On recent inspection and experience the answers are …. UNANSWERED! The following text is quoted literally, and grounded in factual evidence, not confabulations of the mind.

The IDEA is very old, it is about the quality and essence of Justice, as apparently enshrined in Magna Carta (40), and Paragraph 6 of he UK Human Rights Act 1988, which relates to Article 1, and the remainder of the Articles we are allegedly upholding.

The question is not rhetorical, and almost ridiculously easy to understand.

Here it is, it has been swimming, better perhaps – circumlocuting, around circles in the Lower and Upper Tribunals, ending up with the Ministry of Justice at Petty France, There is a certain adjectival quality underlined that's relevant, where one would expect the question to be answered with righteous indignation, but clearly the process is inured so that no person as yet recognises its importance for the individual. This is a sample, and there is worse experienced at the Royal Court's of Justice.

I wonder if you are interested. It's about the individual.

The text is a literal quote from the Tribunal Manager, re-quoting my question, which has been lying around these past two years.

'I am writing to you as the tribunal manager of the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber. I have seen the response that you have
been sent by B….. P.. in regards to the internal review of your freedom
of information request. Within this response it states the
administration of the Upper Tribunal will respond to the following

"DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?"

If the answer is NO or silence then no need to answer the next, you have
just answered article 10, to publish all, where you deny article 6.

WILL I EVER get a hearing?" [ Let alone an independent and impartial one whose qualities are luminescent, this one has been floating since the beginning of this year. ]

As an administrator I am unable to answer these questions and I have
referred them to a legal officer in order to help with my response.

This has been disparately predicated in a/an [L] awful mess, by several judges, lastly whose decisions were unsigned, and the contrarieties internally so inconsistent as to contradict themselves from one sentence to another, the First Judges was an impossibility.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is important because recently about 800 years of justice has been almost despatched entirely to concatenating phrases of 'access' to justice, but not delivering it, where the adjuncts are obviously attached to non finite verbs shifting the predication from the logical centres of the main head-word-lexemes to their adjunct.

All semantics, generally typified by a few common fallacies such as 'petitio principii', 'ignoratio elenchi', confabulated in 'suppressio veri' & 'suggestio falsi' – of course..

The consequence of conferring such amalgams is a detriment to the health of the individuals, and the rising NHS costs on mental health.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.