What we are all coming to understand in the UK, is that our democracy is well and truly broken. What many of us good citizens thought - in fact many people around the entire world thought - was that our system of government - our legal system - our justice system and not least the protection of our personal freedoms - were second to none. In fact, in the past, these systems have been applauded and adopted by many other nations, with good intentioned politicians leading the way to betterment.
What the Covid plandemic has shown to so many of us in these last 15mths, is that what we all thought was a solid foundation stone - the basis for a free, fair and open democratic society - is actually only quicksand. All these values have dissolved beneath our feet - consumed by the watery mix of nothingness - and done so without one gun being fired or even one gun being shown. The country and its populous has been brought to its knees economically and cowed into submission by the wrongful implementation of emergency laws. That is, emergency laws instigated on the back of false narrative, peddled by scientists with outrageous conflicts of interests - waved through parliament with barely a whisper of dissent - let alone opposition - from any of the 650 elected MPs.
The evidence being accumulated daily by doctors, scientists and lawyers from all around the world points undeniably to a fraud being inflicted on the population in truly epic proportions. That is, a fraud inflicted on the People by politicians, irrespective of their outward identity of political persuasion.
Despite the foregoing content - this blog post is not about Covid or about the plandemic. But before leaving these introductory paragraphs, I wish to leave you, the reader, with just one word to research. That is assuming you do not currently believe there is a fraud being perpetrated and that the government really does have all your best interests at heart. That word is “IVERMECTIN”.
What we have lost as a society - at least for the time being - you could say we never really had in the first place. For if these values truly existed as we thought they did, they would indeed be solid, rock solid and would never be dissolved. A true democratic system, for the People, created by an Intelligent Society, could never permit such a failure. The prime reason being that Intelligent Societies learn by all their mistakes of the past. History serves to give us the lessons to learn from - by highlighting all the potential weaknesses in People and the systems they create - with less than good intent.
So what we have today in the UK is not that.
We don’t yet have a democratic system which is robust to the point of preventing these weaknesses – preventing these failures. Instead, we have a system which serves itself. It protects itself by closing down open and free discussion. That is, discussion which challenges the official narrative. By the system doing so, it ensures that it cannot be criticised publicly by anyone. But if it is, it delivers penalties on those brave enough to speak out.
Just today a freelance journalist – previous BBC presenter – with a history of verbal criticism of the BBC over some time now - was arrested again by the police. This was again, supposedly, for speaking out the truth which the government – as it does in these times we’ve come to know - took exception to. The BBC of course being highly regarded – at least still by some – plays the role of the honest voice of government. Any outspoken criticism of the BBC, is in effect an outspoken criticism of its master - the government.
I and my colleague are another two such persons brave enough to speak out. We have also suffered penalty at the hand of the UK government for doing so. Will we be stopped? No - not until we take our last breaths on this Earth.
There are some People in this world who place personal integrity above all else. The reason being, that in their eyes, there is nothing else worth living for without it. Somewhat ironically perhaps, another politician said something similar once.
“If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters!”
Alan Simpson
And so, now I come to the main point of this extended Blog.
In a previous Blog, and elsewhere on this site for the charity JOLE RIDER, we have detailed our submission to the DCMS parliamentary Committee. That submission was made in response to a public invitation to submit evidence for an inquiry concerning the conduct of the Charity Commission – a body the DCMS committee has an overseeing and managing brief for. The submission, made in Mar20, provided evidence to the DCMS – headed by Julian Knight MP – concerning the woeful and unjust behaviour of the Charity Commission, which itself is headed by CEO Helen Stephenson. Such is the nature of that documented behaviour – as judged by so many who have seen the evidence submitted by us – that it indeed warrants a full investigation being made into the Charity Commission and all its failings.
One year on, the investigation has – we are told – been placed on hold. It was actually never commenced. The reason partly relates to the Covid plandemic as explained by a clerk on the committee. The committee itself comprises 11 cross party MPs. Each one has been written to with a request to indicate when the investigation is likely to be commenced. The reason for writing was to place emphasis on the importance and need for the investigation and to highlight the likely damage to charities if further delay ensues.
One reply was received. That reply indicated that the MP would try and raise the matter when the committee next sat.
Nothing further has been heard or received since - from any of the MPs.
The investigation by the DCMS committee was seen as one route to exposing the behaviour of the Charity Commission. A second route open to us, as former directors of the charity JOLE RIDER, was to have the Charity Commission’s total failure to carry out due process taken up by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman [PHSO]. The PHSO is charged with responsibility to investigate such failings within the health service and, as it happens, the Charity Commission.
The somewhat archaic, out-dated, procedure which one has to go through to trigger an investigation by the PHSO, is to have the submission signed by a serving MP. This is a prerequisite before the PHSO can open a file on a case. But the signature of any MP will suffice for the purpose. It is though usual that a signature is requested and given by the MP representing the constituent making the PHSO submission. One has to ask, why such a gatekeeping process is required. It appears to provide – as we see now - a stop valve on an investigation that could prove embarrassing to certain MPs and their government departments.
A signature was therefore requested of our own MP – Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. He had been well versed in the case although he had repeatedly declined to meet with the directors to talk about the case in detail. Regretfully, Clifton-Brown, did not fill us with great confidence for granting our request to sign the PHSO submission. He had been judged by a formal assessment of MP performance – conducted in 2019 and prior to the December general election – as ranking 650 out of 650 MPs in parliament. He initially agreed to sign the submission, but after he had read it, then declined to give his signature. He actually commented that "it contained some very serious allegations." He was right, but the effect was to stall the submission to the PHSO and their investigation.
Parliamentary procedure historically dictates that an MP can only address issues presented to them by one of their own constituents. In other words, a constituent residing outside an MP’s constituency cannot normally be entertained by an MP technically not representing them in parliament. A sure way of cutting off a constituent’s access to parliament is for their MP to simply ignore them. This is not something an Intelligent Society would permit.
Remembering however, that the PHSO only requires a signature of any MP, irrespective of their constituency and relationship with the party requiring the signature, we then sought the signature of a different MP. In fact, we sought the signature of a further seven MPs. Each one being individually selected for a particular reason and approached at different times in order of preference. You will have already guessed that each one of the seven also declined – like our own MP – to provide that MUST HAVE signature.
So, a total of eight MPs had now been approached and each one gave the same negative response.
The matter was left to simmer for some months – at least until we became acquainted with another charity director who was having similarly serious issues with the Charity Commission and their conduct.
His MP is Daniel Zeichner, who indicated his willingness to sign our PHSO submission. He understood - from our shared charity director contact - just how badly the Charity Commission can behave as a result of personal briefings from the charity director.
Daniel Zeichner was sent our submission for signature.
He, too, declined to sign the submission.
The NINE MPs who have now received copies of our submission – each MP refusing to sign - are pictured in this post. I would have to venture, that given the number concerned – 9 out of 650 – we believe we have given the task a fair shot. Additionally, given the identity of those MPs – high ranking in their own right and holding key positions – Julian Knight, Keir Starmer, Caroline Lucas and our own Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – the result obtained from the NINE is taken as representative of the whole 650.
One point to make plain here is this. Anyone might be forgiven for thinking that the submission must surely be full of unsavoury language, outrageous claims or even physical threats - or perhaps all three. But NO. Just well worded records of events, aligned with provable facts in the form of well detailed information, copies of documents and significant voice recordings. All of which were available to both the PHSO and the DCMS inquiries/investigations into the Charity Commission.
Before closing on this post there are just two final but important points to mention.
I mentioned above a charity director with his own story about the Charity Commission. We are also well acquainted with further stories affecting charities, their trustees and beneficiaries which are truly incredible by what they reveal about the Charity Commission. One story in particular is nothing short of sensational. But what the public understands of these stories is completely false. False, that is, due to what the Charity Commission gets away with saying on their own website and what they feed to the media – including notably the BBC.
Our own experience matches precisely with the experiences of these other charities. People will want to ask the most obvious of questions. Why would the Charity Commission behave in this way? Frankly, we cannot answer that question other than to say this. The Charity Commission is notoriously bad at what they do - judged by many a commentator. To adjust for their incompetence, they appear to fabricate their investigatory work so as to score points from the rest of government and the falsely informed public. The DCMS could have discovered all of this and more – they could have got to the bottom of the complete sorry story. Our personal belief is – that is never going to happen. The investigation which should have been started will now be binned, thanks to the damning evidence we, as former directors of the charity JOLE RIDER, submitted a year ago.
The final point.
The Charity Commission penalised us as the former directors of a vibrant and successful charity that was JOLE RIDER and did so in different ways. By their actions they also penalised 1000s of young Africans for years to come due to the terminal impact their actions had on the charity. For ourselves, however, that penalisation took two main forms.
1. False information and account placed in the public arena – principally with the BBC but not limited thereto – discrediting our personal reputation.
2. Publicly announcing that we, as former directors and trustees of the charity JOLE RIDER, would be banned from acting in the same or similar capacity for any charity for a period of 12yrs.
An utterly farcical determination and one arrived at without one meeting with the Charity Commission.
It is akin to a corrupt police service determining you are guilty and sentencing you:
Without one interview
Without examination of the evidence
Without trial
and all because we embarrassed their organisation – the Charity Commission - by making true public statements on a website about their appalling behaviour. That website was in fact de-platformed on the instruction of the Charity Commission – despite the content being wholly true and provable.
And these people – Helen Stephenson and her staff – can do this with total impunity.
Additionally, MPs do not want the Charity Commission’s crimes revealed. A total of 19 MPs [3% of elected MPs] - the NINE pictured below plus a further 10 MPs forming the DCMS committee, alongside Julian Knight - have effectively refused to take this matter forward in the way it deserves.
So, to complete on this point, I say this.
If we as former directors of JOLE RIDER were guilty of any misdemeanour or crime of any kind, would we really be seeking wider public attention to this case? The answer is an emphatic NO – of course not. The truth is, we cannot sit quietly and allow this behaviour to continue unchecked - for to do so would mean the Charity Commission’s behaviours would go on – and they have been going on, during this lapsed time – affecting negatively so many other completely innocent People.
But, here we have it. The most serious of complaints against the Charity Commission - and the parliamentary system turns in on itself to protect its own. Ordinarily, this would be difficult for many people to imagine. However, given the events of the last 15mths related to Covid and the plandemic, it is surely much easier than it was to see that the political system is far from well. It is in fact heavily diseased and only a complete rebuild will cure the problem for our society.
If anyone wants clear evidence that democracy in the UK is well and truly broken, then they need not look much further than this case.
Comments