United Kingdom uses its judiciary to operate an economic machine without a social and cultural heart
The reason that the United Kingdom has been referred to as UK-PLC is because the State is geared towards economic prosperity that comes from denying people fundamental rights that would come under the heading of the human rights as deriving from the human nature of fairness and natural justice. Much is made of the fact that the Magna Carta of nearly 1000 years ago was a British conception but the State only pays lip service to the development of a society in which human beings matter. The State is organised as a Police State to be maintained as a public limited company to function as an economic powerhouse and this explains the rapidity with which the economy has recovered following the Banking crisis relating to the crash of 2008.
The judicial system is an intrinsic part of this Police State that has these overriding priorities so that the state’s institutions are manipulated from behind the scenes so as not to sacrifice the economic goals of the State. This is a Police State in all but name and the so called independence of the judiciary is a farcical facade for external appearances only. The State therefore has no social heart and this manifests itself by the lack of a written constitution to guarantee the citizen fundamental rights regardless of the nature of the government in power and the whims and nuances of the justice system under the direction of individual judges.
I base these assertions on my direct experiences from bringing my disputes with employers and other people and institutions discriminating against me and harassing me to Her Majesty’s Tribunal and Court Service in its various departments and to the Police force. The entire state machinery was organised against me to thwart the progress of my representations and to expose me to the dangers of civil actions against me in relation to my Blogs on UK civil society members that could have led to my bankruptcy to be enforced by their own courts as a punishment for my actions.
The state was operated by an unseen establishment which directed its institutions to clamp down on my representations for natural justice whilst maintaining an outward show of civility to the world that it was fully equipped as a coherent, viable and decent justice system. I have only survived intact thus far due to having the intelligence and strength to withstand the manipulations of the judiciary on the four issues highlighted in my Blog, namely Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint, UKIP Proceedings and Shell Tribunal. The Conservative Party is at the vanguard of such a Police State with policies, both domestic and international, that are geared to the goal of economic prosperity. The manipulations of the judiciary was part of a systematic attempt by the State to sort me out.
This organisation of the United Kingdom as a State centres power in the hands of judges who operate the court system directing and instructing the other officials into actions to maintain the State’s philosophy without being answerable to any kind of process for the scrutiny of their conduct for being disciplined under legitimate complaints procedures to protect the natural rights of citizens or through the facilitation of criminal actions against the judges by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service or from legitimate civil actions by citizens who have been victimised by the judiciary. Access to the court service is denied when such representations are made. The judges are therefore free to not provide any coherent reasons for their decision in court rulings and directives so as to have a stranglehold over the justice dispensed when challenged. This allows the judges to be part of the State protecting the objectives of the State that is only known to the establishment, from untoward legal challenges that come from people who struggle for the justice of human rights when these come into conflict with business interests. Criminality is defined to enable business to flourish at the cost of humanity and this is then enforced through the judicial system through the judges.
The State is not interested in the idea of nationality but is exclusively geared to economic ends. The culture that enables this then get defined as British values which are implemented through the State’s institutions. No one need be patriotic except to serve the State. Englishness is not to be fostered under such a State. No human being must have the freedom to operate according to his own conscience of morality but must tow the State line in their work for their jobs and so called careers are dependent on it.
The Establishment uses its judges like the morons that they are. They only have morons through a pitiable education system and a liberal social system and so have only morons as judges who can be manipulated without any shame being felt by them when they are forced to issue deceitful rulings. These judges therefore have to tow the State line and those who are best at this submission are given honours in due course by the State, like knighthoods and a host of other decorations from the Queen. For very long the judges have been pampered to think that they are above the law and nothing will happen to them if they misbehave as they are part of the Great British Empire under the supremacist notion that the British are superior in intellect to people from the other parts of the world so that it is their duty to stay united and tied to the State to maintain this way of life. At a cultural level the State imposes values and conduct through insidious brainwashing by ceremonies and commemorations and commentary in the media under imposed political correctness of its institutions.
The struggle that exposed such a Police State required me to take on each one of their morons through arguments and probing submissions. They had to be individually engaged with truth-probing techniques to render them into their cubby holes where they would draw their high salaries to be shamelessly part of the State against me.
In this regard, let us examine the case of Judge Kurrein of the Employment Tribunal in South London. He knew fully well that I had reported him to the Police as a criminal for the manner in which he acted to not recognise the cases that I had lodged against the three Shell UK Franchises and must have seen that I had published a Blog that highlighted how he criminally conspired with the respondents against me. But instead of initiating court action against me to sue me for defamation or trying to get other procedures implemented such as contempt of court proceedings, he continued to write duplicitous rulings to cover up the fact that State had frowned upon my activism to bring these companies before the law for their activities because as events indicated it was the State that had compelled him to write what he had done to me behind the scenes. This is evident from the fact that when I complained about this Judge through the appropriate judgement appeals procedure at the Employment Appeal Tribunal these authorities under the name of the Registrar covered up his criminality, and the same fate awaited me when I reported him to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. The State would not let me have any legal proceedings in which the criminality of their judges would be called into question. They were caught out lying blatantly as well as deceiving to protect their own kind. In this regard, the Police was also manipulated by the establishment not to investigate the judges that I reported. I have a letter from Kent Police dated 4 June 2015 assigning a Case No CO/002/15, relating to a report of criminality against Judge Kurrein on 2 April 2015. The Police continue to sit on the fence and it is therefore clear that it has been stopped from investigating these matters so that the public is given a false picture of the reputation of the Judges upon whom the Justice System is built.
There is thefore no distinction between the State and the Judiciary in the United Kingdom and my email submission to Judge Doyle whom I approached to examine the conduct of Judge Hildebrand in relation to the rulings and directions of Judge Kurrein at the Employment Tribunal as follows proved to be a waste of time and effort:
From: Shan Panigrahi To Presidents_Office_Employment_E&W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk 2 June 2015 at 8:36 AM
To Judge Brian Doyle President, Employment Tribunals (England & Wales) President’s Support Office 5th Floor, Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway London, WC2B 6EX Email: Presidents_Office_Employment_E&W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
2 June 2015
Dear Judge Doyle 1. Thank you for the letter that I received from your office indicating that you are unavailable to determine my complaint until 3 June 2015.
2. The basis of my submission is that in an ideal society, Judges, no matter which area of work they specialise in, be it employment, crime or civil issues relating to family and societal human relationships, are appointed by the State but are independent of the State in that they are obliged to define the limitations of the State which comprises the government , its institutions, and its procedures to regulate society through laws enacted for the purpose. If the laws enacted are not coherent according to an understood constitution for the State, it is the implicit duty of judges to point out these failures to the government of the day in order that restitutive measures are enacted to restore the constitutional framework for society under which citizens know their fundamental rights and responsibilities. Thus, since the UK does not have a written Constitution it is the implicit duty of Judges to pass judgements in their work that define the unwritten Constitution through the precedence that they establish in court and tribunal proceedings. 3. Secondly, whilst the State appoints Judges, it has within it powers to also dismiss the Judges for failure in their work. It would appear that the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman fulfils this role currently but is paralysed for to be effective it must operate as the formulation of a State institution rather than being part of the judiciary administering a process of self-regulation. Such an arrangement would ensure that Judges conduct their work to the letter and spirit of the Constitution so that failures to meeting the criteria for civil society would lead to a reprimand of the Judges to the point of disciplinary action being taken against them that could lead to dismissal from service and even the prosecution of criminal proceedings if the motivation of the misconduct was malicious in nature.
4. In your assessment of my complaint I would be grateful if you would kindly clarify these issues of the interrelationships between the State, the Judges and the Citizen in the United Kingdom. Thank you for a quick response.
Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
This is what I mean by describing the United Kingdom as a nation of morons in a Police State.