A "Quiet Revolution" aka Tony, Dick and Henry

Straw defends 'constitutional revolution'

Jack Straw has defended the constitutional reforms implemented by Labour, saying they amount to a "quiet revolution". Epolitix.com 29/09/09

A “quiet revolution” - you may ask 'how' quiet is quiet; (or how loud is the loud voice of Cathy James - "cause" in my case) the one that there is an invasion but no gun in your face so to speak. I would call that “quiet revolution” organised crime and corruption with a tad of treason thrown in – R v Hennessy [1758] 1 BURR. So my blog is not a misrepresentation, or a mistake, or a malicious falsehood, or a slander, libel or even defamation: hence no writ so far. You would not want everyone to know that if you use ADR/IDS/Mediation that those in the know, know that there is something unknown that ought to be known potentially being covered up and hidden so as not to know you know you know … : it’s a Japanese concept being promulgated in the UK – (that includes Scotland) and Europe by American Jews and some Scots via Clinton – but you would rather they walked into the UK as friendly aliens than rely on the academic – against all the odds - achievements of moi – why did you give me an LLB “Hons”! it would not be so that there has been a 13 year supply of toilet paper to compliment that Pugin Loo! My case is known as "the shit case". Well, perhaps the Police will now do as I ask of them arrest, charge and prosecute (a) misconduct in public office – no need for new law and (b) perversion of the course of justice and (c) treason and a mixed bag of other issues if you want to throw the legal tomes at someone(people)! Lord Straw is a politician with executive powers in the judiciary - the Woolf Report occurred from the Despatch box, not the Woolsack - Constitutional Reforms - the Monarch no longer has the right to the Throne! Competition anyone. Ex-EU Commissioner Romano Prodi came over to the UK to request a separation of the powers and it did not happen so we ended up with Lord Straw!

How about …. Tony … Dick … and … Henry, for instance.

Ex-PM Tony Blair ... Richard Susskind OBE "Professor DisOBEdient" ... Lord Henry Woolf

That Japanese concept being peddled by the American Jews via the Scottish Judiciary (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) under Clinton establishment just sort of wrecked my legal career but you could have settled … Woolf did not manage to alter CPR Rule 1 and custom, tradition and practice in the UK means that we should still have “equality before the law” so why would a party to a litigation or arbitration need article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Ivory Tower”) when you can arrest, charge and prosecute for (a) perversion of the course of justice; and/or (b) misconduct in public office too - I believe it is a 16 year or thereabouts sentence.

Everyone is supposed to sing from the same hymn sheet – chapter and verse "Equality before the law" but you could tell us what we have been changed regime managed into - Socrates did drink HEMLOCK for a reason because we don't know we don't know! : (a) Monarchy gets to sit on the UK Thrones – custom, practice and tradition enables the people to be equal to the Monarch and vice versa (safe and just society); (b) Democracy enables the state to create a system of "is" law based on "reasonable, reasonable, reasonable" standards (safe and just society) – we would really like to know what that is right now; (c) Oligarchy – the closed society of the 'seen' to be independent judiciary who are not complicit with any party let alone Respondents solicitors/barristers and who are not supposed to be located in the apartment below, above, next door or a couple of apartments down – invasion of privacy is aiding and abetting a perversion of the course of justice via HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION - I technically should not know the spooks! – as judges you have “Chronological Lists" attached to the "pleadings" and "evidence" bundles + "cause" in the lower part and + "effect" in the latter part (damages), with discovery, witness statements and cross-examination to follow as procedural rules – that is because the rule of law is DISCOVERED and then applied and never CREATED, the case is located WITH the point of law(s) in the Judgment ONLY as rule of law applied – you do not get to intimidate and harass the Plaintiff for bringing a Writ on the premis of "equality before the law", unless that is, you want to squirm and run the risk of being caught red-handed in the organised crime and corruption till, which would not be asinine for pointing it out via complaints and asking the Police to deal, something a Commander of Police appears to not appreciate: the Police DO have a duty and authority to catch CRIMINALS and SUSPECTED CRIMINALS, it would also be especially useful if they will locate the statutory or common law references when prohibited too, when claiming they do not have any duty or authority to ACT (ie do something) ... – you would not want to establish or be seen to establish or engaged in a pattern of conduct on the premis of an “omission to act” where there is a duty and/or authority to act – you would not want to be seen to be aiding and abetting a criminal offence – does create a safe and just society make any sense these days - the lawyers are the lemmings jumping off the cliff - they appear to have an inability to (a) see the problem; (b) know what to do about it; (c) would rather lose their lifestyle and not even eat - if Legal Week.com can be believed.

Its gone past the point where Respondents on my cases could actually settle via CPR Rule 1 without running the risk of arrest, charge and prosecution in any event (I have lost count of how many requests, and in writing, have been made to those with authority and duty TO ACT). At a later date should the police really really really want to deal with that 13 now 14 year “omission to act” pattern established across 3 cases – I do wonder why I have a civil liberty issue of over 2 years duration in England, when I was born in England: the latest methodology is applying law which does not apply, as opposed to not applying any law or not applying law that does apply - the ex American Defence Secretary Rumsden may wish to know that this is the UK version of knowing that which you are supposed to know!

A quiet revolution … ?

18/09/09 Rollonfriday.com published an interesting article recently – a judge was actually shot via the evidence in court …

"An Irish solicitor is buffing up his CV after making the career-limiting move of shooting a judge in court. Judge John Neilan was hearing a Family Law case in Longford District Court on Tuesday when a solicitor accidentally shot him with an air pistol. It's not entirely clear why the pistol was being exhibited, or why it was loaded, or how the solicitor managed so accurately to target the judge. But the Longford Leader reports that the hard-as-nails judge was not seriously injured, and just dusted himself down and continued as normal.

I shot the sheriff Judge Neilan has some superb form. He's famous for his no nonsense pronouncements, and earlier this year he gave a man seven days jail to "learn some manners" after he talked in his courtroom. A spokesman for the Irish Court Service said that it was unable to comment on Family Law cases.

Article 18/09/09 RollonFriday.com I shot the Sheriff (click here)

Judicial Intelligence - Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

There is an intelligent Judge on the bench - he is Master of the Rolls and he disagrees with the creation of the Supreme Court deeming it "FRIVOLOUS" : now we all know Judges REASON and some reason better than others! Well, I concur with that argument - it is difficult enough to reach the House of Lords (even with Lord Woolf bringing in a Statute - Access to Justice Act 1999 - which as you all know does the opposite - access FROM Justice). So only a numpty would go so far as the Supreme Court level - on a point of law no less! Are they going to make the Woolf Reforms and Access to Justice Act 1999 obsolete! or amend it somehow - into the long grass of history perhaps!

However, what is needed is a mechanism and expansion of some areas of domestic law to the "International Courts", for instance, child labour in the production process and disappearing workers being two areas which need to bypass all together the exhaustive layer of the national/domestic court levels. There is an awareness in the international human rights movement that multinationals and subsidiaries do need to have some focus upon their activities where they have an ability to do something in a society which is prohibited in another - there does now need to be an international base layer on a global scale: and the global scale is becoming smaller given the world wide web and Facebook and Google in particular!

Epolitix article 08/09/09 "New Supreme Court frivolous"(click here)

It takes a lot of courage to take a stand and even more to speak your mind. Well done Lord Neuberger.

My opinion, if folks have managed to get to the House of Lords - street justice is likely to be the way forward over the Supreme Court level.

Also the inferior level of the Tribunal courts - could usefully use a training scheme in "natural law" and the chronological bundle lists - pleadings = process / bundles = evidence - it is better to get to the substantive than bog down in the process - besides volunteers at Citizen Advice Bureau manage this in approximately 45 minutes these days !!! And Judges can and should use that weapon of the legal system "CONTEMPT OF COURT" order where the parties have not prepared their cases properly and "OBSTRUCTION" and "PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" where one or more parties are engaged in anything other than EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW! A party should not need to put into the courts a "disagreed" court bundle and an "Abstraction Chronological List" of over half their documents under a discovery process and on the premis its "in the interests of justice" YOUR HONOUR can you use your equitable discretion to enable me to place my evidence before you! and in duplicity can you use one of your weapons to deal with the otherside(s) mischief. There are three rules in the courts (a) the GOLDEN rule; (b) the LITERAL rule; and (c) the MISCHIEF rule - suggesting to the otherside "NOT TO STEAL A MARCH" is a piece of judicial mischief that needs to stop, ie effectively notifying a party to do just that! The REASON - any mischief established will be out of time sequence with the discovery process and the evidential bundles especially CAUSATION! and likely to land the parties in contempt, obstruction or perversion on APPEAL (which is a criminal offence and why would a party need to engage in criminality when CPR Rule 1 allows them to whittle the case down, process it quickly and SETTLE)! However, I digress the mischief rule is probably not meant in the above context but that the law can use REASON to do something good but mischievous, for example - Lord Denning and his equitable Darlings! where he bent over backwards to assist women so that they could keep the roof over their head by ensuring they had matrimonial rights when faced with an errant husband. Another example is a case BBC v Soutar (or it may be the otherway around) where the Race Relations Statute enabled people to be British but not Scots, English, Irish or Welsh - but the judgment so enables. Judges are supposed to discover the rule of law which is supposed to be contained in all parties bundles in the timeframe of the case per se - so the earlier they are in the better - they are not supposed to create it : but sometimes there is a "LACUNA" in the law - a gap that Judges use their reason to jump just a bit further than the law allows them to either statutorily or via case precedent howsoever OBSCURE they may need to try to go. Judges in case precedent where they are not prepared to make a quantum leap of faith where the rule of law fails to address the needs of present Society can use "obita dicta" pursuasive argument for the future direction of the law should similar/same/or like for like present itself to the court - it may take a century but it will be there when required so long as not made obsolete by codification or statutory legislation!

Using the natural process of TIME (time being of the essence) the CAUSE is located in the earliest part of the bundles AND the EFFECT is located in the later part and goes towards damages and contributory factors. There is no reason why the cases are not zipping through the courts at the first court level especially if there is a mere "reiteration" of what the law actually IS. Where, however, there is challenge as to what the law OUGHT to be then the debate must happen, the REASON must flow, universality MUST occur = PROGRESS OF SOCIETY VIA HUMAN INTELLECT AND WILL.

Judges are necessary in society : but a bunch of idiots and cowards and clever but not intelligent people do need to be dealt with and severely. Look no further than those Lord Neuberger has made a stand against in his article!Our Newspapers spent a decade highlighting “spin, spin, spin” for a reason – anyone relying on this decade NEEDS to go back to source and certainly check facts, evidence – its all about evidence!

King Solomon's Judgment

As you are aware I have a personal injury action in the Royal Courts of Justice, London and Master Leslie is refusing to remove himself from my case and attempting to place me under Order as a "protected party" under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 WHEN NOT A PATIENT! The issue of capacity is not able to be established concerning me and lack thereof because for the last 3 years I have been holding down 4 voluntary jobs and at one point was doing up to 80 hours a week as well as engaging in the welfare reforms.

The Volunteer jobs were with :

1. EUF - Edinburgh Users Forum under the control of CAPS Advocacy and my responsibility was the Welfare Reforms implementation across the mental health sector in Edinburgh as a core jobless category who normally experience stigma and prejudice in gaining employment - the employability statistic for mental health in Scotland is 11%.

2. Patient's Council, Royal Edinburgh Hospital and I was Chair of the Management Committee in 2008 and sat on 20 committees, attended 5 conferences and general issues affecting patients and ex-patients of the mental health hospital. Two of the committees were significant as a "Kaizen" was operating in the hospital which saw the implementation of Star Wards a mechanism to improve hospital wards in mental health via up to 75 improvements in our case 95 improvements were implemented between Star Wards and the NHS own desire to improve patients and staff experience on wards. Another significant committee was the Reprovisioning of the Hospital per se - there was an awful lot of nonsense.

3. VOX Scotland - a National Service User organisation in its infancy which has this year become independent of the Mental Health Foundation, England and I sit on two committees - communication strategy and the research, training and development committee.

4. Citizen Advice Bureau - where I am a Generalist Advice Worker and can give any advice - which you don't have to take - but is always non-judgmental and confidential on issues relating to debt, family, employment, welfare, housing and a mixed bag of anything coming through the door as an appointment or drop-in: no one is not empowered within a 20-45 minute appointment and this service in society is STERLING - PURE GOLD.

Back to the Hospital Reprovisioning AND THE NONSENSE - all service users organisations in Lothian were involved in the process and attended an Options Appraisal meeting which provided 4 options concerning the location of a new mental health hospital in Edinburgh. The current Morningside site has an estimated value of approx £60 million and is currently underdeveloped. The options were (1) a site at the Western General available for development from 2013 and situated beside a Genetics development; (2) a site at the Royal Infirmary beside a Biopark development; (3) a continuation in some form of the current Morningside site; a sale to City of Edinburgh Council of a part of the site for development of a Primary School and a sale of the historic listed building needing substantial refurbishment to a developer for flats in the area; and a large area of land at the back of the site for a new (and we asked for AWARD winning) design and build hospital (This latter option was the favoured option by the patients and ex-patients and was my exclusive remit which I had no difficulty complying with as I considered it on merit the best option); (4) stay at the REH and do nothing).

What happened, at the Option Appraisal process everyone filled in their somewhat confusing options and out came the result - favoured site remain at (3) the Royal Edinburgh but develop the back of the land for a new hospital and sell off that which was not necessary. The Scottish Government found the process to be UNSOUND and allegedly used a computer programme across the option results to show subjectivity in the results. (I have never seen a subjective computer programme that did not have the word HUMAN involved). [My view was that the process was sound but that non-NHS sites had not been considered as an option available to the process - it is democratically sound to deliberately spoil a ballot]. A professional lawyer on the committee "John" was most unhappy and eventually resigned - this being alarm bells to me raising a presumption of unethical behaviour which could conflict with his right to practice as a lawyer). A second option appraisal was run, less people involved, but with 4 options - the Western General, the Royal Infirmary, St Johns in Livingston and the Royal Edinburgh site. The outcome of this process was a split between acute services and alcohol services going to the Royal Infirmary site, and rehab and older people services remaining at the Royal Edinburgh hospital - somewhere in there there may be Scottish Government logic to build TWO hospitals! This was deemed SOUND by the Scottish Goverment. [My view was that this outcome was not sound -there were four options but the outcome produced No 5].

The relevance in law : the service users all had meetings with the NHS managers - we were not amused especially when it was pointed out the Royal Infirmary site is a back-end piece of land with a sewage pipe running through it. The consultants were not happy because it required double storey car parking (a suicide risk apparently) and moreover they do not walk round the corner to speak to their own colleagues why would they imply they would cross the floor of a biopark! The Consultants appeared somewhere nearer our side of issues and a preference for ground level car parking at the REH! The Western General was a "non-sequitur" as development could not occur until 2013.

The next meeting saw the reading of the stonker of a resignation letter from "John the lawyer" and a small amount of cross-examination pointed out that the last criteria for the new hospital site - Research and Development - was informing the whereabouts of the site, rather than the primary outcome of the deemed sound option appraisal - clinical needs (and we were arguing the community aspect of the Morningside site was the most beneficial to the needs of patients over a Biopark). It was therefore apparent "John the lawyer" was acting as a shield by resigning, the sword was in the air and I caught it and sunk it in by stating the obvious the bottom criteria should not inform the decision, but the top criteria. I was deemed to have expressed an "opinion" - but as you all know an opinion can be subjective or objective and, in this case, it was obviously based on fact - the bottom criteria and therefore has legal effect (and we all know who was responsible for the juggernaut attempting to steamroller a Royal Infirmary outcome!). The NHS and Scottish Government need to be more careful when dealing with patients and ex-patients who are vulnerable!

The Jurisprudential issue - King Solomon's Judgement - split the baby - the Patients stood firm, the hospital currently remains at the Royal Edinburgh site and this tranche of the process has ceased to be. Mr David Atiyah running between two camps stated "I've been a bit niave". Yes, Smack.

I am no longer involved with three of the volunteer organisations as I have moved on, but not without a bunch of smiling knives having a go, the papers are with lawyers but I have to be aware I am dealing with vulnerable people who should never ever be treated the way I have been treated : I experienced a complete undermining of my position as Chair and was not re-elected at AGM.

Concerning EUF - the supported pathway for the Welfare Reforms has been implemented and a Sunflower leaflet of services to assist patients and ex-patients to return to work is now in place. Furthermore, the Kaizen enabled the scoping of the whole hospital for volunteer work and the foresight of a very seriously good NHS Director enabled endowment funding from historical benevolence associated with Lothian hospitals for a Volunteer Hub to be created on a 3 year contract enabling patients and ex-patients to pass from the hospital out to over 800 volunteering organisations in Edinburgh - so far as I am aware this venture is successful. Unfortunately, EUF would not support my endeavours via their newsletter or website (which David Atiyah designed and I managed to just about get two items on there (not happy): what happened to team/committee), albeit almost happy with outcome - however this issue and my ability to be successful for the patients has resulted in an allegation of discrimination against me by several blind people - EUF have failed to process my complaint but have processed theirs via CAPS Advocacy and refuse to engage in ACAS. To clarify it is blind people and CAPS Advocacy who are discriminating against all sighted people in Edinburgh engaging in the mental health aspect of welfare reforms by refusing to put into their newletter the small amounts of information I sat on a committee for two years attempting to implement to reach possibly 5000-6000 people. They did eventually put a copy of the Sunflower leaflet into their mailing of the newsletter and also pdf of the sunflower leaflet on email outs of the newsletter. They refuse to put the pdf of the Sunflower leaflet on their website and the head of CAPS even informed he would shut the website down so as to ensure it was not published in that format. David Atiyah eventually resigned (and I don't know why) but continues to be involved at VOX Scotland. EUF claim that the issue is that their executive members who where blind who have dial-up connections issues and pdf's take too long to download and may not be compatible in format for blind service users - I argued they could deal with this issue under the Disability Discrimination Act and "reasonable adjustment" - CAPS could be asked to provide Executive members and/or volunteers a broadband connection and asked for research of all broadband providers and costs/service - this did not happen - perhaps it is something for VOX Scotland to deal!

The Patients' Council, after non-re-election at AGM wound my committee work down, I attended an inhouse management drop-in at which David Atiyah an activist but not management committee member was present and there appeared to be an issue developing which I eventually blew my top over alleging bullying. Moreover, I was conscious that another person was experiencing a human rights issue which I did not concur with as a development and support measure which I was being structured into as well - freedom of expression. I was then asked to state my case in the absence of the development support worker at management committee - which I did. He was also afforded this ability and both of us left the room at the juncture. At the conclusion of the meeting, I was asked to take a "four month breathing space" to which I did not concur - what should have occurred was the suspension of the development support worker. I then made some noise as I was certain issues were not above board - I was denied access to inspect documents as a general member of the management committee, I requested an EGM which was refused, it was eventually clarified that the "breathing space" was a suspension and has now become a permanent suspension with allegation that I have breached an activist agreement (but no evidence is provided and no disciplinary process engaged or right of reply). What also appears to be going on is that without any authority from me in Chair or otherwise my development support worker had discussions with CAPS in relation to TUPE which is or should be processed as a repudiatory breach of contract: I picked up the tender document at the meeting at which I was suspended, I had discussions with the provider organisation who was not re-tendering. At that point 5 tenders had been whittled to 3, I am now informed that CAPS did not get it: Advocard were successful - I am unaware whether the Development Support Worker (now calling himself Project Manager - which I was not party to either)/Admin worker were transferred via TUPE but there personnel records do need to be - especially the crime no via LBP for malicious falsehood which in Scotland transcends as "verbal assault". I have been informed by a lawyer I have been defamed and "stitched up". This is how patients act when in responsible positions and with "vulnerable people". I have notified the HSE. I am trying to secure a legal opinion - but the issues also throw up some very serious legal problems - people engaging in volunteering under the Welfare Reforms have little or no employment rights in statute law. It is presumed that "mutual trust and confidence" of the employer should afford - which is the case via CAB to some measure but CAB have been given the complete run around too in attempting to obtain for me legal advice, assistance and representation - at this stage, because of the "vulnerability" of mental health patients and the severity of what they have engaged in I have attempted to seek "Legal Opinion" rather than slam dunk into defamation/professional negligence, criminal or employment judicial process.

Also, co-opted "Trustees" - one of them actually wrote to my Consultant to imply or suggest that I was ill - for asking to inspect documents and request an EGM! She even appears to condone my human rights abuse over others human rights abuse! That is a complete invasion of my privacy and, moreover, a colleague who was a personal friend, claimed to be ill and I doubt experienced the same treatment - I have dispensed with the friendship. I am not ill and never have represented as such. Morover, another co-opted Trustee who I co-opted as a consequence of CAPS employment issues, claimed I was ill at a VOX Scotland event to which I gave short shift. This is sourcing from the Patients' Council and/or David Atiyah and is a completely false representation. My Consultant, who I have been asked to dispense with via Mr Justice MacKay of the Royal Courts, has received a letter notifying him of that fact and the issues arising from the Patients' Council current activities as well as notifying that the Mental Welfare Commission effectively police themselves and therefore there is an inability to engage with them. CAB have directed to the Human Rights Commission - no one so far as I am aware other than myself has requested HSE involvement - there appears to be a lacuna in the law and noticeably mental health lawyers are not currently accredited in mental health law as a practise area in Scotland or under the legal aid umbrella! (There are several consultation papers out at the moment)!

People who are "vulnerable" or have the appearance of being vulnerable have very few employment law rights : those I am aware of and you can google to see the Acts

Human Rights Act 1998 legislation - right to privacy, expression and others being prevalent

Disability Discrimination Act 2005 legislation - and "reasonable adjustment" engaging in employment

Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 - s3 specifically prohibiting employers for physically or mentally impairing their employees OR NON-EMPLOYEES (deemed to mean volunteer).

I am not aware of a lot else in law concerning volunteers who may be "altruistic" dependable and reliable or "welfare reforms" something quick on CV and move on. There are issues of "volunteer trapped" and "job retention". There are also issues of no increase in benefits or even non-financial benefits for engaging in volunteering - clothes vouchers, luncheon vouchers, transport vouchers - bus, train or even a recycled bike, socialising vouchers or even increased funding for organisations who support the welfare reformer volunteer that I am aware of (in mental health lower rate DLA no longer enables a bus pass and organisations are picking up the expense) - in 3 years of volunteering I don't think I have had anything other than the conference lunch or the management away day and christmas buffet / meal - albeit you get lots of chocolate biscuits, cakes and sweets at CAB! Colleagues tend not to socialise at weekends or even a pint from time to time - and the corporate box of choccies or champagne or end of project dinners, summer / winter balls just do not happen for volunteers - who can do extremely valuable and necessary work in their communities for free. It is an unseen and invisable workforce often dealing with NECESSARY issues in society - there is a lot of paper shuffling amongst those who are paid.

It's not about turning up at the committee, or conference, its developing the networks, reading the official blockbuster tome's and ensuring the outcomes meet the needs of the issues that are being required to be met in society. Perhaps the Office of the Third Sector needs to enter into discussions properly with the DWP to ensure that those who are engaged in volunteering for welfare reforms (and even altruistic reasons - a split has developed) that there are some benefit towards doing so. After 3 years engaged in the system - I can possibly see why EUF members may not have wished welfare reform information to reach patients and ex-patients who may be exploited, who may expose their vulnerability to employment practices which have little or no legislative intervention for and on their behalf. However, I would recommend volunteering to everyone - I have thoroughly enjoyed myself albeit was not expecting to be stitched up and defamed by the process: hopefully to be sorted out sooner rather than later: David Atiyah was the commencement of my problems at EUF albeit he is generally a nice enough guy, met 'his' objective re the website development and for some unknown reason - resigned from EUF. We are both successful people, he is resigned and I am stitched up and defamed - why?

Mental Capacity issue in the Royal Courts of Justice - causing and creating a "civil liberty" issue in England. I am not a patient, therefore applying law which does not apply is not acceptable. Moreover, my topic in law is Jurisprudence - the science and theory of human law - there is no way on this planet I am going to enable women to be processed under a mental capacity act when they are NOT a patient - this judge is without sound reason/ill and needs to be removed. I am and at all times have been entitled to, especially through birth in England, to "EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW" and I have not asked for anything other than that. Furthermore, if I were to accept it - and I am experiencing harrassment and intimidation and invasion of privacy on the case including others - it would mean a direct right of appeal for Respondents on the premis I am not afforded in law to be a protected party under mental capacity legislation. This is unjust law and law made in bad faith. Noticeably I am pushing for my case in court, Respondents are hiding behind the process so as to ensure their case is not heard even bizarrely when their case is Summary Judgment and speedy disposal thereof. CPR Rule 1 exists for a reason.

NB (nota bene) The Megrahi case the Daily Mail newspaper 04/09/09 made the representation "... 'expose' the truth and 'uncover' whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests'. Justice did not take a back seat - the appeal never got through the court room door. Is there a link to Megrahi and Dr Khalid bin Mohamed Al-Attiyah ... David Atiyah ... my experience via Professor Richard Susskind and the nonsense that surrounds him and others ... I am not a vehicle who can be used if that is the case other than for "Justice".

Recently, an invasion of my privacy has seen the removal from my flat :

Two filing cabinet keys on a key ring with a pewter Pooh Bear and a Christopher Robin

From the filing cabinet it appears to be missing a home contents insurance policy and possibly access to my finances which are realistically poor and engineered to be so! I am doing volunteering for a reason!

A book on interior design and construction which is bizarre other than obliquely - Masons and Susskind are a Construction law firm, SJB I worked for Construction law department - there may be an issue of relevance howsoever tenuous.

A copy of the Pedigree of the "Jermy" family from 1221 which was contained in a book on a shelf near the book above - by the way and of little relevance perhaps - David Atiyah is aware of the existence of this Pedigree!

Also historically :

An H&M handbag where the Estee Lauder makeup bag had more value included door keys - locks changed?
A Karen Milne handbag which is the most I paid for a hand bag because I liked it + filofax but not keys bank cards which I had on me but there were others keys - invasion of privacy perhaps.

Also, my grandmothers engagement ring - of sentimental value
My entire CD collection minus 2 cd's in the music centre [rock/pop/classical/french/gaelic] - the police fingerprinted claiming it to be kids - the locksmith claimed a professional burglery. A bag was emptied containing my court cases from a meeting with Counsel on the Masons case - the Instructions to Counsel were on top. Very big desparate kids who need to know my case and strategy perhaps. The break-in was three days to trial!

- Invasion of my father's home to include the location of a Bat species in the neighbouring garden - my witness and ex-lecturer in employment law at Birbeck - Mr Michael Ford - is a member of a Bat Association and which may provide cover for nocturnal activities!