Yes I am Here.

The UN Security Council is currently holding an emergency session to discuss the events that took place off the coast of Gaza earlier today.

I have little idea of what is begin said. However I think that at this point the only thing the security council can do is order an independent investigation to establish the facts of the incident. Ideally this will be able place before the Israelis are able to further interfere with the evidence.

The Gaza Blockade.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza intially began shortly after Hamas were elected leaders of the Palestinian National Authority in 2006. Then the stated aim was to make the region ungovernable in order to bring about regime change. When Operation Cast Lead began in December 2008 the blockade became total with nothing being allowed in or out of Gaza. Long after the shooting in that war ended the total blockade continued with stated aim of preventing the Palestinians repairing the damage done during that war. The idea was to make sure that Gaza remained in ruins or as undeveloped real estate if you prefer.

It was only after a year of diplomatic pressure by the EU, the USA and the UN along with a similar land based convoy organised by Palestinian solidarity activists that Israel was shamed into allowing a maximum of 15,000 tonnes of heavily restricted aid in to Gaza a week. In reality these aid delivery's are stopped more often then they are allowed through as the Israeli's always seem to be able to find proscribed goods on the trucks.

As for what these proscibed goods are exactly it's quite hard to tell. The Israelis claim they have a list but they refuse to show it to anyone especially not the people who are trying to bring aid into Gaza. That means it is normally dependent of the whim of the Israeli border guard who happens to be searching the trucks on that day. Aid agencies have reported attempting to bring in trucks loaded with tinned tuna and tinned fruit only to have the trucks stopped because tinned tuna is on the proscribed list. So they drive the truck back to the depot and unload all the tinned tuna. They then try and drive it through the next day with only tinned fruit on board. They are then stopped because tinned fruit is now on the proscribed list and told they should have loaded the truck with tinned tuna because that's allowed today. This ridiculous pantomime means that over the last year aid agencies have spent around US$5million on administration and warehousing as they try and navigate the incomprehensible Israel border regulations.

As for today's attack on an aid ship it is being reported as a Turkish ship. This is only partially true. The ship is indeed Turkish but was part of an eight ship convoy that was drawn from all over Europe and the USA. The convoys flagship was the MV Rachel Corrie which was loaded and set sail from Dundalk in the Republic of Ireland. It then travelled to Cyprus where it joined up with the rest of the convoy. What alot of people probably don't know is that Cyprus is actually considered part of the theatre of war in Afghanistan. As such it has some of if not the most secure ports on the Mediterranean. That makes it totally unbelievable that ships which were so obviously headed for Gaza would be able to use the Island to load up on a cargo of terrorists and weapons.

In light of this the Israelis have changed their justification for boarding the ship. They are now claiming that it was done to prevent a political challenge to Israeli government policy. That means the Israelis believe they have the right to kill anyone who questions the way they conduct themselves.

Unbelieveable!

Israeli commandos massacre 15.

Back in January 2009 Israel waged a short and bloody war against Gaza that killed 1300 and left the country in ruins. Since then Israel have laid siege to Gaza enforcing a blockade that has prevented all but a trickle of aid or trade entering or leaving the region. The Israelis claim that this is needed to stop the Islamic terrorists of Hamas re-arming. In reality the list of "terrorist materials" that Israel is preventing from entering Gaza include clothes, baby food, medicine, blankets and chocolate. Therefore the purpose of the blockade seems to be to starve the people of Gaza into submission so they will make way for more Israeli settlements.

In April 2010 a coalition of activists from Ireland, Greece, Turkey and the European Union was formed to challenge the blockade. Their plan was to sail a flotilla of ships to Gaza loaded with 10,000 tonnes of supplies along MP's and observers from around 15 nations. While they hoped that they would be able to dock and unload in Gaza in reality they expected to be stopped by the Israeli navy and detained before being deported.

Last night (31/5) while the flotilla was in international waters Israeli commandos boarded the largest of the ships by helicopter and to quote an eyewitness "opened fire as soon as they landed on the deck." They went on to kill at least 15 and injure dozens more.

In an early attempt to justify their actions the Israeli's are claiming that the ship was being used to smuggle weapons to Hamas and the commandos came under fire when they attempted to board. This is simply not credible. The ships are being operated by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) which is made up of activists from NATO countries. As they mainly operate in a part of the world that is infamous for Islamic terrorism they come under constant monitoring by the security services in their native countries in order to make sure they are totally free of links to terrorist groups. Also the ships were docked in Cyprus over the weekend where they were inspected by customs and security service officials before being allowed to set sail.

So if the Israeli's say the ships were being used to arm Hamas they are accusing the Cypriot and by extension the British government of arming Hamas.

Ooops Got That Wrong.

After his decision yesterday to resign from his post as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury* UK MP David Laws is apparently considering stepping down from Parliament all together. That means his decision to resign was not a stroke of tactical brilliance. Instead it was him collapsing into an emotional mess at the thought of his big gay secret being revealed to the world.

Now I can honestly say that prior to yesterday's revelations I had never given Mr Law's sexuality a moments thought. However from what I can gather to people who know him and work with him the announcement came as no surprise whatsoever.

This total failure in coming to terms with their own homosexuality is actually something of a trademark for the Liberal Democrats. In fact it has been said that the only reason Nick Clegg won the party leadership was because he was the only candidate who wasn't exposed as leading a not so secret gay double life.

*Seriously I think for the duration of this current Parliament that post should be renamed as "first bodyguard of the Exchequer."

LibDem Makes Good Decision Shock.

The UK's First Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws has just resigned a little over two weeks after he was appointed to the post. His resignation comes in response to revelations in this morning's Daily Telegraph newspaper. It was revealed that between 2004 and 2009 Mr Laws, one of the coalition's LibDem five, had been claiming £950 per month of MP's expenses to rent a room in a house he shared with his gay lover. The fact that he has a gay lover is also news.

Rather then being an attempt to force Mr Laws from his post the purpose of this expose was to further tarnish the reputation of him and his party as he performed the role of poster boy for savage government spending cuts. The entire purpose of having a LibDem in that role is of course to protect the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.

By resigning straight away Mr Laws has prevented this from happening. Sadly he will be replaced by Danny Alexander, another LibDem, who up until about an hour ago held the post of Scottish Secretary.

Edited to Add: Danny Alexander not Douglas Alexander who is someone else entirely.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.

Yes I know I said I wouldn't talk about it but there are I couple of things I think I should make clear.

Firstly at a leak rate of around 77,000 barrels of oil per day and a market price of around $80 per barrel BP is losing around $6.5million a day in oil alone. Therefore think the only reason the leak hasn't been plugged already is because nobody knows how to.

Secondly if you're thinking about a sabotage conspiracy theory it is worth noting that British Petroleum (BP) is basically a corporate arm of the British Monarchy. That Monarchy despise Barack Obama. Obama's party is facing re-election in November. This oil spill is making Obama look bad.

Personally I think it's an accident and just one of those things.

Just Remembered Something.

Today (28/5) a man has been committed to trial in Bradford, UK accused of murdering three prostitutes. At the committal hearing he gave his name as "The Crossbow Cannibal" which is the name the media have given to gruesome serial killer case.

Earlier in the year the English Defence League (EDL) were planning to use either this weekend or last weekend to march through a largely Muslim area of Bradford. The idea was to provoke a violent reaction on the scale of 2001's Bradford riots. As the police have managed to get a firmer grip on the EDL in recent months they put a stop to all this.

This murder story seems to be a good way to dissipate anger in the local area that had been building up in recent months using, in part, the anniversary of the Bradford football stadium fire.

Domestic Update.

I know it should have been done sooner but I've been a bit busy. As predicted these LPA's have given my father the green light to push ahead with his sick, little plans. So far this has manifested itself in three ways;

1. He's started taking my grandmother for "walks" around the neighbourhood on her mobility scooter. I really can't complain about this because it's a result of the letter I sent to my grandmother's GP a while back. In it I explained that a lot of her pain and balance problems are a result of her failing to exercise the artificial ball and socket joint she had put in as part of her hip replacement surgery. I felt safe to share this little secret because it's part of the advice provided by the joint manufacturer. It is also the advice of any surgeon who will fit that type of joint and the advice of any physiotherapist who will rehabilitate a patient who has had that surgery. The fact that it's taken almost two years and the written threat of a court order to get the health care provider to follow that established treatment protocol. Well that doesn't look good does it.

2. He's contracted a builder to lay new flooring in my grandmother's kitchen and bathroom. This is actually a job that needs doing especially in the bathroom where a rusty old radiator is starting to damage the floorboards. The costs of materials is reasonable so providing the labour costs and the quality of workmanship is good enough this shouldn't be a problem.

3. He's started researching nursing homes that he's going to stick her in. This is currently at a very early stage. If it progresses to a more advanced stage I'll simply take out an injunction to prevent it happening at least until the Court of Protection returns a ruling on these LPA's.


Oh and as most you have probably noticed by now British Petroleum (BP) are using this Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a sort of metaphor for what's going on in my life. They're doing this in an attempt to argue that the whole incident is the result of US government sabotage so they don't have to pay for it. BP will try absolutely anything to try to wriggle out of paying for this but it's another one of those situations where the most helpful thing I can do is keep my mouth shut.

Wallop!

I've just filed paperwork with the Court of Protection. For the three applications I've made along with supporting evidence the total runs to 55 pages. Apart from making a satisfying thud when you plonk it on the desk this means it is far to long to post up or copy out here. These are the edited highlights though;

COP-44A Form. This is the fee exemption or remission form. I've sought a full exemption on the grounds of the applicant's (me) circumstances. I have also submitted two forms of proof of my circumstances. This application is bombproof and means that any appeals, hearings or other time wasting from the court will be done at the taxpayers expense. If the UK government pushes ahead with the welfare reforms they have announced today then I will still qualify for a full exemption on the grounds of means testing. So if that's the route they want to go down they'll only be wasting their own time.

COP1 Form. This is the main application form the important questions are;

• Q. 5.1 which asks "Please state the matter you want the court to decide." I have answered this by writing "Whether a LPA can be registered without an objection by a named person being considered by the Office of the Public Guardian?" It is impossible for the court to answer yes to this question. The best they can do is use their discretion to rule that the legal technicality has no significant impact on the case.
• Q. 5.2 which asks "Please state the order you are asking the court to make." I have answered this by writing "Cancellation of the LPA's on the grounds that the statutory instrument does not exist." This is a perfectly reasonable and rather simple order to request from the court.
• Q. 5.3 which asks "How would the order benefit the person to whom the application relates?" I have answered this by writing "It will protect her from the consequences of the LPA's being used. So far they have been used to obtain inappropriate medical treatment including the prescription of opiates." This should be enough to prevent the court using its discretion over the importance of the legal technicality.
• Q. 4.2 asks for details of any other person who the applicant thinks should be notified. The donor and attorney have to be notified. Here I have included the details of my younger brother because it's easier then explaining why I haven't.

COP-1 Annexes A&B. These support the COP-1 application and include very detailed questions on every aspect of the donors medical care and financial situation. Apart from obvious things like the names of her GP and an approximate value of her property I've just left this blank answering most questions with the word "Unknown." I have included an explanation for this which I will get onto later. On the COP-1A form question 2.8 asks for details of people who visit the donor regularly. Here I have included my brother and Helen (the cleaner) defining her role as "cleaner". The court may request further information from her but as she really providing medical care without licence or insurance and isn't paying tax on her earnings I can only advise she stays out of it. I only included her because again it's easier then explaining why I didn't.

COP-3 Form. This is an assessment of mental capacity that needs to be filled out by an appropriate professional. I simply haven't submitted one instead included an explanation of its absence.

COP-24 Form. This is a witness statement form on which you submit any written information that isn't covered in the main form(s). I have used this one to lay out the argument which is an objection was raised with the OPG well within the time limit. They acknowledged the receipt of that objection. They have also acknowledged that they failed to include that objection in the case file. I also wrote "While I have included COP1A and COP1B forms with this application they are incomplete. This is because over the five years I have witnessed the attorney (my father) has gradually removed the donor (my grandmother) from decisions about her property and healthcare. As a consequence she is unable to provide answers to these questions. The attorney is unwilling to provide these answers and forcefully objects to me raising any questions about the donor's property or healthcare." Apart from being true this provides an acceptable explanation of why the information is missing. It also serves to further remove the courts freedom to rule the technicality is not important to the case by raising the suggestion if not the accusation that there is something more serious going on in the case.

I then went on to write; "I have not included a COP3 Form. Apart from the problems mentioned above the donor is an elderly lady with poor mobility. Therefore subjecting her to an assessment of mental capacity would be an unnecessary inconvenience that, I my opinion, would have no bearing on the question the court has been asked to rule on. Also I have serious doubts over the donor's local healthcare providers ability to provide such an assessment. However if the court feels that such an assessment is required I have no problem with it appointing an appropriate professional to carry one out." Again this is all true and explains why no COP-3 form is included. It also puts pressure on the court to prove that it is not simply using the proceeding to subject an elderly lady to a fishing trip.

At the same time I also made a COP-9 application to exclude the solicitor (D White) from the proceedings. This the same argument I used last time. Re-opening the case would lead to questions about his professional conduct. In a previous application he abused his position as legal advisor to try and keep the case closed and charged the donor £250 for the privilege. Therefore it is improper for him to represent anyone other then himself in the proceeding.


As for what happens now the Court could use the lack of information in the COP-1A&B annexes or the lack of a COP-3 to strike down the application. However this will give me grounds to appeal because the reasonable thing for the court to do if it requires more information is to request that information from the relevant party. Obviously when it does that it will have to demonstrate why it requires that information and in this case I'm not sure it can. I will also be able to appeal if they strike down the application on the grounds that the technicality is not relevant.


Just for the record this was all done by last Thursday evening. It's just because I couldn't file it until today I decided to do all the photocopying at leisure.

Now Where has That Race Card Gone?

Because I think I'll be needing it a lot over the next five years.

Anyway I think I should provide a local service to my readers;

If you have any problems with number 50 Beechwood Avenue the on call number for CAYSH is; 0787 055 6281 which will put you through to the security team.

That security team has been put in place on the insistence of the local police. It is currently costing CAYSH around £400 per day. So if you have any problems my advice is to call 999 and ask for the police saying there is a fight/fire/medical emergency that requires the police to secure the scene.

Unrest in Haiti

Although no British broadcaster is covering the story there are reports of unrest in Haiti. From the information I have been able to piece together there's has been a week of protest that has spilled over into minor rioting that has left one person dead and at least two lightly injured by rubber bullets fired by UN Peacekeepers. The protests have been called in response to what is seen as a lack of action by the Haitian government following January's earthquake.

Between the Court of Protection thing, the General Election thing, the hen house thing and today's Queen's Speech nonsense I have not been able to take a proper look at the Haiti donors conference and re-construction efforts in the country. However from the quick look I have taken it seems that the Americans are taking re-construction in Haiti very seriously and have already said anything I was going to say and more.

They are focusing their efforts on long term redevelopment of the country over the next five, ten and fifteen years meaning that the earthquake and hurricanes that may occur in 2015 and 2020 will have little or no impact on life in Haiti. Unfortunately this means that they are unable to do much in the short-term. It would be nice if they could do more ahead of 2010's hurricane season but six months is too short a time to re-build a nation.

As for the recent unrest well the British, Canadians and French have been stirring the pot for a long time. The most recent outburst though seems to have been driven by the Brazilians who are desperately looking for an explanation of why that Iran deal fell through.

Of course all that is completely meaningless to the Haitians who are now looking forward to a hurricane season that will be dangerous at best. Sadly I cannot see how more violence is going to do anything to make that situation any better.

I've Been In Contact With the CAYSH People.

For those who don't remember that is the Croydon Association for Young Single Homeless people that manage #50 Beechwood Avenue. At first the guy, Charlie, gave me a lot of flannel about how they can't do anything until the residents have been there for four months. After I pointed out that January to May is in fact five months I started getting some sense out of him.

The interim solution they've put in place is to employ a private security firm to oversee the property. This is meant to consist of two personnel who sit in a car outside the property on a two hour on two hour off schedule unless they are dealing with a problem at another address. I have to point out that I haven't actually seen any evidence of this happening.

He then went on to explain that they will be taking action to remove the troublemaker(s) from the property as soon as possible. This is the matter I wanted to speak to him about specifically. The boyfriend of one of the two girls who were moved in January is a low level* but known member of a certain local drugs network. Under order's from his higher ups he's been trying to force the two existing residents of the house out in order to use the property to sell drugs. Charlie denied all knowledge of this which I found strange because the drugs network in question enjoys very good relations with Croydon police who in turn enjoy very good relations with the owners of the property.

After being pushed on the matter slightly Charlie went on to admit that CAYSH will have to have a very serious rethink about what they will do next with the property. I'll save them a bit of time by explaining that they'll be closing the property and make no attempt to sell it.

While I'm here I may as well point out that yesterday's coach crash near Cockermouth that killed three was obviously staged. However if you're allowing the Brits to define the terms of the discussion you've already started to lose. Also I should point out that my brother lives on a street called Jamaica Road but I'm not sure why that is in anyway relevant.


*If the two things are comparable I would say that he is a corporal. As in a little above a foot solider but still closer to the gutter then the stars.

UK Spending Cuts

Today (24/5) the Conservative Chancellor George Osborne announced that he had "conducted the fastest and most collegiate spending review in recent history" and would cut £6.2bn of government spending. He then handed over to the LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws to explain where the cuts will be made. They will mostly come from getting rid of quango's and efficiency savings from within government such as a civil service hiring freeze and a cut to travel perks.

So what he's actually done there is announce that he will continue with the cuts that Labour's Alistair Darling announced in 2009's Pre-Budget Report. It's almost as if the party that gets elected to government makes absolutely no difference to the way Britain is run.

Bit of a Weird One.

Yesterday (22/5) representatives of British Airways (BA) and Unite the Union were holding talks at the conciliation service ACAS. The purpose of the talks was to bring and end to the long running dispute between the two but was broken up after activists from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) stormed the building. That was so bizarre that it took me a while to get my head around it.

For those of you that don't know the SWP is basically a MI5 front organisation. Their purpose is to gather up political dissent and channel it into pointless forms of protest like endless A-B marches and writing dull letters into the party's equally dull newspaper the Socialist Worker. They are also trying to seize control of the Unite union by getting one of their people elected as general secretary when the post becomes unified.

Therefore the purpose of yesterday's action appears to be an attempt to make Unite look bad. This is done in the public's eye by making them look like rabble rousers and in the membership's eye by scuppering talks that could well lead to a positive settlement in the dispute.

As for how they found their way into the building I think they just found the hole in the wall. The ACAS building is not a protected site so anyone can just wander in off the street. If fifty of them decided to do it at the same time there's not really much the building security can do to stop them.

A Little Bit of History.

Back in the early 1990's there was a recession in the UK that decimated the housing market. During this recession the very nice family that live at #50 Beechwood avenue hit problems with their mortgage and got foreclosed on. The bank then put the property up for sale at auction. As my family were doing a bit more then OK at the time the obvious thing to do was to put in a bid on the property and my father was well up it. Then suddenly, as if an order had come down from on high, he lost interest. With no other bidders the local council picked up the property for around £40-60,000. Now the property is worth £180-200,000 I think that's one of the historical errors that needs to be corrected.

When you think about it like that a closure order pending an investigation into crimes against humanity suddenly CAYSH look like they're getting off lightly.

Incidentally my favourite PCSO was one of those who visited the above property today. It turns out she's decided the jobs note really for her after all.

And Slowly it Dawns on the Brits

This afternoon at around 13:30 representatives from the Safer Neighbourhoods Team and the Croydon Association For Young Single Homeless (CAYSH) visited the henhouse to discuss its conduct In reality they were all probably sitting in one of the rooms holding glasses against the walls to listen to what I was getting up to.

The important details are that since "that!" party CAYSH have changed the case worker from an Irish guy to a guy called Charlie. Charlie of course is also the name of one the neighbours that have been leading the complaints about the property. Although I missed the actually meeting the police and CAYSH seemed to have decided that all the problems are the result of one person and will consider Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) proceeding against tha one individual. Obviously I will now hav eto get in contact with them that it's actually been the result of CAYSH's chronic mis-management over a number of clients over a number of years. Therefore the only solution that is close to acceptable is a closure order against the property until CAYSH can rectify their problems. That means they will be unable to house people in the property and receive payment for doing so. They will though have to continue to pay to maintain and insure the property.

Now That's Interesting.

Today the Court of Appeal has overturned an injunction brought by British Airways against Unite the Union to prevent them taking strike action. Although I haven't had the opportunity to read the verdict in full the point of law in question was Section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which states;

"As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—

(a) votes cast in the ballot,

(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,

(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and

(d) spoiled voting papers."

Unite failed to inform their members of eleven spoilt ballots in the strike ballot that was passed by an 81% majority. Therefore the injunction was lawfully granted. What appears to have happened now is that the Appeal Court have ruled that section 231(d) isn't relevant to the case and overturned the injunction. I have no idea how they've been able to do that but it appears that once again a British Court has returned a verdict that has little or no basis in law.

Whether or not BA will now appeal the appeal or if the strike will go ahead is still to be decided. However I think Unite should spend a bit of time finding out who in their organisation keeps screwing up the strike ballots.

I Have Good News and Bad News.

The bad news is that this Court of Protection form is taking longer then expected. The COP-1A Annex is particularly invasive so I will need to do some precision work to deal with it.

The good news is that this means the Court handling the British Airways V Unite case will have to return a verdict tomorrow based on the merits of that case and that case alone.

The other bit of good news is that this delay provides the Brits an opportunity to think long and hard about the reality of their situation. That should make the decision about how they wish to respond a little less complicated for them.

Errors and Omissions.

Following the ahem, election the British Crown is now trying to ram through the reforms it's been fantasising about for at least a year. As a result there is quite a lot of information flowing around. Plus I'm trying to save my best words for this Court of Protection business. As a result my previous post was not as clear as perhaps it could have been.

Obviously the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the police Stop & Search forms were not introduced entirely as a result of the Stephen Lawrence murder. Numerous miscarriages of justice including the Birmingham six, the Bridgewater four and Winston Sillcot meant that pressure to remove prosecution decisions from the police had been mounting since the 1970's. Likewise stop & search or "suss" laws had been causing problems for decades and contributed to the Brixton riots in the early 1980's. The Lawrence murder though was the watershed moment were the people of Britain turned round and said enough is enough. To put the case in perspective it prompted the normally right-wing tabloid the Daily Mail to run a legendary front page. It simply featured photographs of the five killers along with their names underneath the headline; MURDERERS. The newspaper then set up a legal fund to allow the men to sue the newspaper if the could deny the accusation. They never did sue but they and all the police involved in the case remain free as the Crown continues to shelter them.

There is also this Martin Smith/Spanish murder story. What's happened here is obvious. MI6 have sent one of their pet paedophiles to Spain to murder a couple of children. Apart from providing a distraction from the reforms mentioned above the idea of this is to open a dialogue with the Spanish over the election and it's various coded forms like the World Cup bid scandal. By the looks of things the Spanish have turned round and told MI6 to piss off.

It Has Begun.

Today LibDem leader and deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg mad his first big speech. Thin on detail this speech announced the government's plans to introduce the biggest overhaul in British civil liberties since 1832. Cleggs role was to make the argument that this was needed to take the power out of the hands of centralised government and place it in the hands of local people in local communities using whatever liberal buzzwords work for you.

The real purpose of the speech though was to pave the way for the Conservative Home Secretary, Theresa May's speech to the Police Federation. In this speech Ms May announced plans to overhaul civil liberties by going back to the old ways and doing with police bureaucracy like the Stop & Search forms and putting the power to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't back into the hands of the police. Since the early 1990's the decision on whether to prosecute lay in the hands of lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service. The Stop & Search form is simply a form that the police have to fill in every time they stop and search someone. It asks them to record the legal reason they have for carrying out the search.

Both of this pieces of bureaucracy were brought in by a Conservative government in response to the Stephen Lawerence murder. Here five white men went out and murdered a black man for the simple reason that he was black. As the police who investigated the case didn't see a problem with killing niggers they didn't bother investigate the murder and initially tried not to prosecute the killers. This caused such a public outrage that the government were forced to take these powers out of the hands of the police because they clearly couldn't be trusted to use them properly.

If that's the old way of doing things then I think it belongs firmly in the past.

Now I've Got a Moral Connedrum

It relates to the henhouse. Properly known as number 50 Beechwood Avenue CR7-7DZ.

It is obvious that secondary to annoying me the Brits plan for this address is to preform some sort of scoialological experiment regarding domestic violence. However if you think that is bad the purpose of some of the previous residents is to provide a walking, talking HIV test for me.

The problem this provides for me is that if I continue to blog my thoughts, inspirations and understandings of the situation in that address then I am giving my implicit agreement to whatever experiment that is being undertaken. I am unsure if that is something I wish to do.

Sorry did I mention the pub bit of this argument?

Yeah Probably Should Have Done This Properly the 1st Time.

On Saturday May 15th I received the following, single page, judgement from the Court of Protection;



If you cannot view that image it simply reads;



In the Matter of [Grandmother's name]
Order

Made by: District Judge Ralton

At: Archway Tower, Two Junction Road, London, N19 5sZ
Whereas;

1. [my name] has applied to the court by COP-7 for cancellation of a registration of a Lasting Power of Attorney

2. Such an application to the Court of Protection must be made by COP-1 and the appropriate fee paid.

It is ordered that: COP-7 application struck out.

This legal argument is rock solid. Therefore I will not be appealing the decision. I will however be re-submitting the argument using the correct COP-1 form. This form is more complicated and when you consider the several secondary motions I will be submitting at the same time runs to around forty pages. The COP-1 form is highly detailed asking questions about every aspect of all the parties lives. If any one of these is not filled out correctly then it gives the judge cause to strike out the application on a technicality. However if that happens it gives me cause to appeal on the grounds that the technicality is not relevant to the narrow legal question the court has been asked. That question is whether or not an LPA can be registered without a objection by a named person being considered. The answer to that is simply no.

They key secondary motion I will be submitting is my exception from court fees. There are six grounds for exemption from fees. I qualify for five of them. It is worth noting that Judge Ralton has already read the legal argument I will be submitting and has decided that a high profile argument about legal aid reform is the least of the Crown's worries.

I've Been Running Errands

You tedious but necessary things like going to the bank and trying to buy some webbing to fix my sofa. I could tell you the entire details of my day but I'm not sure how it would add anything of value. The only remotely interesting things is that I visited the Whitgift shopping centre. This is part of the Whitgift estate who are the root of all evil in Croydon.

Unite the union are in Court challenging the injunction brought against them by BA yesterday. I should point out that apart from both featuring the words "Court" and "Judge" this story has no relevance to my business with the Court of Protection. In the only metaphor I can think of drawing the Croydon Loyalists are the Union and I'm BA so that's not much help to anyone. In fact I think it's just someone talking trash.

Now I'm going to try and sort out this blog's font problems and then I'm going to the pub. Try not to be overwhelmed by the excitement that is my life.

In Local News

There is clearly a power struggle going on in the henhouse between the new residents and the old residents. At around 03:00 this morning there was a disturbance that sounded like a man punching a woman. This was followed by the sights and sounds of this man burning the woman's personal property. Quite what a man is doing in a house of young, single, homeless women at 3AM is anyone's guess.

In national news a British court has ruled that two of the men arrested in Bob Quick's infamous north-west anti-terror raids are indeed Al Qeada operatives who were planning a major terror attack. However those pesky human rights mean that the court is unable deport the men. So basically the Brits are going to carry on beating that drum.

Britain's Stolen Election. (full text)

So it's all in one place;

Back in March 2009 Britain was in economic and political turmoil. Where everyone saw misery the British Crown saw opportunity. The opportunity to expel the Labour Party, whom they hate, from government and replace them with a government led by David Cameron, the Queen's fifth cousin.

As Israel's, then, recent attempts to form a coalition government had caused the Crown endless headaches it was decided that Britain's new government would be a coalition government As Britain likes to pretend that it is a democratic country obviously the Crown couldn't just send in the troops to remove Gordon Brown from Downing Street. Instead multiple and complicated plans were put in place to ensure that the 2010 General Election would result in a Conservative government with a few Liberal Democrat's thrown in to act as human shields.

As with all plans of this scale and complexity they set out to achieve multiple objectives. For reasons of clarity here I will only attempt to explain them as they relate to the General Election.

Break the Political Status Quo.

Traditionally British politics is a two party game with the Conservative party and the Labour part alternating majority governments. This makes it near impossible for an election to result in a hung Parliament or coalition government. So in order to achieve that result the Crown first had to destroy the public's faith in the established political order. This was done through the MP's Expenses Scandal. Once the public heard that all the existing MP's from all the main political parties had been ripping off the public for years there was universal disgust and calls to do away with the lot of them. This prompted a huge surge in public interest in minor political parties like the British National Party (BNP), the party that best reflects the worldview of the British Crown.

Bash Brown.

As the main purpose of this, for want of a better term, military coup was to depose Gordon Brown and the Labour party a lot of effort went into making them look bad. Given the state of the country that shouldn't have been too difficult but the Crown still created a few extra scandals just to make sure their point got across. As the military have been a major driving force in these efforts the majority of these scandals were designed to portray Brown as the man who had betrayed Britain's heroic armed forces. This included military figures of all ranks and some Coroner's blaming Brown for all the equipment shortages in Iraq and Afghanistan even though, for the past forty years, the Ministry of Defence have been legendary for buying all the wrong equipment and constantly going over budget. There were also numerous incidents where Brown was accused of either ignoring the families of British soldiers killed in combat or writing them poorly written letters that showed barely a moments thought.

The most significant of these military scandals though was the Ghurka's campaign. Here Brown and the Labour party were put in an impossible situation. They could either prevent the Ghurka's from living in the UK and get accused of betraying those who are prepared to lay down their lives for Britain. Alternatively they could allow the Ghurka's along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and Afghan's to move to the UK and get accused of letting immigration run out of control and contribute to the Islamification of Britain. While I think the Labour party actually handled the Ghurka campaign quite well the public didn't see it that way and the damage to their reputation was done. A few months ago, in a spectacular display of arrogance, the same military figures who had called for the Ghurka's to be allowed to live in Britain even tried to accuse Labour of betraying the Ghurka's by allowing them to live in the UK.

Although the MP's expenses scandal damaged Parliament as a whole it did the most damage to the Labour party. In part this is because any political scandal gets blamed on the government and the Prime Minister even if it has nothing to do with him or his party. Also it is easier for a person who is struggling to pay their mortgage to get angry about a Labour MP fiddling their mortgage payments then it is to get angry about a Conservative MP claiming to have their moat repaired. Mainly though the expenses scandal became seen as a Labour scandal because special efforts were made to make it appear that way. The Telegraph newspaper that broke the story started with the expense claims of Labour MP's and after briefly covering the other parties returned to focus on the Labour party. Also the only three MP's to face criminal charges over their expenses were all Labour MP's. This kept the story in the public eye as an exclusively Labour story long after the indiscretions of the other parties had been forgotten. Weeks before the election the three Labour MP's managed to make it even worse for themselves by claiming public fund to defend themselves against charges of stealing public funds.

The Rise of the Far Right.

As they are the political party that agrees with the Crown on the most number of issues great efforts were made to help the fascist British National Party (BNP) win one or possibly two seats in Parliament. Although technically part of another operation this effort began in Luton in March 2009 with the Islam4UK front's protest against the return of the Royal Anglian Regiment from Afghanistan. This led to the formation of the English Defence League (EDL) and was followed up by a series of arrests of supposed Islamic Terrorists including Bob Quick's infamous Northwest anti-terror raids. The resulting wave of Islamophobia was enough to win the BNP two seats in the European Parliament unlocking to them a huge amount of extra funding and giving them the right to appear in legitimate political circles such as the BBC's Question Time discussion program.

While the BNP were sitting around trying to decide how to spend all their extra campaign funding the next bit of help the Crown gave them was to force them to change their constitution. Prior to this the BNP's constitution was so obviously racist that it listed a number of all white and some quite bizarre ethnic groups that BNP members had to belong to. This made it impossible for the BNP to argue that they were anything other then racists and fascists. By forcing the BNP to change their constitution the Crown was hoping to make it easier for them to deceive people about their true political views. It also played perfectly to the BNP's image of hard working white folks being oppressed by a liberal elite obsessed with multiculturalism.

The final stage which also served to Bash Brown was for senior civil servants to go public with the story that over their thirteen years in power the Labour party had been deliberately encouraging immigration in order to destroy traditional, white Britain from the inside. Although reading like the product of a deranged mind this played perfectly to the BNP's rhetoric of a nation being sucked dry by migrants coming over here to steal all the jobs and houses before jumping to the front of the NHS queues.

Although the Crown would dearly love to see the BNP become a powerful force in British politics and will continue to grow them as a long term objective this is not possible yet. The BNP are currently a tiny party whose highest hope at the 2010 General Election was to have their party leader elected as their first and only MP. Therefore the purpose of strengthening them ahead of the election was to encourage tactical voting. This is where traditional Labour voters living in areas where the BNP are standing vote for the Conservatives or the LibDems in order to keep the BNP out. This has the triple effect of increasing the Conservatives and LibDems vote while reducing the Labour vote and increasing the chances of a hung Parliament.

As the BNP really put the idiot in the phrase "useful idiots" this part of the plan went horribly wrong as the BNP's only real candidate was beaten into fourth place by a Labour candidate.

Policing and Protest.

It is widely accepted fact that Britain's 1974 General Election was also rigged in order to stop Trade Union's backed by the USSR from destroying Britain from within. Whatever the truth people who were alive at the time remember endless strikes with rubbish piling up in the streets, the dead lying unburied and constant power cuts. As the Labour party are heavily funded by the modern Trade Union movement the Crown tried to revisit the spirit of the time in order to re-awaken those who voted for Thatcher in the 1980's but switched to Blair in the 1990's. This was done by the Crown and it's corporate partners provoking the trade unions to the point where they had no option other then to go on strike. Apart from the BA dispute which is a long running and very complicated dispute this provocation led to lots of small strikes from binmen in Brighton to librarians in Leicester. Fortunately the trade union leadership showed extraordinary restraint and no large scale strike action took place.

In order to further portray the Labour party as being aligned with dangerous left-wing lunatics and cause the public to move further to the right a plan for the traditional Mayday protests magically appeared from the sky. The plan for the protest which would take place five days before the election was to gather 5-10,000 people in Parliament square and then have a massive fight with the police as the protesters attempted to storm the Parliament building. The protesters would then set up camp in the square and continue the violence and disruption right up to the day of the election and beyond into the negotiations on the formation of a coalition government.

Fortunately it would appear that at the last moment the grown ups arrived and this protest didn't really happen. However in order to inflame the situation and increase the chances of rioting the Crown chose that week to force the police to release the report into the death of Blair Peach. I have covered that incident in more detail on this blog already.

The Guarantee.

While hardly in line with the principles of a free and fair election none of the methods I've mentioned so far strictly speaking constitute election rigging. After all they are just the Crown, forcefully, expressing it's point of view. Providing they realised what was going on the public are still free to ignore the Crown's opinion and vote any way they choose. There was though one final and much more serious method used to guarantee that the 2010 General Election would result in a hung Parliament and return a Conservative and LibDem coalition government.

To understand how this method worked you first have to understand a bit about how the Crown recruits and controls it's networks of loyalists or community based agents. While some are forced into the service through a need such as the need to avoid criminal prosecution the vast majority are recruited out of pure greed. While those greedy ones are recruited on the promise that they will be given a helping hand to get ahead in their chosen field in reality they are being streamed in order to test out the different variables of a social or economic trend. With the introduction of the Euro and the opening up of the European economic zone one such trend was the practice of buying second homes in order to rent them out as tourist cottages. One group in this trend were given help to buy properties in the UK. Another group were given help to buy properties in Eurozone countries such as Spain, France, Greece etc. A third group was given help to buy properties in EU satellite countries such as Bulgaria. When the credit crunch struck everybody in the property business was hit hard but people who had taken out mortgages in pounds and were trying to repay them in Euro's or Lev's were hit the hardest. As the group that brought property in the UK tended to be the most nationalistic the Crown leapt to help this group the most.

In the spring of 2009 lots of magazine and newspaper articles began appearing promoting the idea of the "staycation" - that is the idea of rather then flying out to take holiday's in a foreign country people simply take their holidays in the UK. This was backed up by huge advertising campaigns by Britain's regional tourist boards and the UK meteorological office's frankly ridiculous claim that Britain would experience and long, hot, barbecue summer in 2009. This resulted in large amounts of private money being poured into areas like the Lake District, the Peak District, the New Forest, Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Suffolk. This covert stimulus package was quickly paid out by the community based agents to local builders, gardening services, cleaning services, pubs and shops. This served to create the idea that even in a recession people who vote a certain way still manage to do just fine. While these local bigwigs with all the money to spend are natural British National Party (BNP) supporters the party they will actually vote for, tell people they're voting for and sometimes donate money too is the party the Crown tells them to vote for. So if the Crown wanted a Conservative winner in a certain seat then these people will support the Conservatives. However if the Crown wanted a LibDem to win in one of these mostly rural seats then these people will support the LibDems.

Obviously in this type of covert operation it is impossible to have a rigid command and control structure. Instead they are put into motion months and sometimes even years in advance and left to pick up momentum until they reach a point of no return. Due to unforeseen circumstances this means that Conservatives ended up winning in seats where it would have been in the Crown's strategic interest for a LibDem to win. This method has also served to dramatically change the economic and political landscape of the UK making it impossible for a free and fair election to be held in the country until, at least, 2012.

The Purple Revolution.

In the UK as soon as an election is officially called right up to the point a result is officially declared it becomes the responsibility of the Electoral Commission. It is their job to make sure that the election is carried out in accordance to a variety of strict rules most of which are covered in The Representation of the Peoples Act 2000. The golden rule though is that no taxpayer funded body like the police or the civil service may engage in electioneering or give support to any political party. The Electoral Commission themselves are overseen by international election monitors who are often mentioned in news reports about countries like Iran and Zimbabwe. With the exception of the Blair Peach incident which is difficult to connect to the election the Crown is not stupid enough to actively engage in election rigging while under that level of scrutiny.

The Labour part however is. Having been tipped off that they would be losing this rigged election their activists encouraged people to turn up at polling stations too late to cast their vote. The idea was that stories about thousands of people being locked out of polling stations would convey the message that the election had been rigged. The election result would then be overturned allowing the Labour party to stay in power. They were given help in this endeavour by people within the Electoral Commission who saw the same headlines as a way of bringing about electoral reform that would make the Electoral Commission more important and powerful.

Unfortunately for the Labour party the Crown knew all about this well in advance but let it continue. This is because the Crown also knew that when the election inevitably resulted in a hung Parliament they would be able to use the electoral reform issue to control the LibDems in the coalition negotiations. They also knew that a long and complicated argument over electoral reform would provide a useful distraction from the class war the Crown is about to wage against the British population.

For this reason, amongst others, I think that the Labour party now need to have a long hard think about what they want to achieve and what they are actually capable of achieving. The best place for them to do this is in opposition not government.

A Couple More Things.

Firstly after Britain's election rigging plan was already in motion it generated another idea. That idea was that the confusion created by a lengthy period of negotiations over the formation of a coalition government which were scheduled to end May 16/17th could be used to devalue sterling. This idea will continue. So today's announcement that the UK Treasury will allow economic forecasting to be done by an independent body free from political interference means that it will be free from obvious political interference. After a couple of credible forecasts to build up confidence this body will start returning forecasts that are as gloomily inaccurate as Labour's forecasts were optimistically inaccurate.

Secondly the area around the river Cocker is a prime example of the type of area that the election plan focused on. That's why the Brits got so wound up when the area flooded in November 2009. After spending all summer building up the local economy in the autumn the weather came along and washed all their hard work away.

Finally and I should get around to discussing this fully the relationship between British Airways and the British courts is such that saying BA have sought an injunction is the same as saying BA have been granted an injunction

Britain's Stolen Election. (part 3)

In the first two parts of this epic I've described how the British Crown set out to rig the result of Britain's 2010 General Election in order to install David Cameron as Prime Minister. This was done by using the MP's expenses scandal to undermine the public's confidence in politics, building up the far right, engaging in a smear campaign against the Labour party and provoking trade unions and left wing protest groups in the run up to the election. There is though one final part of the strategy that I have yet to cover;

The Guarantee.

While hardly in line with the principles of a free and fair election none of the methods I've mentioned so far strictly speaking constitute election rigging. After all they are just the Crown, forcefully, expressing it's point of view. Providing they realised what was going on the public are still free to ignore the Crown's opinion and vote any way they choose. There was though one final and much more serious method used to guarantee that the 2010 General Election would result in a hung Parliament and return a Conservative and LibDem coalition government.

To understand how this method worked you first have to understand a bit about how the Crown recruits and controls it's networks of loyalists or community based agents. While some are forced into the service through a need such as the need to avoid criminal prosecution the vast majority are recruited out of pure greed. While those greedy ones are recruited on the promise that they will be given a helping hand to get ahead in their chosen field in reality they are being streamed in order to test out the different variables of a social or economic trend. With the introduction of the Euro and the opening up of the European economic zone one such trend was the practice of buying second homes in order to rent them out as tourist cottages. One group in this trend were given help to buy properties in the UK. Another group were given help to buy properties in Eurozone countries such as Spain, France, Greece etc. A third group was given help to buy properties in EU satellite countries such as Bulgaria. When the credit crunch struck everybody in the property business was hit hard but people who had taken out mortgages in pounds and were trying to repay them in Euro's or Lev's were hit the hardest. As the group that brought property in the UK tended to be the most nationalistic the Crown leapt to help this group the most.

In the spring of 2009 lots of magazine and newspaper articles began appearing promoting the idea of the "staycation" - that is the idea of rather then flying out to take holiday's in a foreign country people simply take their holidays in the UK. This was backed up by huge advertising campaigns by Britain's regional tourist boards and the UK meteorological office's frankly ridiculous claim that Britain would experience and long, hot, barbecue summer in 2009. This resulted in large amounts of private money being poured into areas like the Lake District, the Peak District, the New Forest, Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Suffolk. This covert stimulus package was quickly paid out by the community based agents to local builders, gardening services, cleaning services, pubs and shops. This served to create the idea that even in a recession people who vote a certain way still manage to do just fine. While these local bigwigs with all the money to spend are natural British National Party (BNP) supporters the party they will actually vote for, tell people they're voting for and sometimes donate money too is the party the Crown tells them to vote for. So if the Crown wanted a Conservative winner in a certain seat then these people will support the Conservatives. However if the Crown wanted a LibDem to win in one of these mostly rural seats then these people will support the LibDems.

Obviously in this type of covert operation it is impossible to have a rigid command and control structure. Instead they are put into motion months and sometimes even years in advance and left to pick up momentum until they reach a point of no return. Due to unforeseen circumstances this means that Conservatives ended up winning in seats where it would have been in the Crown's strategic interest for a LibDem to win. This method has also served to dramatically change the economic and political landscape of the UK making it impossible for a free and fair election to be held in the country until, at least, 2012.

The Purple Revolution.

In the UK as soon as an election is officially called right up to the point a result is officially declared it becomes the responsibility of the Electoral Commission. It is their job to make sure that the election is carried out in accordance to a variety of strict rules most of which are covered in The Representation of the Peoples Act 2000. The golden rule though is that no taxpayer funded body like the police or the civil service may engage in electioneering or give support to any political party. The Electoral Commission themselves are overseen by international election monitors who are often mentioned in news reports about countries like Iran and Zimbabwe. With the exception of the Blair Peach incident which is difficult to connect to the election the Crown is not stupid enough to actively engage in election rigging while under that level of scrutiny.

The Labour part however is. Having been tipped off that they would be losing this rigged election their activists encouraged people to turn up at polling stations too late to cast their vote. The idea was that stories about thousands of people being locked out of polling stations would convey the message that the election had been rigged. The election result would then be overturned allowing the Labour party to stay in power. They were given help in this endeavour by people within the Electoral Commission who saw the same headlines as a way of bringing about electoral reform that would make the Electoral Commission more important and powerful.

Unfortunately for the Labour party the Crown knew all about this well in advance but let it continue. This is because the Crown also knew that when the election inevitably resulted in a hung Parliament they would be able to use the electoral reform issue to control the LibDems in the coalition negotiations. They also knew that a long and complicated argument over electoral reform would provide a useful distraction from the class war the Crown is about to wage against the British population.

For this reason, amongst others, I think that the Labour party now need to have a long hard think about what they want to achieve and what they are actually capable of achieving. The best place for them to do this is in opposition not government.

Britain's Stolen Election. (part 2)

In my previous post I explained how the British Crown has used the MP's Expense Scandal and a smear campaign to steal Britain's 2010 General Election. This was done in order to install the Queen's cousin, David Cameron, as Prime Minister in a coalition government where he would be protected by some token LibDem MP's. Sadly that was not the end of the Crown's war against democracy.

The Rise of the Far Right.

As they are the political party that agrees with the Crown on the most number of issues great efforts were made to help the fascist British National Party (BNP) win one or possibly two seats in Parliament. Although technically part of another operation this effort began in Luton in March 2009 with the Islam4UK front's protest against the return of the Royal Anglian Regiment from Afghanistan. This led to the formation of the English Defence League (EDL) and was followed up by a series of arrests of supposed Islamic Terrorists including Bob Quick's infamous Northwest anti-terror raids. The resulting wave of Islamophobia was enough to win the BNP two seats in the European Parliament unlocking to them a huge amount of extra funding and giving them the right to appear in legitimate political circles such as the BBC's Question Time discussion program.

While the BNP were sitting around trying to decide how to spend all their extra campaign funding the next bit of help the Crown gave them was to force them to change their constitution. Prior to this the BNP's constitution was so obviously racist that it listed a number of all white and some quite bizarre ethnic groups that BNP members had to belong to. This made it impossible for the BNP to argue that they were anything other then racists and fascists. By forcing the BNP to change their constitution the Crown was hoping to make it easier for them to deceive people about their true political views. It also played perfectly to the BNP's image of hard working white folks being oppressed by a liberal elite obsessed with multiculturalism.

The final stage which also served to Bash Brown was for senior civil servants to go public with the story that over their thirteen years in power the Labour party had been deliberately encouraging immigration in order to destroy traditional, white Britain from the inside. Although reading like the product of a deranged mind this played perfectly to the BNP's rhetoric of a nation being sucked dry by migrants coming over here to steal all the jobs and houses before jumping to the front of the NHS queues.

Although the Crown would dearly love to see the BNP become a powerful force in British politics and will continue to grow them as a long term objective this is not possible yet. The BNP are currently a tiny party whose highest hope at the 2010 General Election was to have their party leader elected as their first and only MP. Therefore the purpose of strengthening them ahead of the election was to encourage tactical voting. This is where traditional Labour voters living in areas where the BNP are standing vote for the Conservatives or the LibDems in order to keep the BNP out. This has the triple effect of increasing the Conservatives and LibDems vote while reducing the Labour vote and increasing the chances of a hung Parliament.

As the BNP really put the idiot in the phrase "useful idiots" this part of the plan went horribly wrong as the BNP's only real candidate was beaten into fourth place by a Labour candidate.

Policing and Protest.

It is widely accepted fact that Britain's 1974 General Election was also rigged in order to stop Trade Union's backed by the USSR from destroying Britain from within. Whatever the truth people who were alive at the time remember endless strikes with rubbish piling up in the streets, the dead lying unburied and constant power cuts. As the Labour party are heavily funded by the modern Trade Union movement the Crown tried to revisit the spirit of the time in order to re-awaken those who voted for Thatcher in the 1980's but switched to Blair in the 1990's. This was done by the Crown and it's corporate partners provoking the trade unions to the point where they had no option other then to go on strike. Apart from the BA dispute which is a long running and very complicated dispute this provocation led to lots of small strikes from binmen in Brighton to librarians in Leicester. Fortunately the trade union leadership showed extraordinary restraint and no large scale strike action took place.

In order to further portray the Labour party as being aligned with dangerous left-wing lunatics and cause the public to move further to the right a plan for the traditional Mayday protests magically appeared from the sky. The plan for the protest which would take place five days before the election was to gather 5-10,000 people in Parliament square and then have a massive fight with the police as the protesters attempted to storm the Parliament building. The protesters would then set up camp in the square and continue the violence and disruption right up to the day of the election and beyond into the negotiations on the formation of a coalition government.

Fortunately it would appear that at the last moment the grown ups arrived and this protest didn't really happen. However in order to inflame the situation and increase the chances of rioting the Crown chose that week to force the police to release the report into the death of Blair Peach. I have covered that incident in more detail on this blog already.

Britain's Stolen Election. (part 1)

Back in March 2009 Britain was in economic and political turmoil. Where everyone saw misery the British Crown saw opportunity. The opportunity to expel the Labour Party, whom they hate, from government and replace them with a government led by David Cameron, the Queen's fifth cousin.

As Israel's, then, recent attempts to form a coalition government had caused the Crown endless headaches it was decided that Britain's new government would be a coalition government As Britain likes to pretend that it is a democratic country obviously the Crown couldn't just send in the troops to remove Gordon Brown from Downing Street. Instead multiple and complicated plans were put in place to ensure that the 2010 General Election would result in a Conservative government with a few Liberal Democrat's thrown in to act as human shields.

As with all plans of this scale and complexity they set out to achieve multiple objectives. For reasons of clarity here I will only attempt to explain them as they relate to the General Election.

Break the Political Status Quo.

Traditionally British politics is a two party game with the Conservative party and the Labour part alternating majority governments. This makes it near impossible for an election to result in a hung Parliament or coalition government. So in order to achieve that result the Crown first had to destroy the public's faith in the established political order. This was done through the MP's Expenses Scandal. Once the public heard that all the existing MP's from all the main political parties had been ripping off the public for years there was universal disgust and calls to do away with the lot of them. This prompted a huge surge in public interest in minor political parties like the British National Party (BNP), the party that best reflects the worldview of the British Crown.

Bash Brown.

As the main purpose of this, for want of a better term, military coup was to depose Gordon Brown and the Labour party a lot of effort went into making them look bad. Given the state of the country that shouldn't have been too difficult but the Crown still created a few extra scandals just to make sure their point got across. As the military have been a major driving force in these efforts the majority of these scandals were designed to portray Brown as the man who had betrayed Britain's heroic armed forces. This included military figures of all ranks and some Coroner's blaming Brown for all the equipment shortages in Iraq and Afghanistan even though, for the past forty years, the Ministry of Defence have been legendary for buying all the wrong equipment and constantly going over budget. There were also numerous incidents where Brown was accused of either ignoring the families of British soldiers killed in combat or writing them poorly written letters that showed barely a moments thought.

The most significant of these military scandals though was the Ghurka's campaign. Here Brown and the Labour party were put in an impossible situation. They could either prevent the Ghurka's from living in the UK and get accused of betraying those who are prepared to lay down their lives for Britain. Alternatively they could allow the Ghurka's along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and Afghan's to move to the UK and get accused of letting immigration run out of control and contribute to the Islamification of Britain. While I think the Labour party actually handled the Ghurka campaign quite well the public didn't see it that way and the damage to their reputation was done. A few months ago, in a spectacular display of arrogance, the same military figures who had called for the Ghurka's to be allowed to live in Britain even tried to accuse Labour of betraying the Ghurka's by allowing them to live in the UK.

Although the MP's expenses scandal damaged Parliament as a whole it did the most damage to the Labour party. In part this is because any political scandal gets blamed on the government and the Prime Minister even if it has nothing to do with him or his party. Also it is easier for a person who is struggling to pay their mortgage to get angry about a Labour MP fiddling their mortgage payments then it is to get angry about a Conservative MP claiming to have their moat repaired. Mainly though the expenses scandal became seen as a Labour scandal because special efforts were made to make it appear that way. The Telegraph newspaper that broke the story started with the expense claims of Labour MP's and after briefly covering the other parties returned to focus on the Labour party. Also the only three MP's to face criminal charges over their expenses were all Labour MP's. This kept the story in the public eye as an exclusively Labour story long after the indiscretions of the other parties had been forgotten. Weeks before the election the three Labour MP's managed to make it even worse for themselves by claiming public fund to defend themselves against charges of stealing public funds.

News From the Court of Protection.

I've just received a judgement from the Court of Protection regarding my much written about application.

The judge has now struck the application on the grounds it was made on a COP-7 form when it should have been made on a COP-1 form. To apply using a COP-1 form you need to pay a fee of £400. So the thinking is that I will be intimidated by that figure and not re-apply. I refer you to my earlier statement; they know they're guilty and are therefore going to try and intimidate me into not bringing the matter before a court.

The problem is that I can easily afford that fee and even if I couldn't I'm exempt so don't have to pay it anyway.