SHABANA MAHMOOD'S CORRUPTION BLACK HOLES

  FOR SHABANA MAHMOOD MP & JUSTICE MINISTER, THE HORIZON POST OFFICE SCANDAL IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG - CORRUPTION IS RIFE IN COUNCIL'S WITH LOCAL POLICE HELPING TO COVER UP CRIMES, BY FAILING TO INVESTIGATE. THIS IS A PROPOSED BILL TO BE PUT BEFORE PARLIAMENT AS NEW LAW TO RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST INSTITUTIOANLISED AND DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES THAT HAVE BECOME ENDEMIC - AS THE BRITISH WAY: SEE NO, HEAR NO EVIL - COVER UP CULTURE SLAPP ACTIONS, VENDETTAS PROTECTIONS AGAINST STRATEGIC LAWSUITS DESIGNED TO PREVENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

The so-called 'Labour' Party is not representing the workers at all. They are supporting administration jobs where those in these roles of trust are doing nothing at all, except invent problems that cost the tax payer even more. Heaven forbid we should actually promote Britain's heritage, creative writers, film makers and most of all the farmers and fishermen who keep us fed. As to water, well that is another issue, for sure selling off our utilities was one of the worst mistakes old Conservative Maggie ever did. More selling British workers into slavery.

As a result of the length of time it takes to uncover injustices in the British Empire based system of "hear to evil, see no evil," we are concerned at the lack of investigation of certain crimes in the United Kingdom.

These include town and country planning related corrupt practices and high level fraud in other matters related to expenses and procurement. Where, law enforcement agencies, including police, are paid for by local taxes from the parties and persons they are investigating. Hence, there is a marked lack of independence and impartiality as per the common law case of R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924 KB, Kings Bench Division.

We feel sure, that as the Attorney General of a newly elected party, that Lord Richard Hermer, and Shabana Mahmood, as Justice minister, will be keen to introduce legislation to plug the gaps in the safety net the British public should be able to rely on.

We are concerned at the apparent weaponisation of local authorities like police and councils to cause problems for press reporters and members of the public questioning the system, with Strategic Legal Actions to Prevent Public Participation, otherwise known as a SLAPP action. Even banks are being drawn into the problem by asking questions that other agencies cannot ask, or simply repeating questions and then closing accounts when a reporter asks them why. We wonder if such misuse of authority, to prevent fair and balanced reporting should be made illegal, via a proposed Bill to Parliament, to assert the independence of the judiciary and so provide victims of unwarranted attacks an extra layer of defence. We believe that it is in the public interest to give members of the press, and even curious members of the public who seek accountability, protections in law.

Whereas, it is a crime in the UK not to investigate crimes that identify colleagues, or seek to apprehend criminals in the course of law enforcement duties, as per R v Dytham 1979 QB 722, Queen's Bench Division, where an officer failed to intervene in a night club beating, hence abandoned his duty to protect a member of the public. Other common law includes:

1. Greener v DPP (1996) - The defendant was the owner of a young, powerful Staffordshire Bull Terrier. He had left the dog chained in an enclosure in his back garden. The dog had strained and bent the clip releasing its chain. It had escaped from the enclosure and entered a nearby garden where it bit the face of a young child. Section 3(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides that if the owner of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there it injures any person, he is guilty of an offence. It was held by the Divisional Court that an offence under s3(3) could be committed by omission. The word “allows” included taking and omitting to take a positive step. In the present case the defendant had failed to take adequate precautions. Similar precautions had been taken in the past but they were obviously inadequate as the fastening was not good enough and the enclosure not secure.

2. R v Pittwood (1902) - The defendant was employed as a gatekeeper at a railway crossing. One day he went for lunch leaving the gate open so that road traffic could cross the railway line. A hay cart crossing the line was hit by a train. One man was killed, another was seriously injured. Pittwood was convicted of manslaughter based on his failure to carry out his contractual duty to close the gate when a train approached. This common law establishes the duty of all citizens to report crimes that cause harm to others, including the duty of law enforcement officials to actually investigate all reported crimes that may cause long term mental trauma.

And yet, where any failure to investigate crime is reported to MPs, the informants are then arrested themselves in some cases, and in extreme cases, where activists will not let go of their bones, instead of their allegations being investigated, they become a target of a smear campaign, with bogus allegations and even convictions. The aim being to keep the activists on a short leash. It appears to be established protocol, for MPs to report matters to the police, and for the police to arrest complainants, typically to fabricate evidence of trumped up charges of harassment. As has happened in a number of recorded cases.

Where complaints are referred to a Crime Commissioner, more than once, the Commissioner will then make a complaint as to stalking. By this mechanism, serious fraud and conspiracy to cover up malfeasance in public office is not investigated. Instead, the victim informant is framed for a crime they did not commit. With bail and other conditions, preventing complainants from pursuing such complaints.

The ideal being for the police to gain a bogus conviction and imprisonment. They can then monitor the would be informants using Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, which is a set of arrangements in England and Wales that manage the risk posed by certain offenders. The real purpose of MAPPA is to protect the public by working together to assess and manage the risk posed by violent and sexual offenders. But the system is open to abuse, infecting bank accounts and anyone associated with those informing on planning crimes and serious banking fraud, in particular.

It is an easy matter for a corrupt police force to obtain a bogus conviction. The burden of proof is Article 6 reversed in sexual cases, meaning any person (more often a woman) can make a claim of being assaulted, and without any physical proof whatsoever, a jury will convict. It is even easier where their targets cannot afford proper legal representation, in that Legal Aid limitations prevent a robust defence in sexual cases. And that is one reason prisons and other costs in a surveillance state are blossoming out of all proportion. Where it would have been more cost effective in the long run to simply investigate the crimes reported by innocent citizens.

This is of course, a serious abuse of a position of power and trust and a wicked abuse of the justice system.

It must then be time for a draft Bill for Parliament, where officers of the law at any level in local or national government who turn a blind eye to reported crimes, might be automatically suspended and subject to disciplinary action, in serious cases involving instant dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.

In investigating crime, there can be no bias. Or any investigation become tainted and suspect. Ultra vires!

CONFLICT OF INTEREST = BIAS 

Where there is any possibility of a conflict of interest, such as a local police force being funded by a local council that may be the subject of an investigation. That is such cases the local police force should recuse themselves to ensure investigation by an outside force or National Crime Agency, the aim being to ensure impartiality as far as is possible, and assure the public of at least the appearance of impartiality. In more serious cases, such as the Horizon Post Office scandal, needing a Public Inquiry into the institutionalised failings that led to the wrongful conviction of more than 700 innocent people. In the end identifying cover up on cover up with MPs involved in the failure to investigate. And the CCRC (at first) refusing to refer any case back to the Court of Appeal, in needing a Petition of over 100,000 signatories to trigger action.

Another glaring, but not so well reported example is the complaint by 11 independent informants to Wealden District Council in 1997, by way of a Petition. It should be noted that there is no Statute of Limitations on conspiracies to pervert the course of justice. In this case even Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and His Majesty King Charles, were petitioned, but declined to get involved. And quite right to. How could it be that with umpteen Justice Ministers, Attorney Generals, Chief Constables and a Crime Commissioner, that a cover up involving Sussex police providing blank headed paper to the officers of a local authority, they were supposed to be investigating, for those officers under investigation to write their own letter of exoneration, mainly to protect the jobs of chief executive Derek Holness, District and Assistant District planning officers Ashley Brown and Ian Kay. Sounds impossible, but yes, it is true. And that/those reported crime(s) remains un-investigated to this day, but is a historic allegation that will not go away. And needs to be put to bed.

Of course there were other police and council officers involved in this particular cover-up, including Detective Sergeant Keith Lyndsay. Allegedly married to a councillor's daughter. He was the principle police officer and conspirator. Who handed an empty folder to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who then said there was not enough evidence to prosecute - in the full knowledge that nobody had been interviewed. I.e., there had been no investigation.

That means the Crown itself was part of the cover up. So where do you go when the State is covering up crime? The answer is you need new statute to sack those involved in cover ups, with stringent penalties, loss of pensions, and in some cases recovery of the expended public funds they authorised or were party to such authorisation and actions, funds should be recovered from the perpetrators, savings or other assets acquired during the/any SLAPP action, as Proceeds of Crime.

ADOLF - In the eyes of many looking on at the antics of Vladimir Putin, there is an inescapable similarity between the Russian president, effectively a dictator, and the former German chancellor. We are also reminded of Sussex Police, who also beat up prisoners who are asserting their rights to a fair hearing, and when they don't get that, an effective remedy. The United Kingdom is rife with human rights abuses that fall far short of Putin's Russia, but nevertheless, are serious issue on our radar. MPs and Councillors just attend meetings and talk a lot. Then they have meetings to discuss what was said at other meetings. It is a job creation scheme for people who talk a lot of hot air, but actually do nothing.

The Free Press and Public Accountability SLAPP Protection Act 2025

Preamble: Whereas the freedom of the press is fundamental to democracy and the public's right to know, this Act seeks to protect members of the press and the public from unwarranted legal and administrative actions intended to suppress reporting and public participation.

Whereas strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are legal actions brought primarily to intimidate or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defense, rather than on the merits of the underlying claim; and

Whereas SLAPPs have a chilling effect on public discourse, deterring individuals and organizations from exercising their right to freedom of expression; and

Whereas it is necessary to protect the public's right to know and to ensure that public officials and other powerful actors are held accountable for their actions;

Therefore, be it enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom as follows:

1. Short Title: This Act may be cited as the "Free Press and Public Accountability Protection Act."

2. Definitions:

For the purposes of this Act:

(1) "Strategic Legal Action to Prevent Public Participation (SLAPP)" means any legal action filed against individuals or entities with the primary purpose of silencing, intimidating, or punishing them for engaging in activities related to public participation, including but not limited to investigative reporting that:

a) Is brought primarily to intimidate or silence a person or entity who has exercised their right to public participation;
Lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact; and

b) Seeks monetary damages or other relief that is disproportionate to the harm allegedly caused.

(2) "Press" includes journalists, reporters, and media organizations involved in the dissemination of news and information to the public.

(3) "Public Participation" means any statement or action relating to a matter of public concern, and refers to any lawful activity intended to engage with, inform, or challenge matters of public concern, including but not limited to:

a) Expression on matters of public policy or government conduct
b) Reporting on or commenting on the conduct of public officials
c) Advocating for or against a proposed law or policy
d) Engaging in scientific, artistic, or literary expression
e) Participating in a public hearing or other public forum

3. Prohibition of SLAPP Actions:

No person, organization, or governmental body shall file a legal action or pursue a criminal prosecution against members of the press or individuals engaged in public participation, including activists and those making criminal allegations that the local authorities are seeking to cover up, if the primary purpose of such action is to suppress, intimidate, or penalize the exercise of free speech and lawful activities related to public participation.

4. Legal Protections, Early Dismissal of Legal Actions:

(1) Any individual or entity against whom a SLAPP action is filed may file a motion to dismiss the action. The court shall prioritize and promptly rule on such motions.

(2) The court shall promptly consider the motion and upon a finding that a legal action constitutes a SLAPP, the court shall dismiss the action and may award the defendant reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and damages if it finds that:

a) The lawsuit is based on protected speech or conduct related to a matter of public concern;

b) The lawsuit is being used primarily to intimidate or silence the defendant; and

c) There is no substantial evidence to support the claims asserted in the lawsuit.

d) The correct procedures and protocols have not been adhered to by the authority bringing the action, designed to disadvantage the target victim, and deprive their victims of such legal protections such as to obtain a wrongful outcome or unlawful conviction.

5. Protection Against Administrative Actions:

No governmental or administrative body, including police, councils, and banks, shall take adverse actions, such as account closures or unwarranted investigations, against individuals or entities engaged in public participation or members of the press based on their lawful activities. This includes volunteer advocates in town and country planning cases and those acting as carers or administrative Mackenzie friends in cases against the Child Maintenance Services (CMS) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), National Health Service (NHS) or any other organisation providing goods or services to the public.

6. Protection Against Abusive Discovery

(1) In any SLAPP proceeding, the court may limit or stay discovery if it finds that the discovery requests are being used primarily to harass or intimidate the defendant.

(2) The court may also award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the defendant if it finds that the plaintiff has engaged in abusive discovery practices.

(2) The court may also impose other appropriate sanctions on the plaintiff, such as:

a) Prohibiting the plaintiff from filing similar lawsuits in the future
b) Ordering the plaintiff to pay a civil penalty

7. Protection Against Retaliation

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to retaliate against an individual or organization for exercising their right to public participation, freedom of speech or receiving and imparting information. Those being basic Human Rights.

(2) Retaliation may include, but is not limited to:

a) Termination of employment
b) Denial of services
c) Interference with business or professional relationships
d) Threats or intimidation

8. Public Interest Defense

(1) In any civil action arising from protected speech or conduct related to a matter of public concern, the defendant may assert a public interest defense.

(2) The court shall consider the public interest in the free flow of information and the importance of protecting public discourse when weighing the interests of the parties.

9. Review Mechanism:

The establishment of an independent review body to oversee and investigate complaints of abuse of authority and SLAPP actions, ensuring accountability and enforcement of this Act.

10. Reporting Requirements:

Governmental bodies and banks must maintain and publish annual reports on actions taken against members of the press and public participants, including the rationale for such actions.

11. Severability:

If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

12. Commencement:

This Act shall come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. 

Sir Keir Starmer - Prime Minister

THE CLASS SYSTEM - In the UK, the rich get rich by exploiting the workforce, using battalions of surveillance administrators at a ratio of 4 seat polishers to every 1 productive worker. The system is geared to draining every last ounce of blood from their victims via taxes. It is like one vast concentration camp, where the guards outnumber the inmates 4:1

Nazi death camp executions. Direct action killing of humans inconvenient to their cleansing and world domination agenda was a World War Two horror exemplified by the factory gassing of concentration camp inmates. Putin's Russia is not that different, when push comes to shove. Effectively, this is what Russia is doing to Ukrainians at the moment.

If social injustice leads to crime, then building more prisons is surely a sign that government policies are not working.

THE PLAYERS HEADING INTO 2025

European Court of Human Rights The International Court of Human Rights Adolf Hitler World War Three

Adolf Hitler and chum They are proponents of the Renting Age and Financial Slavery, as part of their kleptocratic agendas - not that far removed from Putin's vision where Russia dominates the world, supported by allied nations. Until, the final conflict, when there can be only one. And it will not be China that comes out on top. Though, many think they have commercial domination plans of their own.

In Wealdenland, they have been building executive houses to enable Russian oligarchs and other drug dealers and oil barons to launder their money. It appears not to bother this council's conscience one little bit. Just so long as they get a fat pension, by investing in oil and gas companies. To date, no British prime minister has made any effort to close the legal loopholes that have allowed the United Kingdom to become the money laundering capital of the world.

LINKS & REFERENCE

 Copyright © Injustice Alliance 2025. This website is protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Injustice Alliance avers that the right to impart information is a right, no matter that the method of communication is unpalatable to the State.