The Rule Of Law
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has described the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.”
Britain clearly does NOT operate under the rule of law.
The Criminals In Power are able to ignore facts, proof, evidence, the law, and the fundamental principle of equality under the law. They can pervert the course of justice and betray their oaths of office at their whim to make sure that they do not prosecute any of their favoured criminal associates and to ensure that any attempt by a normal person to obtain justice will be quashed.
The main legal principle which applies in reality is the secret one of "because we say so". The Legal Complaints Service and Legal Services Ombudsman ignored facts, proof, evidence and all common sense, insisting that the fraudsters Swinburne and Jackson had done the work for which they had been paid in advance and that they did not need to comply with regulations to which all solicitors are meant to be subject 'because they say so'. The Solicitors Regulation Authority refused to do anything about the criminal misconduct and breaches of regulations committed by SJ and Townshends unless the LCS reported them to the SRA. And since Townshends were employed by the LCS to do their work then this meant that essentially the LCS would have to report THEMSELVES to the SRA. Four officers of Northumbria Police insisted that fraud, theft and misconduct in public office are NOT crimes but are civil matters 'because they say so'. Williams and Enzor of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS - the Criminal Protection Society) claimed that in, spite of the actual applicable law, the CPS had no power to prosecute criminals unless the police submitted a report asking them to. The criminal Enzor claimed that there was no evidence against the criminal Shireece Webster of the Independent Police Complaints Commission gang 'because he said so', and other CPS gang members supported his lies 'because they said so'. The right to bring a private prosecution is meant to be a safeguard against public officials who refuse to do their sworn duty to prosecute criminals, but in fact the very same criminals who refuse to prosecute in the first place can stop any private prosecution simply on their say-so, as the criminal Enzor did with the private prosecution of the criminal Shireece Webster.
The criminal 'Justice' King granted the CPS gang an immediate hearing to stay the prosecution of gang members Williams and Enzor. He ignored the legal ruling of a law-abiding District Judge and made no reference to it. He granted the criminals a stay of prosecution on the grounds of their claim that it must be done immediately because it was urgent - gang members were due to appear in court. King gave no reason, justification or legal argument. He simply gave the gang what they demanded because they demanded it.
The criminals 'Justice' Jay and 'Justice' Rafferty ignored the fact that the CPS gang had repeatedly lied, concealed facts and evidence, and engaged in malicious fettering and abuse of process, and permitted their judicial review. They gave no reason for this. Of course they didn't - there can be no possible legitimate reason. And their 'judgement' was merely a regurgitation of whatever the CPS criminals told them. They completely ignored EVERYTHING I submitted to the court, and gave no reason or justification for their pronouncements.
So any law only applies if the Criminals In Power feel like applying a particular law to a particular person. There is no equality, no impartiality, no transparency, no accountability. In my case the criminals Swinburne and Jackson stole my money. But there have been some media reports which show that paedophiles in positions of power were never prosecuted, and suspected paedophiles and rapists were never investigated. Any of us could become a victim of crime at any time and be told by police that it is not a crime and that they will do nothing about it. Their fellow Criminals In Power will make sure they get away with it completely.
Human rights depend absolutely on the rule of law. Nobody has found a way to stop people violating human rights. The best we can manage is to make laws against abusing human rights. But without the rule of law there can be no human rights. Despite this, only one of the human rights organisations I contacted even bothered to reply. Liberty REFUSED to do anything at all about the violation of my human rights. But worse than that, they refused to do anything at all to stop the criminals who can abuse the human rights of anyone in Britain at any time.
In December 2015 I discovered that the United Nations has an annual anti-corruption day on 9th December. It's been going since 2003 but it has had zero publicity. I had never heard of it. It is never reported in the news or mentioned in the media at all. I contacted the UN with my story. There was no reply. About a year later, just before their next 'anti-corruption day' I contacted them again. Once again there was no reply. Is this the world's greatest contribution to the fight against corruption - an organisation which won't even reply to an e-mail in order to support one of it's own campaigns?
Britain clearly does NOT operate under the rule of law.
The Criminals In Power are able to ignore facts, proof, evidence, the law, and the fundamental principle of equality under the law. They can pervert the course of justice and betray their oaths of office at their whim to make sure that they do not prosecute any of their favoured criminal associates and to ensure that any attempt by a normal person to obtain justice will be quashed.
The main legal principle which applies in reality is the secret one of "because we say so". The Legal Complaints Service and Legal Services Ombudsman ignored facts, proof, evidence and all common sense, insisting that the fraudsters Swinburne and Jackson had done the work for which they had been paid in advance and that they did not need to comply with regulations to which all solicitors are meant to be subject 'because they say so'. The Solicitors Regulation Authority refused to do anything about the criminal misconduct and breaches of regulations committed by SJ and Townshends unless the LCS reported them to the SRA. And since Townshends were employed by the LCS to do their work then this meant that essentially the LCS would have to report THEMSELVES to the SRA. Four officers of Northumbria Police insisted that fraud, theft and misconduct in public office are NOT crimes but are civil matters 'because they say so'. Williams and Enzor of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS - the Criminal Protection Society) claimed that in, spite of the actual applicable law, the CPS had no power to prosecute criminals unless the police submitted a report asking them to. The criminal Enzor claimed that there was no evidence against the criminal Shireece Webster of the Independent Police Complaints Commission gang 'because he said so', and other CPS gang members supported his lies 'because they said so'. The right to bring a private prosecution is meant to be a safeguard against public officials who refuse to do their sworn duty to prosecute criminals, but in fact the very same criminals who refuse to prosecute in the first place can stop any private prosecution simply on their say-so, as the criminal Enzor did with the private prosecution of the criminal Shireece Webster.
The criminal 'Justice' King granted the CPS gang an immediate hearing to stay the prosecution of gang members Williams and Enzor. He ignored the legal ruling of a law-abiding District Judge and made no reference to it. He granted the criminals a stay of prosecution on the grounds of their claim that it must be done immediately because it was urgent - gang members were due to appear in court. King gave no reason, justification or legal argument. He simply gave the gang what they demanded because they demanded it.
The criminals 'Justice' Jay and 'Justice' Rafferty ignored the fact that the CPS gang had repeatedly lied, concealed facts and evidence, and engaged in malicious fettering and abuse of process, and permitted their judicial review. They gave no reason for this. Of course they didn't - there can be no possible legitimate reason. And their 'judgement' was merely a regurgitation of whatever the CPS criminals told them. They completely ignored EVERYTHING I submitted to the court, and gave no reason or justification for their pronouncements.
So any law only applies if the Criminals In Power feel like applying a particular law to a particular person. There is no equality, no impartiality, no transparency, no accountability. In my case the criminals Swinburne and Jackson stole my money. But there have been some media reports which show that paedophiles in positions of power were never prosecuted, and suspected paedophiles and rapists were never investigated. Any of us could become a victim of crime at any time and be told by police that it is not a crime and that they will do nothing about it. Their fellow Criminals In Power will make sure they get away with it completely.
Human rights depend absolutely on the rule of law. Nobody has found a way to stop people violating human rights. The best we can manage is to make laws against abusing human rights. But without the rule of law there can be no human rights. Despite this, only one of the human rights organisations I contacted even bothered to reply. Liberty REFUSED to do anything at all about the violation of my human rights. But worse than that, they refused to do anything at all to stop the criminals who can abuse the human rights of anyone in Britain at any time.
In December 2015 I discovered that the United Nations has an annual anti-corruption day on 9th December. It's been going since 2003 but it has had zero publicity. I had never heard of it. It is never reported in the news or mentioned in the media at all. I contacted the UN with my story. There was no reply. About a year later, just before their next 'anti-corruption day' I contacted them again. Once again there was no reply. Is this the world's greatest contribution to the fight against corruption - an organisation which won't even reply to an e-mail in order to support one of it's own campaigns?