<

Friday, October 20, 2006

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Shannon Taylor

It is a criminal offence to name anyone who complains to police that they have been the victim of a sexual offence, even if the alleged attacker is found not guilty in court. But yesterday Lord Campbell-Savours named a “serial and repeated liar” whose false allegations resulted in an innocent man being jailed for a sex attack.

Lord Campbell-Savours was able to do this because he is protected from legal action for comments made in the House of Lords by Parliamentary Privilege.

That Privilege is granted to him in law by the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1689, which states: That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.

This is the same Bill of Rights 1689, which also states: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.

Lords Hansard 19 Oct 2006 : Column 868

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the inevitable consequence of the workings of the law as currently framed that we will carry on imprisoning innocent people such as Warren Blackwell, who was falsely accused by a serial and repeated liar, Shannon Taylor, who has a history of making false accusations and having multiple identities? As a result of her accusations he spent three and a half years in prison following a shabby and inadequate police investigation and was exonerated only when the Criminal Cases Review Commission inquiry cleared him and traced her history. Should not mature accusers who perjure themselves in rape trials be named and prosecuted for perjury?

If the Bill of Right works for Parliamentarians, then it most certainly should work for us plebs too

I have not named her, I have exercised my 'civil responsibilities'. Bring it on.
.

0 Comments:

Post a comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares