The Carr Family

[Holly Goodhead]

There is some suggestion that the shared home was a hostel -although I can't verify it- which could put a rather different interpretation on it. It seems to me that there were more who had a simple gut reaction about Jeremy's character, than who accepted his hospitality/had sex with him...................although, arguably, it's possible they MAY have done both.

But if we take the example of LR, MD and MW.  They all worked with JB and lived with him over a period of months.  LR even arranged a dinner date between JB and her close friend, JM.  LR then went on to have sex with him.  At what point did she get bad vibes about the guy?     

[Caroline]

No idea who invited who but having to endure someone for a few hours during the course of a social is one thing having to share your home is another.  Even if he invited himself they could just say 'sorry, no room in the inn'!

A lot of people seem to have had an adverse reaction to JB after the event and yet were quite happy in his company beforehand including having sex with him, accepting his generosity and living with him eg JM, LR, MD and MW.

I am sure there are many people in your life, as there are in mine, who you don't much care for. They might be described as a bit of a tit and some might even be family members or ex-boyfriends. You just put up with them, however, if they were convicted of murder, you may feel vindicated in your dislike and verbalise it if asked to do so.

You say 'generosity' others may view it differently 'buying friends' 'showing off' .......... just depends on where you sit in the argument. The difference between us and the people mentioned here, is that they knew him and there doesn't seem many who are prepared to come to his defence - I think that speaks volumes about the kind of person he was/is.

[APRIL]

But if we take the example of LR, MD and MW.  They all worked with JB and lived with him over a period of months.  LR even arranged a dinner date between JB and her close friend, JM.  LR then went on to have sex with him.  At what point did she get bad vibes about the guy?     

 Given that there are still those now who seem to have an itch for him, I guess he gave off hot enough sexual vibes to mask the other ones, at least long enough for a quickie.

[Nicholas]

I am sure there are many people in your life, as there are in mine, who you don't much care for. They might be described as a bit of a tit and some might even be family members or ex-boyfriends. You just put up with them, however, if they were convicted of murder, you may feel vindicated in your dislike and verbalise it if asked to do so.

You say 'generosity' others may view it differently 'buying friends' 'showing off' .......... just depends on where you sit in the argument. The difference between us and the people mentioned here, is that they knew him and there doesn't seem many who are prepared to come to his defence - I think that speaks volumes about the kind of person he was/is.

In my last post, I've asked who Bamber used as witnesses in his defence during trial. A chartered surveyor and a sales person. Who were these people?  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5130.msg432702#msg432702



"Jeremy would put over a face of being a very sort of nice person and then he would go and do something really nasty," she said. "There seemed to be an awful lot of bickering.

"Sometimes when Jeremy came up they would have a hectic row ... Whenever Jeremy was around the atmosphere was so different.

[Nicholas]

Sadly passed away yesterday    Seems like yesterday I was cutting David Cassidy pics out of the Jackie magazine to pin to my bedroom walls.  Great times:  David Cassidy, Jackie magazine with the 'Dear Cathy and Claire' problem page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24054765 

SC and JB were both adopted as babies and brought up by NB and June.  Both went to boarding school.  What separates them is that SC had a number of primary caregivers during the first 3/4 years of her life whereas JB didn't.  June also suffered mental illness requiring in-patient psychiatric care in the early crucial years of SC's development which again wasn't the case with JB.  All the science underpinning 'attachment' shows that babies/infants who fail to form secure attachments with caregivers are at risk of suffering the types of issues we know SC suffered.

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/

Recent research shows a correlation between adult attachment styles and filicide ie mothers with disorganised attachment styles are more likely to commit filicide than those with mental illness and/or from low socio-economic groups:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213414001458

RECENT research also suggests Bamber fit the profile of a mass murderer to a tee NOT his sister


"The research, compiled and analyzed carefully-controlled data on mass murderers who used guns and acted on a personal - not political or religious - motives.
The first cluster of murderers had an average age of 23, and the second averaged 41 years old.
Dr King says that these two ages closely track the beginning and end of the period when men are most attractive as mates. In other words, when they have reproductive status and value.
The behaviors and traits of the first, younger group, align more closely with how we usually, and most comfortably, think of killers. These young men tend to have a history of trouble with law, mental illness.
Dr King says that this is an age at which these young men are supposed to be acquiring status, but are struggling to succeed in society. ‘They were, in fact, acquiring signs that they were on a fast track to reproductive oblivion,’ he wrote on his Psychology Today blog.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4953458/Evolutionary-drivers-mass-murder-older-men.html#ixzz4zNBwamZr

[Nicholas]

RECENT research also suggests Bamber fit the profile of a mass murderer to a tee NOT his sister


"The research, compiled and analyzed carefully-controlled data on mass murderers who used guns and acted on a personal - not political or religious - motives.
The first cluster of murderers had an average age of 23, and the second averaged 41 years old.
Dr King says that these two ages closely track the beginning and end of the period when men are most attractive as mates. In other words, when they have reproductive status and value.
The behaviors and traits of the first, younger group, align more closely with how we usually, and most comfortably, think of killers. These young men tend to have a history of trouble with law, mental illness.
Dr King says that this is an age at which these young men are supposed to be acquiring status, but are struggling to succeed in society. ‘They were, in fact, acquiring signs that they were on a fast track to reproductive oblivion,’ he wrote on his Psychology Today blog.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4953458/Evolutionary-drivers-mass-murder-older-men.html#ixzz4zNBwamZr

"Male humans swim in worlds of status like trout swim in complex currents of water. Anyone who is not aware of this (or in denial about it) finds things like the high rates of male suicide or the fact that males are massively over-represented in apparently senseless crimes, utterly baffling. (2) Glib talk of “toxic masculinity” barely scratches the surface of what is going on. (3) “Toxic” does not explain the half of it, and it is worth noting that even the most toxic of masculinity does not put off all possible sexual partners. As Ogas and Gaddam (2012) note “It turns out that killing people is an effective way to elicit the attention of many women: virtually every serial killer, including Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and David Berkowitz, has received love letters from large numbers of female fans” (p. 98). (4)

Remember—we have done the genetic analysis and most males (60 percent) do not reproduce. Status is exquisitely linked to male reproductive success, and males who were blind to its ups and downs have simply not had descendants. Call it “face”; call it “honor”; call it “status” or call it “prestige”. We are all descended from men who cared about it. (5)

We might have tamed it somewhat in modern society. We give it useful outlets. Sport. Awards at work. Elaborate rituals where we show that a person has so much status to spare, that they can even survive being roasted by professional comedians. Sometimes, in some individuals, and for reasons that we still do not understand, this pressure to value status can go very badly awry. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hive-mind/201710/mass-killings-evolutionary-perspective

[Holly Goodhead]

I am sure there are many people in your life, as there are in mine, who you don't much care for. They might be described as a bit of a tit and some might even be family members or ex-boyfriends. You just put up with them, however, if they were convicted of murder, you may feel vindicated in your dislike and verbalise it if asked to do so.

You say 'generosity' others may view it differently 'buying friends' 'showing off' .......... just depends on where you sit in the argument. The difference between us and the people mentioned here, is that they knew him and there doesn't seem many who are prepared to come to his defence - I think that speaks volumes about the kind of person he was/is.

But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her?  Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration.  One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.

If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example.  LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983.  At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters.  The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB.  LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple.  Success on a plate!  At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB.  

LR was effectively JB's boss.  She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter.  They worked together.  Lived together in a shared house.  Shagged together.  She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders!  At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?

Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place.  If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role?  Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress?  Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker?  And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!?  

If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB.  

The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution.  I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB.  

I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously.  

[Nicholas]

But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her?  Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration.  One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.

If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example.  LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983.  At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters.  The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB.  LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple.  Success on a plate!  At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB. 

LR was effectively JB's boss.  She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter.  They worked together.  Lived together in a shared house.  Shagged together.  She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders!  At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?

Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place.  If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role?  Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress?  Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker?  And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!? 

If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB. 

The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution.  I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB. 

I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously. 

Caroline hasn't suggested people found Bamber a bit of a 'tit' - she was generalising in order to get her point across.

But you now appear to have taken this generalisation as literal and ran with it?

In summing up, Judge Drake stated:

"It shows that you, young man though you are, have a warped, callous and evil mind concealed beneath an outwardly presentable and civilized manner.

"CONCEALED BENEATH AN OUTWARDLY PRESENTABLE AND CIVILISED MANNER"

Unless you have experienced an individual like this first hand (especially one who had murdered) I imagine for some people it's difficult to get your head around.

What the content of your post to me suggests is that Jeremy Bamber was a charmer and even when he did the dirty on someone he would come out smelling of roses.

What I don't understand is why you are choosing to blame everyone else for his character flaws, infidelities, criminal behaviours etc..


"Incidentally, after a lifetime of studying psychopaths Dr Hare cannot immediately identify a psychopath at a first meeting, or even after a twenty or thirty minute conversation. They are adept at masking their true nature and our natural instinct to judge people on first impressions works in their favour. http://www.remorselessfiction.com/chameleons.html

[Nicholas]

But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her?  Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration.  One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.

If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example.  LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983.  At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters.  The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB.  LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple.  Success on a plate!  At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB. 

LR was effectively JB's boss.  She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter.  They worked together.  Lived together in a shared house.  Shagged together.  She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders!  At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?

Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place.  If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role?  Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress?  Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker?  And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!? 

If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB. 

The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution.  I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB. 

I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously. 

"A psychopath can appear strong, naive, dominant, honest, submissive, trustworthy, worldly, or whatever he or she believes will get others to respond positively to manipulative overtures...."
From Snakes in Suits - Babiak and Hare

[Holly Goodhead]

Caroline hasn't suggested people found Bamber a bit of a 'tit' - she was generalising in order to get her point across.

But you now appear to have taken this generalisation as literal and ran with it?

In summing up, Judge Drake stated:

"It shows that you, young man though you are, have a warped, callous and evil mind concealed beneath an outwardly presentable and civilized manner.

"CONCEALED BENEATH AN OUTWARDLY PRESENTABLE AND CIVILISED MANNER"

Unless you have experienced an individual like this first hand (especially one who had murdered) I imagine for some people it's difficult to get your head around.

What the content of your post to me suggests is that Jeremy Bamber was a charmer and even when he did the dirty on someone he would come out smelling of roses.

What I don't understand is why you are choosing to blame everyone else for his character flaws, infidelities, criminal behaviours etc..


"Incidentally, after a lifetime of studying psychopaths Dr Hare cannot immediately identify a psychopath at a first meeting, or even after a twenty or thirty minute conversation. They are adept at masking their true nature and our natural instinct to judge people on first impressions works in their favour. http://www.remorselessfiction.com/chameleons.html

Please refrain from making comments of this nature as they have the potential to sow discord on the open forum.  Caroline is more than capable of responding to my posts.

[Nicholas]

But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her?  Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration.  One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.

If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example.  LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983.  At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters.  The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB.  LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple.  Success on a plate!  At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB. 

LR was effectively JB's boss.  She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter.  They worked together.  Lived together in a shared house.  Shagged together.  She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders!  At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?

Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place.  If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role?  Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress?  Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker?  And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!? 

If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB. 

The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution.  I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB. 

I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously. 

"They will lie almost reflexively and also engage in very predatory, planned lying.
They really enjoy pulling a fast one on other people, and they don't feel bad about doing it.

Dr. Ronald Schouten, Director of Law and Psychiatry Services at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
http://www.remorselessfiction.com/identifying.html


* Superficially charming
* Very glib
* Sometimes transparently dishonest - yet shrugs it off as nothing if exposed
* Often devious
* Suspicious of others' motives (thinks the worst of people)
* Doing exceptionally well in his (or her) career by screwing colleagues over
* Promiscuous and regularly hurts people's feelings (maybe deliberately)
* Failing to accept responsibility for their actions
* Exhibiting a well developed sense of entitlement
* Exhibiting a very big ego
* Convinced you should think the world of them as they certainly do...

"If the person has all - or even most - of these characteristics then you probably know a psychopath.

[Nicholas]

But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her?  Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration.  One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.

If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example.  LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983.  At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters.  The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB.  LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple.  Success on a plate!  At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB. 

LR was effectively JB's boss.  She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter.  They worked together.  Lived together in a shared house.  Shagged together.  She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders!  At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?

Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place.  If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role?  Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress?  Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker?  And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!? 

If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB. 

The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution.  I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB. 

I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously. 

"psychopaths regard people as 'instruments of gratification' and 'as disposable things to be used'.

http://www.remorselessfiction.com/non-criminal-psychopaths.html

[Caroline]

But how much time do you need to spend in someone's company until you realise he/she is a bit of a "tit" and that you dislike him/her?  Most of us have to tolerate irritating others for some of the time but it's usually tolerable as time spent with the individual is limited in terms of connectedness and duration.  One can usually choose who one socialises with, lives with and has sex with.

If we take Liz Rimmington (LR) as an example.  LR was manageress at Sloppy Joes when JB was working there during 1983.  At the time she was in a relationship with co-owner of Sloppy Joes, Malcolm Waters.  The pair shared a house with the other co-owner Michael Deckers and JB.  LR arranged a dinner date between JM, a close friend, and JB with the idea of pairing them up as a couple.  Success on a plate!  At some stage thereafter LR had sex with JB. 

LR was effectively JB's boss.  She was the manageress. JB a barman/waiter.  They worked together.  Lived together in a shared house.  Shagged together.  She even accepted a lift off JB AFTER she was 'told' by JM that JB had a helping hand in the murders!  At what point did she decide he was a bit of a "tit" and she disliked him?

Sloppy Joes was a small eatery owned by those who run the place.  If JB was a bit of "tit" why employ him in a customer facing role?  Why have him live-in with the owners/manageress?  Why set up a date between a close friend/co-worker?  And why would you have sex with someone you thought was a bit of a "tit" and disliked unless you were desperate for a shag and/or seriously sad!? 

If people were using JB for freebies: lifts, meals out, cannabis whilst at the same time finding him a bit of a "tit" and disliking him it perhaps says more about them than JB. 

The lay prosecution witnesses all appear to have gained something as a result of JB's conviction either financially or immunity against prosecution.  I believe the police used the drug angle on JM, LR, SB, JR, MM and CB. 

I'm afraid I struggle to take these people seriously. 

Unless we know the circustances of how and why they ended up sleeping together, all you're doing is adding your own interpretation of events. Bamber must have got something from these friendships too - he isn't/wasn't exactly a benifactor.

Not sure where you got the idea that the police used drugs - but that is quite some accuation with no evidence. If the police used drugs on you, would you let it lie? Other than Julie. who else was given imunity?

[Holly Goodhead]

Unless we know the circustances of how and why they ended up sleeping together, all you're doing is adding your own interpretation of events. Bamber must have got something from these friendships too - he isn't/wasn't exactly a benifactor.

It seems to me they were all just a regular bunch of young people hanging out together.  It happens all the time where people have a few drinks/drugs, inhibitions are lowered and young single people have sex.  It's neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.  I guess some might argue JM/LR were scorned women ie JB dumped JM and LR may have felt used but IMO I don't think this influenced the prosecution case against JB. 

The point I was endeavouring to make is the relationships had endured for at least 2 years where members of the group had experience of JB in a variety of settings: work, social, house sharing, sex which implies to me they knew him fairly well and appreciated his company. 

Not sure where you got the idea that the police used drugs - but that is quite some accuation with no evidence. If the police used drugs on you, would you let it lie? Other than Julie. who else was given imunity?

The idea about the drug angle comes from MM's WS and to a lesser extent JM's and SB's.  I think it is reasonable to expect EP to have a consistent policy on drugs but this doesn't appear to be the case here.  When JB was first arrested under caution he voluntarily handed over cannabis in his possession.  Based on the interview transcripts I've read he wasn't cautioned/charged over this or even asked a single question about drugs.  Some will say EP were interested in the murders not a piddly bit of weed but this argument doesn't seem to stack up given he was charged at the magistrates court over OCP.  When MM was interviewed under caution he was read the riot act about the cannabis found on his person and told the cannabis plants found at his home would be sent for analysis.  His alibi for the night of the murders was a woman by the name of Mavis Southgate who he was having a sexual relationship with.  He was also having a sexual relationship with Christine Bacon ,mother of his young child, and asked about her use of drugs.  He told EP she was an infrequent user of cannabis.  The police then knocked her up at dawn to carry out a search of her home and take her in for questioning.  No idea what was or wasn't 'found' at CB's. 

JM's WS claims JB's neighbours tipped off the drugs squad about JB's cannabis plants who visited JB's cottage pre tragedy to take a look.  JB got wind of this and destroyed the plants.  Again this doesn't seem to make sense given EP's stance with MM. 

SB's WS claims she didn't like JB bringing drugs into the house she shared with JM, James Richard and Charles ?.  SB said she was specifically concerned as JR and C? were attached to the army and if the drugs came to light they would be kicked out.  SB refers to the drug squad. 

Imo EP used the drug angle to intimidate witnesses into supporting the prosecution against JB. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems to me drugs were swept under the carpet.  This can be evidenced by the fact the CoA doc refers to OCP and JM's cheque fraud but doesn't touch on JB growing cannabis etc and JM selling on around campus.  The reason for this imo is down to the fact all prosecuction witnesses were sold the idea JB was guilty and threatened with various drug related offences.   

If there's anything still held under pii imo it could relate to drugs (including possibly the opium poppies) and various prosecution witnesses involved with drugs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity

Public-interest immunity (PII), previously known as Crown privilege, is a principle of English common law under which the English courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. This is an exception to the usual rule that all parties in litigation must disclose any evidence that is relevant to the proceedings. In making a PII order, the court has to balance the public interest in the administration of justice (which demands that relevant material is available to the parties to litigation) and the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain documents whose disclosure would be damaging. PII orders have been used in criminal law against large organised criminal outfits and drug dealers where the identity of paid police informants could be at risk.