Did Tommy Robinson create the mess unfolding within our Judiciary? Did Tommy Robinson cause the wrongdoings of Public Servants—those who should act as stewards, fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities within the Judiciary Division, yet consistently fail to do so?
Come on, people. Answer the question.
Look closely: those surrounding Tommy Robinson may well be victims of a system where fiduciary duties were deliberately neglected. To some, it is all a game—lives destroyed just to protect careers.
Let us speak the truth. It was our political leaders who created wars, who ravaged nations, who tore lands apart. And now, the British people are being sidelined as others enter this country under false pretences, claiming asylum.
What we, the indigenous people, are enduring today is tribalism—right here, in our own homeland.
Yes, Tommy Robinson has a past. But he did not create the conditions that have pushed British citizens to the brink. If people choose to donate to him, so what? That is their right. It is none of your business.
See on Scoop.it – Public Law Children Act Cases
In October, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued two rulings bolstering the rights of persons with psycho-social disabilities. Both cases were brought by Hungarian-Slovakian disability rights activist János Fiala-Butora LL.M. ’10, an S.J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School and an associate of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, known as HPOD. (see a feature about the program).
In one of the cases, Bures v. Czech Republic (PDF), the plaintiff, who had been hospitalized after he inadvertently overdosed on medication prescribed by his psychiatrist, was strapped to a bed for several hours, resulting in long-term injuries to his arms and ending his career as a cello player. He brought criminal charges, but they were dismissed.
See on www.law.harvard.edu
Absolute immunity is a form of legal immunity in contrast to qualified immunity. While qualified immunity, by its very nature, carries with it a set of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the immunity to attach, an absolute immunity is unconditional.
Examples of absolute immunity include judicial immunity and legislative immunity.
Judicial immunity
Legislative immunity
Judicial Immunity
Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from lawsuits brought against them for judicial actions, no matter how incompetent, negligent, or malicious such conduct might be, even if this conduct is in violation of statutes.
United Kingdom
Immunity in proceedings
Historically, the general rule in the United Kingdom has been that the Crown has never been able to be prosecuted or proceeded against in either criminal or civil cases. The only means by which civil proceedings could be brought were:
by way of petition of right, which was dependent on the grant of the royal fiat (i.e. permission);
by actions against ministers or government departments where an Act of Parliament had specifically provided that immunity be waived.
The position was drastically altered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which made the Crown (when acting as the government) liable as of right in proceedings where it was previously only liable by virtue of a grant of a fiat. With limited exceptions, this had the effect of allowing proceedings for tort and contract to be brought against the Crown. Proceedings to bring writs of mandamus and prohibitionwere always available against ministers, because their actions derive from the royal prerogative.[citation needed]
Criminal proceedings are still prohibited from being brought unless expressly permitted by statute.
As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the UK government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions.[11] However, civil proceedings can, in theory, still be brought using the two original mechanisms outlined above – by petition of right or by suit against the Attorney-General for a declaration.
Great-grandfather and Crown Prince William (Photo credit: XiXiDu)
Other immunities
The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases, and members of the royal household are also immune from arrest in civil proceedings. No arrest can be made “in the monarch’s presence”, or within the “verges” of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.
The monarch’s goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another’s land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.
Staff committing fraud can be caught frequently. Many signs indicate fraudulent activity. For example, when the administrative team, which is legally trained, fails to include their names at the bottom of the correspondence they send out.
Source: 5rb.com
“As a junior, Aidan served on the Attorney General’s ‘A’ Panel of counsel and on the Bar Standards Board’s Advisory Pool of Experts, advising the BSB on data protection matters. He sits as a Deputy High Court Judge and a criminal Recorder.”
In the UK, malicious prosecution is a legal claim you can bring when someone—typically the police or another prosecuting authority—initiates criminal or civil proceedings against you with malice and without reasonable grounds.
Mothers must also beware of reporting the father of their children for sexually abusing them unless there is definite proof. New research suggests that family court judges are more likely to award custody of a child to a parent after they make an allegation of parental alienation in cases where the other parent brings up an allegation of child sexual abuse.
Professor Joan Meier’s and Sean Dickson’s research published in 2017 found that family courts only believe a mother’s claim of a child’s sexual abuse 1 out of 51 times (approximately 2%) when the accused father alleges parental alienation.
Vicky Hague (name raised in Parliament by John Hemming M.P) believed her 9-year-old daughter who had accused her own father of sexually abusing her. The court however believed she had been coached by her mother to say such things, gave custody to the father and forbade Vicky from seeing or communicating with her daughter.
Vicky was later sentenced to 3 YEARS in jail (later reduced on appeal) for speaking to her daughter at a filling station when the father (with the daughter) drove in for petrol; She was later again in jail for merely attempting to send a birthday card from her stepdaughter to her own daughter. She gave it to the local vicar to pass on but he gave it to the police! She saved her unborn baby daughter by fleeing to France before the “SS” could take her and she is now a successful racehorse trainer in France at Maisons-Laffitte.. In August, the country’s most senior family judge. Sir Nicholas Wall, in a rare public judgment, said Haigh had lied about her ex-partner being a paedophile and spread the “scandalous” claims on the internet.
However, shortly after this case Judge Wall suffered from dementia and committed suicide!
The latest news is that her ex-husband David Tune (International athlete representing Great Britain) has been BANNED for life by UK Athletics from coaching juniors because he has been sexually molesting an underage girl and grooming juniors under his care! It now looks certain that Vicky was speaking the truth ten years ago and that she was jailed and separated from her daughter for nothing!!
Pensioners across the UK will have become used to a usual payment which arrives every November or December. It’s called the Winter Fuel Payment, is worth either £200 or £300 and helps older people cope with their energy bills.
But for over 10 million pensioners it won’t arrive this year. That’s because the Winter Fuel Payment is now only targeted at the very poorest pensioners and has been removed from everyone else.
English Law