Legal

2026-09-17

"No-one is above the law"

A big day for Reiner, for Germany, and for the world 😎. 

"The PCR test was not authorised for diagnostic purposes... because there was no adequate international standard..."

I wonder who will be prosecute at the inevitable 'Nuremberg 2' trials. After all, some lawyers are more qualified than others...

"The end is near my friends, see you soon... "

(8 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2026-09-05

Interest of Justice review the state of play in the UK for "vaccine injury" compensation.

Like the Equitable Life pensioners, the "vaccine" injured face a long and turgid war of attrition between the reducing number of those injured (who die over time) and the governments (of all stripes) who will deploy any excuse, any filibuster, any delaying tactic to avoid meeting their obligations.

In the battle for the Equitable Life pensioners, the government is clearly winning. With no national media willing to provide proper journalism, there is no longer any pressure for progress.

Regardless, take note that IoJ have some interesting advice for us. 

PS: Looks like the

2026-09-04

Our kind benevolent government, out of its boundless concern for our health and safety (not to mention the profitability of the folic acid industry) has mandated that we must all eat flour that has been "fortified" with folic acid, a synthetic additive that does not occur naturally in our food.

Not all foods have been / will be mandated to include it, which is just as well since there are some categories of people who are advised not to eat it. They can avoid it by eating foods that are not "fortified" to with it.

If they can find any...

I do hope that it isn't possible to develop an allergy to it. That could be rather inconvenient.

Of course we can always "go wild" and live in a remote forest off wild game and fish caught from our rivers, but there again it would no longer surprise me to find that our government is

2026-08-31

I don't believe that these are protests against Islam specifically (although I'm sure there are plenty of miscreants who would like to so categorise these matters).

But they are certainly against what passes for our government for letting in - nay, welcoming - illegal immigrants of all descriptions and none (but strangely mostly young men) apparently indiscriminately.

One has to ask why we bother with immigration laws at all when we apparently fund the French to shepherd boatloads of illegal migrants across the channel. Of course we are told that we are funding them to stop the flow...  but the flow keeps on coming, so that's obviously untrue.

It has reached such heights of absurdity that something has got to give - our task is to make sure that it's our government that gives, rather than the peace.

Easy to say, harder to do.

(9 minutes)

...

2026-08-31

Central government plans to "devolve powers" to Councils by merging District Councils (how does that work again?) are running into legal actions.

"Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire councils have set out their intention to launch judicial reviews, while Devon, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire have warned they may do so"

In my own county past efforts to save money by cooperation between neighbouring councils were abandoned - so I'm not convinced that central government have both thought through the practical implications, and decided on the amalgamations strictly on the basis of the benefits expected to accrue to residents.

The Daily Sceptic reports.

2026-08-29

This is not Party Politics (despite Robin Tilbrook being chairman of the English Democrats).

It is a case of national concern, and giving recognition where it is due.

Between Robin Tilbrook's court case and Rupert Lowe's private inquiry, the government was caught in a pincer on the topic of rape gangs.

Make of it what you will.

2026-08-28

When mega-corporations buy their way out of a lawsuit by "settling" for a sum of money out of court, who wins?

Does the public, or even "the greater good" (for whom the authorities notionally work) win?

What price lack of disclosure in court? What price the uncovering of the truth?

What price the covering up of the truth?

What is more important in a public interest case: truth and disclosure, or money?

Interest of Justice are very clear about this, but who was party to the cover-up?

2026-08-26

David Starkey, genuine National Treasure (being one of the very few still breathing who understands the British Constitution and how we got here) holds forth at the Institute of Economic Affairs (no it's not something out of "Yes Minister") on where it all went wrong.

Plenty of food for thought here, including the clear (but unstated) idea that words are indeed spells. Well, if they act like spells, then they are indistinguishable from spells, especially when they come freighted with an assumed meaning that actually isn't appropriate to the particular usage...

Maybe we should insist that all politicians should wear a conical hat to remind us.

But judges don't get a free pass either:

"... although you pay obeysance to the idea of democracy, it's too dangerous to allow it to work without controls... instead you have this marvellous thing, 'liberal democracy', which means.... democracy that is limited by

2026-08-25

This follows on from When Court Judgements Stray Off-Piste, an American case concerning child custody, in which he had a passing involvement which turned out to be significant.

Who knew that apparently straightforward court cases could be so nuanced? 

And nuances there are aplenty, enough indeed for the three further articles that Martin Geddes offers.

Two smoking guns, and just one envelope

What the two smoking guns reveal

...

2026-08-23

Mandating any therapeutic medicine to be added to food automatically negates the "informed consent" rule, in my book.

It should therefore be challenged as illegal.

Good luck with that.

Still, nobody it seems can agree on how much "folic acid" (ie: artificial folic acid) we should be medicated with, so one seems entitled to ask "where is the science here?".

Or is it just an absurd self-serving merry-go-round?

"We are the government, therefore we must legislate - it's what we do".

And if we the people don't call them to account, that's what they will continue to do.

2026-08-22

Martin Geddes analyses an American Court Case to pin-point the salient points at which judgement appears to have strayed.

Not because he wants it reviewed (maybe he does, maybe he doesn't) but because it's instructive to illustrate the various ways in which judgement can stray.

2026-08-23

Constitutional Cluedo.

2026-08-21

Interest of Justice filed a lawsuit in Washington DC to which the government had 90 days to respond.

That 90 days are up, but they now have another 60 days due to "procedural error" in the original filing.

That puts the expected hearing in the same time window as the Netherlands civil case against Albert Bourla et al in Leeuwarden.

IoJ brings us up to date.

Plus another article on related matters.