WHEN A STATE’S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE ILLUSION COMES TO AN END An official explanation can survive for years without being properly tested. It becomes harder to maintain when the public can place the explanation beside the records. The illusion examined in this paper is that the existence of institutional safeguards guarantees their effective operation. A complaints procedure exists. But was the complaint’s substance examined? A regulator declares its independence. But were relevant influences and relationships disclosed? A review endorses an outcome. But did it test the disputed evidence, or repeat the account upon which the original decision depended? These questions cannot be answered by pointing again to the procedure. Several institutions repeating the same proposition may appear to provide independent confirmation, but their accounts may ultimately depend upon a single assertion which nobody independently verified. That is why provenance matters. Who originated the claim? What supported it? Who relied upon it? What happened when contrary evidence emerged? The original correspondence, instructions, decision logs, attachments and relevant metadata can help establish the answers. They may vindicate an institution, reveal an innocent mistake or expose a serious failure. Proper scrutiny must permit each possibility. Institutional silence does not prove wrongdoing. Equally, silence leaves a documented discrepancy unresolved and once that discrepancy has been precisely identified, repetition of the original assurance does nothing to reconcile it. This paper considers the point at which public confidence can no longer rest upon institutional descriptions and must instead be earned through demonstrable conduct. The constructive response is candid disclosure, independent examination and correction where the evidence requires it. The alternative is to defend an account while withholding the means by which its accuracy could be tested. Read and download the full paper: ethicalapproach.co.uk/when_a…

REGULATION v REAL INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY A regulator’s assertion of independence is a claim to be tested against its conduct. The decisive test arises when the public interest and the Government’s interests diverge. When a professional challenges government policy and a government official seeks regulatory intervention, the regulator must establish the alleged misconduct through independent examination of the evidence. The official status of the complainant cannot supply what the evidence lacks. Concern for the success of a government programme cannot determine whether criticism is false, whether legal representation is improper, or whether professional discipline is justified. My new paper examines the point at which powers entrusted for public protection may instead become instruments of policy protection, at the expense of the public interest. That danger does not depend upon proof of a ministerial instruction. It may emerge through selective scrutiny, deference to official assertions, or reluctance to examine evidence which unsettles an accepted institutional account. The consequences extend beyond the individual facing proceedings. If lawful challenge carries the threat of professional ruin, others may decline the case, withhold the question or abandon the inquiry completely. The resulting silence must never be mistaken for agreement and raises, naturally, a question of integrity. The proper response is exacting scrutiny: • Preserve the correspondence; • establish the chronology; • identify the provenance of allegations; • assess relevant conflicts; • and explain how governmental interests were separated from regulatory judgment. Public confidence requires answers capable of surviving examination. Where a regulator is vigorous towards the individual but incurious about the governmental material deployed against them, there arises an obvious question: Whose interests is regulatory vigilance serving? Read and download “Regulation v Real Independence and Impartiality” here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/regula…

THE PATHWAY TO NATIONWIDE NONFEASANCE - WHY DYTHAM NOW MATTERS The central question which must be asked, is whether national guidance supported lawful police assessment, or displaced it. That question requires disclosure. • The original guidance. • Its drafts and attachments. • The commissioning and approval records. • Gold Command decisions. • Distribution lists. • Local instructions. • Decisions about individual reports. • And all of the associated metadata. A document tells us what was written. Its metadata may help establish when it was created, revised and transmitted, by whom, and to whom. Read together, those records can distinguish the contemporaneous decision from the explanation supplied afterwards. The reference to “guidance to not record” demands precisely that examination. • What was not to be recorded? • On what evidential and legal foundation? • Who authorised the approach? • What exceptions protected individual assessment? • How was its reported “success” measured? In R v Dytham, the Court of Appeal upheld a police officer’s conviction for wilful neglect of duty. The significance is clear: A sufficiently serious, unjustified and wilful omission can itself constitute criminal misconduct. In Operation Talla, establishing what happened and why, is essential. Relevant records should therefore be preserved and disclosed sufficiently to permit meaningful, independent public examination, with any necessary proper restrictions specifically explained. Institutional assurances cannot perform the work of the underlying evidence. Nor can the institutions whose decisions are questioned reasonably expect their own account to settle every question about those decisions. The public interest requires an account which can be tested. If the records demonstrate lawful, proportionate policing, disclosure can establish that. If the records reveal that guidance prevented the performance of applicable duties, the public needs to know. A national instruction warrants scrutiny proportionate to its reach and currently examined evidence in relation to the Talla non-recording guidance indicate such reach to have been UK-wide. Read and download the paper here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_pa…

SPOTLIGHT - UKHSA Paul Easter’s documented connections raise questions which institutions can answer through disclosure. In February 2022, reporting Philip Hyland and PJH Law to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Easter stated: “I work for the DHSC on behalf of HMG assessing risks to the UK Vaccine programme.” He alleged misinformation and sought urgent regulatory action. Companies House records also identify Paul Liam Easter as a director of Harquebus Ltd. An official October 2023 procurement notice lists Harquebus Ltd among the successful contractors on the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund Framework Agreement 2023 - 2027. UKHSA appears among the contracting authorities. That establishes a shared procurement framework. It does not by itself establish that UKHSA commissioned Harquebus, or that Easter personally worked for or with UKHSA. The relevant contracts and engagement records could settle those questions. The wider chronology makes clarification important. UKHSA’s published 2022 - 23 remit covered vaccine security, government security and intelligence relationships and responses to alleged misinformation. It also anticipated assuming Vaccine Taskforce responsibilities whilst retaining elements of its “structure, approach and culture”. That commitment deserves examination alongside Dominic Cummings’ May 2021 Parliamentary account of the Taskforce, including his remarks about ignoring rules and “bulldozing” lawyers out of the way. Precisely what was preserved? Which functions, personnel, contractors and assessments transferred and what safeguards protected independent legal scrutiny? My new paper sets out the documentary connections, distinguishes them from the unresolved possibilities and identifies the disclosures needed to establish the facts. The institutions hold the records capable of replacing uncertainty and ambiguity with answers. Read and download the paper here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Spotli…

Evidence and document release No. 11 is a large one, with 190 documents accessible via this link: hidrive.ionos.com/share/t0-t… The 11 releases made to date, still represent only a small fraction of what remains still to come.

Evidence and document release No. 10. This is a substantial release, containing many of the papers and evidence relating to the National Police Chiefs' Council elements of the EAUK Operation Talla investigation. hidrive.ionos.com/share/pu18…

Evidence and document release No. 9 hidrive.ionos.com/share/njr8…

Evidence and document release No. 8 hidrive.ionos.com/share/rrqo…

One I prepared earlier - in fact, more than a year ago... ethicalapproach.co.uk/jcvi_f…

One I prepared earlier - in fact, more than a year ago... ethicalapproach.co.uk/jcvi_f…

Evidence and document release No. 7 hidrive.ionos.com/share/ahy1…

How many were directly affected? And how many indirectly? Read the paper using this link: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_un… #OperationTalla and #NG163 @pjhlaw @XPCBirmingham @JacquiDeevoy1 @oakycoaky @CareQualityComm @gmcuk @PoliceChiefs @metpoliceuk @MetCC

NG163 - Evidence and Document Release - No. 6 This link provides access to documentation and reports which relate to deaths in care settings. hidrive.ionos.com/share/grpg… The short video link below provides an illustration of evidence given to the Scottish COVID Inquiry.

Evidence and Document Release No. 5 hidrive.ionos.com/share/wr8b…

Evidence and document release No. 4 hidrive.ionos.com/share/j95y…

Evidence and documents release No 3 hidrive.ionos.com/share/dfl4…

CAUGHT RED-HANDED - AND STILL LEARNING? On 9 April 2014, the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published a report with an unusually unambiguous title: “Caught red-handed: Why we can’t count on Police Recorded Crime statistics” Its findings concerned under-recording, distorted incentives, failures of supervision and a culture in which the integrity of the record could become subordinate to the appearance of success. The Committee found that attitudes leading to misrecording had become ingrained, including within senior leadership. • It criticised the Home Office and the bodies responsible for statistical oversight. • It called for rigorous independent audit, ethical leadership and consequences for deliberate non-compliance. • It also expressly required officers to understand the distinction between the standards for recording a crime and those for charging a suspect. That distinction matters because a person reporting suspected criminality should not have to arrive at the police station carrying a prosecution-ready case before the recording rules are properly applied. More than twelve years later, police leaders, Police and Crime Commissioners and the Home Office should be able to answer some straightforward questions: • Why are failures in crime recording still an issue the public must challenge, after Parliament identified their causes and prescribed remedies so plainly? • Which recommendations were implemented? • How was compliance tested? • What consequences followed where established standards were deliberately disregarded? “Lessons have been learned” is an agreeable expression. Twelve years should, however, permit some evidence of completed homework. The consequences extend beyond an unreliable spreadsheet. Under-recording can obscure victims, distort operational priorities and undermine confidence that reporting a crime serves any useful purpose. A Parliamentary report should change institutional conduct. Its mere publication cannot reasonably be treated as the completion of that task. The public are entitled to ask whether the lesson has been learned and if so, where the evidence of that learning is, or whether the report has just been filed, to gather dust. Read and download the full Parliamentary report here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/caught…

THE HOME OFFICE ACKNOWLEDGES ITS TALLA ROLE - THEN CLOSES THE CORRESPONDENCE On 16 October 2026, the Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) confirmed in writing that its engagement with the National Police Chiefs' Council-associated (@PoliceChiefs) Operation Talla concerned: “policy alignment, information sharing and strategic coordination” That is an acknowledgement of involvement in the national pandemic policing response. It raises questions which the phrase “operational independence” cannot answer by itself. • Which policies were being aligned? • What information was shared? • Who participated in strategic coordination? • What records show where governmental involvement ended and independent policing judgment began? The Department says it is unaware of itself providing, requesting or encouraging a policy of rejecting or not recording Covid-related criminal reports. It also says its engagement should not be understood as directing decisions about particular allegations. Those qualifications matter - as does the distinction between directing an individual case and influencing the national framework within which cases are handled. My correspondence asked about both the Home Office and so far as it knew, wider Government involvement. Its answer addressed its own position without resolving the wider question. The Department then announced that it would no longer answer correspondence on the issue. It characterised further consideration as repetition, whilst acknowledging that it had no record of receiving an earlier letter containing material central to the questions raised. That warrants scrutiny. Acknowledged engagement creates a legitimate need to understand its scope. Ending correspondence leaves that requirement unanswered. • Policy alignment requires an account of the policies. • Information sharing requires an account of the exchanges. • Strategic coordination requires an account of responsibility. The correspondence establishes acknowledged involvement and a decision to end this avenue of questioning before the outstanding issues were resolved. The public is entitled to ask whether that is an adequate response to questions about the independence of its police. Rest assured - We will get to the bottom of exactly what has taken place. Read the full correspondence and assess the answers: ethicalapproach.co.uk/corres…

THE MORAL AND ETHICAL QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CORONAVIRUS ACT 2020 An genuine emergency may explain why exceptional powers were sought. It does not settle whether reducing particular safeguards was necessary, proportionate or ethically justified. Behind the language of “easements”, “flexibility” and administrative efficiency were people whose care, liberty and protection depended upon the procedures being changed. • An assessment can identify an unmet need. • A written record can establish responsibility. • A safeguard can enable someone with little power to challenge a decision affecting their life. My new paper examines the moral and ethical questions raised by provisions concerning social care, death certification and parliamentary oversight. It distinguishes the Act from restrictions imposed under other legislation and the existence of a power from its actual use. The central question is one of accountability: Where ordinary protections were reduced, what replaced them and what evidence demonstrates that the people affected remained protected? Protective intentions deserve consideration - So do practical consequences, unequal burdens, mistakes and the ability to obtain remedy. The expiry of an emergency power cannot answer what happened while it operated. Read and download the analysis here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/ethica…

WHY WAS IT “NOT A MATTER FOR THE MET”? On 12 January 2022, Detective Inspector Akshay Chibber, writing from the Commissioner’s Office at the @metpoliceuk @MetCC and signing as “Staff Officer to Commissioner Cressida Dick”, stated: “I'm afraid allegations against the Government's Covid regulations and vaccine programs are not a matter for the Met police to investigate as allegation of a criminal offence.” Those are his precise words. Why was it not a matter for the Metropolitan Police? Did the Commissioner’s Office consider that the governmental subject matter placed these allegations outside the Met’s jurisdiction? Or was the supposed exclusion specific to Covid regulations and vaccine programmes? Upon what lawful basis could either position rest? There is a clear distinction between: (1) assessing particular allegations and concluding that they disclose no grounds for further investigation, and (2) declaring that allegations concerning specified Government activity are not matters for police investigation as criminal offences. The statement requires an explanation and details of the legal reasoning supporting it. Nobody needs to establish whether any underlying allegations were or were not true before asking the police to account for the reason they gave for declining to investigate them. Government policy can be challenged politically. Regulations can be challenged through the courts. But where criminal conduct is alleged, directing people towards litigation or their MP does not explain why criminal investigation falls outside of a police function. The Met really must answer plainly: Does it maintain the position communicated by the Commissioner’s Office, via DI Chibber on 12 January 2022? If so, what legal authority supports it? If it does not, when was that position corrected and what was the actual basis for any such correcting decision? The ultimate question is stark: What was it about these allegations, the Government, or Covid matters, which rendered them, in the eyes of the Metropolitan Police, “not a matter for the Met”?

I published and first shared this paper a little more than two months ago. Today may be an appropriate day on which it should again be shared. Read and download it here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/NG163_…

There you go then....

A COMPLETED LEGAL PROCESS DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, NECESSARILY ESTABLISH THE FACTS A claim dismissed because it was brought too late is not necessarily a claim disproved by the evidence. A review completed is not, merely by its completion, proof that all material information was considered. A decision to take no further action is not automatically a finding that nothing happened. These distinctions matter whenever an institution invokes legal process as an answer to factual questions. The central principle is unequivocal: No institution should present a procedural outcome as a factual determination which the process did not make. That principle demands equal discipline from those challenging institutions. An untested allegation remains an allegation. An admitted document is not necessarily reliable. An adverse judgment cannot be disregarded simply because it is unwelcome. Fair procedures, admissibility rules, privilege and finality are intended to protect justice. Their proper application must be respected, but their consequences must also be described openly and honestly. • What was decided? • On what evidence? • For what reasons? • What remained outside the scope of the decision? My new paper examines those questions through the principles of procedural fairness and candour: “Here is why evidence and facts should never be subservient to legal process” Legal process must enable evidence to be tested fairly. It must never be invoked to make an institutional account appear more conclusively established than it truly is. Read and download the paper: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Eviden…

The James Patrick Disclosures and how they relate to Operation Talla. ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_ja…

WHEN A POLICE DECISION BECOMES AN ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION Police may lawfully decide that an allegation does not justify further investigation. The public cannot demand a particular outcome simply by reporting suspected criminality. However, an attempt to hide the rejection raises a separate question: Can the institution’s account of its own conduct be trusted? If what was received is misdescribed, the assessment obscured or the decision-maker left unidentified, scrutiny becomes difficult. • A complaints process may repeat an incomplete account. • Relevant evidence may deteriorate. • A court may be asked to decide an issue without a full explanation of material facts. • No recorded crime does not necessarily mean no allegation was received. • A reference number does not establish the extent of an investigation. • A lawful restriction on disclosure is not, by itself, concealment. What matters is an accurate record of what happened and an explanation capable of being properly and objectively tested. My new paper examines the consequences if police reject reports of alleged criminality and attempt to hide the nature of that rejection, for those reporting harm, those accused, effective oversight and indeed, public confidence. A sound decision can withstand scrutiny. An erroneous decision can be corrected. Concealing the decision obstructs the means of establishing which it was. Police discretion must remain lawful and accountable. It cannot become a reason to obscure how that discretion was exercised. Read and download my paper here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Police…

A SOLICITOR CHALLENGING GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO INDEPENDENT JUSTICE When a Government official reports a solicitor to his regulator, invoking responsibility for protecting the very programme that solicitor’s work challenges, the public is entitled to understand the full circumstances. In February 2022, Paul Easter, working for the DHSC (@DHSCgovuk) reported Philip Hyland and PJH Law (@pjhlaw) to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (@sra_solicitors). Easter's report stated: “I work for the DHSC on behalf of HMG assessing risks to the UK Vaccine programme.” It alleged misinformation and sought urgent regulatory action. It also described proposed legal work: obtaining advice, instructing counsel, preparing proceedings and collecting expert evidence. Those activities are recognisable means of testing a case. They must be distinguished carefully from any specifically alleged professional misconduct. The police account also matters. In May 2022, the Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk @MetCC) explained that allegations under CRN 6029679/21 had been “reviewed/investigated to determine whether a crime should be recorded”. That requires disputed descriptions of police activity to be assessed against what police actually did and have communicated. My paper available via the link below places these documents alongside Parliamentary evidence about Government–policing engagement during Operation Talla. Institutional contact alone proves no improper coordination, but the records can establish who communicated what, what informed Easter’s complaint and how the SRA assessed it. A solicitor remains accountable for his conduct. The institutions assessing that conduct must also be accountable for the evidence and reasoning upon which they act. Philip Hyland is entitled to a fair assessment with the relevant institutional context visible and so is the public. Read and download my paper here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Philip…

GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE MUST REMAIN WITHIN THE LAW An official website, a ministerial announcement or a departmental instruction may tell us what Government wants us to do. The question nonetheless remains - What does the law actually require? Guidance can explain legal duties, recommend sensible precautions and promote consistent decisions. Some guidance even has a particular status because legislation gives it one, but its authority comes from law - It cannot override that law, erase its exceptions or supply powers which Parliament has not granted. The distinction matters whenever someone faces a penalty, restriction or loss of an entitlement. “We followed Government guidance” does not, by itself, establish that the decision was lawful. Nor does questioning guidance amount to rejecting legitimate authority. Asking for the legal basis of an instruction is an ordinary and necessary part of holding public power accountable. My new paper explains these principles and the relevant case law. “Here is Why We Can Never Prioritise Government Guidance of Any Kind, Over The Law of The Land and The Rule of Law” Read and download is here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Govern…

MINERVA piped.video/watch?v=ZfJ05zkw…

THE PRAETORIAN GUARD OF GOVERNMENT On 1 October 2025, Ethical Approach UK published a paper challenging a fundamental institutional danger: Police and regulators becoming protectors of government policy rather than independent guardians of the law. Just over a year later, we are sharing it again. Its central question deserves a clear answer: When a member of the public challenges government conduct, do the institutions receiving that challenge examine the evidence independently, or does the challenge itself become the problem? A criminal allegation is not proved by being reported. A professional complaint is not improper merely because it concerns someone who criticises government. But, neither can a politically inconvenient allegation be fairly dismissed simply because of its subject matter. The distinction depends upon evidence, reasons and an accountable decision-making process. That is why our continuing investigation places such importance on institutional disclosure. • Who communicated with whom? • What guidance was issued? • What evidence was considered? • Who authorised the decisions and on what grounds? Those records can establish whether concerns are justified, mistaken or require qualification. Their disclosure can protect institutional reputations as well as expose institutional failures. The paper makes a forceful argument. Its conclusions should be tested against the documentary record, with the same scrutiny we ask institutions to apply to everyone else. Public confidence cannot be commanded. It must be earned through conduct that withstands examination. Read/download the paper: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Praeto…

On starting his new role, Malcolm said: “I am delighted to be joining SCTS as Chief Executive and look forward to leading and supporting the excellent work undertaken daily in supporting justice. I have been extremely impressed with the passion and professionalism I have already witnessed and I am confident the organisation can build its contribution from very strong foundations in the years ahead...." scotcourts.gov.uk/about-us/n…

14 October 2026 Dominic tells the House of Lords constitution committee how utterly fucked Britain actually is. piped.video/watch?v=VXgFlOqG…

DCC Alan Speirs of @PoliceScotland speaking to the @covidinquirysco about ministerial influence on policing, Peelian Principles and policing by consent in the Covid-era. piped.video/watch?v=L9B1pvjb…

Deputy Chief Constables Alan Speirs of @PoliceScotland, providing oral testimony to the @covidinquirysco on Tuesday 13 October 2026 piped.video/watch?v=OoZ8kBP7…

Why wait until spring, when it keeps on giving throughout the year....?!

Is anyone actually surprised, seriously? I'm not. It is shocking, but it appears to me to be a new 'normal'. "Police Scotland has said 45 serving officers are currently suspended over allegations of violence against women and girls. Chief constable Jo Farrell said she expected more would face sanctions over their behaviour following a spate of former officers being convicted for sexual offences."

THE SEVEN MISSING MODULES Allegations the @metpoliceuk @MetCC appear never yet to have addressed. Read about them here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_7_…

IS IT TIME YET? For decades, the public have been told that no one is above the law... ...but there remains a rather obvious constitutional difficulty: What happens when the allegation concerns the very institutions which control the machinery capable of investigating it? • Police investigate. • Prosecutors decide. • Courts can adjudicate only upon what reaches them. Where the alleged wrongdoing concerns Government, policing, regulators or other organisations of the State, the citizen remains dependent upon that same institutional architecture agreeing that the allegation should reach a courtroom at all. That is the stark problem. The paper linked below proposes something different: A People’s Investigative Agency - independent of the executive. A People’s Prosecution Service - independent of the existing prosecutorial structure. • Not mob justice. • Not political justice. • Not the replacement of courts. Quite the opposite. A mechanism by which serious allegations concerning the State itself can be independently investigated, independently prosecuted where the evidence warrants it and ultimately determined in a court of law. • Hillsborough. • The Post Office. • And now an accumulating body of contemporary evidence demonstrating just how consequential institutional gatekeeping can become. History repeatedly teaches us the lesson, which has yet to be truly learned and acted upon. Is it time yet? Read the paper here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/propos…

Some people appear to thrive in danger. Perhaps, however, that is the wrong conclusion. What looks like extraordinary courage may sometimes be something fundamentally different: Not the conquest of fear, nor an attraction to danger, but rather, the absence of the emotional experience others are having to overcome. Such a person may understand perfectly what fear is. They may recognise danger, calculate consequences and understand why everybody else is afraid. They simply may not feel what others describe. And therein lies the paradox: Courage is action despite fear. Fearlessness is action without it. Neither makes a person invulnerable. Where fear does not provide the warning, something else must and that is, judgement. My latest paper examines the strange territory between danger, courage, fearlessness and the mind that can understand fear principally as a concept described by others: "THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FEAR - When Courage Is the Wrong Explanation" One does not require fear to recognise danger, but where fear is absent, judgement must become its substitute. Read/download it here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/people…

THE OCTAVIAN PRINCIPLE - PERHAPS IT IS TIME TO READ THIS AGAIN I wrote and published this paper almost a year ago. I am sharing it again today for one very simple reason: Read it now. Read it in light of what has subsequently emerged. Read it in light of the documents which institutions themselves have disclosed. Read it in light of the questions now being asked about policing, regulation, institutional accountability and the administration of justice. Then consider whether this passage, written almost twelve months ago, reads any differently today: “Constitutional structures became a façade - a shield for rulers, not a protection for citizens.” You decide whether the principle has aged well. Read/download: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_oc…

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS This is not simply a paper about one crime report, one police officer or events in January 2022. The documentary questions examined here reach directly into policing integrity, public confidence and the rule of law. Those principles affect every one of us, irrespective of our views about Covid, vaccines, Government or anything else. They reach into the heart of democracy itself. Some documents deserve more than a glance and this is one of them. Read it carefully. Understand what the evidence reveals. Then consider for yourself what its implications may be. Do it for you and for your family. If the rule of law matters at all, the questions raised by these documents matter to us all. Read/download here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/sexton…

THE MESS CREATED BY INSTITUTIONAL RECORDS AND THE QUESTIONS WHICH REQUIRE ANSWERS Read about The Mess here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_me…

The James Patrick disclosures matter today for fundamental reasons: They demonstrate that concerns surrounding crime recording integrity, evidential visibility and institutional management of allegations were already matters of national, Parliamentary and oversight concern long before Covid-19 and Operation Talla emerged. The Parliamentary hearing can be viewed here: piped.video/8f5gEEjnFr4?is=Zdd-… Read my relevant paper which was published in May, using this link: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_ja…

Viridi Linea - Rome’s Forgotten Threshold of Decisive Action The viridi Linea: ethicalapproach.co.uk/viridi…

PUBLIC INTEREST RELEASE Today, I am placing into the public domain the SRA (@sra_solicitors) complaint made on 15 February 2022 by Paul Easter concerning solicitor Philip Hyland and PJH Law (@pjhlaw). The document speaks for itself. Mr Easter identified himself as working for the Department of Health and Social Care (@DHSCgovuk)“on behalf of HMG (@cabinetofficeuk) assessing risks to the UK Vaccine programme”, characterised certain groups as a “significant and identified risk”, and sought urgent regulatory action against PJH Law. The complaint expressly relied upon the proposition that PJH Law was unable to distinguish between a crime reference number and an open police investigation (@metpoliceuk @MetCC), before stating that “action by the SRA must be taken as a matter of urgency.” For present purposes, I have redacted only Mr Easter’s mobile telephone number and email address. It is noted that the SRA form itself states: “The information you have provided in this form may be shared with third parties.” The public interest in disclosure is substantial. This is not commentary about what Government may have done. It is the primary document recording what was actually put before the professional regulator of a solicitor engaged in Covid-related legal activity. The evidence should now be read, not described. Primary documents have a habit of ending arguments which institutional recollection once sustained. The document is accessible via this link: ethicalapproach.co.uk/Easter…