Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or see our HOMEPAGE



Queen Elizabeth, PR, on tour in Australian Commonwealth



British injustices may eventually come home to roost as Australians realize the scale of abuses domestically, most especially the way the police operate as a form of Gestapo, to quash the reporting of crimes. The latest scandal being the award of KG to Tony Blair, having been accused of war crimes. It does not help that Prince Charles appears to be mixed up in a charity scandal and that prince Andrew is ducking and diving amid a sex scandal. With Harry and Megan absent, that leaves William and Kate, and although they do good works on the environmental front, it is alleged that they are unlikely to reform the UK, but rather carry on, business as usual.


Another bone of contention is Boris Johnson being caught lying about proroguing of parliament, leaving the system wide open, demonstrably corrupt to the core. Australia might have a few problems at home, stemming from Colonial Rule, but could sever ties in the move to create a fairer system at home - all debts paid - as indeed that were after just a few years of exploitation by the Crown. In any event, the continent would have moved with the times, adopting technology as it came along commercially, not at all the exclusive domain of the UK via patents or other Intellectual Property.


It is alleged that Council's in England have been allowed to ruin citizens lives with lies as to history and institutionalised discrimination, as malicious vendettas, with the Crown failing to address the injustices persistently, hence, being part of the system. Or, indeed, sanctioning a system based on cronyism - making great efforts to deny the people an effective remedy. Australia has also been discriminatory toward native inhabitants in extremis, much of which came from colonial rule as the inventors of concentration camps, as developed in South Africa. Australia has an opportunity to purge itself of such abhorrence. Much the same as the USA, finally broke her chains. Long distance governance is not climate friendly, and cannot truly provide an effective administration where those in England may not understand the land.










It could be argued that with the Monarchy in a Dysfunctional state, that it has outlived its time in a modern democracy. In the circumstances, should parliament/the people not be calling for a referendum?


The hereditary system has failed to deliver suitably qualified siblings, to properly oversee what has become a thoroughly corrupt and in the view of many - a grossly unfair administration.


Described as, and quoted by the media, as a 'Ghastly Mess' the inability of the present system to provide for the people is bringing the country into disrepute. The Prime Minister's government should have been the subject of review after Big Dog lied to the Head of State, where he'd mislead the Queen and parliament. Then there is PartyGate.


Under successive Conservative and Labour administrations, the National Debt has increased relentlessly, demonstrating that their efforts are not working - we suspect the main reason for BrexShit - to disentangle from strict economic governance to allow more borrowing, based on illegal drug money laundering, and financial slavery that has resulted in the Renting Society. That allows fat landlords to profit from the sweat of the backs of those unfortunate enough to be born into the modern slave trade.


The one thing Boris should be commended for is his somewhat erratic drive for Net Zero. Unfortunately, with no cohesive plan as to how to achieve that, following on from Theresa May's efforts to make Britain green.




The Duke of York has become a virtual exile in the UK, for fear of extradition. UK law is even more strict than US, where under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a claimant is to be believed, regardless of the lack of any proof, other than the say so of a claimant. This reverses the Article 6 protections, where a person is to walk into a court innocent, until proven guilty. In the UK, you are guilty until proven innocent. Meaning that, on the balance of probabilities, Virginia Giuffre would succeed in her claims.


It matters not what Ghislaine Maxwell might bring to the party, where as a witness, she may be held to be tarnished, even if her retrial is successful, following the revelations that Scotty David told other Jurors that he's been abused as a child.


The UK, with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as head of state, is guilty of removing the human rights of those accused of sexual offences in the UK. This statute was enacted after development by David Blunkett, himself guilty of extra marital activities that could have influenced him, if as alleged, he was may have been plied with sexual favours by a female with a vested interest, for example urging him to deprive UK defendants of rights granted under the Universal Declaration and European Convention, in support of women's rights.


In an ironic twist of fate, it now appears that the Queen's 2nd born son, may have fallen foul of rules designed to increase conviction rates, regardless of innocence or guilt - though in the US. This is called noble cause corruption. The Crown does not mind filling prisons with an extra quota of men and women, around 3-5% of which are more than likely innocent - because the State has also deprived them of any effective remedy, by removing Article 13 from the HRA 1998, and cutting Legal Aid to the point where it is impossible to mount a comprehensive defence. They have thus anticipated the effect their rule bending will cause, and cut off any path to justice for those wrongly convicted.


The change in US law in 2019, to extend time for previously time barred cases, echoes the efforts of the UK to up the conviction rate, regardless of the difficulties in disproving allegations after such a long period of time. One might imagine that innocent people don't keep logs of their activities, whereas those scheming, hoping for an opportunity to make a few bucks, will keep documents and pictures such as to be able to put together a circumstantial case that is near impossible to rebut, in the absence of a comprehensive record. Put simply, there can be no record of an event that did not take place. As head of state, the Queen's law makers have been hoisted on their own petard.




If you are a single man, no matter how easy it is being made for you (and that should be illegal), stay clear of girls who may be under the age of consent. Young girls will lie about their age to entrap you. Even when legally eligible for sexual activity, make sure they are not part of a bigger picture to sweeten a deal, and not being paid by someone else to perform sexual favours.


Audio record all such encounters, making sure to ask a girl's age and background such that you have her answer on record. Ask who the potential sexual conquest is working for, she may inadvertently slip up. Be wary of casual sex. It's not worth the bother. Not too mention the risk of infection.


Single parents are prone to entrap males with offers of easy sex. The consequences can be dire. In the UK, you only have to have had an opportunity, to be convicted. It is as bad as the witch trials of old. Do not put yourself in that position, where you have no witnesses. Run! Do not feel sorry for single parent traps. They are like spiders waiting to snare the uninitiated - and they all know what they are doing. They will set you up. Never send a kind card that is saucy. They will save those and use them to convince a jury that you are a bad person. Sadly, a jury will always believe a female claimant, never a male defendant.


How do the women know how to ensnare foolish men?


They all watch, and some record episodes of soaps featuring under age sex scenarious. In the UK "The Bill" and "Casualty" were recorded by one claimant. The police in that case (still waiting for an appeal) did not and will not secure a crime scene for a defendant. The opposite is true. They will bury evidence likely to assist a defendant, to gain an easy conviction - despite their Code of Conduct saying otherwise. They won't mind if they stitched their victim up. Look at the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six. All stitched up. It's part of the British justice system. Bent coppers, doing favours for mates via SLAPP actions. And equally corrupted cops failing to investigate serious planning crime and banking fraud.




In the face of widespread questioning of their guilt, British authorities release the so-called “Birmingham Six,” six Irish men who had been sent to prison 16 years earlier for the 1974 terrorist bombings of two Birmingham, England, pubs.

On November 21, 1974, two Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombs exploded in two separate Birmingham pubs, killing 21 people and injuring hundreds. The bombing attacks were part of the ongoing conflict between the British government and the IRA over the status of Northern Ireland. Days after the Birmingham bombings, the British government outlawed the IRA in all the United Kingdom, and authorities rushed to arrest and convict the IRA members responsible. Six Irish suspects were arrested and sent to interrogation, where four of them signed confessions. The IRA, which claimed responsibility for the Birmingham bombings, declared that the six were not members of its organization.

During the subsequent trial, the defendants maintained their innocence, claiming that police had beaten the confessions out of them. Prosecutors denied this and also came up with forensic evidence that apparently proved that the Birmingham Six had handled explosives shortly before their arrest. They were convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

In 1985, the forensic evidence was exposed by scientists as unreliable at best, and in 1987 an appeals judge conceded that the same results could be obtained from testing people who recently touched playing cards or cigarette paper. However, it was not until March 1991, with people across Britain and Ireland calling for their release, that the Birmingham Six were freed after years in prison. Seven years later, a British court of appeals formally overturned their sentences, citing serious doubts about the legitimacy of the police evidence and the treatment of the suspects during their interrogation.




The Guildford Four, convicted of the 1975 IRA bombings of public houses in Guildford and Woolwich, England, are cleared of all charges after nearly 15 years in prison.

On October 5, 1974, an IRA bomb killed four people in a Guildford pub frequented by British military personnel, while another bomb in Woolwich killed three. British investigators rushed to find suspects and soon settled on Gerry Conlon and Paul Hill, two residents of Northern Ireland who had been in the area at the time of the terrorist attack.

Under the recent Prevention of Terrorism Act, British investigators were allowed to hold and interrogate terrorist suspects for five days without any hard evidence. Conlon and Hill, who were nonpolitical petty criminals, were among the first suspects held under the new law. During their prison stay, investigators fabricated against them an IRA conspiracy that implicated a number of their friends and family members. The officers then forced the two suspects to sign confessions under physical and mental torture. In 1975, Gerry Conlon, Paul Hill, Paddy Armstrong and Carole Richardson were sentenced to life in prison. Seven of their relatives and friends, called the Maguire Seven, were sentenced to lesser terms on the basis of questionable forensic evidence.

In 1989, in the face of growing public protest and after the disclosure of exonerating evidence, including the admittance of guilt in the bombings by an imprisoned IRA member, the Guildford Four were cleared of all charges and released after 14 years in prison. In the next year, a British appeals court also overturned the convictions of the Maguire Seven, who were jailed on the basis of forensic evidence that was shown to have no relevant scientific basis.


Corrupt to the core? Well, no, there are some honest police officers. Sadly for them, they will never be rewarded for their decency. Those who are good team players, such as the officers who lied in the case of the James Ashley shooting, will be promoted. This case also took over 10 years for the family of the deceased to receive an apology. Sussex police were held to be corrupt by Kent and Hampshire constabularies.





Crimes committed by a nation against it's own citizens are dealt with by the International Criminal Court, as per the Rome Statute. This is where the State concerned refuses to accept they are acting illegally. Nobody is above the law, including royalty by birth.




10 DECEMBER 2021 - CHARITY WATCHDOG INVESTIGATION PRINCE CHARLES'S SCOTTISH VILLAGE - A charity watchdog has launched an investigation into financial transactions used to bail out the Prince of Wales’s struggling eco-village in Scotland. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) is already examining fundraising practices at the Prince’s Foundation, following allegations that the Prince of Wales' closest former aide co-ordinated with "fixers" over honours nominations for a Saudi billionaire donor. Britain is held to be the most corrupt nation in the world, where it is alleged to be the drug money laundering capital.







NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. The honours system does not help, rather undoing the idea of an award, where some recipients of awards are for not revealing the truth, denying appeals, etc. Rather, then doing anything heroic, creative or scientific.













Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




This website is provided on a free basis as a public information service. copyright © Injustice Alliance 2022