Previous reports, published over the past six months, have detailed the extraordinary events that occurred in Scotland almost 20 years ago, events that had (and continue to have) significant impacts across the UK. Analysis is provided. The analysis revealed criminal activity. Crown officers to pervert laws designed to protect young people from serious abuse and exploitation.
Actions of the Scottish Royal Family (1991)
In late 1991, Crown officials issued instructions to Scottish prosecutors, effectively sanctioning the criminal act of allowing a teenage boy to be sodomized by an older man.
These directions, issued by the (then) Lord Chancellor, contravened section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (the Act then in force). This was therefore a deliberate attempt by the Crown's officials to subvert the will of Parliament through gross dereliction of duty and abuse of power.
Irrefutable evidence of this is contained in official documents – Directives 2025 and 2025/1 – in which senior members of the Royal Family decide on proposed amendments to certain statutes according to their personal beliefs and opinions. It is shown that they create and impose.
In a letter dated 30 August 1991, Sir William Sutherland (then Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police) advised the Scottish Crown that it was clearly outside his remit to take action on this particular issue. A special warning was issued. Congress).
Unfortunately, the events described above were only recently discovered during an in-depth review of the 1992 Royal Family Report into the 20-year-old investigation. The internal investigation dealt with allegations of a conspiracy to pervert the course of domestic justice.
crown office
This investigation was commissioned by the Attorney General (and conducted pursuant to his own authority) and was completed on 15 December 1992.
Information contained in the 1992 inquiry also revealed that the British Crown's intentions were to criminalize criminal offenses under common law (“breach of the peace, shameless indecency, lewd and sexually voluptuous conduct”) for fear of being found guilty. It is also clear that the intention was to avoid being accused. A verdict may be returned.
The Direction therefore favors “the use of statutory provisions rather than common law charges wherever possible”, and such law is effectively infringed by a direction from the Crown to the Crown Prosecutor (Direction). It was decided that it would be cancelled. Services (COPFS).
Congress is misunderstood
The Royal Family Report, which completely exonerated the Royal Family, was submitted to Parliament on January 26, 1993. In presenting the report, the Lord Chancellor told the House of Lords: “The (investigation) report makes clear that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the conduct of business in the Crown Office or in the Procurator Fiscal Service”. That statement was wrong. Congress was misunderstood.
Prior to the Lord Chancellor's statement, Honorable Members were allowed just 20 minutes to read the 110-page investigation report. If they had been given more time to study the report and reflect on its contents, then the Honorable Members would have found that royal staff had, in fact, committed extreme “misconduct”. ”, that is, he would have realized that he was indulging in a criminal act, that is, an intentional criminal act. pervert the rule of law;
It is therefore of great significance that, in its submission to Honorable Members, the Advocate chose to remain silent regarding the publication of the two Directions to COPFS in 1991.
Serious crimes at common law
So what is the law on this issue?
A willful breach of a duty to comply with the law as it stands (for example by an officer of the Crown, the judiciary or the police) is a crime at Scottish common law.
It is a common law offense for a public servant, who is entrusted with a public trust, to deliberately neglect his or her duties, even when there is no danger to the public or others involved.
So this is not a matter of subtle interpretation. The position in the law is very clear and is clearly recognized and accepted as such by police forces across Scotland (including the Scottish Police Federation).
The conclusion is that serious and criminal breaches of duty by Scottish Royal staff occurred in 1991. The effect of the Directive issued to COPFS in 1991 would have been to allow child abusers operating in Scotland to exploit and abuse teenagers. Boys with relative impunity. This would also have allowed the criminal hire boy industry (particularly in Edinburgh) to grow and thrive with little fear of local police intervention.
Most notably, many of Edinburgh Police's efforts to protect teenage boys from being drawn into the 'industry' were thwarted by the extraordinary intervention of the Scottish Crown.
police refuse to investigate
As a result of the findings in the Lord Chancellor's Inquiry Report (December 1992), a formal complaint was lodged with Lothian Border Police on 6 July this year (2012) against a former employee of the Scottish Royal Family. The charges against the three named individuals allege that in giving such instructions, Crown staff committed a serious criminal offense at common law. The complaint included a police investigation request and crime report number.
Lothian Police and Border Force officers are believed to be well aware that two of the three people named in the complaint are currently members of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
These particular individuals are therefore given positions of great influence within the British legislature, executive and judiciary, and within the British Royal Family.
A week after the complaint was filed, Lothian and Border Police responded:
Royal Circular 2025 was issued by the Lord Chancellor on 28 November 1991, giving instructions to prosecutors regarding the prosecution of those who took part in consensual homosexual acts. …The information provided shows no evidence of criminal activity and therefore there is no basis for police to investigate this matter at this time. I have copied your letter to District Attorney Fiscal and requested information and comment on the issues you have raised. I will write to you as soon as I receive his reply.
Therefore, the immediate police response was neither to investigate the complaint nor to issue a crime report number. The proposal to obtain “information and comments” from COPFS appears to be a particularly unusual proposal (in the circumstances). Lothian and Border Police have been advised that such a decision is unacceptable and that the original charges still stand.
