Buckingham Palace, refusing to engage as per requirement to provide an effective remedy



THE HEAD OF STATE - There is no statute of limitations on fraud or wrongful conviction resulting from any bias on the part of a State sanctioned local authority. Where Queen Elizabeth has so far refused to acknowledge the requirement to grant an audience to a subject so requesting, it may be that the future King of England may be more amenable.






The Battles for a just Britain continues many years after the Nazis were beaten back in 1945 ending with Adolf Hitler taking his own life, beginning again with the Potty Training for Wealden District Council and subsequent proof that this Council's officers were working with the Sussex Police to subvert the course of justice in failing to investigate the allegations of criminal activity of many of the very naughty civil servants working within the walls of the council offices at Crowborough and Vicarage Lane offices in Hailsham, during the presentation of a Petition that Sussex Police helped this Council to cover up.


Traditionally the Battle of Britain refers to a time after 1939 when Hitler decided to invade England.




Eugenics programmes did not stop with the Nazis. In the United Kingdom subtle eugenic agendas are pursued by police and councils, and even the state has sanctioned human rights violations for some kinds of crimes, about which David Blunkett was a party, in shifting the burden of proof in sex cases, without altering the scale of fees in relation to the extra cost of defending such cases where the accused is to be treated as guilty until proven innocent, instead of innocent until proven guilty.


There is no longer any need for physical evidence in a trial under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Nor will a trial Judge warn any Jury as to the danger of convicting anyone on just the word of an accuser, where this duty (as in other criminal trials) has been abrogated. Lastly, the burden of proof has shifted in Article 6 terms so that the accused has to prove innocence rather than the State prove guilt. All in all this legislation is a shocking departure from the level of justice one might have expected in democratic Britain that is supposed to be, and more of the Britain that is peppered with potholes. It is a formula that is guaranteed to fill British prisons with a good proportion of innocent men - for what is a noble cause - but should we sell our moral souls to the Devil in trying to punish offenders. Where a women would never get convicted of rape, because no Jury would believe a woman could rape a man. Mind you, have you seen some of the female body builders out there.


One way to reduce wrongful convictions might be to educate single men and advertise the folly of entering into a relationship where there is a dysfunctional family involved. Virtually all single parent families being dysfunctional.



Judge Cedric Joseph - Sexual abuse trial judge February 2008


TABOO SUBJECT - Judge Cedric Joseph (retired) - his name says it all. Most judges are conservative and want to appear to be conservative. When dealing with sex cases, they want to distance themselves from looking as though they have any sympathy for the accused. This has the effect of most judges leaning toward the prosecution in allowing procedural impropriety in their courts. This also means a Summing Up to the Jury that is similarly inclined - and in this case, simply not following the evidence sufficiently to be able to Sum Up correctly. At that point the Court is no longer impartial, so breaches Article 6. The same factors also call into question the competence of the Court, if the trial Judge cannot remember (or failed to realise) who a diary belonged to, such that he could relay that, and make a real summation as to the value of the testimony given during the trial. Article 5(1) says that you must be tried by a competent court. In this case we doubt that anyone would think that Judge Joseph was competent in relation to his directions to the Jury.


There are several other factors to consider, such as allowing a mason who was a material witness to sit in the Court. Clearly, such an act calls into question the impartiality of this Judge.


The law works both ways. Sometimes it sets a rapist free, and sometimes it convicts an innocent man. In this case a man was convicted of penetration (rape) when the claimant was still intact (a virgin). We have every sympathy for women and men who suffer genuine assault, but we also have a duty to see injustice corrected, in the process furthering the cause of forensic science.






Single parent mothers should face questioning as to whether they used contraception when becoming pregnant, and if not whether the male was (duped) under the impression that he was having protected sex. Women found to have intentionally made themselves pregnant without a partner, should face serious sanctions - and perhaps their names put on a list of "High-Risk" partners for men, so that men considering the odds of attaching themselves to a potentially unstable partnership might be able to check what they are letting themselves in for.


There should be no benefits against intentionally trapping a male like this and no Child Support requirement from the State where a male is intentionally trapped into becoming a sperm donor. Obviously, there would need to be some kind of safety net, such as secure housing (soft prisons) for what amounts to fraudulent invitations to safe intercourse - that is actually unsafe and could affect the male deleteriously for the rest of his working life.


Though such suggestions may be highly contentious, the UK provides sex education and contraception of all kinds to the under-age male and female population in schools (even where that is condoning illegal sexual activity) so that there is no excuse for girls to become single parent mothers by accident.


In under-developed nations such as Africa and Asia, there is good reason for unwanted births - including forced sex (rape) - even where there is limited food and water to support population increase - leading to starvation and death.




Sir Christopher Holland, appeal court single judge sex cases filtration system



Sir Christopher Holland - Did he initial the box or didn't he? Judges owe a duty of care to appellants to be clear on forms. This Judge failed to spot that a medical transcript that barrister Michael Harrison had asked for, had been denied to him. This turned out to be a crucial error on the part of Sir Christopher - which begs the question: are retired judges too old to make decisions of this kind and still be competent when it comes to procedural irregularities. We think not. We think that older judges who may be tending to senility or other conditions associated with age, should not be charged to make such important decisions. England is no longer a bastion of democracy, nor the defender of the faith, nor the land of equality with justice for all. The alternative is that Sir Christopher had all his faculties and decided not to follow the correct procedure. For sure, Michael Harrison decided that he would not bring the failing on the part of the Court (this judge) to his attention - making Harrison an accessory to the virginity fraud.




Single parent families are a burden on society, but even worse than that, present a danger to men in that single females with children the result of a belief that getting pregnant is an easy way out of the rat-race, soon discover that life is not that easy on state benefits and need a partner to ease the financial load, as well as for school runs and other day to day running of what is a dysfunctional family.


Females caught in the single parent trap are known to do just about anything to keep, or even trap their male partners, going so far as to make false allegations to punish men who decide to leave them and their child(ren). The Sexual Offences Act 2003 gives women a hold over vulnerable men in that these unscrupulous females know that all that is required is that they say something happened and that no proof of what they are saying is necessary. The Jury in any case like this will not be warned as to potential dangers of convicting a man without any supporting evidence.


Sounds crazy, but it is true. We call this particular chapter of lunacy in the British Isles "Blunkett Law" after the short sighted member of parliament that championed this statute in defiance of United Nations international laws that are designed to ensure fair treatment for all.





On September 1, 1939 the Germans invaded Poland, launching WW2. For six months after war was declared, not much really happened. The Allies stared across the lines at the Germans in what has been called the Phoney War. Then suddenly, in April 1940, the Germans invaded Denmark and Norway. In May they began their blitzkrieg against France. Within weeks, the British and French were in retreat.

The British found themselves cut off, and retreated toDunkirk; their backs to the sea. Their army was miraculously saved by a combination of German folly and British heroism. The British pulled 300,000 men off the beach. But they were swimming for their lives. They had left their weapons and equipment on the beaches. They were alive, but they were disarmed.

Three weeks later, on May 22nd, the French surrendered. By any conventional standards war was over. The Nazis controlled continental Europe. Britain, the only resistance to Nazi tyranny, was alone, disarmed, and defenseless.

Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, rallied his nation with a speech that ended in a refrain that is now famous:

“…the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”

And with those words Sir Winston gave the British the voice to defy the odds and defend their island.

"Eliminate the English motherland"

Following six weeks of fighting in May and June, France yielded to the Nazi invasion. After the French armistice was signed on 22 June, Britain was the only country resisting Germany. Hitler did not particularly wish to invade Britain; after the fall of France, he assumed the British would simply surrender.

Hitler was therefore surprised when Britain did not surrender. On 16 July, he issued 'Directive Number 16'. This authorised detailed preparations for an invasion landing in Britain, codenamed Operation Sealion. It stated: "The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English motherland as a base from which war against Germany can be continued, and, if this should become unavoidable, to occupy it to the full extent".

Defeat the RAF, then invade

Initially, Directive 16 envisaged a landing along the southern coast of England, from Lyme Regis in Dorset to Ramsgate in Kent. The German navy would contain the Royal Navy in the North Sea and the Mediterranean, and would sweep the English Channel for mines.

Most significantly, the German military leadership agreed that the Luftwaffe must defeat the RAF before the invasion could take place, so that it could not attack the German forces from the air as they were transported across the Channel.

German forces planned to begin the air attack on 5 August. They set no specific date for the invasion, as it was dependent on the success of the air battle. However Hitler wanted all preparations to be completed by mid-August. As the Germans now controlled the entire coastline of the North Sea and France, the Luftwaffe were within easy striking distance of most of Britain. Hermann Goering, the head of the Luftwaffe, drew up plans to destroy RAF Fighter Command in just four days.

Arrest political leaders, writers and journalists

Other preparations for the invasion included locating all available sea and river craft in Germany and training troops in amphibious landings. The Nazis also set out how the occupying German authorities in Britain would be organised. Amongst other tasks they planned to arrest key people who could pose a threat to their regime. The SS’s "Black Book" contained a list of targets, including Churchill and other political leaders, and writers and journalists such as Noel Coward, H.G. Wells and E.M. Forster.

Whilst the Germans savoured their victory over France and began detailing their preparations for the invasion of Britain, the RAF was steeling itself for the critical battle to come.


The Second World War came to a close in 1945 and that concluded the hostilities, followed by the war crime trials at Nuremburg and the executions that followed conviction and then the European Convention of Human Rights, that was supposed to provide fair trials and other rights that English governments have done their best to subvert ever since.


One of the first laws that came about seeking to reverse your Convention Rights was the Town and Country Planning Act in the United Kingdom. As if that was not bad enough, this was followed by Blunkett Law, in the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and that is why the Battle for a Just Britain is still raging.







DAVID BLUNKETT - The introduction of this legislation in Britain is not that far removed from installing concentration camps at Dachau, Buchenwald and Auschwitz, in that in taking away the right on any person to a fair trial was every bit as damning a arresting political prisoners and working them to death, or crafting a judicial system akin to a witch hunt. 





• Clearly defines "consent" as a person consents if she/he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Sets out evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent.

• Reclassifies rape as the penetration by the penis of somebody's vagina, anus or mouth, without consent.

• Creates a new offence of assault by penetration, the insertion of a body part or foreign object, such as a bottle, into the anus or vagina without consent.

• Redefines sexual assault as an intentional sexual touching without consent. It can include touching any part of the body, clothed or unclothed, by either a body part or an object.

• Sets the age of a "child" at 18, amending the Protection of Children Act 1978, and provides a defence for all sexual offences when the child is 16 or over and the relationship is consensual.

• Classifies any sexual intercourse with a child aged 12 or younger as rape.

• Establishes a raft of new criminal offences including crimes involving familial sexual abuse, offences involving adult relatives and offences designed to give protection to persons with a mental disorder.

• Re-enacts the offences of abuse of a position of trust towards a child. This prohibits sexual contact between adults and children under 18 in schools, colleges and residential care.

• Creates a number of offences related to "intent" including a new offence targeting drinks spiking.

• Makes it an offence to give someone a substance without their consent and with the intention of stupefying or overpowering them so that any kind of sexual activity can take place. Two other "intent" offences cover situations where a person commits any offence with the intention of committing a sexual offence or where a person is a trespasser, he intends to commit a sexual offence on the premises and he knows that he is a trespasser.

• Creates several new initiatives to protect children and the general public from sex offenders. The act allows dual criminality, meaning notification orders can be extended to those convicted abroad, and creates a civil order, the sexual offences prevention order, which combines sex offender orders (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) and restraining orders (Sex Offenders Act 1997).

• Requires convicted sex offenders to register with their local police every year instead of every five years.

• Introduces risk of sexual harm orders, specifically designed to protect children, and also creates foreign travel orders, which can be used to prevent an offender with a conviction for a sex offence against a child from travelling to countries where he is at risk of abusing children.

• A new offence of voyeurism relating to those who observe others doing private acts without their knowledge for sexual gratification.

• Decriminalises a series of sexual acts including the offences of gross indecency, buggery and soliciting by men (cruising).

• Makes necrophilia and bestiality crimes.




Metropolitan police collapse of two rape cases December 2017






Amid claims the act could outlaw teenagers snogging, the government argued that it set the age of consent at 16 to recognise that children can and do abuse and exploit other children. They argued the accompanying guidance notes make clear that it is highly unlikely young people would be prosecuted for consensual acts. The guidance to prosecutors issued by Crown Prosecution Service sets out the criteria they should consider when deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution.

Children's campaigners argue that there is no recognition of the concept of actual consent, so the act could criminalise consensual sexual activity between children. The act deems that a child under the age of 13 is incapable of giving legal consent to any form of sexual activity. Liberty argued the act has the potential to "criminalises the widely occurring and harmless sexual activity" among 13 – 16 year olds.

Professor Nicola Lacey of the London School of Economics suggested the Home Office used the act for symbolic impact, "to say that it's not a good thing for kids to be having sex."

Terri Dowty, from Action on Rights for Children, argued that: "Laws should mean what they say. It's astonishing that the government could consider legislation with the prior intent of issuing guidance to countermand it. I worry about the message it sends to young people – it seems to say that sometimes the law means what it says and sometimes it doesn't."






BLUNKETT'S BABY - The introduction of this legislation in Britain is not that far removed from installing concentration camps at Dachau, Buchenwald and Auschwitz, in that in taking away the right on any person to a fair trial was every bit as damning a arresting political prisoners and working them to death, or crafting a judicial system akin to a witch hunt.







The right to a fair trial went out the window with this enactment, torching the Human Rights Act 1998 and the  European Convention of Human Rights all at the same time.


The burden of proof is reversed. Anyone accused of a sexual crime walks into court guilty and has to prove their innocence.


That is the exact opposite of being "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."  Small wonder then that so many convictions are of men who were innocent.


Couple that with the propensity of the police to withhold evidence that exonerates a defendant, and we have a recipe for disaster.






Buchenwald concentration camp (German: Konzentrationslager (KZ) Buchenwald, in English: beech forest) was a German Nazi concentration camp established on Ettersberg hill near Weimar, Germany, in July 1937, one of the first and the largest of the concentration camps on German soil, following Dachau's opening just over four years earlier.

Today the remains of Buchenwald serve as a memorial and permanent exhibition and museum.













Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council Julian Black planning consultant Daniel Goodwin Christine Arnold Patrick Coffey Timothy Dowsett


Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold, Patrick Coffey, Timothy Dowsett


Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl J Douglas Moss Ian Kay Charles Lant Beverly Boakes


Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant, Beverley Boakes, Kelvin Williams



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 M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve














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




This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2021.  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.


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