This post concerns The Rule of Law:

This is an extremely important topic in Britain as it is well-known that there is an absence of a written codified CONSTITUTION in the United Kingdom which legally restrains the ACTIONS of the GOVERNMENT and controls the exercise of public power.

However, the overriding principle of the Rule of Law, running under a Parliamentary Sovereignty and in conjunction with the ruling of the courts, is that ‘NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW’ and this is considered to be an IMPERATIVE safeguard against government arbitration, as our great nation should be governed by law, but not by ARBITRARY power.

“Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” (Churchman Thomas Fuller 1608- 1661)

It is embedded in the Rule of Law that NO PERSON is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or deprived of their goods unless they had violated the law which has been established in an ordinary way and applied by an ordinary court

Other factors include:-

• The law must be accessible so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable.
• Questions of legal right and liability should generally be decided by application of the law and not the exercise of the discretion.
• The law must apply equally to everyone, unless differences can be justified.
• The law must provide appropriate protection of essential and basic human rights.
• The parties in civil disputes must be able to resolve disputes without facing a huge legal cost or excessive delays.
• The executive must use the powers given to them REASONABLY, in good faith, for the proper purpose and must not exceed the limits of these powers.
• There must be adjudicative procedural fairness.
• The STATE must comply with the obligations of international law which whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice governs the conduct of nations.

There are strict rules in the UK on how long a suspect can be held in custody for questioning before having to be charged or released [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides that the police can only detain a person for“24 hours” following arrest(which is termed ‘pre-charge’ detention) before the person must be brought before a court or released (increased though to 36 hours if authorised by a police OFFICER of Superintendent rank, and up to a maximum of 72 hours which can only be authorised by a ]magistrate); so in normal criminal cases, the maximum period is 72 hours The Police can apply to hold someone for up to 36 or 96 hours if the person’s suspected of a serious crime, eg murder. Someone can be held without charge for up to 14 days if a person’s arrested is under the Terrorism Act. Alternatively the police can release someone on police BAIL if there’s not enough evidence to charge them]. Also article 5(3) European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states that anyone arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence: “shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

It now appears to this blogger that there is credible evidence that a previous Labour government under PM Gordon Brown [Home Secretary Jack Straw; Attorney General for England and Wales Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal] have disgracefully abandoned that essential constraining matter of principle required of our unwritten constitution, [but by omission the substance has been ‘condoned’ by subsequent Tory administrations including the current government] so esteemed responsible Members Of Parliament should as a matter of some urgency look into this matter and try to ensure that things are put right as far as possible.

The issue involved here is of course that of the suspected illegal physical detention by a criminal gang under the control of Sheikh Mohammed Al-Maktoum, [ruler of Dubai and reportedly a friend of the Queen, a millionaire foreigner with an estate in Surrey] of a young individual (a female foreign visitor – his runaway adult daughter Princess Shamsa of Dubai [then 19 now 39], and one innocent of any crime or offence), believed snatched in 2000 from a street in Cambridge, under sixty-five miles up the road from our law making Parliament, resulting in her consequent forceable kidnap and then ensuing involuntary and undocumented removal by air (helicopter) from Britain in a clandestine illegal extradition, plus subsequent abduction to another country (Dubai) where she is credibly believed imprisoned under lock and key with neither criminal charge nor conviction.

The initial intention of this blogger had been to find out what action had been originally taken by UK authorities on the matter, but to some extent that has been answered a few weeks ago by a downmarket weekend national newspaper’s (Sunday Mirror) disclosure by a retired Cambridgeshire DCI who had been leading the investigating team at the time, exposing that they were inexplicably blocked (assumed politically) from above and prevented from visiting Dubai or even interviewing the kidnaper suspects – his investigation was shut, suddenly closed down, and no action whatsoever was taken [said to be due to “significant sensitivities” involving the Sheikh]. Furthermore, it is also recently reported that the Police failed to respond to a personal desperate phoned call for help from the imprisoned girl.

In other words, or in plain English,

‘if you are Sheikh Mohammed Al-Maktoum, with significant wealth (billionaire) and influence in this Country and are ruler of a foreign power plus being vice president and prime minister of the UAE with important ties with this Country’ then the Rule of Law definitely does NOT apply here in Britain and “you are most certainly ‘ABOVE the law’ of the UK (so probably also elsewhere in the World within our influence).

This means that our governmentsfor the past 20 years have reduced our once great nation of law creators and enactors to a minor one, no longer governed by law, but one of arbitrary power subject to governmental ‘self-interest’ with a total lack of transparency, so not subject to scrutiny– the administration’s perceived intervention by arbitrary act in 2020 in a police investigation of criminal activity was clearly both obnoxious and indeed unlawful. Most of us will have had no formal legal training, but we are sure that those of you who have actually served in delivering law capacity will be aghast at our country’s abandonment of the basic rule of law principles, that we indeed have exported around the world?

It’s clear that public confidence in the police and indeed Police Commissioners will have been undermined by this case, not least particularly as there are claims of political interference at the highest levels. Now, although Downing Street has incredibly insisted that the Foreign Office had no role in the investigation into Shamsa’s abduction or its outcome, nevertheless the Foreign Office itself HAS confirmed that it DOES hold information relevant to the investigation, which IT REFUSED TO DISCLOSE to the High Court, claiming that it would harm the UK’s relationship with the UAE [that itself is a truly damming admission, but analysts aware of the sensitivity of the issue, say the UK government is unlikely to risk jeopardising its relationship with the UAE, an important trading and strategic partner].

Into the bargain, Amnesty International UK’s director Kate Allen, has called for a Police self-referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct [IOPC] concerning the seriousness of allegations regarding Cambridgeshire police’s lack of due diligence during the investigation into Princess Shamsa’s disappearance. [Although Cambridgeshire Police had previously confirmed aspects of their 2001 investigation (which allegedly found insufficient evidence to take any action), will be revisited, the force NOW insists the investigation is no longer “active”]. The persuasive indication here is that the Government simply ‘turned a blind eye’ to the Dubai leader for failing to prosecute him over daughter’s kidnap in Cambridge (whence she has never been seen in public since) because he is a close ally of the UK and has substantial property here.

Nevertheless, Conservative frontbencher Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay [a Conservative Life peer who has sat under this title in the Lords since 2019 and was appointed as a Lord in Waiting (one who may be called upon periodically to represent the Sovereign) in February 2020] responded (in typical government ‘cover-up’ fashion) claiming this was a matter for the police, and saying

“An investigation was conducted by Cambridgeshire Constabulary, who are operationally independent and the Government had no role in that investigation or its outcome.”

Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats reportedly are calling for an independent inquiry into what role the Foreign Office played in preventing that investigation going ahead, as the British people must know WHO took these decisions and WHY – if as it seems the Foreign Office disallowed an investigation into the unlawful abduction of a woman, it sends a dangerous message to the UAE, essentially sanctioning such behaviour.

Moreover, if true (as will be assumed here for the purpose of this post since the evidence is so compelling and also to avoid repetitive caveats), the UK government’s shameful behaviour inevitably empowered this evil bully of a Sheikh to undertake even further illegal international acts of tyranny against his family. The most shocking event perhaps was an astounding act of piracy on the high seas in 2018 when a youger Princess (Sheikha Latifa) was attempting to flee for the second time the Dubai gilded cage used by her father Sheikh Mohammed for years to imprison her. Having already overturned the rule of law in Britain, it was no great trouble for Sheikh Mohammed to then follow-up and entice the Indian government to also act illegally [with an improvised prisoner swap on his behalf to achieve the Sheikh’s objective of controlling this other ‘perceived wayward’ child; a swap involving British arms dealer businessman Christian Michel – who was extradited to India from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in exchange for India handing over Princess Latifa whence Mr Michel has been held without conviction for two years in one of India’s most notorious jails, where he claims he has been tortured – despite the fact that a UN working group has intervened to rule that he has been arbitrarily held in breach of his human rights, so has demanded he should be released immediately and compensated for his time in prison]. The yacht Nostromo being used by Latifa and her friend Tiina Jauhiainen to escape to India [for Latifa to claim refugee status], was reportedly intercepted in international waters and boarded by Indian Special Force commandos, who took it over, imprisoned the girl, threatened her, drugged her, and then forcibly returned her to her prison home under her father’s control and to be further drugged – her father claims (believed falsely) that she is mentally ill (bipolar – an illness involving Manic and Depressive phases) and is being cared for by family with medical help. The utter falsehood of that assertion has been fully exposed by smuggled video messages recorded in a lavatory with a ‘lockable door’ from the brave Latifa who vividly describes her plight, solitary confinement, and fear for her own welfare – indeed her life is in grave danger by murder (which her father Sheikh Mohammed will claim as suicide), as he will be extremely angry that he has been exposed on the word stage and in his culture that is likely to massively override his duty of protection as a father (he is one about who his daughter says ‘all he cares about is his reputation, will kill people to protect his own reputation’ “He only cares about himself and his ego”). In total, at least three Indian and two Emirati warships, two military planes, and a helicopter were involved in the raid on yacht Nostromo, about 50 miles off the coast of Goa

Furthermore, last March (2020) in the UK HIGH COURT Sir Andrew McFarlane the most SENIOR family judge in England and Wales, found Sheikh Mohammed had as ‘findings of fact’ [in a Fact-Finding Judgment (FFJ)], “ordered and orchestrated” the abduction and forced return to Dubai of Sheikha Shamsa, in August 2000 and of her sister Sheikha Latifa twice, in 2002 and again in 2018. Also, the High Court found in favour of Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein ex-wife of the Ruler of Dubai (divorced by the Sheikh under Sharia law, though she was not informed at the time), forcing her to flee to London with their two children.

That Oxford graduate Princess, half-sister of King Abdullah II of Jordan, had applied for the children to be made wards of court; as well as applying for a forced marriage protection order in relation to her first child Sheikha Al Jalila bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (age then 13 years) – Dubai’s sheikh had allegedly lined-up this then 11-year-old daughter to marry Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, who is 22 years her senior, [the UK court heard Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum reportedly discussed the agreement in February 2019 which would have seen his daughter Princess Jalila –only aged 11 – married to Bin Salman]; plus a non-molestation order for Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein’s OWN protection – she had fled the United Arab Emirates (UAE) a month earlier having become “terrified” of her husband at the beginning of the previous year. Originally the Sheikh had sought to retain custody and was seeking orders for the children to be returned to the Emirate of Dubai, but he quickly abandoned that course of action [doubtless because he decided that he didn’t need the Court’s judgement as he freely could just kidnap those involve and spirit them away to Dubai regardless of any court ruling regarding ward of court order, protection order, or non-molestation order!]

It is decidedly momentous for the High Court hearing, conducted in private, to make a series of ‘findings of fact’ about Sheikh Mohammed, in particular in relation to the kidnap and forcible detention of two of his adult daughters from another marriage almost two decades apart.

So, what action whatever has been taken by our government even in light of this unopposed crucial legal judgement about illegality of action by a foreigner individual? Apparently, NONE whatsoever. WHY?

Hence no freeze of any kind on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid’s assets nor did we slap him with any kind of travel ban, whence he comes and goes as he pleases in Britain or elsewhere, regularly supports horseracing events and indeed last year attended Day 4 of Royal Ascot London along with Queen Elizabeth II, and he flaunts his wealth without a care in the world, despite his despicable and felonious actions. Mr Dominic Raab Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs since July 2019, when pressed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on whether they could actually apply those restrictions, made the lame excuse that there was a ‘strict legal threshold’ for such measures and they needed evidence of acts such as torture, forced labour or a killing. He added: “It’s not simply the case that we can willy-nilly just slap sanctions on individuals. Asked if Britain would consider sanctions on the UAE after the video, obtained by the BBC network’s Panorama programme, Mr Raab said: “It’s not clear to me that there would be the evidence to support that.”

So, he clearly determines as TOTALLY irrelevant:

• The planned FORCED MARRIAGE of a minor at age 11 years [Sheikha Al Jalila bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum] which would constitute underage statutory rape in many countries – in UK if you’re over the age of 16 and have sex with a minor, you could be facing a prison sentence of life imprisonment

[Globally, the average legal age of marriage for boys is 17 and 16 for girls but many countries permit them, particularly girls, to marry much younger. Several other countries do not criminalise child marriage outright, the marriage is just considered invalid. Also many young girls are forced to become “common law wives” before they reach the age they can be legally wed. Child marriage is still widespread in India despite laws raising the minimum age to 18 for women and 21 for men. In Saudi Arabia the legal marriage age (with parental consent) is just 10 years old

Days before the first internationally recognised Day of the Girl Child (a United Nations observance held on October 11 every year), experts warn that child marriage is, WITHOUT exception, the biggest challenge to girls’ development. The number of girls married before the age of 15 is expected to double over the next decade, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has warned. By 2020, there will be around 50 million wives under the age of 15. This will pass 100 million by 2030, if current trends continue.]

• Princess Latifa released series of secretly recorded videos [now past onto the United Nations] showing her imprisoned against her will and her claims she was threatened with being shot unless she co-operates with official statements issued by her father
• Or that the elder sister Princess Shamsa personally phoned the Cambridgeshire police force in 2017 in a desperate plea for help to secure her own release from Dubai, 17 years after she was snatched in Cambridge [a victim of crime’s desperate appeal for police help apparently callously IGNORED?]
• Plus the Cambridgeshire Police received a letter calling for new probe into disappearance of royal’s sister. Police have confirmed they have received a letter relating to the disappearance of Princess Shamsa, a daughter of Dubai’s ruler – it comes after the BBC said it had seen the letter from Shamsa’s younger sister Princess Latifa, calling for the police to re-investigate the case from 20 years ago. The force said: “We can confirm officers have recently received a letter, dated February 2018, in relation to this case which will be looked at as part of the ongoing review”.
• Or the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) report last month determining indeed that Princess Latifa IS ‘a victim of TORTURE’
• Or even that the 2020 UK High Court judgement, found Sheikh Mohammed had as ‘findings of fact’, “ordered and orchestrated” the abduction and forced return to Dubai of Sheikha Shamsa, in August 2000 and of her sister Sheikha Latifa twice, in 2002 and again in 2018 AND had conducted campaign of fear and intimidation against his ex-wife Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein

Therefore, all that DOESN’T count as EVIDENCE in the eyes of the UK Government, eh? Well, that’s what happens when an individual like Sheikh Mohammed, due to “significant sensitivities” involving him, is above the law, isn’t it?

It’s quite obvious as well that both Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab, despite their weasel words and Britain’s innate culpability, have washed their hands of the whole Sheikh Mohammed business involving the kidnap & imprisonment of his daughters Shamsa, and Latifa, so disgracefully they are relying on other powerless international agencies (who have past form as being totally ineffective as they have been in this matter) to deliver justice and release these two adult daughters from their illegal incarcerations

Oh yes, our so-called UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said they wanted to see proof she is alive and well. He said the videos were “deeply troubling” and the UK Government would “always” raise human rights issues with its partners– including the United Arab Emirates [empty words!). While joining in, Boris Johnson says he is ‘concerned’ about Princess Latifa after the secret videos were released and furthermore has said he is “concerned” about Dubai’s Princess Latifa after videos allegedly showed her imprisoned against her will. The Prime Minister said: “That’s something obviously that we are concerned about, that the UN Commissioner on Human Rights is looking at that and I think what we will do is WAIT and see how they get on (BALDERDASH).” He added: “We’ll keep an eye on it.” [Her friends are urging the United Nations to step in after her messages from a secret phone stopped]. He told Sky News: “You can only watch the footage…and see that there is very distressing pictures, a very difficult case. “I think it is concerning. We always raise human rights issues with our partners, including the UAE [LIES]. “We are concerned by this and I noticed that we’ve seen the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights will be following up on what we’ve seen and we’ll be watching that very closely indeed. Asked if they wanted to see proof Princess Latifa was alive, he replied: “Given what we’ve just seen, people would just at a human level want to see that she’s alive and well, of course. I think that’s a natural instinct and we would certainly welcome that. He later told BBC Breakfast: “I’ve seen some of the footage and I think it’s deeply troubling. You can see a young woman and deep distress. He said the UK did NOT have a direct LOCUS in the case and the right mechanism was to deal with it through the UN (i.e. it’s nothing to do with us! The House of Lords heard earlier this month that the UK had made NO diplomatic inquiries about her safety to her father Sheikh Mohammed, leader of Dubai, OR the UNand that amply demonstrates the falsehoods of Johnson and Raab in their expressions of concern about Princess Latifa, doesn’t it?) – so just remember there are three kinds of falsehoods, lies, damned lies and statistics (1st Earl of Balfour)]. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights had first asked the UAE some TWO MONTHS ago for proof that missing Dubai Princess Latifa 35-year-old is ALIVE, but despite even further requests, it has of course received absolutely ZERO response so far! [UN spokesperson says UAE has not responded to its request for clear compelling evidence of ‘proof of life’ in relation to missing princess nor clarified the conditions in which Latifa was apparently being held]. It was such a simple request with an easy response and the very fact that both Sheikh Mohammed (and the UAE) have failed to answer or provide ANY proof of life makes one worry deeply about Latifa’s welfare – but when you are above the law like the Sheikh you don’t have to deal with international concerns about a potential murder, do you? [At a conference in Geneva, the UN spokesperson Marta Hurtado reported that a meeting between UN officials and UAE ambassador in Geneva has been agreed upon (The UN reported it also planned to raise the case of Latifa’s older sister Shamsa, who was kidnapped in 2000). Latifa herself has claimed to be held a hostage since 2018].

[Note various UN working groups have the ability to receive complaints on human rights issues and ask countries to respond but CANNOT compel action from national authorities].

When it was suggested to PM Johnson that Princess Latifa’s detention WOULD constitute torture, he replied: CONCEIVABLY it could do IF THERE’S THE EVIDENCE and those facts are RIGHT. But ….. it’s quite SPECULATIVE. [that crass mindless pontification from our own Prime Minister came despite the footage shared publicly by BBC Panorama when this daughter of the billionaire ruler of Dubai accused her father of keeping her hostage after she was abducted from a yacht during an escape attempt in 2018. Princess Latifa Al Maktoum claimed commandos drugged her as she fled by boat and flew her back to detention. In her videos, which are being handed to the United Nations, she said “All the windows are barred shut. There’s five policemen outside and two policewomen inside. I can’t even go out to get fresh air. So basically, I’m a hostage.”

Well, Boris Johnson says he is ‘concerned’ (claptrap) about Princess Latifa after videos allegedly showed her imprisoned against her will.

The UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said they wanted to see proof she is alive and well. Mr Raab said the videos were “deeply troubling” and the UK Government would “always” raise human rights issues with its partners– including the United Arab Emirates

He said the UK did not have a direct locus in the case and the right mechanism was to deal with it through the UN (total balderdash)

Aware of the sensitivity of the issue, analysts say the UK government is unlikely to risk jeopardising its relationship with the UAE, an important trading and strategic partner. Asked if Britain would consider sanctions on the UAE after the video, Mr Raab said: “It’s not clear to me that there would be the EVIDENCE to support that.”

The UN has said it will raise the detention of Princess Latifa with the authorities in the UAE. A spokesman said the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention could launch an investigation once Princess Latifa’s videos have been analysed.

Those in the British establishment responsible for making the decision to allow Sheikh Mohammed to be above the law must be held to account, must be made to justify their actions, and be dealt with accordingly if they are guilty of abuse of power.

[Furthermore, in a damming indictment of the Foreign Office and the Cambridgeshire police, new details have emerged about the case which necessitates an independent inquiry into their roles following the claim that Shamsa had in fact personally contacted the Cambridgeshire force by phone in 2017 requesting HELP to secure her release from Dubai, 17 years after she was snatched in Cambridge]

Like in the Shamsa case, there have been past examples where apparently there has clearly been political interference with police activities [say like that of the late Cyril Smith who died in 2010, initially a councillor, who later became MP for Rochdale and senior figure within the Liberal Party. Serious allegations had emerged about sexual abuse committed by him (allegations that Smith raped boys at the Knowl View residential school in Rochdale and abused boys at the privately-run Cambridge House children’s care home) – the police had investigated but no further action was taken and there are also allegations which have come to light since his death, while police and parties simply ‘turned a blind eye’] so that failure to apply the rule of law is totally unacceptable in the UK which is supposedly above such uncivilised behaviour which we have seen in other counties like Russia, China, and Iran. Last year’s damning national Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (that inquiry into child abuse was announced by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary) found that the Westminster establishment KNEW Cyril Smith, was abusing children dating back to the 1960s, but COVERED IT UP, plus there had been a “significant problem” of deference towards people of public prominence [Smith and other high-profile MPs, including the late Conservative Sir Peter Morrison, were protected from police action by their parties as their whips tried to avoid damaging ‘gossip and scandal’]. One has to question the integrity and morality of actions by former Liberal leader Lord Steel, in recommending Smith for a knighthood in 1988 [and duly sanctioned of course by the Cabinet Office honours committee that oversees the honours system and reviews nominations for national honours, so what confidence does that give us the public in its role in weeding out the unworthy? NONE] and moreover one who’s total inaction after being told by Cyril Smith himself (who’s acts were vile and repugnant), that he had molested young boys, [unforgivable most of all for those victims whose abuse he could have stopped and instead he gave Smith a licence to carry on abusing]. There’s no excuse for David Steel’s deeds, a man who admitted he knowingly turned a blind eye to Smith’s crimes (he is not being blamed for them but for his own failure to stop Smith when he had the chance). The former Liberal leader told an inquiry he was aware late Rochdale MP Smith was a child abuser but failed to take action and during one hearing, Lord Steel said he ‘assumed’ the former Rochdale MP had abused teenagers at one hostel dating back to the 1960s [after his Cyril Smith admissions in which he admits he knew Cyril Smith was a paedophile after his 1979 confession, David Steel was suspended from the Lib Dems two years ago and resigned last year after the damning Child Sex Abuse report: Lord Steel should have provided leadership, but instead, he abdicated his responsibility and he looked at Cyril Smith not through the lens of child protection but through the lens of political expediency and when attending the inquiry, far from recognising the consequences of his inaction, Lord Steel was completely unrepentant. – he told the inquiry: “These allegations all related to a period some years before he was even an MP and before he was even a member of the party, therefore it did not seem to me that I had any position in the matter at all!

Going back then to what happened in Cambridge in 2000, which raises supplementary issues and begs the question about other potential illegalities involved, doesn’t it?

• For example, did the helicopter fly into the UK and if so WHO and WHAT did it bring – perhaps mafia bosses, a criminal gang and a group of illegal immigrants plus a ton of hashish, heroin, cocaine and the new synthetic cannabis drug “K2” from Dubai and UAE?
• Or if the chopper was UK based what offences did the pilot and operators commit in exiting undocumented individuals from the UK and in particular an unwilling and ‘non-convicted’ illegal prisoner?

When an environment is created whereby someone is clearly seen to be above the law, this only encourages numerous influential and rich others or those in positions of power and responsibility, to consider themselves to also be above the law. Just last month we have the situation whereby a serving MET policeman of the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection unit, was arrested for indecent exposure, plus charged with the ghastly abduction/kidnap, and murder of a young woman (Sarah Everard a33-year-old marketing executive who disappeared in South London and was living at the time in London’s Brixton Hill area, but she went missing after leaving a friend’s house near Clapham Common to walk home – police confirmed Sarah’s body had been found in Kent). Or a lone female Leicester mum who was drunkenly attacked near her home in a violent assault and put in a headlock by an out of control off-duty policeman as he walked home from a night out [although he admitted assault, he was spared jail and was initially only taken off public duty by West Midland police but has since been suspended].

Then in recent weekend newspapers we have:

• Dreadful reports of shameful ‘sexism, sleaze and bullying rife in police according to claims by former officers including Susannah Fish a FEMALE former CHIEF CONSTABLE no less [so an illegal culture of sexism & misogyny (i.e., an ingrained prejudice against women) in the British police implicating some of our biggest forces nationwide and specifically the Met, Nottinghamshire, and Manchester police] (Sunday Mirror). It is said that the police force attracts bullies and figures reveal that more than a third of 666 reports of domestic abuse related incidents and offences perpetrated by police officers in the UK’s 45 forces, came from the Met (but strangely somehow the numbers don’t get reflected in convictions!). Since last year the Centre for Women’s’ Justice [CWI] have been contacted by more than 100 women who claim to have been assaulted by a police officer which reveals both the sexist culture within the police service and demonstrates the stark failure of police investigations into abuse by its officers [the National Recruitment Standards-Eligibility Criteria For Police Recruitment circular identifies that those as having unacceptable attitudes towards women should not be considered]
•  In concurrence as well, from Sir Peter Fahy a MALE former CHIEF CONSTABLE indeed revealed that he wouldn’t want HIS two grown-up daughters to join policing and they themselves would NEVER join the police force because they wouldn’t be comfortable
• What the heck then about Commissioner Cressida Dick, the first woman (just blatant window-dressing?) to lead the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS or Met) in London, which she joined in 1983 as a constable, patrolling a beat in the West End of London (previously she was a high-ranking officer in the Thames Valley Police), but she now heads up the Met and has done so since 2017, so why does it take a budget tabloid newspaper to expose the shocking extent of male sexism in our national police forces and indeed the sickening sleaze and bullying in her OWN organisation – what has she done or attempted to do, to drive it out in the past four years, and why has she failed so obviously and so disastrously eh?

[TO PROTECT WOMEN

and allow them to FEEL SAFE on our streets after dark

WITHOUT having to stick to main roads plus stay in well-lit areas and go accompanied (women should only go out in pairs or in large groups after darkness, remaining close to the people they trust and know well)/ get taxis (always book) or arrange a lift/ don’t wear a short skirt or outfits society might deem ‘provocative’/ walk with keys between knuckles/ drink in moderation & watch their drink/ keep valuables hidden/ keep away from hostile situations/ let someone know when they are coming home and the route they are taking and always be alert in their surroundings, so don’t use earphones or handheld devices

(THIS ALL IS AS CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED FOR WOMEN TO AVOID BEING ATTACKED BY A MAN).

Victim blaming: women are urged not to wear headphones or use mobile phones but it is NOT a law-abiding woman’s RESPONSIBILITY to stay safe and avoid being a victim of sexual violence!

NEW legislation therefore is urgently required that introduces

1. Certain reasonable restrictions on men to prevent their often-unacceptable and PREDATORY behaviour, or make it an offence for MEN to do certain things that are scaring to WOMEN– so perhaps:
2. A CURFEW for men so for them NOT be out in the streets after dark ‘without good reason’

[akin to the law about Coronavirus which currently restricts ANYONE going out, to those:

• Visiting someone who is ill or needs helpGoing to a wedding or funeralGoing to workLeaving home for another reason (education or childcare/getting goods from shops or visiting food banks/getting money or topping up a prepayment meter/going to a place of worship/avoiding being harmed or helping someone in an emergency/doing something the law says you have to – for example going to court)]

But in this male CURFEW case it would also ALLOW say:

• Going to or from a place of entertainment (including pub or club)Attending a gym or sports venueVisiting family – where allowed
• 3 for a man to follow a woman after dark for any substantial distance, or time, on the same side of the road/pavement, or within 50 yards
• 4 Make it an offence for a man to approach a lone woman outside particularly after dark, try to chat to her, ask for a kiss or a hug
• 5 make erotic style comments/remarks and talk sexually, or make despicable sexual observations to others about a woman, as is increasingly common in the of culture a boys’ locker room type atmosphere or sexist workplace
•   6 Make it an offence to bump into women resulting in a brush against their breasts as is a regular ploy by men exploiting restricted spaces at work and in crowded public areas or transport
• 7 Make it an offence for a man to sexually proposition a subservient female colleague
• 8 Legislation to prevent women being demeaned and promoted as mere sex objects as is widespread and is depicted in strip clubs or with topless, nude, or so-called glamour pictures, of females [consequently an increasingly large group of vile animalistic men feel empowered to disrespect, sexually abuse, or even attack women which simply leaves the general female community in a constant state of worry of being sexually assaulted.

MEN have created an environment in Britain whereby LUST has replaced LOVE and SOCIAL INTERACTION has been replaced by SEXUAL INTERCOURSE – consequently this outcome needs to be rescinded

• 9 Banning or greater restriction of all pornography (not just hardcore – though mainstream hardcore material in forms such as magazines and websites is currently essentially UNRESTRICTED in UK) on video and DVD and particularly as available by telephone, on television and via the internet, which has taken diverse forms and become more widespread in UK society in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries with production of a horde of pornographic magazines and films being developed, to in future to ‘make it illegal to take, permit to be taken, make, distribute, show, have in one’s possession, publish or cause to be published any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of any woman not in a current relationship with’ –  so not restricted to just a child (defined as someone under the age of 18 years old).as is the present law under The Protection of Children Act 1978 (and its subsequent amendments). [The current British legislative framework including the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (in England and Wales), the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Video Recordings Act 1984 leads to a confusing situation in which there is a ‘theoretical’ ban on the publication and distribution (but not possession) of pornographic material in any form, which is in practice UNENFORCEABLE due to the vagueness of the legal test of material that “depraves and corrupts”].
• plus of course further criticism of the Met police’s [under the control of the said Cressida Dick] mishandling, or more accurately MAN-handling, of attendees at the Sarah Everard Clapham Common unofficial London vigil (which also silently expressed protest against persistently unpunished endemic male attacks on innocent WOMEN walking our streets at night), but nevertheless that event inexplicably resulted in the police-MEN’s physical assaults on peaceful virus-mask wearing FEMALE ladies, supposedly for society’s coronavirus protection law reasons excuse [However, the subsequent official enquiry report [whitewash?] by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services [Matt Parr, led the inspection team for HMICFRS] found and deemed that Met Police Officers “did not act inappropriately or in a heavy-handed manner” at the Sarah Everard Vigil, and the public were misled into thinking so without knowing the facts by the incomplete but widely disseminated on social media snapshot coverage [that being the arrests of peaceful women by rough policemen] – it said it found that there are some things the Met could have done better, but saw nothing to suggest police officers acted in anything but a measured and proportionate way in challenging circumstances]..
• and furthermore the unnerving news that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell’s private life [she is currently awaiting trial in the USA on multiple charges relating to the sexual abuse of young women and girls (regarding her alleged role in recruiting young girls for her former deceased partner, billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein)] will have to stay under wraps (her interview transcript is redacted [(censored or obscured), as it contains disclosures that should NOT be made public because the judge said they would ‘merely cater to a craving for that which is sensational and impure’ (Daily Telegraph)].
• Then we have the case brought by Douglas Ross Scottish Tory leader who has argued that the SNP and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is guilty of an “abuse of power” and covering “over the truth” having squandered nearly three quarters of a million pounds of taxpayers’ money, a huge cost, by fighting a judicial review legal case she had been clearly advised by her SNP government lawyers [including Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC] that she would lose three months before finally admitting defeat in a court battle brought by her predecessor First Minister Alex Salmond [that matter involved a botched Scottish Government investigation into unproven sexual harassment complaints against Alex Salmond (who was indeed ACQUITTED of 13 charges of sexual actions following a criminal trial last year) – the SNP government’s investigation was ruled unlawful and described as “tainted by apparent bias” by a Court of Session in Edinburgh. Ross also claimed the SNP were ‘engulfed in sleaze’ as for example Patrick Grady stepped aside as Westminster chief whip after being ACCUSED of groping two men at a Christmas party and a 19-year-old in a pub – amid claims he was ‘protected’ by the party despite complaints. Additionally, the SNP has been rocked by further sexual misconduct claims, after a Westminster party staffer accused two nationalist MPs of sexually harassing him. Likewise, it is alleged that Ian Blackford SNP Westminster leader ‘ambushed’ party staffer in meeting over SNP MP sexual harassment claims

Amidst the stench of such SNP sexism Nicola Sturgeon brushed off the Holyrood bombshell report by the committee investigating her and Alex Salmond in which MSPs said its ‘HARD to believe’ she didn’t know, as his deputy, of concerns over Alex Salmond’s inappropriate sexual behaviour OR others would suggest that should read ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ to believe’. However, Nicola Sturgeon clings on to her job as First Minister for now as a Hamilton QC report ruled thatshe didn’t break ministerial code whence Salmond’s allegations that she broke the ministerial code collapsed and she subsequently triumphed in a no-confidence vote

James Hamilton (barrister), was an independent advisor for the Scottish and the Welsh governments, and Ireland’s former director of public prosecutions 1999 to 2011 (his nationality is Irish), submitted the findings of his independent investigation 22 Mar 2021.

He had been examining whether Ms Sturgeon broke the ministerial code of conduct by:

1.Misleading parliament over when she found out about her government’s investigation into Mr Salmond.

2.Misleading parliament by claiming she did not offer to intervene in her government’s investigation.

3.Failing to record her meetings with Mr Salmond

• Internationally in addition particular then, it is hardly surprising that President Vladimir Putin of Russia felt empowered in March 2018 to dispatch a kill squad of active officers in Russian military intelligence to the city of Salisbury, England for the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal a former Russian military officer and double agent for the British intelligence agencies [the failed attempted murder poisoning effort on him and his daughter (who may have been poisoned after calling for Putin to be jailed on Facebook), used Novichok a Soviet-era nerve agent, but later in June 2018, a similar poisoning of two totally innocent British nationals (killing one Dawn Sturgess) in Amesbury, seven miles north of Salisbury, involved the same Novichok nerve agent, (although that itself was not a targeted attack but it may have been left in Salisbury deliberately in a Russian state role as part of a campaign to undermine security in the UK)]
• Or that the same President Putin approved the horrific successful assassination in November 2006 of former Russian spy Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko [it is suggested that the motive was Litvinenko’s revelations about Vladimir Putin’s links with the criminal underworld] – Litvinenko was a British-naturalised Russian defector and former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service who specialised in tackling organized crime. (According to US diplomats, Litvinenko coined the phrase “mafia state”). That murderous “state execution” in London was by poisoning using polonium-210 (a radioactive isotope that will have been made in a nuclear reactor); he died from the poisoning on 23 November. He became the first known victim of lethal polonium 210-induced acute radiation syndrome (it is believed that it was surreptitiously administered in a cup of tea)].
• Indeed, there is a long history of Russian deaths in the UK under mysterious circumstances – from poisoned umbrellas (Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, who was poisoned with an umbrella injecting a deadly 1.7mm-wide pellet of poisonous ricin in his skin, while waiting for a bus on Waterloo Bridge in 1978) to radioactive substances – Moscow and the Russian state has repeatedly been linked with attacks, murders and deaths on British soil, hasn’t it? Yes, for example in March 2012, exiled Russian banker German Gorbuntsov survived an assassination attempt as he stepped out of a taxi in Canary Wharf East London (a hitman had shot him six times with a silenced pistol). Also, later that year, Alexander Perepilichnyy, who was helping Swiss prosecutors uncover a multi-million-pound money laundering scheme used by corrupt Russian officials, died in mysterious circumstances outside his home in Weybridge, Surrey (the businessman collapsed while out running and it was initially believed he had suffered a heart attack, but however, traces of a poison that can be found in the gelsemium plant were later found in his stomach). The British government was accused of turning a blind eye to evidence that he was assassinated on Vladimir Putin’s direct order!
• The following year, oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a vocal critic of Mr Putin’s regime, was found hanged in March 2013 in an apparent suicide, but the pathologist who conducted his post-mortem said he was unable to rule out murder. Then in December 2014, one of his associates Scot Young, was found impaled on railings in Marylebone after allegedly falling from his flat, but a coroner ruled there was insufficient evidence to rule his death was a suicide.
• Then there’s also the case of Putin critic and Russian dissident Nikolai Glushkov, a close friend of the deceased  oligarch Boris Berezovsky [Putin’s one-time fiercest rival], murdered in the hall of his own south west London home in 2018 (a week after the attempted poising by nerve agent of the two Skripals in Salisbury) who’s death was made to look like suicide said the coroner at an inquest [Glushkov had feared that he was on a Kremlin hit list – a post-mortem examination concluded he died at the hands of a third party, due to compression of the neck].
• Furthermore, is it any wonder that Britain is treated with total contempt and distain over the plight of HOSTAGE Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe [a British-Iranian (i.e. a British-Iranian dual national) mother] and proved to be weak and powerless when Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRG) in April, 2016 commenced her imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment during her detention on spying charges in Iran over the last five years [This March 2021 an International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) report warns she IS ‘a victim of torture’ and in urgent need of medical support] in an arms deal and sanctions trap as another example of Tehran’s Iran policy of “hostage diplomacy” [her fate is linked to an arms deal dating from the reign of deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (he had ordered and paid for 1,750 tanks and support vehicles from a firm owned by the MoD – but the deal was halted after he was deposed and Britain kept the money). The UK has agreed to pay Iran its dues, but US sanctions present a problematic challenge]

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe 42, after nearly five years in an Iran prison, (imprisoned since 2016), though recently released on March 7 (her initial sentence served, she was allowed to remove her electronic bracelet worn while under latter house arrest) her passport had not been returned so she was not allowed to leave to re-join in the UK her husband and now 6-year-old daughter (who returned to London in 2019 to start school in the UK), and PREDICTABLY she is endangered by further harrowing incarceration as she appeared on trial 3 weeks last Sunday at Iran’s Revolutionary Court, on new charges of “spreading propaganda against the system/ regime” (she reiterated her strong denial of the charge on spreading propaganda – simply repeat allegations of activity previously aired at her previous trial before the same judge who had found her guilty 5 years ago) and harrowingly still awaits verdict/sentence [another 5 years perhaps? – this trial must be condemned as illegitimate (secret trials are against international law, even aside from her diplomatic protection!]. After the court hearing on March 14 (so a good month ago!), Nazanin was told she would hear whether she’d be convicted of this second set of anti-regime charges in around 7 working days (a falsehood designed to further extend her torture and torment), but this period had coincided with New Year celebrations in Iran – and Nazanin’s husband Richard correctly predicted that it would not be resolved until after Easter! He now claims that return to her family in West Hampstead could be further delayed by new negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal – she will be held as leverage while the JCPOA negotiations continue). Meanwhile Redress, an organisation working with torture victims, has sent an independent 77-page medical report to the UK’s foreign secretary Dominic Raab that it had commissioned from the IRCT – BUT NO EFFECTIVE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE FOREIGN OFFICE YET THOUGH, NOR EVER BY THE UK GOVERNMENT. [Perhaps, withdraw our diplomats, arrest their Ambassador [NOTE in an extremely rare diplomatic and legal move the British government gave Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe formal diplomatic protection in 2019, but that status has simply been ignored and discounted by Iran with zero response from the UK -WHY?], expelling the other Iranian diplomats, cancelling ALL Iran citizens’ visas, and prohibiting direct flights between UK and Iran (Qatar Airways, Oman Air, Kish Air, IranAir, Iran Aseman Airlines, Iran Air Tours, Air Arabia and Mahan Air all fly direct to Iran) might have a greater effect than Boris Johnson’s recent phone call with the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and his inane pronouncement that “Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe must be released immediately”, eh?]

The UK government should inform Iran and immediately pay financial compensation to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family for her arrest, custody, torture, inhuman treatment, lack of access to due process or medical treatment, and retention in Iran, using the £400million owed by the UK to Iran within the framework of an arms contract signed before the 1979 Islamic Revolution – say at a rate of £1,000 per hour of past or future incarceration or physical retention in Iran, which currently would amount to some £45 million [so about 11% of Iran’s held money].

[Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, worked as a project manager at the Thomson Reuters Foundation and her life transformed dreadfully on April 3, 2016. She was arrested with her daughter, Gabriella, then not yet 2 years old, at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport. She was a British-Iranian aid worker, who had travelled to Iran to visit her family for Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. She was on her way back to the UK when she was arrested and accused of “plotting to overthrow the Islamic regime” – a ridiculous charge vehemently denied. She was then separated from her daughter, whose British passport was confiscated, and sent to prison – it was the start of a long ordeal for the young mother, marked by harsh stays in solitary confinement in windowless cells, blindfolded interrogations and hunger strikes to demand medical care. In November 2016, Amnesty International raised an alert that Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s severe detention conditions were driving her to contemplate suicide].

Also the UK needs to immediately withdraw permittance of dual nationality, as it is in the UK’s interest not to confer dual citizenship on UK-nationals and this is a concession with dangerous implications as dual citizenship means dual loyalty/responsibility, and in times of strained bilateral relations between the two countries, a person’s loyalty would be suspect [eg during Second World War, when United States went to war with Japan, there were 40,000 Japanese living in the United States, some had taken US Citizenship]; the UK currently allows dual citizenship, which means its nationals are in most cases allowed to have citizenship of another country at the same time. However, not all countries permit dual nationality. Some countries, for example, may regard you as having lost your nationality once you are granted British citizenship. Dual citizenship gives an excuse that allows regimes like that of Iran (which does not recognise dual nationality) to unfairly detain and charge innocent individuals who then cannot be properly protected by the UK or their other state [Iran’s other jailed dual nationals and their uncertain fate: some of the most prominent are Ahmadreza Djalali (Iran-Sweden)/ Morad Tahbaz (Iran-UK-US)/ Kamran Ghaderi (Iran-Austria)/ Fariba Adelkhah (Iran-France)/ Anoosheh Ashoori (Iran-UK)/ Massud Mossaheb (Iran-Austria)/ Nahid Taghavi (Iran-Germany)]

• For example also, Russian oligarchs are allowed to flaunt their stolen state assets in Britain. Such London Russian oligarchs should not be mistaken for conventional, self-made businessmen – their riches come from transactions with the Russian government. They either sold something for a fortune to the state of Russia or they bought something for pennies in some sort of privatisation from the state of Russia. Russian assets should be frozen in Britain to make sure oligarchs can’t profit from their crimes and BRITAIN should freeze assets for Russian oligarchs in the UK since the country is suspected to be behind the poisoning of an ex-spy – Foreign Affairs Chairman since 2017 Tom Tugenhat has said Britain needs to be targeting Russia where it hurts them – in their wallets.