Patrick 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Six years ago I became a journalist to report the truth that lockdowns were a criminal act by government. Restore Britain has now committed to criminally prosecuting those responsible. "Where crimes have been committed, an apology, a resignation or an admission that mistakes were made cannot remove criminal responsibility. Prosecution must follow..." Here is the truth of how it can be done: The imposition of lockdowns was unlawful and constituted the criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is defined by the Crown Prosecution Service as: "wilful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held" The abolition of the most fundamental rights of Englishmen manifestly reaches this criminal category. The choice of police, judges and the courts, to fail to enforce this law was not merely an act of discretion, it was a dereliction of the duty of public office. That choice not to prosecute does not need to be continued by any future government. Indeed, it is the obligation of any future government to ensure that justice is done, and seen to be so. As a nation, we must prosecute. Utilising the principle of joint-enterprise, there is a cast-iron case to prosecute every single perpetrator. This includes: • Cabinet Members • Government Ministers • Civil Servants • Police Officers • Judges, District Judges & Magistrates Yet the public was subject to years of indoctrination, abuse and propaganda. The criminal offences we talk about were political crimes waged with ample (and still extant) political cover. How do you get this past a jury when they have utterly biased the population via propaganda? You don't. You try them by Act of Parliament. An Act of Attainder naming the defendants, starting at the top, and working down. Parliament serves as their judge, jury and executioner. They can be permitted to state their case before Parliament and receive their verdict from Parliament. It exists within the power of Parliament to change the sentence for this crime or to try for a higher common-law offence, citing historical precedent, citing higher principles of law via constitutional documents or by voiding the Human Rights Act (1998) as illegitimate. In my personal opinion, imprisonment is too lenient. I believe in the death penalty. Many should be lawfully sentenced to hang. Alternatively, and perhaps more easily, compared to an Act of Attainder they may be impeached by Parliament. Under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, Parliamentary procedures, including the conduct of impeachments, is exempt from scrutiny of any outside court. Further, given that Section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that the duty on public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights does not apply to: “either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.” Notably, the maximum sentence of an impeachment is not limited by any statue and includes death. In which case Parliament may impeach and hang any public office-holder with impunity. Indeed, despite the mainstream common consensus, the death penalty is legally extant and valid in Britain. Regardless, it is entirely, manifestly and explicitly possible to lock up every prominent individual, who perpetrated this crime, for the rest of their lives, at the very least. I state this because the scale of the crime perpetrated is so vast that it is necessary as a deterrent to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime to the maximum extent. Should they evade justice, then this can and will happen again and cause untold suffering. Mass prosecutions are compassion. It can be done. It must be done. It will be done.