Terrorism Act 2000 Section 56 offences etc - Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates

Below is the text of a letter sent to both Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates on 2nd February 2010.

If I were composing the letter today I think I would express myself a little differently but the substance of the letter still appears to me to be sound in Law.

The letter I sent to Sir John Chilcot in parallel on 2nd February 2010 is here: The Iraq Inquiry: Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir John Chilcot.

2nd February 2010

To:
Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
John Yates, Assistant Commissioner, Special Operations

Multiple Serious Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000

Gentlemen,

I write to draw to your attention what I believe to be a large number of serious offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 carried out by a significant number of UK citizens who, according to the definition contained in Section 40 of the Act considered in the context of Section 1 of the Act, are “terrorists”.

The Terrorism Act 2000 prescribes a sentence of life imprisonment for some of the offences to which I wish to draw your attention.

I urge you, as a matter of urgency, to investigate these offences and interview the individual terrorists concerned.

In considering whether or not terrorist offences have been committed it is first necessary carefully to examine the definition of “terrorism” contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. Given that you will undoubtedly have access to the text of the components of that definition contained in Section 1 of the Act I will not repeat that text here.

I think that an honest appraisal of that definition can leave no doubt that the UK Armed Forces have carried out multiple acts of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003, as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I would go so far as to argue that the Iraq War per se and the military action in Afghanistan are “acts of terrorism”, albeit on an enormous scale.

Accordingly, Sections 40(1)(a) and 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 indicate that those members of the Armed Forces who participated in those acts of international terrorism are “terrorists”. In addition, other individuals “concerned” with those multiple and serious acts of international terrorism (see Section 40(1)(b)) are also terrorists, as defined in Section 40 of the Act.

If my appraisal in that regard is correct (that multiple “acts of terrorism” have been carried out by UK citizens), then the question arises as to which offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000 have been carried out and by which individual terrorists. I offer the following list as illustrative of the terrorists (as defined in Section 40 of the Act) who I believe to be UK citizens and to have committed specific offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. The list does not attempt to be exhaustive, either with respect to listing individual terrorists nor with respect to listing all terrorist offences of the individual terrorists listed.

1. Anthony Charles Linton Blair (sometimes residing at 29 Connaught Square, London) -
offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
2. James Gordon Brown (known to frequent 10 Downing Street, London) – offences under Sections 15, 16, 17 and 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
3. Alistair Maclean Darling (known to frequent 11 Downing Street, London) – offences under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
4. Geoffrey William Hoon (believed to spend time in the Westminster area of London) – offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act
5. John Reid (believed to spend time at Celtic Park, Glasgow) – offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act.
6. Graham Eric Stirrup (believed to spend time at the Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, London) – offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act.
7. Michael John Dawson Walker (believed to spend some time at the Royal Hospital Chelsea, London) – offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the terrorists listed acted with a large number of others, many of whom committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who are therefore liable, on conviction, to life imprisonment.

In addition, a much larger number of individuals committed offences under Sections 54 and 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

A number of individuals committed offences under Section 59 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I make no mention of Section 59, 60 or 61 offences in relation to the individuals listed earlier since they might legitimately be able to claim that sections 59(5), 60(5) or 61(5), as applicable, are relevant with respect to their actions.

I am copying this letter to Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the inquiry into the Iraq War since its content raises issues about the legality of the Iraq War and its component parts and the legality of actions by individuals interviewed (or yet to be interviewed) by the Chilcot Inquiry.

I would mention that I have no information about the terrorist offences listed (and the large number of additional offences which I do not attempt to list) other than information that is in the public domain. While I am willing to be interviewed on this matter, given that all the information I know of is in the public domain, I can see no useful or legitimate purpose that can be served by interviewing me.

To the extent allowed by law, I would be grateful if you would keep me informed about the progress of your enquiries into the activities of the terrorists listed earlier and your progress in identifying others who participated in the acts of terrorism mentioned earlier in this letter and who have committed offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Thank you.

Your sincerely



Andrew H Watt

cc. Sir John Chilcot, Iraq Inquiry


Addressees:

Sir Paul Stephenson
New Scotland Yard
London
SW1H 0BG

Mr John Yates
New Scotland Yard
London
SW1H 0BG

Concealing Police racism - Just stop recording the data

According to the Guardian, Police forces cease recording race of people they stop, a significant number of Police forces are going to stop recording the ethnicity of those they stop and search.

What better way to conceal Police racism than by stopping recording the information which demonstrates it.

Again, the Police are cheating us!

Bernard Hogan-Howe appointed as Metropolitan Police Commissioner

See The new Met commissioner is facing a multi-headed monster of a job.

Undoubtedly he is taking on a poisoned chalice.

I wonder if he will investigate the serious terrorist crimes that John Yates and Paul Stephenson tried to bury.

I wonder if he will investigate the evidence that John Yates and Paul Stephenson perverted the course of justice.

A poisoned chalice indeed.

Letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee re John Yates, Paul Stephenson, Sara Thornton and others

Today I sent by email an advance copy of a letter being sent to Keith Vaz MP (and relevant copy recipients) about my concerns relating to the conduct of John Yates, Sir Paul Stephenson, Sara Thornton and other Police officers.

Some strange glitch messed with the text. Manually, I've tried to make the text posted below correctly match the layout etc in the original.

The title of the email was:

Concealment of serious crime by John Yates etc

The content of the email was:

[This email is advance notice of a letter being sent today, 29th August 2011, to Keith Vaz MP, Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee and copy recipients listed towards the end of the letter.

It is being sent to each member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Additional advance email copies are being sent to the recipients listed at the end of the letter, where I can identify an appropriate email address. I would be grateful if recipients puzzled by receiving a copy of this email would read the list of intended recipients at the end of the email and forward this internally to the relevant person(s) in their organisation.]

29th August 2011

Keith Vaz MP

Home Affairs Select Committee

Dear Mr Vaz,

Concealment of Serious Crime by John Yates, Paul Stephenson and other Police officers

I write to draw to the attention of the Home Affairs Select Committee what, on careful consideration, I believe may be premeditated deception of the Committee by former Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and former Assistant Commissioner John Yates.

Sir Paul and Mr. Yates, in my interpretation, dishonestly sought to lead the committee to believe that they were honest and diligent Police officers.

Whether or not the deception of the Committee was premeditated, I do believe that the Committee was misled.

My opinion is that, on at least one previous occasion, Sir Paul and Mr. Yates acted so as to conceal crime of the most serious nature. That apparent concealment of criminal activity by Mr. Yates and Sir Paul is the pivot for my concerns regarding the conduct of Mr. Yates and Sir Paul expressed in this letter.

It is my belief that Sir Paul and Mr. Yates have perverted the course of justice.

On 19th July 2011 I wrote to Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin reporting that I believed that Sir Paul and Mr. Yates had perverted the course of justice and asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate.

To the best of my knowledge Acting Commissioner Godwin has not investigated the matters I raised with him. Nor, so far as I’m aware, has Mr. Godwin disclosed the existence of that complaint to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Given the seriousness of the apparent crimes by John Yates and Paul Stephenson which I reported on 19th July 2011 I copied my concerns to Keir Starmer QC.

I further suspect, but cannot yet demonstrate, that Mr. Yates (or those under his command) sought to influence officers of another Police force (specifically Grampian Police) so as to conceal crimes for which the punishment in UK Law, on conviction, is life imprisonment.

Additionally, I believe that a former senior Metropolitan Police officer has acted so as to conceal a reported murder. I refer specifically to Thames Valley Police URN 514 of 28/10/10.

In the interests of brevity I give here only a summary of the sequence of events as they relate to Mr. Yates and Sir Paul:

1. On 2nd February 2010 I wrote to Sir Paul Stephenson and Mr. John Yates reporting what I believed (and continue to believe) were serious crimes by seven named influential figures.

2. The suspected crimes I reported in that letter are far more serious than those being discussed in what might be termed Hackgate. In the relevant UK Law the penalty, on conviction, is life imprisonment.

3. A letter dated 12th February 2010 was sent to me by Detective Superintendent Dean Haydon. That letter was, on later examination, misleading but it served to dissuade me from following up my concerns with the Metropolitan Police. I believed (and believe) that it was intended to lead me to conclude that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had absolute discretion to ignore reported crime, if he so chose.

4. The MPS reference number assigned was ACSO 53/2010.

5. At no time did Sir Paul Stephenson, Assistant Commissioner Yates or anyone acting on their behalf contact me to ask for further evidence or to ask me to give a formal statement on the serious matter which I drew to their attention.

6. It seemed to me that the most senior echelons of the Metropolitan Police Service premeditatedly were covering up serious crime. I was, for some time, at a loss as to how to proceed.

7. Two of the seven individuals named in the letter of 2nd February 2010 had connections with Grampian.

8. The possibility occurred to me that Grampian Police officers might be less dishonest than Sir Paul and Mr. Yates had proved to be in my perception . Accordingly, in person and in writing, I reported suspected crimes by the two individuals (of the seven) who had a connection to Grampian.

9. Grampian Police officers (up to Deputy Chief Constable level) refused and/or failed to investigate these serious crimes.

10. I complained formally to Grampian Police and met with two Inspectors. In that meeting I gained the impression that the Metropolitan Police had been consulted and that the MPS (in the form of SO15, then headed by John Yates) may have influenced Grampian Police in the matter.

11. If my impression expressed in the preceding paragraph is correct then Mr Yates (or someone under his command) engaged in what I perceive as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

12. On 19th July 2011 I wrote to Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin reporting what I believe to have been perversion of the course of justice by Sir Paul and Mr. Yates in that they refused to investigate serious crime reported to them in writing on 2nd February 2010. I believed (and continue to believe) that Sir Paul and Mr. Yates had a duty as Police officers to investigate my report of 2nd February 2010.

13. To date (29th August 2011) the Metropolitan Police Service have not acknowledged my letter to Acting Commissioner Godwin.

14. The Metropolitan Police Service has, however, objected to my report to the Independent Police Complaints Commission leading me to conclude that under the command of Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin the Metropolitan Police are again attempting to conceal serious crime and, specifically, the Metropolitan Police are attempting to conceal what I believe to be the perversion of the course of justice by Sir Paul Stephenson and Mr. John Yates.


It seems to me that there is at least an arguable case that in the senior echelons of the Metropolitan Police Service there is an unlawful culture of suppressing reports of certain types of serious crime.

I can more fully document that background on request.

I now mention the reported murder briefly since, I believe, it relates indirectly to the crimes which Sir Paul and Mr. Yates sought to conceal. However, I have no evidence that either Sir Paul or Mr. Yates knew of this matter. I mention it as part of a perceived culture of concealing crime in the Metropolitan Police since a former senior Metropolitan Police Officer seems to me to have been key in the recent concealment of that crime.

With respect to the report of suspected murder I briefly summarise the background as follows:

1. On 28th October 2010 I reported by telephone to Thames Valley Police what I believe to have been a murder. I did so on the basis of my understanding, as a doctor, of evidence that had recently come into the public domain.

2. Thames Valley Police assigned my report a Unique Reference Number, URN 514 of 28/10/10.
I provided full contact information to TVP on 28th October 2010.

3.Thames Valley Police have failed to take a formal statement despite my contacting them in writing on several occasions

4. I have provided further information in writing to TVP to support my report of reference URN 514 of 28/10/10

5. TVP persist in failing meaningfully to investigate the basis for my report, even at the most basic level of taking a formal statement

6. It is my understanding that TVP (at Assistant Chief Constable level) had lied about material evidence relating to the murder before my report of 28th October 2010 and that TVP continues to lie about material evidence now.

7. A former senior Metropolitan Police officer seems to me to be pivotal in the concealment of the murder which I reported in URN 514 of 28/10/10


I can, on request, provide to the Committee documentation of what I believe to have been perversion of the course of justice by that former senior Metropolitan Police officer (and others) currently employed by Thames Valley Police in respect of the murder to which URN 514 of 28/10/10 applies.

The Committee may also wish to be aware of media reports on Saturday 27th August that senior Metropolitan Police officers suppressed information about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, possibly concealing evidence that the death was murder. (It is not that death that I refer to in the preceding list.)

It seems to me that there is a body of evidence suggesting that current and former senior officers in the Metropolitan Police, among them John Yates and Sir Paul Stephenson, have suppressed evidence of crimes of the most serious nature.

The behaviour of Sir Paul and Mr. Yates that I perceive to be perversion of the course of justice may be the tip of a particularly reprehensible iceberg of concealment of crime by the Metropolitan Police Service.

In the interests of expedition I am today copying the content of this letter by email to each member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

I am copying this letter to Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin in the context of my report to him on 19th July 2011 of suspected perversion of the course of justice by Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates. Since that report of suspected crime was copied to Keir Starmer QC, this letter is similarly copied.

I am copying this letter to Chief Constable Colin McKerracher of Grampian Police and Mr Andrew Laing, HM Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, asking them fully to investigate what I believe to have been perversion of the course of justice by several officers of Grampian Police (up to Deputy Chief Constable level). I wish to provide a formal statement on that matter.

The reported murder occurred in the Thames Valley Police area. Accordingly, I am copying this letter to Chief Constable Sara Thornton and to Khan Juna, chairman of the Thames Valley Police Authority. I request each of those recipients to take all appropriate actions to ensure that this serious matter is fully investigated. I wish to make a formal statement to Police officers on this matter. I would much prefer to make such a statement to officers not tainted by the perceived cover-up to which I briefly refer in the second list above, ideally officers from a force other than Thames Valley Police.

I understand that Mr. Yates has issued libel proceedings against the Evening Standard. Accordingly, I am copying this letter to Luke Staiano of Carter Ruck since, if substantiated, my concerns may impact on Mr. Yates’ future intentions in that regard.

I am copying this letter to my MP, Malcolm Bruce, for whom concerns about the integrity of Grampian Police must be a matter of interest. I am also copying this letter to my MSP, Alex Salmond, both in his role as MSP and First Minister.

Given that the integrity of the Police in England is a matter for the Home Secretary I am copying this letter to Teresa May MP.

I am copying this letter to Sir Hugh Orde of the Association of Chief Police Officers for information, on the assumption that perceived concealment of crime by senior Police officers must be a matter of serious concern to ACPO.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this letter will be placed on my “The Police Are Cheating Us” blog ( http://thepolicearecheatingus.blogspot.com/ ). It was observing senior Police officers covering up serious crime which led me to create the blog.

Mr Vaz, the conduct of senior officers of the Metropolitan Police in connection with Hackgate is, at a minimum, questionable. The words “crap decision” come to mind.

The matters which I now raise with the Home Affairs Select Committee are much more serious given that they relate to crimes for which the penalty, on conviction, is life imprisonment.

If my suspicion is correct then John Yates, or an officer or officers under his command, may have engaged with officers in Grampian Police in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I look forward to hearing from you and learning how the Home Affairs Select Committee plans to proceed.



Yours sincerely





(Dr) Andrew Watt

BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA



To:

Keith Vaz MP, Home Affairs Select Committee



cc:

Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin, Metropolitan Police

Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions

Chief Constable Colin McKerracher, Grampian Police

Andrew Laing, HM Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland

Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Thames Valley Police

Luke Staiano, Carter Ruck

Malcolm Bruce MP

Alex Salmond MSP

Teresa May MP, Home Secretary

Sir Hugh Orde, Association of Chief Police Officers

De Menezes Killing - Officer seemingly sues Metropolitan Police re "cover-up"

An interesting report on the Police Specials web site reports that a Metropolitan Police officer is suing in the context of a possible cover-up re the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

See Met officer sues force over De Menezes 'cover-up' for the source of the report.

I've copied and pasted the original below given that information can disappear from the Internet.

Copyright remains with the relevant copyright holder(s).

A Christian counter-terrorism officer involved in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is suing the Metropolitan Police over allegations that senior officers tried to cover-up vital evidence. He says his faith compelled him to blow the whistle and he is now claiming thousands of pounds for loss of overtime pay and promotions after Special Branch bosses allegedly sidelined him.

One allegation involves anti-terror officers perverting justice by replacing a chief inspector with another to give more favourable evidence at the 2008 inquest into de Menezes's death. An inquest jury returned an open verdict into the shooting of the 27-year-old Brazilian who was mistaken for a suicide bomber in 2005 – rejecting the police view that he was killed lawfully.

The detective sergeant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, first made his concerns known after he gave evidence under a codename at the inquest. Two more serious concerns were reported about issues within the Met Police's counter-terrorism department, known as SO15, last December that form the main part of his tribunal case. He is also suing for religious discrimination and loss of earnings.

A senior source said: 'The allegations are about such a sensitive subject that top brass are very worried about what could come out in a tribunal.' 'As this has been going on for such a long-time he was moved to another department and believes that his career was stalled because he spoke out.'

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Underground Station in South London after police mistook him for bomber Hussain Osman. He was killed on July 22, 2005, the day after Osman and three fellow terrorists had gone on the run after trying to bomb the Tube in a follow-up attack to the July 7 London bombings which killed 52 and injured 977.

The jury at the inquest on the Brazilian electrician rejected the account of police marksmen, branding them 'liars', and sided with Tube passengers who said the officers failed to issue a warning before opening fire. They returned an open verdict, which was the most strongly critical option available to them after the judge instructed them there was insufficient evidence to rule that de Menezes was unlawfully killed by police.

The Crown Prosecution Service ruled out criminal charges against anti-terror officers in 2006 and after the inquest in 2009. The Met was instead fined £175,000 under health and safety laws. The Independent Police Complaints Commision has investigated one of the detective sergeant's claims finding no evidence to support the allegation.

An IPCC spokesman said: 'We received a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service on 4 January 2011, as a result of an allegation made by a detective sergeant to the Directorate of Professional Standards in December 2010. The allegation had also been the subject of employment tribunal proceedings. 'The IPCC independently investigated the allegation, examining statements given to the Employment Tribunal and interviewing key people involved. The decision to call the DCI was made by counsel on the basis that he was better able to answer the questions. 'The investigation found that there was no evidence to support the Detective Sergeant's allegation.'

A Met spokesman said: 'The Metropolitan Police Service can confirm that it has received two employment tribunal claims from a Detective Sergeant lodged at London Central employment tribunal offices.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1WDrptuVa

London Riots - A cynical Metropolitan Police ploy gone wrong?

On Thursday 4th August Mark Duggan was shot dead by one or more Metropolitan Police officers.

Forty eight hours later the Metropolitan Police Service still hadn't informed the family of his death. See If the rioting was a surprise, people weren't looking.

Why not?

Was it a deliberate provocation?

When the disturbances started on Saturday evening the Police protected the Police station but didn't protect the community.

An invitation to riot?

Of course, if it was a premeditated invitation to riot it's a deniable invitation to riot. There won't, I imagine, be a written order for Police not to protect the community.

And the result?

A media howling for more Police resources.

Cuts in Police numbers are now unthnkable.

Are some senior Metroplitan Police officers congratulating themselves on a job well done?

Who else has successfully fought Cameron's Cuts?

If any of this happened, it's been a riotous success!

John Yates to sue the Evening Standard

The mainstream media's blogs about the phone hacking scandal are reporting that former Assistant Commissioner John Yates is to sue the Evening Standard.

See, for example, the following in the Guardian, Phone-hacking scandal: live coverage:

3.09pm: Paul Owen writes: Former assistant commissioner John Yates is suing the London Evening Standard for libel "over aspects of its reporting of his conduct in the News of the World phone-hacking investigation", his solicitors, Carter-Ruck, have just announced.

The solicitors say the claim relates to allegations made in articles published on 7 July 2011.

Luke Staiano of Carter-Ruck, Yates's solicitor, said:

The Evening Standard published highly defamatory allegations concerning Assistant Commissioner Yates which go to the heart of his integrity as a police officer. The allegations are completely false and without foundation. The newspaper made no effort to contact Mr Yates to verify the accuracy of the allegations and even wrongly claimed in the article that Mr Yates had not responded to calls. The Evening Standard has refused to apologise or withdraw the allegations, leaving Mr Yates with no alternative but to bring legal proceedings.

I find this development to be a very interesting one.

The Metropolitan Police are advertising for a new commissioner

See Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

I wonder if Sara Thornton will apply. See The Death of David Kelly - The future of Chief Constable Sara Thornton .

Phone hacking: John Yates and the July 2009 Guardian articles

In recent days the actions (or failures to act) of the then Assistant Commissioner John Yates in response to July 2009 articles in the Guardian has come under some scrutiny.

On 9th July 2009 the Metropolitan Police Service issued a statement by John Yates. See Statement from AC John Yates.

On 8th and 9th July 2009 the Guardian had published information about the seeming inadequacy of the Metropolitan Police investigation into that and related matters. (The electronic copy appears to have been published late on 8th July 2009 with the hard copy published on 9th July 2009, so far as I can ascertain.)

See, for example, Trail of hacking and deceit under nose of Tory PR chief and Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims.

John Yates has accepted that his decision on 9th July 2009 was "very poor" and the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee agreed. See paragraph 15 on page 59 of the report from that committee entitled "Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications".

I am currently unable to identify any exploration by the Home Affairs Select Committee about the information in the Guardian about the seemingly illegal actions of Steve Whittamore.

Did John Yates look into that aspect of the Guardian information at all?

Cressida Dick replaces John Yates

Graeme Archer has an interesting piece on Telegraph blogs about Cressida Dick replacing John Yates as Assistant Commissioner in charge of SO15 (Counter-terrrorism).

See Cressida Dick's appointment: more proof that the Met is an utterly shameless police force .

Is the Crown Prosecution Service also cheating us?

The Guardian has an interesting article suggesting that the Crown Prosecution Service may have acted improperly in relation to the Police spy (or "undercover Police officer", if you prefer) Mark Kennedy.

See Mark Kennedy case: CPS accused of suppressing key evidence.

PC Simon Harwood charged with manslaughter

The BBC are reporting that PC Simon Harwood has been charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson. See Pc to be prosecuted for death of Ian Tomlinson.

The announcement that PC Harwood has been charged comes about 3 weeks after an inquest jury returned a verdict of "unlawful killing". Contrary to the report of the inquest verdict on the BBC site, Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed by Pc at G20 protests there was no element of the inquest jury saying that a particular person committed the unlawful killing. Inquest juries are not allowed to personalise blame in such a way.

There is some interesting discussion in the Independent blogs. Jody McIntyre posted this: Charging PC Simon Harwood should serve as a rule, not an exception.

John Yates: The Beginning of the End?

Assistant Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police Service is today the centre of controversy about whether or not he misled UK Parliamentary Select Committees inquiring into phone hacking by (or on behalf of) one or more News of the World journalists.

Essentially, the question at issue seems to be whether Yates misled Members of Parliament about the number of people whose phone messages had been hacked.

Now, Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions has given written evidence to MPs which appears to show that Yates misled the MPs when he gave evidence some time ago.

See, for example, Phone-hacking case policeman John Yates under pressure to resign.

Will Yates resign?

The purpose of the "The Police Are Cheating Us" blog

In this blog I intend to explore a number of issues that cause me concern as to whether a number of Police forces in the United Kingdom are behaving in ways contrary to the behaviour which the British public has a right to expect.

Over the next few weeks I intend to post evidence that leads me to conclude that some UK Police forces are premeditatedly covering up serious crimes. But only covering up serious crimes by certain individuals.

In practice, it seems to me that some individuals are essentially above the Law.

And, in part at least, it's what I view as corrupt practices by certain UK Police forces that put certain individuals and groups above the Law.