HOME | CASE STUDIES | HISTORY | LAW | POLITICS | RIGHTS | SITE INDEX
|
||||||||||||
|
Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 Article 10 |
Article 16 Article 17 Article 18 Article 19 Article 20 |
Article 26 Article 27 Article 28 Article 29 Article 30 |
EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 11 |
Article 13 |
Article 16 |
LEAD CASE: DISCRIMINATION & EFFECTIVE REMEDY - In the case of Nelson Kruschandl v Sussex Police and Wealden District Council, The British Governments of the United Kingdom has/have been in violation of several of the above articles since 1982, with another milestone passed in 1987 and a further major obstacle to personal development and potential in 2008 with the employment of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Since that time Articles 1 and 8 of the UN Universal Declaration have been violated in that in Britain Article 13 of European Convention has been deliberately omitted from the Human Rights Act 1998 - for the express purpose of undermining, holding back and preventing the personal development potential of certain citizens who challenge the present system whereby the ordinary man is a slave to financial institutions, the landed gentry and the councils, courts and reviewers who serve them in a modern Britain with lesser overtly exploitive opportunities than their Empire days.
In furtherance of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Windsor's Government' objectives, Legal Aid funding to be able to mount any kind of fully argued trial defence or appeal against wrongful conviction, has been trimmed to the bone - such as to have the appearance of a functional justice system - but that in fact the British justice system is fatally flawed on several counts.
The Human Rights Act 1998 - Schedule 1 Part I - The Articles - Part II First Protocol - Part III Sixth Protocol
Scotland Legislation | Wales Legislation | Northern Ireland Legislation | HMSO