WORTH INVESTIGATION - in 1997 suspected planning crime was reported to Sussex police, following a petition to Wealden District Council. There were 12 separate complaints from unrelated complainants, but this police force failed to investigate any of the reported crimes. One thing is for sure, Sussex police are unlikely to investigate any matter concerning any Wealden planning officer. And they cannot investigate crime they have committed themselves. For example, it is a crime not to investigate a reported crime. Those seeking an effective remedy will find themselves subjected to SLAPP actions, typically by the police force that is the subject of the reported crimes.

Article 17 - Prohibition of abuse of rights

"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

Clearly, with the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, David Blunkett and his cronies were intent on destroying the right of a defendant to be treated as innocent before he/she entered a court of law. Then while abrogating the usual warnings as to conviction without supporting evidence - i.e. just on the say so of a claimant, a defendant's right were further eroded. Such as to make the English courts fit only for kangaroos and witch hunters. The British judicial system as it stands is a mockery, a shadow of a time when you could feel proud to live in Britain. Now, with Brexshit, and Boris Johnson, there is a new level of corruption, where lying to the public is not deemed unlawful.

LAUGHING BOY - You can laugh David, but we wonder if his Himmler like approach to justice might be linked in some way with his affair in office. Blunkett overhauled 'Victorian' sex offences legislation in 2002, which modernised the sex offences laws dramatically in relation to same-sex and related issues by sweeping away the archaic laws governing homosexuality criminality, while tightening protections against rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders. The act closed a loophole that had allowed those accused of child rape to escape punishment by arguing the act was consensual and a new offence of adult sexual activity with a child, which covers any sex act that takes place between an adult and a child under 16, was introduced. It was supported by all major political parties in the UK. Hence, they all advocated denying human rights protections, in recognising buggery as being legal. Interesting offset, don't you think! Meaning, it is okay to have anal sex, but you will be fu*_-d in law up the ass in losing your right to a fair trial. Should the ass you are fu*-ing turn out to be incapable of giving consent, or you are being set up for a nice damages claim!!!

In making such changes, the 'legal' butcher eliminated a defendant's right to a fair hearing under Article 6, in an obsession bordering on a national eugenics programme, with a Hitler like fervour, dressed up as a vote catching appeasement of women's rights activists who want no sex in the workplace and to emasculate the opposite sex as to the point where they are Under the Thumb, in that there is no evidence required to obtain a conviction, the mere say so of a woman who might be lying through her teeth in the dock, is sufficient to send a good man down for a very long time for a crime that he may not have committed. In the UK a man accused of a sex crime is guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty. Police officers investigating crime scenes will then not gather inconvenient evidence to any allegation, further distancing any person so accused from having any possible remedy, or from being able to defend themselves. Why? Because in England, the police control the crime scene. So make the running, and they have conviction targets, so cut corners. Hence, it is vitally important that there is no conflict of interest, as per Rex v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924.

You may be better off with an artificial companion. Sex robots and humanoid companions are now quite popular. They are a whole lot safer. A robot cannot accuse you of rape or sodomy. Though, one might imagine, the civil servants then trying to charge a sex tax. Especially the female civvies, who no doubt will hate the idea of losing control over men. Indeed, such expressions have already been aired by the media. Robots could undermine the flesh trades, in the process, making a whole lot of people happier. So, why not prescribe them on the National Health? Replace marriage, with a different kind of agreement, should a couple decide to procreate. In order for this to work, robots would have to be very appealing to the end users. It's all down to the curves and bumps in the right places - emulating evolution of course. The birth rate may fall dramatically among advanced thinkers, while those less able to afford automaton lovers, would no doubt continue like rabbits as before. Thus to reduce populating growth, we need to make mechanized companions cheaper. And then there is AI.

Where most people in the street will be legally aided when it comes to defending a charge of rape the level playing field that the State is supposed to ensure as "equality of arms" is suddenly sent to the wall for a firing squad execution of any person accused - but mainly men of course because in Britain nobody would believe that a woman could rape a man. Thus, any trial becomes a witch hunt. if you are innocent you float and guilty you drown. Either way you die, by way of a public crucifixion - as character assassination and reputational damage. No matter if you are a war hero, inventor, climate crusader, royal, or whatever.

WHAT USE IS IT?

Unfortunately, Article 17 is pretty much useless, as well the Nazi civil servants knew when drafting it. 

In the UK we have no article 13, right to an effective remedy - that is why in the Human Rights Act 1998, they left out Articles 1 and 13. This is important, because it means that Legal Aid is not available to give the ordinary man a right to a day in Court with equivalent advocacy to level the playing field.

We also have am Article 6 impediment concerning sexual offences, when the burden of proof is reversed, creating a significant inequality at arms, so discriminating against those accused of sexual offences, and those accused of other serious crimes, such as murder and capital fraud, or conspiracy.

As this only applies to sexual offences, and that targeted changes in statute have been made with the express intention of improving the conviction percentage rate, an Article 14 violation is identified. Also invoking Article 17, which is to prevent the violation of any other Convention right, such as Article 13. But that British policy makers have carefully crafted legislation to subvert the rights of those they are targeting for unfavourable treatment. You may consider that we are no better than Nazi Germany, in human rights terms?

What this means in real terms is that if you are accused of a serious crime in England, you will go into court at a significant disadvantage - especially if you are reliant on Legal Aid to uphold your Article 6 right to a fair hearing. This is especially so where the burden of proof is reversed. In these cases you are guilty until proven innocent. In a murder or fraud trial, you are innocent until proven guilty.

As with Prince Andrew and the allegations by Virginia Giuffre, where an allegation is many years old, there is no statutory bar to bringing a prosecution. These are called historic cases. In the UK, there is no right of appeal. There is a filtration system where judges are influenced via the honours system, contrary to Rex v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy 1924.

In planning appeals, there is no legal aid, giving corrupt councils a free hand to take liberties, lie on oath, and pervert the course of justice.

If you make a complaint as to fraud to a local authority, such as Sussex police, they will not investigate the crime(s). Meaning that where there may be corruption in councils, such as Wealden District, the crimes will continue and the offenders will not be brought to justice - a further abuse of Article 6 - for which Article 13 is necessary to provide an effective remedy. Otherwise, we live in a police state, similar to Nazi Germany, when all protestations of human rights and other abuses were quashed by the Gestapo.

It might be then that the United Kingdom violates the European Convention, and/or the Universal Declaration, despite H M Queen Elizabeth having driven an ambulance in World War Two and the UK having helped to draft such lofty ideals with other members of the United Nations.

...

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.gov.uk/