Well I Win Because I've Just Shampooed A Cat.

Which seems the perfect end to an evening of unholy aggression. It started about 18:00 when me and my father were leaving for the pub so I told my grandmother to lock one of her doors but because my father had been preaching her all day long she just flatly refused so we left it. Then the moment we arrived in the pub a couple of people to the right of me started having a massive row. I don't know what it was about but it resulted in the bar staff sensibly and professionally asking one of the gentlemen to leave.

After my father and I had a tense and loaded conversation over dinner I stepped outside for a cigarette. Just as I'd put my pint on the table and lit my cigarette I realised that the gentleman on the right of me and the gentleman on the left of me were having something of a war. As the phrase "I'm going to fucking stab you!" rang through the air I decided that it was time for me to pick a side in this battle and invited the gentleman to my right to sit down and shut the fuck up while another person invited the gentleman on my left to go forth and procreate.

As I was trying to work out exactly what the hell was going on my father and I went back to the car and proceeded to drive off. In the process of performing a U turn my father slightly cut up a guy who got a bit angry. While my father's driving style probably entitled the guy to punch him in the face we were in a bit of a rush to get home so we left. After a long chat with my grandmother it became apparent that while on her earlier shopping trip she'd had a long chat with the gentleman on the left in the earlier argument. After a time this confused the both of us so we decided that i was all the cat's fault for being a flea ridden old rat bag so he was rewarded with a bath.

Anyway that was my day. I hope yours was better but if not just think, at least you're not the cat.

Baby P's Killers Named.

Baby P was a 17 month old boy who died after suffering over a year of torture at the hands of his mother, his stepfather and his stepfather's brother while Haringey Council and the Metropolitan police stood back and gave their tacit support for the abuse. Throughout the ensuing trial a High Court injunction prevented the victim and his killers from being named in order to allow Baby P's siblings to be settled with new adoptive families. At 22:00 GMT on 10/8/09 that injunction expired and the British media were, for the first time, allowed to give Baby P back his name - Peter Connelly and name those who killed him. They are;

Steven Barker.


Steven Barker is clearly and evil man. As a child he used to break the legs and then skin alive pet guinea pigs and frogs. This disturbing behaviour led to him being sent to a special needs schools where he was labeled a sadist addicted to inflicting pain. At the age of 19 Barker and his older brother were reported to the police for attacking their own grandmother repeatedly beating her and locking her in a cupboard in an attempt to get the 85 year old to change her will in their favour. Although the allegations were eventually withdrawn the police kept a record of Barker because of his apparent love of violence. By the time he met Baby P's mother Steven Barker had developed a fetish for the military and the Nazi's in particular amassing a large collection of weapons and Nazi memorabilia and covering his body in neo-Nazi tattoos. Aside from torturing Baby P and his siblings Barker was also convicted of anally raping a two year old girl.

Jason Owen.


Steven Barker's older brother who changed his name after the 1995 attacks on his grandmother began lodging at Baby P's house in June 2007 in the last few months of his life. An Active member of the far-right National Front Owens taught the toddler to make a Nazi salute and shout "Seig Heil!" for the amusement of him and his brother. The fact that Owens was living in the house was apparently unknown to Social Services and the Police because the 37 year old father of five was hiding out whilst on the run with his 15 year old "girlfriend."

Tracey Connelly.


After giving birth to baby P in 2006 Tracey Connelly quickly lost interest in both her husband and her going on to have two affairs including one with Barker. Once she'd forced her husband to move out of the house and moved Barker in she stopped Baby P's father from visiting his son and participated in the torture of her won child. Despite being described as a none too bright slob who kept a filthy house soaked in urine and littered with dog mess Connelly was apparently able to outwit teams of social workers and police officers by keeping both the abuse and the presence of Barker and Owens in the house secret. Interestingly she bears a more then passing resemblance to a British Comedian called Katie Brand who is probably best know for her TV sketches mocking the British Army and the Queen of England.

Despite the heinous nature of their crime the trio received shockingly light sentences of 7 years, 3 years and 5 years respectively. Tracey Connelly has already been moved to a new prison in order to prepare her for her release. As the three all have to be kept under 24 hour close protection whilst in prison the probation service have already suggested that they will probably require new identifies and round the clock police protection for the rest of their lives. The MP for Haringey, Lynne Featherstone has today issued a statement saying that she would support such a move regardless of cost because once they have served their sentence punishment will have been served. This is of course nonsense because if any of these three ever leave prison then British Justice will have failed miserably.




Edited at 19:25 because I used the wrong photo of Steven Barker. Sorry my fuck up.

Probably Shouldn't Laugh But...

Back in May a group calling themselves the English Defence League held a demonstration in Luton against Islamic Extremism. After all of five minutes any pretence that this was a legitimate protest and those attending were anything other then simple racist thugs was dropped when the crowd went on a violent rampage vandalising shops, beating up random Asians and smashing up cars with heavily tinted windows. Yesterday, 8/8/09, the same group tried the same thing in Birmingham, UK and few people turned up to meet them. This was the result;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ_JTJVvMrA

As is probably appropriate for a protest called by a bunch of racists yesterdays events were met with something of a media brownout so I, like many others, are left still trying to pieace together yesterday's events.* From what I have seen though I do sadly have to call into question the BBC's reporting of events; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8191833.stm which includes a video shows a large group of protesters, some in Islamic dress, chanting "Who's streets? - Our Streets!" contrasted with a group of protesters singing the national anthem. The text of the article speaks to only one eyewitness who talks of systemic groups of (Muslim youths) turning up in cars to get involved in violence and burning the Union Flag. To me that sounds like bad journalism.

*My research may have been a little bit impaired by the fact that my grandmother slightly set fire to her kitchen. In her defence she put the fire out herself while me and my father were standing outside like Laurel & fucking Hardy going "Look at that one of our neighbours have started a BBQ and it's set off their smoke alarm, ain't they stupid!"

Time For The IPCC To Get a Name Change.

On Thursday August 7th the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) published their report into complaints of the police using excessive force at the G20 Climate Camp. Having read the report I think it's high time the IPCC dropped the word Independent from their title or changed their name to something more appropriate. Perhaps to something like the Intentional Police Cover-up Committee.

While the media, led by the BBC, have claimed that the report strongly criticises the police if you go through the report, which can be read here; http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Bishopsgate_Report.pdf it soon becomes clear that the IPCC have conducted their investigation in such a way as to make sure that the only action they are able to take against the police is to offer a strongly worded rebuke. The main problems with the report are;

• The IPCC received around 40 complaints about the polices use of force at the Climate Camp but only decided to investigate one in the hope that it is representative of the others. They have justified this by arguing that because the complaint included the possibility that the polices actions may have caused a woman to suffer a miscarriage it was the complaint that would cause the highest degree of public concern. However as the woman did not know she was pregnant at the time of the incident it is impossible to prove whether or not she did suffer a miscarriage. Likewise because the woman was involved in what the report describes as a scrum between the police and protesters it is impossible to prove which specific, if any, blow led to her vaginal bleeding. By comparison the complaints the IPCC chose not to investigate included two incidents where police officers were filmed punching protesters full in the face. Therefore it seems that the IPCC have deliberately chosen to only investigate the complaint that was the least likely to uncover evidence of police misconduct.

• In the report the IPCC claim that the polices use of short riot shields have only been in use "in response to events at the G8 Summit in Scotland in July 2005" and are not mentioned in the polices national public order training program. This is a factual inaccuracy so severe that it could be described as a blatant lie. The idea of using short shields began in the Brixton and Toxteth riots of the early 1980's when police officers unable to get their hands on traditional long shields picked up dustbin lids and began using them to deflect missiles. The tactical use of so called short shield serials has been featured in national police public order training manuals since the mid-1980's and their use is now so widespread that it is considered the first choice solution in public order situations. Prior to the Gleneagles summit short shield tactic were extensively used at J18, Mayday 2000, 2001, 2002 and the anti-Iraq war protests along with various football riots.

• The IPCC's report was released just 21 days before the start of the summer Climate Camp at a time when a number of first time campers were making their final decision whether to attend or not. Therefore releasing a report that draws attention to Climate Campers being beaten up by the police while concentrating on the gory details of the very personal nature of the vaginal bleeding suffered by the complainant could be seen as an attempt to discourage people from attending Climate Camps in the future. In that case it would appear that far from rebuking the police the IPCC actually seem to be rewarding them for their violent conduct.
  

I Got Mail

On Tuesday 5/8 I received a letter from the agonisingly named Croydon Integrated Psychological Therapies Service (CIPTS) which I've posted below if you're really that interested. Personally I wasn't and after giving it a quick read I put it in a drawer until today. Beneath the envelope stamped Private & Confidential the letter simply acknowledges that I've been ont he waiting list for Cognitive Analytical Therapy (CAT) for quite some time and attempts to reassure me in a rather sinister turn of phrase that I "not been forgotten." The letter is a little unusual because it doesn't actually tell me anything and if there's one thing I'm sure of it's that Croydon Council won't be forgetting me for some quite time.

The trigger for the letter appears to be that recently, in a context I'm not going to explain, I visited some of the pubs I used to drink at when I was working at Enterprise House and was observed doing so by the police which is hardly a surprise as the pubs are by a police station. The caring profession appear to have interpreted that as a form of depressive pining and sent me the let in the hope of showing me that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Either that or they've sent the letter in the hope it would provoke me into clarifying the context of the situation although that would certainly be out of character.

The letter does reveal an interesting point though that may have set a few people awobble. Eventually I will come to the top of the waiting list for CAT which incidentally a treatment that is so complicated, labour intensive and expensive that most private health insurers simply won't offer it. When that happens I will be faced with a very simple choice. I can either take part in what is a very invasive treatment that not only requires you to draw on your personal experience it also requires you and the therapist to identify your cognitive process which basically govern the way you think and how you will behave in certain circumstances. Alternatively I can refuse the treatment and risk that refusal being used as grounds to wipe me out financially. I suspect this choice is going to play a large part of the Brits next move against me but it would just be careless of me to let them know that I know how they plan to attack me now wouldn't it.

Incidentally I also found out on Tuesday that a group of British researchers have published a paper proving that autism inhibits the ability to react to non-verbal communication. I'm surprised they managed to get published because they've yet to contact me to find out how I would like to be credited for providing the hypothesis that they've merely tested. I wander if the authors can spell plagiarism or whether they'll need someone to explain that to them too.

Anyway arrogance over for today, here's that letter;

Madeline McCann Case Gets Even Sillier

Madeline McCann was a three year old British girl who went missing on a family holiday to Portugal in May 2007. The Portuguese authorities believe she was murdered by her parents who dumped her body in a deep water lake making a prosecution impossible. The parents claim that Madeline was abducted by an organised crime gang who sold on to people in Africa as part of a elaborate white slavery ring. The British authorities sided with the parents and helped set up an international search fund to help "Find Maddie". This caused a bit of a diplomatic incident between the two countries. While the search focused on North Africa the human interest element of the story gripped Europe and the USA for about a year until it went cold and the McCanns were left to indulge in the psychologically questionable practice of sending their other two children birthday and Christmas while pretending they were sent by the missing Madeline.

Now, in the middle of an Ashes series which is probably one of the most deep rooted and important sporting rivalries in the world, detectives working for the McCann family have announced that they are looking for an Australian woman who apparently resembles Victoria Beckham and was reported to be heard discussing the case in a bar in Barcelona, Spain. I think it's pretty safe to assume that this announcement has little to do with the search for Madeline so it appears to be an attempt to provide a local link with and therefore boost interest in a story in a part of the world where it hasn't received that much attention. It could simply be that Britain have done this is response some well founded Australian accusations that the first three ashes tests haven't exactly been played within the spirit of the game of cricket. It's as if that because the Australians have accused the English of match fixing the English have accused the Australian's of kidnapping little girls, a form of institutional sledging if you like.

Personally I think that analysis along with a terrorism connection are probably being used as a bit of a confuser to draw attention away from the real reason. The Madeline McCann story has previously been used as a metaphor or allegory to discuss one of my Bristol based associates in the sense that they both feature the fundamental question; "Was she sold into slavery by strangers or was she simply murdered by her parents?" Therefore I think that Australia is being brought into the McCann story because Britain is trying to gauge public opinion in it's colonial outpost before deciding it's next move against me. I suppose I should give Britain the benefit of the doubt and hope they are planning something nice however experience tells me that's unlikely and because it's Britain they're planning something violent. Of course, in the short term, that unpleasantness would involve using the McCann story, the Ronnie Biggs release, the fourth ashes test and this post as way of turning up the tension on that Bristol based associate over the weekend in the hope that Britain will be able to salvage something from their current disaster.

Bring On September 2nd.

As part of the G20 protests on April 1st a group of performance artists known as the Space Hijackers drove a tank through the streets of London I what believe to be a satirical statement about the heavy handed tactics the police were expected to use against the demonstrators. Perhaps unsurprisingly the tank was stopped by the police who, after establishing that the vehicle was 100% road legal, decided to arrest all 11 of the occupants on a charge of impersonating a police officer. After 4 months the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have decided that they are going to continue with the prosecution and the 11 will stand trial on September 2nd 2009.

As this is now an ongoing court case I am obviously limited in what I can publish on the matter however I think it is fair to say that the offence the 11 are charged with is section 90.2 of the Police Act 1996 which states;

"(2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

So in order to secure a conviction the prosecution must prove that a person dressed like this;


can reasonably be mistaken for a person dressed like this;


by a sighted person during daylight hours.

Of course the trial will be made more interesting by the fact that a recent Parliamentary inquiry into the policing of the G20 protests found a number of police officers were unable to dress themselves in proper uniform so my advice to anyone who is planning to go along to watch the trial is to get there early.