Legal Legal Repeal

2025-11-25

Yes, Martin Geddes has been up to his illuminations of matters legal and lawful, in terms that I would wager most of us could comprehend.

If we were asked to attend court and found ourselves "had up" before the head teacher in the local secondary school, we might begin to question the genuineness not only of the proceedings but also of those conducting the proceedings.

"When is a 'Court' not a Court?" would be a relevant question, and the Head Teacher should have some explaining to do.

Still, if instead we had attended in a building labelled as a "Court" and been confronted by somebody professing to be a magistrate, would anybody dare to question the legitimacy of the situation? Yet the overwhelming likelihood of just accepting the given as legitimate surely is an open invitation for fraudsters to take advantage? Even unwitting fraudsters who themselves had not validated their higher authority?

2025-11-23

Interest of Justice found out in Costa Rica.

They have the win, they now have to sue enough national governments to start a global ball of Nuremberg trials rolling...

... and that costs dosh.

It sounds a lot, but there's a lot of us, so per capita it won't break the bank.

That's the theory anyway, and so far it's been proven correct.

It's doable, and it's down to us.

And they have the win to prove it.

2025-11-22

Some may think that the UN is on borrowed time on a number of different fronts, and that may be true, but here we are talking about their Humpty Dumpty attitude to words, specifically here the words associated with gender affirmations and the if-you-don't-like-your-gender-you-can-change-it attitude.

Of course if you simply change your sex by affirmation, life merely becomes difficult and fraught with argument and misunderstanding (with a risk of violence in some situations), but if you pretend to change it by having the ops and the drugs in addition to the delusions, well it will likely turn out to be life ending for those-who-might-have-been-your-off-spring.

(3 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2025-11-02

Operation Talla was either:

• the UK's national coordinated policing response to the COVID19 pandemicie: one UK police force working together (sic) under one national operation, or
• individual police forces working operationally independently in accord with national statute and NPCC guidance

"The contradiction could not be more striking. The Home Secretary explicitly celebrated centralisation; the NPCC later denied it existed"

(NPCC: National Police Chiefs' Council)

I suppose we might say that the NPCC's guidance to the Chief Constables was just that - guidance - and so still compliant with the law, but when does "guidance" stray into "instruction"? When

2025-10-23

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do"

Did it affect the recent Runcorn and Helsby by-election?

Could this determine the outcome of a General Election?

Perhaps on 5th November (fittingly?) we may find out.

(17 minutes)

Like / Dislike this

2025-10-18

Martin Geddes has documented exactly the apparent current policy to replace Justice in this country by a theatrical simulation devoid of due process.

Ethical Approach UK has now nailed this obfuscation as an illegal act which should be prosecuted.

"... the Octavian Principle is not abstract history but a living, often used, institutional risk to modern Britain"

"... where an act is intended to override or bypass the proper administration of justice and has a natural tendency to do so, the offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is made out. "

"Courts have held that even indirect acts, such as creating false accounts, pressuring witnesses, or obstructing investigative procedures, satisfy this test"

It even has a name, after the Roman Emperor Octavian:

...

2025-10-12

Martin updates us on the sorry story (The Trial from Appleby Horse Fair) that exposes the charades that our "system of justice" deploys to bamboozle and exhaust us into compliance with its illegal and unlawful demands.

Illegal because they do not reference real Courts as laid down by law (even where such real Courts may exist!) and unlawful because they are essentially fraudulent, and fraud vitiates everything.

This is his public record of these unfathomable framings, and how the system seeks at every turn to to evade its responsibilities and prevent a challenge from being heard in a real court. Perhaps they really do have something to hide?

Martin 's Public Record.

2025-10-11

This might set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. Perhaps it should be banned as offensive to all wrong-thinking people who make it their business to be egregiously put out by anything that they disagree with?

But the truth is that it reinforces that ancient but excellent principle of British Justice that many thought had been abandoned years ago (although nobody quite knew when exactly... ).

“The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb"

Pass me my smelling salts! 

Still, all may not be completely unfettered:

“A person who acts so as to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another may commit an offence”

Now "harassment"

2025-10-09

Come on Martin Geddes, don't hang back, tell us what you really think.

"Proof now follows punishment. Judicial names have become decorative. Mercy and proportionality are excised as inefficiencies. The law that once restrained power now operationalises extraction"

But they'd never get away with it!

"In the vocabulary of legality, it all sounds reasonable. In the language of conscience, it is extortion with paperwork"

So Justice is now subordinate to Jim Hacker's Department of Administrative Affairs?

"Yes, Prime Minister, it's so much more convenient and streamlined... "

2025-10-09

The country has always run on lawful consent.

No consent, no obligation.

But did we not consent to Parliament doing as it wanted when we participated at the last election?

Well, there's the rub. The nub of the problem.

We as a population may have expressed a wish (assuming that the election result wasn't fiddled, as it now appears the US elections were at times fiddled), but how to refute UN-WEF policies when all major parties support the same? It would require a monumental public awakening to get everyone to spoil their ballot and declare "None of these thank you".

So such "consent" is at best dodgy, and in practice impractical. And even if we may be presumed to vote on the basis of politicians pre-election promises and manifestos, we all know how well carried through those promises turn out to be post-election.

Ofcom and the Inversion of Regulation

2025-09-30

Black Belt Barrister lays out Digital Id for those who don't quite get it yet...

Good points all. The Data Protection Act may come in useful...

(18 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2025-09-30

It's a long time (unless you are our Judicial System) since we heard from my Dazolam, but somehow she still sees to be lost amid the long grasses much favoured by Obfu Scation and Avo Idance and their like, who perhaps cannot be removed on account of possible breaches of their inalienable human rights and must thus be granted Indefinite Leave to Remain regardless of their obvious incompatibility with modern British Values (whatever they may now be).

Some believe that in order to avoid the ever-growing possibility - nay likelihood - of violence, even civil war, breaking out between competing factions within the new glorious diversity of Modern UK (MUK), moves must now be put in hand to deal with the pathetic remnants of population who still support the outmoded so-called "British values", such as "fair play" "tolerance", "freedom of speech" "freedom of association" even "freedom to protest"(!), and waste their time in absurd traditional

2025-09-29

Where are we in Britain now? How did we get here? How do we recover from here?

Watch, listen, take note. He's the only man I know who can place our current political travails in a proper historical context. If we don't understand the context, then we can't map a proper way back to sanity, we can only tear down what we have ...  but what would we do then?

We need to avoid making the same mistakes all over again.

Nobody explains this like David Starkey. If we really have to have a "National Treasure", then he gets my vote!

(1 hr 55 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video

2025-09-23

Interest of Justice are looking into it.

"This isn't charity. It's a criminal conspiracy to bypass democratic governance through public-private partnerships that violate fundamental principles of fiduciary duty and public trust"

"This extraordinary situation means nations must commit to unknown obligations while Gates' position remains secured regardless of outcome"

"Gates Foundation's $912 million pledge—matching its 2022 donation—strategically positions him to control outcomes regardless of how PABS negotiations conclude"

"When the International Finance Corporation promotes public-private partnerships with 'a fiduciary duty to act in the client's best interest,' they acknowledge the legal principle while violating it. The 'client' in global health should be humanity, not pharmaceutical companies or private

2025-09-23

Gilbert and Sullivan had the legal profession weighed up years ago... but sadly the current Lord Chancellor (Lady Chancellor?) fares little better than in those bygone days of yore. being unable to provide a simple and satisfactory response to a letter from Martin Geddes.

But in truth the song seems to have far wider application today, being of a piece with our current world, in turmoil on every front!

(3 hectic minutes)

Like / Dislike this video