THE TIMES JULY 12 2014 - The retired judge leading the Westminster child abuse inquiry kept allegations about a bishop out of a review of how the Church of England dealt with two paedophile priests because she “cared about the Church”, The Times can disclose. Baroness Butler-Sloss told a victim of alleged abuse that she did not want the claims to be in the public domain because “the press would love a bishop”. Ref: Sean O’Neill Times Crime Editor
Dame Butler-Sloss is featured in connection with the long-running vendetta by the State against citizen Nelson Kruschandl, involving multiple frauds. Butler-Sloss heard a matter where Wealden District Council were trying to empty a building to make it unusable for anything, knowing full well that it was/is an important historic building. On this, as with many occasions before, this Council went too far - asking the Courts to make an Order that was Illegal. That did not deter our Dame from Ordering costs to be paid by the appellant of £26,000, having refused to admit the Health & Safety Regulations. The Court of course knows about these state granted rights and may not ignore them - but in this case the Lady chose to look the other way.
Sloss heard an Appeal in the High Court where she denied the citizen the Statutory Rights accorded to him by the State, that Wealden District Council had, in perversity, asked the Courts to deny Nelson Kruschandl - his right to basic sanitation under the Health & Safety Regulations.
The amazing part of this story is that a female High Court judge actually went along with it. Just as fascinating is that the barrister defending activist - Mr Kruschandl - also chose to ignore obvious legislation that would have defeated WDC's injunction: The H&S Regulations.
But the lady judge did order removal of all sanitation from Herstmonceux Museum, just as David Phillips, Vic Scarpa and Christine Nuttall were requesting. Wealden thus secured an illegal costs order, which they intended to keep in their back pocket until they needed to strike again. The Lady Judge thus became not just an accessory, but a willing accomplice and party to the fraud.
It goes without saying that such malicious actions by Wealden District Council were violations of Kruschandl's basic Human Right to enjoyment of property without interference from local authority - a breach of Article 8. That is perhaps why our Prime Minister is doing his best to dilute this important legislation - heading back toward the days of Adolf Hitler like dictatorships. Who are we then to invade Iraq?
"Mr Kruschandl, having taken out the toilets to comply with the Order of the Court below, presumably you can then put them back to comply with Health and Safety Regulations." Does that seem logical to you? Surely, the Court below had no right to insist that the toilets were removed. The right to have a toilet is granted to all persons by the State. A statutory right may not be denied any person by a Court. When Nelson Kruschandl asked for permission to adduce a letter from the Health & Safety Executive, which explained the legal situation to Dame Butler Sloss, she refused. "You keep that letter in you pocket Mr Kruschandl." That is what she is said to have replied, or words to that effect. The law is indeed an ass.
So, David Phillips and Christine Nuttall did not get what they wanted from the Court, but then they had put Mr Kruschandl and his then partner through a terrible ordeal that was in fact unlawful. The Wealden District Council then sought to enforce costs - putting Mr K to even more trouble, which had the effect of destroying that relationship - as they threatened then tried to follow through to bankrupt their victim. Of course, without the authority granted to them by the Members, these officers would not have been able to run amuck wasting public money and destroying citizens lives. A lesson to all councilors in the dis-united kingdom that the UK is rapidly heading toward. Can you blame Scotland for wanting independence.
NEW STATESMAN, JULY 14 2014
It's another shambles for
Cameron: the government has just announced that Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has stepped down as head of the child abuse inquiry. No.10 insisted at this morning's lobby briefing that the decision was her own and that Cameron and Theresa May continued to believe that she was the right person to lead the panel. May spoke to Butler-Sloss by phone at the weekend but only after she had made her decision to resign.
ABOUT DAME BUTLER SLOSS
Butler-Sloss, Baroness Butler-Sloss (née Havers; born 10 August 1933), GBE, PC, is a retired English judge. She was the first female Lord Justice of Appeal and, until 2004, was the highest-ranking female judge in the
Kingdom. Until June 2007, she chaired the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed. She stood down from that task with effect from that date, and the inquest was conducted by Lord Justice Scott Baker.
News of the World front page, 17 July 1988
NEWS OF THE WORLD SEX SCANDAL
Previously the most senior family law judge in the UK, and as Chair of the Family Justice Committee set up to advice Parliament, Dame Elizabeth
Butler-Sloss must bear major responsibility for the circumstances men and fathers find themselves in, as described elsewhere
on other websites.
BBC NEWS COVERAGE MARCH 2002
During a judicial career spanning 35 years, she was widely acknowledged as being responsible for opening up the judicial system to women. Her decisions were often sensitive, and rulings over the custody of children after divorces made her a target for campaign groups like Fathers for Justice. But colleagues say the mother-of-three was always fair in her rulings.
Child law expert Allan Levy QC is quoted as saying: "She has an extraordinary understanding of people from all walks of life... she's also very patient. Even people who have lost their cases feel that she's given them a fair and sympathetic hearing."
Richard Gordon QC said: "She's very practical, very down to earth, very robust, and very decisive."
MORE RESEARCH NEEDED - In respect of forensic examinations, Dame Butler Sloss says that more research is needed. We could not agree more. But surely, we need a new law or guidance as to procedural compliance by doctors acting in an official capacity. Dr Melanie Liebenberg is accused of failing to properly (fully) carry out the inspection of a girl alleging abuse, because it is alleged that she must have realised that a girl she was examining was a virgin (unsullied), but that she kept that to herself - concentrating on another issue by way of slight of hand - knowing that that issue was dead. This is surely then, a case for investigation by the Royal Commission.
Whereas, the finding in R v Ward - where scientists had agreed to keep secret that a test for nitroglycerine also proved positive with boot polish, was that experts owed a duty to the courts to provide factual findings even where those facts do not support the Crown's case. Ward was convicted of being a bomber on the strength of such junk science and served many years in prison before the establishment realized that she was telling the truth - and referred her case to the Court of Appeal.
In 1999 she said she supported the adoption of children by gay couples, although she did not go so far as to advocate a change in the law.
Dame Elizabeth comes from a legal family. Her father was a high court judge, who sentenced to death Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in Britain.
She is the sister to the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Havers, making her aunt to the actor Nigel Havers and his brother, Philip.
She became a High Court judge in 1979 at the age of 46 and in 1988 became the first woman appointed to the Court of Appeal.
In her early career she stood while pregnant as Conservative candidate in the Labour stronghold of Vauxhall and lost, then set up and ran a nursery for toddlers at a basement in the Temple, one of the Inns of Court.
She and her husband, Joseph William Alexander Butler-Sloss, have three children:
Hon. Frances Ann Josephine Butler-Sloss (now Richmond) (b. 13 October 1959);
The Baroness Butler-Sloss is a church-going Anglican. In 2002 she chaired the Crown Appointments charged with the selection of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. She is Chairman of the Advisory Council of St Paul's Cathedral.
The ridiculous outfits (Robes & Wigs) that UK Judges wear - in this case suitable fancy dress for the ridiculous judgments that the courts frequently hand out. On that front, a red nose and bow tie would be more in keeping with some of the verdicts. British justice is a mockery, where more than 3% of convictions see innocent men spending time in prison.
THE ROYAL COMMISSION
Then there is the Royal Commission, which in theory will put an application to a court through to the Lord Bishops. Theory, because any corrupt judges in the pipeline who rule the courts, will simply strike an inconvenient application out. Before that the Court administration, usually Clerks or Masters, is the filtering system by which claims of corruption are denied a hearing. Corrupt officials will do anything to stop the Royal Family and the Prime Minister hearing about Fraud in their courts or in the system - and for that they may be knighted by the back door - for services rendered.
Sometimes the Prime Minister is not an honest officer of the land, in which case the job of getting heard will be harder still. David Cameron is one PM who is considered to be an honest officer, properly serving Her Majesty. But, even so, applications citing the Attorney General or the Home Office are not getting through. The proof is in the pudding. Many are trying and being led a merry dance.
Barristers and Judges know that they must service local government frauds. If they do not, they will soon be cut out of the pie. So they tow the party line. They convict anyone just for the asking, knowing that council officials will fabricate evidence to help them get the job done - and they actively assist in controlling their courts in biased fashion.
Sometimes it is not fabricating evidence is the sense of creating false evidence, it is simply not investigating, or only presenting evidence for the prosecution. Some statute has been crafted as a tool to assist the courts obtain fraudulent convictions. Once such abomination is the Sexual Offences Act, where a person is guilty until proven innocent - instead of being innocent until proven guilty, as required by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2016. 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.