THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION
THE HEAD OF STATE - The British Head of State is a Grand Patron to the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution according to the inside leaf of many yearbooks. It may be a shock to many or you to learn of this, but the revelation may go some way to explaining why it is that some people get targeted by their local authorities such as Councils and the Police.
Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens.
Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works.
Instead, the so-called constitution of the United Kingdom, or British constitution, is a sum of laws and principles that make up the country's body politic. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution. You might say the system in unconstitutional and for good reason that we live in a state where the ruling classes will not let go of the past, the Monarchy being at the top of the plutocratic power struggle that one would have hoped would have given way by now to a reliable set of rules.
The British system is haphazard, primarily drawing from three sources:
1. Statute law (laws passed by the legislature),
2. Common law (laws established through court judgments),
3. Parliamentary conventions, and works of authority.
Unlike a written constitution this confusing array of precedent and re-written statute is designed to disadvantage the untrained and keep control of the reigns of the nation out of the hands of the citizens that the country is supposed to serve.
The relationship between the individual and the state and the functioning of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary
is shrouded in mystery - and for this very reason is open to and frequented by corrupt practices and abuse whereby a blind eye may be turned in specific cases - frequently giving rise to ECHR
Article 14 discrimination (UN UDHR
7) where discrimination is institutionalised.
It is high time that British citizens had a more reliable set of rules. What Britain needs is a proper Constitution. Brexit is a good example of the confused state of the nation.
SILENCING OPPOSITION - Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention are supposed to protect a person's right to challenge authority. It is hardly surprising where councils pursue what amounts to eugenics agendas in secret sessions, that members of the public suffer. Because of this secrecy institutional discrimination is rife and flourishing. Hitler used his SS and Gestapo in exactly the same way, but more directly to suppress opposition to his Nazi ideals. The police in Sussex are used in precisely the same way to target would be political activists. Action group members are likely to receive visits at their homes and may suffer arrests. If you pose a really serious threat to the cozy relationships that council officers enjoy, you might be fitted up for a crime that you did not commit. The British justice system is skewed so that it may be used just like the Gestapo, to imprison challenging members of the public that the UK can no longer export to their colonies.
Let's no beat about the bush, the British Empire may be dead, but Her Majesty, via her copious civil servants and appointed Governments, is doing her best (their best for her) as head of the Commonwealth to resist giving the masses equal rights as per the international standards adopted by the United Nations and subsequently the European Convention of Human Rights.
While the 16 nations included in the Commonwealth may observe UN protocols to a better standard, the core nation remains obstinate in refusing their citizens a right to a fair trial and subsequently a right to an appeal. Many citizens in the UK are shocked when they finally realise that there is no right of appeal as in other European countries. In the UK a single judge (stooge) vets applications for appeal, refusing those inconvenient to Blunkett Law, for example. In UN law compliant countries there is no single judge, an application for appeal is an automatic right. I.e. there is no filtration system - no eugenics agenda and no concentration camps - as prisons for the wrongly convicted become.
One of the problems with the British justice system is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission appear to be part of the subtle eugenics programme that has taken a hold, leading to many convictions that are unsound to say the least. The injustice is perpetuated in some cases by the Courts who are not as independent as they are supposed to be or as you might believe.
Indeed, the CCRC, CPS and High Court Judges are infested with masons who refuse to declare this impediment to impartiality.
Where a brother Judge has steered a trial to gain a conviction for a brother mason and is caught out later by the evidence, or the fact that there was not full disclosure, or that disclosure was prevented because the police failed to secure the crime scene, in some cases deliberately to secure a conviction, the CCRC will look the other way.
The CCRC can do this at the moment because their remit is not Article 14 compliant. Three High Court Judges are quoted as saying that the Commission are: "entitled to take a view." What they were saying then is that the CCRC are exempt from Article 14 discrimination and that they can treat one person differently to another person in near identical circumstances.
In one case that we have information of that person had called off an engagement to the daughter of a mason. The man in question was threatened by his former fiancé and her daughter that if he dared to leave their family that they would get him.............
The Sussex Police did not secure the crime scene, not securing a video collection of The Bill and Casualty episodes that the daughter had built up, nor their computers, and most especially not the work diary of the woman who had been jilted.........
By way of contrast, the Sussex Police did secure the defendant's computer, but having done so in the hope of finding something incrimination, then failed to disclose to the Jury that there was nothing on it other than a profile of the defendant that revealed nothing other than his conservation concerns and battles with his local council.
Several emails between the claimant and her mother and the defendant, that damaged their case were also not revealed by the Sussex Police in their rush to convict a man on no evidence other than the say so of the claimant.
Another flaw in their argument was that the girl had claimed multiple vaginal penetrations, but that her hymen was intact. In this regard the jury were most obviously deceived by the so-called expert that the police called to give evidence at the trial. An authoritative study of marks that were presented the Jury in this case as suspicious, tells that the marks the State's expert relied on were naturally occurring.
The revision of Sex Laws by David Blunkett and Harriet Harman guaranteed higher conviction rates by denying those accused a fair trial and reversing the burden of proof in sex cases. That coupled with the reductions in public funding for defendant's on Legal Aid, ensured that disclosure and other issues related to the sealing of crime scenes and proper investigation, etc., would disadvantage the defence further. From any angle, looking at cases such as this you may care to agree that the British justice system is so far removed from a level playing field as to be a virtual kangaroo court.
WHO WE WERE FIGHTING AGAINST FROM 1939 TO 1945
WEALDEN'S OFFICERS FROM 1983 TO 2018
LINKS & REFERENCE
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
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. Contact Us.
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