>Michel, have you got independent parties whom you could discuss the evidence with and who could give the UT a totally impartial opinion in respect of its efficacy? i.e. do you have a panel of people on whom you rely or is it just yourself? If the latter it might be worthwhile to ask a 3rd party to express an opinion in case anything was missed?

That is an excellent suggestion. Newspapers call this person an ombudsman. Other organizations use arbitration panels. I don't think these things would be needed very often on the UT but they would defuse thoughts that Michel is judge, jury, and executioner or that the banning process is not transparent enough.