Yeah I'm home.
As stated yesterday today I've answered police bail regarding well, heads are still being scratched. I attempted to hand myself into Westminster police station only to discover that Westminster police station closed down in 2012 (Thanks Google) so I headed to the next nearest police station - West End Central on Savile Row. There I explained the situation to the desk officer who told me to wait in the foyer while he spoke to the Officer In Charge (OIC) of the case. He then let me speak to the OIC who was shall we say was not in a good mood. After demanding that I attend Croydon Police station at 14:00 (local) with my father (a bizarre request) he proceeded to issue lots and lots of empty threats about having me arrested for breach of bail. He then told me I had a lot of nerve. The desk officer then suggested that the OIC take a few moments to consider his position while I waited in the foyer.
After about half an hour the desk officer phoned the OIC for his decision. The OIC decided that I was to be charged with an unspecified criminal damage offence without further interview. He then revealed he'd already done a deal with Croydon Magistrates Court for me to appear on August 2nd (2/8/13). As West End Central has no custody suite (cells) the OIC was then instructed to telephone Charing Cross police station to arrange for me to be taken into custody. I was then instructed to travel, unaccompanied to Charing Cross.
After getting horrifically lost in London's West End (always happens when I don't have a police escort) I arrived at Charing Cross and once again explained the situation to the desk officer. Once again I was told to wait in the foyer while he spoke to the OIC. I was not party to this conversation but I gather it was something along the lines of the custody sergeant at Charing Cross feeling there was no grounds to arrest me let alone charge me so if the OIC felt differently he should travel up and do it himself. The OIC declined this offer.
So after the Charing Cross desk officer confirmed that I had most certainly not breached bail I was left to leave on my own recognisance with police bail not renewed. Apparently the OIC is going to be given the weekend to have a long, hard think about his position and will contact me over the coming week. Hopefully this time he will remember that he has to contact me not my father.
So yeah there's around 35,000 Metropolitan police officers. At least one of them's a c*nt.
17:15 on 28/6/13.
Edited at around 18:05 on 28/6/13 to add;
Obviously it's going to take me a little while, marijuana, alcohol and cocaine to wind down from today. So at some point in the evening I may proclaim that I not only have the right to Sarastro's salary, pension and house but also his skin so I can have it taken up to Savile Row to be made into a suit. I will of course largely be joking. However because there are many in my situation who do not have my level of muscle behind them I hope everyone understands that I will have to draw blood.
Those of you who have been reading my Twitter feed will be aware that whilst waiting in Charing Cross foyer I telephoned Sarastro and once again got voicemail. So I left him the statutory nuisance case reference number and the Court of Protection (COP) reference number. Both of course go to the credibility of my accusers. However the COP case also demonstrates that my father cannot be deemed my appropriate adult. The Statutory Nuisance case also demonstrates that Croydon Magistrates are unable to act in this matter.
Therefore what should happen next is that Croydon Magistrates Court should immediately recluse themselves from the case due their erroneous decision to allow the address in question to operate unlawful for in excess of two years. Any other Court in the UK can then attempt to prosecute an offence of criminal damage against property with no lawful owner. Alternatively we could just impose the closure order now.
Other things I may be doing this evening might include providing certain people with the contact details of removal companies.
Edited again at around 02:50 on 29/6 /13 to add;
Is it so wrong that I'm disappointed that I wasn't arrested. You see if I'd been taken into custody I could have looked forward to a weekend of sleeping, eating, weeping, pacing, swearing and crying. Now I've got to find something to fill my time.
I suppose somewhere between sleeping, eating, drinking, weeping, pacing, smoking, crying and sadly legitmately updating my iPod I could find time to bring down my shiniest suit and dust off those S.82 EPA notices. The problem is that 3 days after that fax is sent (2/7/13) the address causing a nuisance prejudicial to health must be vacant or become a free fire zone. I see no need for a free fire zone.
As for Croydon Council's decision to demolish the structures on Tia Sharp's final resting place I am happy with that. I do though dispute Croydon Council's belief that they have a right to build on the land. After all I think it should become a burial ground for the guilty.
Friday 28 June 2013
Thursday 27 June 2013
I Never Liked Glastonbury.
I hate tennis. I never thought much of the Silverstone Grand Prix and the only lion I ever truly loved was black.
In case you've not worked it out yet on Friday (28/6/13) I will be answering police bail in relation to - well the bail form is still blank. As I've explained before the obligation is to surrender to the police not a specific police station or even a specific police force. Therefore the plan is that I will surrender at Westminster police station at around 12:00 (local). I do not need to offer a reason for doing this but suspected local corruption and the previous denial of prescribed medication and the right to be seen by a doctor both count as very good reasons. What will happen next is the Metropolitan police at Westminster will contact the Metropolitan police officer in charge (OIC) of the case to find out if he has grounds to proceed with the investigation. If he convinces them that there is he will either travel up to Westminster or I will be transported back to Croydon. I may of course be immediately charged and brought before Westminster Magistrates Court for a habeus corpus hearing but I'll get on to that later. Of course if the OIC cannot be contacted the police may simply re-bail me until a later date.
That is of course the plan. However I might oversleep forcing me to surrender to Croydon police station. I may also find the temptation to surrender to the armed police guarding Downing Street whilst carrying a suspiciously heavy bag too much to resist.
With no formal allegation put to me so far it is quite difficult to predict what will happen if the OIC decides to proceed. After all I might find myself having to answer allegations that I was involved in the disappearance of the race horse Shergar or the assassination of US President JFK or something equally random. However assuming the OIC is intends to pursue offences relating to the 1971 Criminal Damage Act he will first have to assess the quality of the evidence against me.
As far as I can tell they have the statements of two witnesses who are close friends and neighbours. One of those witnesses is - to use the correct legal term - the agent of not one but two organisations that have been waging a long campaign of harassment against my property and those contained within it. That campaign is evidenced by police records, Court records and Parliamentary records. There are also photographs of youngsters at that witnesses address behaving in a very peculiar manner on a low roof of the property is what could be viewed as attempting to feign injury. Therefore the first question the OIC or more accurately the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer has to ask is whether there is any credibility to those witness statements or whether they are simply the latest chapter in the long running harassment campaign?
The police also have in their possession a hammer that was recovered from a private but non-secure (closed but not locked door) area of my property. Unless the police can explain how that door opened itself and an electric light turned itself on that hammer may well be excluded as the product of an unlawful search and seizure. However with four police officers and one of me that strikes me as a sluggers fight. As was mentioned at the initial interview that hammer is my lawful possession. Therefore no amount of fingerprint or DNA evidence is going to put it in my hand at the time of the incident. In order to prove that it was used in the incident the police will have to show transfer from the scene of the incident to the hammer. This most likely means broken glass. If transfer is found the police must then prove that it wasn't accidentally placed there by a police officer who was both at the scene and the location where the hammer was seized. On something of a side note my father of all people was very surprised to observe that there is certainly no glass on the fabric washing machine cover where the hammer was seized from. Also as the police were able to seize the hammer from my property without my permission they will also have to demonstrate that in a matter of seconds an unknown person did not steal the hammer, commit the act and then return it to the private but non-secure area.
Finally the police claim that they have the whole thing on CCTV. At the risk of giving away trade secrets every single time I've been arrested the police have claimed to have the whole thing on CCTV but I've never once been presented with CCTV evidence. This includes one occasion on which I was arrested in the front passenger seat of one of Sussex Police's garishly labelled CCTV vans. It's almost enough to make you want to read up on a psychological phenomenon known as the Panopticon principle. The address in question certainly has no visible CCTV cameras nor any signs warning of the use of CCTV. Therefore if the address is bristling with covert surveillance equipment it certainly raises significant questions about what type of operation they a running.
If the OIC/CPS are confident that they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I have committed the alleged act they then have to demonstrate that act was unlawful. Primarily this means overcoming the statutory defence laid out in Section 2 of the 1971 Act that states that a person can only be considered to be acting criminally if they lack an honest belief that they were not acting in self-defence. As with "reasonableness" "honest" is something of an elastic legal term open to interpretation. However it seems to have been included in this statute to prevent someone doing something naughty, speaking to a lawyer and then making something up after the fact. My belief as to the nature of the organisations conduct has been sworn to under oath in three Court proceedings over several years. Therefore if the CPS believe they have even the slightest chance of proving my belief was dishonest they should be pursuing the much more serious charge of perjury. There are of course also questions about immediacy, proportionality and recklessness. Until such a time as the police are able to make a formal allegation I do not have to address these so am not happy discussing them in detail here. However as for the question of recklessness I should point out that as part of the deal between the property owner, Croydon Council, Croydon police and the Local Member of Parliament that allowed the property to remain open the room with the damaged windows was designated as a living rather than a sleeping area. Therefore if someone is in a living area in - I presume the dark - at around 1AM you have to ask questions about who is being negligent.
Therefore what should happen when Westminster police contact the OIC is that he should quickly inform them that no further action is to be taken against me, ask them to apologise to me on his behalf and request that I am put in contact with a more qualified officer who will take my witness statement. Ideally I'll then spend the next few days at a police shooting range getting my small arms certification. After all if the police expect me to do their job for them I at least expect to be properly trained.
Unfortunately the OIC strikes me as someone who is still dreaming of the day he gets to bring a big case to the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey). Therefore he will insist that I am transported down to Croydon where he will attempt to effectively bully a confession out of me. He was unable to do this the last time. This time he will be lacking the shock n' awe of a dramatic arrest, nicotine withdrawal, withdrawal from prescribed medication and the social pressure of my father whom he contacted against my express wishes. Therefore on interview I will inform him (it's not my duty to explain) the Statutory Nuisance case and the Court of Protection (COP) case along with the Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) emails. Beyond that I expect the phrase; "I refer you to my earlier statement" will be used a lot. If he raises the issue of my Internet use (especially Twitter) I will require him to obtain unanimous permission from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) before I can discuss it with him. If he gets that far the answer is of course; "Yes."
Out of a mix of spite and frustration that OIC will wait until the last possible moment of the 24hrs he is allowed to hold me without charge (approx 12:00 local on 29/6/13) before referring the matter to a "police decision maker" who is just a mysterious voice at the end of a phone. That decision maker might actually see sense and order my immediate release. However it is more likely that I will be charged and won't be able to be brought before a Magistrate for a habeus corpus hearing until 09:00 on Monday (1/7/13) meaning I'll have to spend the weekend in a police cell. This will give the local police the opportunity to observe the drug regime I use whilst in a police cell and provide lots of opportunity for wild speculation about what is going on. If there are rumours of me pacing my cell muttering to myself the chances are I'll be reciting a certain Shakespearean soliloquy or reciting the words to a Pink Floyd song. If things get really boring I might tell the custody officers a very long and pointless story about a custody officer who I new socially who decided on a career change after coming into contact with a Turkish special forces deserter.
Just before the habeus corpus hearing I will instruct a legal aid lawyer/public defender. Their first task will be to file a motion to dismiss on the aforementioned grounds. If that fails and legally it really shouldn't they will then make a bail application on my behalf. In the UK bail is an automatic right. That means it is extremely unusual for money to have to be placed with the Court and the prosecution must prove that there is good reason to deny bail. The most common reasons are;
In case you've not worked it out yet on Friday (28/6/13) I will be answering police bail in relation to - well the bail form is still blank. As I've explained before the obligation is to surrender to the police not a specific police station or even a specific police force. Therefore the plan is that I will surrender at Westminster police station at around 12:00 (local). I do not need to offer a reason for doing this but suspected local corruption and the previous denial of prescribed medication and the right to be seen by a doctor both count as very good reasons. What will happen next is the Metropolitan police at Westminster will contact the Metropolitan police officer in charge (OIC) of the case to find out if he has grounds to proceed with the investigation. If he convinces them that there is he will either travel up to Westminster or I will be transported back to Croydon. I may of course be immediately charged and brought before Westminster Magistrates Court for a habeus corpus hearing but I'll get on to that later. Of course if the OIC cannot be contacted the police may simply re-bail me until a later date.
That is of course the plan. However I might oversleep forcing me to surrender to Croydon police station. I may also find the temptation to surrender to the armed police guarding Downing Street whilst carrying a suspiciously heavy bag too much to resist.
With no formal allegation put to me so far it is quite difficult to predict what will happen if the OIC decides to proceed. After all I might find myself having to answer allegations that I was involved in the disappearance of the race horse Shergar or the assassination of US President JFK or something equally random. However assuming the OIC is intends to pursue offences relating to the 1971 Criminal Damage Act he will first have to assess the quality of the evidence against me.
As far as I can tell they have the statements of two witnesses who are close friends and neighbours. One of those witnesses is - to use the correct legal term - the agent of not one but two organisations that have been waging a long campaign of harassment against my property and those contained within it. That campaign is evidenced by police records, Court records and Parliamentary records. There are also photographs of youngsters at that witnesses address behaving in a very peculiar manner on a low roof of the property is what could be viewed as attempting to feign injury. Therefore the first question the OIC or more accurately the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer has to ask is whether there is any credibility to those witness statements or whether they are simply the latest chapter in the long running harassment campaign?
The police also have in their possession a hammer that was recovered from a private but non-secure (closed but not locked door) area of my property. Unless the police can explain how that door opened itself and an electric light turned itself on that hammer may well be excluded as the product of an unlawful search and seizure. However with four police officers and one of me that strikes me as a sluggers fight. As was mentioned at the initial interview that hammer is my lawful possession. Therefore no amount of fingerprint or DNA evidence is going to put it in my hand at the time of the incident. In order to prove that it was used in the incident the police will have to show transfer from the scene of the incident to the hammer. This most likely means broken glass. If transfer is found the police must then prove that it wasn't accidentally placed there by a police officer who was both at the scene and the location where the hammer was seized. On something of a side note my father of all people was very surprised to observe that there is certainly no glass on the fabric washing machine cover where the hammer was seized from. Also as the police were able to seize the hammer from my property without my permission they will also have to demonstrate that in a matter of seconds an unknown person did not steal the hammer, commit the act and then return it to the private but non-secure area.
Finally the police claim that they have the whole thing on CCTV. At the risk of giving away trade secrets every single time I've been arrested the police have claimed to have the whole thing on CCTV but I've never once been presented with CCTV evidence. This includes one occasion on which I was arrested in the front passenger seat of one of Sussex Police's garishly labelled CCTV vans. It's almost enough to make you want to read up on a psychological phenomenon known as the Panopticon principle. The address in question certainly has no visible CCTV cameras nor any signs warning of the use of CCTV. Therefore if the address is bristling with covert surveillance equipment it certainly raises significant questions about what type of operation they a running.
If the OIC/CPS are confident that they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I have committed the alleged act they then have to demonstrate that act was unlawful. Primarily this means overcoming the statutory defence laid out in Section 2 of the 1971 Act that states that a person can only be considered to be acting criminally if they lack an honest belief that they were not acting in self-defence. As with "reasonableness" "honest" is something of an elastic legal term open to interpretation. However it seems to have been included in this statute to prevent someone doing something naughty, speaking to a lawyer and then making something up after the fact. My belief as to the nature of the organisations conduct has been sworn to under oath in three Court proceedings over several years. Therefore if the CPS believe they have even the slightest chance of proving my belief was dishonest they should be pursuing the much more serious charge of perjury. There are of course also questions about immediacy, proportionality and recklessness. Until such a time as the police are able to make a formal allegation I do not have to address these so am not happy discussing them in detail here. However as for the question of recklessness I should point out that as part of the deal between the property owner, Croydon Council, Croydon police and the Local Member of Parliament that allowed the property to remain open the room with the damaged windows was designated as a living rather than a sleeping area. Therefore if someone is in a living area in - I presume the dark - at around 1AM you have to ask questions about who is being negligent.
Therefore what should happen when Westminster police contact the OIC is that he should quickly inform them that no further action is to be taken against me, ask them to apologise to me on his behalf and request that I am put in contact with a more qualified officer who will take my witness statement. Ideally I'll then spend the next few days at a police shooting range getting my small arms certification. After all if the police expect me to do their job for them I at least expect to be properly trained.
Unfortunately the OIC strikes me as someone who is still dreaming of the day he gets to bring a big case to the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey). Therefore he will insist that I am transported down to Croydon where he will attempt to effectively bully a confession out of me. He was unable to do this the last time. This time he will be lacking the shock n' awe of a dramatic arrest, nicotine withdrawal, withdrawal from prescribed medication and the social pressure of my father whom he contacted against my express wishes. Therefore on interview I will inform him (it's not my duty to explain) the Statutory Nuisance case and the Court of Protection (COP) case along with the Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) emails. Beyond that I expect the phrase; "I refer you to my earlier statement" will be used a lot. If he raises the issue of my Internet use (especially Twitter) I will require him to obtain unanimous permission from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) before I can discuss it with him. If he gets that far the answer is of course; "Yes."
Out of a mix of spite and frustration that OIC will wait until the last possible moment of the 24hrs he is allowed to hold me without charge (approx 12:00 local on 29/6/13) before referring the matter to a "police decision maker" who is just a mysterious voice at the end of a phone. That decision maker might actually see sense and order my immediate release. However it is more likely that I will be charged and won't be able to be brought before a Magistrate for a habeus corpus hearing until 09:00 on Monday (1/7/13) meaning I'll have to spend the weekend in a police cell. This will give the local police the opportunity to observe the drug regime I use whilst in a police cell and provide lots of opportunity for wild speculation about what is going on. If there are rumours of me pacing my cell muttering to myself the chances are I'll be reciting a certain Shakespearean soliloquy or reciting the words to a Pink Floyd song. If things get really boring I might tell the custody officers a very long and pointless story about a custody officer who I new socially who decided on a career change after coming into contact with a Turkish special forces deserter.
Just before the habeus corpus hearing I will instruct a legal aid lawyer/public defender. Their first task will be to file a motion to dismiss on the aforementioned grounds. If that fails and legally it really shouldn't they will then make a bail application on my behalf. In the UK bail is an automatic right. That means it is extremely unusual for money to have to be placed with the Court and the prosecution must prove that there is good reason to deny bail. The most common reasons are;
- Public Safety. Basically I present a serious (life or limb) threat to the public whilst on bail. This could only apply if I was charged with the endangering life/reckless disregard offence which is legally highly unlikely. I have also been on bail for more than four weeks and no members of the public have been injured.
- Interfering with the investigation. Basically I would intimidate witnesses of destroy evidence whilst on bail. Here the prosecution might have something mainly through my Internet use. However it is not an offence to simply identify a witness who would have to give evidence in open Court. As the SNT emails demonstrate any alleged intimidation took place while the witnesses were engaging in serious criminal behaviour which the police were refusing the intervene with. Therefore my actions seem necessary to keep the peace - something that is supported by the fact nothing actually happened. Also I have had ample opportunity to destroy pictures etc that could become evidence at a later date and have not done so.
- Absconding. Basically I'll run away rather than appearing for trial. This is a non-starter. I have fully complied with the terms of both police and Court bail on numerous past occasions. I have no passport and I have strong links to the local community not least my reliance on my GP for prescription medication.
Tuesday 25 June 2013
Ta-Dah! I'm Back From the Pub!
And despite the pressures of the day my house didn't spontaneously explode as I unlocked the back door.
One of the big pressures of the day is that witness to the Stephen Lawrence murder Duwanye Brookes has filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Police (The Met) alleging that it secretly bugged meetings between him and his lawyer. This wouldn't surprise me at all because through the last round of Legal Aid reforms the UK has effectively done away with the concept of attorney/client privilege. If you wish to receive legal advice whilst in police custody you are now forced to use the monitored in cell intercom system to speak to the "Defence Solicitor Call Centre." On every occasion I've used that service the 'lawyer' I spoke to gave incredibly bad legal advice and sounded suspiciously like the police custody sergeant.
However I think the timing of Mr Brookes allegation is meant to reflect the bitching and moaning from the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) side of the 'Stephen Lawrence family' that I have evidence of their Barrister making false and misleading statements. As these statements were made in a Magistrates Court in an open proceeding and are therefore a matter of public record I'm confused as to what they are complaining about. I'm assuming that the 'ambush' of two undercover burglary squad detectives in Los Angeles is a creative response to any forthcoming Croydon borough police suggestions that I have "harassed" them by politely and periodically telephoning them.
Elsewhere in LA Chris Brown has now been charged with two counts of leaving the scene of a moving vehicle accident. I have yet to read the case papers but this did remind me that shortly the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are set to decide if the conditions are right for peacekeepers to deploy to Mali. As I'm aware that the on the ground security situation may well flare up again I'm inclined to say the UNSC should consider meeting after July 16th 2013 (16/7/13). If I am in prison at that point and Chris Brown isn't I would say that is a definite tick in the "No" column.
Incidentally it is actually quite common in the UK for people to avoid a prison sentence if they're enlisted for military service. With the UK and France engaged in a joint defence pact it would be interesting to find out if that strictly means the UK military.
Anyway got to go now because if I keep talking there's a good chance I might end up in the French Foreign Legion and I gather it's nowhere near as fun as it appears in the films.
19:20 on 25/6/13.
One of the big pressures of the day is that witness to the Stephen Lawrence murder Duwanye Brookes has filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Police (The Met) alleging that it secretly bugged meetings between him and his lawyer. This wouldn't surprise me at all because through the last round of Legal Aid reforms the UK has effectively done away with the concept of attorney/client privilege. If you wish to receive legal advice whilst in police custody you are now forced to use the monitored in cell intercom system to speak to the "Defence Solicitor Call Centre." On every occasion I've used that service the 'lawyer' I spoke to gave incredibly bad legal advice and sounded suspiciously like the police custody sergeant.
However I think the timing of Mr Brookes allegation is meant to reflect the bitching and moaning from the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) side of the 'Stephen Lawrence family' that I have evidence of their Barrister making false and misleading statements. As these statements were made in a Magistrates Court in an open proceeding and are therefore a matter of public record I'm confused as to what they are complaining about. I'm assuming that the 'ambush' of two undercover burglary squad detectives in Los Angeles is a creative response to any forthcoming Croydon borough police suggestions that I have "harassed" them by politely and periodically telephoning them.
Elsewhere in LA Chris Brown has now been charged with two counts of leaving the scene of a moving vehicle accident. I have yet to read the case papers but this did remind me that shortly the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are set to decide if the conditions are right for peacekeepers to deploy to Mali. As I'm aware that the on the ground security situation may well flare up again I'm inclined to say the UNSC should consider meeting after July 16th 2013 (16/7/13). If I am in prison at that point and Chris Brown isn't I would say that is a definite tick in the "No" column.
Incidentally it is actually quite common in the UK for people to avoid a prison sentence if they're enlisted for military service. With the UK and France engaged in a joint defence pact it would be interesting to find out if that strictly means the UK military.
Anyway got to go now because if I keep talking there's a good chance I might end up in the French Foreign Legion and I gather it's nowhere near as fun as it appears in the films.
19:20 on 25/6/13.
The Keanu Williams Murder.
Today a Crown Court in Manchester UK sentenced Rebecca Shuttleworth to a minimum of 18 years in prison for the murder of her 2 year old son Keanu Williams and four counts of child cruelty. Described by the Judge as one of the most horrific crimes of its type the murder which took place over two days saw the infant sustain 37 separate injuries including a fractured skull and a (adult) fist sized tear to the intestine that most likely caused death through internal bleeding.
To be honest I've not been following this story because frankly it's too depressing. Obviously though the nature of the crime does invoke memories of the Baby P scandal. However on this occasion it strikes me as a clean case of sometimes bad people do bad things. Apart from the horrific nature of the crime the reason why the case has been given such prominence seems to be that although she was in a relationship with a man at the time of the offence (Luke Southerton was cleared of murder but sentenced to 9 months suspended for biting the child) Shuttleworth went on to form a lesbian relationship with another women. This obviously promotes some (invalid) discussion about lesbian parenting. However it also promotes discussion about the way that minorities manipulate equality rules and legislation to do as they please. After all much of the reporting has spoken of how Shuttleworth was able to "use her knowledge of the care system to avoid detection." The implication being social workers were too afraid to intervene out of a fear of being accused of homophobia.
This is of course nonsense because Shuttleworth was in a conventional relationship with a man at the time and I for one seriously doubt her lesbian credentials. I think the real reason is that Shuttleworth was severely emotionally damaged at an early age and social services failed to intervene because based on my extensive experience they're chronically underfunded and have a nasty habit of employing (a great expense) woefully unqualified staff.
16:55 on 25/6/13.
To be honest I've not been following this story because frankly it's too depressing. Obviously though the nature of the crime does invoke memories of the Baby P scandal. However on this occasion it strikes me as a clean case of sometimes bad people do bad things. Apart from the horrific nature of the crime the reason why the case has been given such prominence seems to be that although she was in a relationship with a man at the time of the offence (Luke Southerton was cleared of murder but sentenced to 9 months suspended for biting the child) Shuttleworth went on to form a lesbian relationship with another women. This obviously promotes some (invalid) discussion about lesbian parenting. However it also promotes discussion about the way that minorities manipulate equality rules and legislation to do as they please. After all much of the reporting has spoken of how Shuttleworth was able to "use her knowledge of the care system to avoid detection." The implication being social workers were too afraid to intervene out of a fear of being accused of homophobia.
This is of course nonsense because Shuttleworth was in a conventional relationship with a man at the time and I for one seriously doubt her lesbian credentials. I think the real reason is that Shuttleworth was severely emotionally damaged at an early age and social services failed to intervene because based on my extensive experience they're chronically underfunded and have a nasty habit of employing (a great expense) woefully unqualified staff.
16:55 on 25/6/13.
Phones Are Fun(!)
Today I went for my first full gym session in the roughly eight weeks after breaking my finger. I have to report that it wasn't actually as painful as I expected. However feel free to remind me of that statement tomorrow morning.
Before I went to the gym I left Sarastro yet another voicemail message because I think it's fair to give him a sporting chance of proving he is conducting a lawful investigation rather then waging some sort of vendetta. While I was at the gym I got a missed call from a number that was very similar from Sarastro's. It turned out to be from a company called "Local Housing Solutions" who are a Housing Trust similar to the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT). They carry out a large amount of contract work for the Bromley Council which is the borough neighbouring Croydon. Now I think this is just another Housing Trust/Estate Agent making the mistake of thinking they're kings of the universe and attempting to wind me up in my post-gym wind down. However there is also a possibility that I was in fact speaking to someone from MI5 or related agency who were trying to give me the hint that they would prefer me to pursue the conspiracy to commit murder in the commission of a theft approach rather than the crime against humanity approach. If that less likely latter scenario is the case I think it's a good time to remind everybody that law enforcement already have enough probable cause to shut down the observation post.
Speaking of which after finishing with Local Housing Solutions I called the local Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) to chase up that email. I got voicemail.
Incidentally I've sort of decided that today (while I'm drunk) will be a good opportunity to inform my father that I won't be answering bail to Croydon Borough police. After all unlike most people when I say I don't recognise the authority of Croydon Magistrates Court in this matter I've actually got quite a lot of evidence to back it up even if the aforementioned still seem to believe that just because they've deleted something means it has disappeared.
15:10 on 25/6/13
Before I went to the gym I left Sarastro yet another voicemail message because I think it's fair to give him a sporting chance of proving he is conducting a lawful investigation rather then waging some sort of vendetta. While I was at the gym I got a missed call from a number that was very similar from Sarastro's. It turned out to be from a company called "Local Housing Solutions" who are a Housing Trust similar to the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT). They carry out a large amount of contract work for the Bromley Council which is the borough neighbouring Croydon. Now I think this is just another Housing Trust/Estate Agent making the mistake of thinking they're kings of the universe and attempting to wind me up in my post-gym wind down. However there is also a possibility that I was in fact speaking to someone from MI5 or related agency who were trying to give me the hint that they would prefer me to pursue the conspiracy to commit murder in the commission of a theft approach rather than the crime against humanity approach. If that less likely latter scenario is the case I think it's a good time to remind everybody that law enforcement already have enough probable cause to shut down the observation post.
Speaking of which after finishing with Local Housing Solutions I called the local Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) to chase up that email. I got voicemail.
Incidentally I've sort of decided that today (while I'm drunk) will be a good opportunity to inform my father that I won't be answering bail to Croydon Borough police. After all unlike most people when I say I don't recognise the authority of Croydon Magistrates Court in this matter I've actually got quite a lot of evidence to back it up even if the aforementioned still seem to believe that just because they've deleted something means it has disappeared.
15:10 on 25/6/13
Monday 24 June 2013
Dispatches: The Police's Dirty Little Secret.
Tonight the UK's Channel 4 will broadcast a special edition of it's current affairs program "Dispatches" entitled "The Police's Dirty Little Secret." Obviously I've not seen the program yet but from the pre-publicity I gather it will focus on London's Metropolitan Police's (the Met) use of covert surveillance against people who are not engaged in criminal activity and are therefore considered "law abiding." This has been something of a cause celebre for Britain's political left and environmental/left-wing groups across the European Union (EU) since it emerged that the Met had sent undercover police officers including Mark Kennedy/Stone to spy on the environmental campaigns/Climate Camp for decades at a time. Apart from engaging in multiple sexual relationships with protesters Kennedy went as far as to act as an agent provocateur helping to plan and organise an illegal protest against the Ratcliff-on-Soar power station for which 114 people were arrested on charges of aggravated trespass and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
The main headline grabbing allegation of the program which has already forced the Home Secretary/Interior Minister to make a statement to the House of Commons is that the Met used undercover officers to spy on the family of Stephen Lawrence. Stephen Lawrence was of course the victim of a racist murder in Eltham, London in 1993. Therefore the only purpose to putting his family under surveillance was to discover embarrassing but not illegal information about them in order to disrupt their campaign for justice that was highly critical of the Met. Although the alleged use of undercover officers is new the fact that the Met's handling of the Stephen Lawrence case was appalling is hardly news. After all it helped bring down the Conservative government, sparked a two year Judge led public Inquiry and led to the UK scrapping the legal principle of double jeopardy. In fact if people think the Met are bad now it's often because they don't remember how bad they were at the time of the Stephen Lawrence murder.
With me having a history with the environmental protest movement including Climate Camp and coming just four days before I'm scheduled to answer police bail on allegations relating to criminal damage this Dispatches program has some relevance to me. As all those accusing me are just as black as Stephen Lawrence and his family it could be interpreted as helping to portray them as victims and in doing so fuel the persecution/asylum debate by making it appear that the UK will be treating the poorly supported allegations as racially motivated. Although I'm only allowed one friend who happens to be white so I can't claim; "I have plenty of black friends" I think it's fair to say I have a pretty good record on race and Rihanna, Susan Rice or Barak Obama would make great character witnesses.
The other analysis of the Stephen Lawrence link comes from Rosalind Howells who did very well out of the campaign eventually ending up as Baroness Howells of Saint Davids a Labour Party member of the House of Lords. Baroness Howells is vaguely related to Paul Scoon who was the Governor General of Grenada in 1979 who was overthrown in a coup while my ex-Royal Marine grandfather just happened to be visiting. In fact it was through Baroness Howells presenting bravery awards following the Saint Andrews Church attack that I randomly ended up babysitting the MP for Hackney Diane Abbott's son. Therefore while it's a stretch either way it is arguable that I'm closer to the Lawrence family then my accusers. There is of course a suspicion that the Met have been using my accusers to spy on me. The police did initially and wrongly claim that I was arrested in a public place which indicates that they are somewhat confused about the legal realities of the situation. If they've been passing that information to my accusers wider network that would be a big problem for the police and sadly based on my discussion with Friday's (21/6/13) trespassers that seems to be exactly what has been going on.
Finally through things like the Woolwich murder which brought back memories of the August 2011 riots and a very sympathetic portrayal in the ITV1 drama "Life of Crime" the UK has been in experiencing something of a national campaign to make people be nicer to the police. By taking the opposite line through this Dispatches program Channel 4 is trying to cement it's reputation as the voice of opposition. After all bashing the police is surely the most subversive thing you can do in the UK(!)
11:40 on 24/6/13.
Edited at around 18:40 on 24/6/13 to add;
The Dispatches program still hasn't aired and it clashes with "The Gadget Show" so I can't promise I will watch it. However already today Stephen Lawrence's father Neville Lawrence has called for a Judge led Public Inquiry into the allegations. As the allegations relate to attempts to smear the Lawrence family this is quite difficult to respond to. However I think it is fair to say that Stephen Lawrence's mother Doreen has been the driving force behind the campaign. Doreen and Neville Lawrence are no longer married.
The Commissioner of the Met has responded by announcing that the force to do everything in it's power to "reassure Stephen Lawrence's father." This along with the news that police in Guilford, Surrey (where my sister lives) have arrested the brother of Saad al-Hilli the Iraqi born man who was killed in the French Alps in September 2012 in what the police now believe to be a feud over a family inheritance is a reference to my brother and father's role in my grandmother's death.
If I was to use the lawful excuse defence to allegations of criminal damage I would have to demonstrate an honest belief that my actions would prevent a greater crime. There are a variety of greater crimes I can choose from ranging from conspiracy to burgle through to conspiracy to murder. However the big one would be a crime against humanity by way of an unlawful medical experiment. As my father was the one who ultimately ordered my grandmother's medical mistreatment this puts him on legally shaky ground. However the full allegation would be that my father suffers from a form of Autism and rather than diagnosing him Croydon Primary Care Trust instead chose to observe him within a controlled environment in order to learn more about this poorly understood condition. To a lot of people's mind that would make my father a victim of the crime meaning that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute. Also an element of high functioning Autism is that it's sufferers are often unable to tell when they are being lied to. That along with the fact my father was clearly under a degree of duress would allow him to argue diminished responsibility that would certainly count as mitigation in sentencing if not a defence in itself.
Edited again at around 19:40 on 24/6/13 to add;
I'm about 45 minutes into this 1 hour Dispatches documentary and it strikes me as an exercise in misdirection high on sensationalism and very low on detail.
The first 30 minutes focused on interviews with Peter Francis who infiltrated the Stephen Lawrence campaign as a member of the Met's Special Demonstrations Squad (SDS). Although disbanded when Special Branch was merged into SO15 in around 2003 the SDS still exist and are charged with gathering intelligence to prevent large scale public disorder (i.e Riots). This is where I feel the program lacked detail by not putting the Stephen Lawrence campaign in its proper political context. The Stephen Lawrence murder took place just a year after the Los Angeles riots that were sparked by the Rodney King case. Also throughout the late 1980's MI5 and the Thatcher government had been deliberately building up the racist National Front (NF) and the anti-Racist Anti-Nazi League (ANL) in a deliberate attempt to divide opposition to government policy. Therefore there was a legitimate risk that the Stephen Lawrence murder could have provoked a full blown race war that pitted black against white. As the main objection to the Stephen Lawrence murder was racism within society this doesn't strike me as a particularly productive response. Therefore it would be reasonable for the police to gather intelligence on the campaign (but not the family) in case a need arose for public support for the campaign to be undermined to prevent it getting out of control.
Although the program did mention it I think that nowhere near enough attention was given to the role of the Met's Family Liaison Officers (FLO). Officially FLO's are there to help support the families of victims of crime through the investigation and prosecution. However in the Lawrence case it appears that the FLO's were reporting back directly to Special Branch. As they were essentially living with the Lawrence family along with their friends and neighbours the FLO's would have been much better placed to gather embarrassing information on the Lawrence family and even go so far as to identify weaknesses within the family relationships that could be exploited to well destroy those relationships and undermine support networks. This makes the SDS' role small and almost irrelevant by comparison and I can think of no excuse for what seems to be a clear example of political policing.
The second 30 minutes focused on the actions of another SDS officer who is alleged to have had long term sexual relationships with three women during his time undercover in the 1980's. He went so far as to father a child with one of these women. To me this seems like an attempt by the program makers to discourage women from engaging in political activism and make life more difficult for those already involved in activism. Firstly these sort of allegations cause activists to become paranoid about their interpersonal relationships and secondly it promotes all sorts of arguments about rape and gender politics which are still something of an obsession of the British left.
Edited at around 23:20 on 24/6/13 for hopefully the final time;
The MacPhearson report into the Stephen Lawrence murder was published in February 1999. About six weeks later a guy called David Copeland who was linked to the extreme neo-Nazi group Combat 18 planted a series of nail bombs in the Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho districts of London in order to kill blacks, Pakistanis and homosexuals. Inspired by the "Turner Diaries" his intention was to provoke a race war. Against that sort of political backdrop it is very difficult to argue that the SDS had no cause to investigate the Stephen Lawrence campaign especially as they had no direct contact with the Lawrence family. The FLO involvement - now that's a different question.
The main headline grabbing allegation of the program which has already forced the Home Secretary/Interior Minister to make a statement to the House of Commons is that the Met used undercover officers to spy on the family of Stephen Lawrence. Stephen Lawrence was of course the victim of a racist murder in Eltham, London in 1993. Therefore the only purpose to putting his family under surveillance was to discover embarrassing but not illegal information about them in order to disrupt their campaign for justice that was highly critical of the Met. Although the alleged use of undercover officers is new the fact that the Met's handling of the Stephen Lawrence case was appalling is hardly news. After all it helped bring down the Conservative government, sparked a two year Judge led public Inquiry and led to the UK scrapping the legal principle of double jeopardy. In fact if people think the Met are bad now it's often because they don't remember how bad they were at the time of the Stephen Lawrence murder.
With me having a history with the environmental protest movement including Climate Camp and coming just four days before I'm scheduled to answer police bail on allegations relating to criminal damage this Dispatches program has some relevance to me. As all those accusing me are just as black as Stephen Lawrence and his family it could be interpreted as helping to portray them as victims and in doing so fuel the persecution/asylum debate by making it appear that the UK will be treating the poorly supported allegations as racially motivated. Although I'm only allowed one friend who happens to be white so I can't claim; "I have plenty of black friends" I think it's fair to say I have a pretty good record on race and Rihanna, Susan Rice or Barak Obama would make great character witnesses.
The other analysis of the Stephen Lawrence link comes from Rosalind Howells who did very well out of the campaign eventually ending up as Baroness Howells of Saint Davids a Labour Party member of the House of Lords. Baroness Howells is vaguely related to Paul Scoon who was the Governor General of Grenada in 1979 who was overthrown in a coup while my ex-Royal Marine grandfather just happened to be visiting. In fact it was through Baroness Howells presenting bravery awards following the Saint Andrews Church attack that I randomly ended up babysitting the MP for Hackney Diane Abbott's son. Therefore while it's a stretch either way it is arguable that I'm closer to the Lawrence family then my accusers. There is of course a suspicion that the Met have been using my accusers to spy on me. The police did initially and wrongly claim that I was arrested in a public place which indicates that they are somewhat confused about the legal realities of the situation. If they've been passing that information to my accusers wider network that would be a big problem for the police and sadly based on my discussion with Friday's (21/6/13) trespassers that seems to be exactly what has been going on.
Finally through things like the Woolwich murder which brought back memories of the August 2011 riots and a very sympathetic portrayal in the ITV1 drama "Life of Crime" the UK has been in experiencing something of a national campaign to make people be nicer to the police. By taking the opposite line through this Dispatches program Channel 4 is trying to cement it's reputation as the voice of opposition. After all bashing the police is surely the most subversive thing you can do in the UK(!)
11:40 on 24/6/13.
Edited at around 18:40 on 24/6/13 to add;
The Dispatches program still hasn't aired and it clashes with "The Gadget Show" so I can't promise I will watch it. However already today Stephen Lawrence's father Neville Lawrence has called for a Judge led Public Inquiry into the allegations. As the allegations relate to attempts to smear the Lawrence family this is quite difficult to respond to. However I think it is fair to say that Stephen Lawrence's mother Doreen has been the driving force behind the campaign. Doreen and Neville Lawrence are no longer married.
The Commissioner of the Met has responded by announcing that the force to do everything in it's power to "reassure Stephen Lawrence's father." This along with the news that police in Guilford, Surrey (where my sister lives) have arrested the brother of Saad al-Hilli the Iraqi born man who was killed in the French Alps in September 2012 in what the police now believe to be a feud over a family inheritance is a reference to my brother and father's role in my grandmother's death.
If I was to use the lawful excuse defence to allegations of criminal damage I would have to demonstrate an honest belief that my actions would prevent a greater crime. There are a variety of greater crimes I can choose from ranging from conspiracy to burgle through to conspiracy to murder. However the big one would be a crime against humanity by way of an unlawful medical experiment. As my father was the one who ultimately ordered my grandmother's medical mistreatment this puts him on legally shaky ground. However the full allegation would be that my father suffers from a form of Autism and rather than diagnosing him Croydon Primary Care Trust instead chose to observe him within a controlled environment in order to learn more about this poorly understood condition. To a lot of people's mind that would make my father a victim of the crime meaning that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute. Also an element of high functioning Autism is that it's sufferers are often unable to tell when they are being lied to. That along with the fact my father was clearly under a degree of duress would allow him to argue diminished responsibility that would certainly count as mitigation in sentencing if not a defence in itself.
Edited again at around 19:40 on 24/6/13 to add;
I'm about 45 minutes into this 1 hour Dispatches documentary and it strikes me as an exercise in misdirection high on sensationalism and very low on detail.
The first 30 minutes focused on interviews with Peter Francis who infiltrated the Stephen Lawrence campaign as a member of the Met's Special Demonstrations Squad (SDS). Although disbanded when Special Branch was merged into SO15 in around 2003 the SDS still exist and are charged with gathering intelligence to prevent large scale public disorder (i.e Riots). This is where I feel the program lacked detail by not putting the Stephen Lawrence campaign in its proper political context. The Stephen Lawrence murder took place just a year after the Los Angeles riots that were sparked by the Rodney King case. Also throughout the late 1980's MI5 and the Thatcher government had been deliberately building up the racist National Front (NF) and the anti-Racist Anti-Nazi League (ANL) in a deliberate attempt to divide opposition to government policy. Therefore there was a legitimate risk that the Stephen Lawrence murder could have provoked a full blown race war that pitted black against white. As the main objection to the Stephen Lawrence murder was racism within society this doesn't strike me as a particularly productive response. Therefore it would be reasonable for the police to gather intelligence on the campaign (but not the family) in case a need arose for public support for the campaign to be undermined to prevent it getting out of control.
Although the program did mention it I think that nowhere near enough attention was given to the role of the Met's Family Liaison Officers (FLO). Officially FLO's are there to help support the families of victims of crime through the investigation and prosecution. However in the Lawrence case it appears that the FLO's were reporting back directly to Special Branch. As they were essentially living with the Lawrence family along with their friends and neighbours the FLO's would have been much better placed to gather embarrassing information on the Lawrence family and even go so far as to identify weaknesses within the family relationships that could be exploited to well destroy those relationships and undermine support networks. This makes the SDS' role small and almost irrelevant by comparison and I can think of no excuse for what seems to be a clear example of political policing.
The second 30 minutes focused on the actions of another SDS officer who is alleged to have had long term sexual relationships with three women during his time undercover in the 1980's. He went so far as to father a child with one of these women. To me this seems like an attempt by the program makers to discourage women from engaging in political activism and make life more difficult for those already involved in activism. Firstly these sort of allegations cause activists to become paranoid about their interpersonal relationships and secondly it promotes all sorts of arguments about rape and gender politics which are still something of an obsession of the British left.
Edited at around 23:20 on 24/6/13 for hopefully the final time;
The MacPhearson report into the Stephen Lawrence murder was published in February 1999. About six weeks later a guy called David Copeland who was linked to the extreme neo-Nazi group Combat 18 planted a series of nail bombs in the Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho districts of London in order to kill blacks, Pakistanis and homosexuals. Inspired by the "Turner Diaries" his intention was to provoke a race war. Against that sort of political backdrop it is very difficult to argue that the SDS had no cause to investigate the Stephen Lawrence campaign especially as they had no direct contact with the Lawrence family. The FLO involvement - now that's a different question.
Wednesday 19 June 2013
Operation Misery: Month 4, Week 2, Day 5.
Since my last post on the subject Rihanna has performed three more concerts in London, UK on Saturday (15/6/13) and Sunday (16/6/13) and in Birmingham, UK on Monday (17/6/13). These concerts were obviously scheduled to coincide with the UK hosted G8 Summit that was held on Monday and Tuesday (18/6/13).
The original plan was that I would be so driven by lust for Rihanna that I would once again engage in some stalkerish behaviour in a effort to meet up with her or attend one of her concerts. The intention being to add to G8 discussions about my mental health and allow the US and the UK to show off about how good they are at manipulating my behaviour. The ideal outcome was to invoke memories of the 2005 G8 Summit which was accompanied by the Live 8 Concert that I was heavily involved in. This helped get around USD50bn worth of third world debt written off. It also seems to have helped significantly alter the way then US President George W Bush viewed the developing world leading to things like the US' highly successfully anti-HIV/AIDS program in sub-Saharan Africa. By claiming to be able to completely control my actions the US and the UK were hoping to claim the credit for the success of the Live 8 concert. However even if I had behaved according to plan I think this would have been a tough sell because my relationship with the UK authorities since 2005 can hardly be categorised as "friendly."
With it having been made quite clear long in advance that I wouldn't be sticking to the script Rihanna's handlers changed tactics by making sure her London concerts were attended by both her mother and her father along with her brother. Although I'm still uncomfortable discussing someone elses private business on the Internet I think it's well established that Rihanna's father is a man whose life has been plagued by alcoholism, crack cocaine addiction and violent outbursts. Therefore his relationship with Rihanna's mother has been equally unstable and categorised by incidents of domestic violence. This is obviously similar to Rihanna's own relationship with Chris Brown. Therefore Rihanna's family reunion in London was intended to promote discussion about whether Rihanna's inaccurate belief that she has had some sort of romantic relationship with Chris Brown is the result of behaviour she learnt growing up in a domestically violent household.
The problem is that the developed nations that make up the G8 all have extensive knowledge of psychology including things like conditioning and quite a deep understanding of the causes and issues surrounding domestic violence. They are also well versed in the dark arts of espionage that would involve identifying a psychological flaw such as Rihanna's and exploiting it in order to control her behaviour. Therefore any attempt to discuss Rihanna's parents relationship as a cause of Rihanna's problems would simply have the G8 leaders all nodding in agreement rather than sparking some great argument. As such I think the secondary objective of the reunion was to create speculation that Rihanna was being rehabilitated by the UK by being forced to face up to the problems in her own and her parents relationships. This concern for Rihanna would obviously help portray the UK in a positive light and make it the centre of attention for the rest of the Diamonds World Tour as we clamour to discover the secret of Rihanna's progress (or lack there of).
Although touring is always stressful and my decision that she's not worth getting out of bed for is hardly likely to have boosted Rihanna's confidence the main pressure on Rihanna during the family reunion was the breaking of the Charles Saatchi/Nigella Lawson story. If you've not been following the story on Sunday the UK's "Sunday People" newspaper published more than a week old photographs of Charles Saatchi engaged in physical altercation with his wife Nigella Lawson at a London restaurant. In the photographs Saatchi can be seen grabbing Lawson, by the throat, twisting her nose and forcefully placing his hand over her mouth. Lawson was also photographed leaving the restaurant in tears. Although I don't know enough about Saatchi and Lawson's relationship to comment fully the photographs most certainly fit the legal definition of domestic violence and Saatchi has since accepted a police caution after admitting the offence of assault contrary to common law (a misdemeanour).
The Saatchi/Lawson story has obviously provoked a lot of discussion about domestic violence. However the big difference between the incident and Chris Brown's 2009 felony assault on Rihanna is clearly the level of violence used. Also as someone who actually enjoys relationships where both parties periodically hurl insults and plates at each other I along with other commentators have suggested that perhaps this one isolated incident does not tell the full story of Saatchi and Lawson's relationship. After all the photographer might have missed the proceeding moments in which Lawson was hurling abuse at Saatchi and slapping him around the head although this seems less and less likely as more details emerge. Therefore the UK seemed to be bringing up the incident at the G8 as a way to apologise for domestic violence or perhaps argue that the threat posed to Rihanna by Chris Brown could in some way be contained. This 'community contaiment' argument obviously has a huge resonance at the G8 in regard to issues such as Syria, Afghanistan and Mali.
For an extra little bit of drama following the Sunday concert Rihanna attended her brother's debut DJ performance at London's Boujis nightclub which is said to be a favourite of UK Prince Harry. She was accompanied by Cara Delevinge who is said to be an ex-girlfriend of Prince Harry. This was obviously intended to create speculation that Rihanna might meet up with Prince Harry with all the metaphorical implications that involves.
The late additition of Monday's Birmingham concert to the tour schedule was a horrific idea. It was intended to act as a compromise to avoid having Rihanna sitting around in my home town of London doing nothing during the G8 but preventing her from leaving the UK for a less hostile nation such as France or Spain. Due to the travel time between London and Birmingham and the tight schedule between the Boujis appearance and the concert Rihanna arrived on stage over two hours late and gave a distinctly lacklustre performance. Her bad mood was clearly evidenced by the big scandal that emerged from the concert - Rihanna whacking one of her fans on the head with her microphone as she mingled with the audience. Although this has obviously created a lot of tabloid excitement if the police or a Court were to ever get involved they would simply conclude that in a fit of hysteria the fan attempted to unlawfully detain (kidnap) Rihanna by grabbing hold of her. Rihanna then lawfully defended herself by striking the fan to make them let go of her. However I can see no need for either the police or a Court to get involved in an incident so minor I can barely believe I'm talking about it.
Rihanna's mood is unlikely to have been improved when at around 05:00 (GMT) on Tuesday when a 26 year old man was arrested for trespass after climbing onto the roof of her Los Angeles home. Assuming that the arrested man is not known to Rihanna's security team for doing things like sending her marriage proposals written in his own blood or accusing her of being an impostor who has murdered the real Rihanna in order to take her place I think this is someone in the local community gently mocking Rihanna for her support of my troublesome neighbours. You see one of the things that have boosted their confidence recently is that they think they're great friends with Rihanna helping to supply her with information about what I'm up to. It would of course be a lot easier for Rihanna to simply pick up the phone and talk to me directly especially when she's getting calls from her security people telling her someones just been arrested at her house.
16:25 on 19/6/13.
The original plan was that I would be so driven by lust for Rihanna that I would once again engage in some stalkerish behaviour in a effort to meet up with her or attend one of her concerts. The intention being to add to G8 discussions about my mental health and allow the US and the UK to show off about how good they are at manipulating my behaviour. The ideal outcome was to invoke memories of the 2005 G8 Summit which was accompanied by the Live 8 Concert that I was heavily involved in. This helped get around USD50bn worth of third world debt written off. It also seems to have helped significantly alter the way then US President George W Bush viewed the developing world leading to things like the US' highly successfully anti-HIV/AIDS program in sub-Saharan Africa. By claiming to be able to completely control my actions the US and the UK were hoping to claim the credit for the success of the Live 8 concert. However even if I had behaved according to plan I think this would have been a tough sell because my relationship with the UK authorities since 2005 can hardly be categorised as "friendly."
With it having been made quite clear long in advance that I wouldn't be sticking to the script Rihanna's handlers changed tactics by making sure her London concerts were attended by both her mother and her father along with her brother. Although I'm still uncomfortable discussing someone elses private business on the Internet I think it's well established that Rihanna's father is a man whose life has been plagued by alcoholism, crack cocaine addiction and violent outbursts. Therefore his relationship with Rihanna's mother has been equally unstable and categorised by incidents of domestic violence. This is obviously similar to Rihanna's own relationship with Chris Brown. Therefore Rihanna's family reunion in London was intended to promote discussion about whether Rihanna's inaccurate belief that she has had some sort of romantic relationship with Chris Brown is the result of behaviour she learnt growing up in a domestically violent household.
The problem is that the developed nations that make up the G8 all have extensive knowledge of psychology including things like conditioning and quite a deep understanding of the causes and issues surrounding domestic violence. They are also well versed in the dark arts of espionage that would involve identifying a psychological flaw such as Rihanna's and exploiting it in order to control her behaviour. Therefore any attempt to discuss Rihanna's parents relationship as a cause of Rihanna's problems would simply have the G8 leaders all nodding in agreement rather than sparking some great argument. As such I think the secondary objective of the reunion was to create speculation that Rihanna was being rehabilitated by the UK by being forced to face up to the problems in her own and her parents relationships. This concern for Rihanna would obviously help portray the UK in a positive light and make it the centre of attention for the rest of the Diamonds World Tour as we clamour to discover the secret of Rihanna's progress (or lack there of).
Although touring is always stressful and my decision that she's not worth getting out of bed for is hardly likely to have boosted Rihanna's confidence the main pressure on Rihanna during the family reunion was the breaking of the Charles Saatchi/Nigella Lawson story. If you've not been following the story on Sunday the UK's "Sunday People" newspaper published more than a week old photographs of Charles Saatchi engaged in physical altercation with his wife Nigella Lawson at a London restaurant. In the photographs Saatchi can be seen grabbing Lawson, by the throat, twisting her nose and forcefully placing his hand over her mouth. Lawson was also photographed leaving the restaurant in tears. Although I don't know enough about Saatchi and Lawson's relationship to comment fully the photographs most certainly fit the legal definition of domestic violence and Saatchi has since accepted a police caution after admitting the offence of assault contrary to common law (a misdemeanour).
The Saatchi/Lawson story has obviously provoked a lot of discussion about domestic violence. However the big difference between the incident and Chris Brown's 2009 felony assault on Rihanna is clearly the level of violence used. Also as someone who actually enjoys relationships where both parties periodically hurl insults and plates at each other I along with other commentators have suggested that perhaps this one isolated incident does not tell the full story of Saatchi and Lawson's relationship. After all the photographer might have missed the proceeding moments in which Lawson was hurling abuse at Saatchi and slapping him around the head although this seems less and less likely as more details emerge. Therefore the UK seemed to be bringing up the incident at the G8 as a way to apologise for domestic violence or perhaps argue that the threat posed to Rihanna by Chris Brown could in some way be contained. This 'community contaiment' argument obviously has a huge resonance at the G8 in regard to issues such as Syria, Afghanistan and Mali.
For an extra little bit of drama following the Sunday concert Rihanna attended her brother's debut DJ performance at London's Boujis nightclub which is said to be a favourite of UK Prince Harry. She was accompanied by Cara Delevinge who is said to be an ex-girlfriend of Prince Harry. This was obviously intended to create speculation that Rihanna might meet up with Prince Harry with all the metaphorical implications that involves.
The late additition of Monday's Birmingham concert to the tour schedule was a horrific idea. It was intended to act as a compromise to avoid having Rihanna sitting around in my home town of London doing nothing during the G8 but preventing her from leaving the UK for a less hostile nation such as France or Spain. Due to the travel time between London and Birmingham and the tight schedule between the Boujis appearance and the concert Rihanna arrived on stage over two hours late and gave a distinctly lacklustre performance. Her bad mood was clearly evidenced by the big scandal that emerged from the concert - Rihanna whacking one of her fans on the head with her microphone as she mingled with the audience. Although this has obviously created a lot of tabloid excitement if the police or a Court were to ever get involved they would simply conclude that in a fit of hysteria the fan attempted to unlawfully detain (kidnap) Rihanna by grabbing hold of her. Rihanna then lawfully defended herself by striking the fan to make them let go of her. However I can see no need for either the police or a Court to get involved in an incident so minor I can barely believe I'm talking about it.
Rihanna's mood is unlikely to have been improved when at around 05:00 (GMT) on Tuesday when a 26 year old man was arrested for trespass after climbing onto the roof of her Los Angeles home. Assuming that the arrested man is not known to Rihanna's security team for doing things like sending her marriage proposals written in his own blood or accusing her of being an impostor who has murdered the real Rihanna in order to take her place I think this is someone in the local community gently mocking Rihanna for her support of my troublesome neighbours. You see one of the things that have boosted their confidence recently is that they think they're great friends with Rihanna helping to supply her with information about what I'm up to. It would of course be a lot easier for Rihanna to simply pick up the phone and talk to me directly especially when she's getting calls from her security people telling her someones just been arrested at her house.
16:25 on 19/6/13.
Tuesday 18 June 2013
The Ian Brady Mental Health Tribunal.
For those of you who don't know sometimes known as "The Moors Murderer" Ian Brady is one of the UK's most infamous serial killers having killed five children along with his accomplice Myra Hindley in the Greater Manchester area between 1963 and 1965. Having been declared criminally insane in 1985 he is currently locked up in Ashworth psychiatric hospital in Liverpool under the care of South West London Mental Health (SWLMHS) Services who share a board member (Gill Golding) with the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) who own 50 Beechwood Avenue. As a result Brady is frequently brought out in public as a way to libel me and other wise damage my reputation.
The latest effort in this saga was the resumption of Brady's mental health tribunal which began on Monday (17/6/13). This tribunal actually began in July 2012 just before the London Olympics but was aborted after Brady apparently suffered a 'seizure.' The resumption of the tribunal to coincide with the start of the UK hosted G8 Summit was clearly another attempt to get delegates talking about my mental health with a specific view towards finding out if any of them would support having me detained under the 1983 Mental Health Act in relation to my alleged smashing of the windows at 50 Beechwood Avenue. I'm not going to go into detail about my mental health mainly because the last psychiatric report I read on myself ran to over 50 pages. However I have been a voluntary patient in a residential psychiatric facility, undergone Court mandated forensic psychiatric assessment and have my mental health assessed on a bi-monthly basis. Therefore if I was in anyway as mentally ill as Ian Brady you would expect at least one of the dozens of mental health professionals to have picked up on it over the last nine years or so.
As for Brady himself the exact nature of his mental illness is something of a mystery. In 1985 he was diagnosed as a psychopath however this diagnosis does not exist anymore. Therefore I'm assuming he's had his diagnosis updated to extreme Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) with high psychopathic tendencies. This presents a serious problem for SWLMHS because ASPD is considered to be a non-treatable condition. The 1983 Mental Health Act only allows for the detention for treatable conditions. Therefore Brady's detention by SWLMHS seems unlawful and the mental health tribunal seems to have little option other then to free Brady from SWLMHS' detention and give him leave to claim compensation.
In practical terms this makes very little difference to Ian Brady because if he is released from hospital he will simply be transferred to a prison to serve his whole life term for the five murders. The problem is that Brady is clearly not enjoying his punishment and has been trying to starve himself to death for the past 14 years. His detention under the Mental Health Act places a duty of care on SWLMHS to preserve his life and prevent his suicide even going so far as to force feed him. If he were to be freed from detention under the Mental Health Act (no-one's talking about declaring him sane) and transferred to prison this would become more complicated. Although they often forget about it the prison service has a similar duty of care to ensure the safety and well being of its prisoners but this generally does not extend as far a force feeding someone who is on hunger strike.
This is currently a very contentious issue particularly within the Israel/Palestine conflict and within Guantanamo Bay. Therefore I think Brady's tribunal was timed specifically to put pressure on US President Obama during the G8 Summit.
20:30 on 18/6/13.
The latest effort in this saga was the resumption of Brady's mental health tribunal which began on Monday (17/6/13). This tribunal actually began in July 2012 just before the London Olympics but was aborted after Brady apparently suffered a 'seizure.' The resumption of the tribunal to coincide with the start of the UK hosted G8 Summit was clearly another attempt to get delegates talking about my mental health with a specific view towards finding out if any of them would support having me detained under the 1983 Mental Health Act in relation to my alleged smashing of the windows at 50 Beechwood Avenue. I'm not going to go into detail about my mental health mainly because the last psychiatric report I read on myself ran to over 50 pages. However I have been a voluntary patient in a residential psychiatric facility, undergone Court mandated forensic psychiatric assessment and have my mental health assessed on a bi-monthly basis. Therefore if I was in anyway as mentally ill as Ian Brady you would expect at least one of the dozens of mental health professionals to have picked up on it over the last nine years or so.
As for Brady himself the exact nature of his mental illness is something of a mystery. In 1985 he was diagnosed as a psychopath however this diagnosis does not exist anymore. Therefore I'm assuming he's had his diagnosis updated to extreme Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) with high psychopathic tendencies. This presents a serious problem for SWLMHS because ASPD is considered to be a non-treatable condition. The 1983 Mental Health Act only allows for the detention for treatable conditions. Therefore Brady's detention by SWLMHS seems unlawful and the mental health tribunal seems to have little option other then to free Brady from SWLMHS' detention and give him leave to claim compensation.
In practical terms this makes very little difference to Ian Brady because if he is released from hospital he will simply be transferred to a prison to serve his whole life term for the five murders. The problem is that Brady is clearly not enjoying his punishment and has been trying to starve himself to death for the past 14 years. His detention under the Mental Health Act places a duty of care on SWLMHS to preserve his life and prevent his suicide even going so far as to force feed him. If he were to be freed from detention under the Mental Health Act (no-one's talking about declaring him sane) and transferred to prison this would become more complicated. Although they often forget about it the prison service has a similar duty of care to ensure the safety and well being of its prisoners but this generally does not extend as far a force feeding someone who is on hunger strike.
This is currently a very contentious issue particularly within the Israel/Palestine conflict and within Guantanamo Bay. Therefore I think Brady's tribunal was timed specifically to put pressure on US President Obama during the G8 Summit.
20:30 on 18/6/13.
Saturday 15 June 2013
My Stuff Has Arrived.
For Christmas 2012 I got an Amazon gift voucher. On Thursday (13/6/13) I finally got around to using it. Today I'm pleased to announce that by having each item delivered individually all four items have arrived un-stolen. If you're really that interested I brought;
The eighth and final season of House M.D meaning that I now have the full set.
A Pink Floyd greatest hits album called I think "A Foot in the Door." As sort of a genre defining band no music collection is really complete without a bit of Pink Floyd. It's also a great opportunity to remind everyone that I'm part of a very small group of people who've actually seen Pink Floyd live. Having only a limited idea of who they were I saw them at the 2005 Live 8 concert. I believe the official story is that Pink Floyd reformed because Bob Geldof refused to get off a train at East Croydon.
Ani Difranco's "Out of Range" album. Ani DiFranco is probably one of the most infuriatingly talented people to ever walk this earth so it only right I finally give her some money especially as it's actually someone elses money. Also I've had the song "You Had Time" stuck in my head for about four months now. Mind you having listened to it again the title track is also pretty appropriate.
Finally I brought a copy of a Canadian film called "Lost and Delirious." This is a film about teenage lesbians in a boarding school. However I caught a little bit of it on one of the cable channels a few weeks ago and it really reminds me of someone very specific. It is also from the same era as "Firefly." So much like Firefly I think I need to take more an interest in it then is probably healthy while I work out whether it's coincidence or conspiracy. My gut instinct says coincidence but don't be waiting with baited breath for a definitive answer.
Also as we enter the final few hours before the official start of the G8 Summit we once again seem to have got back into a discussion of Rihanna's menstrual cycle. Given that avoiding this topic was a large part of the reason for keeping Rihanna and Chris Brown separate during the tour break this strikes me as somewhat unnecessary. Mind you I will agree that it Rihanna is suddenly capable of virgin birth that would be news worthy.
Finally it has been announced today that the UK's London Metropolitan Police will be taking over the investigation of the Madeline McCann case. This is obviously a reference to my case because the High Court Judge who ruled that Madeline McCann is still alive was the same High Court Judge who gave the final ruling in my grandmother's case. I have no problem with the Metropolitan Police taking over the investigation providing that there is independent supervision ideally carried out by me. That's because under the Rome Statute the obligation for UK authorities to hand the case over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is if they find themselves unwilling or unable to prosecute. Therefore fudging the investigation and then saying there is nothing that can be done is simply not an option. Not least because I alone have the evidence to convict the occupants of 50 Beechwood of public nuisance which is more than enough to bring about their eviction.
15:20 on 15/6/13.
Edited at around 19:10 on 15/6/13 to add;
Much to the chagrin of the listening station with my father out I've spent most of the afternoon watching a more classical - Royal Opera House - production of Carmen. With subtitles. At a bum-numbing two and a half hours you can see why BBC Three's recent one hour adaptation was a little bit thin. The full version is actually much more sympathetic to the Carmen/Rihanna character and it seemed appropriate. After all I'd forgotten all about the stuff about smuggling contraband past border guards.
Anyway my father's back now. The fact the national network moved him out of the way to give me a peaceful afternoon while the local network didn't seem to get the message does seem to say something about the pecking order doesn't it. Unless of course it's an elaborate bluff. The police still haven't responded to my Tweet so I may email them with the photographs tomorrow. After all failure to act after being presented with prima fascia evidence of an offence does rather demonstrate an unwillingness doesn't it.
The eighth and final season of House M.D meaning that I now have the full set.
A Pink Floyd greatest hits album called I think "A Foot in the Door." As sort of a genre defining band no music collection is really complete without a bit of Pink Floyd. It's also a great opportunity to remind everyone that I'm part of a very small group of people who've actually seen Pink Floyd live. Having only a limited idea of who they were I saw them at the 2005 Live 8 concert. I believe the official story is that Pink Floyd reformed because Bob Geldof refused to get off a train at East Croydon.
Ani Difranco's "Out of Range" album. Ani DiFranco is probably one of the most infuriatingly talented people to ever walk this earth so it only right I finally give her some money especially as it's actually someone elses money. Also I've had the song "You Had Time" stuck in my head for about four months now. Mind you having listened to it again the title track is also pretty appropriate.
Finally I brought a copy of a Canadian film called "Lost and Delirious." This is a film about teenage lesbians in a boarding school. However I caught a little bit of it on one of the cable channels a few weeks ago and it really reminds me of someone very specific. It is also from the same era as "Firefly." So much like Firefly I think I need to take more an interest in it then is probably healthy while I work out whether it's coincidence or conspiracy. My gut instinct says coincidence but don't be waiting with baited breath for a definitive answer.
Also as we enter the final few hours before the official start of the G8 Summit we once again seem to have got back into a discussion of Rihanna's menstrual cycle. Given that avoiding this topic was a large part of the reason for keeping Rihanna and Chris Brown separate during the tour break this strikes me as somewhat unnecessary. Mind you I will agree that it Rihanna is suddenly capable of virgin birth that would be news worthy.
Finally it has been announced today that the UK's London Metropolitan Police will be taking over the investigation of the Madeline McCann case. This is obviously a reference to my case because the High Court Judge who ruled that Madeline McCann is still alive was the same High Court Judge who gave the final ruling in my grandmother's case. I have no problem with the Metropolitan Police taking over the investigation providing that there is independent supervision ideally carried out by me. That's because under the Rome Statute the obligation for UK authorities to hand the case over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is if they find themselves unwilling or unable to prosecute. Therefore fudging the investigation and then saying there is nothing that can be done is simply not an option. Not least because I alone have the evidence to convict the occupants of 50 Beechwood of public nuisance which is more than enough to bring about their eviction.
15:20 on 15/6/13.
Edited at around 19:10 on 15/6/13 to add;
Much to the chagrin of the listening station with my father out I've spent most of the afternoon watching a more classical - Royal Opera House - production of Carmen. With subtitles. At a bum-numbing two and a half hours you can see why BBC Three's recent one hour adaptation was a little bit thin. The full version is actually much more sympathetic to the Carmen/Rihanna character and it seemed appropriate. After all I'd forgotten all about the stuff about smuggling contraband past border guards.
Anyway my father's back now. The fact the national network moved him out of the way to give me a peaceful afternoon while the local network didn't seem to get the message does seem to say something about the pecking order doesn't it. Unless of course it's an elaborate bluff. The police still haven't responded to my Tweet so I may email them with the photographs tomorrow. After all failure to act after being presented with prima fascia evidence of an offence does rather demonstrate an unwillingness doesn't it.
Friday 14 June 2013
Operation Misery: Month 4, Week 1, Day 7.
Since my last post on the subject Rihanna has performed two more concerts in Manchester, UK. Although I've not checked I suspect both of these were the standard five act concert with standard set and costume changes used. The only controversy is that for Rihanna's UK shows she is scheduled to appear on stage at 20:30 (local). This strikes me as a condition of the venues license but is far too early in the evening. Therefore Rihanna only actually appears on stage at around 21:30 - 21:45 (local). This shouldn't be a problem as long as the concert has ended and the venue is cleared by 01:00 (local) otherwise people are going to start incurring fines.
The only big political thing is that on her way to the venue yesterday (13/6/13) Rihanna made sure she was photographed wearing a T-Shirt promoting the 1994 film "Natural Born Killers" and the golden 'Amistad' neck chain that Chris Brown gave to her. If you're not familiar with the film Natural Born Killers it's a very controversial piece that tells the story of two abuse victims who form a highly destructive romantic relationship and embark on a killing spree only to be celebrated by the media. Along with Romeo and Juliet and James Dean and Marilyn Monroe this is another example of a fictional doomed love affair that Chris Brown and Rihanna like to compare their relationship to. Therefore this little photo-opportunity was clearly an attempt to promote discussion about Rihanna and Chris Brown's relationship with a view to raise speculation that Chris Brown could join Rihanna on tour ahead of the G8 Summit.
The US quickly followed this up with a story about a private jet crashing into a hanger at Chino Airport in Los Angeles. Obviously this can be interpreted in a number of ways. However the fact that the aircraft was undergoing an engine test at the time of the crash is supposed to indicate that the CIA handlers are assessing whether the Chris Brown operation is still viable and beginning the err on the side of thinking its not. Primarily though this was intended to promote discussion of the issue at the G8 Summit.
This didn't stop the UK joining in by announcing that it has informed airlines across the world not to attempt to bring PRISM leaker Edward Snowdon into the UK. That is intended to be interpreted as the UK saying that Chris Brown will not be welcome to join Rihanna in the UK. Obviously they're lying by saying this very publicly while privately urging the US to continue. The intention is to see which other European Union (EU) nations will follow suit by calling for a similar ban on Edward Snowdon/Chris Brown. It must be said though that it really highlights the problems with the operation when the people who are set to gain the most from it feel the need to question its viability.
15:30 on 14/6/13.
The only big political thing is that on her way to the venue yesterday (13/6/13) Rihanna made sure she was photographed wearing a T-Shirt promoting the 1994 film "Natural Born Killers" and the golden 'Amistad' neck chain that Chris Brown gave to her. If you're not familiar with the film Natural Born Killers it's a very controversial piece that tells the story of two abuse victims who form a highly destructive romantic relationship and embark on a killing spree only to be celebrated by the media. Along with Romeo and Juliet and James Dean and Marilyn Monroe this is another example of a fictional doomed love affair that Chris Brown and Rihanna like to compare their relationship to. Therefore this little photo-opportunity was clearly an attempt to promote discussion about Rihanna and Chris Brown's relationship with a view to raise speculation that Chris Brown could join Rihanna on tour ahead of the G8 Summit.
The US quickly followed this up with a story about a private jet crashing into a hanger at Chino Airport in Los Angeles. Obviously this can be interpreted in a number of ways. However the fact that the aircraft was undergoing an engine test at the time of the crash is supposed to indicate that the CIA handlers are assessing whether the Chris Brown operation is still viable and beginning the err on the side of thinking its not. Primarily though this was intended to promote discussion of the issue at the G8 Summit.
This didn't stop the UK joining in by announcing that it has informed airlines across the world not to attempt to bring PRISM leaker Edward Snowdon into the UK. That is intended to be interpreted as the UK saying that Chris Brown will not be welcome to join Rihanna in the UK. Obviously they're lying by saying this very publicly while privately urging the US to continue. The intention is to see which other European Union (EU) nations will follow suit by calling for a similar ban on Edward Snowdon/Chris Brown. It must be said though that it really highlights the problems with the operation when the people who are set to gain the most from it feel the need to question its viability.
15:30 on 14/6/13.
Tuesday 11 June 2013
Operation Misery: Month 4, Week 1, Day 4.
Sitting in a police cell gives you plenty of time to think about what brought you to that point and I don't mean a police van. So as you may have noticed I've decided that I won't be writing up reviews of every concert on the European leg of Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour. That's because I think that it is only through me that Rihanna is considered politically relevant. Therefore me writing constant reviews only adds to the tension and makes the situation worse. I will though continue to be keeping an eye on what is going on and will address any political issues. In the meantime if you want to read a cheeky review of Rihanna's Cardiff concert last night (10/6/13) one can be found here; http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/music-review-rihannas-xrated-millennium-stadium-show-fails-to-hit-the-thigh-notes-8653333.html
Yesterday though was a politically important day of Rihanna's tour because it saw Chris Brown return to a Los Angeles Courtroom for another hearing relating to his multitude of parole violations mainly his failure to complete his original sentence of community service imposed following the 2009 assault on Rihanna. As always details of Chris Brown's Court appearances are hard to come by. However I gather that Judge Gluber simply granted another continuance in the case until 14:00 (local) on July 15th 2013 (15/7/13) - the date on which Rihanna will be back in the UK performing a concert in Manchester. Judge Gluber also seemed to lay down something of a challenge to the prosecution by giving them until today to indicate whether they wish to continue the case. I suspect that they will because they have announced they are continuing to investigate the fight between Chris Brown and Frank Ocean as a probation violation if not a public order offence. Also as far as I can tell Chris Brown has not complied with a Court order requiring him to remove the excessive signage from outside his Los Angeles home which puts him in contempt of court. This is a clear probation violation and actually quite a serious criminal offence in its own right.
Sadly it is also quite clear that Chris Brown's handlers have still not come to terms with the fact that their operation has failed and seem intent pressing ahead regardless. Apart from the continuance being granted until a date on which Rihanna will once again be in the UK Chris Brown's latest Court appearance coincided with the start of the trial of George Zimmerman over the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin. The intention obviously being that people would start looking very deeply into the complex and completely unrelated Zimmerman trial for clues as to what was going on in the Chris Brown case.
Just as the Chris Brown hearing was taking place a Southwest airlines flight from Los Angeles to Houston was dramatically diverted to Phoenix. The idea of course was to create speculation that the handlers had accepted that their plan had been somewhat diverted and could be lifting their protection of Chris Brown. People would then listen very intently to the Southwest airlines story looking for clues that weren't there. This was met with short shrift from the Japanese who responded by diverting a Boeing 787 Dreamliner flight after it developed a problem with its de-icing system. Although this is just Japan giving their US allies a friendly warning that it's really time for them to give up on the Chris Brown operation sadly I think the handlers will find a way to use this to convince themselves that the operation must still be viable because people are still responding.
On the plus side both the Southwest diversion and today's similar incident involving Richmond International Airport in Virginia have been put down to hoax phone calls. This gives the impression that the handlers are at least discussing whether my assessment that the operation has failed is genuine or not. Also much of the discussion about the PRISM leaker Edward Snowden has turned into a discussion about how one man can destroy the efforts of so many people which seems an apt metaphor for my role in the Chris Brown operation. So once again I guess we will have to wait and see what happens on July 15th. Of course I might actually be in prison by that point but do you know what - not even that is going to get the Chris Brown operation back on track.
Also to demonstrate how far removed I am from the anti-G8/anti-Capitalist protests that are currently going on in central London I first heard about them on the news about two hours after they started. I then proceeded to go shopping in Croydon to buy a replacement electric razor and a second hand Blackberry Bold 9780 because the operating system on my Storm is now seriously out of date and I might have ever so slightly broken part of the touchscreen.
16:50 on 11/6/13.
Yesterday though was a politically important day of Rihanna's tour because it saw Chris Brown return to a Los Angeles Courtroom for another hearing relating to his multitude of parole violations mainly his failure to complete his original sentence of community service imposed following the 2009 assault on Rihanna. As always details of Chris Brown's Court appearances are hard to come by. However I gather that Judge Gluber simply granted another continuance in the case until 14:00 (local) on July 15th 2013 (15/7/13) - the date on which Rihanna will be back in the UK performing a concert in Manchester. Judge Gluber also seemed to lay down something of a challenge to the prosecution by giving them until today to indicate whether they wish to continue the case. I suspect that they will because they have announced they are continuing to investigate the fight between Chris Brown and Frank Ocean as a probation violation if not a public order offence. Also as far as I can tell Chris Brown has not complied with a Court order requiring him to remove the excessive signage from outside his Los Angeles home which puts him in contempt of court. This is a clear probation violation and actually quite a serious criminal offence in its own right.
Sadly it is also quite clear that Chris Brown's handlers have still not come to terms with the fact that their operation has failed and seem intent pressing ahead regardless. Apart from the continuance being granted until a date on which Rihanna will once again be in the UK Chris Brown's latest Court appearance coincided with the start of the trial of George Zimmerman over the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin. The intention obviously being that people would start looking very deeply into the complex and completely unrelated Zimmerman trial for clues as to what was going on in the Chris Brown case.
Just as the Chris Brown hearing was taking place a Southwest airlines flight from Los Angeles to Houston was dramatically diverted to Phoenix. The idea of course was to create speculation that the handlers had accepted that their plan had been somewhat diverted and could be lifting their protection of Chris Brown. People would then listen very intently to the Southwest airlines story looking for clues that weren't there. This was met with short shrift from the Japanese who responded by diverting a Boeing 787 Dreamliner flight after it developed a problem with its de-icing system. Although this is just Japan giving their US allies a friendly warning that it's really time for them to give up on the Chris Brown operation sadly I think the handlers will find a way to use this to convince themselves that the operation must still be viable because people are still responding.
On the plus side both the Southwest diversion and today's similar incident involving Richmond International Airport in Virginia have been put down to hoax phone calls. This gives the impression that the handlers are at least discussing whether my assessment that the operation has failed is genuine or not. Also much of the discussion about the PRISM leaker Edward Snowden has turned into a discussion about how one man can destroy the efforts of so many people which seems an apt metaphor for my role in the Chris Brown operation. So once again I guess we will have to wait and see what happens on July 15th. Of course I might actually be in prison by that point but do you know what - not even that is going to get the Chris Brown operation back on track.
Also to demonstrate how far removed I am from the anti-G8/anti-Capitalist protests that are currently going on in central London I first heard about them on the news about two hours after they started. I then proceeded to go shopping in Croydon to buy a replacement electric razor and a second hand Blackberry Bold 9780 because the operating system on my Storm is now seriously out of date and I might have ever so slightly broken part of the touchscreen.
16:50 on 11/6/13.
Sunday 9 June 2013
Operation Misery: Month 4, Week 1, Day 2.
While I've been off doing my own thing Rihanna has continued with the European leg of her Diamonds World Tour largely free from the fire and fury of international diplomacy. Frankly it's almost as if everyone has had something more exciting to talk about. On Monday (10/6/13) Rihanna kicks off the UK/G8 leg of the tour in Cardiff, Wales, UK. As Rihanna has not been in contact to make an appointment I will not be joining up with her during this portion of the tour. On one level this is great news because at this point I wouldn't know where to begin. On another this is a huge disappointment because I feel I've earned the right to try and drink the lot of them under the table.
Politically Monday will be a very important day because it also sees Chris Brown return to a Los Angeles Court room to hear Judge Gluber's assessment of the mysterious sealed envelope of evidence that was presented to him at the previous hearing on April 5th (5/4/13). As I've explained many times before unless this new evidence has been able to explain how Chris Brown was able to be completing community service in West Virginia while at the same time appearing in front of hundreds of witnesses in California Judge Gluber has no option other than to indict Chris Brown on multiple felony counts including perverting the course of justice, fraud, bribing public officials and the original 2009 assault on Rihanna. Sadly all the indications are that this will not happen and the CIA will continue to protect Chris Brown because they still view their operation to be viable. Therefore I think the best we can hope for is a further continuance of the case.
To me this seems to be a horrific mistake because all the available information indicates that the Chris Brown operation has already failed. Therefore continuing will at best damage the US' reputation and standing in the world. At worst it will allow the US' rivals to gain a greater insight into how the US' intelligence agencies operate.
Take as an example Rihanna's recent visit to Turkey. On May 30th Rihanna sailed into Istanbul aboard a yacht. This was intended to promote discussion about whether Rihanna's tour equipment will be flown to future far away concerts such as South Africa at great expense or whether they will be using the cheaper option of putting them aboard a container ship. Unfortunately just as Rihanna was arriving in Turkey waves of violent protest and rioting broke out across the country meaning that no-one was talking about Rihanna. Instead what they were talking about were all the other social pressures and triggers that lead to widespread rioting and popular uprisings. This helped to thoroughly dispel the myth that Rihanna was in some way responsible for the UK's August 2011 riots and the so-called 'Arab Spring.' This myth is of course the justification the CIA has been using for trying to destroy Rihanna by sending her off on this idiotic tour and forcing her into an abusive and destructive relationship with Chris Brown.
The US though should be far more worried by the reaction from China who they perceive to be their main rivals. In the past week China agreed to allow Rihanna to perform in the country on September 13 2013 (13/9/13). On the face of it this would give the impression that the Chinese are so confused by what is going on with Rihanna and Chris Brown that they feel the need to have her in their country so they can inspect her close up. This would obviously encourage the US to carry on with the operation by making them think it is being successful. However if you look more closely the concert is set to take place in Macau which has long had a reputation as a gamblers paradise. Therefore the message from the Chinese to the US seems to be; "Feel free to go ahead with the Rihanna operation. If you feel lucky."
The news of Rihanna's Macau concert was followed up by a fire on a bus in Xiamen, Fujian that killed 47 people. This came just as the US were forcing us all to guess if Rihanna's tour caravan had been able to successfully cross the border between Belgium and France. The news that a bus was on fire was intended to be interpreted as a further sign of panic from China over the Rihanna operation in order to encourage the US to continue. However this could also be interpreted as a sign of friendship with China gently warning the US that the plan was in ruins so they'd be best advised to stop. This was of course disguised with lots of talk about arson which is an element of my legal exploits and the news that the lead suspect Chen Shuizong carried out the attack in order to vent his anger against society about his unhappy life which touches on the whole gun control debate that has been raging between the US and China for more than a year now. By comparison the US' response - the mass shooting in Santa Monica which targeted a bus amongst other things - just made the US look sad and weak although they were trying so hard to be tough and strong.
As for Rihanna herself with the Berdon LLP case ongoing and the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) audit hanging over her head it is really not my place to speak for her. However what I've seen recently I think I speak for us all when I say; "We'd be much happier if at least the restraining order was re-instated on Monday."
Well that was rubbish. I'm clearly out of pratice and the beer for lunch probably didn't help.
14:35 on 9/6/13.
Edited at around 19:35 on 9/6/13 to add;
It seems an appropriate time to mention that if you took my commenting on Rihanna's attendance at the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix as evidence of my obsession with Rihanna you would have been wrong. Once we'd not only been shown footage of Rihanna eating her lunch but also slow motion action replays of Rihanna eating her lunch we decided that the race broadcaster had really run out of things to show.
So no the 2013 Canadian Grand Prix wasn't the most boring race ever. In fact that little tussle between Hamilton and Alonso for second place in the final laps almost bordered on the exciting. It does highlight the problem with DRS though. In the old days a situation like that would have led to lap after lap of tense drama while we all tried to work out if the guy behind would be able to over take. These days it's just a question of when they'll be able to overtake.
Politically Monday will be a very important day because it also sees Chris Brown return to a Los Angeles Court room to hear Judge Gluber's assessment of the mysterious sealed envelope of evidence that was presented to him at the previous hearing on April 5th (5/4/13). As I've explained many times before unless this new evidence has been able to explain how Chris Brown was able to be completing community service in West Virginia while at the same time appearing in front of hundreds of witnesses in California Judge Gluber has no option other than to indict Chris Brown on multiple felony counts including perverting the course of justice, fraud, bribing public officials and the original 2009 assault on Rihanna. Sadly all the indications are that this will not happen and the CIA will continue to protect Chris Brown because they still view their operation to be viable. Therefore I think the best we can hope for is a further continuance of the case.
To me this seems to be a horrific mistake because all the available information indicates that the Chris Brown operation has already failed. Therefore continuing will at best damage the US' reputation and standing in the world. At worst it will allow the US' rivals to gain a greater insight into how the US' intelligence agencies operate.
Take as an example Rihanna's recent visit to Turkey. On May 30th Rihanna sailed into Istanbul aboard a yacht. This was intended to promote discussion about whether Rihanna's tour equipment will be flown to future far away concerts such as South Africa at great expense or whether they will be using the cheaper option of putting them aboard a container ship. Unfortunately just as Rihanna was arriving in Turkey waves of violent protest and rioting broke out across the country meaning that no-one was talking about Rihanna. Instead what they were talking about were all the other social pressures and triggers that lead to widespread rioting and popular uprisings. This helped to thoroughly dispel the myth that Rihanna was in some way responsible for the UK's August 2011 riots and the so-called 'Arab Spring.' This myth is of course the justification the CIA has been using for trying to destroy Rihanna by sending her off on this idiotic tour and forcing her into an abusive and destructive relationship with Chris Brown.
The US though should be far more worried by the reaction from China who they perceive to be their main rivals. In the past week China agreed to allow Rihanna to perform in the country on September 13 2013 (13/9/13). On the face of it this would give the impression that the Chinese are so confused by what is going on with Rihanna and Chris Brown that they feel the need to have her in their country so they can inspect her close up. This would obviously encourage the US to carry on with the operation by making them think it is being successful. However if you look more closely the concert is set to take place in Macau which has long had a reputation as a gamblers paradise. Therefore the message from the Chinese to the US seems to be; "Feel free to go ahead with the Rihanna operation. If you feel lucky."
The news of Rihanna's Macau concert was followed up by a fire on a bus in Xiamen, Fujian that killed 47 people. This came just as the US were forcing us all to guess if Rihanna's tour caravan had been able to successfully cross the border between Belgium and France. The news that a bus was on fire was intended to be interpreted as a further sign of panic from China over the Rihanna operation in order to encourage the US to continue. However this could also be interpreted as a sign of friendship with China gently warning the US that the plan was in ruins so they'd be best advised to stop. This was of course disguised with lots of talk about arson which is an element of my legal exploits and the news that the lead suspect Chen Shuizong carried out the attack in order to vent his anger against society about his unhappy life which touches on the whole gun control debate that has been raging between the US and China for more than a year now. By comparison the US' response - the mass shooting in Santa Monica which targeted a bus amongst other things - just made the US look sad and weak although they were trying so hard to be tough and strong.
As for Rihanna herself with the Berdon LLP case ongoing and the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) audit hanging over her head it is really not my place to speak for her. However what I've seen recently I think I speak for us all when I say; "We'd be much happier if at least the restraining order was re-instated on Monday."
Well that was rubbish. I'm clearly out of pratice and the beer for lunch probably didn't help.
14:35 on 9/6/13.
Edited at around 19:35 on 9/6/13 to add;
It seems an appropriate time to mention that if you took my commenting on Rihanna's attendance at the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix as evidence of my obsession with Rihanna you would have been wrong. Once we'd not only been shown footage of Rihanna eating her lunch but also slow motion action replays of Rihanna eating her lunch we decided that the race broadcaster had really run out of things to show.
So no the 2013 Canadian Grand Prix wasn't the most boring race ever. In fact that little tussle between Hamilton and Alonso for second place in the final laps almost bordered on the exciting. It does highlight the problem with DRS though. In the old days a situation like that would have led to lap after lap of tense drama while we all tried to work out if the guy behind would be able to over take. These days it's just a question of when they'll be able to overtake.
Thursday 6 June 2013
The UK to Pay Compensation Over Mau Mau Rebellion.
Yesterday (5/6/13) the UK announced it will pay compensation to members of the Kikuyu dominated Mau Mau group who suffered torture and other inhumane treatment at the hands of the British Army in Kenya during the 1952 - 1960 Mau Mau rebellion. For reasons that are best accepted rather than questioned I have long used the term "Mau Mau" as a coded way to refer to any female homosexual or lesbian. Therefore this announcement is intended to promote discussion about what level of compensation I will receive for my recent treatment.
Sadly I'm yet to be convinced that the UK is having this negotiation in good faith because as far as I can tell they have not yet accepted that in my case people will have to serve long prison sentences. For example given the law on attempted murder and Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) I cannot envisage a scenario in which the doctor who prescribed my grandmother Buprenorphine and continued to prescribe it despite repeated warnings of the effect it was having will ever leave prison.
As for the level of compensation though. I've effectively had 10 years of my life stolen. In that time I've been subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment including at least one attempt to kill. I've witnessed close friends and family being subjected to similar treatment including one who died as a result of that treatment. I have suffered irreversible physical and psychological damage. So you tell me what an acceptable figure is?
Fortunately it goes without saying that both the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) and the Whitgift Foundation will have to forfeit their assets as the proceeds of crime so the compensation pool will be very large. The minimum acceptable will be the honouring of my fees schedule for acting in both Croydon Magistrates Court and the Court of Protection. After all I'm sure certain people will find it easier to accept the limits of their pay grade if mine was adjusted to better reflect the reality of the situation.
10:40 on 6/6/13.
Edited at around 09:10 on 7/6/13 to add;
The essence of a good code is that it doesn't make much sense to an outsider. Therefore I honestly can't explain how "Mau Mau" came to mean "Lesbian." However I think it started life as a stoned joke about someone being a pussy master and someone who named their cat "Chairman Miaow" in honour of famed Chinese Communist leader Chairman Mao. Anyway the point of why we use a code word is that although my friends and I couldn't be more relaxed about homosexuality we accept that there are people who do not share our views. So if we're trying to differentiate between two people of the same name - one gay, one straight - we would use the code word to identify the gay one without letting everyone else in the room know they are gay. Therefore it's very much a term of endearment.
Also yesterday UK Prince Phillip was admitted to hospital for exploratory surgery on his abdomen. At this point I very much doubt anything Buckingham Palace claim is happening is actually happening. However as it is claimed the Prince will undergo surgery under general anaesthetic this has prompted much talk about the dangers of general anaesthetic. When a doctor says that he will "Put you to sleep for your surgery" he is telling a little white lie. What he will actually do is slow your body to the point of death and then hold you there for the duration of the surgery. Obviously this is not without risk and those risks increase with the age of the patient. However as with pretty much everything else in medicine it is a risk/benefit judgement.
This risk of general anaesthetic was one of the reasons my grandmother was denied hip-replacement surgery in the two years ending in 2008. This of course forced her to spend two years walking around on a broken and dislocated hip the physical pain of which should have killed her. As my grandmother went on to live for another four years following that surgery it is reasonable to conclude that the person who decided it was too risky got that judgement call very much wrong. You will also note that there were no such concerns when it came to prescribing my grandmother Buprenorphine which is similar in strength to a surgical anaesthetic.
Sadly I'm yet to be convinced that the UK is having this negotiation in good faith because as far as I can tell they have not yet accepted that in my case people will have to serve long prison sentences. For example given the law on attempted murder and Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) I cannot envisage a scenario in which the doctor who prescribed my grandmother Buprenorphine and continued to prescribe it despite repeated warnings of the effect it was having will ever leave prison.
As for the level of compensation though. I've effectively had 10 years of my life stolen. In that time I've been subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment including at least one attempt to kill. I've witnessed close friends and family being subjected to similar treatment including one who died as a result of that treatment. I have suffered irreversible physical and psychological damage. So you tell me what an acceptable figure is?
Fortunately it goes without saying that both the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) and the Whitgift Foundation will have to forfeit their assets as the proceeds of crime so the compensation pool will be very large. The minimum acceptable will be the honouring of my fees schedule for acting in both Croydon Magistrates Court and the Court of Protection. After all I'm sure certain people will find it easier to accept the limits of their pay grade if mine was adjusted to better reflect the reality of the situation.
10:40 on 6/6/13.
Edited at around 09:10 on 7/6/13 to add;
The essence of a good code is that it doesn't make much sense to an outsider. Therefore I honestly can't explain how "Mau Mau" came to mean "Lesbian." However I think it started life as a stoned joke about someone being a pussy master and someone who named their cat "Chairman Miaow" in honour of famed Chinese Communist leader Chairman Mao. Anyway the point of why we use a code word is that although my friends and I couldn't be more relaxed about homosexuality we accept that there are people who do not share our views. So if we're trying to differentiate between two people of the same name - one gay, one straight - we would use the code word to identify the gay one without letting everyone else in the room know they are gay. Therefore it's very much a term of endearment.
Also yesterday UK Prince Phillip was admitted to hospital for exploratory surgery on his abdomen. At this point I very much doubt anything Buckingham Palace claim is happening is actually happening. However as it is claimed the Prince will undergo surgery under general anaesthetic this has prompted much talk about the dangers of general anaesthetic. When a doctor says that he will "Put you to sleep for your surgery" he is telling a little white lie. What he will actually do is slow your body to the point of death and then hold you there for the duration of the surgery. Obviously this is not without risk and those risks increase with the age of the patient. However as with pretty much everything else in medicine it is a risk/benefit judgement.
This risk of general anaesthetic was one of the reasons my grandmother was denied hip-replacement surgery in the two years ending in 2008. This of course forced her to spend two years walking around on a broken and dislocated hip the physical pain of which should have killed her. As my grandmother went on to live for another four years following that surgery it is reasonable to conclude that the person who decided it was too risky got that judgement call very much wrong. You will also note that there were no such concerns when it came to prescribing my grandmother Buprenorphine which is similar in strength to a surgical anaesthetic.
Monday 3 June 2013
Pre-Charge DNA Swabbing in the US.
Today the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has ruled by a margin of 5-4 that it is lawful for police to compel DNA samples from felony suspects after they've been arrested but before they have been charged or convicted. I think this is just something that has been an issue within the US legal system for a long time now.
On one hand if you have someone accused of rape a sample of their DNA will quickly prove whether they have engaged in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim or not. Therefore allowing the police to compel DNA samples from arrested suspects will help speed up the criminal justice system which is good for both victims and those who have been wrongly accused. On the other hand the - I think - 5th amendment protects someone against self-incrimination. However this was written a very long time before DNA testing became possible and was only really intended to guarantee the right to silence on interview. DNA sampling seems to me to be just another one of the searches that the police are allowed to carry out having proved there is probable cause to make an arrest. It is actually standard practice here in the UK and my DNA has been in the police system for a good ten years. The real issue of course is what happens to the DNA samples of people who then go on to be proven innocent?
The only possible connection I can see with my current legal travails is that the Officer In Charge (OIC) of the case is arguing that it was necessary to bail me in order to carry out forensic examination of the hammer. This is of course nonsense because I freely admitted at interview that the hammer was my possession and will therefore be legitimately covered in my fingerprints and possibly DNA. Even if it is found not to contain fingerprints or DNA other than mine it also does not prove that no-one else had handled it. After all it didn't magically float to the police station. Also forensic evidence proves that a physical act has occurred it does not prove a crime has been committed. Finally in the UK fingerprint and DNA testing takes around 7-10 days depending on case load. I've been bailed for in excess of 30 days.
As for the news that the US Attorney General Eric Holder is under investigation that is definitely a hint. After all the UK Attorney General Dominic Grieve should have already been in contact with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to inform them that he is aware of the case. The CPS in turn should have already been in contact with the OIC to inform him that there is no case to answer.
16:15 on 3/6/13.
On one hand if you have someone accused of rape a sample of their DNA will quickly prove whether they have engaged in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim or not. Therefore allowing the police to compel DNA samples from arrested suspects will help speed up the criminal justice system which is good for both victims and those who have been wrongly accused. On the other hand the - I think - 5th amendment protects someone against self-incrimination. However this was written a very long time before DNA testing became possible and was only really intended to guarantee the right to silence on interview. DNA sampling seems to me to be just another one of the searches that the police are allowed to carry out having proved there is probable cause to make an arrest. It is actually standard practice here in the UK and my DNA has been in the police system for a good ten years. The real issue of course is what happens to the DNA samples of people who then go on to be proven innocent?
The only possible connection I can see with my current legal travails is that the Officer In Charge (OIC) of the case is arguing that it was necessary to bail me in order to carry out forensic examination of the hammer. This is of course nonsense because I freely admitted at interview that the hammer was my possession and will therefore be legitimately covered in my fingerprints and possibly DNA. Even if it is found not to contain fingerprints or DNA other than mine it also does not prove that no-one else had handled it. After all it didn't magically float to the police station. Also forensic evidence proves that a physical act has occurred it does not prove a crime has been committed. Finally in the UK fingerprint and DNA testing takes around 7-10 days depending on case load. I've been bailed for in excess of 30 days.
As for the news that the US Attorney General Eric Holder is under investigation that is definitely a hint. After all the UK Attorney General Dominic Grieve should have already been in contact with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to inform them that he is aware of the case. The CPS in turn should have already been in contact with the OIC to inform him that there is no case to answer.
16:15 on 3/6/13.
Sunday 2 June 2013
The Mercer/Lobbying Scandal
As I've mentioned on Twitter on Friday (31/5/13) UK Member of the House Commons Patrick Mercer MP resigned from the Conservative Party after the BBC Panorama program and the Telegraph newspaper exposed him taking cash from lobbyists to raise questions in the House. The prospect of a low-ranking, back-bench Conservative MP resigning from the party obviously raises a lot of the issues about splits within that party over the European Union (EU). However in the secretly recorded video Mercer bears more than a passing resemblance to both David White the solicitor and Denzil Lush the 'Judge' who helped my father unlawfully obtain a Lasting Power of Attorney over my grandmother.
Today three members of the (upper) House of Lords have been implicated in a similar cash for questions scandal. They are;
As the worst abusers in this case all claim to be Labour Party supporters their response has been more muted merely suspending Lords Mackenzie and Cunningham pending investigation. I suppose this rather proves the old adage that you can say what you like about Hitler but Stalin was worse.
Who has got to be feeling really nervous now is anyone who bears a passing resemblance to Mary Hogg the other 'Judge' who acted in my grandmother's Court of Protection (COP) proceedings or the actual Baroness Gardner who had extensive contact with both my father and grandmother while the worst of the abuse took place.
And to think, there are still people who consider mentioning Rihanna to be 'name-dropping.'
14:50 on 2/6/13.
Today three members of the (upper) House of Lords have been implicated in a similar cash for questions scandal. They are;
- Lord Laird of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) which is the Northern Irish Loyalist/Protestant equivalent of Sinn Fein.
- Lord Mackenzie who is the former Chief Superintendent of Durham police and head of the Police Superintendents Association making him one of the most senior police officers in the country.
- Lord Cunningham who was a Minister in Tony Blair's Labour government where he was said to act as an enforcer. He is accused of taking money from a company that makes solar panels - as in devices used to take the energy of the sun/son and turn it into power.
As the worst abusers in this case all claim to be Labour Party supporters their response has been more muted merely suspending Lords Mackenzie and Cunningham pending investigation. I suppose this rather proves the old adage that you can say what you like about Hitler but Stalin was worse.
Who has got to be feeling really nervous now is anyone who bears a passing resemblance to Mary Hogg the other 'Judge' who acted in my grandmother's Court of Protection (COP) proceedings or the actual Baroness Gardner who had extensive contact with both my father and grandmother while the worst of the abuse took place.
And to think, there are still people who consider mentioning Rihanna to be 'name-dropping.'
14:50 on 2/6/13.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)