|
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly
resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public
trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of
any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under
national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor
shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at
the time the penal offence was committed.
IS
DAVID BLUNKETT A HUMAN RIGHTS NAZI ?
ARTICLE11
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. 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.
|
