UK'S HR VIOLATIONS - KING CHARLES III - HEAD OF STATE

 

  THE HEAD OF STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTING A GOVERNMENT THAT PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY AGAINST WRONGFUL CONVICTION - BUT IN THE UK THERE IS NO ARTICLE 13 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998, A DELIBERATE OMISSION DESIGNED TO DENY THE PEOPLE ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site, or our HOMEPAGE 

 

 

 

 

The former Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, takes over from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who sadly passed away earlier this year at the age of 95, as the longest reigning English monarch. The British Royal Family have had a couple of very bad press years, stemming from the ongoing squabbles between Prince's Harry and William, to scandal over his brother, Prince Andrew's, association with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and financial settlement with Virginia Guiffre. To his commendation, this has not deterred the new King of the United Kingdom, from doing what he can to urge UN members to diminish their climate warming activities. Regardless of the location in old London town. That said, the UK's human rights record in reflected in the astonishing revelation that Articles 1 and 13 have been deliberately omitted from domestic legislation: HRA 1998. And that there is no right of appeal against a criminal conviction, doubling the jeopardy where in England Legal Aid has been cut so low that it is almost impossible to mount a full defence against a prosecution. Put that together with the Abrogation of the rights of the accused to a warning from a trial judge not to convict on the unsupported say so of a claimant, and the presumption of guilt in sex related cases, and the Article 6 (ECHR) right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, goes out of the window. Not only that, but in one raid by the police force concerned, they stole privileged documents, undermining due process, this only coming to light where in another case, the same force adduced privileged document as part of the Crown Prosecution's case. Then asked the defendant's solicitors to delete that file to erase evidence of their crime. Surely, making the UK one of the worst human rights offenders in Europe. There is supposed to be a right of audience with the King, where no effective remedy exists for the ordinary man. But where Queen Elizabeth allowed Boris Johnson to lie to her about Parliament, and did nothing to prevent him from going on to mislead Parliament about parties at Downing Street during Covid19 lockdown, allegedly, and the function of the so-called 'Head of State,' of a Democratic Monarchy, calls to be scrutinized. Especially, where the UK has no written constitution. But judges, police and prosecutors, are rewarded with honours for towing the party line. This makes the allegedly poor HR record of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisiís government, seem tame.

 

 

 

 

 

King Charles III did not attend COP27 in Egypt, where that nation is accused of having a poor human rights record.

 

But the UK is no angel. As a matter of fact, and according to cases that are on file in Sussex, England, it appears that planning crime is to blame for one victim being convicted of a sexual crime, that was impossible, by virtue of the so-called 'Claimant' being a virgin. When she had claimed multiple rapes. The immaculate conception springs to mind.

 

This extraordinary miscarriage of justice was possible by the police not using their forensic expert and selecting a Judge who (as it turns out) was not competent. He was so incompetent, he did not even know who a very important diary belonged to. The defendant, or the accusers. And this was when instructing the Jury. It is a vital requirement, that a Judge is able to follow a case, or risk confusing the twelve ordinary people - who have not legal training - on what they should consider. This is called misdirection.

 

Then the police stole privileged documents, in a raid, where the mere possession of those documents, invalidated the proceedings. Rendering them an abuse of process. But this equally important fact only came to light in 2021, with proof of the same police force using similar tactics against another Sussex target. Again, in connection with planning crime and fraud. Hence, we now have similar fact evidence to consider. A bit late in the day. But better late than never.

 

Their target was a whistleblower, who turned to defending other victims of planning crime. He won two appeals lodged with the Planning Inspectorate. He also won other cases, that did not reach the Secretary of State. And threatened to keep on doing so. Then, he uncovered a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, when the police refused to investigate up to twelve independent cases of planning crime, that had been referred to them. It turns out that the Crown Prosecution Service was also implicated, in accepting a file that contained no Statements from the Informants.

 

And that introduces the touchy subject of Masons in the British legal system. Membership of such societies in Italy (for example) is banned, because of the conflict of interests. The late Queen was a Patron of the Masons. A relation of the so-called Claimant was a very prominent Mason, in a lodge just one hundred yards away from a local Sussex police station.

 

How many coincidences would you allow, before smelling a rat?

 

Under the British system, a Constitutional Monarchy, the buck stops with the King or Queen. There is no Written Constitution, though perhaps it is time to put this to the vote.

 

The Crown (effectively) controls the Courts with the honours system. One of the Judges was knighted for his services in refusing leave to appeal.

 

 

PRINCE ANDREW

 

Now compare the above case with that of the Kings brother. How is it that with so much evidence against the Prince, he was not investigated by the Metropolitan police? Yet there was ample evidence to show that he was in London with Virginia Roberts, and that the girl was being trafficked by Ghislaine Maxwell.

 

Clearly, the UK has double standards. And such, unfavorable treatment constitutes discrimination, no matter who the subject. The law should be applied impartially. One cannot take a view. There should be zero tolerance to things like drugs and human trafficking.

 

Nobody is above the law. Except in England.

 

 

A LOT OF THE INJUSTICE IS TO DO WITH CUTTING THE MOUNTING NATIONAL DEBT

 

The United Kingdom is an example of a country that is in financial trouble, seeing Legal Aid costs and the cost of Appeals, as a way of reducing overheads.  Never mind those poor innocents languishing is jails wrongly convicted. Labour and Conservative politicians have been responsible for their staggering national debts of £2.4 Trillion pounds - to buy the electorate - and votes.

 

 

Quarter Debt £billions as % GDP

2020 Q2 = £2,069.3 - 94.5%
2020 Q3 = £2139.0 - 98.8%
2020 Q4 = £2,204.8 - 102.5%
2021 Q1 = £2,223.0 - 103.8%
2021 Q2 = £2,296.4 - 103.0%
2021 Q3 = £2,332.9 - 102.7%
2021 Q4 = £2,382.8 - 102.8%
2022 Q1 = £2,365.4 - 99.6%

Source: Office for National Statistics - UK government (conservative) debt and deficit

 

 

In 2022 the UK's gross debt was £2,365.4 billion at the end of Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2022, equivalent to 99.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). Leaving almost no reserves, taking the country to the brink in any language. Where growth is contrary to sustainable or circular economics. Meaning that, to start to get things under control, borrowing needs to reduce to £985 billion pounds at present GDP (in the UK example). A truly sustainable economy would not need any borrowings, but have reserves rather than debt, as in nature. Revealing, that around 20-30 years (at least) of UK politicians appear to have been irresponsible.

 

That has led to slashing Legal Aid and in the Courts, making it nigh on impossible to obtain an Appeal on fair terms. With a level playing field. If at all. A 'right' is where an appeal is an automatic option. As required by the European Convention, law at the time, before Brexit.

 

It all starts with a colonial with an unusual name, buying into an exclusive area in Sussex. They gang up on the 'foreigner,' enlisting the help of a very enthusiastic local authority, who in turn enlist the help of an equally enthusiastic police force. And just about every agency they can think of to pile on the pressure, including the banks.

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

Where the British legal system is ripe with injustice, as a result of an economy in a nose dive from over borrowing, and fossil fuel policies. These are almost lunatic tactics, where the UK has wind by the buckets and renewables are now cheaper than gas, oil, or coal. The country could have been in a fuel export situation to pay for imports. But then, corruption runs riot in Local Councils as well as Whitehall. Fraudulently claiming recharge budgets, and stitching up soft targets as a way of ensuring that they can retire on fat pensions. Which, they are going to need, because the £pound sterling is also in a nose dive. We wonder how Rishi Sunak will respond to these revelations.

 

 

The whistleblower's story is to be investigated and where appropriate reported on:

 

http://humanrightsuk.org/

 

and 

 

http://policestates.org/

 

If the accusation can be supported by sufficient documentary verification - and we have seen quite a bit already-tThis could be turned into an excellent exposť, perhaps as a six part television adaptation, including a series of courtroom dramas, where officials lie, and finally, where the officials get caught out. With the corrupt police officers, planning officers, councillors, royals, judges and planning inspectors, being an essential part of the cast. Including prime ministers and other ministers as they fit into the plot. Since, many of them have been petitioned as to this corruption. But like climate change, almost nothing has been done to stop it.

 

Indeed, condoning a cover up, is tantamount to approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCE

 

https://

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site, or our HOMEPAGE 

 

 

 

 

This website is Copyright © 2022 Climate Change Trust & Injustice Alliance 

The views, performance reviews and opinions of the Trust are protected by Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.