9sep01 letter from Catt to "Sentencing Advisory Panel".
Home Office
Sentencing and Offences Unit,
50 Queen Anne's Gate,
London SW1H 9AP
0171 273 4000 Fax: 2489
Direct Line: 0171 273 3875
21 March 2000-03-25
Ivor Catt,
121 Westfields, etc.
Dear Mr. Catt,
SEX OFFENCES REVIEW
Thank you for your letter of 16 March 2000 in response to mine of 7 March.
The Home Office keeps all of the criminal law under review to ensure that it is robust, fair and appropriate. Although there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations, individual cases that are brought to our attention are considered very carefully and will inform the development of policy. As we have said before it is the purpose of the criminal justice system to test allegations of crime on the basis that the defendant is innocent until proved guilty.
It is the responsibility of investigators and prosecutors (i.e. the police and Crown Prosecution Service respectively) to be satisfied that the allegations are proper before taking a case forward. The purpose of every criminal trial is to test the prosecution evidence, and the defence will be able to cross-examine the witness for this purpose. In Crown Court cases, it is for the jury to assess the credibility of any witnesses for the prosecution when reaching their verdict. If, in any particular case, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice arises as a result of a false allegation ahich has led to a conviction, this would be a matter for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I enclose a leaflet giving further information about the work of the Commission.
I believe that we have now done all we can to answer your queries on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Su McLean-Tooke,
Sex Offences Review Team
I emphasise the section from the above letter; "…. there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations …." It took me six months to extract this statement from people who invited me to be part of a reference group so that I could contribute to the development of future legislation. Moxon, Tooke's boss, told me she wanted "constructive dialogue", but I had to descend to the level of repeating my single question for about the fourth time in writing, in words of one and two syllables, to extract this vital piece of information.
In contrast to the above letter, see my writing in the latest issue of "Ill Eagle", which I edit;
"Our past chairman John Campion summarised The Law Commission (1966) Reform of the Grounds of Divorce. The Field of Choice. Law Com No. 6. HMSO in this way; 'The Law Commission feels .... that it is false allegations that provoke the hostility and that any attempts to defend himself or his children are the consequence of venting his anger in retaliation for such allegations. They find this 'paradoxical' since perjured evidence is merely a verbal device for obtaining the divorce.'
"We need to remember that in the past, divorce court officials more or less openly connived in the perjured story of the divorcing man spending a dirty night in Brighton in order to enable his wife to obtain a divorce. Thus, the divorce courts have a tradition of conniving in perjury, so the fact that judges today welcome perjury by wives is nothing new.
"The idea that false allegations are an essential component in the smooth running of our secret family courts, and are merely a metaphor to validate the expropriation of fathers, is a crucial concept for those trying to understand the mechanics of our family courts, and the central role played by false allegations, and why perjury by mothers must not, and will not, be punished. It also explains why these courts are secret, and why they are more hostile to totally blameless divorcing fathers, who force court officials to connive in fabricating charges, which they do not enjoy doing. Even judges, barristers and solicitors, other things (i.e. their fees) being equal, prefer to be honest.
"A barrister pointed out to me that if he used legal aid to defend a divorcing man against false allegations, he might never again get legal aid funding from a feminised Legal Aid Board This explains why your lawyers will betray you, and put on that blank look when you try to interest them in the horrendous, false allegations being made against you."
- Ivor Catt, part of Editorial, Ill Eagle, March 2000, p3
Family courts are distinct from criminal courts. However, the use of false allegations to lubricate procedures (= expropriation of fathers) by judges in family courts will be influenced by and will influence the behaviour of those same judges hours later in the criminal court, and vice versa. A witch-hunt climate has been created by anti-social radical feminists and those they control or those who fear them, which includes our judiciary, which degrades all aspects of our courts, and all types of court. I will now presumably have to spend six months to a year extracting from those same (or other) government officials who are paid out of my taxes, the confession that nobody in government studies false allegations in our family courts, either.
Given the climate explained above, it is obvious why so many innocent Irishmen were jailed for decades, and many more innocent victims will be jailed in future. The expense of pressuring (see Home Office Research Study No. 196, for instance) the police to increase their "success" rate and on the judiciary to increase their conviction rate and conviction percentages is enormous, both in prison costs and also, of course, in the total devastation of the innocent victims' lives. Radical Feminism has created an evil empire.
- Ivor Catt, 25march00.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/03072.htm