#ToryCoverUp

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/eqB6fhnJ https://lnkd.in/e4xn_52F The focus and honesty of Mr Sunak’s response and any subsequent actions taken by the Tory government remains to be seen in complying with the ECHR request to respond about Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit election. Llewelyn Pritchard 29 August 2023

[commanderxanon]

Tweeted

#Windrush yesterday I received this airmail letter. It is a sad story of a British Citizen who served in the war and had to return to Malaysia to care for his son who was sadly brain damaged. He buried his Son and tried to return home. He was refused. #ToryCoverUp pic.twitter.com/UcR55L0UM3

— (((Dawn Butler MP))) (@DawnButlerBrent) May 2, 2018

[jdaviescoates]

via Twitter https://twitter.com/jdaviescoates

[llewelynpritch]

Tory politicians have been accused of “breathtaking hypocrisy” for attacking rivals over the Post Office scandal after reports revealed successive governments did not act to support sub-postmasters.

Senior politicians moved to distance themselves from criticism that recent governments have dismissed calls from campaigners to intervene in the scandal.

The heat was turned on Tory politicians after The Sunday Times reported Post Office campaigner Alan Bates had been dismissed or ignored by recent ministers when he asked for support in offering wrongly convicted sub-postmasters compensation.

Chloe Chaplain 14 January 2024

[llewelynpritch]

Full title Preface: Established facts by Independent Research 1969- with reference to: DAWN STURGESS PUBLIC INQUIRY formally established on 17 March 2022 Part 1/2 Llewelyn Pritchard MA 

1. Boris Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary 9 July 2018 the day after Dawn Sturgess died from Novichok poisoning.

2. The abrupt timing of Johnson's resignation is beyond coincidence and highly significant to help rebuild the integrity of the British political system for the following reasons:

i) Putin's calculated 'Seeds Of Discord and Division Russian Interference' in the EU Brexit Election 2016' took its evil, strategic effect as he sought to weaken UK's economic, social, political relationship/reliance with the EU and in particular, its military relationship/reliance with NATO.

ii) Putin's 'Russian Interference' was facilitated/enabled by his agents' 'quid pro quo' 'constitutionally corrosive' secretive meetings, parties and agreement with Boris Johnson then Foreign Secretary. #PutinCultivatedJohnson.

iii) Putin's 'Russian Interference' was further facilitated/enabled by his agents' 'quid pro quo' 'constitutionally corrosive' secretive meetings, parties and agreement with Donald Trump and his cronies. #PutinCultivatedTrump.

iv) Putin's ambition for Brexit as intimated by Marina Litvinenko, was synchronised by Putin with Johnson's own 'Brexit Seeds of Discord and Division' ego-aggrandizement ambition to be Prime Minister,

v) Johnson's unrealistic, personal ambition to be Prime Minister facilitated Putin's ultimately successful Brexit ambition.

vi) Putin's Alexander Litvenenko assassination and Charley Rowley, Sergei and Yulia Skirpals Novichok poisonings 'Fear and Terror Campaign UK' caused Johnson to flee the scene of the crime in a cowardly, treasonous and traitorly fashion.

vii) Theresa May rapidly appointed Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary 9 July 2018 - 24 July 2019 most likely to cover up Johnson's cowardly, treasonous, traitorly resignation and the culpability of other Government officials.

viii) Since the above deaths and attempted assassinations, a secretive 'Tory Protection Racket' remains in place to cover Boris Johnson and cronies culpability.

ix) The 'Tory Protection Racket' as evidenced by Conservative MPs including Rishi Sunak choosing not to vote in favour of the Committee Of Privileges recommendations regarding Boris Johnson's behavior.

x) The 'Tory Protection Racket' as evidenced by Boris Johnson's DisHonourable honours list.

xi) Rishi Sunak's failure to defy convention and block Boris Johnson's DisHonourable honours list.

Recommendation: Boris Johnson's behaviour needs further independent and impartial investigation by the Dawn Sturgess Public Inquiry.

DAWN STURGESS PUBLIC INQUIRY part 2/2

Background

‘On 18 November 2021 the Home Secretary announced the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate the death of Dawn Sturgess.

Dawn Sturgess was pronounced dead at Salisbury District Hospital on 8 July 2018. The post mortem indicated the cause of her death was Novichok poisoning.

The Inquiry was formally established on 17 March 2022.

The Inquiry has been set up to take the place of the Inquest, (conducted by the Coroner, Rt Hon Baroness Hallett DBE), in order to allow all relevant evidence to be heard.

The Inquiry is chaired by The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley (https://lnkd.in/eFuSwbuy About).’

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. ‘Subject to paragraph 2 below, the Chair is to conduct an investigation into the death of Dawn Sturgess in order to:

a) Ascertain, in accordance with section 5(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 who the deceased was; how; when and where she came by her death; and the particulars (if any) required by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to be registered concerning the death;

b) Identify, so far as consistent with section 2 of the Inquiries Act 2005, (i.e. 'No determination of liability (1) An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person's civil or criminal liability. (2) But an inquiry panel is not to be inhibited in the discharge of its functions by any likelihood of liability being inferred from facts that it determines or recommendations that it makes.') where responsibility for the death lies; and

c) Make such recommendations as may seem appropriate.

2. That investigation is to take into account the investigations which have already been conducted by the Coroner (Baroness Hallett).’

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/eXnXj-rBhttps://lnkd.in/eptd6Sjb  XR HUMANITY’S EMERGENCY SERVICES SOCIAL, CLIMATE JUSTICE LOCAL, STOP THE ROT - FREE RESOURCES UPDATED 25 June 2023

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/e6gPkp5z  Preface: Established facts by Independent Research 1969- with reference to DAWN STURGESS PUBLIC INQUIRY formally established on 17 March 2022 Part ½ Llewelyn Pritchard MA 25 June 2023 

Context:https://lnkd.in/eXnXj-rBhttps://lnkd.in/eptd6Sjb  XR HUMANITY’S EMERGENCY SERVICES SOCIAL, CLIMATE JUSTICE LOCAL, STOP THE ROT - FREE RESOURCES UPDATED 25 June 2023

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/e9ASdRdehttps://lnkd.in/ekWjqJ7p  COVID Secrecy, Brexit Treason in a Kremxit Horror Show Llewelyn Pritchard MA #AI #OpenSource #GPTChat 8 June 2023

[llewelynpritch]

https://lnkd.in/e9ASdRdehttps://lnkd.in/ekWjqJ7p  COVID Secrecy, Brexit Treason in a Kremxit Horror Show Llewelyn Pritchard MA #AI #OpenSource #GPTChat 8 June 2023

[llewelynpritch]

Boris Johnson Lies Here Ben Jennings Cartoons Support The Guardian

https://lnkd.in/eKZR5yQQ Share this thread  Explain in what binding or non-binding circumstance can a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK obtain a legal judgement in his favour when the overwhelming burden of proof shows that, for example, by deliberately attending an illegal so-called ‘lockdown party’, by stating that it was the ‘most socially distanced party in the UK’ and as PM not showing due regard nor respect for the ‘lockdown sacrifices’ made by others how he must have known in advance that he would not be following and/or not be legally bound to follow his own Tory government’s parliamentary legislation. 

How, of his own volition, selfishly, unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, irresponsibly he must have known in advance of his attendance at the said party or parties that he could be found guilty of either intentionally, or unintentionally, misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

AI’s reply

“As an AI language model, I must clarify that a legal judgement is determined by the facts and evidence presented in court, and not by the burden of proof or public opinion outside of court. Therefore, the circumstances under which a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK could obtain a legal judgement in his favour would depend on the specifics of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the evidence provided to the court.

However, in general, if there is overwhelming evidence to support the allegations against the Prime Minister, it may be difficult for him to obtain a legal judgement in his favour. In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister attended an illegal party and willfully disregarded the lockdown restrictions, it is possible that he could be charged with a criminal offence and face legal consequences.

It is important to note that the UK legal system is designed to be impartial, and any judgement would be based solely on the evidence presented in court. The Prime Minister would have the right to legal representation and could argue his case in court, but the ultimate judgement would be determined by the court based on the facts presented.

In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister is found guilty of intentionally or unintentionally misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, he could face consequences such as censure or removal from office. However, any legal judgement would depend on the specific evidence and arguments presented in court.”

Source: https://chat.openai.com/  AI Open Source GPT Chat Llewelyn Pritchard MA 15 March 2023 

[llewelynpritch]

MP's JOHNSON VERDICT: HE KNEW BECAUSE HE WAS THERE Daily Mirror 4 March 2023

https://lnkd.in/eC2pBwfm 

https://lnkd.in/eKZR5yQQ Share this thread

Explain in what binding or non-binding circumstance can a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK obtain a legal judgement in his favour when the overwhelming burden of proof shows that for example, by deliberately attending an illegal so-called ‘lockdown party’, by stating that it was the ‘most socially distanced party in the UK’ and as PM not showing due regard nor respect for the ‘lockdown sacrifices’ made by others how he must have known in advance that he would not be following and/or not be legally bound to follow his own Tory government’s parliamentary legislation. 

How, of his own volition, selfishly, unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, irresponsibly he must have known in advance of his attendance at the said party or parties that he could be found guilty of either intentionally, or unintentionally, misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

AI’s reply

“As an AI language model, I must clarify that a legal judgement is determined by the facts and evidence presented in court, and not by the burden of proof or public opinion outside of court. Therefore, the circumstances under which a serving Conservative Prime Minister of the UK could obtain a legal judgement in his favour would depend on the specifics of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the evidence provided to the court.

However, in general, if there is overwhelming evidence to support the allegations against the Prime Minister, it may be difficult for him to obtain a legal judgement in his favour. In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister attended an illegal party and willfully disregarded the lockdown restrictions, it is possible that he could be charged with a criminal offence and face legal consequences.

It is important to note that the UK legal system is designed to be impartial, and any judgement would be based solely on the evidence presented in court. The Prime Minister would have the right to legal representation and could argue his case in court, but the ultimate judgement would be determined by the court based on the facts presented.

In the example you provide, if the Prime Minister is found guilty of intentionally or unintentionally misleading other Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, he could face consequences such as censure or removal from office. However, any legal judgement would depend on the specific evidence and arguments presented in court.”

Source: https://chat.openai.com/  AI Open Source GPT Chat Llewelyn Pritchard MA 15 March 2023