The Relationship between Democracy and Law
- Shantanu Panigrahi
- Mar 13, 2021
- 14 min read
Democracy is a fine thing, there is no disputing that, and I am a Democrat. But running a nation requires democracy to be blended with an appropriate system of law and order so that around 600 Members of Parliament elected by voters given highly dubious choices on who to elect do not get to use their whims and other covert manipulations of politics to implement systems and actions by the State. The actions taken by the State must be based on the law of the land. This law must be decided upon through the implementation of the democratic framework for decision making with considerable expert checks and balances that Members of Parliament would not have a clue about. The decision-making process of Parliament must itself be subjected to the process of law on what Parliament can debate for direct action by the State in order that the actions of a Prime Minister or President can be subjected to judicial scrutiny before it actually takes place. This is the fundamental process for the regulation of a society as a State to prevent authoritarian and misguided rule.
A case in point is the recent vote in the House of Commons that was seen by the Prime Minister Cameron to have given him the ‘green light’ as some form of a mandate to start air-strikes against Islamic State in Syria. The process whereby this decision was made is not the implementation of law because it has not been judicially-scrutinised by a Court of law both on whether Parliament has the power to start such a war and if so what should be the due process for determining the due process of law governing the decision to go to war. This is particularly important in the case of offensive wars. Finally, the option to assess if the due process has been followed must be available to the citizen. It is therefore not sufficient for the government’s own Attorney General to give the legal justification for the action to go to war in terms not only of British law but also international law so that this is to be regarded as a flimsy clearance from the views of a politician rather than a Judge experienced as an expert in this specialised aspect of the law.
Whether or not there is a written Constitution for a State, the appropriate body to determine the lawfulness of Government actions should be a panel of Judges of no less than 9 at a body of law enforcement that can oversee Parliamentary activity in one of its Divisions that should be known as the Supreme Court of the nation where majority voting should be applied on what actions a government can take legally. Citizens must be able to challenge each and every government decision through a Public Interest Litigation process through the High Court up to this highest court of the land.
Thus, it is argued that Parliamentary democracy is not a sufficient process for decision making by the State. It is the starting point for the enactment of laws which need to be tested by these Courts to ensure its congruence with the rest of the laws of the land and in terms of its intrinsic lawfulness. The Supreme Court can and must throw actions by Parliament back to Parliament for reconsideration until the law is accepted as constitutional by the Court. By Parliament is meant both the Upper and Lower Houses who must bow to the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court.
The law is therefore more important than the implementation of democracy in the governance of a State.
December 5, 2015 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment
At 21.30 hours, no emails came today and no comments were inserted in the blog from Egregious or anyone else. It dawned on me that the State may have interfered in blocking my transmission of the email to Egregious (seemingly) so that if something is unleashed on me I will be able to defend myself with the statement that the State interfered in this legal communication that I prepared to pave the way to my application to have this person identified and extradited from the United States to face private prosecution for criminal stalking harassment in my Blog over a long period of time and especially on 4 December 2015 when his comments were on display to the public for various periods of time. If he turns up now it will only be because he is caught with his pants down as a moronic stooge agent of State persecution whose job it was to denigrate my work and destroy my website with apparently stupid purposeless remarks but which were in fact designed to defame and ruin the credibility of my work.
21.40 hours, 5 December 2015
I had submitted a detailed enquiry to Professor Sir Adrian Smith, the Vice Chancellor of the London University concerning the examination of my MSc Dissertation on Urbanisation and Livstock Development in Eastern India and the award of the MSc degree and had submitted this matter as an issue in Greenwich Legalities under ME010463 of Medway County Court to which the Court did not reply and the University too went silent. Then as if related to the additional proceedings undertaken I suddenly I received a transcript letter giving all my marks and agreeing that I had transferred to the MSc but making no mention of the dissertation matter that I had queried.
This letter from the University was designed to place on record that there had been no effective Dissertation submission and indicating that the matter was not closed. I therefore replied to the letter with the following email:
Your REF: EISA/SS.SR/PJM/RKN: OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT; TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
To
transcripts@lon.ac.uk
5 December 2015 at 9:59 PM
To
Mr Craig O'Callaghan
Chief Operating Officer
Transcripts Office
Stewart House
32 Russell Square
London WC1B 5DN
Direct Line: 020 7862 8549
5 December 2015
Dear Mr O'Callaghan
1. Thank you for your letter dated 12 November 2015 that arrived in the post this morning.
2. I am afraid there is an error in this Transcript. It does not record the result of the examination of my MSc Dissertation that was submitted. Please correct this record immediately.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
United KIngdom
A very dangerous comment was posted in the Kashif Irfan (Clearly man management post) overnight, as follows: The man-management of Clearly Business Solutions Limited for Shell (UK) by Mr Kashif IrfanView Post 2015/12/06 at 4:57 am: Tanya Tanyastalk@outlook.com92.31.146.230: ‘I was also employed by this rude thieving man. Customers and staff warned me about lash if but I laughed it off. He is the talk of most shell petrol stations and if I am not mistaken he is now working for Barclays. So if you bank with them, you may want to consider changing’.
I trashed the comment as approving it would be libellous and enable Kashif Irfan an entry into suing me for defamation. This was organised by the State. I had already made up my mind to expose Egregious’ role in this persecution with the following blogpost that I created this morning.
Dear Egregious
1. I sent you an email from my email account shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk to ec@derd.com on 5 Dec 2015 at 7:56 AM (UK-Time) concerning our posted communications of 4 December 2015 late afternoon as it relates to your previous posts in this website. I had written to the ec@derd.com email address because this is the email account provided to me by WordPress as belonging to you from the information that posters are obliged to provide when sending comments on the blogposts.
2. For some reason that I cannot yet figure out, forty-five minutes after I sent the above email it got returned to my email inbox as undelivered. Daemon Failure gave me the following accompanying message: ‘Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address: <ec@derd.com>: Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied [RCPT_TO]’.
3. If ec@derd.com was not your regular email address to which I could send you important documents which cannot be displayed on the website for legal reasons so that you receive an explanation of my decisions to delete some of your posts, and comment accordingly, why did you not give your correct email address to this Blogsite for such communications?
4. You have been posting here for a long time and I had said to you once that you are important to me. Are you not interested in the discussions of this Blog anymore? If not why not? – my readers are entitled to know your point of view and I would also like to keep the record of our interactions to date straight.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
December 6, 2015 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment
I felt I had to cover over the blog comment posted by Tanya that I deleted so sent an email to Tanya as follows:
Your comment posted in my Blog
Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
To
Tanyastalk@outlook.com
6 December 2015 at 8:40 AM
To
Tanya
Hi Tanya
1. I got your message as follows: The man-management of Clearly Business Solutions Limited for Shell (UK) by Mr Kashif IrfanView Post 2015/12/06 at 4:57 am: Tanya Tanyastalk@outlook.com 92.31.146.230
‘I was also employed by this rude thieving man. Customers and staff warned me about lash if but I laughed it off. He is the talk of most shell petrol stations and if I am not mistaken he is now working for Barclays. So if you bank with them, you may want to consider changing’.
2. I am interested in following this up. Could you give me the dates and the petrol stations that you worked in for Mr Kashif Irfan, and when he left Clearly Business Solutions Limited to join Barclays?
Thanks
Shantanu Panigrahi
So the probing of the persecution from the solitude of my home in one of the most menial jobs imaginable continues. No replies came. And now I have proof from a third party as evidence of the mismanagement of the company for investigation.
The following exchange took place with Egregious_C in the latest Open Letter Blogpost:
1. Dude, if you think, for one second, that i would give you a real email addie to use, you are crazier than I thought. You have no compunction about posting private communication or email addresses on this blog of yours. I also suspect you will stalk people when it suits you.
You have no documents or any other communication that I would deem important.
Rather than waste time trying to communicate privately, you should go out and find a FUCKING job and stop being a FUCKING PARASITE.
Comment by egregious_c | December 6, 2015 | Reply
2. And it’s egregious_c, not egregious. Get it right.
Comment by egregious_c | December 6, 2015 | Reply
o You need to justify the following libellous remark that you posted and which was displayed to the public for some time until I could get round to deleting the post:
”So, you’re delusional, narcissitic, paranoid, parasitic, and now, a liar and a hypocrite. You cannot handle the truth. You’re just making up shit as you go. You are truly pathetic”.
If you do not apologise for these comments, I will seek your extradition from the USA to face charges of criminal stalking harassment on me on this website.
3. Libel is not subject to extradition, but if you dont want be around, telling you the truth, fine. And how is my response above different from your disparaging comments about sitting judges?
Pot calling the kettle black.
I was about ready to offersome praise for your well thought out post from yesterday. Oh well…
Comment by egregious_c | December 6, 2015 | Reply
4. Your persistant delusional disorder is no secret. You seek only to draw attention to yourself, thus a narcissist, you think that there are government agencies out to get you…thats paranoia, you live off your wifes compassion and that makes you a parasite. You publish falsehoods, such as being embroiled in some vague idea of legality, making you a liar, and you pretend to be something you’re not, like a seeker of truth, and that makes you a hypocrite.
Comment by egregious_c | December 6, 2015 | Reply
o The fact is that I posted the Blogpost ‘The Relationship between Democracy and Law’ because I had told you that I had something to say about the UK government’s decision making process to launch air-strikes on Islamic State in Syria, and had asked you specifically whether you had anything to say about this matter or were you content with both the decision taken and the way it was arrived at. You posted nothing in response to that request which shows that you have never been interested in debating the technicalities of any of my posts. This evidence stems from the time that you declined to explain your charges that I was a mysoginist and a rapist which you could not justify when given a specific opportunity. Your sole interest in coming to this website was seemingly to cast doubts on both my character (as summarised above) and my mental state. And now to cover up your stalking harassment you are saying that you wished to offer me praise for the contents of my latest blog. What has stopped you from commenting in that manner underneath that blogpost then?
To add insult to injury, you now write: ‘I also suspect you will stalk people when it suits you’. On what evidence do you base this attack on my character?
Your response is therefore inadequate. The fact remains that I had given you a perfectly logical explanation as to why there were legal reasons that I could not discuss your comments in response to my post ‘The Firm did not feel sorry for me’ in the Booking a Private Prosecution Consultation with ELS Legal LLP blogpost. You continue to decline the opportunity I am giving you to receive these reasons. It shows that you have been motivated by something else.
So in the absence of a satisfactory apology I do intend to bring your stalking harassment to the attention of the criminal authorities of the UK to consider your extradition for your conduct.
5. Like they did with Phands?
Comment by egregious_c | December 6, 2015 | Reply
6. How can you accuse someone of stalking, on a blog that is open for comment and even invited by yourself. Now if i was bugging you outside the context of a blog where you invite comment. If you dont want my participation, all you havd to do is ask, and Ill steer clear. And when you offer a an open letter, addressed to me, its prettyhard to accuse someone of stalking.
But seeing as you probably cant be reasonable, you can color me gone.
Comment by egregious_c | December 6, 2015 | Reply
I terminated my inputs there as this acknowledgement was sufficient proof that he was posting to protect the British State and I needed to see the result of my probes on him from the authorities here before writing anything more to him in open media. ELS Legal can yet act on my application, and the proceedings at the Legal Ombudsman and Medway Magistrates stand. The fact remains that the ‘Internet Complaint’ issue referred to Kent Police relates to this matter as there is a very strong likelihood that Phands and Egregious_C were part of the same organised stalking harassment attack that I have suffered from western secular liberal atheists under the protection of the Police and that is how I will present it to the authorities of the UK if the matter ever surfaced in legal proceedings. The arguments presented in this blogpost are sufficient legally for this referral to have been made as the Blog is the subject of those proceedings. In the meantime I have done sufficient in the Blog to protect my reputation, and can continue blogging now free of any further harassment from this source that threatens to destroy the tone of all my knowledge-seeking work as distractions for the reader.
There were no further information received and I needed full control of my Blog for my future. So in the morning of 7 December 2015 I replied to Egregious_C as follows:
· The Open letter was issued because I am an investigator who must go through a process for ascertaining the truth in order to establish the truth, in this case whether you gave false information to WordPress on your email address to enable you to post in the comments section of these blogs and why you would not deem my need for communicating my evidence privately as important for what you do in your life with yourself. You have explained that you do not give your correct email address to post here. I do not know what WordPress’ policy is towards commentators like you on whether you should be allowed to continue posting comments here for this reason or be banned from this site by WordPress? I do not ban anyone from my Blogsite for the simple reason that I do not feel that WordPress would appreciate such a step.
Notwithstanding, I am allowing you full participation in the discussions because I respect your decision not to enter into any private discussions with me. So let me show you publicly why you are so very wrong in all the accusations that you have listed in your comment No. 4, and lets us see your answers:
1. Firstly, concerning the doctor’s diagnosis that I suffered from persistent delusional disorder I have given an extensive rebuttal of this diagnosis (here: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/the-condition-of-persistent-delusional-disorder-of-dr-shantanu-panigrahi/). Western medicine is wrong.
2. About being a narcissist, I wished to leave my mark in history that I existed and put my time in this planet to good use. I generated knowledge in science and the humanities through my participation in Fora, Twitter and finally in this Blog where I condensed my knowledge. I want the world to take note of what I write and where the knowledge comes from. It comes from Hinduism, if you still have not got that. I do not consider for one moment the impression that I form on people reading my writings here. I believe that all human beings must have ready access to all knowledge on which to base their individual lives on. I have therefore given a full background on myself and my beliefs. More will follow if Olympia Publishers do not reply to my application to publish my book, ‘The Allurement of Reality’ that it is dragging its heals on. That is how you need to reassess the charge of narcissism in light of these qualifications.
3. I do not live off my wife’s compassion; I have made it clear to her that she can pursue divorce if that is what she wants. I am not afraid to face my future alone although living together is more cost-effective. Besides, I did a full day’s work yesterday to earn my living expenses. So your charge of being a parasite on her is clearly ridiculous.
4. As regards whether government agencies have been out to get me and whether that is paranoia I can only refer you to the continuous accusations from the legal authorities that I have been abusing the processes that are believed to be applicable in the system of law enforcement of the UK. The authorities must have in place means of punishing offenders who they will classify as serial offenders in this regard. This could manifest itself in criminal charges such as contempt of court, wasting court time, wasting police time, etc. It is clearly a threat when a Senior Judge says as in the Shell Tribunal case: ‘this Case is closed and no further correspondence can be entertained’ thus preventing me from pursuing my human right of continuing to fight for justice for myself on my entitlements. As you should have noted I have continued to seek justice by instituting proceedings that would determine whether what this Judge meant was that he was acting on behalf of the State as a Complaints Officer to order me to stop my applications now. I further told you that the Firms that I consulted for this legal advice did not feel sorry for me to want to facilitate the legal processes that would get me back my jobs even after my alluding to the fact that I believed that solicitor Firms here in the UK have certain minimal legal obligations towards applicants for legal advice and that I was in the process of testing this by placing the matter before a criminal court (the Medway Magistrates) to consider as clearly stated in the said blogpost. The response of the State authorities to these issues therefore remains to be seen.
5. Finally, you say that I pretend that I am a seeker of truth and that makes me a hypocrit. I reject this statement, for posting this comment now is in itself going through the process of satya-advaita that seeks the truth of your reaction to this post as well as the responses of the judicial authorities of the United Kingdom to this updating analysis.
No risk, no gain: is a good motto; or does it go ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’ - same difference. There was no reply from Egregious and no emails came from any source.
Comments