THE RIGHT TO - THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
WORTH INVESTIGATION - in 1997 suspected planning crime was reported to Sussex police, following a petition to Wealden District Council. There were 12 separate complaints from unrelated complainants, but this police force failed to investigate any of the reported crimes. One thing is for sure, Sussex police are unlikely to investigate any matter concerning any Wealden planning officer, and they cannot investigate themselves for failing to investigate the reported crimes - itself a criminal offence.
In the UK we have no Article 6, right to be treated as innocent - until proven guilty - but only concerning sexual offences. This situation also invoking violations of Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination, in that the reversing of the burden of proof only applies to sex crimes.
To our mind this is a glaring series of human rights violations, pushed as some king of an inverse Eugenics agenda by Lord David Blunkett, with the full support of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and all political parties, as confirmed by the honour bestowed on him.
What this means in real terms is that if you are accused of a sexual crime in England, you will go into court at a significant disadvantage before a trial begins. The hidden component of that being that investigating police authorities control the crime scene, and are not as much compelled to secure the crime scene, to include evidence that tends to suggest innocence.
If you are reliant on Legal Aid to uphold your Article 6 right to a fair hearing, you are even more impaired. This is especially so if accused of a serious sexual offence where the police are charged with obtaining more convictions with reduced budgets.
Where the burden of proof is reversed, it will cost more to attempt to prove innocence, that it costs if the state are charged with proving guilt.
But, in these cases you are guilty until proven innocent. In a murder or fraud trial, you are innocent until proven guilty.
That is one reason why, we assume they omitted Articles 1 and 13 from the Human Rights Act 1998. This is important, because it means that Legal Aid is not available to give the ordinary man a right to a day in Court with equivalent advocacy to level the playing field - as in equality at arms. The denial of Article 13 means you have no right of appeal, and Article 17, that is supposed to prevent such abuses, is useless without and effective remedy - as well the civil servant Nazis who drafted this legislation know.
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.
In doing so he 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. Hence, it is vitally important that there is no conflict of interest, as per Rex v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924.
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, or whatever.
In planning appeals, there is no legal aid, giving corrupt councils a free hand to take liberties, lie on oath, and pervert the course of justice.
you make a complaint as to fraud to a local authority, such as Sussex
police, they will not investigate the crime(s). Meaning that where there
may be corruption in councils, such as Wealden
District, the crimes will continue and the offenders will not be
brought to justice - a further abuse of Article 6 - for which Article 13
is necessary to provide an effective remedy. Otherwise, we live in a
police state, similar to Nazi
Germany, when all protestations of human rights and other abuses
were quashed by the Gestapo.
It might be then that the United Kingdom violates the European Convention, and/or the Universal Declaration, despite H M Queen Elizabeth having driven an ambulance in World War Two and the UK having helped to draft such lofty ideals with other members of the United Nations.
SEPTEMBER 17 2020 - Shit handling pipes, installation at Shit Creek, Herstmonceux, the field adjacent is to be built on with 70 houses flushing excrement down a network of pipes that could spring leaks at any time. But, of even more concern is the pollution from the surface run off of pesticides from 70 gardens and garages, through Lime Pond. In that Southern Water are providing the infrastructure to make that pollution a reality, they may be held to be vicariously liable or part of a conspiracy to kill wild animals. If any of the soil pipes from the proposed houses were to leak into the pond and kill any animal, they would be criminally liable for sure.
LINKS & REFERENCE
Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site