In published reports even the Duke of Edinburgh himself was denied access to information regarding pesticides that he believed were poisoning pheasants.
A very senior Policeman whose entire family had been poisoned by organophosphates approached the Queen for assistance but declared that the orders by the Monarch to the Lord Chancellor instructing him to help were ignored.

So the search was on to discover who had the power to deny access to justice for those damaged by corrupt official decisions and how it was that those involved appeared to be completely unaccountable to Parliament, the Sovereign, the Justice System and to the electorate.

By chance in 2003 the answer may have been discovered in a chance comment made during the broadcast of the Lord Mayor's Show in London when the Lord Mayor of London swears his allegiance to the Sovereign and pledges to do his or her duty under the Declaration of Office before the Judges of the High Court.
The broadcast comment indicated that far from being merely a ceremonial character the Queen's Remembrancer is a judge, the most senior Master in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and represents the link between the Courts and the City of London.
The Queen's Bench Division is that part of the Court System which deals with such claims as Personal Injury, Negligence, Defamation, Non-payment of debt, Land and property cases, and Welfare Benefit Appeals, Tribunals and Commissioner Hearings, all of which involve State interests.
Queen's Bench Division Guide. pdf
Anyone suffering the effects of chemical poisoning, the effects of radiation, vaccine damage, or other illnesses or injuries at work will find themselves involved in the administration of their case by that court to one degree or another.

Other than the Office of Lord Chancellor, the Office of the Queen's Remembrancer is the oldest judicial post to remain in continual existence since the Middle Ages and was formed to oversee dealings for the benefit of the "Crown", including records of taxes, and so is deeply connected to ensuring the financial security of the Nation. In this definition the Crown has little to do with the Monarch but is in fact the State and all aspects forming the State. Every action has to benefit the State.

The duty of the Queen's Remembrancer then is to protect, and to act in the interests of, the State - not for the population of the State.

The Queen's Remembrancer, who also nominates the High Sheriffs for most counties in England and Wales, was therefore described as the link between the Judicial System and the City of London, which is in effect a country within a country, also known as the Square Mile, forming the centre of the United Kingdom's trading and financial services industries.

Investment in those financial services provides much of the Nation's wealth, so much so that even when those working for the banks bring their own country to the point of bankruptcy through unlawful practices few if any of them face sanctions and most of the key players are rewarded £multi-million bonuses on top of their annual salaries, while the population of the country suffers austerity policies to repay the induced debts.
While the potential criminals at the top wallow in luxury the weakest in society, often damaged by policies designed to cause harm, are forced into ever deepening poverty and are blamed for the economic mess that the greed and fear of the ultra-rich created.

Is there another influence on such policies?

The City Remembrancer is one of the Chief Officers of the London Corporation and is the only person holding a seat in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons who is not elected or is not a Civil Servant.
The City Remembrancer communicates between the City, the Mayor, the Sovereign and Parliament but also deals with ceremonial events and protocol, including the implementation of legislation affecting the City.
The Office of the Remembrancer looks after the interests of the City in Parliament, especially involving public legislation for which it employs lawyers to give evidence to select committees and advise on legislation but it is suggested that it cannot see Acts of Parliament before they are made public or amend any laws. If it is true that they cannot influence Parliament it begs the question - why do they sit in Parliament?

Reporter George Monbiot commented in the Guardian paper -

"The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected.

Here it is suggested that the sole purpose for the presence of the City Remembrancer in Parliament is to protect the Banks and to ensure that the laws are written to the advantage of the wealthy elite.

Shortly after the Liberal Party helped the Conservatives gain control over the country after the 2010 election Prime Minister Cameron declared before the Lord Mayor and other dignitaries that he would "never hurt the bankers because his father and grandfather were involved in banking.
Since then his policy has been to cut taxes for the wealthiest in society, remove employment protection for employees, undermine Tribunals, remove legal aid, take away the safety net provided by the Welfare State and to attack those unable to work or to find work in the manner of the "Useless Eaters" hatred programme instigated between the World Wars by the Nazis.
So badly are the disabled treated now that doctors formed the Black Triangle Campaign to assist the disabled in their unequal battle against the dishonest activities encouraged by the Department for Work and Pensions. The Black Triangle was the mark used by the Nazis to identify their "Useless Eaters"
Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and the Prime Minister David Cameron publicly and calculatedly stirred up the public hatred of those who were unable to work with talk of people behind their bedroom curtains living off the State while their neighbours went out to work to pay for them."
Now they claim that the National Insurance programme was to "Get people back to work" - but it never was. The scheme, like the Industrial Injuries scheme, was to act as an insurance paid by all, like all other insurances, so that support was there for anyone in times of need.
Now those who paid their insurance contributions all of their working lives find that the benefits claimed by people like themselves when they were working are no longer available when in the 21^st Century they need to draw on them.
It is a National disgrace but part of the "Long-term Economic Plan" admitted to have been devised from at least 30 years ago so as to take Britain back to the days before the Welfare State with its National Health Service and Pension arrangements were begun.
Privatisation to extremes and a "good earner" for the City.

The insurance industry also takes a lead in wealth creation and all too many influential people with money to spare become underwriters for the risks taken by that industry. It can be a lucrative investment but when things go wrong and highly insured property or lives are lost the underwriters are expected to make good their promises and pay the compensation to the insured. Such disasters have frequently brought even the richest underwriters to the brink of bankruptcy. This triggers a determination to avoid large payouts.

As can be seen from the above there is central control of the Judicial system and any person whose case could damage the finances of the State could well find their cases blocked from progress whether the case is brought through local County Courts or in the High Court, no matter how strong their case.

Clearly with cases such as asbestosis, thalidomide, nuclear radiation, vaccines, pesticides and the various diverse groups harmed by organophosphates, any case that is proven opens the door to other cases and should the numbers grow too large the compensation that would have to be paid could bring down not only the very wealthy underwriters but also the financial wealth of the country itself.
Liability for harm done is often transferred from the manufacturers to, and accepted by, the government through various approval processes.
Why this was done is a mystery and it endangers both public health and National Wealth.

Perhaps the highest number of cases that could trigger such a financial disaster are to be found in the environmental poisons, which not only affect humans and all living things but also increase enormously the costs of caring for those injured by their exposures.

The "Crown" has found ways to limit those risks, not by removing the poisons from the environment so as to protect the people, but by controlling the medical, scientific and legal systems so that injured people are unable to bring cases before the courts.
If the scientists are "unable to prove" the effects of their poisons then the doctors are "unable to confirm poisoning" by them, and without that evidence the lawyers can see "no reasonable chance of success" and all the cases melt into oblivion - but the suffering continues, the case numbers rise progressively, and eventually the State's health service collapses into a spiral of impossible debt, whilst massively increasing the profits of those who manufacture the poisons and the treatments for the induced symptoms.
This is where the UK is at this time but instead of acting to protect health the government seeks to raise funds by selling off services to the Private sector which will only lead to further increases in costs and, if the current trend in privatised industries, continues a further lowering of standards

How have we come to this point?

For decades those whose health has been harmed by those critical environmental poisons have been asking successive governments to act so that no more people suffer. At every stage there are denials, partial admissions, investigations, delays and cover-up so that nothing ever gets done. On rare occasions such as with asbestos and thalidomide something is admitted and action has been taken but those abused by the poisons, the courts, and the system are, if they are lucky, paid a pittance in compensation while those responsible for allowing the harm to be done are often promoted, knighted, handsomely rewarded financially, and even employed in key positions to prevent the recognition of harm done by other poisons.

When numbers grow too great and cases actually begin to be recognised the officials only too clearly see the danger both to themselves and to the City.
With Organophosphate poisoning for example the World Health Organisation figures suggest at least 2 million people die every year - and that merely counts deaths officially confirmed as being caused by the poisons. It takes no account of those undiagnosed who have died or been made severely disabled and no account whatsoever of any long term illnesses that are increasingly shown to develop after exposure to those poisons.

At such a stage the cover-ups move to a more serious level when deliberate false data, perjury, perversion of justice and fraudulent practices are used to prevent the inevitable financial damage to the industrial and insurance interests.

The Crown has to protect the City.

It abuses the Official Secrets Act in order to protect itself from the people
No doctor or scientist who knows the truth may speak of it without clearance or they lose their employment, pensions or even their lives.

In order to challenge deception and fraud effectively it is necessary to use the courts where in English Law all parties have to be completely open in order for the Courts to form the correct and just judgement. This may actually be the case in the criminal courts, although many cases pose serious questions over the actual procedures used, but in the Civil Courts to which such cases are directed and where the "Burden of Proof" needs only to achieve the "more likely than not" standard there is evidence to show serious breaches in the Court Procedure Rules, of perjury, the use of false data and the frequent and deliberate Perversion of Justice.

When there is evidence of breaches of those rules or criminal actions used to prevent successful outcomes for the victims in such cases the "Crown" suggests that there are remedies to be obtained by their victims through the legal system if the complaints have supporting evidence and are taken through the correct channels
These may well include:
The Law Society
The Bar Council
The Legal Services Ombudsman
The Police
The General Medical Council
Members of Parliament
The Health Service Ombudsman
The Information Commissioner
The Parliamentary Ombudsman
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
The Office for Judicial Complaints
The Serious Fraud Office
Action Fraud
The Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Judicial Ombudsman
Ministry of Justice
The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau
Or even
The Lord Chancellor's Office

When hours have been spent preparing the reports of criminal actions complete with supporting evidence for those bodies the least that should be expected is that those reports would be considered worryingly serious, certainly serious enough to trigger an official investigation.

Failing to report a criminal offence is an offence and so an unsuspecting person would expect at least a cursory investigation into the crimes to be undertaken, especially if the Lord Chancellor's Office states in writing that Perjury and Perversion of Justice are "very serious offences".

Unfortunately a Member of Parliament and former member of the "Justice Committee" reported that the Police are not obligated to investigate or enforce any crime. They may choose which laws they wish to enforce.

When the official channels fail to address the very serious problems faced by those who have been harmed they will often seek out and join support groups so that they can share experiences, ways to cope with their problems or even to attempt improvements to their health. If the groups grow to be influential those groups themselves present a "danger to the State" and further insults to their condition are made in attempts to silence them.

It is usual for the media, the press, radio and television to champion the rights of the oppressed around the world but in these cases there has to be "balanced reporting" even though only the sufferers in that "balance" may be reporting the true provable facts.
"Commercial Interests" and the need for financial backers, advertisers and insurance all too frequently results in the "pulling" of important stories and reports or the "axing" of television broadcasts. On one occasion a "live" radio broadcast debate on the causes of BSE was never broadcast because of the controversy over the link to environmental poisons.

Rather than report honestly about those affected the media often imply that sufferers are inventing illness or even suffer mental illness, often on advice given by their scientific "experts but the support groups may become so influential that the State authorises under-cover Police to join the groups in order to monitor them or even to persuade them to become more radical, so as to undermine their credibility.. See the books "Undercover" and "Blacklisted".
Innocent, often very sick, individuals are labelled "Domestic Subversives", worthy of the same surveillance techniques as used against terrorists.
It becomes an offence to disagree with the diktats of the ruling elite - even if those policies harm the entire population.

However if The Fraud Act 2006 is read carefully it will be noticed that using a false claim of mental illness in order to cause another loss is in fact a definition given for Fraud and Fraud is a criminal offence.
Unfortunately the psychiatric lobby now has such a strong hold over government policy, probably for mutual benefit, that mental illness is now the preferred diagnosis in all too many cases of chemical or environmental poisoning.
Aside from being examples of fraud such actions are also extremely dangerous for the patient because it may be dangerous to administers anti-psychotic drugs and can result in denying the patient's rights and freedom.

Furthermore, and if possible perhaps more importantly the psychiatric lobby has a great influence on what can now be published by the "free" press and it is common for reports of chemically induced illness to be pulled from publication by fraudulent claims that the illnesses are mentally induced.

When those whose duty it is to protect the public from fraud refused to investigate the abuse of research funds running into many millions of pounds, only to call for "more research" when that money is spent, it becomes clear that no action will ever be taken by the Crown to end the abuse.

During his period in office the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has often repeated the stock phrase that "No one is above the law".