THE NOW PROVEN TOLERANCE OF WIDESPREAD CRIMINALITY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE OF LAW..
There are two entirely separate (but interrelated ) “legal” issues namely
a) the legal (criminal law) requirements contained in the Abortion Act 1967, and
b) the role of the DOH as employers of so called “abortion providers” who are in reality “contractors” employed by the DOH to carry out abortions.
The significance of the legal relationship between the DOH as “employer” and their “Abortion Providers” (contractors) is that the DOH can, if the Government so instructed, impose stricter requirements on their abortion contactors than appear in the Abortion Act itself.
Therefore the DOH’s excuse for having to issue new “Guidance” (conditions of employment) (the doubt expressed by the DPP as to the correct interpretation to be placed on the phrase “two doctors acting in good faith” so far as the enforcement of the criminal law is concerned) is entirely irrelevant to the way the DOH’s carries out it’s responsibilities under Contract Law as employer of their so called “abortion providers” (contractors)
The so called “New Guidance” issued by the DOH is concerned (issued on the 23rd May this year) the contents of this document are in fact revised “conditions of contract” however in addition to the contents being unlawful (see below) – the contents are effectively irrelevant as the DOH will never know whether or not their abortion “providers” (who are in reality “contractors” employed by the DOH to carry out abortions.) are complying with it’s contents.
The reason I am able to categorically state the above is that, after two years of research, I have discovered that the DOH has never had an effective monitoring and enforcement regime in place to ensure compliance with their own requirements, (“Guidance” ) but have been (and quite disgracefully) merely been content to rely on the confirmation by their abortion contractors (“providers“) themselves as to compliance – a clearly entirely unacceptable practice.
The most damning evidence of the DOH’s tolerance of widespread failure to comply with the Department’s own “Conditions of Contract” (as well as the requirements of the criminal law) was the Department’s certain knowledge (for at least the last three years) that BPAS were openly offering to (and carrying out) abortions without the pregnant woman concerned being seen by any Doctor.
The above being entirely in breach, not only
a) to the intentions of Parliament (as confirmed by Lord (David) Steel and the contents of Hansard) but also
b) contrary to the clear requirements of the DOH itself (which had been explicitly (and publicly) confirmed by the then Secretary of State for Health in 2009 and by Andrew Lansley in 2012) and which explicit requirement (which was also a fundamental “condition of contract for the provision of abortion services” ).
Yet despite being fully aware of the above fundamental “breach of contract” the DOH still paid this contractor over 26 million pounds each year for carrying out circa 55,000 abortions each year – the vast majority (if not all) of which the Department of Health knew had been carried out in blatant breach of the Department’s own requirements (conditions of employment)
In fact the position is far worse than just BPAS ignoring the Department’s conditions of employment, as it is now known that over 93,000 abortions took place last year alone without the pregnant woman concerned being seen by a Doctor – yet despite this known (to the DOH) blatant (and fundamental) breach of contact , the DOH still paid these abortion contractors for carrying out these abortions. (BPAS £4,000 per abortion).
The above clear and explicit requirement was only (and unlawfully – see below) altered by the DOH on the 23rd May this year
The DOH also “lied” to you about responding to my enquiry as to what purpose (against the background of the above) was served by the terms of the certificate that abortion providers (“contractors” in legal terms) are required to send to the DOH “within seven/fourteen days of every abortion” which requires the abortion contractor to certify “whether or not” the Doctors identified had “seen and examined” the pregnant woman before signing the abortion authorisation certificate.
Despite writing two letters to the DOH (already copied to you) and contrary to what the DOH told you I never in fact received a reply to the above enquiry.
I would also remind you that the current abortion scandal arises in respect of
a) the unacceptable behaviour of three tax payer funded organisations (the Department of Health, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police (the two latter organisations overseen by the DPP)
b) the Government itself, who Under our albeit unwritten Constitution, is responsible to Parliament (as well as the electorate) for how these organisations behave – unfortunately the Government is currently (and unlawfully) failing to comply with their legal obligations in this respect.
As a result of b) above the Rule of law (and the Constitutional “Supremacy of Parliament” in this respect) is being ignored (in Constitutional Law terms being “subverted”).
The (Now) Proven Unacceptable (and indeed duplicitous) behaviour of the Department of Health.
Therefore (apart from being unlawful -see below) the contents of the “New” (and indeed any) “Guidance” issued by the DOH are entirely irrelevant as the DOH will never know whether or not their “abortion Providers” (who in reality are all “contractors” employed by the DOH to carry out abortions on behalf of the NHS) are in fact complying with the contents.
The significance of the legal relationship between the DOH as “employer” and their “abortion Providers” (contractors) is that the DOH can, if the Government so instructed, impose stricter requirements on their abortion contactors than appear in the Abortion Act itself.
Therefore any doubt as to interpretation raised by the DPP (or anyone else) as to what Parliament “meant” by the phrase “two doctors acting in good faith” is entirely irrelevant, as the DOH as employer can impose any “conditions“ it wishes (against the background of the recent confirmation by Lord (David) Steel – the former MP responsible for taking the Abortion Act 1967 though it’s various stages in the House of Commons – that MP‘s “always expected the pregnant woman seeking an abortion to be “seen and examined” by a GP at his/her Surgery – an “interpretation confirmed by the contents of Hansard.
It is clear therefore that the (unfortunately anonymous) individual at the DOH responsible for drafting the “New guidance” has knowingly issued guidance which follows the requests of a contractor (Anne Furedi of BPAS) rather than the views of Lord Steel and the evidence in support of his views provided by Hansard.
However Doctors cannot “hide behind” what is unlawful “Guidance” as the Doctors are still required to sign the abortion authorisation certificate – even if the “diagnosis” required is carried out by “A Counsellor a Nurse or Mid wife” which is what the DOH’s “New” contract conditions (Guidance) unlawfully permits.
Although the DOH ,as employers of abortion contractors, can impose stricter requirements as to how abortions are to be carried out by their abortion contactors than are contained in the Abortion Act the individuals in the DOH responsible will themselves be committing a criminal offence if they knowingly allow their abortion contractors to ignore the requirements of the Abortion Act itself.
In this respect I would remind you that an abortion remains conclusive evidence of the commission of as serious crime under the Offences Against the Persons Act committed not only by the individuals directly involved in the procedure itself but also the Chief Executive and other senior managers by whom they are employed – it only ceases to be so if the Abortion is carried out in strict compliance with the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967.
For further details see my letter of the 1st September 2014 to the current Chair of the Health Select Committee (copy attached) whose “terms of reference” include being responsible to Parliament for “overseeing” the activities of the DOH. Unfortunately , after seven weeks, I have still not had the courtesy of a reply to my letter.
The relevance of Constitutional Law. The Constitutional “Rule Of Law” implications of the way the Government is behaving so far as the criminal aspects of the current abortion scandal are concerned (as referred to by the DPP in September and October last year) our albeit (unwritten) constitution requires a Government, when faced (as in this instance) with confirmation from the DPP that the criminal law cannot be enforced because of the doubt expressed by the DPP of being able to convince a Jury what “Parliament “meant” by the phrase “two doctors acting in good faith” are that any Government when faced with the situation of the Rule Of law not being enforced are two fold.
Firstly, the quickest way of resolving any issue of statutory interpretation (particularly where, as this instance, a proper enforcement of the criminal law is concerned, is for the Government to have immediately asked the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government (the “Executive” in Constitutional law terms)t to immediately apply to the court (the “Judiciary” again in Constitutional Law terms) for a Judicial (and therefore definitive) interpretation of the subject phrase.
The only other possible lawful response would be for the Government to table primary legislation to clarify the issue that was preventing the DPP from carrying out the “will of parliament“.
If the (or any) Government wishes to allow abortions without complying with the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 (which effectively is what the present Government is unlawfully doing) then the law itself requires them to table primary legislation to that effect (as was done in respect of the “Old” Sunday Trading Act 1950)
What any Government cannot do is to do nothing – which unfortunately has been the present Government’s stance for the last twelve months.
It is unlawful (under our albeit unwritten Constitution) for any Government to knowingly allow organisations and individuals to behave as if the law has already been changed – which is exactly what the present Government is allowing at the present time.
The appalling situation I have uncovered in fact, goes much further than being merely an abortion issue as the current “unconstitutional” behaviour I have identified strikes at the very roots of our Democracy .
The unfortunate (legal) reality is that the Government is currently allowing the “Rule Of law” to be ignored.
However I will deal in more detail with the “Criminal and Constitutional Law” aspects of the current abortion scandal in my next “blog”.
peeweehogan 