The Facts of Claim

The Odious Acts and Omissions: Judicial Perversion of the Course of Justice, Metropolitan Police Department Failure to Act and Home Office Protection of Establishment at all Cost Mentality   

The events detailed in this account provide a first-hand insight into a gross miscarriage of justice carried out by the UK’s Home Office, Metropolitan Police Department, and Judiciary of England and Wales. What began as a demand for accountability and justice soon transformed into a widespread institutional conspiracy designed to suppress dissent and eliminate opposition through coercive state actions. This first-hand account expose systemic violations of human rights, detailing the UK Government and its Home Office Department’s elaborate efforts to enforce a clandestine hostile environment policy agenda, targeting Black British African and Caribbean communities under the guise of immigration control; in order to deter the Community’s Human Rights Activist Group within Campaign for Truth and Justice from continuing an unrelenting Accountability demands of the Judiciary and Metropolitan Police Department.

The failure of the judiciary to acknowledge and redress its own violations is not just a technical legal issue—it is a profound failure of justice. This failure raises significant concerns about the integrity of the judicial system and the commitment of  the Lord Chancellor’s Department to uphold the rule of law. Without accountability, without the willingness to examine these clear violations, the system as a whole risks becoming tainted by corruption and bias. The case at hand requires not just judicial oversight but a fundamental reassessment of the systems in place to ensure that justice is done, not only in letter but in spirit.

Equally with the Metropolitan Police Department and CONSECUTIVE Commissioners failing to record and investigate serious complaints regarding judicial misconduct as monumental as  Judicial Criminal Perversion of justice, including False and Unlawful Imprisonment, it is not merely an oversight—it is a blatant  dereliction of duty. This failure enables a culture of corruption and injustice within the judiciary, further compounding the harm done to victims. The inaction of the Metropolitan Police Department in fulfilling its legal obligations to uphold the law in a fair and impartial manner amounts to gross misconduct and is a clear violation of the principles enshrined in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. This systemic failures to act is a serious threat to justice and must be addressed through full accountability and investigation.

Last but not least important is the role of the mainstream media, which Justice Brandis had famously once referred to as the disinfectant ray of sunlight and most efficient policeman that ensures transparency and Accountability that put in check corruption and wrongdoings; when public officials, (judges, courts, police departments, etc.,) fail to protect the rights of ordinary citizens—particularly in the case of the ordinary individuals—the media, was often like a public watchdog, that kept the rich and powerful in check against corrupt abuse of power.

Historically, the media has played an essential role in highlighting injustices, giving a platform to those whose voices might otherwise go unheard.  However, when it fails in this regard, it perpetuates a cycle of disempowerment. The lack of media attention or misrepresentation of the struggles faced by communities can often exacerbate the feeling of isolation and invisibility that these communities experience in relation to legal and societal structures.

There are several reasons for these media failures. Sometimes, it may stem from biases in the media's portrayal of these communities, a lack of resources to cover such stories comprehensively, or even institutional reluctance to challenge powerful entities like law enforcement. Additionally, the media’s role in influencing public opinion and policy can be limited if these issues aren't seen as mainstream, or if those in charge of editorial direction fail to see the importance of them.

However with modern media platforms own and controlled by a few oligarchical interests, with vested interests in the status quo, increasingly acting as gatekeepers, limiting the flow of crucial information. They enable corrupted politicians and public establishments to evade accountability by muzzling those who would speak truth to power—whistleblowers, activists, and victims of systemic injustice—leaving them with little means of gaining public attention or support.

Media entities, with their vast reach, hold significant sway over public perception. They suppress dissenting voices, prevent important issues from coming to light, and obscure the truth with sensationalism or biased reporting. In doing so, they serve the interests of political elites and financial oligarchs rather than the people they claim to inform. The controlled narrative creates an atmosphere where power is unchecked, and the accountability that underpins justice is all but erased. This suppression is not a passive act, but a deliberate strategy aimed at maintaining the status quo and ensuring that those in power remain unchallenged, even as they perpetuate corruption and injustice.

The failure of the mainstream media to amplify the voices of these Victims is not just an oversight—it is an active suppression of accountability and a total dereliction of duty. Whistleblowers, in particular, often face systematic silencing, their stories either ignored or discredited, as the media outlets, owned by a few oligarchic forces, turn a blind eye to corruption and misdeeds. This has serious implications, as it perpetuates a culture of impunity where wrongdoing goes unchecked, and those with the power to make change are either unable or unwilling to do so.

Failure of Duty by the Judiciary of England and Wales, and its Lord Chancellor’s Department to Acknowledge its Member’s Wrongdoing and provide Redress and Compensation to victims of its Judge’s CRIMINAL Violations

When the judiciary fails to acknowledge its own violations of law, particularly when those violations are irrefutable, it represents not only a failure of legal integrity but also a breakdown in the fundamental duties of accountability and justice. The case presented herein—where Justice Toulson failed to recuse himself from a matter that directly involved his brother and his brother's law firm, Reynolds Porter Chamberlaine—raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, and the judiciary's adherence to the law.

The situation is clear: the act of violation, as confirmed by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 02 March 2001, is indisputable. The failure of Justice Toulson to recuse himself from a matter involving such a direct conflict of interest undeniably calls into question whether the Convention Right to a fair, independent, and impartial tribunal, as outlined under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, was violated. This is not merely an academic question, but a matter of fundamental legal principles and fairness.

For the judiciary to dismiss this violation since 1998 without providing redress to the victims, and for the Lord Chancellor's Department to attempt to misinterpret or misrepresent the law in its letter, undermines public trust in the legal system. The Department cited the Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd case as the most recent example of conflict of interest law. However, this reference was selectively applied in an effort to downplay the significance of the conflict in Toulson’s case with Mr Caul Silford Grant. The ruling in Locabail focused on adverse comments made by a judge, not on issues of conflict of interest. By misrepresenting this ruling and applying it to the Toulson matter, the Lord Chancellor’s Department displayed a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Moreover, the Department conveniently overlooked more relevant case law, which directly addressed conflicts of interest. Key cases such as Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852), Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (1999), and In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (2000), all contain judgments that are directly applicable to challenges based on conflicts of interest. The failure to reference these precedents raises a critical question: was the Lord Chancellor’s Department acting in bad faith, or is this an example of institutional corruption?

When the judiciary and the Lord Chancellor’s Department fail to address violations of law, fail to hold those responsible accountable, and fail to provide justice to the victims of such violations, it represents a catastrophic failure of duty. This is not merely a case of an isolated judicial error—it is one of many cited instances of systemic disregard for the rule of law. For the judiciary to operate with impunity, without addressing clear violations, undermines the very foundation of justice. If the judiciary is not held accountable for breaches of its own duty, then it risks eroding public trust in the legal system altogether.

Failure of Duty by the Metropolitan Police Department to RECORD AND INVESTIGATE Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice Complains to its Commissioners

The current authority responsible for handling complaints against the Metropolitan Police Department is the Independent Office for Police Conduct.  This body is claimed to be an independent organisation, operating independently of the police and government, to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct or criminal behaviour by police officers; in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the process.

The IOPC was established in 2018, after having taking over from its predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Like its successor, the IPCC’s role was investigating serious complaints, such as allegations of police misconduct, corruption, or abuse of power including deaths or serious injuries involving police officers. Only difference in emphasis being that the primary function of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is to ensures that complaints are thoroughly investigated and that police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, are held accountable for their actions; including a power to make recommendations for changes in police practices or policies based on the outcomes of investigations. 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission was established in 2004 through the Police Reform Act 2002 and began operating with the goal of providing an independent body to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct by police officers across England and Wales.  It took over from a previously existing Police Complaints Authority. A body responsible for overseeing police complaints, with the stated aim of improving transparency, accountability, and public confidence in policing from 1985 to 2004.

So, prior to Independent Office for Police Conduct  and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the key body responsible for overseeing complaints against the police, including the Metropolitan Police, from 1985 to 2004 was the Police Complaints Authority (PCA).

Therefore in 1998, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) would have had a specific role in overseeing and handling complaints about police misconduct or corruption, but it would not have been the primary authority tasked with prosecuting criminal offences under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (S1) or the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (S1). These Acts deal with offences related to corruption within public bodies and public servants, including Judges, Court Officials, Public Prosecution Service, Police Officers, etc., and the PCA’s role was more focused on ensuring that complaints were investigated fairly and impartially rather than directly enforcing these laws.

a) Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, Section 1

This Act makes it a criminal offence for any person employed by a public body (including Police Officers, Judges, Public Prosecutor, Court Officials, etc.,) to corruptly PERVERTING THE COURS OF JUSTICE, solicit or receive any gift, loan, reward, or advantage for performing their duties improperly.

• Duty of the PCA in 1998: The PCA would not have been directly involved in investigating offences under this Act. Instead, if a complaint was made that suggested a Police Officer, Judge, Public Prosecutor, Court Official, etc., was engaging in corrupt practices (such as PERVERTING THE COURS OF JUSTICE, soliciting bribes or improperly influencing decisions) the PCA should have ensured that the matter was appropriately investigated, either internally by the police or by an independent investigator if necessary. However, criminal investigations under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act would typically be the responsibility of law enforcement agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office established in 1988 (SFO), National Crime Agency established 2013 (NCA), or specialised police units. The PCA would have been responsible for overseeing the fairness and integrity of the investigation into police FAILURES and misconducts.

b) Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, Section 1

This Act also addresses the issue of corruption by public officials, particularly focusing on the act of bribery. It prohibits Police Officers, Judges, Public Prosecutor, and other public officials from accepting any form of bribe or advantage to act in a corrupt manner while performing their duties.

• Duty of the PCA in 1998: Similar to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, if a complaint was made against a Police Officer, Judge, Public Prosecutor, Court Official, etc., involving a potential violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, the PCA’s role would have been to oversee the fairness of the investigation. If a police officer was suspected of corruption (such as accepting bribes), the PCA should have ensured that the complaint was investigated thoroughly by the relevant police authority. The PCA itself was not a prosecuting body for criminal offences but ensured that investigations into police FAILURES and misconducts were impartial and independent. The actual legal enforcement would be under the purview of law enforcement agencies, particularly those with jurisdiction over corruption and criminal investigations.

The failure of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to acknowledge and act upon Judicial Violations of the law represents not just negligence, but a grave dereliction of duty and gross misconduct, aiding and abetting further criminal acts. This failure undermines the core responsibilities of law enforcement and the administration of justice, particularly when it involves a Judge Deliberately Perverting the Due Course of Justice. This argument is rooted in multiple legal frameworks, including the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, Section 1, and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, Section 1, which explicitly mandate the duty of public bodies, including the police, to prevent and address corrupt practices and the abuse of power.

1. Legal Framework and Duty of the Police

The Metropolitan Police, as a public body, is bound by the provisions of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. These statutes criminalise the failure to prevent corruption and criminal acts within public bodies. When the MPD fails to acknowledge judicial violations or investigate complaints of judicial criminal conduct, they are breaching their duty under these laws. These Acts serve as a clear reminder that public authorities, especially law enforcement agencies, are required to take action against any form of corruption or criminal perversion, even within the judiciary.

2. Complicity in Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice

The ongoing systemic failure to address judicial misconduct, despite ample evidence presented by the victims and their supporters, including letters from Buckingham Palace (1998) and the Lord Chancellor's Department (2001), constitutes a severe miscarriage of justice. The MPD’s inaction in investigating and recording these serious claims can only be interpreted as aiding and abetting the criminal acts committed by members of the judiciary, whether by deliberate omission or incompetence. The role of the police is to uphold the law impartially, yet their failure to investigate judicial law-breaking implicates them directly in the perversion of justice and in facilitating the continued abuse of power by those within the judicial system.

3. Dereliction of Duty and the Erosion of Trust

A police department's refusal to act on judicial violations also contributes to the erosion of public trust in the justice system. If citizens are made to believe that the law does not apply equally to all—whether police officers, judges, or government officials—then the very foundation of justice is undermined. The MPD’s failure to properly investigate complaints not only disregards the rights of individuals like Caul Silford Grant and the Campaign for Truth and Justice (CTJ) group, but it also signals an institutional culture that is either complicit in or indifferent to the violation of fundamental human rights and legal principles. This type of dereliction of duty by a law enforcement body is a direct assault on the principles of equality before the law, justice, and accountability.

4. Impact on Victims and the Community

The two-decade-long struggle of Caul Silford Grant and the CTJ group highlights the severe and far-reaching consequences of this systemic failure. It is clear that the MPD’s failure to engage meaningfully with these complaints has prolonged the suffering of those wronged by the state’s judicial system. Victims of judicial misconduct, including unlawful detentions, malicious prosecutions, and unlawful imprisonments, have been denied justice, redress, and compensation due to this institutional refusal to investigate and address criminal behaviour within the judiciary. In this context, the MPD’s inaction is not simply neglectful; it is actively complicit in the continued abuse of power by the judicial system, further oppressing individuals who are already marginalised and victimised by the state.

5. A Call for Accountability

In light of the legal obligations placed on public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, it is imperative that the department be held accountable for its failures. The laws outlined in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 make it clear that ignoring complaints of judicial misconduct is a form of complicity in corruption. Moreover, the failure to uphold the principles of justice and accountability amounts to a dereliction of duty that cannot be allowed to persist. To restore public trust, it is crucial that the MPD not only investigate these complaints but also take proactive steps to ensure that the judiciary is held to the same standards of accountability as any other public body or institution.

Deliberate Systemic Suppression of African and Caribbean Victims Accessing Mainstream Media Platforms to Expose Institutional Wrongdoings

The role of the media as a critical tool for maintaining accountability and transparency in a democratic society cannot be overstated, especially when public officials, such as judges, court systems, police commissioners, and other powerful entities, engage in misconduct or violate the rights of ordinary citizens.

Public officials, whether they are judges, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats, are entrusted with significant power and responsibility. This power can be easily abused if there are insufficient mechanisms for accountability. When individuals in positions of authority—such as judges in a courtroom, police officers on the streets, or commissioners of law enforcement agencies—engage in corrupt or unethical behaviour, their actions can have profound and detrimental effects on the lives of ordinary citizens.

Abuses of power, (whether it’s judicial bias, wrongful convictions, police brutality, or systemic corruption) pose serious threats to justice, fairness, and social equity. These actions can disproportionately affect marginalised communities already vulnerable to the justice system. Hence, mechanisms for oversight and accountability are critical to maintaining the integrity of these institutions.

The Media’s Role as the Public Eye

The media acts as the public's watchful eye, ensuring that the activities of powerful institutions are subject to ongoing scrutiny. This "public eye" function helps safeguard democracy by preventing the concentration of unchecked power and by creating an environment in which individuals and institutions are incentivised to act responsibly. As the “efficient policeman” of society, the media not only reports on incidents of abuse but also brings societal pressure to bear on those responsible for ensuring justice, often calling for the prosecution or disciplinary action of wrongdoers.

The media's role in this capacity is to keep public officials and institutions accountable to the public. It often highlights gaps in the legal system or inefficiencies in government policies that perpetuate violations of citizens' rights. By holding authorities accountable in the court of public opinion, the media ensures that governmental powers are exercised with caution and respect for human rights.

Further, the media serves as a primary source of information which play an essential role in making the actions of powerful entities transparent particularly through Investigative Journalism as it shines a spotlight on corruption and abuses, that might otherwise have remain hidden from the public eye. It exposes wrongdoing and generates public awareness, which is often the first step in addressing and rectifying these issues.

In this sense, the media acts as a "disinfectant" or "ray of sunlight" in the sense that it can reveal misconduct, bringing these issues to light in a way that discourages further abuses. Sunlight is often seen as the best disinfectant because it illuminates what would otherwise remain obscured, giving the public the information needed to hold these officials accountable.

Media as the Last Resort for the Powerless and Disenfranchised

For powerless or disenfranchised individuals who may lack the resources or legal knowledge to fight back against violations of their rights, the media becomes their champion. Ordinary citizens who experience wrongful treatment by the justice system, law enforcement, or any branch of government may not have the means to hold those responsible accountable, especially in situations where the system itself is designed to protect the interests of the powerful.

The media serves as the last resort for these individuals, offering a platform where their stories can be heard, and their rights can be defended. Through investigative journalism, reports, and even opinion pieces, the media gives a voice to those who are otherwise silenced, and this can prompt a broader public outcry that forces the system to respond.

Mainstream Media Gatekeeping and Underrepresentation

Mainstream media platforms, especially those that cater to predominantly White audiences, like the Guardian Newspaper, BBC Radio London, LBC, etc., have historically acted as gatekeepers, determining which voices and perspectives are amplified. This gatekeeping is influenced by the demographics of the media institutions themselves—largely controlled by White executives, editors, and journalists who shape narratives based on their experiences and biases.

For the Black African and Caribbean communities, representation within the mainstream media has always been scarce and stereotypical with no opportunity for Black voices to directly address social issues impacting their lives, for fears, it will be challenging a predominantly White-centred worldview and status quo.  As example, when issues such as racial injustice, poverty and marginalisation of Black working-class communities; led by Metropolitan Police Department’s disproportionate targeting of young Black Men and Children for arrest and criminalisation, which in turn sustains and reinforces an economic-industrial complex built on Policing, Courts, Judges, Solicitors, Barristers, Prisons, Probation Service, etc., are brought up by African and Caribbean grassroots activist communities, they are often ignored by the mainstream media’s selective screening process and only highlight them when presented in a way that aligns with mainstream societal norms (i.e., when White people express concern over these issues or when Black people’s grievances are framed through a lens of "exceptional" or "non-threatening" voices)

LBCs Nick Ferrai, James Whale, James O’Brien, etc.,  were from as early as 2004/5 being told by myself and Mr Grant about the Judiciary’s Criminal Violations, Metropolitan Police Department’s failure to Record and Investigate Criminal Complaints it had a Duty and in law to carryout. Further, long before the Guardian Newspaper started to disseminate information about the Home Office wholesale violations under the Hostile Environment policies, LBCs Nick Ferrai, James Whale, James O’Brien, etc., downplayed the information and prevented it from being aired, until a considerable length of time later around 2017/18 when it seems okay and credible because David Lammy was the acceptable face and voice it consider non threatening enough to deliver it rather than the original prime source like myself, or Mr Grant who are at the brunt of it.

Notably however, were these Black African and Caribbean grassroots activist ever to demonstrate themselves to be extremely distant and remote, self-hating obnoxious Kemi Badenoch type individual with no connection to the people of the Country she was expediently born in, nor the Nigeria which the INGRATE was possibly conceived in and immediately returned to live after birth, they would be carried live on air with lots of opportunity to talk; since they would dare not punch up and talk truth to power, except punch down to feed into the social engineered construct of the ruling elites and their fraudulent controlled media.

Amidst all the excessive screening and blocking of Black African and Caribbean community grassroots activist from mainstream media platforms, disabling them to discuss its struggles and protests against  structural inequalities on  mainstream phone-in media platforms like LBC and BBC Radio London, etc., who’s editorial policies marginalised the concerns of minority communities, by limiting the scope of issues discussed and misrepresent arguments made by African and Caribbean community activists, a vast range of popular Black radio stations like Kiss FM and Choice FM which still only Music-centric, providing momentary relief and entertainment escape, were unfortunately hemorrhaging grassroots listenership.

Like the Civil Rights Activist of America, the grassroots at the forefront of the UK’s very own Social Justice and Human Rights DEMAND here in London grew increasingly more concerned for informative contents, and turned to LIVE talk radio for analysis and problem-solving. Talk radio’s interactive nature allowed for a dialogue, as listeners could now directly interact with hosts, experts, and fellow callers to debate and discuss current events, social issues, and even personal struggles.

Galaxy  ‘A Fi We’: The Champion African and Caribbean  Grassroots  Community Empowerment Radio Station

The station was founded in the mid 1980s by Bongo Tete  after completing his term with an Honourable Discharge from the British Army. He was soon after joined by Abu Jatata,  who was   equally an ex-service man in the British army with a   passion and desire to give representation to the voices of the African and Caribbean communities.  

Since then Galaxy 'A fi We Station' has evolved to be the leading platform for African and Caribbean communities in the UK, becoming the most dedicated non-commercial, Black-owned LIVE phone-in talk radio station. Established with a clear mission, it sought to address the underrepresentation and misrepresentation of Black African and Caribbean people in mainstream media.

From its inception, the station recognised the significant gap in media representation, where African and Caribbean voices were often marginalised, distorted, or ignored. Galaxy 'A fi We Station' filled this void by providing a dedicated space that reflected the cultural, social, and political needs of the community, offering an alternative narrative that resonated with listeners.

Beyond its role as a radio station, Galaxy became a beacon of empowerment. Through its diverse programming, it educated, inspired, and enlightened its audience, tackling critical issues such as identity, race relations, community development, and social justice. The station's inclusive approach allowed for open dialogues, fostering a sense of unity and pride within the Black African and Caribbean diaspora.

As the UK's only Black-owned, non-commercial phone-in talk radio station, Galaxy 'A fi We Station' set a new precedent for media within marginalised communities. Its commitment to grassroots engagement and its focus on providing a platform for voices often left unheard continues to solidify its legacy as a pioneering force in the media landscape.

Galaxy’s consistent and authentic representation of the African and Caribbean communities was what gave space for important discussions, analysis, support and assistance to individual members, or groups affected by systemic corruption and injustice in the UK. 

From the important first moments of orchestrated state attacks an already traumatised Mr Neville Lawrence and Mrs Doreen Lawrence; in the aftermath of their son’s murder; as the Metropolitan Police Department were from the onset ‘… less interested in identifying their son’s killers and securing a conviction than they were in positioning Stephen and his friend (Dwayne Brooks) as potential criminals …‘

Galaxy 'A Fi We' African and Caribbean Grassroots Community radio station played a vital role in supporting Mr. Neville Lawrence and Mrs. Doreen Lawrence during the early, crucial moments after their son Stephen's murder. Amid orchestrated state attacks—characterised by slurs, isolation, lies, and mistreatment from the Metropolitan Police, Judiciary, and media—the station became a platform for the family to voice their struggles. It provided unwavering support, amplifying their calls for justice and drawing attention to the police's failure to prioritise the investigation or clear Stephen and Dwayne Brooks of unfounded criminal accusations. This early support helped to challenge the narrative, bringing vital attention to the case.

Like many other Black African and Caribbean causes it has championed (from the Lawrence’s to the Newcross Fire bomb that killed 13 young people, or Christopher Alder Unlawful Death in Police Custody) Galaxy 'A Fi We' African and Caribbean Grassroots Community radio station played a significant role giving more than two Decades of UNRELENTING support to the cause of Caul Silford Grant and his pursuit for Justice by providing a crucial platform for raising awareness and mobilising support.  As Caul Silford Grant sought justice for the wrongful actions and mistreatment he faced, the station helped amplify his voice, giving him and his supporters an outlet to share their experiences and frustrations with the public. Through broadcasts, the radio station kept the issue visible, informing the community about the campaign’s progress, exposing injustices, and garnering widespread solidarity. It became a key tool for organising protests, rallies, and discussions that is aimed to pressure the authorities into addressing the case more seriously, aligning with the broader fight for justice and accountability.

Failure of Duty by the Metropolitan Police Department to RECORD AND INVESTIGATE Judicial Criminal Perversion of Justice Complaints, Led to Petitioning the Home Office, Which Had Responsibilities for the DEPARTMENT.

From my commencement of office as Secretary of Campaign for truth and justice, (2000 - 2021) I dutifully petitioned a vast array of UK public figures and offices in an extensive list which include past and current:

• Prime Ministers; (Kier Starmer; Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Theresa May; David Cameron; Gordon Brown; Tony Blair)

• Lord Chancellors, (Shabana Mahmood; Alexander Chalk, Robert Buckland; David Gauke; David Lidington; Elizabeth Truss; Micheal Gove; Chris Grayling; Kenneth Clarke; Jack Straw; Charles Falconer; Alexander Irvine)

• My petitioning also included former and current Members of Parliament, Shadow Cabinet Leaders; Shadow Home Secretaries; Shadow Justice secretaries and the Local Borough Constituent MP's (Kate Hoey, Tessa Jowell and Helen Hayes)

• UK National Medias, (The Guardian Newspaper; The Daily Express News Paper; The Mirror News Paper; The Daily Mail News Paper; The SUN Newspaper; BBC News; Channel 4 News; ITV News; Global Radio’s LBC, The Voice Newspaper)

• As well as a number of State Establishment Institutions, (The Speaker of the House of Commons; The Clerk to the House of Commons; The Leader of the House of Commons; The Lord Speaker of the House of Lords; The Clerk to the Parliaments; Leader of the House of Lords; Windrush Taskforce; Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; Home Affairs Select Committee; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; The Labour Party; The Liberal Democrat Party; Conservative Party; The Attorney General; The Solicitor General; Director of Public Prosecution; Mayor of London; Association of Police & Crime Commissioners; Equalities & Human Rights Commission)

Most particularly, in my role as Secretary of Campaign for truth and Justice, I wrote in complain to each successive Metropolitan Police Commissioners, (Mark Rowley; Dame Cressida Dick; Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe; Sir Paul Stephenson; Sir Ian Blair; Sir John Stevens; Sir Paul Condon)

These were specifically with regards to the CRIMINAL CONDUCTS of the Judiciary as complained of since 1998 and most particularly required that the METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORD and INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against Justice Toulson; Alan Toulson; Reynolds Porter Chamberlain; Bindman and Partners; including the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s Head of Division 5 (Malcolm Watts) as provisioned for under:

PUBLIC BODIES CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT 1889

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1906

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1916

Unfortunately the Metropolitan Police Department and all its Commissioners, (Mark Rowley; Cressida Dick, Bernard Hogan-Howe, Paul Stephenson, Ian Blair, John Stevens and Paul Condon) petitioned on the matter, ignored all request in abject failure of responsibility and duty of their office to RECORD and INVESTIGATE without fear or favour, SERIOUS JUDICIAL CRIMINAL ACTS and PERVERSION TO THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE, as in accordance with the law

Consequently, with the Home Office being the Departmental body with Management Oversight and Supervisory responsibilities for the Metropolitan Police Department, the matter was reported in complaint to the then Home Office and its successive Home Secretaries (Jack Straw; David Blunkett; Charles Clarke; John Reid; Jacqui Smith; Alan Johnson; Theresa May; Amber Rudd; Sajid Javid Priti Patel; Suella Braverman; James Cleverly and Yvette Cooper).



The Home Office’s Complicity and the Cover-Up

Despite being the overseeing body, the Home Office failed to reprimand the Metropolitan Police Department. Instead, it actively joined forces to sustain a ‘protection of establishment at all costs’ mentality; as it consciously chose to conspire with other agencies, (Department of Work and Pensions, the Judiciary, UK Boarder Agency, etc.,.) deploying tactics such as the forced revocation of citizenship rights which led to the exercising of unquestioned Deportation Powers without having to go through the courts once DISSIDENT Human Rights Activist  such as myself can be successfully labeled as illegal Immigrant with no Right to Live or Work in the UK.