Policy on Dealing with State Corruption and the Use of Tort Law


As a democratic country, England has long upheld the principle that government must be accountable to its people. However, corruption and abuses of power can occur in any government, and can have a serious impact on the constitutional rights of citizens. It is therefore essential that appropriate measures are put in place to hold those in power accountable for their actions.

State Pensions and Allegiance:

One of the key issues with state corruption is the potential conflict of interest created by state pensions. State pensions operate as a form of deferred compensation, incentivizing loyalty and allegiance to the state rather than the people. This can create a culture of impunity among government officials, who may feel that their position is secure regardless of their actions.

The Common Law of Tort:

To combat state corruption and abuses of power, we propose the use of the common law of tort. Tort law is a branch of civil law that deals with harm caused by one person to another, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is based on the principle of fault, meaning that someone who has caused harm is liable for the damage they have caused.

In the context of state corruption, tort law provides a means for holding individuals and organizations accountable for their actions. This is particularly important given the British Soviet system, which has virtually eradicated the jury-led system of justice that is central to the common law of tort.

Holding Individuals Accountable:

Individuals who work for the state, whether at the county or country level, can be held accountable under tort law. This means that if an individual acts in an unconstitutional way, they can be sued for damages. Additionally, their pension and lump sum can be revoked as a result of their actions.

Holding Organizations Accountable:

In cases of state corruption, it is often not enough to hold individuals accountable. Organizations, such as police forces or government agencies, can also be held accountable for the actions of their employees. This is known as vicarious liability, and means that the CEO or Chief Constable can be held responsible for the actions of their employees.

Remedies for Constitutional Rights Violations:

If an individual’s constitutional rights have been violated, they may be entitled to compensation under tort law. The remedy for a lost right or acting in an unconstitutional way will mean the perpetrators lose their pension, lump sum, and under vicarious liability the CEO/Chief Constable will too. This policy will be retrospective, meaning that past cases of state corruption can still be prosecuted.


In conclusion, state corruption is a serious issue that must be addressed in order to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. The use of tort law provides a means for holding individuals and organisations accountable for their actions, and provides a remedy for those whose rights have been violated. It is essential that this policy is implemented in a way that is fair and just, and that it is used to promote accountability and transparency in government.

To give an example; If a police officer was found to have acted unconstitutionally by a tort jury. The claimant (the injured party) would receive £457,806.57 + £66,709.08 the two or more guilty parties would receive no pension.

Published by Graham Moore

I believe in Liberty, Freedom and fairness for all. Sick of political correctness and mind and thought control. The Rule of Law, Common Law.

9 thoughts on “Policy on Dealing with State Corruption and the Use of Tort Law

  1. Do we need a to put a group together to look at this & implement the charges against politicians & now councillors with the climate lockdowns coming in ?? Seeing has Gates has now warned of the new pandemic date & location. These parasites need to be stopped once & for all & all they understand is money, this is what solicitors should be looking at but all of them seem silent on the matter & always will be.

  2. Fantastic. I love this. A case comes to mind. The police took out a case against their victim whom they’d beaten up badly. Graham helped him defend the action and the judge ruled against the police. Does that win open a door for a tort action against the police by that young man?

  3. Can Matt Hancock and Chris Witty be held responsible for their actions under Tort Law?

  4. That will please those chosen for recruitment and promotion by values other than ability.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: