Jasthi Alom’s case exposes the FCA’s failure to uphold fundamental human rights, leaving it legally vulnerable under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The ICO’s reluctance to enforce transparency raises critical questions about whether it is protecting information rights or shielding organisations from scrutiny.
The ICO’s refusal to enforce transparency in NHS whistleblowing cases raises serious questions about its role in protecting institutions rather than the public.
The tragic case of Semina Halliwell highlights systemic failures in police, social care, and mental health services—failures that cost a vulnerable child her life and demand urgent accountability.
Observers in employment tribunals are vital in ensuring justice by documenting proceedings and addressing misconduct.
For years, businessman Paul Millinder has been labelled a vexatious litigant, his pursuit of justice dismissed as obsessive. Yet, his case reveals a troubling pattern of judicial manoeuvring, fraudulent insolvency proceedings, and suppressed evidence.
When I wrote The Chimp, The Computer, and The LiP, I drew heavily on The Chimp Paradox, a book that explains how emotions and logic collide under pressure. The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene serves a similar purpose—especially for Litigants in Person (LiPs) navigating high-stakes litigation. Legal battles often feel overwhelming due to procedural complexities, tight deadlines, and aggressive opposition. Greene’s insights on power dynamics can help LiPs maintain strategic control without falling into ethical traps. This article explores five of his most relevant “laws,” adapted for self-representation, ensuring compliance with court rules while maximizing tactical advantage.
Paul Millinder, long dismissed as a vexatious litigant, argues he has been unjustly silenced by the UK courts for exposing judicial misconduct and now seeks justice in Hong Kong.
Wakeling’s decades-long fight reveals deep-rooted institutional failings in planning and regulatory oversight.
The ICO’s refusal to correct factual errors in a Decision Notice raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and the risk of regulatory bodies enabling misinformation.
