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





TWO TIER SYSTEM - Teenage pregnancies in the UK are (of course) all illegal. Yet there are no prosecutions. The law as it stands is quite clear, and applies to all ages across the board, indiscriminately - of necessity - to avoid undermining Article 14. A child under 13 is incapable of giving consent. Thus, when a girl under 13 becomes pregnant, she must have been raped. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The age of consent in the UK is 16, meaning that Prince Andrew would not have committed a crime, unless he paid for sex and it was against Ms Giuffe's will. But he would have to have known that she was being trafficked. If the claimant led him to believe otherwise, he has committed no crime.




In a shock turnaround of British Justice, David Blunkett, introduced changes in the law that are to have human rights repercussions to the day he departs his mortal coil. Does that make those who introduced such laws Human Rights abusers? We think it might! But what do you think?


Known as 'laughing boy,' allegedly, for his propensity to crack a smile in photographs, and when asked awkward questions as to his extra-marital affair, the then Labour MP, was tasked with improving the conviction rate of rapists and sexual assaults. Presumably in his role as Justice Minister (or is that injustice). As with many English civil servants, this was achieved by not bending the rules, but by breaking them quite openly.




Laughing boy, David Blunkett having extra marital affairs and being allowed to craft sex law despite clear conflict of interests



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.




In any court, a defendant must enter the legal arena being presumed innocent. That is your Article 6 convention right. But in the United Kingdom, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, takes away that right. It instructs investigating police officers to treat a suspect as guilty. From that point on, the accused will not have the protections of a proper investigation of any crime scene - where evidence that tends to prove innocence - will often be ignored. Why? Because the police have been instructed to look for evidence of guilt, not evidence of innocence. And they are under pressure not to spend time on cases looking the other way, where they have sufficient to obtain a conviction. This was pushed as an agenda under Theresa May and her administration, even where unused evidence showed a person to be innocent.


Unfortunately for those who are innocent, the police control the crime scene. Meaning that defence lawyers will not have access to the scene themselves, to be able to secure evidence that may prove their client's innocence.


Undeniably, Article 6 equality at arms is dashed to the floor, and with it the chance of proving innocence.




“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said [4 Jan 2022], according to Newsweek reporter Jack Royston. “Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”




Compounding this human rights violation, in the UK we have not Article 13 right to an effective remedy. That means that once the State have secured a wrongful conviction, you do not have any avenue of redress. The only way back to the court of appeal in the UK is via a corrupted organization called the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). 


We know from cases we have reviewed, that the CCRC appears to think it is a law unto itself - and worse - three High Court judges thought the same, agreeing that they can discriminate between applicants, in taking two near identical cases of convictions based on marks being suspicious, to the court of appeal, but not a third case, where a conviction was secured on the same basis: misleading medical testimony.


To make things worse, when the innocent party thought to push with the authorities, he became subjected to a number of SLAPP actions, designed to threaten and harass him, as a warning not to pursue his right of appeal. It is alleged that another person pushing for review, was bundled into a police van and beaten up, on his way to Lewes Prison. This was Sussex police again.




Virginia Giuffre     Laughing boy, David Blunkett having extra marital affairs and being allowed to craft sex law despite clear conflict of interests



Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Balmoral, Royal residence in Scotland     Prince Andrew Duke of York with Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell



BALMORAL OR IMMORAL - You would be persuaded by this picture, that Epstein and Ms Maxwell, were good friends of the Duke. On the other hand, Prince Andrew was always entertaining big business, in promoting Great Britain Ltd. Much the same as Queen Elizabeth brokered foreign deals on HMY Britannia.


The Prince may not remember the 17 year old Virginia Roberts, but unless this photograph is a fake (doubtful - it must have been checked out) he did meet the young lady at some point - even if only posing at a drinks party, and Ghislaine Maxwell was at this meeting. One question we would ask is how do we know the age of the claimant from this picture? She could easily be 18 or older. Or she may have claimed to be over 18, for Ghislaine Maxwell to have allowed Virginia Roberts to have been photographed with the Duke. No doubt, testimony from Ms Maxwell will clear that up. And where and when was the picture taken, and by whom? You can imagine that with US State laws varying, and this picture looking for all the world like London, where the age of consent is 16, the precise details relating to the taking of this picture are extremely important. It might be worth checking passports, etc. Not that we are saying anything did or did not happen between the Prince and Ms Roberts. For the sake of argument, if something did take place (that the Duke cannot recall) and it was in London, then no crime had been committed.

In the State of New York the age of consent is 18. If it were that Virginia Giuffre was being forced to have sex with Prince Andrew at the age of seventeen, that would be 'Involuntary Sexual Intercourse.' At the very least, "Sexual Activity With A Minor." In the UK, the age of consent is 16. The penalty for underage 'paid' sex is harsh under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced as statute by Lord David Blunkett, with the Queen's approval and endorsement of the Lords Spiritual & Temporal. Despite the fact that Blunkett was, allegedly, getting blow jobs or other sexual favours from his then secretary, Kimberly Quinn, as a clear conflict of interest.


Britain is held to be the most corrupt country in the world, having failed to take any action to prevent the laundering of drug money.








NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. Some people advocate abolition of the honours system, where it is alleged that some awards are in connection with preserving the status quo, as in whitewashing statistics and the like, to mask the level of corruption in UK courts. But certainly, war criminals who invade another country based on misleading and/or fabricated evidence.















Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




This website is provided on a free basis as a public information service. copyright © Injustice Alliance 2021