these laws can be extended if necessary.

Why is this idea important?

We petition to restore the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before punishment and the repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act (POAC)
 

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC calls the POAC “a law more draconian and manifestly unjust than anything ever devised by a State in modern times”
He continues that this “legally complicated, draconian and unjust system” has come about “mainly because Parliament does not send enough time , or use enough care, in vetting the laws us before it by civil servants and politicians-goaded as they are by the tabloid press with little understanding of the consequences of what they do”

 

1) Search warrants under POAC.

Warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be issued to ‘the Occupant’. Someone who is merely suspected of involvement in a crime, without any evidence or complaint and without anyone having been charged or convicted of a crime, and any person who lives in an adjacent named property in the same building can have all movable assets seized

The police already have enough power to search and seize property relating to a crime they do not need the wide ranging powers given by the search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

 

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation, before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is a gross injustice.

 

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is impossible in these circumstances.
Whilst the Crown has virtually unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

 

4) Confiscation Order

The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and senior staff receives bonuses


Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is not necessary as laws already exist for the confiscation or the proceeds of crime and these laws can be extended if necessary.

REMOVE THE TARGET AND BONUS CULTURE FROM OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The target and bonus culture is  entrenched  in the Police and Crown Prosecution Service  and  this leads to manifest injutices  

Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.


Details provided under the Freedom of Information Act found that. The prosecuting authority receives 18.5 per cent of the money seized from people convicted of fraud and subjected to confiscation orders. The RCPO admitted that in 2008-09 it paid almost £44,000 in bonuses to its senior staff who met “agreed written objectives”.
 

Why is this idea important?

The target and bonus culture is  entrenched  in the Police and Crown Prosecution Service  and  this leads to manifest injutices  

Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.


Details provided under the Freedom of Information Act found that. The prosecuting authority receives 18.5 per cent of the money seized from people convicted of fraud and subjected to confiscation orders. The RCPO admitted that in 2008-09 it paid almost £44,000 in bonuses to its senior staff who met “agreed written objectives”.
 

Innocent people not being stigmatised

I believe that people who have been arrested and subsequently not had any charge brought against them by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service should not have to give the admission on job applications that they have been arrested unless it has gone to court.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that people who have been arrested and subsequently not had any charge brought against them by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service should not have to give the admission on job applications that they have been arrested unless it has gone to court.

Restore the right to a fair trial

Currently the Crown is able to apply for introduction of evidence of bad character. This is clearly highly prejudicial and tips the scales of justice against a defendant. It allows the CPS to bolster often inadequate cases and should be repealed. Conviction for a crime should be based on the evidence not on  "a propensity" to commit a criminal offence.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the Crown is able to apply for introduction of evidence of bad character. This is clearly highly prejudicial and tips the scales of justice against a defendant. It allows the CPS to bolster often inadequate cases and should be repealed. Conviction for a crime should be based on the evidence not on  "a propensity" to commit a criminal offence.

POLICE TO DECIDE ON CRIMINAL CHARGES NOT THE CPS

As things currently stand the Crown Prosecution Service has to authorise all charges before the police are allowed to prosecute. This creates an unecesarry and duplicate layer in decision making. Police sergeants and above should be allowed to authorise all charges, (save perhaps indictiable only – ie the most serious offences). Such officers are qualified by examination and by default will have significant experience. If it was a Custody Officer decision this would also provide an independent judgement (as defined by virtue of the Police &  Criminal Evidence Act 1984).

Such a proposal would allow the removal of CPS Direct, a massive organisation, costing millions per year. It would allow the CPS to then concentrate on prosecuting and restore some faith in our police service. it would also remove the nervousness of the CPS to only prosecute offences where they are almost certain to win at court (as created by virtue of their own KPI's).

I would suggest a simple and effective suggestion which will save significant money and lead to a better society.

Why is this idea important?

As things currently stand the Crown Prosecution Service has to authorise all charges before the police are allowed to prosecute. This creates an unecesarry and duplicate layer in decision making. Police sergeants and above should be allowed to authorise all charges, (save perhaps indictiable only – ie the most serious offences). Such officers are qualified by examination and by default will have significant experience. If it was a Custody Officer decision this would also provide an independent judgement (as defined by virtue of the Police &  Criminal Evidence Act 1984).

Such a proposal would allow the removal of CPS Direct, a massive organisation, costing millions per year. It would allow the CPS to then concentrate on prosecuting and restore some faith in our police service. it would also remove the nervousness of the CPS to only prosecute offences where they are almost certain to win at court (as created by virtue of their own KPI's).

I would suggest a simple and effective suggestion which will save significant money and lead to a better society.

Restrict The Crown prosecution Service

Their remit should be reduced to what their title suggests..prosecution.

It should be the police who investigate and collect the evidence and decide whether a person can be charged according to the evidence, only when that decision has been taken by the police should the CPS get involved.  It would then be their duty to prosecute according to the evidence or they may review and say there is no charge to answer.

At present it is the CPS who decide whether to prosecute or not and on occassions have decided to prosecute because of political reasoning rather than criminal.   There are many prosecutions that serve no purpose other than to satify the CPSs position.

In many instances often in so called race hate crimes the intention was not hate but  more of  a heat of the moment response, a quiet word would be more effective and appropriate.

Why is this idea important?

Their remit should be reduced to what their title suggests..prosecution.

It should be the police who investigate and collect the evidence and decide whether a person can be charged according to the evidence, only when that decision has been taken by the police should the CPS get involved.  It would then be their duty to prosecute according to the evidence or they may review and say there is no charge to answer.

At present it is the CPS who decide whether to prosecute or not and on occassions have decided to prosecute because of political reasoning rather than criminal.   There are many prosecutions that serve no purpose other than to satify the CPSs position.

In many instances often in so called race hate crimes the intention was not hate but  more of  a heat of the moment response, a quiet word would be more effective and appropriate.

the crown prosecution service”s wasting money and destroying peoples live,s

it is time now that the system we use in this country are archaic and old , and waste,s millions of £ every year .

i speak of people being brought before the courts over allegations of rape that can go back as far as you like 30 40 50 60 years rediculous , quite often and more often than not these people are destroyed family friends children ect, ect, you can imagine a man can be accused of serious allegation s of criminal offenc,e he is named shamed destroyed humiliated , many have taken their live,s become drunks loss of all his family ties , and often as not he is brought all this way and then let go because not enough evidence , a grudge but not proved either way the supposed victim is not named they remain  completely shielded by the courts that their identidy remains secret , and they leave destruction in their wake they cannot go back into life as though nothing has happened they have been destoyed but mud sticks the people around them suspicious and distrustful and it will never leave their life after this it  destroys the  mans  life from his wife , girlfriend to the country and the  world . mostly it is distruction because a women wants to destroy for many reasons other than fact this act was not committed the woman she claims a large sum as high as £100,000. remove compensation for any crime , surely all a person wants is justice not money . this society is all about money remove it .and name all those who accuse ! except for  the children they should remain shielded their name everything about them , keep them safe .in germany if a serious crime is committed it has to be reported by ten years other wise they refuse to take part and will not charge a person persons .

we follow europe in most every thing we do in our daily live,s these days . why then do we shield  our archaic laws from change change this law protect those who are accused of a crime until they are proved . and move forward that if a crime is committed then it should be dealt with at that time or dealt within by ten years as they do in germany this would save money  live,s police time and also remove compensation for a crime guilty verdict . justce free,s the mind not money !.

 

Why is this idea important?

it is time now that the system we use in this country are archaic and old , and waste,s millions of £ every year .

i speak of people being brought before the courts over allegations of rape that can go back as far as you like 30 40 50 60 years rediculous , quite often and more often than not these people are destroyed family friends children ect, ect, you can imagine a man can be accused of serious allegation s of criminal offenc,e he is named shamed destroyed humiliated , many have taken their live,s become drunks loss of all his family ties , and often as not he is brought all this way and then let go because not enough evidence , a grudge but not proved either way the supposed victim is not named they remain  completely shielded by the courts that their identidy remains secret , and they leave destruction in their wake they cannot go back into life as though nothing has happened they have been destoyed but mud sticks the people around them suspicious and distrustful and it will never leave their life after this it  destroys the  mans  life from his wife , girlfriend to the country and the  world . mostly it is distruction because a women wants to destroy for many reasons other than fact this act was not committed the woman she claims a large sum as high as £100,000. remove compensation for any crime , surely all a person wants is justice not money . this society is all about money remove it .and name all those who accuse ! except for  the children they should remain shielded their name everything about them , keep them safe .in germany if a serious crime is committed it has to be reported by ten years other wise they refuse to take part and will not charge a person persons .

we follow europe in most every thing we do in our daily live,s these days . why then do we shield  our archaic laws from change change this law protect those who are accused of a crime until they are proved . and move forward that if a crime is committed then it should be dealt with at that time or dealt within by ten years as they do in germany this would save money  live,s police time and also remove compensation for a crime guilty verdict . justce free,s the mind not money !.