THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION

  THE LACK OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION LEAVES BRITISH CITIZENS WITHOUT ANY EFFECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS

HOME  |   CASE STUDIES   |   HISTORY   LAW   |    POLITICS       RIGHTS    SITE INDEX

 

 

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Windsor is the British head of state

 

THE HEAD OF STATE - The British Head of State is a Grand Patron to the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution according to the inside leaf of many yearbooks. It may be a shock to many or you to learn of this, but the revelation may go some way to explaining why it is that some people get targeted by their local authorities such as Councils and the Police.

 

 

Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens.

 

Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works.

The United Kingdom does not have one specific constitutional document named as such because it would not suit those who rule the country at local level. It would not suit the police or the Courts who are riddled with secret society links, like the Masons

 

Instead, the so-called constitution of the United Kingdom, or British constitution, is a sum of laws and principles that make up the country's body politic. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution. You might say the system in unconstitutional and for good reason that we live in a state where the ruling classes will not let go of the past, the Monarchy being at the top of the plutocratic power struggle that one would have hoped would have given way by now to a reliable set of rules.

 

The British system is haphazard, primarily drawing from three sources: 

 

1. Statute law (laws passed by the legislature), 

2. Common law (laws established through court judgments),

3. Parliamentary conventions, and works of authority. 

 

Unlike a written constitution this confusing array of precedent and re-written statute is designed to disadvantage the untrained and keep control of the reigns of the nation out of the hands of the citizens that the country is supposed to serve.

 

The relationship between the individual and the state and the functioning of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary is shrouded in mystery - and for this very reason is open to and frequented by corrupt practices and abuse whereby a blind eye may be turned in specific cases - frequently giving rise to ECHR Article 14 discrimination (UN UDHR Article 7) where discrimination is institutionalised.

Many of the Laws of England conflict with other laws of the land, with no effective remedy available under the domestic Human Rights Act 1998 via the calculated omission of EHRC Article 13, in itself an admission that the lack of a constitution is unworkable in terms of fairness.

 

It is high time that British citizens had a more reliable set of rules. What Britain needs is a proper Constitution. Brexit is a good example of the confused state of the nation.

 

 

 

SILENCING OPPOSITION - Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention are supposed to protect a person's right to challenge authority. It is hardly surprising where councils pursue what amounts to eugenics agendas in secret sessions, that members of the public suffer. Because of this secrecy institutional discrimination is rife and flourishing. Hitler used his SS and Gestapo in exactly the same way, but more directly to suppress opposition to his Nazi ideals. The police in Sussex are used in precisely the same way to target would be political activists. Action group members are likely to receive visits at their homes and may suffer arrests. If you pose a really serious threat to the cozy relationships that council officers enjoy, you might be fitted up for a crime that you did not commit. The British justice system is skewed so that it may be used just like the Gestapo, to imprison challenging members of the public that the UK can no longer export to their colonies.

 

     

QUASHING REBELLION

 

Let's no beat about the bush, the British Empire may be dead, but Her Majesty, via her copious civil servants and appointed Governments, is doing her best (their best for her) as head of the Commonwealth to resist giving the masses equal rights as per the international standards adopted by the United Nations and subsequently the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

While the 16 nations included in the Commonwealth may observe UN protocols to a better standard, the core nation remains obstinate in refusing their citizens a right to a fair trial and subsequently a right to an appeal. Many citizens in the UK are shocked when they finally realise that there is no right of appeal as in other European countries. In the UK a single judge (stooge) vets applications for appeal, refusing those inconvenient to Blunkett Law, for example. In UN law compliant countries there is no single judge, an application for appeal is an automatic right. I.e. there is no filtration system - no eugenics agenda and no concentration camps - as prisons for the wrongly convicted become.

 

 

ARTICLES 13 (ECHR) and 8 (UDHR

 

One of the problems with the British justice system is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission appear to be part of the subtle eugenics programme that has taken a hold, leading to many convictions that are unsound to say the least. The injustice is perpetuated in some cases by the Courts who are not as independent as they are supposed to be or as you might believe.

 

Indeed, the CCRC, CPS and High Court Judges are infested with masons who refuse to declare this impediment to impartiality.

 

Where a brother Judge has steered a trial to gain a conviction for a brother mason and is caught out later by the evidence, or the fact that there was not full disclosure, or that disclosure was prevented because the police failed to secure the crime scene, in some cases deliberately to secure a conviction, the CCRC will look the other way.

 

The CCRC can do this at the moment because their remit is not Article 14 compliant. Three High Court Judges are quoted as saying that the Commission are: "entitled to take a view." What they were saying then is that the CCRC are exempt from Article 14 discrimination and that they can treat one person differently to another person in near identical circumstances.

 

In one case that we have information of that person had called off an engagement to the daughter of a mason. The man in question was threatened by his former fiancé and her daughter that if he dared to leave their family that they would get him.............

 

The Sussex Police did not secure the crime scene, not securing a video collection of The Bill and Casualty episodes that the daughter had built up, nor their computers, and most especially not the work diary of the woman who had been jilted.........

 

By way of contrast, the Sussex Police did secure the defendant's computer, but having done so in the hope of finding something incrimination, then failed to disclose to the Jury that there was nothing on it other than a profile of the defendant that revealed nothing other than his conservation concerns and battles with his local council.

 

Several emails between the claimant and her mother and the defendant, that damaged their case were also not revealed by the Sussex Police in their rush to convict a man on no evidence other than the say so of the claimant.

 

Another flaw in their argument was that the girl had claimed multiple vaginal penetrations, but that her hymen was intact. In this regard the jury were most obviously deceived by the so-called expert that the police called to give evidence at the trial. An authoritative study of marks that were presented the Jury in this case as suspicious, tells that the marks the State's expert relied on were naturally occurring.

 

The revision of Sex Laws by David Blunkett and Harriet Harman guaranteed higher conviction rates by denying those accused a fair trial and reversing the burden of proof in sex cases. That coupled with the reductions in public funding for defendant's on Legal Aid, ensured that disclosure and other issues related to the sealing of crime scenes and proper investigation, etc., would disadvantage the defence further. From any angle, looking at cases such as this you may care to agree that the British justice system is so far removed from a level playing field as to be a virtual kangaroo court.

 

 

WHO WE WERE FIGHTING AGAINST FROM 1939 TO 1945

 

 

Adolf Hitler

 

Adolf Hitler

German Chancellor

 

Herman Goring

 

Herman Goring

Reichsmarschall

 

Heinrich Himmler

 

Heinrich Himmler

Reichsführer

 

Josef Goebbels

 

Joseph Goebbels

Reich Minister

 

 Philipp Bouhler

 

Philipp Bouhler SS

NSDAP Aktion T4

 

Josef Mengele

 

Dr Josef Mengele

Physician Auschwitz

 

 

Martin Borman

 

Martin Borman

Schutzstaffel

 

 

Adolf Eichmann

 

Adolph Eichmann

Holocaust Architect

 

 

Rudolph Hess

 

 Rudolf Hess

Commandant

 

 

Erwin Rommel

 

Erwin Rommel

The Desert Fox

 

 

Karl Donitz

 

Karl Donitz

Kriegsmarine

 

 

Albert Speer

 

Albert Speer

Nazi Architect

 

 

 

WEALDEN'S OFFICERS FROM 1983 TO 2018

 

 

Ian Kay

 

Ian Kay

Assist. Dist. Plan.

 

Charles Lant

 

Charles Lant

Chief Executive

 

Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council

 

Victorio Scarpa

Solicitor

 

Timothy Dowsett

 

Timothy Dowsett

Dist. Secretary

 

Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage 

 

Christine Nuttall

Solicitor

 

David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl

 

David Phillips

Planning

 

 

Daniel Goodwin

 

Daniel Goodwin

Chief Executive

 

 

J Douglas Moss

 

J Douglas Moss

Policy

 

 

 

 Kelvin Williams

Dist. Planning

 

 

 

Trevor Scott

Solicitor

 

 

David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council

 

David Whibley

Enforcement

 

 

Christine Arnold

 

Christine Arnold

Planning

 

 

 

 

 

Beverly Boakes

 

Beverley Boakes

Legal Secretary

 

 

Patrick Coffey

 

 Patrick Coffey

Planning

 

 

Julian Black planning consultant

 

Julian Black

Planning

 

 

 

Ashley Brown

Dist. Planning

 

 

 

Derek Holness

Former CEO

 

 

Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending Christopher

Black Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw Clifford - Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh

Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn - Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek

Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford - Lant Charles - Mercer Richard

Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio - Scott Trevor

Kevin Stewart - Wakeford Michael. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve

 

 

 

 

LINKS & REFERENCE

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/legal-aid-cuts-chris-grayling-barristers-strike-protest

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/692542/British-justice-system-barristers-strike-legal-aid-budget

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569831/Barristers-strike-legal-aid-shake-Justice-Secretary-Chris-Grayling-publishes-final-raft-reforms.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/30/barristers-go-strike-protest-collapsing-criminal-justice-system/

 

 

 

Cyber wars genetics and technology combine to create the 4th Reich's master race   

 

 

CYBER WARS by Jameson Hunter © 2014

 

 

     

 

Wealden District Council's green logo for headed letters      It appears that Wealden District Council advocate pissing and shitting in hedges.   Wealden District Council's green logo for headed letters

 

     

      UNIVERSAL DECLARATION  OF HUMAN RIGHTS

     

 

 

    EUROPEAN CONVENTION  OF HUMAN RIGHTS

     

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Article 4
Article 5
Article 6

Article 7
Article 8
Article 9

Article 10

Article 11
Article 12

Article 13
Article 14
Article 15

Article 16
Article 17
Article 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2018.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary Trust UK   All trademarks herby acknowledged. Contact Us.

 

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  FAIR USE NOTICE