Public Interest Issues in Paul Chambers

That the Paul Chambers case is a farce is evident.  We have a justice system prepared to waste resources on such matters whilst grannies and disabled people live in terror with no worthy response.  Paul has committed no crime any jury of those of us who visit each others blogs would convict him of.

We hear a lot from CPS apologists on “public interest”.  This case and many others we could probably unearth over a few days at a local Magistrates’ Court (first noticed by me on ‘queers’ day’) are not in the public interest at all.  I’ve had a look first hand recently and found most traffic through the courts is time wasting and that they are not the appropriate setting, or remotely fair – the bias is against ordinary folk who may have erred, the rest a lawyer driven farce.  I say this as someone who wants antisocial and other crimes dealt with promptly, fairly and with outcomes that actually protect victims and reduce crime.

Paul was clearly expressing his ‘love’ for Crazycolours, suggesting quite reasonably he would stoop to terrorism and airport bombing to get to her.  I might have said similar myself once – it was just ‘I’d go a million miles for one of your smiles’ stuff.

The big questions in all this are about public interest and how cops and lawyers get it so badly wrong, with why non one in the system can just turn round and say, ‘farce – next’.  Later ones include why such dismal cases are not being reviewed independently, both to stop them and to get the right kind of training into cops, CPs-wallahs, judges and magistrates.

I begin to wonder if there are any good cases going through the courts.  When I needed some decent cops myself, there were none really.  Those that there were were stymied by the clown system.  Four lied very seriously and tried to pervert the course of justice and I think a leak by a housing officer led to a serious assault on me.  The failures nearly cost lives as a fire-bombing occurred later.  There has been no ‘learning investigation’.  I suspect there will be none on Paul Chambers either.

I believe public interest matters should be discussed well outside the closets of cops and CPS types.

I want to see far fewer cases going through our courts; yet a couple of years back I found  myself prosecuted by my Council for a parking offence I did not commit.  They lied and could be shown to have lied by the very photographs they claimed showed by heinous crime (they did not paint the yellow hashes they claimed I was parked on for another week after my alleged offence).  They lied and lied as I protested.  No perjury charge was possible as my only appeal was to an Ombudsman.  He dismissed the charge in seconds.  Nothing done about the liars though.

The system and people in it seem to have no sense of justice or the extent to which their own sinecured incompetence is blighting lives.  It cannot be in the public interest to let this continue.  The people who brought these idiot charges against Paul are the same as those who beat victims up in preference to doing something to stop vile criminal behaviour and seem unable to recognise their own incompetence and the effects of their vile arrogance on people suffering.

To decide Paul’s case was in the public interest, these turkeys first had to assume Parliament intended the law for such use.  What would this say of our Parliament?  That it writes legislation with the intent of putting a young lover on trial for over-exuberant courting in virtual public?  If I say Xmas is coming and we know what happens to turkeys at Xmas, do I commit this “offence”?  I wait for my 5 gun-toting cops with the question as to where they were on 100 occasions real threats were being made against me and my partner, or over a more than 24 hour period of affray that led to a petrol bombing.

Advertisement

2 thoughts on “Public Interest Issues in Paul Chambers

  1. “…why non one in the system can just turn round and say, ‘farce – next’.”

    Too many institutions – police, social services – act as python’s teeth, curved backwards. Once they strike, something’s getting swallowed. They aren’t designed to disengage and spit out the target, no matter how unappetising it’s turned out to be…

  2. Agreed Julia – the same is true in cases much more serious for the defendants like Nico Bento. Even DNA technicians routinely bend their evidence. Life is so bad, social scientists are having to try to keep hard scientists on the straight and narrow!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s