“DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?”

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
questions:

"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?

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
questions:

"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.

Creation of an Independent Judicial Scrutiny Commission

Although historically UK did have a tradition that accepted that judges were independent and impartial when exercising their judicial function there has been paradigmic changes in the last thirty years, which demand more scrutiny and accountability:-.

The legislature has become increasingly laicistic, Christophobic and culturally Marxist/Fabian gradualist and any reference to God or our Christian heritage has been expunged from the EU constitution

Judges have engaged in judicial activism [1] with judicial rulings often based on personal or political considerations or the enforcement of political correctness rather than on existing law.

Judges have also been “pushing the legal boundaries”, changing the constitution [2], “making war on Britain” [3], and making new laws [4].

 

Why is this idea important?

Although historically UK did have a tradition that accepted that judges were independent and impartial when exercising their judicial function there has been paradigmic changes in the last thirty years, which demand more scrutiny and accountability:-.

The legislature has become increasingly laicistic, Christophobic and culturally Marxist/Fabian gradualist and any reference to God or our Christian heritage has been expunged from the EU constitution

Judges have engaged in judicial activism [1] with judicial rulings often based on personal or political considerations or the enforcement of political correctness rather than on existing law.

Judges have also been “pushing the legal boundaries”, changing the constitution [2], “making war on Britain” [3], and making new laws [4].

 

Repeal Ombudsman Laws/ Rules

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made.