Lawyers or social group?

In his book "Lawyers and the Public Interest", pub. Weidenfeld and N., 1968, law lecturer Michael Zander complained that while studying law at Cambridge, he had to travel down to London three times a week merely to dine at the Inns of Court. He asked how dining with other fledgling barristers could possibly further the education of a barrister. Virtually nothing overtly educational occurred, and when it did, few attended.

Zander's complaint illustrates the underlying, unacknowledged dynamic. Lawyers - solicitors, barristers and judges - are a social group, not an array of individuals with expert skills. As a group, they seek to foster our morals, rather than to keep us law-abiding. In their view, they fail when we break a moral code rather than when we break the law. Thus, the man caught in a divorce case fundamentally misunderstands the self-appointed role of the legal brotherhood. The dinners were more important than any study of the law can be. Zander missed the point by becoming an academic, immersed in legal nicety, and thus getting himself debarred from office in a moral hierarchy.

The refusal to appoint the most revered professor of law to the bench is a clue to the true nature of the legal enterprise.

Another clue is the common assertion that a judge decides the case by instinct and then looks for law to justify his instinctive decision.

A further clue is the law lord who burst out with the words; "I am lost in a sea of common law and of equity."

A last clue is the absurd statement by your own solicitor; "I am an Officer of the Court". This has been developed by one writer to the point where the solicitor or barrister that you are paying, and naively think is working for you, has some four or five masters. You are his most junior master, little more than his source of funds.

English law pretends to be an adversarial system. This implies the following. Your lawyers assume you are in the right and promote your case. Your adversary's lawyers assume he is right, and promote his case. The judge acts as referee. This pretence further misleads the innocent litigant as to the true nature of the legal industry, which is moral rather than legal. The only purpose served by the pretence, that our system is adversarial, is that it relieves all the lawyers of the hard work to establish the facts of the case. They then replace the real case by a standard case with which they are already familiar and which matches, or at least indulges, their fantasies and prejudices and those of the media. Thus, every real divorce case is replaced by an imaginary case where the husband is at least violent and at best a child molester. What the husband does not know is that, since he takes the role of the villain, the substitute case is one which he will comprehensively lose. The reason why he takes the role of the villain is that radical feminists control the media, and Lord Chief Justice Taylor says that the law responds to public opinion, that is, the interests of the radical feminists. Judges do not serve their own class interests, as Simon Lee suggests, but rather, they serve the interests of those in power, or apparently in power. Lawyers get their impression of what is public opinion, or rather their impression as to who is in power, from the media. Following the Equal Opportunities legislation, which led to heavy representation in the media by radical feminists, they now virtually control it, and take every opportunity to promote the myth of Man as Witch. (The greatest threat to a child and mother is the witch-father, who primarily desires to sexually molest the one and batter the other.) To check this assertion you have only to open a newspaper or switch on your television set.

Ten years ago there was a well documented, concerted putsch by a combination of radical feminist organisations to increase their influence in the media. The quotation from Janet Daley, page 84, confirms that this putsch is still in operation.

.... the importance of fatherhood. Most feminists still think this subject is taboo, and raising it an act of treason.

- Ros Coward, The Guardian, 12apr96, p17.

The Name of the Rose.

Umberto Eco's book discusses the deep secret, that Jesus had a sense of humour, which was kept from the world by faithful monks who were prepared to die to prevent the secret from coming out. No one is prepared to die for the deep secret underlying the legal industry, and nobody has to. The secret is so bizarre and implausable that it will be rejected by many who read it here.

The law does not work.

The way this secret is kept is similar to the way another secret, that God does not exist and the traditional received Jesus myth collapses under scholarly scrutiny, is kept within the Jesuit community.

Jesuits are the scholars of the Catholic church, and a new Jesuit recruit finally arrives at this awful truth, but only after years of study and soul-searching. He may then just leave Orders, but often he first announces his loss of faith to his superiors. To his astonishment, he is told not to worry, that faith is only for the masses, not for the cognoscenti which he is joining. The church is there to control, reassure and pleasure the ignorant masses.

The case of the law is different. Most lawyers never find out that the law does not work. They continue faithfully to think that the problems are of detail, and can be put right by reform. If a lawyer progresses up the hierarchy, the truth only dawns gradually. When fully convinced of the truth, it is too late. He is locked into a career of falsehood. The reality is that the law is there to control, reassure and rip off the ignorant masses. At the same time, under the cloak of discretion and equity, it imposes masonic/radical feminist morality rather than the rule of law. This last is the moral fig-leaf that racketeering lawyers plagued by conscience use to blind themselves to the fact that they are part of an anti-social group. It is very similar to the pretence of public service by the masons which salves their consciences while they conspire to rob society by rigging local planning applications and otherwise subverting our institutions.

Fortunately for them, few lawyers have the intellectual capacity to see the fundamental dislocations in the law, and continue their comfortable, arrogant way through their working life and beyond. Denning is the outstanding case. He once wrote, "Jurisprudence was too abstract for my liking. .... I like to get down to the practical problems....". At least until recently, education in the law was a matter of learning masses of information by heart and regurgitating it in examinations. This attracted walking encyclopaedias to the profession. Such skill tends to be incompatible with jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, so fundamental flaws go unnoticed, or at most they are but dimly sensed, by Denning and other practitioners.

The Evolved Conspiracy.

The purpose served by the interminable compulsory dinners for law students at the Inns of Court is to socialise the lawyer into group loyalty. This makes it easier for him to form a united front with the opposing barrister and solicitor, and with the judge, against his own client and against the law. All the lawyers involved in a case conspire to pretend that the procedure in a civil court is a legal one, which it is not.

The law does not work.

This deep secret explains two contrary themes in the legal industry. First, oppression, and secondly, the currying of favour with power and with the public. It also explains the heavy preponderance of secret courts.

Sensing that he is sitting on shifting, essentially illegal, sands, the judge will assert that the litigant before him is unsavoury in one or more ways. This ensures that the judge will have the moral advantage and so retain control of the case. Rather than concentrate on the inconsistencies and the idiocy that the lawyers have made of his case, the litigant is forced onto the defensive, trying to prove that after all he himself is honourable. At the same time, the judge curries favour with those in power and with the media in order to deflect them from the awful realisation that the legal process is a sham.

We can resolve a misconception which dogged the study of the law so long as judges came from the ruling caste, which also controlled the media. These three have now separated out a little. One suggestion by Simon Lee, that judges use their discretion to further their own class interest in the name of public interest, can now be reinterpreted. The radical feminist interest, controlling the media, masquerades as the public interest. Judges use their discretion to further their own interest at second hand. Firstly, they further the interest of the new perceived ruling caste, the radical feminists, thus currying favour with it. The radical feminists then repay their sycophants, which is what today's judges are. As a result, the last surviving rump of favoured men in an increasingly radical feminist society with its disintegrating economy may be the judges and other lawyers. Serving the radical feminists on the one hand and having fifty per cent of the membership of the House of Commons on the other, lawyers confront us as a formidable, entrenched adversary. We can see why no judge dares to jail a mother who defies a court order.

The New Witch

This book will be helpful for the married man with children who has received a divorce petition, or might receive one in the future. He needs to confront the worst as soon as he can. This is that for ever into the future he will be a second or third class citizen, with no right to own property or earn salary, no right of access to his children or any say in their upbringing. He joins a class which has been excreted by society and criminalised. If he works at all, it will be in the grey or black economy. The present book is kept short and bleak, so that the divorcing man can grasp the outlines of the message about his grave situation quickly. He needs to have a grasp of why the whole of society should suddenly turn on him and his children, rend him, and excrete him. This will forewarn him to be on his guard, to attempt to defend himself to what little degree he can, by going to ground, particularly psychologically.

He has to learn that society regards him as a witch. Such an outlaw has no responsibility to co-operate in the smooth running of his society.

It is important to assemble in one place the many, many reasons why judges always, nonchalantly, permanently cut children of divorce off from their fathers.

Radical feminist propaganda. I began to re-read Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch", and was horrified by the content. There we see immediately the attack on family, the recommendation that women be promiscuous. After behaving for decades as male chauvinist pigs, judges in a body, reading the pervasive "women as victim" propaganda, have developed guilt about their own behaviour in their very limited world. Their stratagem now is to make it up to women by usurping other children's and other men's rights. This gives them a glow without costing them anything.

Heinz Lipschutz, a German who was there, says that the man-bashing propaganda in our media today is far worse than the anti-Jewish propaganda in Germany in 1935. There has been no counter-argument whatsoever, and judges have fallen to the myth of man as witch. This myth, assiduously promoted over decades by Greer and the rest, reached its terrible, destructive culmination in Cleveland, Rochdale and Orkney, where the same single ignorant, virtually untrained social worker triggered off the kidnapping and abduction of children from their homes and families in a drama which later proved to have no foundation whatsoever.

In this case, the characterisation of men as witches broke out of its ghetto, and mothers were also so characterised. Similarly, non-Jews were drawn into the holocaust, and non-aristocrats suffered in the French revolution. Nobody is safe when the poisonous, Salem-style hysteria, for instance on page 3 of The Observer, 18th August, 1996, takes hold.

A judge switches from criminal to family cases and back on a daily basis. Judge Pickles writes that men are the criminals, and women are only drawn into criminality by men, who are the real culprits. The prejudice among judges that men commit crime and women do not, is rife, as we see every day in their sentencing. Such a judge, coming from sentencing men to jail and far fewer women to community service, is unable to adjust to the concept of a blameless man standing before him in the family court only days later. One of many elements of confusion in the English courts is the uncertainty as to whether the Family Courts are adversarial or inquisitorial. Brought up in the English adversarial system, and returning to it tomorrow in another court, the presiding judge looks for the criminal, and unfailingly finds the divorcing man.

A man who sues for divorce, as I did, will notice how all the lawyers behave as though he himself is being sued for divorce. This is because they cannot cope with the idea of a criminal witch wanting to divorce the blameless victim. He will find that it is he who has to defend his behaviour. They just forget that the man initiated the divorce action. In any case, most divorces are initiated by wives.

Junior judges are under the influence of senior judges, who may or may not promote them. This is why, when studying the behaviour of judges as a species, we should expect the juniors to ape their seniors, which they do. Thus, the social framework of senior judges, and its effect on their judgement, has a disproportionate effect.

Virtually all senior judges went to boarding school, and then sent their own children to boarding school. Their narrow class has institutionalised the brutal cutting off of a child from its parents, particularly from its father, who remains bogged down in the City during most of the school holidays. Thus, a judge has no comprehension of the father-child relationship and its importance to the child's health and happiness. Because both his parents and he himself have wilfully visited the same damage on their children, a judge cannot afford to take the matter seriously. To do so would undermine his confidence in his class, to which he showed his loyalty by taking to the law. His dissident brother, appalled by the behaviour of his class, including their way of banishing their own children, became a journalist, artist, drug addict or dosser, and so disappears from the self-reinforcing scene; a scene being imposed on the rest of the divorcing population by these sectarian judges.

If there is truth in the assertion that boarding school is a breeding ground for sexual perversion and brutality, then this would give us one reason why judges are so anxious to believe any such allegations against a divorcing man. The judge has to believe that such behaviour is equally rife among the lower orders, or he betrays his class. However, I think that the main reason why judges welcome perjured charges against divorcing men is elsewhere, as we shall see.

The Sisterhood and the Brotherhood

Germaine Greer's christening of "The Sisterhood" points to her study of Masonry, called "The Brotherhood", leading to her ability to manipulate masonic judges. Virtually all senior judges are Freemasons. The question of why male judges should serve the radical feminist cause can be translated into asking whether The Brotherhood and The Sisterhood; the Freemasons and the Radical feminists, are allies or enemies.

First we need to recapitulate on the development of the Feminist movement. The important feature for our purpose is the common assertion that the New Feminists, or Radical Feminists, do not pursue the same objectives as the Suffragettes and their descendants, the Feminists. The suffragettes and the feminists campaigned for equality, whereas today's radical feminists have been called Feminazi because they campaign for power leading to domination. Assertiveness training means exactly what it says! It has been pointed out that the Radical Feminists demand that a woman should not be held responsible for her actions, and this has led to the protest that the radicals are pushing women back into Victorian times, with chaperoning and other special protection for women.

The story that Pankhurst handed white feathers to those men who avoided the war would however indicate some early retreat from equality as an objective for the suffragettes. Should the recusants have rather killed themselves by getting under horses, or should they have gone to the front?

Now we turn to Freemasonry. A primary feature of Masonry is that it distinguishes strongly between men and women, as do the radical feminists. Masons even deny membership of their cult to women. Masonry also characterises women as wilful, lacking the long term view. It is clear on analysis that the radical feminists and Freemasonry are congruent, both wanting special treatment for women. The Suffragettes, with their dream of equality, were diametrically opposed to the special treatment from which they sought to escape.

Masons take pride in looking after their (little) women. The judge in the family court, almost certainly a Mason but in any case under the strong influence of his betters, the Masonic senior judges, sees before him a man who has broken with Masonic precepts by deserting, or failing to satisfy, his woman. Masonic gallantry, another strong feature of the cult, leads him to supply the missing gallantry to the woman before him, at no cost to himself, but at terrible cost to the children of the family and their father. In doing so he fulfils his masonic oaths while at the same time placating a rampant and threatening Radical Feminist movement.

A recent landmark Court of Appeal decision made it clear that, should an obstructive mother defy court orders giving her children access to their father, the court would acquiesce, and use its powers to assist the mother in her obstruction. The alleged reason was that the children's interests came first. If the mother were thwarted, the risk of her taking revenge on the children would be too great. So today, all courts agree that they can be blackmailed by an obstructive mother into denying to her children their primary civil rights, including access to their own father.

The real reason for the Court of Appeal decision is very different. Lord Chief Justice Taylor recently said on television; "The courts respond to public opinion." The truth is that, were a court to jail a mother for defying a court order, demonstrations outside the jail, with the media fully assembled, would occur. Dominated by the radical feminists as it now is, "public opinion" would be totally against the jailing, so Taylor would be forced to reverse the decision by some devious means, in a further humiliation of an already threadbare legal system. Foreseeing the danger, he has pre-empted the event by acceding to the principle that a child is the chattel of its mother, and has no civil rights.

Given that landmark decision, all future court hearings about access are a waste of time, except insofar as they generate costs. The reason why your own solicitor will inveigle you into hearings over your children's access to you are merely for his benefit, not yours or your child's. He will gain Costs during the useless hearings.

In a letter in The Independent on 12 January 1994, Jasmine Salisbury, a magistrate serving on the family panel, wrote; ".... contact orders .... are in practice unenforceable, and where such an order is flouted for no good reason the parent seeking contact has no remedy. .... The father seeking contact is powerless if the mother refuses to release the child in compliance with an order. .... Parents seeking legitimate contact enforcement, and the courts they resort to, are engaged in a charade."

Earlier, Mackay wrote to me admitting that courts would not enforce their own orders over contact when they were flouted by defiant mothers. From the time some years ago when circuit judge Ryland gave my child what she confirmed that she herself wanted; 50% time with her father and 50% time with her mother, the child has had no contact with her father. Recently, the Law Lords judgement in the Appeal Court, stated by a female judge, confirmed that the courts would not enforce court orders giving children access to their fathers. The European Court will overturn this crazy judgement far too late for my child.

A good example of the way in which your own solicitor is opposed to your interests is that, firstly, he will fail to tell you for at least a year that a court order re access should have a penal notice attached. Then, a year or two later, he will fail to warn you that even with a penal notice attached, a court order giving a child access to its father is not worth the paper it is written on. Judges have frequently said that they will never jail a defiant mother because of the effect on the children! The resulting effect on children is that one half of the children of divorce have lost all contact with their fathers. How many jailed mothers would be worse than that? The truth, as we have seen, is that a judge is deterred from jailing the mother because of its effect on his career. In the law's present state of dilapidation, no judge dare face up to the anger of the radical feminists and their media power. No wonder every judge in the country welcomes, and nurtures, any hint that the father before him is a child molester or violent. Lacking such a hint, he will grasp at, and try to expand, less relevant charges against the father. An attractive second-best is the assertion that he is an uncaring father. Suitably embroidered, a judge can use even a hint on those lines to provide a smokescreen for his fear of the radical feminists.

At the same time as a child's acknowledged basic civil right of access to its father is persistently obstructed by the court, in defiance of its own court orders, mothers are jailed for evading the TV licence fee. In such cases, the court happily cuts a mother off from her children. Robin Gay argues that when a man is involved, the radical feminist agenda is met by the judge, but if no man is involved, the law can be applied to women. This is how he attempts to explain why in one case, defiance of a court order is condoned, while in the other, much less serious case, not involving the sex war, the law can be enforced.

On the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, 3nov96, Julia Kirkbridge discussed the campaign by women's groups to end the jailing of women for TV licence fee defaulting.

The hidden radical feminist agenda, of course, is that any father is a witch, and only seeks access to his children in order to molest them sexually.

Haringey has a policy that, should there be uncorroborated charges against a father, it will prevent any contact between father and child, and the father will be banned from case hearings. In a recent case, when the mother was grabbed by police and put into a mental home, the council put the children into foster care rather than allow them to have any contact with their father, against whom no charges had been proven. This is the knock-on effect of irresponsible judges feeding into the concept developed by the radical feminist-dominated social services that all men are witches.

The carefully developed concept, of Man as Witch, had its tragic culmination in Cleveland, Rochdale and Orkney, when children were kidnapped by the social services and cut off for months from their totally innocent parents, mothers as well as fathers. They were even cut off from siblings and from any representatives of their own Quaker and Jewish religions. A 1995 High Court decision established that such social services and social workers, in Cleveland, Rochdale, Orkney and anywhere else, are immune from prosecution for their destructive anti-social behaviour, based on their belief that all men are witches. Before that decision, Cleveland had already settled one million pounds on the families they had attacked, but the recent court decision means they need not have done so, and the Orkney victim families will get nothing.

Children have no right to sue local authorities for harm when wrongly taken into care for suspected abuse or when authorities fail to protect them from neglect or abuse, the House of Lords ruled yesterday. - Terence Shaw, Legal Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 30th June 1995, page 2.

Language.

Argot. The jargon, slang, or peculiar phraseology of a class, orig. that of thieves and rogues.

Brogue. An escheat; a cheat -1791

Brogue. 1. A rude shoe, or untanned hide, worn in the wilder parts of Ireland and the Scotch Highlands.

Brogue. 1705. [perh. same wd. as prec.] A strongly-marked dialectical pronunciation or accent; now esp. that of the English speech of Ireland.

Doggerel, doggrel. ME. [In earliest use adj. in rym dogerel, presumable f. DOG (with contemptuous implication as in dog Latin, dog rime ... see -REL]

A. adj. An epithet applied to burlesque verse of irregular rhythm; or to mean, trivial, or undignified verse. transf. Bastard, burlesque.

Patois. A provincial form of a language spoken in a restricted area and having no literary status. .... "Their language is in the patois of fraud" BURKE - Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1984.

One of the many reasons why The Industry faces its end is its approach to language. We all know that they speak a Argot. What astonished me was to find that they no longer bother to master their own secret language. This was brought home to me during my sojourn in Chancery. A writ was served on me demanding £100,000 plus numerous further similar amounts. As litigant in person, I had the honour of numerous sittings before Master Weingarten, a Deputy High Court Judge, high up on the umpteenth floor in Chancery near the Aldwych. Now although W did not wear fancy dress, and in spite of his ridiculous title, he was very near to the top of The Industry.

Protocol required that I should write out a series of facts about the case, and deliver them to my adversary. They would then agree some of the facts and dispute others, in writing. The idea is that this will save time when the case comes to court before the real (not deputy) judge, in full fancy dress.

Odgers, the legal bible, is adamant that this document is not a defence. It is not my answer to the arguments of my adversary as to why I should give him £100,000 plus, and of course give far more to his and my lawyers. (My lawyers did not exist.) This document used to be described as "Pleading", already a misnomer. (Lord Woolf, in his interim report "Access to Justice" of June 1995, page 153, reverts to the archaic name "Pleadings". He lambasts judges and lawyers in general for failing to deal with this matter competently. He says that the basic function of pleadings has been lost sight of. Of course, we know that Pleadings, like everything else, now serve to maximise costs, and they do that very well.) However, today it is called a "Defence" although it is not a defence. Imagine my horror to find, later on, that Weingarten could not distinguish between a Defence and a defence. To be exact, he contradicted RSC Order 18, rule 7(1). Weingarten, a man near to the top of The Industry, was lost in the complexity of his own argot! However, I have since realised that judges are failed barristers, and so should not be expected to have too much competence in the language of the law. Fortunately, when he said I should have brought my arguments for not paying, rather than my outlining of alleged facts and agreed facts, I produced that for him as well. I was well prepared because I was Litigant in Person (as they say in argot), having no lawyers on my side to scupper me.

A year after writing the previous paragraph, I found that another standard text, "Learning the Law" by Glanville Williams, pub. Stevens, London, eleventh edn. 1982, p20, has a contradictory version of what a "Defence" is, and also asserts that in this matter, terminology is different between Chancery and the Queen's Bench! This perfectly illustrates the linguistic shambles that is the law, leading one senior judge to say that even judges do not understand the jargon, and that if proper English were used, the financial savings would be massive. The confusion between Weingarten and me, or Weingarten's confusion, is typical of the shambles in every case at every stage, exquisitely maximising Costs.

I noticed misuse of language earlier in the case, when the writ was first served on me. One section was entitled "AND I CLAIM", followed by allegations as to what I had said, what I had signed, where I had been, and so forth. Turn over the standard-form Writ, and you come to the next section, "AND I CLAIM", followed by a demand for £100,000 for this, £57,000 more for that, £25,000 for the other. That is, the same phrase was used to describe the two main sections of the writ. The double used of that phrase to describe different items was confusing and damaging. This is one of the multifarious ways devised by The Industry to increase confusion and cost.

Although Master Weingarten, the Deputy High Court Judge, had just said that the courts leaned over backward to help the litigant in person (me), he and my opposing barrister refused to explain the argot they were using in my presence. For instance, the opposing barrister referred to a long list of monetary demands being made on me, and divided them into two groups. Referring to one group, he said, "These claims fall". I asked what "fall" meant; whether they had to be dropped as insubstantial, or remained as strong. No reply, from him or from Weingarten. The trouble is, the whole of the legal industry is so enmeshed in obfuscating patois that they no more understand what is needed to ensure intelligible communication. Even if The Industry wanted to assist the litigant in person, which is patois for conducting one's own case, they would not know how to go about it. However, we know full well that The Industry has to ensure that litigants in person are very rare, and are almost always unsuccessful. In spite of this, The Industry is disturbed by the current increase in litigants in person, now running at 10% in the High Court. This increase is because, once a victim suspects that his own lawyers will probably scupper him, he will not want to face paying them to sabotage him. That is certainly my attitude, and the reason why for many years now, even though I had access to legal aid, I have conducted my own cases.

The Industry patois has reached such chronic proportions that even lawyers realise that something has to be done. In The Times, wed6july94, "The senior civil judge in England and Wales is backing a report out today which says that millions of pounds could be saved in legal fees if statutes were written in plain English. Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, says that even experienced judges sometimes cannot make sense of the law. ....The report, from the Plain English Commission, is calling for statutory legal jargon to be scrapped and the laws rewritten in clear English. Every new law should include a 'citizen's summary', enabling the main points to be grasped immediately." The commission was challenged by law-writers to produce a simpler, shorter version of an Act. The resulting, revised Act had 25% fewer words, and its sentences were a third shorter on average. The original Act included two sentences of more than 100 words each. Words such as 'offeror' and 'offeree' were replaced by 'seller' and 'buyer'.

Why did trial proceed?

The self-styled rape victim had told the court that she undressed, put on a nightshirt and G-string and went to sleep while David Warren, 19, sat on the bed, still dressed. He was still fully clothed, she said, when she awoke at 4am, and he got up to make toast for her.

She denied encouraging him to make love to her. After eating the toast, she had slept again, but reawoke to find him caressing her stomach and kissing her. He removed his boxer shorts and guided her hand to his private parts, where she kept it for a few seconds.

She did not resist his caresses but told him to stop when he climbed on top of her. When he penetrated her she started to cry but he told her it would be all right, she said. - Telegraph, 24 November 1994.

She agreed that she did not fight off his advances and spent the rest of the night with him after they had sex. .... 'We stayed there and slept until about ten in the morning.' She called the police after discussing what had happened with friends the next day. - [The Times, page 3.]

Without requiring defence counsel to address him on a submission that there was no case to answer, the judge directed the jury to clear Warren. - Telegraph.

David's mother said: "The pressure of the case made him quit his course at Portsmouth University and he is now unemployed." Warren's solicitor said David had left university and found a job, but might lose it as a result of publicity given to the case. The alleged victim remains anonymous.

The collapse of the trial of David Warren will lead to renewed questions about the Crown Prosecution Service's attitude to pressing ahead with apparently flawed rape cases [wrote Ben Felton in the Daily Telegraph].

The case, which even the prosecution counsel agreed was of the "weakest" kind, follows others where the CPS has been accused of being too ready to bring rape cases to court with a level of evidence that would dissuade them from proceeding with any other kind of offence.

There has been a series of high-profile trials where men accused of rape have been cleared after juries sided with their version of an incident of "date rape", leading to criticism of the CPS.

A spokesman said last night: 'We view rape as a very serious offence but we use the same criteria on all cases to decide if there is a realistic prospect of conviction. There are no extra criteria. Our job is not to take dead certainties to court. It is to bring cases we think the court should hear and then it is for the court to decide.'

However Lady Mallalieu, QC, a recorder, said she believed that the CPS still felt pressurised by women's groups and by media publicity to go ahead with prosecutions based on the evidence of one woman against one man.

She said last night: 'They will deny it, but I am sure that when they get any kind of a sex case they are much more likely to say "We have to run this and let a jury decide".' - Daily Telegraph, 24th November 1994, page 3.

The is clearly the same situation as that of a black man and a white woman in the Deep South a century ago. The Englishman today is a helot, lacking minimal civil rights, and the white/black apartheid of Southern USA has reappeared in today's Britain.

Have you heard enough?

"A jury took two minutes yesterday to clear a student of raping a kinky college girl with a fetish for rubberwear.

Their verdict came after Judge Brian Appleby, QC, halted the trial and asked jurors: "Have you heard enough?"

Trainee sculptor Ben Emerson, 21, who failed to complete his degree course because of the pressure of facing prosecution, slumped in the dock and sobbed when he was acquitted.

The 20-year-old raven-haired girl he was alleged to have raped broke down and said: "This was a political experiment and it went wrong".

The three-day trial at Leicester Crown Court ....

She invited him to stay the night and suggested he massage her with baby oil [and have oral sex] as she lay naked on the bed equipped with chains. .... She showed him pornographic magazines ...." - Frank Curran, Daily Star, 1dec94.

"Ben Emerson .... said: 'The trial was a political experiment and it went wrong.'

Mr Carl Gaskill, prosecuting, told the court after the verdict: 'The decision whether to prosecute or not was clearly difficult and was considered at the highest level.'

.... After the encounter the girl sought advice before making a complaint to police nine days later."

- David Graves, Daily Telegraph, 1dec94.

This three day trial provided rich pickings for all the lawyers involved. We, as taxpayers, paid for it via the Crown Prosecution Service. After three days, the judge, fearing outrage should the public realise who was paying for this farce, brought proceedings to a close.

What I find so offensive is that these judges and courts, and the Crown Prosecution Service, all find the time and the public money to engage in these farces, but doggedly ignore the epidemic of perjury, bribery and forgery which swamps the same courts. Such a court will oust a man from his home on the basis of perjured affidavit in a ten minute secret hearing, giving him no recourse at any time in the future, when they promptly return to this kind of nonsensical, titillating 'rape' trial. The confused repetition of the idea that it was a political trial, allegedly said by both parties, should warn us about manipulation by radical feminists of gullible, ignorant, anti-social and venal lawyers - judges, barristers and solicitors - in our courts.

In the tabloid "Today" on 2dec94, p6, under the headline "Rape. The law isn't working", Penny Wark said, "It has been suggested that these were test cases, brought to gauge reaction. Certainly they open up a disturbing debate about whether the existing law is adequate to cope with every case of rape."

Let us now trace the stony path from the early depredations by Denning on the legal fabric, all the way to the grotesque denial of minimal civil rights to an Englishman in the rape cases.

The Portsmouth Martyrdom

A heavy budget campaign for the U.S. senate had vast resources. As a result, its TV advertising was heavy, glossy and sophisticated. The underfunded underdog resorted to a simple, crude stratagem. He came onto TV for very brief, cheap sessions, with the refrain, "Where's the beef?"

The Portsmouth Martyrdom is inexplicable unless one holds to the refrain; "Where's the money?" Perhaps it would be better for me to exhort; Follow the money. Journalists and other commentators are constitutionally incapable of following the money.

In Anglesey when I was young, foolish, ignorant girls persistently became pregnant. Local society often compelled the errant youth to marry the errant girl. The same was endemic in East Kent, where my relatives were involved in such unsubtle manoeuvrings.

That was when the legal industry had not got going properly, and there was no radical feminist mythology for it to exploit. The young girls were foolish, lonely or calculating. The youths were foolish.

Today the girl is innocent victim and the youth criminal predator. The law will avenge the one and punish the other, while at the same time feathering its own nest. However, the Portsmouth case got out of hand, and in spite of his loyalty to The Industry, the judge had to stop the case before the defence spoke one word. The prosecution barrister knew nothing of the case, and had never spoken to the alleged victim. Absurd cases can continue, and innocent men can go to jail in droves, but some shred of credibility must remain as a cover for the racketeering.

Love's labours lost to the lunatic fringe

A moral ambience has arisen that casts men as sexual wrongdoers, leaving them wide open to legal abuse, said Barbara Amiel in the Sunday Times on the 26th December 1994, reprinted here with the permission of the author.

How was it for you, darling, hmmm? Good sex? Mediocre stuff? Or just plain rape? These days, making love can lead to the altar or the Old Bailey. He thinks she was aching for it, she thinks it was a crime. What has happened to love between the sexes?

Sexual encounters that made news in 1993 include Angus Diggle, the solicitor convicted of the attempted rape of his fellow-solicitor and date for a Highland Ball after she invited him back to share a room till train-time. She took off everything except her panties, he took off everything except his glasses and cuffs. When she awoke he had left his sofa for her bed and was on top of her dutifully clad in a safer-sex condom. After a 15-second tussle, the rejected Diggle fell asleep on the floor. Such sangfroid led to his arrest and a three-year sentence.

Student Austen Donnellan was told to submit to a university disciplinary hearing after charges of rape were brought against him by a fellow student. His accuser, who admitted to giving him passionate kisses, dismissed them as meaning nothing. She said she had been taken advantage of after falling into a drunken stupor on the way to her college room bed. Donnellan demanded a trial. Ten months later he was acquitted at the Old Bailey.

Susan Gooch, 27, locked eyes with a stranger at a London restaurant and subsequently locked parts in a shop doorway and the tube train. After parting she cried "rape" and accused a co-worker at her office. She admitted to perverting the course of justice and escaped prison on the basis of "very moving" medical reports.

What is the motivation for these kinds of charges of rape and why are charges being laid on a fact basis that is truly Alice-in-Wonderland? Last week, a North American gynaecologist was charged with sexual assault after he performed a standard examination requested by the patient and done in the presence of his nurse. The patient went home to brood. She had seen a look on the doctor's face as his gloved finger entered her. Also, didn't the gloved finger linger? Next day she went to the police and the gynaecologist was led handcuffed from his surgery.

North American madness? Most people shrugged when American feminists like Andrea Dworkin and the lawyer Catherine MacKinnon defined all sexual congress between men and women as coercive, given society's "inherent power imbalance", not to mention a design fault in nature requiring, ugh, penetration. But the message behind this thinking - that all men are vile beasts - soon crossed the Atlantic and entered mainstream thought through the media and even government quangos. The ideas may have been slightly modified - as in the prose of the Equal Opportunities Commission - but under its euphemisms lurks the same message. Men exploit. Men can't be trusted. On this basis, feminists went about redefining our notions of marriage, courtship and sex.

British law has been changed so it is now possible for a husband to rape his wife in an active marriage, leading to the situation in which love-making between husband and wife is wonderful on Tuesday morning and rape an hour later. Our schools teach pupils about the perils of "date-rape" (previously known as seduction). So-called "sexual harassment" rules have been set up to codify behaviour on a date. Employment tribunals of grown-up men and women listen to accounts of women undone by sexist jokes, as if females are the frail vessels of neo-Victorian times whose sensibilities require piano legs to be wrapped in muslin. Our home secretary proudly announced his proposal to end the obligatory caution to juries about the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of rape - though corroboration never meant another witness, simply forensic evidence.

When you establish such an ambience - in which men are at the mercy of social forces - you have entered the climate of show trials. It is rather like the second-rate movie scripts of the US Scottsboro period, when every liberal writer was turning out a story about a negro being accused by a Southern belle of rape. Because rape by a negro in those days would almost automatically carry the death sentence, Southern white women had tremendous power vis-à-vis black males. This sort of power has been extended to all women today vis-à-vis men, with the single difference, I suppose, that we can't actually get them hanged. And while very few Southern women exercised their power by sexually exploiting powerless negroes, similarly few women today sexually exploit our vulnerable males. But the minute you set up the ambience that gives people this power, there will always be a tiny minority who simply cannot resist.

In the wee small hours of new year's eve of 1992, a young man took his Co Kilkenny sweetheart of five months from a disco party to a derelict mill. They lay down on his jacket for 45 minutes and had what the judge called "a high degree of intimacy". At the conclusion he had sexual intercourse without her consent. Later the boyfriend was told of his misdeed and was horrified. He apologised in person and in writing. When the judge gave him a suspended nine-year sentence, the girl-friend collapsed in shock on the shoulders of her mother and representatives of the local Rape Crisis Centre.

Now the fact that I would not regard penetration by someone with whom I had had 45 minutes of hanky panky as a big deal does not make it incumbent upon anyone else to share this view. The girlfriend is entitled to view the culmination of the sexual act as a gross invasion of her privacy unless done with her specific intent. But it is unreasonable to ask people who take such a view of penetration - even with young men they clearly desire - to bring their own actions into line with this view. Men are not vibrators or lamps. A man has passions, physical needs and all the works that go with male sexuality. You cannot dally and then switch him off at whatever point in your mind you have decided not to cross.

Men and women have differing sexual natures. Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene argues that the logical sexual strategy for the male is to impregnate as many women as possible to maximise his own genes. Since he is capable of creating a genetic survival possibility six times a day his sexual nature will be very different to that of the female who in her entire reproductive lifetime has at most 20 opportunities and more likely about 10. She will want selective impregnation. Now, clearly, the modern male living in Chelsea wants to behave better than this and the single female in her Battersea flat may prefer to be worse, but it takes a long time for nurture to catch up with nature.

Different sexual natures are not an excuse for bad behaviour, only a guideline to sensible behaviour. Women want to be liberated and feel they can get drunk, undressed and ask a man to take them to bed and then change their minds, but this flies in the face of male sexuality. Yet all the onus for restraint is now on men: we women are wild, innocent little things who cannot restrain our appetites.

The solution is not to make matters worse by, for example, extending anonymity to the accused male as well as the accusing female in sexual cases. The real remedy is to throw the whole ambience out of the window and take common-sense responsibility for our actions. Meanwhile, if I had a son I'd tell him this: in our matriarchal society, it is not sufficient merely to have the consent of a woman to sexual congress through her actions or words. The wise man will demand that she show a certificate from a psychiatrist that she is sane, a birth certificate to prove she is of age and will be sure to carry a portable Breathalyser. Only after you have proof of her sanity, sobriety age of consent and consent, may you have sexual relations with her. Andrea Dworkin and the EOC may still say that is not enough.

[Daily Express, Saturday nov26, 1994, p5. Said by anonymous accuser of David Warren, whose case was thrown out by the judge {She stayed in bed with him for six hours after the 'rape'}; "Even if you have signed a contract consenting to sex you could decide halfway that you do not want it, and the man should abide by that." She has not had a boyfriend since.... she has hit out at the decision of her own legal advisers to take the case to court. .... She no longer understood where she was with men, she said. ....

"And if the jury had been left to make its own mind up I could also have accepted better the not guilty verdict." "I never spoke to the CPS or the prosecuting barrister. In the end another barrister stepped in at the last minute."]

The Mafia and The Industry.

@

Comment on the State of the Nation generally skates on the surface. It is thought to be adventurous to assert that the legal system is betraying those enmeshed in it - litigants and accused, particularly Irish, or that the accountancy profession is ripping off its customers, as evidenced by the people assigned the task of rescuing the Maxwell pensioners themselves running off with £100 millions. Or it is pointed out that for all its propaganda, the accountancy profession failed to notice that Maxwell had stolen £500 millions from a company worth perhaps only three times that much, in spite of the accountants having taken vast fees for auditing the Maxwell companies over many years while he milked them unknown to the auditors. Or disgust is registered when a man is jailed for murder, exonerated years later, and the police refuse to look for another culprit.

All this crying over spilt milk is well and good, but we need more. We need to concentrate, and to dig deeper. First of all, I have decided that for all their scandalous behaviour, the Accountancy profession, or the Civil Service, are not the leading actors in the dismemberment of our society. This role is taken by the legal profession. We need to investigate why legal professionals today are so venal that they have failed to notice when they destroy their very raison d'être. Why have they been so engrossed in inflating legal fees, for themselves and their co-extortioners, that they have not noticed that the source of the fees is rapidly drying up? After all, the supply relies on at least some faith remaining in the law. Today, since the law obviously brings no benefit whatsoever to anyone, it may disappear quite soon. As reported in The Times, 2dec94, Lord McCluskey, a Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland since 1984 and a former solicitor-general for Scotland, said; "The commonly articulated judgement is that the present system is failing to do a worthwhile job; .... it is desperately expensive, it is purposeless and pointless." In Henry Miller's play, "The Crucible", when a law court was installed in Salem, Mass., and proceeded to murder townsfolk wholesale and tear the social fabric apart, one actor said, "They have driven the court out of Andover." I particularly noticed this because I went to school in another town named Andover, in Hampshire, the school Denning attended. Some years ago I came to realise that the health of the town of Watford required that Watford County Court be closed. The same will be true of most towns in England, since these courts are today generally behave illegally, irresponsibly and destructively.

The first step is to give an appropriate name to the legal profession and legal system, or legal fabric. This presents difficulties. We cannot say "system", because activity by lawyers and courts has now become more or less totally unsystematic. We cannot use the phrase "legal fabric", because the fabric is hopelessly torn. This led me to coin the phrase "legal industry". However, difficulties remain. Today's court officials, judges, barristers and solicitors have become so ignorant and contemptuous of law and legal procedures that they have to be described as "illegal", not legal. Lord Mackay has written to me to apologise for illegal activity by officials of the Watford County Court, but that is the norm, not the exception. Some of them are untrained and semi-literate. I think it is the Chief Clerk who, when I complained about the persistent bad spelling, appologised to me with a double pp! Mackay also apologised for his own admitted ignorance of the procedures that he is paid to enforce in the courts. If you spend a few hours reading law books, you will find yourself more expert in law than those shysters all who are engrossed in fee inflation and have no time to spare to achieve or maintain competence in the law, and in court procedures. We are left with the phrase "Illegal Industry". This is when I came to the name which, in the present tragic circumstances, is ideal. It is "The Industry". I was obviously led there by the fact that the earlier contender, "Illegal industry", smacks of the Mafia. The closest correlation is between the names "The Industry" and "The Firm", the latter being the title for The Mafia. So now we have it. This book discusses The Industry, and sets out to master its ramifications by comparing and contrasting it with the Mafia. The Industry means the legal professionals and their institutions, the courts, and the Law Society. On the fringe of The Industry is the House of Commons, packed with lawyer Members who rely on legal fees to maintain their current standard of living, including mistresses.

No case going through the English courts today would survive through appeal in the European Court, should it get that far, because today, the English courts lack rudimentary legality, as is obvious to any non-masonic European judge. We are approaching crisis, when lawyer members of parliament and their cronies, seeing the torpedoing of their livelihood by European Court edicts, will feel forced to defend a disintegrating English "legal system" against Europe's strictures. When our MPs ask us to support them in defying the European Court, it is of the utmost importance that, with the help of the information in this book, we should side with Europe, however damaging that may be. We have to get through the critical shutting down of The Industry as quickly as possible, whatever the cost. It will not be reformed from within. The decay has gone too far for that.

The intention of this book is to help victims of The Industry to predict the behaviour of lawyers, including their own. By understanding the real motivation of these destructive, ignorant rogues, the citizen will be in a better position to pre-empt them and reduce the massive damage they are inflicting. A number of contributing factors will be woven into the fabric of the model, including feminism, masonry and the career and social milieu of our judges.

A major disadvantage for the litigant or suspect, is that he makes gross assumptions about the intentions and orientation of the lawyers who surround him. He assumes that his own solicitor and barrister is on his side, which is quite untrue. He assumes that the lawyers know more of the law than he himself does. He assumes that the concept of the rule of law is very much in the lawyers' minds. He assumes that the lawyers wish to avoid wrongful imprisonment, wrongful besmirching of his good name, unfair expropriation of his assets.

The lawyers, trying to operate a baroque legal system much like the government of the Soviet Union when it collapsed, do not necessarily gain much financial profit. They claim that legal aid fees are too low. Lawyers are much too concerned about fees, or costs, to consider the precepts he thinks they have in the centre of their thoughts. As the system disintegrates further, each lawyer is also concerned to cover his back should the case go wrong. A case would have gone wrong if one victim felt insufficiently dirtied and so felt clean enough to carry his case on to the European Court, where all parties in the sordid English court would come in for criticism.

The Moral Maze.

We have to confront the fact that we all know apparently honest, public spirited lawyers, particularly some of those in the early stages of their legal careers. How can our cynical analysis square with such knowledge?

Dostoevsky gives us the clue. A year before his death he was anxious to get down the most important message of his life. Calling his unwritten play a poem, "The Grand Inquisitor", he force-fitted it into his last, greatest novel, The Brothers Karamazov. His analysis of a great church administered at the top by atheists or the like maps perfectly onto the gimcrack, but surviving, moral maze that is The Industry, administered at the top by men who know that the law does not work, and replace a legal code by a moral code. Dostoevsky shows how honest, god-fearing priests lower down rub shoulders with cynical anti-Jesus cardinals who also have the good of society as their motivation - plus personal gain on the side. Similarly, cynical, racketeering crooks acting as senior judges and barristers above preside over better motivated, gullible, junior lawyers below.

Our Grand Inquisitor is Lord Denning. Where the Grand Inquisitor says to Jesus; "We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority", Denning replaced our law with Morality. The church, and also our legal system, then lapsed into full-scale corruption. Throughout his sustained onslaught on our legal system, Denning probably remained moral, at least from his own narrow standpoint.

In his old age he reached the clear conviction that .... he must .... accept lying and deception, and lead men consciously to death and destruction, and yet deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are being led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think themselves happy. .... .... And if only one such [selfless Denning] stood at the head of the whole army [of selfish lawyers] 'filled with the lust of power only for the sake of filthy gain' - would not one such be enough to make a tragedy? More than that, one such [selfless one] standing at the head is enough to create the actual leading idea of the Roman Church [or in our case of the rule of law] with all its armies and Jesuits [judges], its highest idea. I tell you frankly that I firmly believe that there has always been such a [selfless] man among those who stood at the head of the movement. Who knows, there may have been some such even among the Roman Popes. Who knows, perhaps the spirit of that accursed old man [Denning] who loves mankind so obstinately in his own way, is to be found even now in a whole multitude of such old men [= senior lawyers], existing not by chance but by agreement, as a secret league formed long ago for the guarding of the mystery, to guard it from the weak and the unhappy, so as to make them happy. No doubt it is so, and so it must be indeed. I fancy that even among the Masons there's something of the same mystery at the bottom ....

"The mystery" is that the law does not work, and has been replaced by a moral code. The legal activity has no meaning, and serves the same purpose as the religious service, to gain prestige for the law, which operates elsewhere. Protection of the mystery is by various stratagems, including the dubbing of a too-successful litigant in person as "vexatious litigant", and his banning from the courts. Lower down, your lawyers will connive with the judges and against you to hide the fact of breakdown in your case, when it threatens to come to light.

The "vexatious litigant" has seen through the fancy dress and fancy words in our courts, and is forcing the court to behave legally. The reaction of professional lawyers is similar to that of my schoolboy friend in our cricket match who, when we all said he had been bowled, replied that since he owned bat and ball, we could not impose our decision on him. When we insisted, he took his bat and ball home, and the game ended. This happens all the time in our courts, with the professional lawyers behaving like my friend who owned bat and ball. The reason why there are fewer so-called "vexatious litigants" than one would expect in our corrupt and disintegrating courts is that the Industry has many more stratagems for blocking one who is getting close to forcing the court to enforce the law. A "Mary Bell" order was used to block Sara Keays, and yet another trick was used to block Tolstoy in his libel action. I was blocked by the court withholding documents that they were required to give to me, earning me an apology from the Lord Chancellor too late, years later. Illegally withholding documents, or falsifying documents, is a common ruse, often including the (useless) apology. Prankherd knows of further stratagems used by judges to block access to the law, and the Adsheads and others have proof of falsification of court transcripts by the courts.

The Firm and The Industry compared.

The Industry is a much greater threat to society than The Firm. The best way to approach this comparison is to think of the laundering of The Firm and its assets, so that it becomes legit. The Industry is already Legit, since it grew out of society itself, not out of outlaw criminality. In a sense, The Firm and The Industry are travelling the same path in opposite directions, as bribery, perjury, theft and other crimes by lawyers become more and more the rule in an increasingly criminalised legal 'profession'.

The distinguishing feature of The Firm, which makes it permanently less of a threat to the survival of society, is that it is parasitic. It does not intend to modifying society. Mafia men meet Basil Bernstein's description of the working class, who survive within a hostile environment controlled by other classes, an environment that they do not fully understand, and do not need to understand. In contrast, the world view of The Industry is middle class in that they identify with the controllers of society. Thus The Industry is the Enemy Within, while The Firm is the much less dangerous enemy without.

The Industry sees itself as regulating and even modifying society, while at the same time concentrating primarily on ripping off society. The fact that it has two probably incompatible roles means that it threatens society at a much deeper, more dangerous level. The mafia only seek to rip off society.

Since the Enemy Within also controls the House of Commons, where so many MPs are professional lawyers, the British voter will be forced to ally with foreign power, the European Court, to wrest back his freedoms. Our position, as non-lawyer Englishmen, is similar to the population of Haiti, who used Clinton to retrieve their freedom from their own Mafia. Those who welcomed the American soldiers were not unpatriotic.

The Police.

The difficult factor to predict is the behaviour of the police. One would expect the police gradually to distance themselves from The Industry, creating a new situation where police will refuse to enforce court orders or do anything else at the beck of a discredited Industry. However, the masonic link would tend to prevent this. Perhaps 80% of Chiefs of Police and also 80% of High Court judges are Freemasons. It is unlikely, with the leaders of the two groups locked together in unholy masonry, that the police forces will very easily distance themselves from the (in)judicial process. It all depends on how strong the bond of the Brotherhood is.

We have seen the growing disenchantment shown by the police over the increasingly bizarre and destructive behaviour of The Industry. The key stage occurs when the police more or less cease both to bring cases to the law that they despise, and also more or less refuse to enforce court orders. Their position is however difficult, hemmed in by mason-lawyers on the one side and mason-lawyer politicians on the other. It is significant that Paul Condon, Metropolitan Chief of Police, used a masonic term "Noble Cause Corruption" when he warned that disenchantment with the courts will drive police into the corrupt activity of framing known villains. We should assume that the police will play no useful role in the struggle to retrieve the country from the clutches of The Industry.

The police have for years been uncooperative when I ask for information on the organisational and procedural links between police and courts.

Legal Aid Lottery

"A service that cost £353m in 1988 is expected to cost £1.6 billion this year, a sum divided equally between civil, criminal and matrimonial cases. ....

"Beck, a Hungarian, cannot understand why hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent from the public purse on a trademark tussle with his American former colleague.

"The case, centred on a device to erase women's cellulite, will be fought in Britain only because he came here this year, avoiding creditors in several European countries .... 'It's the biggest farce that British taxes are having to be used on my survival. It's a charade,' said Beck this weekend.

"Beck obtained legal aid after telling court officials he was 'penniless'. He did not have to mention, however, that he lives in a £1,500-a-month flat .... and spends £400 a month telephoning around the world."

The Nottinghamshire beautician who claims he cheated her cannot afford to sue him, and cannot get legal aid.

On the same page of The Sunday Times, 25sep94, Liz Lightfoot tells of the builder Cummins, (convicted of fraud against the state at the same time in another case,) who spent £142,000 of legal aid to pay his legal team to pursue the Adsheads, a family of hoteliers, for payment of a disputed roofing bill for £15,000. His high flying legal team won the case for him, and now the hotelier family is set to lose their hotel in order to pay the £167,000 plus their own smaller legal costs. [The Legal Aid fund reposessed their hotel in 1996.]

When an Iranian worth tens of millions of pounds was recently granted legal aid to the tune of £5m or so, I was astonished that the discussion in the media ignored the destination of the money. Everyone seemed to think in terms of the money going to the Iranian. Actually, it went to racketeering barristers and solicitors, who managed to absorb millions of pounds while allegedly arguing about the sum of £35m. In order to invoice for that amount of money, they would have had to charge £50,000 per hour. At £5,000 per hour, the time spent, 1,000 man-hours, would have been impossible. They would have had to put a massive team of high priced lawyers onto the case, all at the same time. This was a typical example of the way the numbers do not add up in a scam by The Industry. The case involved foreigners and foreign argument. The Industry merely used their client as a stooge to help it to transfer millions of pounds of Legal Aid money into English lawyers' pockets.

The Protection Racket

Lord Mackay has apologised to me because officials of Watford County Court illegally tampered with court files. Worse, I have reports of falsification of court transcripts in courts far distant from each other around the country. Mackay also apologised to me because the court sabotaged my appeal by illegally withholding key documents from me for a period running into years.

The innocent who finds himself enmeshed in the courts, whether by way of divorce or otherwise, will be much better able to cope with his situation if he hears an alternative view as to what the courts today in England really represent. He certainly must get rid of any idea that they are about the rule of law and the enforcement of justice. However, whether they are now merely running protection rackets for the highest payer is a matter of judgement. A similar situation in Russia, which had an evolving mafia in the same way as our legal industry is evolving into a mafia, will illustrate the problem when trying to make this judgement.

Arkady Vaksberg, in his 1991 book, The Soviet Mafia, pub. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, describes what happened when the threat of summary execution by Stalin receded. Government officials, particularly those in the highest positions, now had a future to provide for. They set to work to line their own pockets. Breznev was the worst crook of them all. However, low level communists and government officials would have been insulted at the suggestion that they were part of a mafia. By 1991, the whole of Russia was riddled with corruption, and the main problem was to get the money out of the country rather than to generate more of it by further bribery. Massive money-laundering schemes were widespread.

Whereas the trigger which created the Russian mafia was the disappearance of fear of execution, in England the trigger was Thatcherite self-interest and her assertion that Society did not exist. This stripped away the moderating idea that the legal industry performed a public service. At that point, the criminal, protection-racket element, which had always been part of the legal industry, was validated and completely took over. However, low level lawyers still do not realise this, and high level lawyers hide themselves from the obvious fact that their activities are a threat to society and its legal fabric. In his novel "The Trial", Franz Kafka explains how the lower levels in a legal system can believe they are working towards justice and the rule of law, while at the same time the higher officials are totally corrupt. In "The Castle", Kafka gives more insight into the interplay of self-interest and fear which caused the English Legal system to degenerate into a mafia. Although he died before he could give us the full story, the outline that he did give us makes chilling reading for one who has become entangled in today's legal "system".

Protection rackets masquerading as law had always existed. Traditionally, a big payer could use the courts to delay enforcement of a contract against him for many years, or for ever if the little man, his adversary, ran out of money to pay matching legal fees. To this was added a new racket, to use penniless clients to get access to the rapidly expanding Legal Aid Fund. However, the third protection racket concerns us most because of the grave damage that it inflicts on society. This third is the offer by lawyers to confiscate all the current and future assets and income of a divorced man and give most of it to the wife, while retaining a fraction as Costs.

Whereas the true mafia 'dip their beak', creaming off some of the profit from a business they are 'protecting', today's lawyers know no such restraint, and destroy everything they come into contact with. This will be their downfall. Today, an English lawyer is very willing to cause £100,000 of damage in order to get a mere £2,000 of costs for himself. It is this failure to grasp the scale of what they do which will shut down the English legal system.

The judge is in cahoots with barrister and solicitor to maximise costs because of the masonic link and because he used to be a barrister himself. But more powerfully, he is usually even now a barrister or solicitor serving as a judge part-time because in his real occupation he has failed to generate enough costs to keep his wife in the manner to which she feels entitled. Barristers serving as part-time judges even litter the Appeal Court in the Strand. Simon Shetreet, in his book "Judges on Trial", p24, says that temporary judges are objectionable and also widespread, but he is out of date when he says that the number of Deputy High Court Judges is negligible. He wrote decades ago. In "The Search for Justice", pub. Sceptre 1994, p46, Joshua Rosenberg writes; "In the spring of 1993 more work was being done by deputies in the Queen's Bench Division in London than by High Court judges. Except in emergencies [this] must be quite wrong.... as they do not have the same measure of judicial independence as those appointed full-time."

The Beeching Commission said that temporary judicial appointments should be made only 'in a rare emergency'. Little wonder that costs go through the roof where two or three lawyers of various kinds are gathered together in a court-room, and that there is Costs in the midst of them!

Beware this bonanza for lawyers

by Paul Johnson Daily Mail, 15aug95, p8.

In the run-up to this autumn's key Cabinet meetings which will decide whether we get massive tax cuts in 1996 or not, two unlikely bruisers are squaring up for battle.

On the right is the mild-sounding, soft-spoken Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, a Scotsman of old-style manners and bearing. On the left is Peter Lilley, self-effacing and even more softly-spoken Social Security Secretary. Not much of a scrap, you may say.

In fact, the issue they are fighting about is hugely important for taxpayers - and still more important in its long-term implications.

The point at issue can be put simply: is Britain to become a litigious society like the U.S. - but with the further disadvantage that a huge proportion of its costs will be met by you and me?

Lord Mackay is not exactly the spokesman for lawyers. That title, strictly speaking, goes to his colleague the Attorney General, who is ex-officio Head of the Bar. But Mackay is the nearest we have to a minister of justice, and clearly the interests of the legal profession come high in his priorities.

Battle

Mackay seems particularly attached to the solicitors, on whose behalf he fought a significant battle to give them access to the higher courts. That, naturally, annoyed the barristers, who had their monopoly threatened. Ever since then, he has been doubly reluctant to tread on their toes.

He hopes to do both solicitors and barristers a favour by putting forward a plan to grant legal aid to people litigating at industrial, social security and immigration tribunals. That will involve creating a gigantic financial cornucopia financed entirely by the taxpayer and tipping its glittering contents in the direction of the entire legal profession.

It is a long time since we have been threatened with such a morally, legally and administratively reprehensible proposal. The entire system of legal aid, once a meagrely-doled-out help to the very poor, has systematically expanded in recent decades - especially under the generous ministrations of Mackay - into a multi-billion-pound drain on the Treasury.

Dodgy

Any pretence that it is to the poor has long since been abandoned. The biggest beneficiaries among litigants have been dodgy businessmen, often foreigners, some of whom cost taxpayers millions.

But the main object of the system is, of course, aid to the legal profession, which it subsidises by more than £1.5 billion a year. The bulk of the taxpayers' cash flows into solicitors' offices, but a large and growing number of barristers make £100,000-plus a year apiece. All the key decisions on who gets aid are ultimately taken by lawyers.

Mackay claims he is anxious to reform this iniquitous system and produced a Green Paper three months ago proposing changes. But his plan to extend eligibility for legal aid to those appearing before tribunals shows he is not very serious about saving money.

This last proposal is particularly disgraceful because tribunals were introduced in many cases as an informal alternative to litigation in the courts. They were designed as places where ordinary men and women could put their case before panels of laymen and women in an atmosphere of common sense shorn of the intimidating procedures and jargon lawyers love.

Other tribunals were set up as a concession to foreigners objecting to our administrative procedures, especially over immigration.

But the lawyers have been infiltrating these courts for some time as litigants have found that it pays to have professionals finding ways of reinterpreting the rules, or bending them. In response, firms and government departments whose decisions are challenged in tribunals have had to pay lawyers to defend the rules.

So far, however, litigation at tribunals has not got out of control because legal aid is not available, and thousands of cases are settled with minimal or no legal representation.

But the lawyers, who regard litigation without them as a crime against nature, have been banging on the tribunal doors for 20 years, demanding to be let in on legal aid briefs. Mackay is considering flinging the doors wide open so the lawyers can swarm in and take over.

The pressure has been particularly strong from solicitors. In the Eighties, they got 60 per cent of their income from conveyancing, but they have been badly hit by the slump in house prices and still more by the shrinking number of homes changing hands. Some firms, to their consternation, are earning less than they were five years ago.

Waste

Extending legal aid to tribunals would help to keep solicitors in the style of life to which they have become accustomed. But it would be a devastating blow not just to taxpayers but to the budgets of various ministries, including the Home Office and, above all, the Department of Social Security.

They, too, would be obliged to fight many more actions, employ many more lawyers - including fancy-priced barristers - and waste vast quantities of their officials' time.

One of the scandals of the existing legal aid system is that it is producing drawn-out cases in which both sides - businessmen accused of wrongdoing and the state as prosecutor - are funded by taxpayers, often by as much as several million pounds each. In legally-aided tribunals, this would become the norm.

That is why Peter Lilley is taking up the case on behalf of the hard-pressed taxpayer.

At a time when he is doing everything he can to cut the grotesquely inflated Social Security budget by denying relief to fraudulent claimants - a high proportion of them recent immigrants or foreigners arriving as 'social security tourists' - he sees Mackay's plan as a hostile act which will not only cost his department a fortune in extra legal aid bills, but will make pursuit of tricksters and organised fraud rings far more difficult.

Other ministers should line up behind Lilley - the opportunities to sue government about almost anything grow daily and the wider the availability of legal aid, the more actions all departments will face.

And Tory backbenchers, scared for their seats and anxious to get something in the way of popular tax cuts in the pipeline, should back Lilley, too, as noisily as they know how.

After the mess it contrived to make over taxing share options, this is one financial trap the Government must at all costs avoid.

The Industry targets the Hotel.

It began at as an everyday dispute over an unpaid bill. It ended with an ordinary family set to lose its home and business in a graphic example of the inequities of the legal aid system.

The tale began in 1986 when Gerald and Eva Adshead decided to repair the roof on Bennetston Hall, their country house hotel at the heart of the Peak District in Derbyshire. They hired Martin Cummins, a Stockport builder they had used before, to carry out the work.

Cummings finished the job in March 1987, but the Adsheads said the work was defective and disputed the bill of £15,000. The following January, with the issue still unresolved, Cummins issued a High Court writ in Manchester demanding a settlement.

The Adsheads, unable to afford lawyers, opted to represent themselves but lost the case. Cummins claimed legal aid, hired a legal team headed by QC, and was awarded £26,000 - the original repair cost, interest and "extras".

The Legal Aid Board, after a failed appeal by the Adsheads, has sent the hoteliers a bill for £142,000 - nearly 10 times the cost of the original amount in dispute. When the Adsheads were unable to pay, the board put a charge on their property. Had Cummins lost, the board would have picked up his costs.

What makes the case so bizarre is that Cummins, midway through the legal battle, was convicted of fraud at Stockport magistrates court after claiming invalidity benefit while clambering about on Bennetson Hall.

"Social security investigators knew he was claiming benefit while working on our roof," said Eva Adshead, 45, "But legal aid continued to fund him even after he admitted five charges of benefit fraud."

Cummins, 58, said he regretted claiming benefits while working on the hotel. "I was ill at the time and working in a supervisory capacity, but it was wrong of me to work while claiming benefit. I told the court I was sorry and have repaid every penny," he said.

Such contrition is of little help to the Adsheads. "We've lost our business and now could lose our home," said Eva. "Once the lawyers got involved, costs got out of hand."

Nor could she explain why a man stealing from the state with one hand was given thousands of pounds more back in the other. - Liz Lightfoot, The Sunday Times, section 1, page 12, 25sep94. Published with the permission of the author.

The Legal Aid fund is a float which The Industry draws on to target major assets owned by innocent third parties. The builder was an irrelevant pawn, and his claim against the hoteliers was an irrelevant pretext to cover the lawyers' assault on the hotel. The beauty of this racket becomes clear if we watch the money, something which commentators fail to do. Whereas the money to fund the lawyers' attack on the wealthy hoteliers initially came from the Legal Aid Fund, currently paying out £1.5 billion per year, this represented only a temporary loan to the Industry, merely ensuring that the lawyers on both sides of the case could not lose. If all went well, the money would be recouped by the Legal Aid Fund from the hoteliers, so that the Fund would not remain out of pocket. The only important flow of money would be from the hoteliers to the lawyers, that is, to the Industry.

The key point to remember is that, the Legal Aid fund being a bottomless pit, the lawyers manipulating the builder could continue to appeal, or contest appeals, through higher courts until the victims ran out of money or nerve and had to settle, including paying the costs of both sides. Notice that lawyers' costs, not the much smaller sum originally in dispute, were the issue.

As The Industry grows, the Legal Aid Fund is becoming too limiting. That is why Mackay is pushing through the idea of "Contingency Fees", where the Industry directly partakes of financial orders made by the court to its client, the payment to vary with the amount awarded by the court. The client bears no risk whatsoever. Such a system, where the lawyer takes his fees from the court's award to his client rather than up front regardless of whether his client wins or loses, means that lawyers will speculatively use the likes of the builder as pawns, themselves taking perhaps 90% of the final award from the court, should there be any. Lawyers will fill their spare office hours with such speculative adventures.

Contingency fees are already permitted in England in tribunal cases. The floodgates will really open when Mackay gets them allowed in the courts, at which point anyone with visible and immovable wealth can be expected to be targetted with fabricated claims by the Industry using poor, malleable clients as claimants. This is hardly distinguishable from "protection money" exacted by The Firm.

The Ruling Model.

The victim (you) is put at an enormous disadvantage because of the continuous disinformation to which he is subjected. Lingering assumptions that The Industry embraces such concepts as Justice and the Rule of Law lead the unsuspecting victim to the slaughter, and mystification and resentment come too late to save him. This applies equally to civil and to criminal law. Justice and the Rule of Law are not factors in the legal Industry today. Remember, by The Industry I mean the lawyers, the courts, the court officials and all their trappings. I include the Top Dogs, the Lord chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, but not necessarily the politicians. The reason why the situation has deteriorated so far is that politicians are deeply infiltrated by The Industry, where perhaps 35% of members of Parliament are barristers relying on the extortions of The Industry. We cannot expect help from the Commons. However, the Poll Tax is only one of the latest incidents where it was shown that a gang of shysters entrenched in Parliament cannot drive the country too far into error and racketeering. Earlier examples are Ponting and Spycatcher, when an entrenched government with a large majority lost control of the levers of State power. In the present case, the process will be more painful because firstly the police have to distance themselves from The Industry, and their common brotherhood in Freemasonry will make it difficult for them to do so. However, the masonic bond does snap when the situation is extreme, as is today's attack on all levels of society by The Industry. In the last resort, senior masonic Police will back away from The Industry in order to save their own skins. An early example of this future schism is the Wimbledon Common murder. The judge threw out the case and criticised the police, but for a long time the police refused to look for another suspect. That is the way it will go. Police will stop enforcing court orders, and the long arm of The Industry will be severed. For this to happen, it will not be necessary for financial institutions like banks to ignore The Industry and its edicts. The Industry's loss of influence with the police will suffice, and nobody will bother to attend courts any more.

What model should the innocent victim apply to the present Industry when he is sucked into the quagmire, and finds himself involved with courts, affidavits, and the rest?

Assets held in trust.

All your assets are held in trust for The Industry, which controls society. However, the inability of The Industry to absorb all of the assets of all citizens leads them to limit their avarice to those who, for one reason or another, present themselves at the door of The Industry, or are dragged there by police or spouse.

The Industry itself maximises this number of victims. For instance, any agreement made between divorcing husband and wife without cost-generating commotion in the courts is torn up by The Industry. This is a perfect example of a protection racket. You may not trade without my permission, and without paying my fees.

The reason why The Industry is collapsing is that it failed to adjust to an escalating divorce rate. Like the predator trying to swallow too large a victim, it should have evaded divorce when it was obviously becoming too big a fish to handle. Alternatively, The Industry should have set to to streamline its procedures, developed over the centuries to maximise complexity and cost. However, the pomp, arrogance, myopia and venality of upper echelons in The Industry made it unable to step back from the brink of disaster. Also, the fact that The Industry is not a conspiracy, but only an evolved conspiracy, made it impossible for it to evade the disaster to come, as come it has.

Courts were bungling all divorce cases, except from the point of view of maximising fees, both from the point of view of assets of the marriage and of children of the marriage. The setting up of the Child Support Agency was an attempt to reduce the scandal so that The Industry might survive. However, since the Thatcher/Major government was incompetent, it set up an unworkable agency which is now self-destructing. The Industry has a dilemma, because it cannot admit to itself or to anyone else that it is incapable of handling these matters in any way rationally or legally. Before the CSA, perhaps only 25% of parents cut off from their children were supplying any money to their truncated family. The Industry was doing nothing about this. It had bitten off more than it could chew, in its self-ordained ponderous masticating way. This is because the question of maintenance is complex, and The Industry, for historical reasons, had developed the most inefficient systems possible for every situation. In the case of child maintenance, the last straw of real complexity, laid on top of spurious complexity developed by The Industry, broke the camel's back. The Industry did not function when it came to child maintenance, for all its huffing and puffing.

I have found that in all English courts at all levels the procedure for doing anything is the most inefficient procedure that could possibly be devised. Examples are outlined elsewhere in this book.

The Queen's Croquet Ground.

Today, the litigant is enmeshed in a game on the lines of the croquet match in Alice in Wonderland.

The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her flamingo: she succeeded in getting its body tucked away, comfortably enough, under her arm, with its legs hanging down, but generally, just as she had got its neck nicely straightened out, and was going to give the hedgehog a blow with its head, it would twist itself round and look up into her face, with such a puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out laughing: .... .... the game was in such confusion that she never knew whether it was her turn or not. .... .... By the time she had caught the flamingo and brought it back, the fight was over .... "But it doesn't matter much," thought Alice, "as all the arches are gone from this side of the ground."

Obviously Carroll had been in courts of law, and his court scene at the end of "Alice in Wonderland" is true to life. My reaction, after many years in the courts, is the same as Alice's;

"Who cares for you?" said Alice (she had grown to her full size by this time). "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

Remember that the sanctions in Alice in Wonderland were severe; "Off with his head" on every second page. Such bullying, as from our courts, has to be confronted. Since we all have contempt for today's courts, including Lord Woolf in his 1995 Interim Report, the sanction 'Contempt of Court' becomes ridiculous, and loses its power to intimidate. One who fails to show Contempt of Court is out of touch with the times.

Rest assured that, should the game go too far in a man's favour, there will be a flash of light, and the (Wizard of Oz) Good Fairy will appear, change the rules, and re-adjust the score in favour of the lawyers and their fees. Probably Barry Worrall, who went to the European Court and gave up, will say that this applies to the European Court as well. Judge Pickles says that lawyers hang together, and probably this applies to foreign lawyers.

Throughout Bleak House (1852-3) Dickens makes a sustained attack on the absurdities on the archaic court system - something he knew about first hand .... .... the decay and corruption he saw at the heart of England.

'The Lawyers have twisted it into such a state of bedevilment that the original merits of the case have long disappeared from the surface of the earth. It's about a Will, and the trusts under a Will - or it was, once. It's about nothing but Costs, now. We are always appearing, and disappearing, and swearing, and interrogating, and filing and cross-filing, and arguing, and sealing, and motioning, and referring, and reporting, and revolving about the Lord Chancellor and all his satellites, and equitably waltzing ourselves off to dusty death, about Costs. That's the great question. All the rest, by some extraordinary means, has melted away.'

- Charles Dickens, Bleak House, ch8, p87.

Pelling

Dr. and Mrs. Pelling proceeded towards divorce in the usual way. However, when it came to 'taxing', which is the legal brogue for calculation and charging of costs, a hiccough occurred. Mrs. Pelling objected to the way her lawyers had wantonly wasted money. Both Pellings asked that the 'taxing' be held in open court. This was refused, and the Pellings boycotted the hearing. Dr. Pelling appealed, and the appeal court planned to hear the appeal in secrecy. However, twenty of us blundered into the court, where Dr. Pelling and a barrister representing Mrs. Pelling's solicitors, squared up for action. Mrs. Pelling, while supporting her husband's action, did not attend. Neither did her solicitors, leaving one barrister on his own to fight for the money wasters.

The first matter to arise was Dr. Pelling's request that the appeal against the secret hearing be held in open court. After two or three hours of wrangling, the Appeal Judge, who was a barrister standing in as judge part time, rejected his request. However, Pelling was granted leave to appeal against the decision of the appeal judge, to hear the appeal against secrecy, in secret.

A few days later, the appeal against the decision over holding the initial appeal in secrecy, came before the law lords. They rejected the appeal. Pelling, having at last exhausted all recourse in England, in trying to get a public hearing for the discussion of his wife's lawyers' scandalous wasting of money, could now proceed to the European Court.

The case to be brought before the European Court is to demand that where taxing is concerned, that is, when judges (including stand-in barristers) and their barrister and solicitor colleagues are carving up the clients' money (and also ripping off the legal aid fund), their dirty activities must face the light of day.

In a later Pelling Appeal Court hearing on 16 May 1996, Butler-Sloss and two other judges including Thorpe, who himself had infiltrated further secrecy into our courts, were temporarily fazed by Pelling's trenchant argument, originating from Eugen Hockenjos, that "expert" witnesses in our secret courts were accountable no no-one. They work to undisclosed, probably discredited, social theories. However, before they deliver their reserved judgement, having had time to reflect on the disastrous implication for our ignorant, incompetent judges of open courts, they will close ranks again and keep our courts secret. The intellectual shallowness of our judiciary was frequently demonstrated that day, for instance when Pelling told B-S, the brightest of the three judges, that her gagging order was illegal.

From the point of view of lawyers, the result is entirely satisfactory. They have no fear of a decision against secrecy by the European Court in five years' time. By then, they must suspect that there will be little left of the fabric of English law anyway.

The brogue for secret court hearings is "in chambers". These secret raids on the legal aid fund bear some computation. There are fewer than 100,000 lawyers in this country. Some are employed by companies, and do not rob the legal aid fund. But even assuming that all lawyers shared in the racket, the legal aid fund for divorce provides lawyers in this country an average of £2,300 per year. Add to this the criminal legal aid fund, giving lawyers an average of some £4,000 p.a. However, we must not forget the full civil legal aid fund, which includes the money for family law, and currently runs to £1,500 millions per year, or £15,000 p.a. for every lawyer in the country. With the criminal legal aid, this provides an average of £19,000 per lawyer in the country directly out of the public purse. The situation is completely out of hand, with legal aid running at four times the level of only four years ago.

In his book "Judges", pub. OUP 1987, David Pannick, a barrister and Fellow of All Souls, Oxford, wrote;

Judicial mavericks will always exist. But the high standards displayed by most judges ensure that the judiciary has little to fear from greater openness and accountability, it has everything to gain in terms of a more widespread understanding and appreciation of its distinction. The unique virtues of the English judiciary would not be threatened if its members were brought out of the self-imposed seclusion and into the sunlight where their performance could be more effectively assessed. In addition, the greater publicity might reveal some room for improvement in one or two judges. The case for reform of judicial administration does not depend on the merit or demerit of the individual holders of office. Judicial administration is important because judges perform a vital and difficult function of government under the rule of law. Because judges are part of government, acting on our behalf, we are entitled to require them to abandon their priesthood and to present their activities for assessment by laymen. Any aspects of judicial administration which create barriers between the legal system and the community it serves need justification in a democratic society. In considering these issues, it is important to remember, above all else, that judges are fallible human beings. (p16)

Judicial foibles are of interest because they reveal the reality behind the mask of objectivity presented in court. No one who has had any dealings with the law would dispute that the personality and interests of the judge vitally affect the way in which he decides the case, as to style and as to substance. It is a dangerous 'myth that, merely by putting on a .... robe and taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and strips himself of all predilections, becomes a passionless thinking machine'. (p26)

Those of us who have acted on our own behalf - the brogue being "litigant in person" - will know how disgraceful is the behaviour of lawyers, judges and barristers, in today's secret courts. Denning's fears were well grounded.

The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thinkers says that Lord Denning "chose to return [demote himself] to the Court of Appeal as master of the Rolls in order to exercise a greater influence on the development of law." He also was instrumental in appointment and promotion of judges, so that today's judges are generally Denning creatures. Edmund Heward, Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery Division), on page 117 of his book "Lord Denning", pub. Weidenfield & Nicholson 1991, says that they act in secret in ninety per cent of high court work.

Denning said courts hearings dealing with children must also be held in public. I myself told Dewar, the shadow of Secretary of State Peter Lilley, my M.P., that if the courts were held in public, the number of charges of sexual abuse in divorce proceedings would drop by 90%.

In his biography of Lord Denning, p117, Edmund Heward wrote unmistakably about secret courts..

"Denning was a good friend of the Press, believing that the reporter was the watchdog of justice. He said that, so long as newspapers do not impute improper motives, they have full freedom to criticise magistrates and judges. Speaking in Adelaide in 1967 he criticised the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, which prohibited full reporting of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Courts. He said: 'Every court should be open to every subject of the Queen. I think it is one of the essentials of justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense, is on trial to see that he does his job properly.' Again he once said: 'Reporters are there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and judges behave themselves. Children's courts should also be open. Names should be kept out but the public should know what happens to the child and proceedings should never be conducted behind closed doors.' This does not happen in the High Court, even today. Proceedings about the custody, care and control, access and maintenance of children are held in private. Ninety percent of High Court work is done privately, in chambers, by Masters and Registrars. Speaking on the radio in the 1960s Denning said:

'Somehow I believe, in the words of old Jeremy Bentham, that in the darkness of secrecy all sorts of things can go wrong. And if things are really done in public you can see that the judge does behave himself, the newspapers can comment on it if he misbehaves - it keeps everyone in order.'

Denning believed that all legal proceedings should be held in public:

'It is of first importance that all proceedings should be held in public and this includes the delivery of judgements together with the reasons for them. This is so that everyone who wishes to do so can come into court and hear what takes place: and also that the reported cases can be taken down by reporters for their own use.'"

Lord Denning

Prior to Lord Denning, judges set out to interpret the law correctly. If the law was archaic, a judge would still enforce it, thereby putting pressure on Parliament to enact new, reformed, law. In the case of criminal law, the judge would rely on the fact that the Crown could always grant a pardon. Judges would call for the granting of a pardon even as they enforced what had after many years begun to prove inequitable law.

Denning changed all that. His interest was in ensuring fairness for everyone who came before him. He felt, and said, that he was entitled to reinterpret the law so that it would be more just, more in line with the newly prevailing public opinion. He sowed the wind, and, as other senior judges feared, we now reap the whirlwind, with Lord Justice Taylor saying on TV that the law responds to public opinion.

Denning already had a chivalrous attitude to women, very much the attitude shown by James Pickles;

"When a woman stands in the dock at a crown court it is usually because of her association with one or more men. (I except shoplifting.) Brothel offences are obvious cases. A woman who is up for burglary probably got involved by trying to ingratiate herself with a man or because of feeling loyal to him. It is rare to find a woman planning a burglary and doing it on her own or with another woman. Similarly with handling stolen goods; the initiative usually comes from a man. Women are not as hard, aggressive or predatory as men. They are more sensitive of others' feelings. A woman who gets on to drink and drugs often does so because her relationship with a man has gone wrong. The male quest for conquest, sensation and change is more likely to cause unhappiness than the female quest for affection, children and a stable home. But some women want more than that now."

Denning was concerned about women being driven out of their homes as a result of divorce. He made new law as a result. His technique was to massively expand the role of Equity in order to subvert the law of the time. This set the precedent for the inroads made on the law later on by the radical feminists. First they imposed a false myth onto society of woman the victim. The precedent of Denning then opened the floodgates for Equity to be used again and again to change the law in favour of stripping the divorced man and also the child of all assets, civil rights and respect, in favour of the alleged victim mature woman, in whose favour the false propaganda was.

".... Progressive thinkers would appear to prefer a form of social therapy to the authoritative determination of right and wrong. This has been taken to extremes in Australia which has perhaps the most permissive divorce law in the West (Family Law Act, 1975). There, Family Courts have virtually dispensed with the formal notions of legality and have decided disputes between spouses on the vaguest and most indeterminate of grounds. This has naturally led to unpredictability; which is perhaps the most damaging shortcoming a legal system can have. ...." - Norman Barry, "Liberating Women ... From Modern Feminism," ed. Caroline Quest, pub. IEA 1994, p46.

It will not be a coincidence that in 1967 Denning had gone to Montreal and Adelaide to give the Turner memorial lecture in Sydney, this being a measure of the high regard for him in that country, which then went on to illegal extremes.

"The connection between liberty and personal responsibility was broken through developments in the common law, which were later embodied in statute. .... it was ruled .... that conduct should not normally be relevant .... Echoing the prevailing 'liberal' sentiment, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, wrote that 'the court should not reduce its order for financial provision merely because of what was formerly regarded as guilt or blame'. .... The courts .... were led to ignore questions of right and wrong, justice and injustice. Under later statute law, conduct which is so gross that not to consider it would be 'inequitable' is supposed to be relevant but this provision .... has rarely been invoked." - ibid, p48

Here we see an independent source alleging that Lord Denning initiated the destruction of the rule of law.

Power to the judges.

Denning's quest for justice rather than for the rule of law involved taking maximum power for the judges and then relying on them, firstly, to be competent and just, and second, to exploit the loopholes he had developed for obstructing the rule of law and replacing it by a moral code. A glaring example of his battle to empower judges was his battling against the independent tribunal, which he persisted in bringing back under the control of unaccountable judges regardless of the wishes of the elected executive.

Denning's world view was that we trust the judges, who must always and in all things be above reproach. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The 'Griffith nightmare', that a judge could do anything he wanted to do, inevitably resulted in the persistent beatings and incarceration for decades of many innocent Irishmen, followed by blatant, persistent cover-up by the most senior judges, Denning had the choice of admitting his error, or of covering up in his turn. He chose to cover-up;

"Three weeks after the judgement [when the Birmingham Six appeal was thrown out, so they were wrongly incarcerated for further years,] Lord Denning offered a new insight into judicial thinking. He was asked in a television interview, if in his opinion the integrity of the system was more important than the fate of one or two individuals ... found innocent as a result of investigations by the television series, Rough Justice. He replied, 'Certainly ... the general cause of upholding the system of justice is such that I would put aside all those Rough Justice cases.'

"The interviewer then asked, 'If I, a working journalist, see a man on the roof of a prison claiming he is innocent, should I investigate his claim or walk away?'

"'Oh, walk away and ignore him. I have a lot of letters from people in prison who say they have been wrongly convicted. I'm afraid I put them in the wastepaper basket.'"

- Chris Mullin, Error of Judgement, pub. Poolbeg 1986, p312.

".... I think that it is possible, indeed desirable, to claim that one Lord Denning is a boon to a legal system, whereas a few hundred Lords Denning would have sacrificed too much certainty for too much Denning-justice. .... In life after Denning, it is difficult to pretend that judges do not have discretion ..." - Simon Lee, Judging Judges, pub. Faber & Faber 1988, p132

In "Straight from the Bench", pub. Dent 1987, p93, Judge James Pickles said;

"Solicitors will never put their own house in order. They are much too complacent. They are well represented in parliament. Judges - who whilst practising at the bar received all their work from solicitors - feel a natural diffidence about taking steps against them; there is even something of a 'dog does not eat dog' feeling. 'We are all lawyers together and must stand together.'"

In the Pelling case, the 'judge' that I saw presiding over the appeal court, refusing to hear the appeal in public, would next week be a barrister again, looking for work from solicitors, so increasing the incestuous nature of the racketeering. It was only by chance that his fees were not to be those to be discussed either in secret or in the glare of the public eye. Naturally, he opted for secrecy.

The Ouster.

This next section is one of the small number of reminisces from my many appalling experiences in the courts over a long period. My legal and other proof-readers argued for omitting them, but I leave them in to show that my ideas derive from personal experience, and also to show that misconduct by lawyers, judges and court officials in the courts is not occasional, but normal. I cite only a few of my personal experiences, but would add that I have no experience of court cases which proceeded in a competent manner, with law enforcement figuring significantly in the proceedings. My experience is of course confirmed by Lord Woolf's June 1995 Interim Report, "Access to Justice". The whole system is rotten from top to bottom and from end to end. I agree with Woolf, that it cannot continue thus.

"This happens every day all over the country. At one time, the ouster injunction which regularly accompanied a wife's divorce petition was an accepted means of 'clearing the decks for divorce' by getting the husband out of the house. Indeed, David Barnard, in 'The Family Court in Action', clearly regarded it as the first duty of a solicitor acting for a wife petitioner to apply for such an injunction. Whether it was really necessary was never asked." - Peter Snow, page 6, CJD Newsletter, sep94 issue.

In my case, my wife had invited to our home the couple from the U.S.A. who were conspiring with her to block the next £100,000 payment to me by Sir Clive Sinclair for the sale of my patents, on the ground that they, not I, owned my patents. (I later received Summary {= immediate} Judgement against them in the High Court.) I told the Americans that if they interfered with my business deals, they were not welcome in my home. So my wife got a radical feminist solicitor Frances Hughes to write a standard form affidavit, sworn unread by my wife, which was secretly taken before a judge in a ten minute hearing. In patois, this is an "ex parte hearing". It charged me, a Quaker, with violence, and I was ordered out of my home immediately; in a court order called an "ex parte ouster". This left the way clear for the Brownlees to fly in from Virginia and continue their plotting against me in my own home. For good measure, my wife's sworn affidavit said that my eldest son, who was supporting me, had assaulted his grandmother. The court order, based on a ten minute secret hearing, evicted him from the family home as well. The theory is that if I heard about the court hearing, I, a Quaker, (and also my son,) would become even more violent. So it had to be secret.

So in my case, the ouster petition was used, not to clear the decks for divorce, but to clear the decks for conspiracy. I immediately swore an affidavit saying that the petition was perjured, that I had never been violent, and that the perjury in the petition was very easy to prove. For instance, Frances Hughes' fantasies caused her to write that I walked about the house naked. All my adult children would testify that they had never seen me naked, because it is one of my idiosynchracies, never to be seen naked. My solicitor later told me that my action, in charging perjury, had damaged me, and that courts disliked mention of perjury. My wife later often told me that her sworn affidavit was false, which it obviously was. In fact, a few months before she swore it, my adult children had prevailed on her to sign a statement, co-signed by them, that there was no violence in our home, which was true. They had become concerned that she was fabricating violence charges against me. I could not get my solicitor and barrister to take any interest in this document. My wife invited me back into the my home secretly, against the terms of the court ouster order, immediately after the Brownlees left. Later, I had to sue Sinclair in the High Court to get the £100,000, which payment was delayed for a year due to the conspiracy in my own home. I also gained summary judgement against my wife and her co-conspirators. Later, the divorce judge gave that £100,000, along with everything else, to my wife when I sued for divorce.

My case was unusual in that my wife never sued for divorce. Still, some of the corrupt trickery in the fabric of the divorce process, the ex parte ouster, was used to sabotage my business activities. I sued for divorce some years later, when I realised that, having got away with such blatant falsehood in the courts, there would be no limit to the untrue charges she would successfully bring against me when the whim took her in future. It was insufficient for her to assure me (but not the courts) that her sworn affidavit was untrue, as everybody in the family knew full well. I had to divorce her, because we both now knew that the courts would believe, and act on, any criminal charge lodged against a husband. I had to save my skin, and leave my youngest daughter to fend for herself. After all, it would be harmful for her if, as was likely, her father was later jailed following false criminal charges by her mother. Every husband and would-be husband is forewarned by my experience. In the event, three people, including my wife, swore false perjured affidavits making different criminal charges against me. I had no recourse against them. The courts only wanted to believe the charges, not to investigate them. The reason I stayed out of jail was that the three rogues were permanently at war with each other. All of this nightmare arose after all parties realised that the courts welcomed perjury.

It would have been very easy to prove perjury, but there was never an opportunity. I pursued this matter for some years. After some months, one judge said it was a matter for the police. I was enmeshed with the police for a year or two, and then they said it was a matter for the courts. So a couple of years later, I had a hearing before Circuit Judge Stockdale, the only reason for the hearing being my request that my allegation of perjury be investigated. He stated that the courts had no facilities for investigating perjury. A number of solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. I have come to the same conclusion after many hours of study of law books. In contrast, Appeal Court Judge Thorpe had the gall, on 16th May 1996, to say in a Pelling Appeal Court hearing that the family courts were inquisitorial; that the judge's primary duty was to establish the facts. They live in the surreal world where establishing the facts involves ignoring an assertion under oath that there has been lying under oath.

The reason why the courts welcome perjury is simple. It greatly increases the fees earned by The Industry. It dirties both the perjurer and his adversary, who alleges perjury. It protects The Industry against the threat of the use of the Law of Equity, because he who comes to Equity must come with clean hands. Perjury is the perfect device to lay the way open for all lawyers in the case to charge massive fees and to avoid thinking hard about the case. Perjury means that the case is dead except as a source of fees.

Bribery and forgery are in the same class as perjury. The Industry will ignore bribery and forgery, and punish the messenger, behaving in the same way as it does over perjury. I am sure James Pickles, like all other judges, would trot out the cliché; "Perjury, forgery and bribery are very serious offences", but he would do nothing about them in practice. He demonstrates a sloppy and confused attitude to forgery in his book "Judge for Yourself", pub. Smith Gryphon 1992, pp 40 and 69. First he writes, advising a young barrister; "Curb your aggression and use it sparingly, against frauds, perjurers and unjust judges - but never against witnesses who are honest and doing their best." Then blow me, he later writes, casually, about a typical case of his; "One of the issues is whether documents were forged. .... but I ordered that the case should go on; the handwriting evidence can be heard on another day. ...." In my own case my solicitor told me that I had severely damaged my case by alleging perjury, which suggestion "is not liked". (I had sworn an affidavit alleging perjury, which was totally ignored.) Lawyers have none of them bothered to think through the traumatic effect on a victim when presented with either perjury, forgery or bribery of witnesses, and then finds that police and lawyers are indifferent to his predicament and insist on ignoring his protestations. This gross misbehaviour occurs in our courts in most divorce cases. One good reason why courts have to be secret is to hide this misconduct. We have to give it to Lord Denning that he emphasises the need for open courts to prevent judges from misbehaving.

My letters on the subject were published in "The Friend", the Quaker journal, on 14th July 1995 and 15th September 1995;

Affirming, as a Quaker.

The discussion about taking the oath (23 and 30 June) misses the point. The point is that our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated.

Circuit Judge Stockdale said, when I had a hearing specifically to ask for my allegations of perjury to be investigated, that the court had no such procedure, that it was a matter for the CID. Thereafter, after two years pursuing the CID, the CID said it was a matter for the courts.

It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure. Two solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. Lord Mackay apologised to me for other failings of the creaking court system. However, he made no comment on this point. It disappears in the crack between court and CID. In these circumstances, discussion of the oath is academic, and reinforces a spurious appearance of normalcy, bypassing the three inquiries - Nolan, Scott, Woolf, particularly Woolf.

The reason why the legal profession welcomes perjury is that it exacerbates an adversarial situation and increases costs. Costs, not law or justice, is the object of the tortuous exercise.

Affirming, as a Quaker.

On 14 July you published my letter saying that '.... our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated .... It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure.' Nobody has written in. This makes the legal profession an anti-social group, happy to continue to trade in lies. In particular, the damage inflicted on millions of children of divorce by these irresponsible people is devastating.

Leading divorce barrister Ray Tooth, earning £250,000 p.a., tries to distance himself from the stench of perjury. Dominic Egan, in "Legal Business Magazine", jan/feb94, profiles Tooth's views on ".... how the [divorce] situation might be improved. .... First, he would like to see prosecutions for perjury against the parties who seem to think nothing of lying on oath, both in court and on affidavit." Tooth cannot enjoy his massive gains if they continue to be made out of fantasy, not fact, law and justice. Also, he is a very good lawyer. Perjury is a great leveller, since it pits one standard, false stereotype against another. Tooth believes he would do better if he could get involved in real cases with real people, which do not occur in our family courts.

In his book "Lawyers can seriously damage your health", 1985, the author, solicitor Michael Joseph, who died early in 1995, discusses such cases.

".... a certain eminent solicitor had successfully bribed a witness I intended calling in proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. Replied the Law Society: 'Your letter alleges the commission of a criminal offence. I think it would be quite improper and certainly contrary to the usual practice of the Law Society for the Society to comment on your allegations or to take any action in the matter... The proper authority to whom to refer the commission of a criminal offence is the Police. This is a matter entirely for you. You may think in all the circumstances that you will be well advised to take separate legal advice.'"

Here, in the case of bribery, we see The Industry playing the same game as it plays with perjury, driving the matter into the chasm between the police and the courts, where it stays. "These God forgets."

On the next page, Michael Joseph discusses the case of a businessman who complained to the Law Society about one of its members. "The Law Society dismissed Mr. Parson's complaint, and stated that no further correspondence would be entered into. Consequently, Mr. Parsons himself took High Court proceedings and had the solicitor struck off, which the solicitor did not even oppose."

Why do the courts welcome perjury, bribery and forgery, and act on them? The reason is buried in the evolved ethos of the law. It is important, in order for The Industry to maximise its control and thence its fees, to dirty all litigants or criminal suspects as much as possible, but not so much as to make them vote with their feet. We now see the true meaning of the idea that the English system is an "Adversarial System". The true meaning is that all laity should be convinced either that they have been shown to be blackguards, or that they have been successfully and convincingly dirtied, making them more malleable and exploitable. The reason why the game is up, is that the mud-slinging by lawyers against even their own clients has gone too far. The Industry became too arrogant and too sloppy, too despising of the goose (you) that laid the billions of eggs. Your family of four is paying £2 per week to The Industry in taxes which go into Legal Aid; £15,000 per solicitor and barrister in this country. However, that is the tip of the iceberg. On top of that, you and your neighbours are paying the money that the Legal Aid Board claws back in later repayments, and also on top of that the amount that you pay The Industry when you go to court without Legal Aid. Again on top of that, you are paying for the administration of the courts, where the cost of a judge's lodgings is £10,000 per week, in order to keep up "the traditions and ... the majesty of the law." As Captain Elwes, DL, President of the Shrievality Association, put it in The Times on 28sep94, "We have to have high-calibre judges in a democracy and must treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve." He was definitely not joking. He also said that "Judges are at times entertained, often at home, by the high Sheriff [that is, Elwes himself], who acts as his confidant. It is also important that they can give hospitality to members of the Bar...." This requires lodgings which cost you £1,500 per evening, for each majestic judge, whether he is giving hospitality or not after a hard five hour day sitting listening in court! The arrogance of these bloodsuckers and their cronies is breathtaking, and they are too full of self-importance to realise that in a bankrupt country, the pips were bound to squeak, as they do now. If these guys in fancy dress bothered to deliver any of semblance of law and order and justice, their racketeering would be less offensive. What is so deeply offensive is that, while they cream off the taxpayer so profligately, they are assiduously attacking the foundations of society, with their ignorance of the law and their crass judgements, always thrown out by the European Court. Also in The Times that day, an auditor tells of the judge who called out an electrician to change a light bulb, at the minimum call-out charge of £25, paid by you, the taxpayer.

If the rapidly escalating £1.5 billion Legal Aid bill now stabilises, then you, a typical taxpayer, will during your life contribute £2,000 directly to the Legal Aid fund. You will also pay back to the Fund much of the money your lawyers will receive from it, ostensibly on behalf of you, should you fight cases in court.

Paying for time, playing for time.

The Industry does not sell justice or the rule of law. The only thing it sells is time. A classic case comes from my own experience.

Sinclair Research Ltd. bought and then developed my first invention, called "Catt Spiral". Sinclair fell apart in what was called the "Sweet Surrender" to Alan Sugar, following a bogus bail-out by Maxwell. One of the creditors, Barclays Bank, picked up Catt Spiral and kept it going in a spin-off company called Anamartic. I was fired by Anamartic, but the Board of Directors of Anamartic ordered the management to hire me back and to buy my new patent, Kernel, which obsoleted my Spiral patent that they were developing.

The management overlooked the instruction to buy my new patent, but did endeavour to hire me. However, since they had only recently fired me, I refused to return for less than three years. I asked for six months' notice on either side, but this to be after a minimum of three years on their side. When the contract, signed by them, dated May, arrived, I rejected it, writing a letter saying that I rejected it for the single reason that it omitted the three year minimum. A new version, already signed, dated June, then arrived on my doormat, and I signed it. Eighteen months later, in the middle of the three year period, the new Managing Director summarily fired me, pleading financial problems but with no criticism of me. I got him to unfire me on the grounds that it broke my contract. However, a few months later he fired me again; the third time that the company expressly set up to develop my inventions fired me!

We thus had a very simple situation. I rejected the May version of the contract, writing to say that the rejection was because it lacked the three year minimum. I had the incompletely signed May contract, and the completely signed June contract with the single change demanded by me, and also my letter of rejection of the May contract. No simpler case of breach of contract could be imagined.

After some six months trying to get them to see reason, I finally sued Anamartic. The courts managed to build delays of a year into their ponderous perusal of the simplest possible case of Breach of Contract. Here was a transparent case of The Industry selling time. During that year, Anamartic went to great pains to get into liquidation, and nearly succeeded. An ex-chairman of the board told me they would go into liquidation in January, when my next interminable court hearing was to be in February. However, Fujitsu, a £2 millions, major investor, instructed Anamartic to delay liquidation so that they could carry forward their losses into the next year. This is why, for all their manipulation of the law's delays, I won the very simple case, in February.

We all know that the courts introduce delay by grabbing any and every excuse to postpone a hearing for three or four months, thus increasing the attendance fees of all lawyers including the judge. The more blatant technique is the multi-stage appeal, rising up the court hierarchy until one side has completely run out of money to pay The Industry's ever-increasing fees. A botched court hearing is ideal in that it encourages the litigants to appeal, and put yet more money into the hands of what they by then know is an incompetent Industry, vainly thinking that the courts generally pursue justice, and that they have been unfortunate, rather than typical victims of a chaotic protection Industry.

I stumbled on a little known, blatant device for increasing complexity, confusion and cost.

After Anamartic had defaulted on some five monthly payments, I set out to serve a writ demanding payment for those five months plus the further months between the present time and the court hearing. I was told that it was not permissible to include the future months leading up to the court hearing. Following the court's advice, I served a second writ a few months later, to cover the now elapsed further months of default. In the end, I had to serve three writs, relating to the same issue.

Every time I served a writ in my local St. Albans court, it was automatically transferred to the Cambridge court, Anamartic's local court, and given a new number. Thus, three writs gained six numbers. When Anamartic's solicitors quoted the wrong number on one of their replies, the number of numbers rose to seven. The courts had no cross-referencing between any of these six or seven numbers. Anamartic failed to reply formally (with identical wording) to any but the first of the three writs, and so should have lost those two mini-cases by default. However, I refused to win in such a silly way.

Each time a Writ had transferred to Cambridge, I was free to ask Cambridge County Court to return it to St. Albans, and I did so. However, if I sent my request before Cambridge received a Writ, they totally ignored my letter. When I found this out, I covered the position by sending them repeated copies of my letters. However, Cambridge County Court muddled the numbers and failed to return most of the cases. We finally approached the hearing with some cases in St. Albans and some in Cambridge. However, I threatened to tell the judge that the Cambridge officials were wasting the court's time by failing to get all the three cases back to St. Albans, and that chivvied them up.

Ten minutes before the hearing, a bulldog barrister for Anamartic settled the case on my terms. In the court, they told the judge that the bulk of the money had been paid into court. This turned out to be a lie by Anamartic's solicitors. My attempts to transmit that information to their barrister - that his side had lied in court - were thwarted by the solicitors refusing to tell me how to reach their bulldog barrister.

After much stress and trouble, the cheque was paid into court, by a company about to go into liquidation. I pressed the court to encash the cheque immediately, but they replied that their rules said they must hold the cheque for three weeks before encashing it. They were indifferent when I told them that the Chairman of the Board of Anamartic had boasted to me that the company planned to go into liquidation in the previous January. I took this matter a number of stages up through the court hierarchy, threatening to sue individual court officials for damages, before it was finally admitted that the rule referred to paying me, not to cashing the cheque. All along, all court officials resisted the concept of a company going into liquidation, which it did, soon after. So Anamartic could not evade their debt to me because the lawyers in the case, including the part time judge, had only been paid off enough in Costs to delay our totally straightforward case for the previous twelve months. Perhaps their barrister and solicitors were concerned to get their fees quick, and so double-crossed Anamartic by failing to extend the delays.

I then asked the court officials how they proceeded to cash the cheque. They replied that they handed it to a Securicor van which came to their front door, and took it to somewhere in London, they didn't know where. In spite of repeated attempts, I never could determine where the cheque went. The St. Albans court certainly didn't know. I was interested because I knew the cheque had to be cashed immediately.

Anyone who has been enmeshed in the English courts will have story after story of such tortuous procedures and disgraceful incompetence at all stages in The Industry. These multifarious manoeuvres have nothing whatsoever to do with the law, or with the case in hand. As always, both Anamartic and also myself were first Hooked, and then Stung, the winners being a bunch of shyster lawyers, one wearing a judge's fancy dress. I was absolutely right to spend six months trying, and failing, to coax Anamartic to treat with me rather than face me in a slippery English court.

The Lottery Winner.

Wife to divorce lottery winner. - A mother of four is going ahead with plans to divorce her unemployed husband, even though he has just won nearly £1 million on the Irish national lottery. - The Daily Telegraph, 26 oct 94.

This case illustrates the crisis in the English legal system. In his book "Judge for Yourself", pub. Smith Gryphon 1992, pp46 and 58, Judge Pickles variously says that he received either no training or one day's training when appointed a Circuit Judge. In his books, his simplistic analysis betrays minimal grasp of the psychoses involved in sick marriages. And he is one of the best!

Let us predict his reaction to the wife divorcing the novice millionaire. The fact that she is pursuing divorce proves that previously, with no money to improve the situation, she had bravely put up with regular beatings from a foul, drunken, unemployable brute of a husband. As Pickles wrote in Judge for Yourself, p126, ".... Some hobbled on crutches .... All the women had misery in their eyes and fear in their minds, and looked to me for protection."

Unable even to risk staying long enough to celebrate his new wealth, the battered wife was beating a hasty retreat, taking her vulnerable children with her. She felt unable to risk further beatings and other humiliation, even at the risk of losing the benefit of the new riches. The Judge would not need to hear claims that she and her children had been beaten and sexually abused. Her action in seeking divorce proved it.

While unemployed, her husband had snatched the food out of her and her children's mouths and risked it in the lottery. He must not be allowed to benefit from his ill-gotten wealth, and Pickles would allocate three quarters of the lottery winnings to the long-suffering wife.

The hidden agenda, by a judge who retained loyalty to his barrister colleagues, would be that such a division would lead to a lucrative appeal, with barristers getting their snouts deep into a large trough. Later, it would be imagined that fine points of law had been determined in the Appeal Court. The lawyers' fees could safely be pushed up to over £250,000, so long as the original judge had played his cards right.

The truth will be different again. Perhaps the wife could not bear being eclipsed by her husband's new fame, and sought divorce solely to regain the limelight. However, it is much more likely that her behaviour was motivated by the same drives that drove my wife and numerous other wives that I have come across. A crucial factor in their behaviour is the certainty that the divorce judge will be untrained, ignorant of human psychology, and also imbued with the myth that "Women are not as hard, aggressive or predatory as men. They are more sensitive of others' feelings. A woman who gets on to drink and drugs often does so because her relationship with a man has gone wrong. The male quest for conquest, sensation and change is more likely to cause unhappiness than the female quest for affection, children and a stable home life." - Judge James Pickles, "Straight from the Bench", pub. Dent 1987, p83. This kind of drivel is entrenched in the masonic minds of judges, who have no knowledge or training in the problems of the menopause, or of a mother's feeling of uselessness when the children leave the home, or the concept of the Co-Dependent vividly portrayed in Lillian Hellman's play "Toys in the Attic". My wife demonstrated the psychosis in her case by telling me a number of times that I would leave her should I be very successful. I was forewarned of the attacks which increased as my successes increased. Very successful men will confirm the syndrome, boosted today by radical feminism. A large proportion of self-made men today will have been attacked by their wives at the moment of success, encouraged by ignorant and envious lawyers to destroy most of the family assets in internecine divorce feuding while forwarding a proportion to venal lawyers. These husbands end up penniless and homeless while paying the living costs of their ex-wives with their toy-boys in the marital home.

Edmund Heward

Edmund Heward former Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery Division), retired in 1985. A Master is a Deputy Judge. In 1990 he wrote the biography "Lord Denning", pub. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, which is a mine of information as to the state of mind of the senior judiciary during the years that Denning and his supporters cut a swathe through the English legal fabric.

The fact that Heward writes with such approval of Denning makes his message terrifying. Here we have a judge in a very senior position failing to think through the implications of Denning's behaviour, even though it is spelled out in his own book.

Denning took his final examination in June 1922. At the viva voce examination the examiner was Geoffrey Cheshire, later Vinerian Professor at Oxford, who became a personal friend. Cheshire asked questions on the new Law of Property Act which only received the Royal assent on 29 June 1922. Denning had read up all about the Act and with his good memory was able to make a good impression on the examiner. He was placed in the first class in this examination, Roman Law being a compulsory subject. Subsequently Cheshire showed Denning his marks, a wide range of alphas but one gamma for jurisprudence. He was not fond of jurisprudence and once wrote:

Jurisprudence was too abstract a subject for my liking. All about ideologies, legal norms and basic norms, 'ought' and 'is', realism and behaviourism: and goodness knows what else. The jargon of the philosophers has always been beyond me. I like to get down to the practical problems which come up for decision. Contracts, torts, crime and the like.

....

.... Denning did not have the makings of an academic lawyer. His bent is practical, in the world of affairs. He has a very quick mind but was never an intellectual.

- E. Hemming; Lord Denning, A Biography.

Today we pay the price for a conjunction of unfortunate events. Firstly, the heavy emphasis on memory in law exams, with the false implication, pressed into all minds, that good memory implied good brain. Second, the problem of the outsider. Denning was not "one of us". He was neither Eton, Winchester nor Trinity (actually going to my school, Andover Grammar), and he was not a Freemason. He thought that his better brain had led him to high position, whereas it was actually his good memory and his gargantuan appetite for work. He became that very dangerous operator, the self-styled outsider at the centre of the Establishment. It inexorably led him to ignore the concerns of Dr. John Morris and others. The proof of the pudding is now in the eating, with the total collapse of the English legal fabric. Such as Morris might have predicted it, but it was too arcane to argue that Denning would destroy the legal fabric, and so they were ignored. Denning's damage closely parallels the damage done to our other institutions by narrow minded Thatcherism, which, like Denning, lacked intellectual depth.

The implications of Denning's approach were predicted early, in 1966. E. Hemming writes on p64;

.... Chancery Judge ....Dankwerts was a strong supporter of Dennning's approach and on one occasion when counsel appeared before him with an armful of authorities said: 'What are those for? This is only a construction summons [for the interpretation of a will]'.

The case was more than the academic stomach could stand and Dr. John Morris of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote an article entitled 'Palm Tree Justice in the Court of Appeal' published in the Law Quarterly Review. He wrote:

By departing from the established rules of law the Court of Appeal seems to have usurped the functions of the legislature. The decision will require the re-writing of the whole of the chapters on gifts to children in the text-books on wills, unless the editor has the courage to say that it is manifestly wrong .... If this new addition to the construction of wills comes to prevail, it will not be sufficient just to re-write the chapter on gifts to children in the text-books on wills. The text-books themselves will have to be scrapped and construction reduced to the level of guesswork. It is submitted that the rules of law binding on the court cannot be evaded merely by calling them technical.

The reason why Denning was unstoppable when he set about tearing up the law and then went on to tear up the legal fabric is that, as we will see late in this book in the chapter "Synthesis", he had as strong a historical pedigree as did his opponents, who wanted to uphold and save the Law.

What comes through strongly is the stunning arrogance of Denning, and his inability to foresee the inevitable long term consequences of his high-handed attack on the legal fabric. I will give an example.

Anamartic, the company set up by Sir Clive Sinclair to develop and exploit my "Catt Spiral" invention fired me. A year or two later they decided to re-hire me. However, I would give up a secure post as Principal Lecturer if I went back. This is why I demanded, and got, a contract which gave a minimum of three years on their side, and six months' notice on either side. Thus, I could leave at any time, but the company would only be able to get rid of me after a minimum of three and a half years.

The May copy of our new contract, signed by Anamartic, lacked the three year minimum clause. I returned it with a covering letter saying that if that one clause were added, I would sign. In due course, the June version of our contract came with the additional clause, already signed by Anamartic, and I signed it.

The two reasons for my demanding a minimum commitment by Anamartic of three years were, firstly that they had already fired me once, secondly that they were likely to run into financial difficulties, in which case I would be at risk, and thirdly that I was giving up a secure post. However, these reasons were not spelled out, for obvious reasons. Had Anamartic's lack of substance been spelled out in our contract, that would have damaged Anamartic's creditworthiness. This point was too subtle for a judge to think through, or to believe years later. On page 323 of their book "In Search of Justice", pub. Allen Lane 1968, B Abel-Smith and Robert Stevens wrote;

Most of the ablest barristers have only the vaguest ideas of the social and political issues underlying the legal problems with which they are faced.

This is where the arrogance of Denning becomes so dangerous. Studying his decisions, we can see that he believes that he has a better grasp of events where he was not present, than the actual actors in those events. When Anamartic fired me again, half way through the three years, my suit for damages was clear-cut, and I won. However, study of Denning's judgements shows that the case would not appear clear cut to him. Lacking experience of hi-tec, high risk ventures, he would argue that the financial collapse of Anamartic was unforeseen, and he as judge would have constructed a scenario of what the parties would have thought was fair in the new circumstances, rather than what the contract's literal interpretation would indicate. Under Denning, only contracts relating to activities well within the range of the average judge's experience and comprehension can be enforced. We shall have no hi-tec industry in Britain.

The Unravelling.

I was wondering why Denning reversed from being a man of the people; defender of the layman victim; to being reactionary in the cases of the Birmingham six and the miners' strikes.

I realised that he had not reversed at all. He was consistent throughout.

Denning writes that a judge should lean over backwards to ensure that justice is done for the individual in the court; (a) by construction, (b) by setting new precedent, (c) using Equity.

It is Equity which gives the judge massive discretion and therefore power, and makes the courts unpredictable.

Keith Eddey (Solicitor), "The English Legal System", pub. Sweet & Maxwell 1971, 4th edn. 1987, p176;

"Maxims of Equity.

".... maxims of Equity. Among the most famous are:

He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands;

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without remedy;

Delay defeats Equity; and

Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form.

The maxims emphasise that Equity, being based in its origins on fairness and natural justice, attempted to maintain this approach throughout its later history. Certainly the judges retained their personal discretion, so that equitable remedies were not, and are not, obtainable as of right."

Thus Equity introduces rampant judicial discretion. The last clause, "Equity looks to the intent...." shows why, today, the manipulation of the media and the establishing of whole groups in our society as witches and other groups as victims is important in its influence on the decision of judges.

Denning argued against bothering with technicalities. For example, he established that if a solicitor failed to register an appeal within specified time, he could still appeal. Denning said it was absurd that a client should suffer because his solicitor had failed to follow correct procedures. Professors of jurisprudence said this made the law unpredictable, which was very damaging. However, since Denning's objective was Equity, he could not understand that altering procedures with the object of improving Equity could do anything but good.

Police noted the unpredictability of the resulting law, and were increasingly frustrated that an erratic law might let a villain off scot free, even after police had lavished time and effort on the villain. This unpredictability, possibility reinforced by the notion that the system's objective was justice/equity rather than the rule of law, inexorably led police to fit up undoubted villains.

The new pseudo-law, an unadulterated Law of Equity, untrammelled by the technicalities of statute law and common law, altered the role of the judge from law-enforcer to morality-enforcer. Necessarily, the judge was now seen to be morally superior to all of those in front of him. Further, the police, as his handmaids, although morally a little below himself, must be above everyone else there assembled.

Thus the Birmingham and Guildford debacles flowed inevitably from Denning's assault, and his undermining of the rule of law. It was always noticeable, and even pointed out, that he assumed an error-free judiciary. However, this new Olympian role for the judge, making it no longer necessary for him to know or understand law, but only to appreciate morality and justice, in making him unpredictable, led to frustration in his servants, the police.

In this moral climate, there was nothing whatever immoral in a policeman fitting up a known villain. Quite the reverse.

Thus on to the debacles of Birmingham, Guildford, and so many more.

Denning having undermined the rule of law, all that was left was the moral fibre of judges and their servants, the police. However, that very undermining of the law led the police to immoral and illegal activity on a grand scale.

Judges, knowing that all that now remained between us and anarchy was the moral fibre of the judges, could no longer afford to reverse judgements by lower courts where there was hint of major wrongdoing by judge or police. Thus, Denning's behaviour led inevitably to cover-up by higher court of lower court and of police.

Denning's achievement in changing the British Legal system to the British Moral system explains why he supports the continued incarceration of innocent men, rather than risk the discrediting of the morality of a moral system, much as the Catholic church has to cover up, as long as it can, any illegal activities by its priests.

I repeat the key comment by Mullin;

Three weeks after [the Birmingham Six appeal was dismissed in 1988,] Lord Denning offered a new insight into judicial thinking. He was asked in a television interview, if in his opinion the integrity of the system was more important than the fate of one or two individuals who had been found innocent as a result of investigations by the television series, Rough Justice. He replied, 'Certainly .... the general cause of upholding the system of justice is such that I would put aside all those Rough Justice cases.'

The interviewer then asked, 'If I, a working journalist. see a man on the roof of a prison claiming he is innocent, should I investigate his claim or walk away?'

'Oh, walk away and ignore him. I have a lot of letters from people in prison who say they have been wrongly convicted. I'm afraid I put them into the wastepaper basket.'

-"Error of Judgement" by Chris Mullin, pub. Poolbeg 1990, p311.

Having lost its basis in law, the British one-time Legal System now has only a moral base. Were it shown to have acted immorally on even a few occasions, its only raison d'être would disappear. As we now know however, it acts not only illegally but also immorally in perhaps the majority of cases. This includes legions of disgraceful cover-ups. So the legal system self-destructed.

The thesis of this book, that our congealed legal system is beyond reform, is confirmed by the appointment of a member of an elite branch of Freemasons as chairman of the Government's new body to investigate miscarriages of justice. If my friend Kurt Metzer's assertion is correct, that our problem is, not Masons, but the social group that Masons represent, then the resignation of Sir Frederick Crawford from the Masons will not help. Not only Masons, but those who associate with Masons, cannot function in the reform of our legal system. Like the radical feminists, their heavily moral and sectional ethos is incompatible with addressing a system which is now based only on morals and needs to be brought back to the rule of law. Chris Mullin "said he was amazed to discover that Sir Frederick was a Freemason."

Even I, as someone who is cynical about the British judicial system, did not think they would be daft enough to appoint a mason. It's going to bring the commission into ridicule.

- The Guardian, 15th August 1996, page 1.

This is a prototype for the kind of nonsense which will undermine any attempt to reform a system so far gone in corruption as the English Legal system. The same applies to the Woolf reforms. Woolf, concerned that costs are out of hand, wants proportionality rather than the fair (legal) costs for the job. By comparison, were he a railwayman, (Robin Hood) Woolf would have you pay 1% of your total assets for your train ticket. This will be quite as mad as the present legal extortion, but saves the lawyers' lifestyle.

The Charade

".... This is one of the games played by judges, extending and restricting the scope of judicial review like Procrustes fitting victims to his bed. ...." - J.A.G. Griffith, "The Politics of the Judiciary", pub. Fontana 1991 (4th ed.), p187.

"No one, however, should underestimate the capacity of the judiciary for moving the goal-posts." - C. Mullin M.P., "Error of Judgement", pub. Poolbeg 1990, p240. Also moving goal posts on p300. Compare this with last para., p305.

The judges move the goal-posts, but should it serve the interests of a cover-up, as on p305, the goal posts are suddenly cast in concrete, whatever Denning might have said so often and so persistently; "....counsel vary much in their ability and I do not think that their clients should suffer by any oversight or mistake of counsel." - Denning, "The Discipline of Law", pub. Butterworths 1979, p. 289. This and other Denning successes over decades (in destabilising the structure) made it a total disgrace for the appeal judges to put up the shutters in the Birmingham six case and leave the innocent six, none of them even members of the IRA, to rot in jail for further years merely to protect the reputations of judges and of policemen. According to Mullin, who had interviewed the true culprits, not only he, but also the Midland Police and the RUC had for years known the identity of the true bombers, and that the six were innocent. However, since the civil rights of wrongly incarcerated victims were at stake rather than the much more important power and reputations of judges, all of Denning's hard-fought 'reforms' did not apply. Suddenly, there was no 'discretion' or 'Equity' to come to the rescue.

Before Robin Gay pointed to Denning as a key actor in the destruction of the British Legal System, I had written to my MP, Peter Lilley, and his shadow, D Dewar, under the title "Breakdown of the Legal Fabric", as follows;

I have been in court many times, including the High Court, most of it as Litigant in Person. I know that if I enter into litigation yet again, the events which follow will not remotely relate to the rule of law or the concept of justice. There is no law, unless one decides to hurry the case through England to the top, and then restart properly in Europe, some years later.

The End of Legislation.

Traditionally, statute and common law will occasionally bear down hard on the unforeseen case. Recourse is, in the criminal law, to a Pardon, and in the civil law, to say "tough", and hurry to legislate to prevent another such untoward occurrence.

Denning says he was more interested in justice than in the rule of law. He was impatient of the procedure outlined above. He thought almost solely of the victim in front of him.

Denning used two techniques to prevent injustice from being done in the unforeseen case;

1) Interpretation, stretching it as far as possible and further.

2) Equity.

Thus, Denning took the pressure off the legislature to enact law which shored up the cracks, since Interpretation and Equity would suffice anyway, followed by Precedent based on Equity (or Interpretation).

Now for the mind-boggling question:

If Interpretation, or, failing interpretation, Equity, can always ensure Justice, then what purpose is served by law?

The use of Equity to rapidly absorb the half-baked precepts of the 1967 UNO Declaration on Human Rights points to the general principle, that no legislation or further development of Statute Law is needed. All we need is Equity, and precedent based on Equity.

Here was the classic error of the shallow thinker; short term, fashionable benefit at the cost of long term disaster. Denning never realised that the truth was, that he was against the law. He saw the law as his enemy, and the enemy of the people. Like Pickles, he thought of himself as an outsider, brighter and more close to the people, so that he was destined to blunt the harsh edges of the Establishment and make their constructions more just. However, the long term result was anarchy. In such a situation, where short term convenience threatens long term probity, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Only now do we see that the price is catastrophically high, with secret anarchy behind closed doors in the family courts.

The Fatal Trigger

It is useful to concentrate on a specific event which triggered the descent into matriarchy with all men becoming helots. This event was the "Declaration on Discrimination Against Women" by the United Nations on the 7th of November, 1967. This Declaration, which is highly discriminatory, was formulated and signed by a UNO dominated by men; men who had no doubt about their present superiority and their future security as masters of the situation. Thus, giving sop to militant feminists was a harmless concession. This Declaration, far from declaring that men and women should have equal rights and treatment, systematically declared that women should have either equality or superiority. It casually removed basic human rights from men.

An ignorant, venal and largely defunct judiciary in Britain, fixated on costs and its own aggrandisement, had no interest in the social implications of its actions. It already had lost contact with concepts of justice, the rule of law, and equity. It only knew that whereas discrimination against women meant trouble for them, discrimination against men did not, since such discrimination was applauded in the UNO Declaration. If the judiciary succeeded in dirtying all those brought before it, particularly men, it would be secure from the intrusion into its courts of arguments about Justice and Equity. (He who argues for Equity must come with clean hands.) It then became totally safe to give all to women and confiscate from men.

The whole of this declaration is discriminatory in that it demands action to right the wrongs done to women, but says nothing about protecting men's rights. It was inevitable that member states who took notice of the Declaration, that is, western states with powerful feminist lobbies, who also had weak or decaying legal systems, would remove basic civil rights from men. This would be followed by social and economic collapse. However, patriarchal states, unable to veto the 1967 UNO declaration, would ignore it. This led us into the present situation; a slide into a war between the socially and economically declining matriarchies, centred on the USA and Britain, and the patriarchal, fundamentalist states, supported by the patriarchal Christian bible belt in the midwest of the U.S.A. One of the opening shots of a potentially disastrous war is the Oklahoma bombing.

The flashpoint will be young men. Their suicide rate is escalating, and all other indicators show their reaction to the persistent man-bashing in the media. Older men, having lived through periods when men were not persistently portrayed as witches, will not feel so rejected by society. It is the young men who will seek a means to reassert their self-respect, using either patriarchal fascism or patriarchal religious fundamentalism, or both. The radical feminists have no strategy for dealing with the monster they have inflicted on society.

Generally, analysis of the problem is kept out of our media by the radical feminists in the various editorial hierarchies. See Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph, 7may96, p18; "The prattle of the sexes";

.... .... .... But in the meantime, the professional complainers are having a field day. This is one area where I would accept that men are being disadvantaged. The feminist complaint lobby has the media so cowed that any BBC programme which does not fill its quota of female "spokespersons" puts itself in jeopardy. (I am not exaggerating.) The absurd result of this is that women commentators like me field dozens of requests from television and radio to take part in discussions, not necessarily because we have the appropriate expertise but because we have the right genital plumbing. Desperate programme researchers respond to my suggestions of male colleagues with the piteous admission: "But we need a woman". Perhaps the cruellest irony is that the barrel-scraping to which this policy leads will so obviously backfire on women - as equal opportunity law already has. If a less good woman is preferred to a better man, then her presence can incur only contempt. And that can only make it harder in the long run for individual women who want to be promoted - or listened to - because they deserve to be.

Here we may ponder the idiocy of Lord Chief Justice's assertion that the law responds to public opinion - that is, the opinion of a tiny rump of journal and media editors. WE may also ponder Denning's idea that we should look behind the letter of the law to the spirit of the age - that is, of the tiny group who control the media.

The only avenues for expressing concern were Barbara Amiel in The Sunday Times while Andrew Neil was editor, the Telegraph to a lesser degree, and now only the Daily Mail. No other journal allowed publication of the worrying forecasts by Patricia Morgan in January 1995 (back cover of her book "Farewell to the Family?", pub. IEA); "Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families [as I was], now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'". However, even radical feminists are beginning to worry about the coming violence, and allowing minimal discussion of some of the issues in the media. For instance, Helen Wilkinson in The Independent, 2 January 1996, section 2, p2; "Fearful, anxious, vociferous, often confused and sometimes violent. Meet the victims of the Nineties: men". Radical feminists need to realise that the false, man-bashing allegations against men may become self-fulfilling prophecies. However, the more pressing reason for a volte-face is that, having exploited judges' misbehaviour to confiscate their ex-spouses' assets and incomes, and cut them off from their children, they are only now realising that the same thing will happen to their own sons, with their own ill-gotten assets hijacked in turn by a peripatetic daughter-in-law. In an ironic twist, radical feminists with sons (whom they cut off from their fathers) will be cut off from their own grandchildren. Even worse, the radical feminist's own son could be jailed on some bogus rape or violence charge. It is the fact that women give birth to male children that shows the madness of the temporarily successful attempt to create an adversary situation between men and women. It cannot last more than two decades, but we see around us the short term cost, enormously exacerbated by an ignorant, incompetent, venal legal Industry.

U.N. Declaration on Women's Rights.

[By failing to declare for equality, this Declaration would inevitably lead to loss of civil rights for children and men in those more liberal countries which ratified it. This failure is repeated in most clauses - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(3), 7, 8, 9, 10. The concept of discrimination against men was not available to the authors, and so such discrimination inevitably resulted. Only clause 11 is properly, impartially, drafted. Had "one gender" been used each time instead of "women", and "another gender" instead of "men", all would have been well, and children and men would today have protection against discrimination.]

Following is the text of a declaration on discrimination against women, as adopted 7 November 1967 in the General Assembly.

The General Assembly,

Considering that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in equal rights of men and women,

Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the principle of nondiscrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, including any distinction as to sex,

Taking into account the resolutions, declarations, conventions and recommendations of the United Nations and the specialized agencies designed to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to promote equal rights for men and women,

Concerned that, despite the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and despite the progress made in the matter of equality of rights, there continues to exist discrimination against women,

Considering that discrimination against women is incompatible with human dignity, and with the welfare of the family and of society, prevents their participation on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries, and is an obstacle to the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity,

Bearing in mind the great contributions made by women to social, political, economic and cultural life and the part they play in the family and particularly in the rearing of children,

Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women as well as men in all fields,

Solemnly proclaims this Declaration:

ARTICLE 1

Discrimination against women, denying or limiting as it does their equality of rights with men, is fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offense against human dignity.

ARTICLE 2

All appropriate measures shall be taken to abolish existing laws, customs, regulations and practices which are discriminatory against women, and to establish adequate legal protection for equal rights of men and women, in particular:

(a) The principle of equality of rights shall be embodied in the constitution or otherwise guaranteed by law;

(b) The international instruments of the United Nations and the specialized agencies relating to the elimination of discrimination against women shall be ratified or acceded to and fully implemented as soon as practicable.

ARTICLE 3

All appropriate measures shall be taken to educate public opinion and direct national aspirations toward the eradication of prejudice and the abolition of customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women.

ARTICLE 4

All appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure to women on equal terms with men without any discrimination:

(a) The right to vote in all elections and be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies;

(b) The right to vote in all public referenda;

(c) The right to hold public office and to exercise all public functions.

Such rights shall be guaranteed by legislation.

ARTICLE 5

Women shall have the same rights as men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. Marriage to an alien shall not automatically affect the nationality of the wife either by rendering her stateless or by forcing on her the nationality of her husband.

ARTICLE 6

1. Without prejudice to the safeguarding of the unity and the harmony of the family which remains the basic unit of any society, all appropriate measures, particularly legislative measures, shall be taken to insure to women, married or unmarried, equal rights with men in the field of civil law, and in particular:

(a) The right to acquire, administer and enjoy, dispose of and inherit property, including property acquired during the marriage;

(b) The right to equality in legal capacity and the exercise thereof;

(c) The same rights as men with regard to the law on the movement of persons.

2. All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure the principle of equality of status of the husband and wife, and in particular:

(a) Women shall have the same rights as men to free choice of spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;

(b) Women shall have equal rights with men during marriage and at its dissolution. In all cases the interest of the child shall be paramount;

(c) Parents shall have equal rights and duties in matters relating to their children. In all cases the interest of the children shall be paramount.

3. Child marriage and the betrothal of young girls before puberty shall be prohibited, and effective action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory.

ARTICLE 7

All provisions of penal codes which constitute discrimination against women shall be repealed.

ARTICLE 8

All appropriate measures, including legislation, shall be taken to combat all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

ARTICLE 9

All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure to girls and women, married or unmarried, equal rights with men in education at all levels, and in particular:

(a) Equal conditions of access to, and study in, educational institutions of all types, including universities, vocational, technical, technical and professional schools;

(b) The same choice of curricula, the same examinations, teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard, and school premises and equipment of the same quality, whether the institutions are coeducational or not;

(c) Equal opportunities to benefit from scholarships and other study grants;

(d) Equal opportunities for access to programs of continuing education, including adult literacy programs;

(e) Access to educational information to help in insuring the health and well-being of families.

ARTICLE 10

All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure to girls and women, married or unmarried, equal rights with men in the field of economic and social life, and in particular:

(a) The right without discrimination on grounds of marital status or any other grounds, to receive vocational training, to work, to free choice of profession and employment, and to professional and vocational advancement;

(b) The right to equal remuneration with men and to equality of treatment in respect of work of equal value;

(c) The right to leave with pay, retirement privileges and provision for security in respect of unemployment, sickness, old age or other incapacity to work;

(d) The right to receive family allowances on equal terms with men.

2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on account of marriage or maternity and to insure their effective right to work, measures shall be taken to prevent their dismissal in the event of marriage or maternity and to provide paid maternity leave, and the guarantee of returning to former employment, and to provide the necessary social services, including child-care facilities.

3. Measures taken to protect women in certain types of work, for reasons inherent in their physical nature, shall not be regarded as discriminatory.

ARTICLE 11

The principle of equality of rights of men and women demands implementation in all states in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Governments, nongovernmental organizations and individuals are urged, therefore, to do all in their power to promote the implementation of the principles contained in this Declaration.

Analysis

This United Nations Declaration is badly drafted. It contains only homilies about the rights of children, and very occasional reference to giving equal rights to men. The blatant example of sexism and discrimination in the Declaration is the third clause in Article 10. Also, Article 8 protects women but not men against prostitution.

Such as Denning, who was active at the time, would read the Declaration as a Moral Declaration, not a legal one. It gave carte blanche to Denning and his disciples to remove the most basic human rights from children, and from men. It was inevitable that, the scene having been set by documents such as this, men would lose their civil rights and become second or third class citizens.

The intention of this Declaration was that it should improve the lot of disadvantaged women in patriarchal societies, for instance in the Middle East, where it was ignored. Western countries, which already had their own measures for protecting women, acted on the Declaration and so instituted the present subservient state for men, particularly married men. The lowest class in the New Order is of course the divorced man. He receives the full brunt of Denning's Moral Courts, losing the right to his present and future property, and losing the right of access to his children.

Both the letter and the spirit of the Declaration show the climate of opinion which led to the present crisis. It is free of the concept of equal rights between woman and man, and between adult and child. It is all special pleading. Had we a court of law, we would have some protection against this sexist drive. However, having only a court of morals run by judges like Pickles, our society is helpless against it.

The sex discrimination in the UNO Declaration was further buttressed by much English legislation, itself plainly guilty of sex discrimination, for instance the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, Section 1(1)(a) 2.4;

Direct sex discrimination arises where a person treats a woman, on the grounds of her sex, less favourably than he treats, or would treat, a man.

The rest of 2.4 continues in this vein, and so does 2.5 and 2.7

Synthesis

A purple thread runs through from the Ecclesiastical (Moral) Courts, through the Equity of the Courts of Chancery, to Denning. This thread somewhat validates his success in getting rid of predictable law and replacing it with an unpredictable moral code.

In the Middle Ages, when the church owned much of the land, it ran the Ecclesiastical Courts. These operated in parallel with the King's Courts. After centuries of uncertainty, the two systems were finally united in the nineteenth century. A moral dimension remained to modify the law enforced in the King's Courts.

The system deriving from the King's Courts comprises Statute Law and Common Law, which latter grew out of precedent; these being past decisions made by judges. A judicial decision would occasionally bear hard on an individual whose unusual case had not been foreseen. The solution in the criminal courts was to give a Royal pardon. In the civil court, the individual would suffer, but this was the necessary spur to cause Parliament to enact a new statute to prevent a recurrence.

Denning was dissatisfied. While studying law, his lowest marks were in jurisprudence. Later, he said that he was not interested in technicalities, but wanted to do the right thing by the man in front of him. His first recourse was to use Interpretation, often leaning over backwards in the process and getting his judicial decisions overruled on appeal - something that all other judges were anxious to avoid. If he could not force interpretation to meet his needs, like the glass slipper and the ugly sister's foot, he resorted to abrogating the rule that precedent had to be followed in prior cases in a higher court or an equal court. To both these habits of his, the senior judicial aristocracy objected vehemently, reprimanding him and overturning his judgements on appeal.

On the few occasions when these manoeuvres failed, Denning resorted to Equity, leading to his being called "Equity Denning". The 1984 Shorter Oxford Dictionary describes Equity as "that which is fair and right" It also calls Equity "a system of law existing side by side with the common and statute law, and superseding these, when they conflict with it". A typical example of the mess that is the law is that the 1905 Harmsworth Encyclopaedia contradicts itself and the Oxford Dictionary when it says; "Equity follows the law - i.e. equity is not in conflict with, but subsidiary to, the law."

Equity is the surviving vestigial Ecclesiastical Court, enforcing morality, not law. Unwittingly, Denning replaced the rule of law by the rule of morality. His error was to think that only one moral code existed, and that his code, of the Anglican village church, would survive. However, even as he was imposing it on our courts, the Anglican Church imploded. The resulting vacuum in our courts, now without morals or law, sucked in today's ruling ethical systems - radical feminism and masonic morality. The former controls most of the media, and nearly all senior judges are masons. Far from introducing an era of low church christianity when he destroyed our law, Denning imposed a court-enforced feminism and masonry onto us.

The reason why Denning was able to subvert the English legal system was that it was never overtly stated that, when merging, the Ecclesiastical Courts came to an end. The confusion that Denning exploited is demonstrated by the quotations from Oxford and Harmsworth.

The greatest tyranny exists in those fields of law where the interests of the radical feminists, who control the media, match the interests of the masons - the senior judges. For instance, both ideologies assert that a woman is not responsible for her actions.

.... an interesting and yet unsettled problem, the origin of the Canon law. The truth seems to be that the Imperial Roman law did not satisfy the morality of the Christian communities, and this is the most probable reason why another body of rules grew up by its side and ultimately almost rivalled it.

- Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, pub. 1875, reprinted 1966, p25.

Denning is a throw-back to those Christian communities.

.... Equity, being that part of the law which was developed and formerly administered by the Court of Chancery .... The Court of Chancery worked on the principles of conscience and fairness, and the early Chancellors, being ecclesiastics, probably borrowed something from canon law. It will be seen that 'Equity', as meaning the principles formerly applied in the Court of Chancery, is a part of English law, while 'equity' in the sense of conscience or fairness is one of the sources of English law - equity is a source of Equity.

- O. Hood Phillips and A. H. Hudson, O. Hood Phillips' First Book of English Law, 1948, reprinted 1988, pub. Sweet & Maxwell.

The quotation shows a flow from the mediaeval ecclesiastical courts with their canon law, through Equity in the Court of Chancery, to Denning. This flimsy thread somewhat legitimises Denning's campaign against law and in favour of religious morality. It is why Simonds and other Law Lords found Denning's depredations on the law so difficult to counter.

Phillips continues on page 18;

The significance of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the development of English law is that .... .... their jurisdiction over all men for moral offences meant that they were concerned with questions of marriage and legitimacy; and also that they came to interest themselves in wills and personal property ....

In 1945, at the very early age of 46, Denning first became a High Court judge in the unfashionable division which included Divorce. The quotations above show why he felt he could reverse the flow of history. His monstrous behaviour was possible because this thread gave him some sort of pedigree, or precedent. He replaced law with Equity. His high religious and moral sense drove him that way, and the peculiar nature of divorce - its particular closeness to what should have been the lesser ecclesiastical and Equity origins of the law - made him so bold as to redirect the whole system back towards the mediaeval ecclesiastical courts. In his biography of Denning, Edmund Heward, Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery Division), pub. Weidenfield 1991, wrote;

He thought that if law was divorced from morality it would lose the respect of the people. The law should reflect public opinion and he did not want to do anything which might offend public opinion.

Thus, a centuries-old fault line, which presaged the present collapse, runs through the English legal system. It is here outlined in the 1995 Britannica Micropaedia 4 p534;

By the end of the 13th century the English king's common-law courts had largely limited the relief available in civil cases to the payment of damages and to the recovery of the possession of property. They had refused to extend and diversify their types of relief so as to meet the needs of new and more complex situations. Disappointed litigants had turned to the king with petitions for justice because the courts had afforded either no remedy or one that was ineffective. These petitions were referred to the lord chancellor, who was the king's principal minister. By the early years of the 14th century the petitions were going directly to the chancellor, and by the middle of that century the Chancery was recognized as a new and distinct court.

The developments thus initiated resulted in the fashioning by the chancellor of new and equitable remedies. .... ....

.... For generations the chancellors had not considered themselves bound by precedents or rules of law; emphasis had been put mainly upon the discretionary treatment of the needs of the individual case.

However, the weakness of Denning's position is indicated further on;

.... From the mid-16th century, however, the chancellors were usually common lawyers, who began shaping equity into an established set of rules. By the middle of the 17th century the equity administered by the Court of Chancery had become a recognized part of the law of the land; equity gave [consistent] justice according to law rather than [inconsistent] executive justice. ....

It appears that Denning exploits the history of Equity more as a justification for judges to create new law (and ignore parliament), than for judges to be unpredictable. However, both malign effects result from the combination of an anti-law Denning and the disruptive history of Equity. Both take power away from parliament and into the hands of the judges, who in their turn hand it over to a combination of masonic morality and the controllers of the media, who turn out to be largely the radical feminists.

A lurid metaphor for Denning's overthrow of our courts is the replacement of secular courts by Islamic courts in Iran. Although possibly more extreme than in England, the arguments and issues are the same.

The House Radical

Blair, Cheri Booth, Judge Pickles, Lord Woolf and so many others can be described as 'House Radicals". Many years ago, I coined the aphorism;

The role of the radical in reinforcing a reactionary status quo.

The trouble with the reaction to all these people, even when they say that the legal fabric is collapsing, is that they create the impression that something is being done to put things right; that enough concerned souls are active, so all will be well. Chris Mullin and Ludovic Kennedy are concerned with particular cases, and the impression can be gained that they are able to keep things more or less right. The same is true of the various arbitration bodies which seek to replace some of the law's demesnes. The concept of total collapse is in any way difficult to comprehend. A good example on those lines is the 1995 Interim Woolf Report, which is more rabid than I am in its condemnation of the present 'system'. The impression created is that reform is on the way, even though he cites the many earlier reports that have been ignored.

I attend many different fringe organisations where individuals and groups have discovered serious flaws in the 'system' and burrow their way into them. This is pathetic, much as the man who found that the Hiroshima Fire Department failed to fulfil the city's needs is pathetic. One can see them vying for credit for having studied one tiny cluster of trees more meticulously and better than the next man, while ignoring the forest. Often, these worthy souls persist in examining detail because they cannot face the idea of a First World country which lacks a functioning legal system, and which will continue in that state for some time to come. They also become socialised into the current 'system' by wanting some reward for the hours, days, weeks, months and sometimes years that they have spent investigating it. They will regard Robin Gay and me, who realise that there is no longer any system, as destructive or ignorant, trying to avoid and minimise their arduous research. I can only assure them that Robin Gay did more research than they before he came to the conclusion that we do not have a functioning system; that his work could be regarded as wasted. The example in footnote 15 on page 156 of Zander's previously referenced book is only one of the multifarious examples which lead inexorably to the conclusion that we have a charade, not a legal system;

This rule was laid down in 1845 by the Justices of Denbighshire and the right of a court to make its own rules was upheld in the face of a challenge by the Divisional Court. .... The Recorder said: 'each Court has its own rule - the Court is complete master of its own procedure.

This ridiculous assertion, upheld in a higher court, does not on its own make a summer of discontent. However, it is only one of many, many examples from the record of the illegal attitude of the English courts, which is much more pronounced today than it was in 1845. It is such misdemeanours in the past which helped Denning in his later wholesale assault on the rule of law, replacing it by the Rule of Morality, to be replaced in due course by masonic and radical feminist morality, which today's courts enforce - with the enforcement of massive Costs on the side. It explains why a judge is agile in labelling a too successful litigant a 'vexatious litigant' (Section 42) and banning him from all our courts in the future. The vexing thing is that the litigant was citing law, court procedures and precedent, where he should have been citing morality. The ruling moral code requires acceptance that a judge can do no wrong, and has the supremely moral stance.

The Future

Tony Blair twice said on national television that the criminal justice system is on the point of collapse. David Rose, in his book "In the Name of the Law, The Collapse of Criminal Justice," pub. Cape 1996, argues for a move to the continental inquisitorial system as the remedy. Ludovic Kennedy, a long time campaigner against miscarriages, also proposes a move towards the inquisitorial system. The same is true of me and of Robin Gay.

The problem is that Denning successfully gained infinite discretion for the judges, who can now ignore the law. Our current judges, and also our present solicitors and barristers, would ignore such a change. Similarly, it is absolutely certain that no laws passed will affect the behaviour of judges in the secret family courts for at least fifteen years. Under Discretion, the judges will ignore them, as they ignore the current law.

The real problem is how to wrest the administration of the law from our coterie of judges who, egged on by Denning, have a contempt for the rule of law and will never enforce law. My answer is an extended version of the reform proposed by Kennedy and Rose. This is to establish a new system of law. It will begin with a new way of entering into contractual agreements. (A contract entered into in England at present is worthless, because our courts, engrossed in Costs, are incapable of supporting the injured party.) The two parties will travel to northern France, and sign their contract there, to return thereafter to England. The big legal case that is facing us, and which must be undertaken as soon as possible, is when it is established whether such a contract, signed in France, about activity in England, can be enforced in a court of law set up under the guidance, but not the control, of the northern France legal system, an inquisitorial system. These alternative courts, operating alongside and in opposition to the English courts, will gradually take over as the present English system lapses into total disrepute and are ignored.

In England, tribunals have periodically been set up with the express purpose of excluding professional lawyers, but again and again, Denning infiltrated lawyers back into these tribunals against the wishes of parliament. In a similar manner, our new legal system risks being infiltrated by English professional lawyers. As a safeguard, one of the starting principles for these new courts will be that anyone qualified in English law will be debarred from practising in the new inquisitorial courts, where their expertise in the earlier, adversarial system will be inappropriate anyway. That battle will also have to be fought through in the European Court.

There will be total opposition to these developments by parliament, which is packed with practising lawyers. However, as more and more people realise that they cannot even enter into an enforceable contract, the pressure for an alternative, like the pressure over the Poll Tax, will become unstoppable. One sanction by the voter will be the determination that, regardless of party, a voter will not vote for a candidate with legal qualifications. In this way, we will begin to establish a Commons with an objective view of the current crisis in the law.

The author is willing to act as clearing house for initiatives towards setting up the new legal system.

Index

B Abel-Smith 74

'Access to Justice' vi, 22, 61

Gerald and Eva Adshead 38, 41, 47

'Alice in Wonderland' vii, 51

Anamartic 67 et seqq

Barbara Amiel 30, 84

Anglican Church morality 6, 92

Judge Brian Appleby, QC 27

Argot 22, 23

Assertiveness training 18

David Barnard 61

Norman Barry 58

Beck 41

Beeching 43

Mary Bell 38

Bennetston Hall 47

Jeremy Bentham 56

Basil Bernstein 39

Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls 24

Birmingham Six 59, 76, 77, 79

Tony Blair 97

'Bleak House' 52

Boarding school 16

Cheri Booth 95

Bribery 6, 27, 39, 42, 63, 65

British servicemen 13

Broadmoor 13

Brogue 22, 53, 54, 55

The Brotherhood 9, 18, 39, 49

'The Brothers Karamazov' 36

Brownlees 63, 64

Butler-Sloss 53

Lewis Carroll 51

'The Castle' 42

Catholic church 10, 77

Catt Spiral 67, 74

Chancery 22, 23, 55, 72, 73, 91, 92, 93, 94

Geoffrey Cheshire 72

Child Support Agency 50

Cleveland 15, 20, 21

Paul Condon vi, 40

Contempt of Court 51

Chief of Metropolitan Police Paul Condon vi, 40

Ros Coward 10

Court of Appeal 18, 43, 53, 55, 59, 60, 63, 70, 73

Sir Frederick Crawford 78

Crown Prosecution Service 25, 27, 33

'The Crucible' 34

Cummins 41, 47

Frank Curran 27

Cyprus, Cyprus Government 13, 14

Janet Daley 84

Daily Express 33

Daily Mail 44, 84

Daily Star 27

Daily Telegraph vii, 10, 21, 25, 26, 27, 70, 84

Dankwerts 73

Defence 22, 23

Lord Denning 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 28, 34, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57 et seqq, 64, 72 et seqq, 79, 81, 84, 90, 91 - 97,

'Lord Denning' 55, 72

Donald Dewar 55, 79

Charles Dickens 52

Angus Diggle 30

'The Discipline of Law' 79

Doggerel 22

Austen Donnellan 30

Dostoevsky 36

Andrea Dworkin 1, 31, 33

Ecclesiastical Courts 91, 92, 93

Umberto Eco 10

Kate Eddey 76

Dominic Egan 65

Captain Elwes 66

Ben Emerson 27

The English Legal System 76

Equal Opportunities Commission 31, 33

Equity 5, 6, 76, 81, 91

'Error of Judgement' 59, 78, 79

European Court 19, 35, 36, 39, 54, 97

Evening Standard vi

'The Family Court in Action' 61

'Farewell to the Family?' 84

Ben Felton 25

'The Female Eunuch' 15

Feminazi 18

Feminists 92

Forgery 6, 27, 63, 65

Freemasons, see Masons

Robin Gay iii, 20, 79, 95, 97

Susan Gooch 30

'The Grand Inquisitor' 36

Germaine Greer 15, 18

John A. G. Griffith 1, 59, 79

Guardian vii, 10

Guildford 77

Hailsham 4

Halcyon 13

Harringey 20

Lillian Hellman 71

Edmund Heward, Chief Master of the Supreme Court (Chancery Division) 55, 72 et seqq, 93

Eugen Hockenjos 53

O. Hood Phillips' First Book of English Law 92

O. Hood Phillips and A. H. Hudson 92

Frances Hughes 61

'In search of justice' 74

'In the Name of the Law' 97

The Independent 19, 84

The Industry 22, 23, 24, 29, 36, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 63, 65, 67

Jesus 10, 11

Jesuit 10, 37

Paul Johnson 44

Michael Joseph 65

Jowitt 4

'Judge for Yourself' 63, 70

'Judges' 54

'Judges on Trial' 43

'Judging Judges' 59

Jurisprudence 11, 72, 76, 91

Justice 2, 3, 4

Franz Kafka 42

Sarah Keays 38

Ludovic Kennedy 95, 97

King's Courts 91

Panos Koupparis 13, 14

Language 22

Law 2, 3, 4, 5

Law Lords 19, 53, 93

'Lawyers and the Public interest' 9

'Lawyers can seriously damage your health' 65

'Law's Empire' 1

'Learning the Law' 23

Simon Lee 1, 10, 12, 59

Legal Aid 24, 36, 41, 43 - 48, 53, 54, 66

'Liberating women .... From Modern Feminism' 58

Liz Lightfoot 41, 48

Peter Lilley 44, 46, 55, 79

Heinz Lipschutz iv, 15

Litigant in person 22, 23, 37, 55, 79

Lord Chancellor Mackay vii, 19, 35, 38, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 64

Lottery 41, 70

Catherine Mackinnon 31

Mafia 34, 35, 39, 42, 43

Magna Carta vi

Sir Henry Sumner Maine 92

John Major 50

Lady Mallalieu, QC 26

Man as Witch 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 76, 83

Masons 7, 11, 18, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 49, 71, 73, 78, 92

Maxwell 34, 67

Lord McLuskey 34

Merchant of Venice 2, 5

Mercy 2

Kurt Metzer 78

Henry Miller 34

Barbara Mills vi

Morality 37

Patricia Morgan 84

Dr. John Morris 73

H Muir vii

Chris Mullin M.P.59, 77, 78, 79, 95

Andrew Neil 84

Noble Cause Corruption 40

The Observer 16

Odgers 22

Orkney 15, 20, 21

Ouster 61 et seqq

Anne Owers vii

Pankhurst 18

David Pannick 54

Patois 22, 23, 24, 61

Dr. Michael Pelling 53, 60, 63

Perjury 6, 61 et seqq

Judge Pickles 16, 51, 57, 60, 63, 70, 71, 81, 90, 95

Plain English Commission 24

Pleadings 22

The Police 20, 25, 27, 29, 34, 39, 40, 49, 50, 63, 65, 77, 79

'The Politics of the Judiciary' 1, 79

Portia 2, 3, 5

Portsmouth 29

Portsmouth University 25

Prankherd 38

Queen's Bench 23, 43

Caroline Quest 58

Rape 24 -33

Radical Feminists 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 57, 61, 84, 85, 92, 94, 96

Righteousness 5, 6

Rochdale 15, 20

David Rose 97

Joshua Rosenberg 43

Rough Justice 59, 78

Royal Commission vii

Salem 15, 34

Jasmine Salisbury 19

'Scandals in Justice' 14

'The Search for Justice' 43

Secret courts 53 et seqq

Sex war 20

Sexual molestation 20

Sexual perversion 16

Shakespeare 5

T Shaw vii, 21

Simon Shetreet 43

Simonds 4, 93

Sir Clive Sinclair 61, 62, 67, 74

Peter Snow 61

Social services 20

Southern Belle 31

Southern White 31

The Soviet Mafia 42

Robert Stevens 74

Circuit Judge Stockdale vii, 63, 64

'Straight from the Bench' 57, 60, 71

Suffragettes 18

Sunday Times 30, 41, 48, 84

Lord Chief Justice Taylor vi, 6, 10, 19, 57, 84

Thatcher 1, 42, 50, 73

Judge Thorpe 63

The Times 24, 25, 34, 66

Today 28

Tolstoy 38

Ray Tooth 65

'Toys in the Attic' 71

'The Trial' 42

UNO 81, 83, 86 et seqq

Arkady Vaksberg 42

Vexatious litigant 37

Penny Wark 28

David Warren 25, 33

Watford County Court vii, 34, 35, 42

Master Weingarten 22, 23

Helen Wilkinson 84

Glanville Williams 23

Wimbledon Common 49

Wizard of Oz 5, 51

Lord Woolf vi, 22, 51, 61, 64, 78, 95

Barry Worrall 51

Michael Zander 9, 95