Legal Legal Repeal

2025-04-10

The Family Courts in their current incarnation are a relatively recent innovation.

I don't recall that there was any great clamour for them, but one particular aspect of their operation is cause for concern:

"Courts in England and Wales have a principle of open justice where hearings are held in public but family courts are held in private because it has been felt that this protects children"

Thereby at a stroke defeating the age-old principle that "justice must be seen to be done".

So... denying a fundamental principle of justice can be allowed if

2025-04-08

OK, this site does not do party politics...   but maybe this once I might almost make an exception!

I'm not making any kind of recommendation here, but perhaps we might be cognisant of what is going on at the Runcorn and Helsby Constituency By-Election, where candidate Graham Moore is standing on behalf of the English Constitution Party.

Our current ruling elite has done a thorough job of pushing our ancient Constitution into the background (and under the bus) over past decades, and even Brexit hasn't resulted in its restoration to legal effect and national prominence, so perhaps we should be asking: "Why not?".

Now I'm sure that a perfectly respectable case could be made for a new constitutional settlement based upon Great Britain (England Wales and Scotland) or indeed on the United Kingdom as is (perhaps with minor tweaks for

2025-04-03

Martin Geddes strikes again, this time looking at the aspects of judicial "quality control" within the Family Courts system in the US.

With a twist - AI does the analysis, thus minimising the effect of any pre-existing perceptions on his part.

The result...  well, best read for yourself.

I have little doubt that a similar result would ensue from a UK analysis. Clearly this needs to be urgently progressed.

2025-04-03

Dr Reiner Fuellmich, co-founder (with Dr Viviane Fischer) of the Corona Investigative Committee in Germany, has now been incarcerated in Germany for many months in what appears to be an attempt to break his resolve.

This update from James Roguski reviews the circumstances and summarises the current situation, which appears to be both interminable and unreasonably harsh by design and in flagrant breach of all the normal principles of justice.

This site followed and reported on Dr Fuellmich's investigations and subsequent Covid Grand Jury, an ensuing update, and

2025-04-01

(26 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

(NB this speech was delivered in the summer of 2023) - Download the compressed speech here to upload elsewhere!

2025-04-01

Since Arthur Firstenberg's ground-breaking exploration of the historical spread of electromagnetic radiation around the world (The Invisible Rainbow - essential reading if you haven't already), and Tom Wheeler's outspoken assertion that public safety considerations were so "last year" and shouldn't hold up the 5G (and no doubt 6G etc) roll-outs, the focus on the dangers of electromagnetic radiation seems to have dissipated over time, eclipsed in the public mind by the Covid fandango and much else. 

Funny how Covid and the 5G roll-out seem to have coincided (and share a long list of possible symptoms), but of course that's just a conspiracy theory.

But conspiracy maniacs haven't gone to sleep, and here we have a good example of one that makes quite a fist of assembling available evidence in a readable fashion. If I

2025-03-31

What would we think if a Court blocked Nigel Farage from standing for election?

Like him or loathe him, he has as much right to appeal for the support of his compatriots as anybody.

But that isn't going to happen in Britain - there are better ways to ensure that he doesn't get too near to actual power than an outright ban.

So perhaps it's a measure of how desperate the French power base is, that Marine le Pen has been prevented from standing for the presidential election.

Evidently they do things differently in France.

Perhaps if we could get the courts to ban all the unsuitable

2025-03-28

As a reminder of what has gone so wrong with our western systems of government, Martin Geddes reviews a family court case.

Field report: Family court in America

2025-03-15

It's a bit hard to categorise this contribution, but Andrew Livingstone impresses as a reliable witness, something that he by his own admission has not always been.

It's a fascinating story, covering several ways in which government relates to us, from the 1940s to the present, most of which are still highly relevant today.

Make of it what you will.

(77 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2025-03-13

Iain Davis' article, "The UK New Normal Dictatorship", brings together a number of threads which have become apparent over the last few years. Indeed we have covered this article before, and matters have not improved since, so time to give it another airing.

We have highlighted some of these threads (quite a few of them actually) in our pages over those years.

(You can find most of the Acts of Parliament listed under Repeal in the main menu)

All of this is indeed intimidating, as it is designed to be.

But is it legal? What is legal anyway?

Does it even matter? The body of law enshrined in Parliament's beloved Statute Book is already way beyond human comprehension (so

2025-02-26

The Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergs, the Atlantic Council, the WEF...  you can choose your name for them but what you get is the same globalist elite that evidently despises democracy, and embraces "expert" rule by Corporate Oligarchy, a global elite that knows instinctively what is good for them and fully intends to impose it on us.

According to Klaus Schwab:

"Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges"

Is their notion of 'trustees of society' compatible with our constitutional notion of elected politicians who are accountable to their constituents? What are the chances of conflicts of interest arising?

So why would we need elections? They don't

2025-02-20

We may all have an opinion on the operation of "Human Rights" laws in our country, but as most of us are not lawyers, we may be unsure exactly why we hold such an opinion.

Quite possibly it was because at some time in the past we read a newspaper report about some case or other and wondered how on earth the judgement that was handed down could be justified. We remember our reaction, but forget the detailed reasoning that underpinned it.

After a number of such reports crossing our cognitive threshold, the conclusion remains but the details have probably fallen through our memory hole. Unless of course we are a lawyer with a professional interest.

Dr David McGrogan writing for the Daily Sceptic does us a favour by explaining the primary characteristics that make laws good law, and how some of those primary characteristics were defeated by the introduction of the Human

2025-02-18

This harks back to our 2023 report concerning the then UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework beta version (0.3) updated 11th January 2023 (CBDC / Citizen Id by whatever means?).

As explained in that video,this was an unremarkable update to a previous Act, introduced as a administrative update that didn't require Parliament to vote upon it.

If you didn't watch that, I suggest you watch it now.

We've had a lot of water beneath the Parliamentary bridge since then, yet it seems that the Labour Government for whatever reason decided in December 2024 to make a proper Bill out of it, even though the consultations on the areas covered by the

2025-02-16

Martin Geddes is now making so much use of AI that his productivity of articles is hard to keep up with!

Whether or not this particular article was AI-enabled, it is admirably laid out and clearly explains the precise alleged infractions of the law that pertain to the way that the case against him has been handled.

Now one might think that this is in point of fact a pretty trivial case, so pay up shut up and get on with life - but that isn't so. If the police themselves are not operating lawfully then that really is a very serious issue, and they need to be taken to task.

Martin has documented the whole argument very thoroughly and provided copy of his responses - I don't doubt that anybody in similar

2025-02-13

Martin Geddes (yes, he again) now summarises (with a little help from ChatGPT) just why he considers that Durham County Council may be outside the law in terms of its council tax enforcement processes.

That isn't at all to say that all councils are similarly suspect - I have no details - but nor can I rule it out, especially as many of them, like CDOS (see the article) will be members of the CIVEA (Civil Enforcement Association) and may be thought likely to have similar systems to Durham CC.

"These assaults on the public appear to be war crimes (as enemy combatants), crimes against humanity, and terrorist attacks — so fall under international human rights law and military jurisdiction"

Is Your Council Tax Enforcement Really Fraudulent?

Whatever the truth of all this is, it is also true

2025-02-12

Elon Musk's DOGE is showing how to deal with those on the take.

As part of its investigations into Government Efficiency it will investigate those who have somehow appeared to acquire huge wealth despite being on salaries that could not have produced such wealth.

Now it's quite possible these days to buy and sell crypto (Bitcoin for example) at precisely the right time, and make a fortune, but it's not exactly commonplace.

So employees of agencies which misspent government funds, and who appear to have acquired wealth beyond scope of salary, would, bearing in mind the public interest, seem to have little potential for any automatic benefit of the doubt, and should be nicely asked to account for their good fortune. As always, they do not have to comply with a polite request if they do not so wish, but those who have good explanations could set the investigators minds at rest. The burden of proof still rests with any potential

2025-02-12

This Bill, currently wending its way through Parliament, looks set to reach the Statute Book just as soon as their Lordships have finished with it and passed it on to the Monarch for his Royal Assent.

Given that the Labour Party has a stonking majority in the Commons, there will be no delaying its arrival before their Lordships.

Given also the Government's obsession with ultimately centralising all powers of any note unto itself, it's no surprise that this bill is long on rhetoric and very very short on devolution (after all, if it started devolving powers to, say, parents, there would be a chaotic free-for-all and the government would have nothing to do except twiddle its thumbs and dream of powers forsaken).

Let us in the interests of brevity quote directly from the government's own "Policy Summary Notes" document:

The ambitions of

2025-02-10

Or should that be the Public in the cross-hairs?

Or, given that the Big Tech companies may have been creations of the CIA, might it be that the government merely wants access to the data to which the CIA already has access?

These days it's necessary to cover all the angles.

The story is that the UK Government wants access to the encrypted data that Apple holds on their customer's behalf - all you iPhone and Mac users, pay attention!

I wonder how that plays out against the Data Protection laws? I'm sure somebody has thought that one through.

Besides, surely only criminals would deny the government this information?

Still, if you must keep certain information secret, don't put on the internet.

2025-02-02

Freedom is to have a choice about everything we do, with the proviso that we don't do anything to the detriment of the freedoms of others.

It is in effect freedom of choice. To choose where we go on holiday, to choose for whom we work, to choose our careers (should we be so fortunate as to understand what sort of career we both want and are suited for), to choose by mutual agreement those whom we will marry - or to choose celibacy.

Nobody doubts that of all these freedoms, some choices may actually be mutually incompatible (we in England cannot travel to the Isle of Man by train) but that's life. Some may turn out later to be incompatible (too many marriages do end in divorce) but the principle is that in the end there should be nobody to blame for our successes or failures but ourselves. We are here to make errors and to learn from them.

Of course governments of all hues and proclivities like to control (ie: limit) our freedoms so that we do what they

2025-01-31

: Russell-Jay: Gould promotes his legal grammar which many no doubt find confusing, but in this video he relates the story of how he learned about legal grammar, in the courtroom.

Hopefully we can find a few more understandings of this clicking into place whilst we watch it.

Bon voyage ..!

(16 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

See also: What is the Truth?