UNITED NATIONS - HUMAN RIGHTS

 

  ARTICLE 10 - THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site, or our HOMEPAGE 

 

 

 


Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

 

 

Article 10.

    Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

     

    UNIVERSAL DECLARATION  OF HUMAN RIGHTS

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    IS DAVID BLUNKETT A HUMAN RIGHTS NAZI ?

     

     

    ARTICLE 10 EXAMPLE VIOLATION - The architect of a change in the law to undermine the right of citizens in the UK to a fair hearing in sex cases, gave Sussex Police the ability to selectively investigate a crime scene to effectively frame the accused for a crime that - as it turned out - nobody had committed. According to one barrister defending, Legal Aid would not cover the expense of an independent medical expert, so leaving the accused at the mercy of the State's medical expert, who turned out to work for the same NHS Trust as the claimant's mother.

     

    David, now Lord Blunkett, changed the right to be treated as innocent and so a right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR), into the accused being treated as guilty upon entering a UK court. In other words a return to the witch trials that condemned a person to death whether they were innocent or guilty. The problem with unjust convictions in the UK is that there is no effective remedy, part of the problem being that the body charged with reviewing cases is itself in denial of this Article (Article 14 ECHR) in allowing the CCRC to take a view - rather than applying the law according to other near identical cases - convictions based on misleading medical testimony. Clearly, such an organization if it comprises the sum total of remedies that might be classed as effective, should be replaced with a more up to date body that heeds the Articles. Until then, it is alleged that there is very little chance of anyone accused of a sexual offence, receiving justice in the UK.

     

     

     

     

    The then justice minister was having an affair at the time, a moral hypocrite as a married man in a position of trust, who, allegedly, could have been manipulated via favours, by the women he was working with. To be continued .... We look forward to receiving a denial as to such allegations, that will be reproduced. In the absence of such response, the reader might make of the failure to respond what they may. So far on other (human rights) sites, no denials have been received. The fact that the then Queen of England selected this minister to receive honours (presumably) including his part in taking away the human rights protections from those accused of sex crimes, is a matter of some concern. Especially, where the same honours system influences judges in the courts, that are supposed to be impartial and independent of the State.

     

    In the UK the Head of State ([HOS] King or Queen) is charged with selecting a Government to provide a just administration. Should any administration prove to be inadequate, the HOS should dissolve parliament and call a general election, from which to choose a newly voted for candidate for the post of Prime Minister, who is then called to assemble a Cabinet of ministers to form a Government.

     

     

     

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights illustrated book cover

     

     

     

 

 

This website is Copyright 2021 Climate Change Trust & Injustice Alliance The views, performance reviews and opinions of the Trust are protected by Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.