0:01 We could be witnessing one of the
0:04 largest and most controversial coverups
0:07 of all time as the Ministry of Justice
0:10 has just ordered the deletion of the
0:13 largest court reporting archive we've
0:16 ever known. So for more on this, please
0:17 do subscribe to the channel. Let's take
0:19 a look at this. So the Ministry of
0:22 Justice has ordered the deletion of
0:25 courts desks reporting archive. This is
0:28 a platform launched to improve media
0:31 access to magistrate's court data and
0:33 has been ordered to delete its archives
0:36 of records by David Lami's Ministry of
0:39 Justice. If I was cynical, I would say
0:41 that they are trying to remove all shred
0:44 of evidence of certain things happening.
0:46 And I am cynical and not just because
0:48 I'm a lawyer. This was Courtzes and I'm
0:50 taking this from Grochipedia which I
0:52 will link in the description below. This
0:55 was launched in 2020 as a digital court
0:58 reporting archive aimed at bridging gaps
1:00 in transparency within the UK judicial
1:02 system. Its initial goal was to empower
1:05 journalists and campaigners to track and
1:07 report on criminal cases in magistrate's
1:09 courts, thereby advancing principles of
1:12 open justice by making court data more
1:14 accessible and searchable. This
1:15 addressed long-standing challenges in
1:18 obtaining reliable advanced notice of
1:20 hearings and identified barriers to
1:22 public scrutiny of the courts. The
1:24 aggregation and analysis of magistrate's
1:27 court data highlighted profound systemic
1:29 failures in providing timely information
1:32 to the press, undermining open justice,
1:33 and the records indicated that
1:35 journalists received no advanced press
1:38 notice for 1.6 million criminal
1:40 hearings, preventing media oversight of
1:43 a substantial portion of proceedings. So
1:45 all of this was set up to enhance and
1:48 improve open transparency of our justice
1:52 system. But in November, HMTCS issued
1:55 this company a cessation notice. They
1:57 must stop what they are doing. They said
1:59 that this was an unauthorized sharing of
2:02 court data on the basis of a test
2:04 feature claiming that this was a data
2:07 protection issue. So what on earth are
2:09 they talking about? Well, it's unclear
2:11 as to what this test feature actually
2:14 is, but I happen to know a little bit
2:15 about it because I've been looking into
2:17 it for my Black Belt Barister Pro
2:19 system, which I will link below. You can
2:21 subscribe there because what I've done
2:24 there is take real court judgments and
2:27 decisions and tribunal decisions and uh
2:29 you know, parking adjudications and all
2:31 of these sort of things and I've trained
2:34 my AI system on it. Now, what my system
2:37 doesn't do, which is what I know is not
2:39 permitted, is it doesn't take all of
2:41 those and then take your situation and
2:44 give you advice based on what's happened
2:47 before. What it does do is point to
2:50 certain cases where your situation may
2:53 have come up. For example, waiting on
2:55 double yellow lines. One person, this
2:58 was in my testing, one person had said
3:00 that they were caught behind another car
3:02 on double yellow lines. They didn't mean
3:04 to be waiting there. They had no choice.
3:07 Were they still liable for the fine? And
3:09 in short, yes, they were because the
3:10 legislation and the regulations just
3:13 said waiting on those lines is what gets
3:16 you the fine. So what my system doesn't
3:18 do and what the systems cannot do is
3:21 train AI to give you advice based on
3:23 those systems. But that is possibly one
3:24 of the features that they are looking
3:26 at. But we're getting away from the real
3:29 point here, and that is transparency.
3:31 because this ties in very very neatly
3:34 with my petition to make all courts
3:37 transcripts and tribunal transcripts
3:40 available free of charge. This in
3:42 conjunction with Restore Britain and its
3:45 rape gang inquiry. This will greatly
3:49 enhance people's access to exactly what
3:51 happened, what was said throughout those
3:54 proceedings. And it makes me all the
3:56 more dubious and curious as to why this
3:59 is now being deleted. As Jonathan Wong
4:01 said here, it's no coincidence that the
4:03 Star government ordered the deletion of
4:05 the largest court archive the very same
4:06 week that Rert Low conducts an
4:09 independent grooming gang inquiry. And
4:12 Elon Musk says the actions of a tyrant.
4:13 This is in response to the under
4:16 secretary of state uh Sarah Rogers who
4:19 said transparency is an essential to
4:21 rule of law. Democracies should not
4:24 order court records to be purged. This
4:27 is basic and obvious. And as a lawyer,
4:29 as a barristister myself, I absolutely
4:33 agree. Every word that was spoken and
4:35 uttered during those proceedings is
4:38 absolutely crucial. That is why I thank
4:40 you all for signing and sharing. And now
4:42 my petition is going viral with the help
4:45 of Restore Britain. 41,000 signatures
4:48 and upwards. This hopefully will now get
4:50 up to 100,000. we should get a response
4:52 from government in response to my
4:56 request and also if we get to 100,000
4:58 then it will be debated in parliament.
5:01 How wonderful that would be for the
5:03 transparency to have this debated in
5:06 parliament for free transcripts for
5:09 every case. And testimony is absolutely
5:10 key here. If you take a look at this
5:12 post here from Rupert Low, he says he's
5:14 tabled a parliamentary motion based on
5:16 multiple witness statements that they've
5:19 heard at the inquiry about abused
5:20 British girls being trafficked to
5:23 Pakistan and elsewhere by their rapists.
5:26 He says, "I believe there are currently
5:28 countless British women being used as
5:31 slaves overseas." Uh, this may sound
5:34 insane. It is not. And I can pause there
5:36 and I can tell you from my personal
5:39 experience as a barristister. Um, this
5:41 is not a nice thing to talk about, but
5:43 I've been involved in multiple cases
5:45 where we've had to go to the high court
5:48 for an emergency application to prevent
5:50 the removal of a child to another
5:53 country. One example was Pakistan. This
5:56 girl was being removed from the UK to
5:58 Pakistan and it took an emergency
6:00 hearing which is done by telephone late
6:02 in the evening with a high court judge
6:04 to prevent that plane from taking off.
6:07 And as I focused on family law for a
6:08 number of years in practice, not just
6:10 with the parents and the child and who
6:12 gets them at the weekend and that kind
6:14 of thing. I dealt with and had to read
6:17 about and cross-examine people about the
6:20 most horrendous abuse you could possibly
6:23 imagine. And the court was tasked with
6:27 finding out who did it. Who did this to
6:28 this child? Obviously, family hearings
6:30 are inherently private, but that can
6:32 give you just an idea of just how
6:34 important it is to maintain a record of
6:37 all of these events and to obtain the
6:39 transcripts in case you want to appeal.
6:41 To give you an idea, you'll find this
6:42 link below, by the way, to give you an
6:44 idea. If you are involved in a small
6:46 claim, just a couple of hours, even that
6:50 will cost you in the region of £500 for
6:52 the transcript, which you absolutely
6:54 must have if you want to challenge that
6:57 by way of appeal. Now, think of that as
7:01 a whole day or multiple days or multiple
7:03 weeks if you want to challenge the
7:06 decision. And if you are found guilty,
7:08 but you want to examine that evidence
7:10 because you believe there is something
7:13 in there that is just absolutely wrong
7:15 or worse still, you are the victim of a
7:17 horrendous crime and the alleged
7:19 perpetrator has essentially got away
7:21 with it. But you need to dig through
7:23 those transcripts to find something that
7:26 can cost tens of thousands of pounds.
7:28 And I believe all of those should be
7:31 free, especially in the modern day when
7:33 most of this can be done by AI with a
7:36 very quick glance over it afterwards. I
7:38 think this absolutely should be
7:40 available for free. So, please do sign
7:42 the petition below. Make sure you share
7:43 that. And I'm very grateful to the
7:45 collaboration with Restore Britain to
7:46 get this off the ground and hopefully
7:48 we'll get this to 100,000 signatures.
7:50 All of this is all the more curious when
7:53 there is virtually zero coverage
7:56 whatsoever about Restore Britain's rape
7:59 gang inquiry. As they say here, still no
8:00 coverage on the BBC of the rape gang
8:03 inquiry. Nothing on the Telegraph, The
8:05 Sun, The Mail, ITV, Sky, The Express,
8:08 LBC, Guardian, The Times. Total silence.
8:11 It's disgusting, they say. And I have
8:13 even read people criticizing those who
8:16 are giving testimony at this inquiry,
8:18 saying that it is untested,
8:21 unchallenged, and unofficial. But
8:23 seriously, what is the difference when
8:25 you've got somebody coming in, they are
8:27 swearing to tell the truth, and they are
8:29 giving their experience, their account
8:32 of what actually happened. And yet there
8:35 is virtually zero coverage of this
8:38 across the media. A complete media
8:41 blackout. Thank goodness we have places
8:44 like YouTube and X where I can connect
8:47 with you. You can all connect with each
8:49 other on YouTube on X. And so thanks to
8:52 YouTube and Elon Musk for X, we can all
8:54 talk about these things and everybody
8:56 actually will know about it. And
8:58 speaking of being in the no, you might
8:59 remember that there was a complaint
9:02 levied against Rert Low, which he is
9:04 challenging in the high court by way of
9:06 judicial review. and you can attend, but
9:09 you need to tell them by 4:00 today. So,
9:12 I will link this here with an email in
9:14 the description. You'll need to email
9:15 the court and tell them that you would
9:17 like to attend remotely and they can
9:18 send you a link if they permit you to
9:20 attend. And as this order says here,
9:23 this may attract media attention. And
9:24 here we are. And as a brief outline,
9:26 Rupert Low MP is the claimant here. He's
9:28 an independent member of the UK
9:30 Parliament. The defendant, the
9:31 independent complaints and grievance
9:34 scheme investigates complaints against
9:36 members of parliament. And by this
9:37 claim, Rupert Lo challenges the decision
9:39 of this scheme to commence a formal
9:41 investigation into him. There is a
9:43 hearing fixed for 17th of March, but
9:45 there is also a hearing next week on the
9:48 17th of February. You can either turn up
9:49 because these are public hearings or you
9:51 can send an email to request to attend
9:54 virtually. Rert Low, I suspect, would
9:56 appreciate your support in this. And so
9:58 finally circling back to Rupert Loe's
9:59 motion here, he said he's tabled this
10:01 motion based on multiple witness
10:02 statements they've heard at the inquiry
10:04 on abused British girls being trafficked
10:07 to Pakistan. He said this may sound
10:09 insane, but it's not. Look at these
10:11 gangs. Nobody would have believed the
10:13 extent of the evil before it was
10:15 uncovered. This is very real. Our
10:17 inquiry believes that this is the
10:19 current reality for a terrifying number
10:21 of women. All MPs have been emailed
10:23 asking for their support. The Home
10:27 Office must act urgently. He says, and
10:29 here's the motion. He says that this the
10:31 motion is that this house expresses
10:32 grave concern and evidence presented
10:34 during recent independent hearings into
10:37 organized exploitation, indicating a
10:39 number of women and girls may have been
10:41 trafficked overseas to Pakistan and
10:43 elsewhere by those responsible for their
10:45 abuse. notes that the rape gang inquiry
10:47 has received multiple witness statements
10:48 alleging that the victims were
10:49 deliberately targeted to be removed from
10:51 the United Kingdom in order to maintain
10:53 control, prevent disclosure, and
10:55 obstruct investigation. Recognizes that
10:57 such allegations, if proven, would
10:59 constitute serious offenses, including
11:01 human trafficking and modern slavery.
11:03 further recognizes the profound
11:04 safeguarding failures that would be
11:06 implied if victims were to be taken
11:08 abroad without effective intervention by
11:10 public authorities and calls on the
11:11 government to initiate as a matter of
11:14 urgency a full and properly resourced
11:15 national investigation into the alleged
11:17 overseas trafficking of victims
11:18 connected to organized sexual
11:21 exploitation. So, as I said, to me,
11:23 court transcripts, court records,
11:25 historical records are all important and
11:29 absolutely critical to open justice. And
11:30 I think court transcripts should be
11:33 free. Again, the petition link is in the
11:36 description below. And please support
11:38 Rert Low in what he's doing here because
11:40 he is one of the few who is actually
11:41 pushing forward with these things. And
11:43 yet, none of the media seems to be
11:45 covering it. So, please share this video
11:46 so more people will hear about it. And
