The Glorious Twelfth.

On July 12th 1690 the English Protestant King William defeated the Irish Catholic King James at the Battle of the Boyne leading to over 200 years of English rule over Ireland.

To this day the anniversary is remembered by Church of England Protestants as the "Glorious" Twelfth. In Northern Ireland it is celebrated in Protestant communities with festivities including parades by paramilitary groups, barbecues, firework displays and an informal competition to see who can build the biggest on bonfire on which to burn an effigy of the Pope. The semi-masonic Orange Order take the celebrations one step further by marching through Catholic areas singing songs about how much fun it is to kill Catholics. Obviously this doesn't go down well with the local residents who, in the past, have often tried to stop the marches taking place. Frequently this is ended in violence and on one occasion led to a five day stand off during which all of the provinces police and most of the army had to be deployed to keep the different groups apart.

Over the last five or so years celebrations of the twelfth have been largely trouble free. This is partly because of falling unemployment across NI but mainly due to a local council practice of using taxpayers money to pay for the Protestant celebrations on the condition that they do not overtly display sectarian regalia and sing Loyalist songs. Yesterday violence returned to the celebrations yesterday when the Orange Order, who had already held their main march, felt the need to march home through several Catholic areas. In County Antrim and LondonDerry were met by protesters who blocked roads and threw bottles. The worse of the violence took place in Belfast where rioters fought a seven hour running battle with the police in which they threw rocks, fireworks, petrol bombs and blast bombs at the police. Gunshots were also fired at the police but none found their target. The police responded with baton charges, water cannon and rubber bullets but were unable to prevent 21 police officer being injured and damage to property that included several police vehicles.

Aside from the obvious provocation of the Orange Order marches yesterday's violence seems to be a response to a perception that once again the police are giving Protestant groups a free reign across the province so government spending will be unfairly distributed amongst Protestant communities. In that case similar scenes of violence could back fire on Northern Ireland's Catholics because they are already being used to portray the rioters as a group stuck in the past and intent of sectarian violence while the Protestants who are marching to celebrate what is essentially a 200 year sectarian massacre come off looking like a group of forward thinking progressives peacefully exercising their democratic rights.

Animal Magic

While the deaths of British troops in Afghanistan last week seem to have shaken Britain's government to it's core and provoked an unseemly episode of political point scoring the propaganda arm is still very much in business. Last week it was announced that scientist at Whipsnade Zoo are working to discover what makes Cheetahs so fast. As part of the experiment researchers, led by professor Wilson, are getting female Cheetahs run along a specially designed track by making them chase a dead chicken tied to a piece of string. The Cheetahs are filmed as they make the run so when the recording is played back in slow motion the scientists can examine how the Cheetahs bodies behave while running.

The methodology of the experiment is really that important because as with most animal interest / natural science stories the idea of talking about the research is to convey a hidden message. Initially the talk about Cheetahs which sounds like cheaters would make people think that Britain released the story was to reassure interested parties that research and investigation into me was going ahead on schedule. This is only partly true because the use of female cheetahs would indicate that the hidden message relates to a female subject and the professor leading the research shares a surname with a female test subject that is indirectly linked to me. Therefore the agenda of the story is to reassure interested parties that the research project known as the Bristol Abuse Case (BAC) is progressing on schedule whilst at the same time increasing the pressure on the BAC test subjects which in turn helps the research project along.

The fact that Britain is choosing to tell this particular story in terms of cheaters is interesting because it indicates that they are now accepting, publicly at least, that the BAC is not a credible situation and are focusing their attention on how one participant was able to cheat herself into it. Finding the answer to that is hardly going to be solving one of life's great mysteries. Int he run up to the BAC little miss no life was living a stress free existence working in a cafe whilst concentrating on her hobbies with only the one thing to focus on. By comparison she was up against someone who was in the process of moving house in dramatic fashion while carrying out precision work at several locations spread over around 400 miles while still finding the time to play an active role in the Israel/Lebanon war. When you consider that massive imbalance the result of the contest was no great surprise so much so that you would think that it had been planned that way. This means that once again Britain is researching it's own actions, something you would think they would have understood at the time of acting.

I think the story came to light last Wednesday so I apologise for the delay in posting but if you thing this was a dull read you should try writing it.

Oh What a Suprise.

At around 12:00 Central European Time (CET) the leaders of the G8 nations plus the leaders of the G5 nations assembled in Italy to discuss global warming and climate change on the second day of the G8 Summit. As with all G8 Summits the purpose of this meeting wasn't so much to reach an agreement on the issues as to lay the groundwork for a future summit that may or may not reach an agreement.

By an amazing coincidence at around 12:00 CET protesters assembled in Tehran for what was billed as the first large demonstration since the country's disputed election. In the end only about 300 people turned up and were quickly dispersed by the police. I'm not sure exactly what happened because for once the BBC had decided that there was no need to report on an Iranian protest.

In more local news my saga with the Help the Aged cleaner has come to an abrupt end. After her first day of work three weeks ago the cleaner failed to turn up last week and today we have been informed that she won;t be turning up for work again. This means that Britain's much vaunted counter attack against me has lasted for the sum total of 53 minutes.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Fairest of Them All?

Or to put it another way the G8 Summit is coming up next week and everybody's kind of forgotten about it.

Sandwiched between April's emergency G20 Summit and December's Climate Summit this years G8 meeting is likely to be something of a lost summit. No doubt there will be a range of topics discussed including the world economy, the war on terror, global development and global trade rules but unlike previous summits there will be no clear single issue that will focus the meeting. The most widely discussed projects will probably the recent Iranian elections and the apparently growing threat of a nuclear armed North Korea although progress on that last point is unlikely to be made without the Chinese who are not a G8 member so the debate will probably evolve into a wider discussion about further engagement with China.

The events in Iran mean that I've been unable to research the agendas of all the delegations at the summit but Britain's is obvious and focused on two clear objectives;

• Restoring Britain's legitimacy to call itself one of the eight most powerful and therefore competent and able nations on earth. This status was called into serious question at April's G20 Summit when the British Prime Minister's economic and social policy was rejected by Britain's own head of state let alone the heads of state of the other nations at the summit.

• Lay the groundwork for December's Climate Summit. Despite the impression given by Britain's elected representatives Britain's position for this summit will be to do everything in its power to make sure that it breaks up without agreement. There are a number of reasons for this position but it is mainly because Britain's ruling establishment have clearly proved themselves to be lacking in the intellectual ability to cope with a free market economy let alone a more complicated carbon based economy.

To achieve these ends Britain will try and make the situation in Iran one of the most widely discussed things at the summit. The idea behind this is that if you were looking for a country that best mirrors Britain's power and social structure Iran would be top of that list. In both nations ultimate power is held by an unelected head of state who is considered to have been appointed by God to make sure that the countries population adhere to religious law. In Iran this head of state is known as the Supreme Leader while in Britain they are known by the gender specific titles of either King or Queen. Beneath the head of state power in both countries is held by an unelected group of religious scholars and community elders. In Britain this is known as the House of Lords while in Iran it is more loosely organised but broadly defined by the Guardian Council. Below the scholars and elders the next position of power is held by a single, elected politician. In Iran this is the President and in Britain it is the Prime Minister. At the bottom of the power structure both countries have an elected Parliament.

This symmetry between the two countries mean that the British G8 delegation will be able to use discussions about Iran to generally spread confusion by making statements like "there are doubts over whether the head of state supports the first minister" which leave people unclear of exactly who is being referred too, Brown or Ahmadinjed. The will also be able to provide a coded reassurance that Britain doesn't expect Gordon Brown to be it's Prime Minister for very much longer.

The unrest in Iran will also help Britain in what the 2012 Olympic sponsors are already calling the "Fight against Climate Change!" because seemingly even before they began the Iranian protests were dubbed "The Green Revolution." Of course the original Green Revolution has it's roots in the US Army Corp of Engineers who, in the early 1960's, after spending years trying to divert the flow of the Mississippi river began to accept that human science and technology could never truly conquer the forces of nature leading to a revolution in the way humans saw their environment. Much to my annoyance some ill-informed modern politician's have begun using the term Green Revolution to describe the modern climate change movement and the implementation of low carbon technology.

In their planning of the Iranian unrest the British envisioned that I would lead the protests and the whole thing could be passed off as the work of the environmentalists. This little bit of misdirection would have allowed the British to spend their time at the G8 Summit complaining about how the Iranian unrest were jeopardising the American led heart and minds surge in Afghanistan and making statements about how they think the Green Revolution is a bad idea and share the good news that they expect the Green Revolution to die out soon. All this would help them build up a negative association with the environmental movement and the idea of adopting a low carbon economy.

As with all globalised summits protests are expected throughout the G8 week and while I haven't had the opportunity to look into what exactly is planned I suspect it will the standard red-zone assault which all of the G8 Security teams are well versed in dealing with. Therefore there is little chance that the red-zone will be breached and in the unlikely event that it is there will be little risk to the delegation primaries. Outside the venue it is likely to be a different story because this will be the first time that the G8 has returned to Italy since Carlo Guiliani was murdered by the police in 2001. This along with the fact that Alexis Grigoropoulos'murder in Greece and Ian Tomlinson's murder in London are still fresh in the anarchist movements memories means that I expect there to be plenty of people prepared to punish the police where the law has failed to do so. Added to this the growing dissatisfaction at the state of the economy within the Trade Union movement that is expected to boost the number of protesters in a town that following April's earthquake is still a maze of derelict buildings and ad-hoc campsites. Plus the Italian police have long history of treating public order situations as an opportunity for a fight and a reputation for allowing fascist militias to join in. Besides if the protest organisers plan is as good as their mobilization video it looks like being a very lively affair indeed.

This prospect of an explosive couple of days makes me think that Berlusconi's last minute decision to move the summit from Sardinia to L'Aquila must be his kind of punishment for the people of that earthquake hit city who dared to suggest that Mr Berlusconi might like to put the teenage girls down for just long enough to do something about the damage.

Dr Freddy Patel Strikes Again!

As you may remember Dr Freddy Patel was that pathologist who carried out the initial autopsy on Ian Tomlinson, the man who died at the G20 protests in London in April 2009. Dr Patel soon became a figure of derision after it emerged that he'd failed to notice that Mr Tomlinson's abdomen was full of blood as a result of blunt force trauma and concluded that the death was a result of pre-existing coronary artery disease leading to cardiac arrest. It then emerged that this was not Dr Patel's first time dealing with a controversial case.

In 1999 he carried out the autopsy on Roger Sylvester a 30 year old schizophrenic man who died after being restrained by the police. After concluding that Mr Sylvester had died as a result of pre-existing coronary artery disease leading to cardiac arrest Dr Patel was reprimanded by the General Medical Council for giving false and misleading information about the case. In 2002 Dr Patel carried out the autopsy of a woman who had died suddenly in a strangers flat. Although the body showed head injuries, extensive bruising and a bite mark to the woman's inner thigh Dr Patel ruled the death to be as a result of pre-existing coronary artery disease resulting in cardiac arrest. After Dr Patel's ruling of natural death led to the case being closed the male occupant of the flat went on to murder and dismember two other women.

Although Dr Patel has already cemented his reputation as possibly the worst pathologist to ever disgrace the profession it appears he's been at it again. In October 2006 Sandra Allen, a 61 year old schizophrenic woman, was detained in a North London psychiatric hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. At 00:05 on the morning of October 2nd Mrs Allen was observed repeatedly stuffing sandwiches into her mouth as part of an apparent manic episode. In spite of this she was allowed to return, unaccompanied, to her room. At 00:15 Mrs Allen was discovered, by Nurse Deborah Chamber, on the floor of the room's toilet, she was apparently not breathing. Nurse Chamber immediately called for assistance and attempted to clear Mrs Allen's airway but crucially did not begin to administer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Within 5 minutes the hospitals Senior House Officer, Dr R Patel, arrived on the scene and again attempted to clear food from Mrs Allen's airway before finally attempting CPR. An ambulance eventually attended the scene after being delayed for an indeterminate length of time at the hospital gates by a security guard who had fallen asleep at his post. Upon arrival the ambulance crew used specialist equipment to remove food from Mr Allen's airway and began advanced resuscitation before transporting her to Whittington Hospital where Mr Allen was pronounced dead at 00:55.

On October 5th Dr Freddy Patel performed Mrs Allen's autopsy and despite being informed of the fact by two doctors and a nurse was unable to find any evidence that the deceased's airway had been blocked by food and concluded that Mr Allen's death was caused by, you've guessed it, pre-existing coronary artery disease leading to cardiac arrest.

As a direct result of Dr Freddy Patel's diagnosis of death by natural causes the investigating coroner, Dr Reid, was able to rule that article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (article 2) did not apply in the case so there was no need for an independent inquiry and no need for the inquest to be held in front of a jury. Initially Mrs Allen's family launched a legal challenge to this decision that was rejected on the strength of Dr Patel's evidence so the inquest went ahead without a jury and without the families involvement. Within a matter of days the coroner, Dr Reid, concluded that the lack of supervision on the ward was not relevant to the death, the failure of ward staff to administer CPR was not relevant to the death and the delay in getting an ambulance to the scene was not relevant to the death so he ruled that Mrs Allen's death was a completely natural event that the hospital staff could have done nothing to prevent.

Since then Mrs Allen's family have been involved in a long and arduous legal campaign to have a judicial review held into the legal decisions made in that initial coroner's inquest with a view to having the case re-opened. This lead to the application being heard by the Law Lords/Queen's Bench, the highest court in the land which owe more to Iran's Guardian Council then it does to America's Supreme Court. On June 25th 2009 the Law Lords returned an interesting verdict on the application. While they ruled that the initial judges decision had no basis in law and that Article 2 most certainly did apply in the case meaning that the in initial inquest had not be carried out in accordance with the law they found no reason to grant a judicial review or re-open the case. The family have been given leave to appeal this peculiar decision but have been informed that they won't receive legal aid to do so.

I have been following this case for a number of years and have been seen to follow it. As recently as three months ago it seemed to be going nowhere with little chance of being heard before the Law Lords. Then six weeks ago matters suddenly picked up pace with the Law Lords announcing that they would hear the application and all interested parties were invited to a series of meetings at the House of Lord, Britain upper chamber of Parliament. Unfortunately the Lords were unable or unwilling to meet my appearance fee so I did not attend but the impression that I got was if I were to help Britain by leading Iran's Green Revolution then the Law Lords would find in the Allen family's favour. Of course that couldn't possibly be true because if it was then it would mean that rather then being made in accordance with principles of Law or Justice the decisions of Britain's highest court are made in accordance with the older and more informal principle of graft. That would mean that their rulings can only be considered illegitimate

Conspiracy Files: 7/7 Bombings.

I've just realised that last night the BBC screened a documentary examining the conspiracy theories that have sprung up surrounding the terrorist bombings in London on July 7th 2005. I haven't actually watched the program nor am I that familiar with the conspiracy theories that the program addressed because like all of the great conspiracy theories they make little sense and rely on a massively inflated sense of the intelligence services capabilities.

What I do know about British intelligences involvement in Islamic extremism in the UK is that throughout the 1980's MI6 ran a number of so called Mudjadeen schools to recruit British Muslims to go and fight the Russians in Afghanistan. This was done because Muslim lives are considered to be worth less then Protestant ones so it's cheaper if they're killed. Throughout the 1990's these schools continued with graduates being sent to fight the Russians in Chechnya. When the Global War on Terror began MI6 found themselves swamped and couldn't cope with these operations anymore so palmed them off to MI5 who are considered a junior service. MI5 then tried to run these schools as part of a so called waterfall operation where potential terrorist are still identified but rather then having their extremist views encouraged before packing them off to fight the Russians their views are challenged in the hope that they will return to their home communities and reduce the level of domestic terrorism by contesting the views of other extremists. Sadly because MI5 aren't even the smartest guys in the room when they're taking a shit they lost control of the operation and Britain's terror network was born.

Since then MI5 have been funding and promoting various conspiracy theories, the wilder the better, in order to fulfill two main objectives;

• By giving attention to lunatic conspiracy theories it diverts attention from a serious discussion of intelligence service failures that led to the terrorist attacks. This was seen extensively in America where all the investigations into 9/11 spent so long rebuffing stupid claims of the towers being brought down by controlled demolition that they failed to answer questions like why did Mossad, having extensive intelligence networks within Islamic terror groups, somehow forget to warn the CIA that an attack was imminent.

• The conspiracy theories keep people talking about the bombings and allow the intelligence services to keep the attacks alive in every one's memories and by extension allow them to hold anniversaries of the attacks every year in the hope that it will help maintain public support for the wars that provoked the attacks in the first place.
  

How's This For The Power of Suggestion?

Throughout this week Britain is experiencing a mini heatwave with temperatures set to peak at 32C which admittedly isn't that hot but will be the highest temperature Britain has ever experienced. On Sunday this prompted the government to issue a public warning that advised people to take care of themselves by making sure they drink enough water, use suntan lotion and stay out of the sun during the hottest part of the day.

Since then my father has opened all the doors and windows and is frequently seen standing round the house in shorts with his shirt undone fanning himself and complaining how hot it is. This makes me look at the thermometer and point out that it's actually a reasonable 27C and the breeze brings it down to a perfectly pleasant 25C. It is expected to get hotter before then end of the week but I love the logic that because the people on TV are telling everyone it's hot everyone's automatically decided that it's hot.

Sorry but that's pretty much but that's pretty much all I've got today.