Terminate These Scumbags!

A MESSAGE TO BRITAIN'S JUDGES:

TERMINATE THESE SCUMBAGS!
Why Grieve And Veness Must Be Sacked

Tod- DAC Grieve: Lavrenti Beria of Blair's racial thought
police; bottom: David Veness: aspiring Chief Constable who
thinks direct incitements to murder judges are not actionable.

Author's Note

Although this work is entirely mine and therefore any errors of fact or inference are entirely
my own, this document has been proofed by a retired Circuit Judge who has advised on both
content and presentation.

s

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

The Rule Of Law, And How It Is Being Undermined
By Men Like John Grieve And David Veness

Hi there,

I suppose you could call this an open letter to the Judiciary. I will introduced myself shortly,
but first of all a few words about the British legal system.

Britain 's Finest Legacy: Our Legal System

If like me you've often come across left wing scumbags and politically correct pricks raging
against the evils of "Imperialism" and the "oppression" of Colonial (ie non-white) peoples,
you've probably asked yourself with all the brouhaha about slavery, exploitation and I racism
if the British didn't do something of benefit for the rest of mankind once in a while. The truth
of course is that Britain exported civilisation to much of the rest of the world P-*"**
Africa. For one thing, it wasn't the British Empire that created slavery, but it was Br tarn
which abolished it. Who for example could forget the immortal words of Lord M^ddm
1771 when he ordered the release of the Negro James Sommersett who was then held in irons
on bolrd a ship lying in the Thames and bound for Jamaica: "The air of England is too pure
for any slave to breathe", he said, "Let the black go free" (1)

The distinguished historian Professor Quigley wrote of British rule in India that it brought
the country into contact with the Western world, with world markets, established a uniform

yLTof money, steamboat connections with Europe by the Suez Canal cable connections

hroughout the world, and the use of English as the language of government and
administration, and "Best of all, Britain established the rule of ^, equality before ^the law^
and a tradition of judicial fairness to replace the older practice of inequality and arbitrary

tSsh rulein Africa was if anything even more impressive Among other things the BrHMi
stamped out the barbaric practice of ritual murder and did *\™f*™«**Xw
onnanimitv and fairness In 1944 in the Gold Coast (now Ghana), eight Africans were
S toJ^ZZ of the Odikro of Aped™. (3, The tria. wa, ; hekT jn November
Dumber 1944 and lasted 23 days; (here were 75 mtnesses. Al e.ght defendants were

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

out" and that "very serious trouble could be expected in the Colony if the law were not
allowed to take its course". (4)
Eventually, three tf the accused were hanged, the remaining death sentences being
commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of the Gold Coast, Sir Alan Burns. (5) To
this day the legal systems of all the progressive countries in Africa are based on the British
legal system. Sadly though, in Britain itself the legal system, the concepts of the rule of law
equality before the law, our tradition of judicial fairness and, perhaps most of all, individual
rights, are being increasingly eroded, often by or at the behest of people whose forebears
benefited from British enlightenment.

The Lunatic "Macpherson Report" And Its Consequences

Iu February 1999 the government of Tony Blair published a White Paper which has become
known colloquially as the Macpherson Report. (6) This resulted from an inquiry into the
unprovoked and quite senseless murder of an 18 year old youth in South East London in
Anril 1993. Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death by a street gang as he waited for a bus.
There are literally hundreds of murders every year in Britain, most of them senseless and
unprovoked. People are often murdered for relatively small sums of money, for rubbing
people up the wrong way in quite trivial matters, or in the case of serial kdlers purely for
kicks. Every one of these murders is a tragedy, and in some sense, an outrage, but Stephen
Lawrence was murdered - we are told - for the most outrageous reason of all. Because he was

that's what we're told, although from a dispassionate examination of the facts it is most
likely that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. For Britain's poktically
correct "antwW lobby though, the murder of Stephen Lawrence was the most hemous
crime ever committed, and in order (ostensibly) to prevent anything like this ever happening
again, we must throw away all our civil liberties, all our freedoms, and all the precedents of
the English criminal law as exported to the world by Sir William Blackstone and by countless
British "Imperialists" over hundreds of years.

The Macpherson Report purported to examine numerous aspects of the Lawrence case, from
the supposedly bungled police investigation to the chimera of "institutional racism" within
the Metropolitan Police. We are told that: . -__

"Racism in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which disadvantage or
advantage people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it
is as damaging as in its overt form. "(7) .....

Really? And who in his right mind would claim that a racial epithet hurled in anger or
disgust is as damaging as a knife between the ribs?

As a result of his "inquiry" Macpherson made a plethora of recommendations, not all of
them are bad. The suggestion that the police should be more accountable to ttie public : and
more open (as far as such openness does not conflict with operational matters) is to be
welcomed, but his other "recommendations" and the chorus that has been taken up by the
organised left would be ridiculous if they were not so tragic.

Oue "recommendation" is that: racist incidents must be reported and investigated - even if

thev are non-crimes!
As if the police haven't got enough on their plates without squandering precious resources
"investigating" so-called incidents which are none of their business anyway.

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

As Macpherson's definition of "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist
by the victim or any other person", that would leave them precious little time for investigation

real crimes. Like murder!

Macpherson's recommendation 39 is "That consideration should be given to amendment of
the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of
offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proven to
have taken place otherwise than in a public place."

Dotty Doreen Lawrence and her cabal support this lunatic "recommendation". Okay, give
the woman a bit of space, she's lost her favourite son and has obviously gone off her head in
the same way as Muhammed Al-Fayed, but are we really supposed to take seriously the
suggestion that name calling (that's what it amounts to) in our own homes should be made a
criminal offence? And what about possessing offensive weapons? Who hasn't got an offensive
weapon or two, or several, in his or her kitchen?

But the most sinister "recommendations" of this report - and of the more recent
machinations of mad Jack Straw - are those of dismantling the whole framework of
individual liberties and checks and balances and curbs on Executive power which have been
built into a legal system which, up until recently at any rate, was regarded as the envy of the

Recommendation number 38 is "That consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal
being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is
presented."

In other words, the abolition of double jeopardy. What is behind this lunacy?

In the Lawrence case, five youths were charged with his murder but the case against them
collapsed due to "insufficient evidence". As a judge you will recognise this phrase for what it
really means: no evidence whatsoever, or no evidence that should be put before a jury. (8)
The only so-called evidence in the Lawrence case was similar fact evidence, and tenuous
evidence at that. The five youths arrested were known to be anti-social, to use racial epithets
(among others) and to have a fascination with knives. They were put in the frame primarily
by anonymous (and possibly malicious) letters. There was no identification evidence against
them at all, in fact what identification evidence there was, tended to indicate that they were

not the murderers. „ . . \ „ «.„

The principal witness, Duwayne Brooks, failed to pick out one of the prime suspects on an
ID parade. (9) Another witness, who was extremely confident that he would recognise one of
the attackers if he saw him again, also failed to make a positive ID. (10) I don't need to throw
Regina v Turnbull at you, do I? You know the score. With no identification evidence, no

:„« „„h ««+h!no hut innuendo fthev're the tvoe of people who

_ e~

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

into gaol again, and order a retrial. This could be done over and over again, and the longer it
went on the more chance there would be of the accused being fitted up - not to mention any
loss of liberty in the meantime.
As I write these words, Home Secretary Jack Straw has just been defeated in an attempt to
restrict the right of an accused to trial by jury in "trivial" cases on the spurious pretext of
saving costs. But next time who's to say he won't succeed?

Enter DAC Grieve

If Doreen Lawrence can be written off as mad, there are some people who are just plain evil.
One of those is DAC John Grieve. He has boasted that he and his chums at New Scotland
Yard are in the process of building up massive dossiers on racists. Most worrymgly, Grieve
has co-opted onto his committee the most odious race agitator of the lot, a veteran shit stirrer
and many times proven arch-liar Gerry Gable. Just for the record, between February 17 and
23 this year, Gable, his lie-ridden magazine Searchlight, and Gable's "reformed Nazi chum
Rav Hill defended a libel action brought against them by Chesterfield-based accountant
Morris Riley. The jury found for Riley and awarded him £5,000 damages, and would
undoubtedly have awarded him more if his Counsel had obeyed his instructions and
presented his case more persuasively. Gable and Hill elected not to give evidence.

This is the first time a libel judgment has been entered against Searchlight magazme, but I
needn't tell you that libel is predominantly the playground of the rich. Over the years the
magazine has libelled countless ordinary people, including especially in 1981 when it accused
a number of men of plotting to bomb the Netting Hill Carnival - a "plot" which was clearly

'Mosfworryingly about Grieve's relationship with Gable is the possibility of their "sharing"
information. The current writer has seen documented proof that Gable has obtained
information from at least two other police officers in recent years for ■matters that have
absolutely nothing to do with combating crime - racial or otherwise. (13) . Even * Grieve
doesn't pass on information to Gable, by accident or by design, there is still the risk that he
will be misled by this veteran liar and hatemonger, or allow himself to be used for pursuing
personal, political and racial vendettas.
If Grieve's relationship with arch-liar Gable is the cause of concern, one might well ask if
Grieve is not a bit of a suspect character himself. On February 17, he was quoted m the
Times; talking to the BBC. Grieve admitted apparently that the accusation of institutional
racism" against the Met "applies to me as much as it applies to anybody else . The basis for
this claim is that "he had little contact with black people." Which is hardly surprising; would
any sane black man want to have any contact with a paranoid nut like him? (14) Which
brings us to David Veness, but first, a bit about the subversion of the rule of law.

Subverting The Rule Of Law

It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that the law is not arbitrary, and that it
applies to everybody under similar circumstances. Hayek has written that The chief
safeguard is that the rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply ihem

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

- that is, to the government as well as the governed - and that nobody has the power to grant
exceptions." (15)

Of course, the rule of law must be applied with common sense; no one in his right mind
would suggest that there can't be special laws for women say - for example the Infanticide Act

- or that people with special problems (the blind, the elderly and infirm) should not be treated
differently within certain limits so as to ensure that justice prevails. Then there is the question
of public interest.

To take a few examples of this, the Moors Murderers Hindley and Brady were sentenced to
life imprisonment in 1966 for a series of heinous murders. Some twenty years after their
conviction they confessed to two further murders, and one of the victims' bodies was found.

Technically they should have been tried for the further murders but a decision was taken at
a high level - probably by the Attorney General - that any further prosecution would not be
in the public interest. In spite of Myra Hindley's ongoing campaign to win a chance of parole
there is no way either Brady (who is now mad) or Hindley herself will ever be permitted to
walk the streets again, public outrage would be just too great. Taking them back to court
would waste precious court time, public money and generate a lot of further ghoulish
publicity for the tabloids to exploit.

On the other hand, when in 1983 a psychopath slashed the face of serial killer Peter Sutcliffe
in Parkhurst Prison, he was taken to an outside court and on his conviction he was sentenced
to a further five years on top of the ten years he was already serving for armed robbery. This
was done not just to protect Sutcliffe - who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, not to
have his face slashed - but to enforce prison discipline.

Another case of exercising sensible discretion was that of the disgraced former Cabinet
Minister Jonathan Aitken. Aitken was gaoled for eighteen months for perjury in his libel case
against the Guardian. If he hadn't been prosecuted this would have told the public that there
is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. On the other hand,
charges were not brought against Aitken's young daughter because she had clearly been
roped into this sordid affair by her father and it would have been wrong to penalise a young
girl under such circumstances. And, most topically, Dr Harold Shipman, who was recently
convicted of the murders of fifteen of his patients, will not be charged with any further
murders even though there is good evidence that he killed at least twenty-three others.

Such policy decisions as exercised in the Moors Murders, Aitken and Shipman cases are
straightforward, easy to understand, and in no sense an abrogation of the rule of law. Similar
decisions are often made in motoring cases because it would be impractical and impossible to
prosecute everyone who broke the speed limit by a few miles per hour. But where a blind eye
is turned to the dirty deeds of a particular class of person for no better reason while at the
same time ordinary people - or people with unpopular views - are dragged into court at every

„i :*-. ^1. .... ..... „„„ „l„.^..l. uiltnuci'inn an ohrnoatinn nf flip I*llli> Of ISIW.

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

cashing of teeth Jewish establishment find offensive. In the Spring of 1991, *e prominent
fewish Lbour MP Gerald Kaufman received one of his anti-Gulf War stickers through the
pr T he sticker depicted Uncle Sam as "Uncle Sol", a mild anti-Sem tic ^re^pejhere
was no "kill the Yids" type message, just a sarcastic swipe at a powerful political lobby. As a
TsuU of that one publication Jordan's home was raided by police who, in his own words
"ran sacked it, conducting a search and seizure far beyond the terms of the warrant wh ch
it elf was on dated and thus invalid." Altogether they took away sixty of h is research Tdes the
work of a lifetime, and, when immediately after the raid he confronted the police with the fact
that the warrant was out of date, they claimed that this was a mere typing error.

Inc ediWy, although Colin Jordan is a self-professed - and quite unashamed - Nazi, it was
the BrWsh poUce who used Nazi tactics against him on this occasion And «*-£»"*
only beat off the prosecution but was awarded a five figure out-of-court settlement, they have

TmTS Swho" now the leader of the British National Party, was dragged into
court bv ' another Jewish hatemonger, Alex Carlile, who was spurned on by his hatemongering
co^dS * Tafo^ientioned lerry Gable. Griffin was convicted of "incitement to racia
SSi^ri^i for publishing a rather tasteful drawing of a white woman and a rather
fastens {*Z^Va convicted killer who happened to be black (and which had appeared

h lSW^ Griffin has been and remains a staunch opponent of British
Xttoinft Gulf and the international blockade which has led to the deaths of
TotnZs Iraqi , many of them children. Unlike "anti-mdrf" Tony B air and his cabal In
1989 Gr ffin ^wenUo Libya to try to persuade Colonel Gadaffi to drop his support for the IRA
whom m^ Tabs mistaken^, to be freedom fighters). It has recently been revealed
bv renegade MIS agent David Shayler that elements of the British Secret State ' anally
jLted to murder Colonel Gadaffi, so once again it remains to be seen who ,s the bigot and
who the oeacemaker. Now what about the left?
5n page 10 of this pamphlet you will see a reproduction « * ft"""" " W ^i
(so-called) anarchist newspaper which was sold through London bookshops m 1995. You can
ee wtat these people think of you. In case you think this is a tongue-in-cheek reference U the
judiciary I can assure you that it isn't; furthermore these people mean business, and have
often incited and been involved in serious public disorder. , iti „ a tion with its

This newspaper came to my attention because I was involved in civil litigation witn its
d^stib^rs in connection wki unrelated matters. I had also been targeted by Britain^
2ESiSi May 1993, at the behest of a powerful and totally ruthless politica
^m^UhZ^JiUr Baron and I may be known to one or two of you through legal
SfciK «£- *. I" August 1999 I received an out-of-court ""*££ — £
with the 1993 police raid, and have been subjected to police haras ment for the past seven
years harassmL which has now been more or less unsuccessful, although they may yet try

CeatlpA,™ funded primarily by p»b.ic money: from both central and ioeal government

( Sometime after contacting the Met I received a letter from a senior Special Branch officer
infZning Z ^origin/samples had been collected and wonld be scrutimsed to see .f there

6

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

was any evidence of criminality. I waited. And waited. And waited. When I was tired of
waiting I wrote to the police, and was ignored. I wrote again, and was again ignored.

Eventually I wrote to my MP, and she received a definitive reply dated 26 November 1999.
And this is where Veness comes in.

David Veness: Creep, Liar, Unfit To Serve the British Public

The bulk of Veness's letter consists of references to my publishing activities, of which he
appears to be profoundly misinformed. Be that as it may, one thing he most definitely should
not be ignorant of as a police officer is the law. Read what he says about this newspaper Class
War, (page 9).

"there was no direct threat to any named person and, therefore it was not actionable"

Did you ever hear of such fucking bullshit?

Trv replacing the six judges pictured here with six rabbis, or six black men, and see what
Veness's chum Grieve says. Why was no action taken over this newspaper and its publicly

^l^ b totZi is simple; the criminal law has not only been perverted by the sinister
machinations of all manner of racial and other pressure groups, but it is being used as a
means of oersecuting unpopular ideologies and the people who follbw them. A lot ot the
hysterfc owsl^d Jism has less to do with genuine concern for the supposed oppression
of ethnic minorities and a lot to do with imposing a dictatorship on Britain.
Consider that lunatic "recommendation" of Macpherson and his gang: "That consideration
shouW be gten to ame ndment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist
language of behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons where
sucl conduct can be proven to have taken place otherwise than in a public place. What
^d thfs mean i« practice? Remember that novel 19841 One of Orwell's predictions here
wafthaf mThe Lure dystbpia we would all be monitored round the clock by TV cameras in
™ own ZmL This is actually nearer than most people think. The exponential advances in
^SUf over the past few years together ^^"-^
surveillance a reality. If you live in an urban area you will be recorded on 300 or more closed

circuit television cameras daily. (17) c*«nhMi

„, . ._„.,„ „^„ *k» "Witimisatinn" of "intrusive surveillance" in the Stephen

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

replace British law with laws which are formulated hundreds - or even thousands - of miles
away in the interest of big business, corporate America, or even of the perfidious United

Nations. . , . . . • , .

The common law of this country has been buUt up by Britain's judges; this includes such
concepts as the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the
right to silence, the Turnbull direction, and the concept of double jeopardy.

John Grieve and David Veness are servants of an authoritarian, undemocratic ideology, and
they are even more insidious for their posing as defenders of democracy while actually
destroying it. Even the new Commissioner seems to be following the same path. According to
a recent press report he is committed to make the Met "Britain's first fully anti-racist police
force". (18) Whatever happened to fighting crime? Do Londoners really expect the likes ot
Grieve, Veness and the Commissioner himself to be fart-arsing around playing ' community
relations", and tracking down racist graffiti artists when people are being murdered on our
streets? On September 30 last year a Rastafarian was shot dead in South London. His was the
sixteenth such murder that year, ie black/drug-related. (19) The clear up rate for murder in
London is now one of the worst if not the worst in the country. That's hardly surprising, is it?
The police have limited resources; if they devote so much time to harassing racists, they can t
use the same man-hours to track down murderers.

What Can Britain's Judges Do To Restore The Rule Of Law?

Before I attempt to answer that question, let me tell you what will happen if you dont.
Britain is slowly but surely being transformed into a police state, although at times not so
slowly. The rights of the individual to associate with whom he pleases, and not to associate
with whom he does not please, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion, are
all being eroded. On the pretext of combating a non-existent menace, so-called racism and
now institutional racism, anti-British hatemongers are legislating away our freedoms,
increasing racial and other tensions, and undermining the very fabric of society.
The crusade against racism has not only reached fever pitch but has turned into a
bandwagon which all and sundry are jumping on. There are now demands to outlawnot just
all forms of so-called racism - which no one seems to be able even to define and which even
self-styled "anti-rociW accuse themselves of - (20) but even to outlaw the mythical disease of
homophobia. The odious Peter Tatchell and his gang, OutRage, have lobbied to reduce the
age of consent to sixteen. Tatchell himself wants it lowered to fourteen (21) Recently,
Tatchell's organisation sent a memorandum to the Home Office calling for the legalisation of
queer sex in public toilets! (22) Among other things. Okay, most people nowadays would
agree that acts of sexual perversion, however revolting, should be legal provided they are
carried out in private dwellings between consenting adults and do not involve serious bodily
injury. But Tatchell and his gang not only want to make these things legal m public, they
want to brand ordinary people as bigots simply for voicing or even showing their disapproval.
Some of these perverts are now seeking the criminalisation of homophobia.
And this is where you come in. Although Parliament can pass any statute it damn well
pleases, the Judiciary is still a bulwark against the total subversion of the rule of law. In the
first place, legislation and other decisions of both the Legislative and the Executive are
subject to Judicial Review. In the second place, judges, particularly in the Court of Appeal,
are still capable of making law by the way they interpret statutes. In the third place, even

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

Crown Court judges have the ability to profoundly influence the law in individual cases.

How?

Let's imagine that theft were to be made capital as it was as recently as the 19th Century.
Imagine someone was charged with shoplifting and faced execution for swiping a can of beans
from the local Safeway. What would happen in practice? The jury would acquit. If you were
sitting on a jury which held the power of life and death over someone for something so trivial
you'd acquit too, wouldn't you? Juries have this power, so do judges, to set people free when
they've been tried unjustly, or tried for non-crimes like racism, or for other non-offences like
- perish the thought - "incitement to homo-hatred".

If you preside over such a trial you can put all manner of blocks in the way of the
prosecution by limiting cross-examination, ruling evidence inadmissible, and of course by
summing up in such a manner that the jury are strongly influenced to acquit, or even by
summing up so outrageously badly that in the event of conviction the accused has numerous

grounds for appeal.

As a judge you can also speak out against injustice, the squandering of public money on the
pursuit of political and other vendettas, and so on.

Finally, you can refuse to preside over cases which involve gross violations of people's civil
liberties. If judges had adopted this stance as far as the phony war on drugs is concerned we
wouldn't have seen the repressive money laundering regulations, asset forfeiture or even
intrusive surveillance that we have in the past decade and a half. At least not to the current,

shocking degree.
A very recent and truly outrageous case of anti-drug hysteria, which resulted in the gaoling
of two charity workers, is that of the Cambridge Two. On December 17, 1999, Ruth Wyner
and John Brock, director and manager respectively of the Wintercomfort centre for the
homeless were gaoled for five years and fours years for "knowingly permitting or suffering
the supply of a Class A drug (heroin) on the premises". (23) Their real "crime" was refusing
to compromise client confidentiality by acting as police grasses. (24) If you'd presided over
this mockery of a trial you could have sabotaged it For the record, Ruth Wyner is Jewish,
like Grieve's chum Gerry Gable. It is a supreme irony that while a little Kosher shit stirrer
like Gable (who has been exposed many times as a purveyor of disinformation) is given carte
blanche to spread his poison aided and abetted by the likes of John Grieve, that a Jewish
woman who has devoted her life to helping the homeless should be thrown into gaol like a
common criminal.

*""" Further to the specific points raised in Mr Baron's letter, you will wish to be
apprised that:

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

Above: this publication was distributed by a registered charity with total
impunity while people have been dragged into court simply for exercising their
right of free speech. The rule of law in Britain has been increasingly
undermined by the likes of John Grieve and David Veness at the beck and call
of powerful political and racial pressure groups.

10

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

Defend The Rights Of Englishmen

By taking such a stance you can not only defend the rapidly dwindling rights ^ Englishmen,
y win t« extend the concept of genuine individual rights throughout the world. The
L^Tp^^e^ Xpdice have allowed powerful agenda driven interest groups
SSSS' lobby to destroy our rights by the use of bogus statics
etotionaTblackmail and every dirty trick in the book, none moresou, the ca^ ofj^ ta.
Lawrence. Remember, Stephen Lawrence wasn't a victim of racism, he was a victnn

T^ 61 ;. u father the increasinelv boring Neville Lawrence, claimed that the position of

bSr^BrLt wl; fom^We tftiia of lews in Nazi Germany. (25) Ask your local rabbi

u ? L JFSrJZl T^^reat irony about this absurd claim is that it was not racism (or

what he thud* ^^^V^ » of the Jew s in Nazi Germany, as is popularly

campaign m Bntam with their ^°™ em «" k recommendations of the

condoning * ^J^EEM^ ^ d ° t ty arming aided and abetted in this
en" bT cumb^eS Grieve Z David Venes, It's time Doreen and NevUle were
told where to get off, and time Grieve and Veness were given the boot.

Postscript

Lawrence case and three J^ »™« » ol «, b J ta the mcantime we can only hope that
remain, to be seen 'j"^""*^ STpr«™ptton of in „„ ce „ce, nnlike those previonsly
^TlndYaS feeLsW^y hot* the Lwrenee family circus and the media. And in the
ITntetwrnnf a^ar S La, Mr and Mrs Lawrence and the Daily MaU newspaper owe
several vouns men a serious apology.

WHY GRIEVE AND VENESS MUST BE SACKED

Notes And References

(1) Quoted in FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW, by the Right Honourable Sir Alfred Denning,
published by Stevens & Sons, London, (1949), page 7.

(2) TRAGEDY AND HOPE: A History of THE WORLD in Our Time, by Carroll Quigley,
Second Printing, Angriff Press, Los Angeles, (1974), pages 155-6.

(3) An Odikro is a petty chief.

(4) This document can be found at the Public Record Office in file C0554/531.

(5) See for example MURDER IN THE PALACE AT KD3I An account of the KM Ritual
Murder Case, by H.A. Nuamah, apparently self-published, printed by Educational Press and
Manufacturers Limited, Ghana, (1985), and Colonial Office correspondence related to the
case held at the Public Record Office in file C0554/531, (ibid).

(6) THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INQUIRY, Cm 4262 - 1 & 4262 - H (Revised), published by
HMSO, London, (February 1999).

(7) Macpherson Report, Volume 1, page 20.

(8) Except when it comes to prosecuting bent coppers for "noble cause corruption" when no
amount of evidence is deemed sufficient.

(9) Macpherson Report, Volume 1, page 154.

(10) Macpherson Report, Volume 1, page 157.

(11) One of whom is rumoured to be slipping her a length!

(12) For documentation on this and Hill's other activities check out my 1994 book Liars Ought
To Have Good Memories.

(13) One of these documents was overt; Detective Sergeant Chainey, another bent copper,
made a witness statement for Gable in civil proceedings in which he gave out information
obtained under PACE.

(14) Police chief admits institutional racism, published in the Times, February 17, 2000, page

11.

(15) The Constitution of Liberty, by F.A. Hayek, published by the University of Chicago Press,

London, (I960), page 155.

(16) For documentation on this see POISON ON THE RATES: What the people of the London
Borough of Hackney should know about the Centerprise Trust, by Alexander Baron, published
by In/oText Manuscripts, London, Second Edition, (May 1996).

(17) Smile, you're on 300 candid cameras..., by Dipesh Gadher, published in the Sunday Times,
February 14, 1999, page 1.5.

(18) I will stamp out racism, by Jeff Edwards, published in the Daily Mirror, February 23,
2000, page 2.

(19) The Times, October 1, 1999, page 4.

(20) Recall that imbecile Grieve's claim that the charge of institutional racism against the
Metropolitan Police "applies to me as much as it applies to anybody else".

(21) Private Eye, Friday 13 Nov. 1998, No. 963, page 6.

(22) Gay groups seek to legalise sex in public lavatories, by Philip Johnston, published in the
Daily Telegraph, February 11, 2000, page 14.

(23) Further information can be obtained from cambridgetwo@yahoo.com or from telephone
01223 513033.

(24) This could have had serious consequences both for themselves and for the centre's users.

(25) Blacks 'suffer as Jews did', by Robin Young, published in the Times, March 2, 2000, page
2.

12

Published by In/oText Manuscripts

93c Venner Road,
Sydenham,
London SE26 5HU.
England.

ISBN 1 871473 69 1

Copyright Alexander Baron, 2000