Allegory Application

This page contains a description of how the allegory  described here can be applied to the MP Case Study.

Here’s how I would apply the allegory to the players.

The key thing to note in the allegory is that a blatant lie is being told. When we apply the allegory to the MP Case Study therefore, we are going to need a clear view of what the lie is. The lie (and its obviousness) is what is key to this story.

Child – Constituent    Mother – Local Police    Grandmother – Local MP

[in all fairness to the MP, the order: Police before MP is important.]

Now to explain this assignation.

In the allegory the child is asking their mother a question, the mother is lying to the child and calling on Grandma to support her in her lie.


The child’s question is: I’d like to go to Disneyland, may we please go?

[Q1] Is the child right to ask her mother the question? Yes – we are not talking of the rightness or wrongness of actually going to Disneyland in this case, we are just saying that because the child is a minor and the mother is the adult responsible for her care, if the child feels that she wants or needs something, the go-to person is her mother. The child has the right to approach her mother.

[Q2] Is the child entitled to receive an answer? Yes – the mother cannot ignore the child. The answer may be ‘yes’, or it may be ‘no’ depending on the circumstances, but a clear answer must be given; a reasonable and rational answer.

[Q3] Is the child entitled to receive truthful reasons for the mother’s chosen answer? Yes – to lie to the child is to betray the child’s trust. A mother who lies to her child is a bad role model and is being irresponsible. She may sometimes need to water down her talk to the child, but telling the child a deliberate lie for in order to avoid the discomfort and labour that goes into telling the child the truth is just plain wrong. Lying to your child is a major parenting fail).

To fail to tell the child the truth is to deny the child her right.

Child – Constituent    Mother – Local Police    Grandmother – Local MP

How does it work?


The Constituent’s question is: A crime has been committed against me. I need access to justice will you help me please?

The Constituent has posed this question to both the Local Police and the Local MP, and both persons have (essentially) said “No we will not help you. Reason being that we do not see that a crime has been committed against you. We see no ships crime.”

Child – Constituent    Mother – Local Police    Grandmother – Local MP

The constituent’s question to the POLICE was: I’d like to report a crime that has been committed against me, please investigate?

[Q1] Is the constituent right to ask the POLICE the question? Yes – we are not talking of whether or not a crime has ACTUALLY been committed against the constituent, we are just saying that because the constituent believes that a crime has been committed against him/her, he/she is entitled to go to the Police and report it (and expect the crime report to, at the very least, be recorded).

[Q2] Is the constituent entitled to receive an answer from the Police? Yes – the police cannot ignore the constituent. The answer may be ‘yes’, or it may be ‘no’ depending on the circumstances, but a clearly recorded answer must be given; a reasonable and rational answer).

[Q3] Is the constituent entitled to receive truthful reasons for the police’s chosen answer? Yes – for the POLICE to lie to the constituent is to fail in their fiduciary duty; the police occupy a high position of trust.


*The lie is: “No crime has been committed”, and the Police are ‘calling on’ the Local MP to cover for them (which he does).

You may ask “But we see no evidence at all in the supplied dialogue that says that the Police have actually spoken to the MP regarding this matter!?” That’s what collusion is all about. Let’s not forget also, that the website that the constituent quoted in the [Q5] of their email of 6 November 2020, 12:04hrs that they sent to the local MP showed that there is (an unhealthy) working-together pattern between the MP and the Police.


The reason why the Police actually exist as an institution is for the purpose of crime prevention, crime detection and crime fighting. Their job is to tackle problems such as these head-on and bring criminals to book. In this case it is beyond obvious that a crime has been committed and yet… why are BOTH the Local Police and the Local MP refusing to acknowledge it?


From a competence/incompetence point of view: (seeing as “the law cannot be applied discriminately”) If the Police are refusing to investigate the obvious crime being reported by the Constituent in the Case Study, how well are they doing in their handling of the less obvious crime reports that they receive?

From a corruption point of view: If the Police actually can see that a crime has been committed (but just do not want this particular constituent to access justice), why is the MP et al. going along with the Police? ‘The Powers’ are separated for just such an instance as this! Based on the MP’s (quacks-like-a-duck) behaviour, what this Case Study illustrates therefore, is that the powers are, in effect NOT separated. Can we get a better-picture-than-this of what an undercover Police State looks like?

The thing to note in applying the allegory, is the appeal, from a form of dependent, to an authority figure.

According to my interpretation of the material provided, the Child is always the Constituent.


So far I have worked with:

Child – Constituent    Mother – Local Police    Grandmother – Local MP

as a perfect fit to the supplied narrative, I will now proceed to discuss other chains of possibility (and their implications). The Constituent would have been many places before they approached the MP. We can track back to where this “dependant” (i.e. the Constituent) was/went before they approached the Police until we get to the root cause of the problem.

Combinations like the ones listed below can also fit the narrative:

Child – Constituent Mother – Local Authority Grandmother – Local Police


Child – Constituent Mother – Local Authority Grandmother – Family Court


Child – Constituent Mother – Family Court Grandmother – Court of Appeal 

The Court-of-Appeal bit is drawn from the fact that the MP was somewhat pointing the Constituent in that direction. The office of the MP told the constituent that they themselves were sure that the Order in question was valid – surety obtained on a basis that (for some reason) cannot be disclosed to the Constituent. 


If indeed we are to regard that Order as valid, the appeal is made on the basis that the Family Court insists that that Order is valid (despite that the High Court said that NE19C00733 was not one of their cases). Appealing that (obviously void Order) means that the constituent would be carrying the Family Court’s “will you lie for me?” message to the Court of Appeal. And considering all the collusion (that would be embarrassing to the government) that the Constituent has so far encountered, what are the chances of her appeal even being permitted? The constituent will also need to consider the cost of an appeal, a bill which the constituent will need to foot – and risk being ordered to pay the other party’s costs too, if they lose the appeal!


The Court of Appeal has 2 divisions: Civil Division, & Criminal Division – which Court of Appeal is the constituent supposed to carry this “will you lie for me?” message to? (Appeals from the Family Court go to the Civil Division). Since when is it the Court of Appeal’s Civil Division that decides on criminal matters? Why is the Constituent even being required to take the matter to the Lord Justices of Appeal… do we need ‘an Authority’ to tell us that that ‘injunction’ is a forgery? The truth-of-the-matter is known to us already. It is likely that the end sought in pushing for the matter to be taken to the Court of Appeal’s Civil Division is in order to solicit a Lord/Lady Justice to cover for the guilty (as alleged) by declaring the ‘injunction’ to be legally valid. COLLUSION. Was the Court of Appeal established for the purposes of collusion? If yes, then the Court of Appeal as an institution needs to be abolished. If not, what is the relevance of pointing the Constituent in that direction? The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion or missing the point comes to mind.

If there is anything that is obvious from the Case Study, it is that the ‘Court Order’ in question is a forgery!

I said earlier that the lie (and its obviousness) is key to this Case Study. The lie and its obviousness is what makes it clear that ‘the Authorities’ are colluding with each other.


If they all will ‘vote’ as one like this, it really doesn’t matter how many avenues of appeal the government has ‘put in place for our protection’ – we live in a Police State!

Close Menu