Menezes Appeal Judge Richards is arrested

In the aftermath of the murder, a cascade of misinformation and lies from the very top down. From Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to the trigger-happy plain-clothes shooters identified only as "carrying a long-barrelled weapon", the actions that day have been exposed as a cover-up of the events that resulted in the extra-judicial execution of an innocent man.

Menezes Appeal Judge Richards is arrested

Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 22:57

22 Jan 2007, 22:47 #1

In December 2006, three senior High Court judges dismissed "on all grounds" the [de Menezes] family's challenge to the CPS decision relating to individual officers.

But today[19th January 2007] Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Forbes declared the case raised "points of law of general public importance".

They certified the High Court decision had raised two questions relating to human rights which the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, might consider answering.

The judges refused the de Menezes family actual permission to appeal.

This is a regular legal practice in order to leave it to the law lords themselves to make the final decision on the cases they want to hear.

The family would not have been able to go to the lords at all without questions first being formally certified.

source
So 3 judges made the ruling on 19th January 2007, on the appeal for judicial review, of Patricia da Silva Armani, one of Mr de Menezes's cousins, against the CPS decision that there was "insufficient evidence" to bring individual prosecutions, and that the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act should be used to prosecute the Metropolitan Police, instead of taking action against individual officers.

The de Menezes family stated "We are bringing this challenge because we believe that individuals should bear responsibility for this crime. Otherwise a message is sent out that police officers can kill with impunity."

So very synchronous with this decision by Judge Steven Richards et al, is the news that Judge Richards has been arrested over allegations that he indecently exposed himself to a female passenger on a train. The 'flashing incident' occurred in October 2006, but the arrest was made on the same day that he made the de Menezes appeal decision!

A Times article of today (22nd January 2007) provide further details: Top judge arrested over 'flashing on train'.

It seems that the delayed action over the 'flashing incident' could be seen as punishment for the desision he has made providing the opportunity for the Law Lords to rule on the de Menezes murder incident. The Law lords tend to be a (necessary) thorn in the side to the government; it was a Law Lords decision that outlawed the governments policy of detaining foreign nationals in the UK without trial or even the prospect of any trial.

There are echoes of the Franklin Cover Up that surround this. A documentary on the franklin credit Union Scandal is at Googlevideo HERE. The scandal involved the shipping in of child prostitutes into the drunken stages of parties attended by politicians/influential persons in the US. Photographs were taken of the politicians with the kids (in negligees etc.) & then used as a 'lever' against those politicians who would otherwise have objected/voted against policies favoured by those in control. Sickening stuff.
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened." -- George Orwell, 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Jul 2006, 09:00

23 Jan 2007, 09:19 #2

The Franklin case can be read two different ways. Were these people being put into circumstances that could lead to black mail in the future, or is there evidence for large scale poedophile rings with contacts that go to the very top of the powers that be.

I know which one I believe.
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 May 2006, 23:31

23 Jan 2007, 15:34 #3

Another example of intimidation last year by UK MET Police related to the Menezes killing :

British Journalists Face Pressure from Police After Revelations on Menezes Shooting
Wednesday, March 8th, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 08/1554217
Reply
Like

Joined: 12 Sep 2006, 17:57

23 Jan 2007, 16:03 #4

Dave52 @ Jan 23 2007, 09:19 AM wrote:
Were these people being put into circumstances that could lead to black mail in the future, or is there evidence for large scale poedophile rings with contacts that go to the very top of the powers that be.
a neat blend of the two methinks

latter creating the former
the 'war "against" terror' is a travelling circus, ready to pitch its macabre death display wherever self determination has a chance, in any place where transnational corporate interests say so, and while we sit in thrall at the spectacle, our pockets are being picked, and while we marvel at the shock and awe on display we should know, that the ring master's plan is that it is we who will be the future stars of the show
Reply
Like

Joined: 07 May 2006, 23:31

24 Jan 2007, 08:59 #5

Were these people being put into circumstances that could lead to black mail in the future, or is there evidence for large scale poedophile rings with contacts that go to the very top of the powers that be.
Somehow I don't see the connection between this incident and the Franklin scandal / paedophile rings. Whatever happened in that train, doesn't mean anyone was forced to do anything, there were no minors involved, no paedophile network that "go to the top of the powers that be"and so on ?

Anyone who knows the identity of the woman involved in this flashing scandal, or any further backgrounds ? I'm tempted to believe he was setup for political reasons, although without further information/evidence, it's pretty hard to say what actually happened.
Reply
Like

Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 22:57

24 Jan 2007, 09:52 #6

When I said 'echoes' of Franklin, I meant that there appears to be threats of 'leverage' floating around, perhaps not on Judge Richards (who has already made the comment/ruling on the family led appeal, causing further aggravation for the de Menezes killers), but towards any other persons who may choose to uphold and pursue the correct course of action/investigation into similar matters involving such collusion.

i.e. don't be 'shouting off' as we can air some of your (fabricated or otherwise) indiscretions. I wasn't implying any connections with minors, paedophile networks etc. that "go to the top of the powers that be"and so on. (Although there are some that believe such connections are present in the UK state of affairs - files on all cabinet ministers etc. etc..)

Such 'negative payback' happens all the time in politics/public affairs, but it takes a keen eye to draw the connections & make the links.
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened." -- George Orwell, 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

06 Apr 2007, 11:47 #7

Judge denies exposure charges

Press Association
Thursday March 8, 2007 3:28 PM

One of Britain's most senior judges has pleaded not guilty to two counts of exposure.

Lord Justice Richards, who sits in the Court of Appeal, appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' in central London to answer charges relating to two alleged incidents on trains in south west London in October last year.

It is claimed Sir Stephen Richards exposed himself to a woman on two separate occasions on a train between Wimbledon and Waterloo on October 16 and 24.

In a 10-minute hearing Sir Stephen, a 56-year-old married father of three from Wimbledon, south west London, spoke only to confirm his name and enter his plea.

He is charged with two counts of "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distressed."

A two-day trial will be heard at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, beginning on June 11.

Sir Stephen was given unconditional bail until that date.

The judge has overseen a number of high profile hearings and in January ruled in a High Court case brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian gunned down by armed police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like