Police pursuing malacious, racist, Islamophobic investigation, in my honest opinion.
This is to highlight how, in my case, police has been pursuing malicious, racist and Islamophobic investigation, in my honest opinion.
Following is the advice given to Police by, I believe, from Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). There have been numerous referrals made to CPS by Police but NFAed (Not For Action) by CPS. Despite this, out of malice, racism and Islamophobia, Police has been pursuing character assassination and defamation/slander against myself. This is clearly an example of misconduct in office by Police, particularly some specific Police/Detective Officers in my honest opinion.
Following is the advice given to Police by, I believe, from Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). There have been numerous referrals made to CPS by Police but NFAed (Not For Action) by CPS. Despite this, out of malice, racism and Islamophobia, Police has been pursuing character assassination and defamation/slander against myself. This is clearly an example of misconduct in office by Police, particularly some specific Police/Detective Officers in my honest opinion.
Assault: The defence of consent appears to apply. The parents and child himself clearly understood the nature and purpose of the act and gave true consent to it. As per R v Richardson (1999), it is not relevant whether the doctor is registered as long as they understood what procedure they were consenting to.
Fraud: Although the doctor has made a gain, there is no clear false representation. The family are not able to say whether he explicitly said he was registered or not, but they also made no effort to confirm he was doctor at all. The search of the phone number on Google produces a website about circumcision on which the advertiser explicitly states he is not registered with the GMC, suggesting he does not hide this fact. As per the above on assault, there appears to be no deception as to the nature of the procedure.
Practicing Medicine without a Licence: there is no general offence of practicing without a licence. The requirement to be licenced as a doctor, according to GMC, covers the prescription of restricted medications and the holding of positions as GPs, physicians, and surgeons. This has been clarified by TVP to mean that injection of anaesthetic would be an offence (as this is prescribing covered by the licence requirement) but numbing creams would not be. It appears from the family's account that only a cream was used. No other offences appear to have been committed in this area.
Fraud: Although the doctor has made a gain, there is no clear false representation. The family are not able to say whether he explicitly said he was registered or not, but they also made no effort to confirm he was doctor at all. The search of the phone number on Google produces a website about circumcision on which the advertiser explicitly states he is not registered with the GMC, suggesting he does not hide this fact. As per the above on assault, there appears to be no deception as to the nature of the procedure.
Practicing Medicine without a Licence: there is no general offence of practicing without a licence. The requirement to be licenced as a doctor, according to GMC, covers the prescription of restricted medications and the holding of positions as GPs, physicians, and surgeons. This has been clarified by TVP to mean that injection of anaesthetic would be an offence (as this is prescribing covered by the licence requirement) but numbing creams would not be. It appears from the family's account that only a cream was used. No other offences appear to have been committed in this area.
I have some more evidence to publish at a later date.
Comments
Post a Comment