DEFRA’s creation in 2001, prior to his recent statement “I’m a strong believer that if the state has powers they should be on the face of legistlation not shadows.” ..enlightens past* bad faith.
[*DEFRA’s current agent provocateurs (their continued and overtly lubricious) bad faith?]
By defending his party’s abstention on a Bill that would allow undercover agents to break the law, Keir Starmer does not appear to be sitting on the fence of furtiveness [SOED – furtive:
- Done by stealth; secret, clandestine, surreptitious. b Stealthy, sly.
- Stolen; taken by stealth. Now rare exc. as passing into sense 1.
- Thievish: R. F. Burton The Highlander could not be…trusted to withhold his furtive hand from the flocks.]
..factually his political family members (e.g. Hilary Benn) have acted contrary to Sir Keir’s own integrity re telling the truth; Mr Benn and Co.’s policy of publishing guidance that’s merely ‘self communized Red-herring’ and affronts the principle findings of the Woolf Reports – puts Keir’s loyalties to justice in the spotlight. DEFRA’s creation in 2001 clearly appears to exploit & abuse the failings that Lord Woolf identified; DEFRA a complex conspiracy to defraud.
Uffculme’s own Spotlight added to the Communist ‘red-glow’ over the Definitive Map of public rights of way, acting in conjunction with Devon County Council & others to contempt the truth:
The Planning Inspectorate’s policy of lies to corrupt the Definitive Map illustrates exactly that what Jarrod Grant brought to light re human rights during the Glasgow phone event.
Monsanto Plc v. Tilly and Others [2000] ENV LR 313; [1999] EWCA Civ 3044
Stuart Smith LJ: “Those views were genuinely and sincerely held and there was nothing whatever unlawful in trying to persuade others and particularly the Government of the rightness of their views provided they did not employ unlawful means to do so, and provided they did not incite others to use unlawful means, such that they were liable in tort to the Claimant . . . In a democratic society, the object of change in Government policy had to be effected by lawful and not unlawful means. Those who suffered infringement of their lawful rights were entitled to the protection of the law. If others deliberately infringed those rights in order to attract publicity to their cause, however sincerely they believed in its correctness, they had to bear the consequences of their law breaking. That was fundamental to the rule of law in a civilised and democratic society”