A Freedom of Information request to the UK Supreme Court about design choice
The UK Supreme Court has been widely noted to have some “interesting” symbolism in its design. I stole the above image (fair use, right?) from the architect’s website, and it isn’t be best perspective, but it gives you the idea, and hopefully won’t get me into trouble. There is a clearly visible “all seeing eye” design. Reasonable people might inquire whether this is appropriate, as it potentially signals allegiance to secret societies or overseas powers, thus could even constitute evidence of treason. As such, I have just sent the following Freedom of Information Act submission to the Supreme Court.
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has been widely noted on social media that the design of the main room in the Supreme Court resembles the “oculus mundi”, “all seeing eye”, or “eye of providence”. This motif can be seen on the architect’s website in the rotating images: http://owusu.uk/projects-supreme-court.html.
Blind impartiality is a figural part of justice, as seen in the scales of Lady Justice. One interpretation of the symbol is exactly this. Rightly or wrongly, some individuals might perceive this symbol’s presence in a courtroom as having hidden or occult significance, potentially leading to suspicions of bias or secret agendas.
I am attempting to understand how this design came into being, and whether it was a conscious choice, and if so who made it — in particular whether it was an idea that emanated from the side of the Supreme Court or the architect.
Q1 — Who commissioned the architect who produced this design and created the design brief on behalf of the Supreme Court? This may be an individual, role, committee… who can be asked a follow-up question once identified!
Q2 — Is there documentary evidence of the design brief that relates to this aspect of the project? Specifically, does the design brief make reference to symbolism and/or impartiality?
Q3 — Are there any official records or minutes of meetings discussing the design elements, including the choice of symbols, for the Supreme Court building?
Q4 — Were any experts in symbolism or courtroom design consulted during the planning and design phases, and if so, who were they, and what recommendations did they provide?
Q5 — Has the Supreme Court received any inquiries or comments from the public or legal professionals regarding the symbolism used in the courtroom design, and if so, how have these inquiries been addressed or responded to?
Q6 — Could you provide any information on the intentions behind the overall design concept of the Supreme Court building and how it relates to the principles of justice and impartiality?
Q7 — On behalf of the Supreme Court, who approved the final resulting design before being built? As above, the purpose is to ask them what their view is on the symbolism involved.While framed as an FoI request, please feel free to take this lightly, and supply what information is relevant in your view, as I am not privy to the history of this project, and therefore the right questions to ask are somewhat opaque. If there are existing public references or articles that cover the history of this specific design choice, then I will accept that as a substitute response to avoid wasting your time and effort.
Kind regards,
Martin Geddes
I cannot help but wonder what happens to these institutions once the whole Covid scam (and all the legal fiction scams) are exposed. You might enjoy this 90 second video from a well-spoken New Zealand lawyer on the matter — huge reform is coming, and it will catch lifelong insiders unaware. You typical freedom campaigner (and victim of persecution) may know more about lawfulness than the highest judges, who seem to only understand legality, which is a different matter entirely. The profundity of the crisis about to envelop the legal profession cannot be overhyped.
I will keep you informed of any response I get.
Read It Now
