Obituary
Tony Bunch of ex-Masons now Masons Pinsent dies.
Epitaph should read - "we took it on the chin".
He could have settled, but chose not to.
Legal Week article 23/10/09 by Claire Ruckin - Pinsents mourns death of long-serving partner Bunch" (click here)
Also, notifying I have asked for the arrest of my MP Gavin Strang for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office - reason "omitting to act" and claiming he has an inability to deal with legal issues - when he has been requested to seek advice from the Attorney General's office, specifically, Baroness Scotland.
"23 October 2009
Thank you for your emails concerning your previous employment. As you may recall, I have indicated in previous correspondence that I am afraid I am not qualified to give legal advice on a case of this sort. I have also said that I am afraid that I would not envisage such a case being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons or a Select Committee." signed Gavin Strang MP
Gavin Strang MP has failed to act over a period of 6 years on my behalf on this issue in the House of Commons at all. I have had one face to face meeting with him and he got up showed me out of the Portobello library where he was holding surgery. As such, we do not have a democracy at all - unless others are prepared to deal with this issue before the House of Commons.
I have also received a letter from the Queen's Remembrancer, Master Steven Whittaker, notifying his refusal to remove Master Leslie from the bench concerning my case where it is evidentially certain the Master is engaged in organised crime and corruption and is complicit with Alison Parker of Respondents' solicitors.
I have asked the Police for an appointment to deal over the last week or so and again just prior to this post, I am still waiting. The requests are to arrest 4 judges of the Royal Courts and to also arrest Gavin Strang MP for conspiracy to pervert/sion of the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office.
For the moment there is a stay on my proceedings and Master Leslie seems to think I should appeal his decision. There has been no DECISION and especially none that I was inter partes before him upon hearing pleading and evidence or to my knowledge ex parte. I have no knowledge of being on the warned list or a date given to appear in court. I have, however, appealed his ORDER of July 2007 before Mr Justice Hamblin (in writing) and Mr Justice Mackay (in person) in Court 37 on 11 February 2009. I did specifically ask for (a) an appeal; or (b) a judicial review; or (c) pass the papers to the criminal division - issues are beyond all reasonable doubt. I moreover requested the Metropolitan Police by email to pick the court papers up from Mr Justice Mackay: I am unaware they did so.
There are serious public interest issues on my case papers especially concerning the profile of David Shapiro, who represented Coulson in Watergate, and is also involved in a case against the American N azi Party all of which are discoverable due to my attending an in-house seminar in 1997 at S J Berwin & Co. The seminar was videod and I received David Shapiro's profile. I made representations from the floor also on video, and asked why Mr Shapiro was undermining the judicial system of England & Wales. As a paralegal, I was required to provide feedback - which I did on conscience: the feedback was contrary to the promulgation of the Woolf Reforms which eventually became the Access to Justice Act 1999. Issues were therefore "known" that ADR was NOT promulgated properly in society, nor safe and just in society, via the Woolf Reforms in 1997 and were remiss. David Shapiro passed me a note upon reading my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (in which I also refer to him as research material) - "I have the making of a true academic" - this was passed to Mr Justice Mackay on 11 February 2009 and specifically used to trump Master Leslie's representation - "no real prospect of success" with complete lack of response to a declaration of impartiality request (the Lord Chief Justice oversees the Masters of the Royal Courts - Lord Woolf was the ex-Lord Chief Justice and Professor Richard Susskind IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - hence the need to make the request) and reference to article 6 of the HRA 1998 and the right to a fair hearing - Master Leslie refused to process contempt of court requests against Alison Parker (for invasion of privacy which was evidentially certain before him due to entrapment as well as contempt of court request concerning Paula Jefferson for refusal to accept NHS correspondence relevant to lifting a stay on proceedings), at this juncture the Master had turned off or never turned on recording equipment (which was normally on at previous hearings) and asked Ms Parker to agree to his stance - which she did do. He moreover asked her to prepare a note of hearing which was substantively inaccurate and omitted the piece of paper across the desk issue (whilst I am holding it as evidence) to which he claimed her note was accurate - this latter event established with certainty that Alison Parker/Beachcrofts are involved in organised crime upon my litigation, for which I am unable to secure an appeal, judicial review or pass over to the criminal division, nor remove the judge via the Senior Master or my local MP in Parliament. Master Leslie also claimed not to know who Susskind is within judicial ranks - highly unlikely! The Solicitors Regulatory Authority are informed and refuse to deal. The Police are informed and I am currently awaiting an appointment.
The relevance is that both Masons (including Tony Bunch) and S J Berwin & Co and others across 3 litigations could have settled at any time. They chose to engage in organised crime and corruption.
Tony Bunch is not an intelligent or good man - he is "evil" as are those who surround him. Under cross-examination as the Managing Partner he claimed the authority he used to transfer me was the contract. Upon request to be specific as to the clause in the contract, there was silence. This was necessary information as the operating clause was the disciplinary clause and there was only a right to not warn, warn or sack but not transfer making the his/Susskind's/the firm's stance UNLAWFUL - there did not exist an EXPRESS term to effect a transfer, the suspension was lifted I was expected to return to post BUT NOT TRANSFER elsewhere. Professor Richard Susskind averred in pleading and cross examination that his decision to sack me was a "management decision". Not according to Tony Bunch, the Managing Partner. Ms Anne Molyneux, Ms Siobhan Cross and Ms Cathy James are the reason for the cover up and Ms Molyneux stated to the Tea lady Diane "there is blood all over the walls" after departing my disciplinary hearing prior to Susskind's hearing. I have experienced a severe impact on my LLB degree studies as well as my legal career which extends now to some 16 years. I do wonder what the impact of Mr Bunch's death is on my life now AND EVERYONE ELSE - the Judgment of the Appeal Court before Mr Justice Morrison is a malicious falsehood - and there is no reference to case citation, legal arguments on the ultra vires doctrine or contractual reference as evidence (because there is a cover up instead) - I am still experiencing an inability of the courts to process my court actions - WHY?: it cannot be because Cathy James has a loud voice, and is incompetent in post and knowingly so. It cannot be because Anne Molyneux does not comply with company policy and nor does Cathy James. It cannot be because Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross cannot switch on their computers in a specialist computer technology law firm because it is only an ornament on her desk. The issue must relate to money in some form. Why did the firm not hand Cathy her bin liner, as well as Siobhan Cross - she was only a replacable salary partner. As for Anne Molyneux how much was her equity in the firm's partnership actually worth - under the Partnership Act at the time, all equity partners are "jointly liable" and technically still are - the issue is therefore fraud (especially if they have not notified Bankers re borrowings/loans etc they are involved in litigation - they did deal with the issue in-house via Neil Biggs and presumably they did not notify insurers. All lawyers including Tony Bunch were referred to the Office of Supervision of Solicitors and should have been struck off with practising certificates removed (Jane Betts-Kamlesh Bahl/Jill Andrews news blackout issue re bullying at Law Society appears relevant - my case papers were eventually "flooded" with no apparent consequences to lawyers!) (Contra the position with S J Berwin - the second litigation they eventually notified Insurers - so I don't quite understand why Alison Parker and Paula Jefferson are not objective to Insurers and not their clients. There has to be something more important ...)
In 1993 I wrote my first law essay at Birbeck College on ADR for studies in Legal Systems and Legal Methods which was lectured and tutored by Dr Lindsay Farmer, prior to my dissertation in 1997 which secured my "Hons" LLB Degree and which Dr Farmer was the second marker with Professor Nichola Lacey as lecturer in Jurisprudence. I appear covered up ever since, with ex-academia, ex-Masons and ex-SJ Berwin ongoing in my life since 1993 onwards.
I am moreover concerned that Gavin Strang MP is failing to do as I ask of him democratically and is also using the word "afraid" several times in his correspondence.
There is a general pattern across my 3 litigations in England & Wales court systems of "omitting to act", which also includes ancillary agency such as the Office of Supervision of Solicitors (Jane Betts and Kamlesh Bahl), Ombudsman - Ann Abrahams, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, the Police and Police Complaints (IPCC), the Bar Council.
Who or what are we afraid of that our judges cannot "reason" simple cases from "cause" to "effect" and I am not "causative" : nor settle out of court if they do not wish to defend the case. WHY THE NEED FOR ORGANISED CRIME AND CORRUPTION including perverting the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office. Perhaps America you can provide me with the intelligence and documentation which no one wants me to secure via discovery process and which I am entitled per se - where no party is settling or the judges "reasoning". (I am aware that ADR came into the UK via ex-President Bill Clinton and that it was global - I do wonder was that Monica/Bill scandal convenient or inventive to keep something off the front pages). I clarify there has been NO DECISION of MASTER LESLIE: I have APPEALED the ORDER only of MASTER LESLIE. I expect to win my case and/or deal with it via the criminal division where I will be entitled to a full team of legal aid expertise whether I want it or not. Therefore, will the Police now make the necessary arrests - people should not be "afraid" when litigating.
Pope John Paul's message to the world was "Be not afraid" - I am not afraid, I also have a sunny side of the street disposition as my inherent nature.
NB: If anyone is experiencing throat infection and a day or two exhaustian (especially if you are involved in a case in court and/or a litigant in person : please buy a bottle of unperfumed anti-bacterial gel hand wash (approx 99p in good chemists). Use to disinfect your toothbrush (just a little bit), then apply toothpaste and brush teeth - you need to know this as an anecdote: as you are no doubt being assaulted, experiencing trespass and bugged with an invasion of your privacy.
Please also be aware that certain people in society use "animism" to appear attractive, when their agenda is anything but. The deception is debilitating if you are not aware of the reason why or the need for entrapment per se - however, when you are aware, it is a bit of a hoot as the issues unfold and the play is performed before you - you are also likely to experience issues during the night time (ie nocturnal) it is a form of bulling - it is harrassment and intimidation especially when you have a case in court. Be aware of how you discuss this with your GP as it can have severe consequences which it is designed to have ...
Lawyers do not need to bug you or invade your privacy when they can do "discovery", where each party shows the other their documents and decides what to present to the court. If, however, the otherside have no case - then they are likely to engage in subversive activities to construct one : it is up to you what they get to have in order to construct their case, but expect everyone you know to experience an invasion of their privacy too.
My question to America is - the Watergate cover up via Nixon - was it a Master Plan to undermine the judicial systems of the global world especially "the Rose of Democracy" England - thereby creating a lowering of standards in society contrary to reasonableness, ie perverse, degenerate, outlandish, bullish, excessive, corrupt such that eventually we would have WW III. (I did just recently watch the David Frost/Nixon/Watergate - Coulson film and may buy the documentary - it was well acted, alleged 7 names, was less than thin on substance but extracted a apology - for what exactly on substance)! David Shapiro stated 6 names, I recall his and Irwin but do not know whether this relates to the legal team or Watergate scandal - there are 4 names on the video tape I made my representation on - "why are you undermining the rule of law in the UK" - I have tried but failed to get a copy on discovery in the second litigation against SJ Berwin & Co. David Shapiro might like the opportunity for another David Frost interview! I would like the opportunity to cross-examine him too, especially as my perception is ADR in the English legal system meant the Iraq War was a decoy - for which I expect to put Tony Blair in the Hague as a war criminal. I do appear to be being covered up, but can only hazard a guess /surmize as to the reason why. I am not afraid of the reason. The issues are public interest.
POST OFFICE - MONOPOLY - DEMOCRACY
Attending a conference in Berlin in 2008 I discussed the "future of trade unionism". I suggested TU buy shares/talk shop with shareholders who want profits + dividends = employees good conditions + wages. Shareholders are better placed to deal with management if there is an obstacle. Tesco and Tesco Express are successful, Royal Mail + Post Office seen to fail as "retail/service orientated" organisations: why not headhunt/second Tesco executives! A MONOPOLY can exist in a DEMOCRACY : no need to privatise for competition -IMPROVE not CHANGE a good organisation +maximise postal delivery to everyone by the next day = SOCIAL INCLUSION, ANTI-POVERTY, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY, ANTI-DISCRIMINATION re Gov policy. Questionnaire JOE PUBLIC on back of Xmas mailing dates form for feedback + ideas. DHL service took over 2 weeks to receive = not competition!
BNP (Straw) and BBC Debate / Moot
My neutral stance on Nick Griffen/BNP debate : is he or any member of his party on the expenses scandal list? Expected Alex Salmond (SNP) and Harriet Harman on the panel - would have been a hoot. Not impressed by Straws at all nor "conspiracy ...theorists and fantasists" remark - was BNP debate keeping something else off the front pages eg www.lesleymcdade.blogspot.com. I did consider that Nick Griffen did have a point but that he is manipulative and that his formulation and articulation of the point needs some more work. He appeared to be arguing a stance akin to say a Red Indian in America, a Maori in New Zealand or an Aborigine in Australia, ie that eg the English as an indiginous people in the UK are in a minority where they are actually the majority. But the point I really think he was trying to make is that the Race Relations Act 1976 (I think) refers to the indiginous peoples of the UK as "British", there being no English, Scots, Irish, Welsh RACE via statute. However, there is case precedent that I am aware of BBC v Soutar (or Soutar v BBC) where the judges made the quantum leap and "CREATED" the English, Scots, Welsh, Irish race argument - albeit case precedent is supposed to be "DISCOVERED" not created as ratio decidendi - thereafter being binding in all future time. The statutory legislation is therefore out of cinq with Race Relations laws as I think the point NG is making is that you have more rights being a British muslim or British Jew, etc than you do being a person who is indiginous English. There seemed to me to be a need for NG to widen the scope of the argument as it becomes confusing - is he "British NP" or "English NP" or both. The widening of the scope is necessary because the English are not yet devolved properly as they do not have their own Parliament in England - technically Westminster is actually the UK Parliament or "British Parliament". It seems to me that until the hole in the line management of the Parliamentary structures ie,
EU
UK (Westminster)
Devolved
Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish -- AND ENGLAND
NG has got a point because the English are politically under represented as a people.
Dealing with the Line Management Structure issue would remove some of the issues from NG and also ensure that there was proper cross-party representation for the English, as there is Scots, Northern Irish and the Welsh.
However, it is probably that NG has a point but it comes across badly. I was also appalled that as a person who is elected that he would be subjected to the vitriol and pilloring that occurred (during the debate and subsequently in the press afterwards - he is human and you did not turn on Straw who deserved some attention too). I was moreover appalled to see Jack Straw join in rather than say "stop this" - bear in mind he was happy to haul out the "holocaust" issues and I was most displeased to view it, but it appeared tasteless while a human being was averring categorically I did not represent this, that and the other and appeared to be defending himself from accusation, with further slating in the next days paper. You cannot have your cake and eat it - in relation to civilisation. Yes, have a debate : but don't use the word "holocaust" and then do exactly what you appear to be reviling about the holocaust - attack of a human. Yes, I am fully aware NG is coached, expects that sort of treatment, yes he may actually have a political point / legislative point but maybe folks should take another look at the debate video - it ain't pretty under scrutiny : I did, however, appreciate the dignity of the two females on the panel.
Lastly, Barack Obama is "surprised" he got the Nobel Peace Prize. If you earned it, you would just say "thank you ...", the Nobel Peace Prize should never come as a surprise, its a recognition of a lifetimes achievement / genius".
Epitaph should read - "we took it on the chin".
He could have settled, but chose not to.
Legal Week article 23/10/09 by Claire Ruckin - Pinsents mourns death of long-serving partner Bunch" (click here)
Also, notifying I have asked for the arrest of my MP Gavin Strang for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office - reason "omitting to act" and claiming he has an inability to deal with legal issues - when he has been requested to seek advice from the Attorney General's office, specifically, Baroness Scotland.
"23 October 2009
Thank you for your emails concerning your previous employment. As you may recall, I have indicated in previous correspondence that I am afraid I am not qualified to give legal advice on a case of this sort. I have also said that I am afraid that I would not envisage such a case being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons or a Select Committee." signed Gavin Strang MP
Gavin Strang MP has failed to act over a period of 6 years on my behalf on this issue in the House of Commons at all. I have had one face to face meeting with him and he got up showed me out of the Portobello library where he was holding surgery. As such, we do not have a democracy at all - unless others are prepared to deal with this issue before the House of Commons.
I have also received a letter from the Queen's Remembrancer, Master Steven Whittaker, notifying his refusal to remove Master Leslie from the bench concerning my case where it is evidentially certain the Master is engaged in organised crime and corruption and is complicit with Alison Parker of Respondents' solicitors.
I have asked the Police for an appointment to deal over the last week or so and again just prior to this post, I am still waiting. The requests are to arrest 4 judges of the Royal Courts and to also arrest Gavin Strang MP for conspiracy to pervert/sion of the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office.
For the moment there is a stay on my proceedings and Master Leslie seems to think I should appeal his decision. There has been no DECISION and especially none that I was inter partes before him upon hearing pleading and evidence or to my knowledge ex parte. I have no knowledge of being on the warned list or a date given to appear in court. I have, however, appealed his ORDER of July 2007 before Mr Justice Hamblin (in writing) and Mr Justice Mackay (in person) in Court 37 on 11 February 2009. I did specifically ask for (a) an appeal; or (b) a judicial review; or (c) pass the papers to the criminal division - issues are beyond all reasonable doubt. I moreover requested the Metropolitan Police by email to pick the court papers up from Mr Justice Mackay: I am unaware they did so.
There are serious public interest issues on my case papers especially concerning the profile of David Shapiro, who represented Coulson in Watergate, and is also involved in a case against the American N azi Party all of which are discoverable due to my attending an in-house seminar in 1997 at S J Berwin & Co. The seminar was videod and I received David Shapiro's profile. I made representations from the floor also on video, and asked why Mr Shapiro was undermining the judicial system of England & Wales. As a paralegal, I was required to provide feedback - which I did on conscience: the feedback was contrary to the promulgation of the Woolf Reforms which eventually became the Access to Justice Act 1999. Issues were therefore "known" that ADR was NOT promulgated properly in society, nor safe and just in society, via the Woolf Reforms in 1997 and were remiss. David Shapiro passed me a note upon reading my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (in which I also refer to him as research material) - "I have the making of a true academic" - this was passed to Mr Justice Mackay on 11 February 2009 and specifically used to trump Master Leslie's representation - "no real prospect of success" with complete lack of response to a declaration of impartiality request (the Lord Chief Justice oversees the Masters of the Royal Courts - Lord Woolf was the ex-Lord Chief Justice and Professor Richard Susskind IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - hence the need to make the request) and reference to article 6 of the HRA 1998 and the right to a fair hearing - Master Leslie refused to process contempt of court requests against Alison Parker (for invasion of privacy which was evidentially certain before him due to entrapment as well as contempt of court request concerning Paula Jefferson for refusal to accept NHS correspondence relevant to lifting a stay on proceedings), at this juncture the Master had turned off or never turned on recording equipment (which was normally on at previous hearings) and asked Ms Parker to agree to his stance - which she did do. He moreover asked her to prepare a note of hearing which was substantively inaccurate and omitted the piece of paper across the desk issue (whilst I am holding it as evidence) to which he claimed her note was accurate - this latter event established with certainty that Alison Parker/Beachcrofts are involved in organised crime upon my litigation, for which I am unable to secure an appeal, judicial review or pass over to the criminal division, nor remove the judge via the Senior Master or my local MP in Parliament. Master Leslie also claimed not to know who Susskind is within judicial ranks - highly unlikely! The Solicitors Regulatory Authority are informed and refuse to deal. The Police are informed and I am currently awaiting an appointment.
The relevance is that both Masons (including Tony Bunch) and S J Berwin & Co and others across 3 litigations could have settled at any time. They chose to engage in organised crime and corruption.
Tony Bunch is not an intelligent or good man - he is "evil" as are those who surround him. Under cross-examination as the Managing Partner he claimed the authority he used to transfer me was the contract. Upon request to be specific as to the clause in the contract, there was silence. This was necessary information as the operating clause was the disciplinary clause and there was only a right to not warn, warn or sack but not transfer making the his/Susskind's/the firm's stance UNLAWFUL - there did not exist an EXPRESS term to effect a transfer, the suspension was lifted I was expected to return to post BUT NOT TRANSFER elsewhere. Professor Richard Susskind averred in pleading and cross examination that his decision to sack me was a "management decision". Not according to Tony Bunch, the Managing Partner. Ms Anne Molyneux, Ms Siobhan Cross and Ms Cathy James are the reason for the cover up and Ms Molyneux stated to the Tea lady Diane "there is blood all over the walls" after departing my disciplinary hearing prior to Susskind's hearing. I have experienced a severe impact on my LLB degree studies as well as my legal career which extends now to some 16 years. I do wonder what the impact of Mr Bunch's death is on my life now AND EVERYONE ELSE - the Judgment of the Appeal Court before Mr Justice Morrison is a malicious falsehood - and there is no reference to case citation, legal arguments on the ultra vires doctrine or contractual reference as evidence (because there is a cover up instead) - I am still experiencing an inability of the courts to process my court actions - WHY?: it cannot be because Cathy James has a loud voice, and is incompetent in post and knowingly so. It cannot be because Anne Molyneux does not comply with company policy and nor does Cathy James. It cannot be because Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross cannot switch on their computers in a specialist computer technology law firm because it is only an ornament on her desk. The issue must relate to money in some form. Why did the firm not hand Cathy her bin liner, as well as Siobhan Cross - she was only a replacable salary partner. As for Anne Molyneux how much was her equity in the firm's partnership actually worth - under the Partnership Act at the time, all equity partners are "jointly liable" and technically still are - the issue is therefore fraud (especially if they have not notified Bankers re borrowings/loans etc they are involved in litigation - they did deal with the issue in-house via Neil Biggs and presumably they did not notify insurers. All lawyers including Tony Bunch were referred to the Office of Supervision of Solicitors and should have been struck off with practising certificates removed (Jane Betts-Kamlesh Bahl/Jill Andrews news blackout issue re bullying at Law Society appears relevant - my case papers were eventually "flooded" with no apparent consequences to lawyers!) (Contra the position with S J Berwin - the second litigation they eventually notified Insurers - so I don't quite understand why Alison Parker and Paula Jefferson are not objective to Insurers and not their clients. There has to be something more important ...)
In 1993 I wrote my first law essay at Birbeck College on ADR for studies in Legal Systems and Legal Methods which was lectured and tutored by Dr Lindsay Farmer, prior to my dissertation in 1997 which secured my "Hons" LLB Degree and which Dr Farmer was the second marker with Professor Nichola Lacey as lecturer in Jurisprudence. I appear covered up ever since, with ex-academia, ex-Masons and ex-SJ Berwin ongoing in my life since 1993 onwards.
I am moreover concerned that Gavin Strang MP is failing to do as I ask of him democratically and is also using the word "afraid" several times in his correspondence.
There is a general pattern across my 3 litigations in England & Wales court systems of "omitting to act", which also includes ancillary agency such as the Office of Supervision of Solicitors (Jane Betts and Kamlesh Bahl), Ombudsman - Ann Abrahams, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, the Police and Police Complaints (IPCC), the Bar Council.
Who or what are we afraid of that our judges cannot "reason" simple cases from "cause" to "effect" and I am not "causative" : nor settle out of court if they do not wish to defend the case. WHY THE NEED FOR ORGANISED CRIME AND CORRUPTION including perverting the course of justice and (gross) misconduct in public office. Perhaps America you can provide me with the intelligence and documentation which no one wants me to secure via discovery process and which I am entitled per se - where no party is settling or the judges "reasoning". (I am aware that ADR came into the UK via ex-President Bill Clinton and that it was global - I do wonder was that Monica/Bill scandal convenient or inventive to keep something off the front pages). I clarify there has been NO DECISION of MASTER LESLIE: I have APPEALED the ORDER only of MASTER LESLIE. I expect to win my case and/or deal with it via the criminal division where I will be entitled to a full team of legal aid expertise whether I want it or not. Therefore, will the Police now make the necessary arrests - people should not be "afraid" when litigating.
Pope John Paul's message to the world was "Be not afraid" - I am not afraid, I also have a sunny side of the street disposition as my inherent nature.
NB: If anyone is experiencing throat infection and a day or two exhaustian (especially if you are involved in a case in court and/or a litigant in person : please buy a bottle of unperfumed anti-bacterial gel hand wash (approx 99p in good chemists). Use to disinfect your toothbrush (just a little bit), then apply toothpaste and brush teeth - you need to know this as an anecdote: as you are no doubt being assaulted, experiencing trespass and bugged with an invasion of your privacy.
Please also be aware that certain people in society use "animism" to appear attractive, when their agenda is anything but. The deception is debilitating if you are not aware of the reason why or the need for entrapment per se - however, when you are aware, it is a bit of a hoot as the issues unfold and the play is performed before you - you are also likely to experience issues during the night time (ie nocturnal) it is a form of bulling - it is harrassment and intimidation especially when you have a case in court. Be aware of how you discuss this with your GP as it can have severe consequences which it is designed to have ...
Lawyers do not need to bug you or invade your privacy when they can do "discovery", where each party shows the other their documents and decides what to present to the court. If, however, the otherside have no case - then they are likely to engage in subversive activities to construct one : it is up to you what they get to have in order to construct their case, but expect everyone you know to experience an invasion of their privacy too.
My question to America is - the Watergate cover up via Nixon - was it a Master Plan to undermine the judicial systems of the global world especially "the Rose of Democracy" England - thereby creating a lowering of standards in society contrary to reasonableness, ie perverse, degenerate, outlandish, bullish, excessive, corrupt such that eventually we would have WW III. (I did just recently watch the David Frost/Nixon/Watergate - Coulson film and may buy the documentary - it was well acted, alleged 7 names, was less than thin on substance but extracted a apology - for what exactly on substance)! David Shapiro stated 6 names, I recall his and Irwin but do not know whether this relates to the legal team or Watergate scandal - there are 4 names on the video tape I made my representation on - "why are you undermining the rule of law in the UK" - I have tried but failed to get a copy on discovery in the second litigation against SJ Berwin & Co. David Shapiro might like the opportunity for another David Frost interview! I would like the opportunity to cross-examine him too, especially as my perception is ADR in the English legal system meant the Iraq War was a decoy - for which I expect to put Tony Blair in the Hague as a war criminal. I do appear to be being covered up, but can only hazard a guess /surmize as to the reason why. I am not afraid of the reason. The issues are public interest.
POST OFFICE - MONOPOLY - DEMOCRACY
Attending a conference in Berlin in 2008 I discussed the "future of trade unionism". I suggested TU buy shares/talk shop with shareholders who want profits + dividends = employees good conditions + wages. Shareholders are better placed to deal with management if there is an obstacle. Tesco and Tesco Express are successful, Royal Mail + Post Office seen to fail as "retail/service orientated" organisations: why not headhunt/second Tesco executives! A MONOPOLY can exist in a DEMOCRACY : no need to privatise for competition -IMPROVE not CHANGE a good organisation +maximise postal delivery to everyone by the next day = SOCIAL INCLUSION, ANTI-POVERTY, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY, ANTI-DISCRIMINATION re Gov policy. Questionnaire JOE PUBLIC on back of Xmas mailing dates form for feedback + ideas. DHL service took over 2 weeks to receive = not competition!
BNP (Straw) and BBC Debate / Moot
My neutral stance on Nick Griffen/BNP debate : is he or any member of his party on the expenses scandal list? Expected Alex Salmond (SNP) and Harriet Harman on the panel - would have been a hoot. Not impressed by Straws at all nor "conspiracy ...theorists and fantasists" remark - was BNP debate keeping something else off the front pages eg www.lesleymcdade.blogspot.com. I did consider that Nick Griffen did have a point but that he is manipulative and that his formulation and articulation of the point needs some more work. He appeared to be arguing a stance akin to say a Red Indian in America, a Maori in New Zealand or an Aborigine in Australia, ie that eg the English as an indiginous people in the UK are in a minority where they are actually the majority. But the point I really think he was trying to make is that the Race Relations Act 1976 (I think) refers to the indiginous peoples of the UK as "British", there being no English, Scots, Irish, Welsh RACE via statute. However, there is case precedent that I am aware of BBC v Soutar (or Soutar v BBC) where the judges made the quantum leap and "CREATED" the English, Scots, Welsh, Irish race argument - albeit case precedent is supposed to be "DISCOVERED" not created as ratio decidendi - thereafter being binding in all future time. The statutory legislation is therefore out of cinq with Race Relations laws as I think the point NG is making is that you have more rights being a British muslim or British Jew, etc than you do being a person who is indiginous English. There seemed to me to be a need for NG to widen the scope of the argument as it becomes confusing - is he "British NP" or "English NP" or both. The widening of the scope is necessary because the English are not yet devolved properly as they do not have their own Parliament in England - technically Westminster is actually the UK Parliament or "British Parliament". It seems to me that until the hole in the line management of the Parliamentary structures ie,
EU
UK (Westminster)
Devolved
Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish -- AND ENGLAND
NG has got a point because the English are politically under represented as a people.
Dealing with the Line Management Structure issue would remove some of the issues from NG and also ensure that there was proper cross-party representation for the English, as there is Scots, Northern Irish and the Welsh.
However, it is probably that NG has a point but it comes across badly. I was also appalled that as a person who is elected that he would be subjected to the vitriol and pilloring that occurred (during the debate and subsequently in the press afterwards - he is human and you did not turn on Straw who deserved some attention too). I was moreover appalled to see Jack Straw join in rather than say "stop this" - bear in mind he was happy to haul out the "holocaust" issues and I was most displeased to view it, but it appeared tasteless while a human being was averring categorically I did not represent this, that and the other and appeared to be defending himself from accusation, with further slating in the next days paper. You cannot have your cake and eat it - in relation to civilisation. Yes, have a debate : but don't use the word "holocaust" and then do exactly what you appear to be reviling about the holocaust - attack of a human. Yes, I am fully aware NG is coached, expects that sort of treatment, yes he may actually have a political point / legislative point but maybe folks should take another look at the debate video - it ain't pretty under scrutiny : I did, however, appreciate the dignity of the two females on the panel.
Lastly, Barack Obama is "surprised" he got the Nobel Peace Prize. If you earned it, you would just say "thank you ...", the Nobel Peace Prize should never come as a surprise, its a recognition of a lifetimes achievement / genius".
posted by Lesley McDade at 6:55 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home