NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND

No machinery for investigation

TONY PALMER

It's true to say that com- pared with almost any other country in the world, British justice and the administration of it are about as equable as you can find. But that is precisely the danger. Under the cloak of liberalism, poli- ticians and their instru- ment the police can work, and no doubt do work, the most de- vious frauds.

Strange events in Beauchamp Place, Knightsbridge, give possible evidence of police peculiarities in the Chelsea manor. At about 1 a.m. during the night of 23/24 December 1968, according to one Benny Taylor, two members of the public were viciously attacked by a gang of five drunken hooligans just after they (the victims) had left Susan's Club, also in Beauchamp Place.

The victims of this attack are said to have suffered injuries to face and body from the indiscriminate kicking inflicted by the gang.

As far as is known, the victims had not pro- voked their attackers in any way and were, in fact, assaulted from behind. For reasons unknown, they offered almost no resistance but, having witnessed the attack, Taylor went to the victims' rescue and, on his own evidence, beat off the assailants singlehanded with the aid of a towel-roller; later the police arrived and arrested the gang. The 'boss' of the gang appeared and said he would straighten things out, Again according to Taylor, he did. The gang got off free and Taylor was sent to prison for two months and fined £100 for being in possession of a dangerous weapon, the towel-roller.

But Taylor is nothing if not persistent. His case has been written about several times before but nothing much has ever happened.

For example, Taylor accused the Chelsea police of accepting bribes as an inducement to ignoring the behaviour of the gang. A written complaint was made against the officers concerned as well as the gang but, says Taylor, it was ignored. He informed his local MP who thought it improper to in- tervene. His solicitors requested the identities

of the station sergeant and the senior CID

officer who were on duty the night of 23 December. The police, however, refused to disclose the identities of the men concerned.

Somehow, Taylor managed to get their names by 'other means and published the in- formation, accusing the two officers of criminal perjury. So far, surprisingly, the officers have not sued Mr Taylor.

• At his trial, the police prosecutor, a Mr Thorne, stated : 'I must suggest that the real reason you [Taylor] were arrested on that night was because you had gone out and interfered in something which really did not concern you at all.' Taylor claims that he knows the identities of the gang who were set free but unfortunately does not know the names of their victims. Accordingly, he is now offering combined rewards of £1,250 for information leading to them or their testi- mony which, if his story is to be believed, must surely result in his acquittal and par- don. To propagate this offer, Taylor has been forced to publish, at his own expense, pamphlets setting out some of the relevant details of his case. The pamphlets are often confused and semi-literate, so bitter that their total truthfulness is sometimes cast in doubt; nonetheless, in them Taylor further claims that the police are trying to prevent him advertising his cause by intimidating the various printers who have offered to help by insinuating that the Director of Public Prosecutions is about to take action. Anyone who has had any experience of publishing underground magazines will testify that this is a common police practice.

Taylor cites another piece of curious evidence in support of his case. Russell Friedman, an American, worked in Taylor's restaurant, the `Borshtch• 'N' Tears' in Beauchamp Place. In a signed affidavit, witnessed by a notary public in Los Angeles County, Friedman describes how one night some weeks after the first incident, at about 1 a.m., four men came into the restaurant and ordered a bottle of wine. One hour later they ordered a second bottle and at 2.30 Fried- man presented them with their bill. They refused to pay saying they were 'friends' of Taylor. Friedman replied that he had no instructions from Taylor about giving out any free drink whereupon the four showed their police warrant cards and again said they were friends of Taylor. They now demanded some scotch but were politely if firmly refused. Friedman tried to telephone for help but was prevented from doing so by one of the officers. A second officer tried to seize the cash box and a third grabbed the

lady cashier. After a scuffle. Friedman even- tually promised to give them a bottle of

scotch provided they went away. He did and they disappeared. A copy of Friedman's affi- davit was sent to every Member of Parlia- ment as well as to the police. Detective Chief Inspector Phillips of West End Central was put in charge of the investigation. But that was over a year ago and, according to Tay- lor, no results have yet been published.

As to Taylor's earlier complaint, one year and eight months after his complaint had been tiled an appointment was made for Detective Chief Superintendent Mees of Hounslow police to investigate. Taylor re- quested that an independent shorthand writer be present to record his testimony. Mees agreed but the Home Office refused for reasons unknown except that 'they' pointed out that 'all information obtained by us at these interviews will remain in our control, and will not be published or

shown to any unauthorised person.' As Tay- lor replies, with Iris experiences, you must be

joking. Finally, 'Justice', the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, in response to a plea from Taylor wrote: 'With regard to your complaints against the police, as long as there is no machinery for independent inquiries into complaints of this kind, you have little chance of gaining anything by pressing your claims.'

Benny Taylor's case may be hogwash, a fiction of his paranoiac imagination. His pro- blem is not helped by' the fact that at nresent

he is in prison convicted of rape, but at the very least, it would seem that his cause de- serves proper review.