Human Rights Issues in This Case

The United Nations has asserted that everyone living on this planet has a set of unalienable rights. They have defined these rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, commonly referred to as UDHR. Not every country gives it's citizens these fundamental rights and protections. Many countries openly abuse these rights. But at least they have the courage to do so openly. Some other countries claim to respect the basic rights of all persons within their borders. They ratify international treaties on Human Rights. They often openly criticize “rouge” countries that do not ratify these treaties. The United Kingdom is one of these latter group of countries. They openly and enthusiastically criticize many other countries on their Human Rights record. But does the United Kingdom protect the human rights of people within it's own borders? No, it does not. Just fancy talk and Hypocrisy!

The European Union has defined it's own set of Human Rights which closely mirror those defined by the United Nations. This is known as the European Convention on Human Rights, commonly referred to as ECHR. The United Kingdom Parliament is debating whether or not to define a UK “Bill of Rights”. In the mean time Human Rights within the United Kingdom are defined by the Human Rights Act of 1998. This statute essentially incorporates most of the ECHR by reference. However, there are some articles of ECHR which have not been ratified by the United Kingdom.

In theory, when a public institution, such as the Police or Crown Prosecution Service, violates these basic rights, there is a right to seek Judicial Review from the High Court. In practice the obstacles to overcome in doing so are onerous in the extreme. I speak from first hand experience. I am attempting this step right now. When all domestic remedies have failed, there is a right to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately these theoretical rights seldom translate into any real and effective remedy. In my opinion the system within the United Kingdom is designed to fail, and in so doing, protect the system and it's insiders.

I assert that in my case the following Human Rights have been violated:

To briefly discuss these issues in order:

The Property Rights issue should be obvious. My home and my possessions were taken from me by force. Everything I had worked for all my life and had hoped to enjoy in retirement is gone. Everything my family worked for for three generations is gone. My most cherished photographs and audio recordings of my childhood years and of my parents are gone.

The United Kingdom has not ratified ECHR article 13 that guarantees an effective remedy. Well, this omission speaks volumes; In principle you have rights, but in practice there is no way to enforce them. That certainly matches my experiences of the system. Indeed, I am reminded of the novel Animal Farm by the author George Orwell.

There are numerous examples of Bias and Discrimination throughout this situation. Some examples: The Police refuse to search the houses of this criminal gang for stolen property, even though the manager of Durrant's Auction Rooms has confirmed to the Police that they fenced unique items that could only have come from my home. However the Police search my hotel room and luggage on the unsubstaniated allegations of members of this gang, even when the allegation was not of theft. Another example is the Police raid on my hotel room at 3am versus their refusal to arrest gang members when presented with rigorous evidence of their thefts. Another example is the willful suppression of evidence by DC Hogan to protect this criminal gang. The Police have refused to even accept crime reports from me, and have frequently tried to intimidate me. The only time the Police have shown any interest in the heinous crimes comitted against me is when they are looking for evidence of motive to use against me.

The issue of torture might be a more difficult case to make. Most people think of torture as an act that causes physical pain and physical damage. In my case the torture was psychological. Indeed, psychological torture is just as devastating and unproductive as physical torture. For example, the FBI extracted a confession from an Egyptian national to involvement in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City by verbally threatening harm to the prisoner's family in Egypt. This confession was to the most serious crime to ever occur in the United States. It was later proven beyond all doubt that this confession was false. Thus it is demonstrated that psychological torture is just as effective as physical torture in extorting false confessions. From that one can infer that it is equally as painful in it's own manner. Even when the actual act of inflicting torture is not carried out by a public servant, it is still prohibited for a public servant to act as an accessory to acts of torture. To facilitate an act of torture committed by members of the public, or to encourage, incite, or embolden the public into carrying out acts of torture, is a violation of the victim's human rights. The most heinous of all forms of torture are those that inflict damage that does not heal. These techniques result in a never ending pain. As a comparative example: Water Boarding is a torture of finite duration: Once it is over the victim can recover to an almost normal life. But to amputate both arms and legs results in the victim continuing to experience physical pain, disability, chronic rage, and intense sadness for the rest of their lives.

The torture inflicted upon myself can never heal. The willful destruction of my photographs, audio recordings, home, etc., has subjected me to excruciating psychological pain for every instant for the rest of my life. There is an academic study by the UCDavis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA) and the UCDavis Center for Mind and Brain (CMB) which investigates the neurobiology of psychological torture. They have found that the bio-chemical effects on the brain are similar for physical and psychological torture.

Summary of Human Rights Conventions and Legislation Applicable to This Case

United Nations:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR

Article 2 Bias

Article 5 Torture (to include psychological torture)

Article 7 Equal protection under the law (Prohibition on Bias)

Article 8 Effective remedy

Article 17

  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 21 (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. The Police/CPS are public services.

European Union:

European Convention on Human Rights ECHR

Article 3 Torture (to include psychological torture)

Article 13 Effective Remedy

Article 14 and Protocol 12 Discrimination (Prohibition on Bias)

Protocol 1, Article 1 - The right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions.

United Kingdom:

Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) , which incorporates by reference ECHR

  1. Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,

  2. Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and

  3. Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol

as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention.


Please share this site using social media: