Equality is the Highest Form of Social Order in a Democracy - or not?

Happy Birthday to me 2012

2012-01-28T00:12:00.011Z

You are very mischievious, my walking stick,
And love to play on me a trick.
I leave you hanging on the back of my chair,
And when I return I find you are not there.
“Now where’s my stick”, in desperation I cry,
And when I’ve looked everywhere,
I find you in a most unexpected place,
Fearing I have lost you, my heart starts to race.
For I cannot do without you.
Like a sword to a knight of old,
If I may be so bold, I rely on you, walking stick,
To help me over the stony ground,
And where other pitfalls abound.
So let it be just a trick,
I would hate to lose you my naughty stick.

Phyllis Jermy Deceased - my Grandmother

ADR the "Achillies Heel" of Democracy

2012-01-27T23:22:00.007Z

We have all heard the terms "separation of the powers" and "Justice must be done and seen to be done". But do we really know why these axioms exist in civilised society?

Well the separation of powers is between law and politics. That is to say "natural law v posited law". Natural law is the little bit of reasoning (ratio decidendi) of a case precedent. Posited law is the rule of law contained in a Statute as made by the legislature on the back of the people (citizens/subjects of a country). Natural law is what the law "ought" to be and posited law "is" the law. Simple you might think from time immemorial.

Unfortunately, if the balance between judicial reasoning and legislature does not happen, then I argue, neither does democracy. Why, if no cases challenge or reiterate the rule of law at common law (case precedent) or as contained in a statute, then law stagnates and becomes political "is" law.

Assuming the will of the people is always adhered to then law "should" be "good" law to regulate all citizens. However, not all politicians are ultimately good and not all societies are ultimately good either.

Therefore, to unbalance democracy all you need to do is to prevent either Justice not occurring or the legislature to not occur. But it is not as simple as that. Justice is fundamental to democracy. Why, because "Justice" sets the standard of reasonableness to what the rule of law "ought" to be and this can occur objectively or subjectively via the equitable discretion of the judge.

In a democracy, the standard of reasonableness is determined to be equality, fairness, impartiality and justice. Therefore Justice is the "ultimate" and is "fundamental" to democracy. Stop "Justice" and you prevent equality, etc.

Currently in England & Wales, and America a Japanese concept called ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is being contained "within" the judiciary and legal profession. It is being premised as "access to justice" and is contained in a Directive on Mediation which is going to impact on the Scottish and European legal systems, except Denmark who have abstained.

The problem with ADR is that it does the "opposite" and removes the case from the path of access to justice, where the parties may not experience equality, fairness, impartiality or justice. The difference is that the judge is never a mediator and the mediator is never a judge. As such, something is occurring to democracy that is being falsely premised, the issue remains – why?We have had "regimes", "regime change" and "change management" in the last decade within UK politics – from what to what? (Liberalisation!).

Now ADR is a Japanese concept and as such it is used culturally to "save loss of face". In Japan litigation is a "last resort" concept. Japanese culture is based on confidentiality agreements and gagging clauses covering up who knows what. Japanese society is therefore largely "hidden". This by contrast is not how Western society is, our courts are "public" and the light of day shines into its darkest reaches most of the time.

Anyway, I recently spoke to a Scottish mediator and he informed me "but 97% of cases settle without trial": therefore 3% make it to Justice and impact uniformly on society. Just 3% is necessary in order to ensure that British society exists as a democratic society where society is deemed to be civilised, safe and just. (I am surprised, maybe closer inspection needs to occur concerning this statistic!) Therefore why do ADR’sts want to have ADR "within" the judiciary and legal profession and potentially impact on 3% of cases that fundamentally must go the distance when ADR "outwith" the judiciary and legal profession and with freedom of choice and the equilibrium of the dispute market they have potential to access 97% of cases: that should be sufficient.If, 97% of disputes "settle" before trial, this presumably is why Woolf claims (1) equality and (2) access to justice. Settlement is potentially divided into judiciary ("traditional equality") and mediators ("contemporary equality").

Either the judge decides or the parties decide the outcome of the dispute. Therefore contemporary equality is 99:1; 60:40; [50:50]; 30:70; 1:99. The fact that it is possible for traditional equality and contemporary equality to be 50:50 presupposes that mediation does have some "good" quality, howsoever, unlikely the parties will settle on this outcome may be in reality. With mediation there is disempowerment especially where psychological techniques are used: "gold will be left on the table" – there must fundamentally be a benefit to all parties – win/win rather than win/lose via the judiciary. The difference is that judicial equality provides compensation (monetary value), mediation may provide redress, ie the remedy may have a different weight.

As such, I advocate the "Competition model" for Scotland and Europe:Judges, lawyers and barristers NOT permitted to practice ADR – because their sole role in society is to uphold the rule of law!A professional body of mediators akin to the Law Society/Bar CouncilA mediation centre in every town/city where there currently exists a courtThat is to say, that the competition model would separate litigators from mediators. The market would determine who got the disputes and in what percentage on the basis of freedom of choice. ADR would exist in a democracy and so would the rule of law.

However, of concern to me is how ADR is being processed in society. The English & Welsh model was processed by the Woolf Report which became the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR Rule 26 processed ADR "within" the judiciary. The Woolf Report stupidly in my view informed "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" ambiguously in a report entitled "Access to Justice" (Annex 1). Therefore it is clear that something intellectually was deficient concerning the processing of ADR within English/Welsh society – or was it? If we are being "change managed" to some other political state then the judicial and political elite would be acting deliberately rather than inadvertently.Furthermore, the Scottish Executive have been processing the Directive on Mediation at European level. A consultation paper on the subsidiary principle via Arlene McCarthy MEP saw 2 out of 27 published responses interviewed and as my response proposed the Competition model and was not therefore the proposed model, it was perhaps biased or prejudicial to not also interview me on the premis that you ought democratically to interview for and against your proposal. 5 further "experts"! were also interviewed, effectively rubber stamping an already settled outcome.Therefore, it would appear to me that I am making the case that "democracy" is being dispensed with politically as well as judicially. – because of ADR - Why?Surely, there is a need to take a step back and look at the models (do an evaluation) – English & Welsh, American, Japanese and for good measure the Danish before impacting on Scotland and Europe.

So to recap – ADR is the "achillies heel" of democracy because:

It is being processed as something it is not and never can be because it is "opposite" to Access to Justice, ie Access FROM Justice: compromise.

It upsets the finely balanced mechanism between natural law and posited law and if judges do not "reason" then society stagnates in a political quagmire.Even the political domain cannot process a consultation fairly proving that "standards" in society have subsequently lowered.

ADR "undermines" the rule of law because it gags society at the individual level and prevents law being uniformly applicable.

The Japanese process ADR as a cultural feature to their society, we are processing it because it is cheaper and quicker than litigation (not necessarily true) – so revamp the litigation process to the 21st Century using IT! and "improve" on a 3% statistic.

Do you want to exist in a safe and just society – with ADR contained "within" the judiciary – just what society are you expecting? What should the international symbol of "Compromise" look like?

1 - Access to Justice Table re Woolf (worth downloading)

References:http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/contents.htm

Woolf Report - Access to Justice

http://www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/juri/consultations/default_en.htm

Published responses to the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiary Principle concerning the Directive on Mediation 2004 718 http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=191867

Lesley Diane Mcdade (Miss) 29/10/2007

Merry Christmas - 2011

2011-12-22T23:51:00.004Z

The Face behind the keys

Is a genie hiding in my typewriter?
Or a gremlin, or imp, perhaps?
I can see him grinning, the cheeky blighter,
And hear him mock between the taps.

If not an imp, or gremlin, or genie,
- A Leprechaun or other sprite,
Whom does it belong to, whose face do I spy
Peeping at me with eyes so bright.

Come out little man, elvin, troll or whatever,
You’ll get hurt as I bang the keys,
We’ll write some poems and stories together,
Come out, come out, little man, please.

Phyllis Jermy Deceased - my Grandmother

Supreme Court or ECHR for Scottish Cases on Appeal

2011-05-29T13:29:00.009+01:00

There is a debate raging this month about a Scottish criminal law case being heard in the English Supreme Court even with two Scottish judges sitting. The argument is that the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh should be the final appeal court for such cases and thereafter they should go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I tend to agree.

Earlier in posts I argued against the need for the Supreme Court at all in British society. Most cases should be done properly first time with it being rare for an appeal. Moreover, there should be greater scrutiny of appeals on the premis that the judiciary are deliberately getting cases wrong which is corruption (being a perversion of the course of justice and criminal offence), not a miscarriage of justice which requires a lack of evidence or judicial inadvertence. There needs to be greater accountability as human rights is an "Ivory Tower" making lawyers and barristers wealthy where the system has effectively broken down ie the judiciary are causative necessitating an ECHR appeal. This needs to be monitored more closely and proper training given to the judiciary.

So I am with the Scots on this issue but find the whole issue of Nat Fraser's case somewhat bizarre given Lord Hope of Craighead was presiding in the case and presumably did not have leave to appeal from the High Court of Justiciary - Lord Hope of Craighead refused to sit on my case in the House of Lords, along with Slynn of Hadley and Hobhouse of Woodborough causing a miscarriage of justice as the case before him was premised on a perversion of the course of justice in the Employment Appeal Tribunal - the judgment fails to cite five case precedent, legal arguments and evidence yet bizarrely you can only appeal on a point of law. However Lord Hope of Craighead failed to notify the other judges of his work with the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists and lack of impartiality to Professor Richard Susskind OBE who is also a member and whom I was suing and is the reason for the perversion of the course of justice. Richard Susskind is IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. I did not have leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal but appealed anyway on the premis the Woolf Reforms were implemented and therefore "Access to Justice" must include the House of Lords making blocking case law Lane v Esdaile obsolete. Prayers were also bizarrely said twice firstly by the Bishop of Derby and then later by the Bishop of Birmingham. Lord Hope of Craighead's stance on my case was also at odds with a website forward he wrote for Glasgow University where he wrote that he believed in access to justice! I did not bother with the European Courts of Justice as there was a four year waiting list, however, the key documents are logged in my current case before a Master of the Royal Courts of Justice in London, so there may yet be an outcome of sorts as minor relevance to that case albeit that case is stayed with a deliberate human rights abuse on it already and should be in the criminal courts on a perversion of the course of justice ticket against the judge. If justice is done properly and objectively then there should be no need for article 6 human rights abuse cases largely caused by the judge and should really go on appeal to a criminal court for perversion of the course of justice rather than be dealt with as a civil action or at least rarely dealt with as a civil action for reason of lack of evidence or inadvertence of the judge.

Some short comings of the Human Rights Act 1998

2011-04-30T23:04:00.009+01:00

The legal debate this month has been between the right to privacy and freedom of expression which appear to be in conflict within the judiciary in the last year. Judges of a sudden are granting super-injuctions which mean that nothing can be reported in the press and media streams guaranteeing a right of privacy as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. The super-injunctions have been used by the rich, they are allegedly expensive to obtain, and are being used to cover up extra-marital activities by those who are already in the public domain and don't want press intrusion.

But it seems to me that there is a complete misunderstanding of the role and function of the judiciary. Litigation is the "public" application of the rule of law. Arbitration is the "private" application of the rule of law. Therefore, the Human Rights Act 1998 should balance the right to privacy over the right to freedom of expression, only if a case is brought as an arbitration. Simple. Litigation should fundamentally fall down on the right to freedom of expression because the judiciary are "public", not private.

However, there is a very serious problem with the Human Rights Act 1998 which has yet to be aired and that is article 6 the right to a fair hearing. Only a judge can deprive you of a right to a fair hearing and when that occurs it is either that a miscarriage of justice has occurred (which requires a judge to act inadvertently or there is a lack of evidence) OR the judge acts deliberately which is corruption. That is to say that it should be very very rare for a miscarriage of justice to occur. Where a judge deliberately abuses his / her power and an article 6 hearing occurs on appeal then the judge should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, which is a serious criminal offence and/or misconduct in public office. That is to say only if a judge acts inadvertently or there is a lack of evidence should an article 6 appeal be necessary. Judges should not be above the rule of law.

Another very serious human rights abuse is in mental health law. All that is needed to place someone into a mental health hospital is a justice of the peace signing a document called a warrant under the Mental Health Act as requested by a psychiatrist and mental health officer (social worker). A person loses all of their rights and must APPEAL the justice of the peace's warrant after 28 days where they can be treated with god knows what medication against their will in the interim period. The current system prima facia removes a persons human rights altogether for at least 28 days when it should be necessary for the person to be present and put arguments if they wish when the warrant is issued to send someone to a mental health hospital for treatment. No one should be treated without first having their fundamental human rights asserted in law and a right to a fair hearing should start at day 1 minute 1, not 28 days later. At 28 days an APPEAL is possible, however, there are abuses of the system whereby an appeal is not done when requested at 28 days but a "Compulsory Treatment Order" is sought for a further 6 months and an APPEAL of the CTO is done, thereby abusing a persons human rights to a fair hearing under article 6. That is to say an appeal does not occur of the 28 day detention but the 6 month detention - it should be necessary that article 6 hearings cover both periods of detention - but the system is currently lax at 28 day appeals. Mental Health law is not currently complaint with Human Rights legislation and is open to abuse.

These are some blue sky thinking for reform of the human rights act 1998 which may mean the European Court of Human Rights having less of an impact on British justice.

No win, no fee conditional fee arrangements

2011-03-30T22:32:00.008+01:00

Kenneth Clarke MP, the new Justice Secretary is to reform no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements. An interesting article is published by epolitix.com: Article on 29/03/11 in www.epolitix.com entitled "Clarke to reform "no win no fee" cases" (Click here)

I have recently been approaching law firms for a CFA to do my case which is stayed in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. The judge is insisting that I have a litigant friend and the case has been stayed for 4 years now with the Official Solicitor for England & Wales being requested twice by the judge to act on my behalf, both times her [Samson-Tandoh] refusing to do so allegedly latterly because of the Woolf Reforms.

Ken Clarke MP has made several recommendations : "Clarke said he will seek legislation to restore the fundamental values of civil justice and attacked a system where legal costs often outstrip compensation payments. He called the current situation "unparalled in any other country". "We plan to end the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums, which drive legal costs, award claimants a 10 per cent uplift in general damages where they have suffered loss, and then ensure that they take an interest in controlling the bills being run up on their behalf by expecting them to pay their own lawyer's success fee," he said. Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said it is difficult to disagree with reforming civil justice, a process that the last Labour government began. He said that while he accepts the costs of civil cases should be reformed, all people should have recourse to the civil courts. He said that the poor already have trouble finding a lawyer to act on their behalf and these changes may exacerbate that situation. "There is a fear that these plans go so far in trying to keep down costs that some claimants with meritorious cases would find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a lawyer to take on their case," he said.

...

There will be a consultation on other plans to improve how court judgments are enforced, so that people receive what it is judged they are owed, as well as introducing automatic referral to mediation in small claims cases, or mediation awareness sessions in higher-value cases, to help people avoid court where possible. Clarke wants to raise the small claims limit and to change the county court jurisdiction so that the High Court is used for bigger and more complex claims only".

What Ken Clarke MP has failed to encapsulate is that people can do their cases themselves as a litigant in person. I know that I prefer that opportunity. It keeps costs down to court costs only which are realistic. Given a judge of an Employment Tribunal has said that I am to be treated as having the expertise of a practising solicitor, I see no need for the judge's current stand on my case which is pure prejudice in forcing me to consider no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements. I don't particularly want to trawl round solicitors offices seeking a CFA and to date I have had no luck with those firms advertised on television.

Do I have a case - yes - I have a psychiatric injury as a result of prolonged exposure to stress caused by my employer who "knowingly" had no clients or calibre client work for 2 1/2 years resulting in me having to fend for myself for work in a top 20 London law firm [S J Berwin & Co]. I was eventually dismissed for using an abusive word in an email (there using retrospective rules so as to dismiss and the word being in the Oxford English dictionary and meant to be used) when I notified marketing that fabricated information was in Chambers Directory that my boss [Julian Critchlow] was a "leading individual and thorough" when he had no clients! My reference upon being sacked was that I was "honest with integrity".

I had whistleblew my contract of employment at a whistleblowing lecture. I had raised complaints about my bosses and had "informal chats" which were bizarrely dealt with as "informal disciplinary hearings". There was a sick note on my file stating "stress" to which they said "should we get counselling", none received and did nothing about, not even to discuss my situation in the department.

The court require me to show that (a) there was a breach of duty of care - sick note should do and (b) that it was foreseeable that a psychiatric injury would occur - in such a negative state of affairs over 2 1/2 years yes it was foreseeable especially indirectly via performance figures - every 6 minutes of a fee earner's time is recorded as 6 min = 1 unit to chargeable time or non-chargeable time to a value of at least 70 units per day. Someone collates this information which presumably is seen by the Senior Partner for the entire department and personally for each person at the end of the month. Mine make interesting reading especially in comparison to my male comparator, Elie and also a temp, Solomon. What was my line manager up to - not looking out for my welfare in the firm in any event!

So, whilst I am looking for an CFA, perhaps Ken Clarke MP could assist by taking a little look at the Woolf Reforms which cut the link which the judge in my case has been trying to create with the Official Solicitor, or just cut the nonsense altogether and let me get on with the case as a litigant in person and worry about the costs as they arise.

Respondents are currently hiding behind the skirts of the courts and have "agreed" with the judge upon his request to the passing of a piece of paper across the desk signed and dated which is contrary to human rights legislation and article 6 in particular, the right to a fair trial, implying a conspiracy exists with this nonsense of a litigant friend between judge and respondents - he could equally have insisted on mediation between the parties, but I have already suggested it (because of the Woolf reforms) and they don't want to do it preferring to hide behind the skirts of the court instead. I have been stayed for 4 years now, unless my Consultant will agree there is no need for a litigant friend whether a patient or not a patient then I don't know when I will get Justice let alone access to justice.

It's not like I don't know what I am doing or what I am up against and Respondents' solicitors have surely run out of dirty tricks by now as I lost a sex discrimination action with the judge preferring respondents' evidence even although they had lied and evaded in witness statements and attempted to prevent my evidence being seen by the court by removing discovered material to an agreed court bundle, necessitating a disagreed court bundle on the first day of trial. The performance figures show that sex discrimination did actually occur as delivered up by respondents' solicitors and that less favourable treatment is a material factor in my personal injury and professional negligence action currently before the Royal Courts. One of my bosses [Nicholas Carnell] did 11 pages of holiday notes showing no active client work on any client file bar one which was settled while he was away on holiday leaving him with no client work, the other boss [Julian Critchlow] simply had no client work for which I assisted his orchestration to the PFI Group where he still gave me no work at all. I had no difficulty working for the Environment or Advocacy Departments! So the liability is not with me. Why respondents' solicitors don't want to settle is a mystery but right now the judge's stance on this case is a gift to them ...

If anyone would like to be a litigant friend or offer a realistic conditional fee arrangement on a no win, no fee basis kindly contact me via email at the top of my blog ... I would however prefer to be a litigant in person in control of my costs, with a judge in control of his courtroom on the premis of equality before the law ... I currently feel most "UNEQUAL" and should not have to find my own litigant friend if the court are insisting on it without just cause.

Community Reparation - community payment

2011-02-02T20:18:00.004Z

Scottish Government website article "Fast Track Justice" on 31/01/2011 (Click here)

The above article is a very positive initiative by the Scottish Government which has created a pilot of a fast track post-court procedure for low-level offenders to repay their crimes by involvement in a community payback work squad.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said:

"Punishment should be tough and justice should be immediate which is why we are piloting this new initiative. The aim is to get these low level offenders out doing manual work to improve communities within hours of being sentenced.

...

"The facts speak for themselves with three quarters of those sentenced to a short prison sentence of three months or less going on to reoffend within two years of getting out, but in direct comparison, three out of five given a tough community sentence do not."

Recent statistics show that 33,707 hours of snow clearing were undertaken by low level offenders during the recent adverse weather. On average there were 1314 offenders on community service out every single week across Scotland helping payback to their communities by clearing snow.

This is a very good initiative and shows that crime does not pay and that the scheme is already working. Hopefully the Justice Minister will keep us all regularly appraised of this pilot and the ideas that offenders could do in their communities as reparation and community payback. A vast improvement on a prison sentence as it costs £31,000 a year to keep a prisoner in jail, there is no doubt a cost reduction which could facilitate this scheme's harmonisation within communities. An initiative to watch ...

More Mediation for Employment Tribunals

2011-01-29T13:37:00.027Z

Legalweek.com published an article

"Government Unveils Controversial Employment Tribunal Reform" by Claire Rucken on 27 January 2011 (Click Here)

I was surprised to see the word "Controversial" in the heading of the article - so there are others out there who do not agree with the reforms!!!

Most employment law is based on contract which in England & Wales is common law. Most people honour their contractual obligations but sometimes there is a dispute and breach of contract ensues. For some, myself included, wrongful or unfair dismissal is actually a defamation by the employer and I personally felt attacked by the law firm and by the judicial system. If everyone thinks they can breach their contract and mediate a new contract then standards will lower.

I was sacked for refusing to transfer by Professor Richard. My contract disciplinary clause was in operation because the firm had made three spurious allegations and upheld one in a kangaroo court disciplinary process. So it was lawful to warn or sack but not transfer. I have no knowledge of a conversation with Anne Glazebrook about a confidential memo left by Cathy James in the public network directory (so sack Cathy, which they didn't stating she is valuable - why and was I not valuable too - I was complying with company policy having confidential directories! I do however recall conversations with Catherine Johnson about the confidential memo as she told me about it). I don't know when and where or even why I would have a conversation with Anne. I had only had three conversations with her in a six month period so it would have been abnormal for me to speak to her on a fourth occasion which should have meant I would remember it. At best she was pretty vague in her own recollection of events during the disciplinary hearing and the firm were relying on impression and suggestion sourcing from Catherin'e boss Andrew Blunderfield - Anne did like to sit in his room gossiping as they were chums from a previous firm. I was in the middle of my second year LLB exams sitting 3 hour disciplinary hearings instead of doing exam revision - it has had a detrimental effect on my LLB performance albeit I still got my four year degree with Honours. However, I am not a practising lawyer or barrister or legal academic or indeed still working in law, I am not even still working.

Mediation was just coming into the system when I was sacked in 1994 and I had previously written my first LLB essay in 1993 for Dr Lindsay Farmer on the subject in Legal Systems and Legal Methods in English law marked (down) at 50% - I was 100% accurate I believe. Why it is relevant, Masons (the law firm) and Professor Susskind and others engaged in corruption rather than settle the case out of court - there is no need for mediation really!!! - at the courtroom door will do just fine. They engaged on a path of (a) perverting the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office via the judiciary.

Employment Tribunal - Mr De Saxe
Employment Appeal Tribunal - Mr Justice Morison
Court of Appeal - Mr Justice Peter Gibson and Mr Justice Mance (now Lord Justice's)
House of Lords - Law Lords, Slynn of Hadley, Hobhouse of Woodborough, Hope of Craighead

Parties involved at Masons were Cathy James, Siobhan Cross, Anne Molyneux, Neil Biggs, Tony Bunch dec'd, Professor Susskind, Bruce Carr, Michael Ford*, Sean Brannigan and possibly others linked to my next employment - law is thicker than thieves and it is a little village.

*Michael Ford was my witness and failed to attend; a complaint to the Bar Council concerning Ford, Carr and Brannigan involving Geoffrey Robertson QC and Jeremy McMullen QC created two stories from Ford and Carr - one appears to be telling the truth while the other evades and is lying. The Bar Council would not go further on the matter where it was apparent my witness was nobbled or nobbling without my knowledge!

CID Officers Davies and Sheridan of Southwark Police were asked to investigate but no one has been investigated or charged to my knowledge and belief.

Raising the action over a period of about 6 years and to gain nothing but corruption and a lot of knowledge about how they process law procedurally and substantively - and to do most of the corruption it was procedural (ex parte preliminary hearings and application hearings to remove the case from "ACCESS TO JUSTICE" and not dealing with CAUSATION but using the system to sidestep it).

Mediation came into the UK legal system in 1997 via the Woolf Reforms which became the Access to Justice Act 1999. My court case above shows the methodology used to corrupt a court case establishing that the Woolf Reforms were merely New Labour Government spin in the legal domain ... they were actionally DOING "Access FROM Justice". The theory and the practical meet up on this point. And so does Lord Woolf and Professor Richard Susskind who was IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. Small world or little legal village at this level. I certainly did not get Access TO Justice even although I managed to get to the House of Lords level by sheer determination and intelligence not matched by the judiciary at all.

So, you might think the PARTIES would be delighted with the reforms being proposed to the Employment Tribunal - why spend all that time outmanoeuvring each other and going corrupt on the case - it is absolutely certain that the LDM v Masons action was corrupt: Mr Justice Morison's judgment does not include 5 case citations in the appeal document with arguments, nor the one case citation and ratio decidendi read verbatim on the day in court, nor legal arguments, nor points of evidence. You can only appeal ON A POINT OF LAW and the 5 case citations were Respondent's Counsel (Carr) in the lower court. Oops. both (a) and (b) above made out. (Gaelic proverb: in a Raven's nest you should find a raven). In a judgment you should find a point of law.

Maybe I just saw the worst of the court system and the stress and distress it can cause, but I still would not advocate more mediation, I would advocate that the system be seriously looked at and all the nonsense got rid of including ex parte hearings and skeleton arguments and procedural nonsense that delay the case plus more judges. In today's 21st century technology it would be quicker to create a public system that uploads the documents in the pleading and evidence. Having public access to the case for the duration of the case would surely have some impact on the parties wanting to settle at the courtroom door. [On this blog I have uploaded the Masons case in its entirety concerning pleadings but not evidence]. All cases follow the same framework anyway, so it is entirely possible to lead the case via technology. Most cases are quite small anyway and mine was three lever arch files in total - so quite small in the scheme of things, most will be smaller.

Uploading documents would also mean there is less need to charge a fee. What you want is employers with good employment practices and you are not going to get this if you can COMPROMISE the application of the rule of law via mediation. What you want is employers to learn from the experience of a Tribunal so as to treat their workforces properly and mediation is not going to be a deterrent. Employers are still going to be handing over money to claimants, albeit "gold will be left on the table", perhaps not so much money will be paid out.

Also bear in mind that (public) litigation is the only way to legally put private domain information into the public arena. This is a necessary methodology especially in the face of the recent Wikileaks debacle. All documents in a litigation are public domain. This should therefore be a reform focused on so as to be a deterrant on employers.

It is a myth that mediation is quicker and cheaper than litigation. There will still be the same number of disputes in the market, but the difference will be whether it is mediated or litigated or arbitrated.

Hence I advocate lawyers, barristers and judges should not be involved in mediation at all. Mediation should exist in its own territory and freedom of choice should dictate where the dispute is raised even although you can still litigate on the failure of a mediation. ie either traditional (court) or contemporary (mediation).

What is important in society is the application of the rule of law. It makes us safe and just. No street justice then. Standards are meant to be maintained and raised not compromised.

As law impacts universally, it should be possible to process cases in two categories (a) those that reiterate what the law is and (b) those that challenge the status quo.

There is no reason why Employment Tribunals could not exist as call centres styled courts with judges who do category (a) cases and judges who do category (b) cases which are harder to do.

And there is no such thing as a vexatious litigant - everyone, especially via human rights legislation, has a right to a fair hearing. The employer has to win sometimes.

Concerning myself, I offered Respondents on my second litigation the opportunity to use mediation, I made the mistake of being one day out of time to sue in litigation based on court personnel giving me dates, luckily I was permitted to sue for sex discrimination but lost the case due to the nonsense that Respondents pursued on the case and not doing discovery properly or at all and removing my evidence from the agreed court bundle necessitating a disagreed court bundle. Sex Discrimination did actually occur and performance figures prove it 100%. However, the judge preferred my bosses evidence even although one of them was evading and lying in their witness testimony. The judge also refused to call two Respondents for cross examination even although they are cited on the case and failed to produce witness statements which would have established one of my bosses was lying. You don't expect judges to be lax with the procedural rules.

Employment Tribunal : Chairperson Ryan

Parties S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell, Ian Insley, David Harrell, Keith Wood, Tim Pullen**, Marie van der Zyl and Susan Kelly, Alison Parker, Paula Jefferson

**Tim Pullen has been using his Godolphin Chambers address on legal documents but actually working for Geoffrey Robertson QC's Chambers, Doughty Street. He may have a conflict of interest for which Respondents have been notified but failed to apologise for - its a little legal village - see * above.

However, I am currently stayed in the Royal Courts on a personal injury and professional negligence case against the same Respondents above as being treated less favourably caused stress which was an aetiology trigger to personal injury. The judge requires me to have a litigant friend even although I am not entitled in law to one according to the Official Solicitor for England & Wales on two occasions. Such nonsense is at the behest and behoof of the judiciary - why can't they just get on with the substantive case and stop messing about with two years to date of procedural nonsense and a 4 year stay!

Queen's Bench Judge : Master Leslie

Parties: S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell, Ian Insley, Tim Pullen, Alison Parker, Paula Jefferson

Mediation looks awfully good idea to me just now, but Respondent's KNOW they are at fault, so settlement at the door of the court would be more opertune rather than a need to mediate. Employers don't want to settle I think. Besides mediation is only privatisation of the judiciary and legal profession. Lawyers, judges and barristers should be about "application of the rule of law" - that is why they study law. Mediation is rightly about compromise but it also hides the dispute by gagging it in confidentiality, ie privatises the dispute by covering it up. Currently lawyers, barristers and judges are doing both jobs. Litigation and arbitration are polarised concepts to mediation - they should not be processed in the same system as one undermines the other. They are naturally opposites and always will be on essence.

Now, should I adopt an attitude of not caring less anymore ...

WHY COMPROMISE WHEN YOU CAN SETTLE OUT OF COURT! ITS NOT ABOUT COSTS its about justice ...

Happy Birthday to me

2011-01-27T12:55:00.008Z

Birds

A graceful movement across the sky,
It is a seagull passing by,
Touch of cream and fawn, orange and brown,
A house sparrow comes flying down.
Fluttering into the sky so blue,
A lark is hiding its nest from view.
With neck out-stretched a wild duck streaks
Vanishing amongst the mountain peaks.
A pigeon coos, likewise the dove,
Nestling close to its own true love.
In the wood the nightingale’s song
Rises and falls, all the night long.
The owl hoots, tu-whit, tu-whit-tu-whoo.
Pheasants call and the cuckoo, too.
Robin, bright of eye and breast, is brave,
Loving a fight, the naughty knave.
That lovely songster, the missel-thrush
At even bids the world to hush.
Bird species are many, these but a few,
Hark to their chorus as dawn breaks through.

Phyllis Jermy Deceased - my Grandmother

Merry Christmas - 2010

2010-12-07T21:27:00.006Z

Robin All-Alone

Why are you always on your own,
Robin Redbreast, Robin all-alone?
Perched on my fence you sing your song
With bright eyes watching other birds throng
In twos and threes and sometimes more
To eat the crumbs outside my door.
When they have gone you have your fill,
Then you sit on my window sill.

Robin Redbreast, Robin all-alone,
When Spring comes and the snow is gone,
Perhaps you will bring your lady love
And build a nest in the tree above.
Or in a crevice, or old tin can,
A rusty kettle, or rusty old pan.
Then I could watch your young all day,
Until they learn to fly away.

Phyllis Jermy Deceased - my Grandmother

Community Service

2010-12-07T21:19:00.004Z

Low level offenders doing community service are assisting vulnerable people in Scottish communities by clearing pavements of snow and ice for elderly residents so they can safely get about.

Well done - good initiative.

Freedom - Aung San Suu Kyi

2010-11-14T12:55:00.003Z

Congratulations to Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Yesterday she received her freedom after spending more than 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest.

She said: "If we work in unity, we will achieve our goal. We have a lot of things to do."

And Well Done to the Burmese Government for having the strength to make this happen at this time.

China and the Press and Human Rights

2010-11-10T15:19:00.006Z

I recently did one term of a one year journalism course and post below one of my essays in feature writing on China. With David Cameron rightly raising the issue of human rights in China on his visit yesterday and today - we are a democracy - I do wonder at the difference in the press whereby the Chinese put out a story and that is what it is and no further report is done. Contrasting our press putting out a story under the Blair administration of "spin". Who then is democratic or at all.

Lesley McDade
01.10.09
Outcome 1 Assessment – Feature : China

A feature article is an article of interest which may raise an important issue in society and is written in such a way that you want to read it due to the hooks and that you enjoy reading it because it is well written and delivers the information you were intended to receive in a manner that assists you to garner the message and the information. Feature articles can be about anything so long as they are in a language that you as the reader understand and can be small or long. I compared a broadsheet (compact) and a tabloid article in relation to China, both articles reiterate the message TRADE with China – the broadsheet is relative to Iran which is also topical and basically notifies we are not engaging in attack Iran rhetoric, we trade with Iran for a reason which we prefer. The other article pretends to focus on militarism but does not actually do this but relates to TRADE. Both articles therefore send out the key message that China seeks the world to acknowledge and accept we do not assist on military prowess which is for show, we do so only in relation to TRADE. Analysis of the articles content below:

China has become topical this week. A small article appeared in the Scotland on Sunday by Tania Branigan on 27.09.09 concerning diplomatic relations with Iran and the huge topic of trade. The article was very small, but very informative – the Chinese do “TRADE” not war and prefer DIPLOMACY as a solution over sanctions. There are supportive statements to hammer this point home UN Security Council, Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said on Friday “Personally, I don’t like the word punishment”, thereby reinforcing the nature of the article peaceful trade and the reality issue : “China is the world’s second largest consumer of crude oil while Iran has the world’s second largest reserves …” You would not want to take the bread off your plate now would you.

As they say, when China sleeps let her sleep …

In the Daily Mail 01.10.09 the story has become a screaming headline “Marching to World Domination” with supporting militarised in unison “Might” photograph. The underheading reads “An Army of 2.25 million. Chilling Imperial ambitions … and so on. So you would expect this eye grabbing headline to be an article that you may not survive the night and would be lucky to be awake tomorrow morning. Not so, the article is all about TRADE - it even manages to inform about goods that have the label “MADE IN CHINA” thereby establishing the whitty essence with a hint of knowledge and that the actual headlines are actually only meant to make you read the article – which of course you did, all of it!

You may, like me, have got the message after the first half column and was expecting the outcome at the end of the article to be … “the next invasion is due at Christmas”.

The whitty essence of the article drew out some “only Britishisms”:

The Chinese were “peasants” in fact it clearly elaborates with the euphemism “When the Communists seized control in 1949, China was a poverty-stricken basket case, … the mind boggles given they are fundamentally known for their inherent “wisdom” – Confusionism : the person who moves a mountain starts by taking away the little stones. The mountain I suspect is trade fuelled by diplomacy as needs must – oil.
Interesting information is available – the Chinese are the largest number of mobile phone users and broadband consumers – but there is a lack of statistical data to back this statement up. Even more interesting is China is the biggest acquirer of foreign public debt – why is the obvious exclamation? So we can buy more of that trade I suppose. It even notifies that China owns America not quite … only a “hold over” the American economy at $800 billion of US Treasury securities – which clearly makes you think – and our situation is?

We are then informed that these so called Chinese peasants … have for CENTURIES led the world economically, culturally and technologically: thus reiterating the whittyness of the article to the picture to the headlines. It even, whittly refers to China as “The Middle Kingdom” the worlds most cohesive and enduring society, WHICH PIONEERED not just the compass, gunpowder and printing, but porcelain, paperback books and a medieval postal service that would put today’s Royal Mail to shame.

As this point you just want to buy your ticket on the next flight to China to see it for real, which is then scoped into the article on a “multi-culturism and ethnic diversity” journey across China all highlighting TRADE issues. Any issue of need of military might is not with us but potentially anyone who will NOT trade with them or can compete on better terms. They are now in India and Africa – which raises the issue how good is our TRADE relations at the moment with the rest of the world – should we be talking to China - nicely.

Any militarism is occurring by the arms sale by China to Africa and Robert Mugabe received £200m in Chinese military aid – well if you can’t sell Zimbabween’s Christmas decorations …

The final wit sees a huge capital letter “Meanwhile” and in anticipation of the “M” signifying might, it informs a non sequitur … “China itself is well on the way to becoming one of the world’s dominant military powers. Already its standing army alone has more than 2.25 million men”. Because of Confusionism the Chinese only want to do peace because that means they can trade which means reciprocity and food for their people. Any military prowess is for photographs only. The Chinese know they do not need guns to be world dominant! They are not “becoming”, they “are”. You just would not want to pick a fight to find out – how, why, what, when, where. This is reinforced by the Statement by Defence Minister Liang Guanglie who BRAGGED apparently that the parade would “DISPLAY THE IMAGE of a military force, a civilised force, a victorious force” whilst laughing all the way to the bank … Christmas is profitable this year …!

Whew, when you read on … “Whenever Western observers voice disquiet about this terrifying military build-up, the Chinese INSIST that they have no hostile ambitions, or merely put the complaints down to racist scaremongering – you just would not want to cancel Christmas.

An interesting statistic follows the oppression, the suppression, the repression – by 2010, the Government predicts, trade between Britain and China will be worth more than £35 billion to the UK and if it all goes wrong families in Birmingham will suffer just as much as the Chinese. Makes you think.

The reality check – naively swallowing the propaganda of an authoritarian regime machine – you are just so glad you read this article, hence follows the warning for future generations make sure you buy into the “Made in China” TRADE on the premis of reciprocity. The only area of improvement in China today is “environmentalism”, somehow they got that bit wrong.

Both articles one short and one long, reiterate the important global message TRADE WITH CHINA there is a deafening silence in relation to Christmas, but both articles let you know that militarism is not the big issue concerning China – let her sleep whilst you go shopping. There are no buttons to push concerning Iran, America, Japan, India, Philippines, Tibet, Taiwan, Africa unless that is you don’t trade!

End
Sunday Times article 27.09.09 by Tania Branigan “China reluctant to force new sanctions”
Daily Mail article 01.10.09 by Dominic Sandbrook “Marching to World Domination”

On a human rights issue is Di Yimin still alive - she was last reported on LegalWeek as being on death row. Di Yimin was the front of the Chinese Ponzi schemes, remember America (Madoff) and India (Raza) also brought down global banking. Perhaps Sir Philip Hampton, Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Peter Sands, Chief Executive of Standard Chartered, should raise more civilised issues of the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, not least because RBS people were involved in the ponzi schemes (whilst educated and trained) and banking crisis rather than using their trip to hijack UK banking further.

Procedure

2010-10-06T13:53:00.008+01:00

In a recent Daily Mail article (02/09/10) Lord Hamilton, Lord President, jumped on the bandwagon of reforms to suggest the legal system is riddled with needless delays and is a waste of taxpayers money. The delays are caused by courtroom inefficiencies and the churn of cases "adjourned" because of blunders.

Why is court management seen as problematic? It would appear that there are "spurious attempts being made to delay justice".

As Lord Hamilton has direct charge of managing the courts he is highlighting the scale of the task he is facing as he tries to wipe out deep-rooted inefficiencies. Requests for adjournments appears to be key linked to lack of case preparation or timeous witness testimony being taken. However it is unclear from the article which appears to focus on the criminal justice system whether civil justice is included in his rounds of inefficiencies. The article establishes that three out of four cases are now being disposed of within 26 weeks (ie approx 6 months) in the criminal justice system which he says shows the criminal justice agencies are working harder than ever to ensure justice. Good news.

It would appear to me that the matter is quite easy to resolve. In the earlier stages of this blog's posts is posted a whole court case in the civil courts of England from Employment Tribunal to House of Lords. There are key stages in any PROCEDURAL SYSTEM that have to be met. Any delays could easily be dealt with electronically, ie an electronic contempt of court and fine of a party to litigation (civil) or (criminal). My case is electronically loaded to a file server but I could load it directly to this blog via a pdf system - the courts are supposed to be "public" after all and my blog's posts show the extent of the corruption that I was subjected to by the judiciary and respondents (none of which was dealt with by the police upon several requests to do so for perversion of the course of justice). With contempt of court orders there is a fine line between deliberate delays by parties to a case being processed for perversion of the course of justice. Lawyers are wily in their ability to delay a case unnecessarily which goes against the principle of "equality before the law" not after it. (I have a case in England which has been stayed for 4 years because of the respondents machinations with complicity of the judiciary for which again the police will not deal with matters as perversion of the course of justice, nor has it been dealt with on appeal either). Judges are not "beyond reproach" and can be processed for misconduct in public office just the same as anyone else albeit this may only be an English jurisdiction offence and my cases are based in England. But perversion of the course of justice and contempt of court could ideally be used as a judge's tool to stop the worst offenders who know a judge will adjourn a case, rather than force the parties to be ready come what may. With court management comes responsibility to both parties as it should be very rare indeed that a case goes to an appeal court (which is normally on a point of law only, but rarely on evidence alone). It is therefore in a judge's own interests that he has control of his court room and is impartial.

The Woolf Reforms in England dabbled with the courts principles - away from equality, impartiality, fairness and justice TO proportionality, economy, expedition and (not traditional equality but contemporary equality - compromise - Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR)mediation). This new emphasis in England anyway means court procedure should have been enhanced and with case marshalling occurring electronically should mean the Lord President is in a position even in Scotland to show how many cases are in the system at any one time, where the case procedure is at, who is causing delays and why, whether settlement has occurred or whether judgment is made and at what expedition has occurred from start to finish. These statistics should be available and publically to make the system transparent. There are perhaps 5 or 6 necessary procedural steps to a case - issue of writ, defence and/or counterclaim, discovery, witnesses then trial. The onus should be on the parties resolving their disputes and whittling down the issues in the case. With today's technology all of this material can be "uploaded" to a court by a time set by the judge (not the parties) with contempt of court orders or perversion of the course of justice orders automatically going out when not heeded to. A judge afterall works on a fortnightly or monthly scheduling basis and if a case settles early there is a gap in scheduling which could move things forward on cases that are smaller. With electronic discovery it should be easier to do "causation" as it is always going to be in the earliest documents the remainder focused on "effect" (unless metalipsis - reversal of cause and effect), it could easily be a procedure to state exactly causation and provide evidence in support in a Skeleton Argument if this is not already done. A judge should always be focussed on trial, it is for the parties to settle their case before trial. So when writ is issued so should a provisional trial date be issued with an electronic schedule of when the judge wants documents into court and if preparation is earlier then the date could be brought forward even in fairly substantial litigations. How many cases have more than 5 lever arch files of evidence - the majority of cases are likely to be quite small and a judge could issue a contempt of court order if "causation" and "effect" documentation are burdensome or not clearly getting to the issue - lawyers are trained to do discovery. (In one of my court cases I had to provide an "agreed" court bundle and a "disagreed" court bundle because respondents' Solicitors or Counsel removed evidence provided on discovery from the agreed bundle and refused to do proper discovery.) There is no reason why Lord Hamilton cannot create a procedure so as to cause efficiency, but as likely as not a contempt of court order would have sufficed. (In my case, a contempt of court order was not forthcoming albeit the judge did permit the disagreed court bundle "in the interests of justice". I lost the case, probably because I had not perceived the strength of one page of evidence provided by respondent's on their discovery of documents, so their tactic worked as I was too focused on getting my evidence in which had the same information over 20 pages or so which the judge should have been astute to in any event). Whittling down the case as evidence and testimony surfaces should be more focused on by judges and would aid settlement.

So from my experience in civil litigation on a two lever arch file case for court improvement I would suggest:

* Clearily focus on the 5/6 crucial steps to trial
* Case marshall and provide an electronic map to trial
* Electronic uploading of documents of 5/6 crucial steps
* Electronic contempt of court or perversion of the course of justice orders
* Contempt of court order for flooding documentation
* Clearly identify "cause" and "effect" and the cut off between the two
* If you must have them, Skeleton Arguments clearly identify cause with exact evidence in support attached
* Statistical breakdown of cases on a 6 monthly cut off date
* Feedback - ask the parties to the litigation what they thought of the case management or judgment, courtroom control
* Contempt of Court fines - use them to do some good - pro bono or something else
* Get rid of most non-necessary procedural rules, ie ex parte hearings
* Empower people and value litigants in person in the system as they establish that the system does actually work FOR THE PEOPLE! not lawyers pockets. A justice system should not be so difficult that an ordinary person can't use it.
* Process all article 6 human rights claims as perversion of the course of justice which is what it really is.
* Remember it should be rare for a case to go to appeal! which belies the competence of the JUDGE!
* There is a material difference between corruption and a miscarriage of justice - the former requires deliberate judicial nonsense, the latter judicial inadvertence or lack of evidence as opposed to deliberate withholding of evidence.

The old cliche "its not rocket science" springs to mind but courtroom control is key and judges already have an arsenal to deal - they just have to be willing to do so which requires equality, impartiality, fairness and justice!

Street Justice

2010-09-07T23:58:00.002+01:00

It is one of the smallest articles in the Scottish Daily Mail on 7 September 2010 entitled "Journey to the crime section" but there is undoubtedly a huge impact.

"It's the small act of rebellion taking bookshops across the country by storm. People have stealthily been moving copies of Tony Blair's "A Journey" from the biography section to the crime shelves.

...
Some have moved "A Journey" to the horror, fiction and dark fantasy sections.

But one exasperated member [of a facebook] group saw Blair's memoir on sale at Asda in Telford, and because there was no crime section, moved it to the toilet paper aisle instead".

STREET JUSTICE

Social Injustice to social justice - an update

2010-08-25T16:30:00.004+01:00

The Daily Mail ran an article by Mark Howarth "Scandal of Scotland's stay-at-home prisoners - criminals can even claim benefits as they near the end of sentence" on 17 August 2010. The article had a slant against the Scottish Government's policy of serving their jail sentences in their own homes, which it considered a soft-touch justice policy.

My reading of the article was however factual and it would appear that the policy is successful as 423 prisoners now participate in Home Detention Curfews (HDC) and the policy is working for the last 6 months of a prison sentence or for some prisoners complete sentence.

Whilst the article does clearly state that the policy is for cost cutting, it does not clearly also show that there is a social injustice reason for the policy too. It costs £31,000 in Scotland (£45,000 in England) to keep a prisoner in jail for a year. A person not having committed a crime but living on benefits gets about £12,000-£15,000 in benefits. Therefore keeping people out of jail on Home Detention Curfews and letting them exist on benefits frees up a considerable sum of money with plus value added benefits for prisoner's families when they stay at home and/or increases their employability prospects - surely not a societal wrong. Prisoners are not free, they are fitted with an electronic tag to make sure they do not leave home between certain hours which was a Labour policy in 2006, the SNP have only extended the policy on prisoners qualification criteria for the scheme.

What I would have liked to see in the article is a more positive message showing what the Scottish Government are doing with the considerable cost saving the Home Detention Curfew policy is achieving!

...

Another interesting article in the Scotsman provided another social injustice policy issue the head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Stephen Hester, informing that the next time a bank is bust it should not be to big to fail. If it happens again, he informs the RBS or any other bank should not be bailed out by the taxpayer. I concur - if the bank was bankrupt, then the situation would have been resolved quicker if lawyers had stepped in and carved up what was salvageable, with the remainder being written off, as happens to ordinary companies every day when an Administrator or Receiver steps in upon bankruptcy or sequestration in Scotland. It would make for a much better marketplace with lessons learned.

Article in The Scotsman 25 August 2010 by Nathalie Thomas entitled "We must let bust banks collapse says RBS chief (Click Here)

Doriand Au diable le paradis 1996

2010-08-01T18:47:00.012+01:00

The song "Au diable le paradis" was playing in Paris in 1996 when I went on vacation over Christmas and New Year to write my dissertation : "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". I was staying in a little hotel, the Cosy Monceau, in the Malesherbes district of Paris. I would read and write in the mornings and go shopping and sightseeing in the afternoon and it was freezing. I thoroughly enjoyed my two week stay and had to write 12,000 words. What seemed a lot of writing to my horror on return was only 7000 words. I had another 5000 words of padding to go. My tutor, Professor Nicola Lacey, suggested I change the dissertation around, I was not amused so I decided not to change the beginning or the ending and with the help of sellotape and scissors cut the thing to pieces and stuck it back together again. I did enjoy my time in Paris ... and the song was on the album "Contact" which I bought. I thought it pertinent because I was writing about Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) being in the legal system of England & Wales via the Woolf Reforms and this song, which is quite catchy, kept ringing in my ears ... the devil in paradise ... which I thought was most apt to the material I was writing about.

Well why is this still relevant to my blog, Doriand has brought out another album "Le Grand Bain" and I bought it on Amazon the other day and have been listening to it today and rather liking it.

My Gran gave me some money to buy a Christmas present so I bought a large pink glass goblet in Montmatre district. With the remainder I bought pink tulips the first week and purple tulips the next from a local florist to sit on my desk. Fond memories indeed ...

Bias / prejudice / connivance / collusion / lack of impartiality

2010-07-20T18:51:00.013+01:00

Bias has been raised by the media today in relation to Sir Peter Gibson heading up the Inquiry into complicity of MI5 and MI6 in torture at Guantanamo Bay. 'Reprieve' have rightly identified a reason why Sir Peter Gibson should step down from this Inquiry

"... In a letter to the judge, Clive Stafford Smith, a director of Reprieve, said there was a danger of bias that could wreck the inquiry.

He told the Mail: 'In an inquiry that is meant to assess the adequacy of past policies, Sir Peter Gibson should be a witness before it, rather than its judge.

'He needs to consider whether he can continue to act with the confidence of both the public, and the alleged victims of complicity in torture, with independence and impartiality.' ...

... Most serious is the suggestion that he has already conducted hearings in private, suggesting he has prejudged the issues.

... In his letter to Sir Peter, copied to the Prime Minister, Mr Stafford Smith wrote: 'You cannot now conduct a further independent inquiry having already reached conclusions on some or all of the issues.

'A fair-minded member of the public would see that as acting as a judge in an appeal against your own decision.' ..."

The Daily Mail 20/07/2010 by Tim Shipman entitled "Torture Inquiry Judge urged to quit over bias claims (Click Here)

However, of more concern to me is that the Inquiry itself is being conducted as a "mediation" which immediately signals that there is a cover up due to occur. What is also presumed is that the people engaged in the litigations are only after money as an outcome - this appears to be the dangled carrot to get the litigations out of the "public" domain of the court room. Some serious revelations of evidence of torture have already been sourced by the press into conduct which MI5 and MI6 are allegedly complicit in, such as slashing of genitals, but this information is in the public domain as a consequence of the court case and "Judges" doing their job properly, it would not be there as a consequence of a mediation unless the "PARTIES" agreed that it should be.

What Sir Peter Gibson's inquiry is doing is engaging in "hiding" the issues in the mediation and removing the case from the public domain of the courts. The parties will be required to sign a gagging confidentiality clause in order to get their money and how much will be confidential too.

Mediation may not be the appropriate methodology to do an Inquiry and as I have always argued mediation (alternative dispute resolution (ADR) / informal dispute settlement (IDS))is the real invasion in the United Kingdom which appears to have become embedded into even MI5 and MI6 rather than seeing it for what it really is: compromise. Mediation is seen as a win:win rather than litigation a win:lose. Why do MI5 and MI6 need to be seen to win : win - is mediation raising the spectre of a compromise - for a reason - if so, lets have the "reasoning" done in court. There is a raised presumption that something(s) need to be hidden or that MI5 and MI6 are blameworthy to some degree be it 99:1 or 70:30 or 50:50 or 40:60 or 20:80!!!!! Offering money is seen as preventing a "lose of face" ie "gold will be left on the table". If you compromise too much, then soon you will have no rights at all with carte blanche precedent to lower standards not raise them or adhere to them.

Jurisprudence is the science and theory of human law, ie why we have laws, why we obey them. Judges know why they reason which should not be escoteric. Jurisprudence is about safe and just society. Judges must reason. Therefore when a judge advocates mediation there is a need to question a judge's raison d'etre - essence of being. What is Sir Peter Gibson afraid of ? ... mediation was never about "costs" in court [Woolf reforms]. When a judge's efforts are more involved in not hearing the case or getting the case prepared for trial then something is clearly wrong with the judge and the procedural rules of court which is subjectivity not objectivity, ie bias, prejudice, collusion, connivance, lack of impartiality. The objective of a judge is to get the case to trial and to clamp down on parties who try to prevent it. When the judge is blocking or removing the case to ADR/IDS then something is clearly wrong with the judge and society ...

COMPLICITY

2010-07-07T20:22:00.007+01:00

Complicity is in the media today. Sir Peter Gibson is to head up an Inquiry about detainees who claim they were tortured with the complicity of MI5 and MI6 whilst held at Guantanamo Bay in America in relation to the "war on terror".

Sir Peter Gibson is better known to me as Mr Justice Gibson of the Court of Appeal*. He heard or rather did not hear my case Lesley McDade v Masons sitting with Mr Justice Mance. Mr Justice Gibson gave 1/2 hour for my case before him, blocked an article 177 preliminary enquiry** to the European Court of Justice by using Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] to which I argued the "loyalty clause", article 6 of the European Treaty of Union, which he called the Treaty of Rome. I left the court stating he was "despicable" and slammed my case files and slammed the door of the court room after me. I did not get done for contempt of court. Mr Justice Mance, however, said absolutely nothing for half an hour and handed me back his pencil marked up bundle.

Somehow, it missed them that I had experienced a perversion of the course of justice in both lower courts and it entirely missed them that Cathy James was "cause" and I was sacked because she had a loud voice and was absolutely incompetent leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory for which spurious allegations were made against me, the firm of Masons not liking the outcome of their disciplinary hearings. I was transferred and then sacked by Professor Richard Susskind OBE (Professor DisOBEdient) because I refused to transfer as I was not cause and it was an unlawful request as my contract did not permit a transfer, my having been suspended under the disciplinary clause not a variation clause. Once the suspension was lifted I wanted to return to post, not a transferred position when Ms James should have been held responsible and sacked. My colleague Catherine Johnson was also sacked, but Ms James was deemed "valuable" ... in what way I do wonder.

I did ask for the engineers taped transcript of the court of appeal hearing before Mr Justice Gibson which he agreed to let me have. Needless to say the recording equipment did not appear to capture pertinent parts of the transcript. The blanks did not appear to be in pattern suggesting faulty equipment leaving me wondering was someone playing with the recording button or drowning out using the air conditioning button. Recording equipment in court can pick up rather a lot, but some how my transcript was full of blanks, to include the Martin v Glinware Distributors blocking case precedent and arguments. There was definitely an effort being made to NOT hear my case.

My legal career was shattered by being sacked because of the spurious nature of the allegations against me which were designed to disrupt my legal exams being brought 40 days after the facts - so I engaged in a disciplinary hearings then an exam, appeal hearing then an exam, disciplinary hearing then an exam. Professor Susskind OBE deliberately sacked me in full knowledge I was not blameworthy and was malicious in his actions. He did not appear to like his being whipped in court by a legal secretary either hence the perversion of the course of justice and complicit practises I experienced on my journey to the House of Lords.

The tape transcript proved useful as I did manage to get to the House of Lords. My cheque for £500 for the Petition fee was cashed. The Bishop of Derby said Prayers. Then bizarrely the Bishop of Birmingham said prayers a few days later. Law Lords Hope of Craighead, Slynn of Hadley and Hobhouse of Woodborough refused to hear my case using blocking case law Lane v Esdaile, a 100 year old case, to deprive me of access to justice, something the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999 said we had - NOT. They also failed to declare a lack of impartiality.

I was aware that Sir Peter Gibson worked with MI5 as I googled their website and put his name in the search engine and it came up. It was just an off the cuff thing but I was looking for a reason as to why I was being treated so shabbily by the court. Sir Peter Gibson is Commissioner for the intelligence services ... but he does not come across as competent nor intelligent and I was by now a paralegal, else he was protecting someone possibly Susskind, Molyneux or Ford: you just could not be that dim concerning the case papers in my case.

I am therefore somewhat surprised that Sir Peter Gibson is heading up this Inquiry and wonder why MI5/MI6 are effectively policing themselves ... perhaps the detainees would be better sticking with their court cases. Ye of little faith ... *the case papers of the court of appeal are published in earlier posts on this blog

** An article 177 preliminary enquiry (now known as article 234) is "discretionary" at the Court of Appeal and "automatic" at the House of Lords. (I also had an article 177 preliminary reference in the House of Lords case papers)

E M P A T H Y

2010-07-01T23:53:00.002+01:00

The Government are listening - they want joe public's ideas on law that govern's us and have set up three headings (a) civil liberties; (b) repeal; (c) redtape, go to :

www.yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk

I have managed to log 3 ideas so far, but the server is currently down for a hardware upgrade this evening - I will add some more later if I can.

The idea is that all ideas will be looked at and some will be acted upon. The "listening" will complete some time in the Autumn.

Have fun. Go for it. Try.

INQUIRY = innocent = closure (not ENQUIRY)

2010-06-15T19:59:00.014+01:00

There are two terms which are often mixed up in law and that is "Inquiry" and "Enquiry". The former is most important as it is an investigation especially where there has been a fatality. An Inquiry therefore looks into the facts of a situation, establishes the circumstances and produces its findings and possibly recommendations for future directions in law. What an Inquiry does is provide closure and improvement in rules and regulations which do not lead to consequences, ie that which is to be avoided again in the future where possible.

Lord Saville, the news reported this evening, has concluded his Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre in Ireland in 1972. The Saville report interviewed 922 witnesses - so it can definitely be deemed "thorough" even although there were conflicting accounts, and took 12 years to complete at a cost of just under £200 million, a snip at £191 million. Justice obviously has no cost implications [Lord Woolf], another £9 million could have been spent on "?" for completeness!

However, watching the television tonight a sense of a good result was on display - INNOCENT - all 14 shot dead out of the 27 shot - murdered and injured.

But bear in mind, where there is a fatality and an issue of murder, there is GUILTY as a verdict. This is of necessity missing from an INQUIRY as it is not meant to establish BLAME, for which you would need a prosecution and a trial.

An "Enquiry" on the otherhand is something you do in conveyancing law when doing background checks in order to sell a property, ie preliminary enquiries eg checking that a road is not going to be built through the property in the next few years, or that an adequate drainage system is linked to the property, or even that there is a right to light as an easement which is a benefit or burden depending on which side of the fence you are on.

Well done, to Lord Saville. Closure

NB: Breakdown of the £191 million bill - figures released in the Daily Mail

£.13,566,941 Inquiry counsel fees
£.13,361,677 Eversheds (law firm)
£.19,330,660 Office rent and utilities
£...2,931,897 Computers, purchase costs
£...5,610,347 Computer consultants
£.25,790,164 Computer operation/maintenance
£......253,764 Furniture
£ ......322,413 Lord Saville's travel
£ ........19,627 Lord Saville's Expenses
£ ........35,507 Counselling for victims' families
£ ........62,486 Media monitoring
£ ......391,077 Historical consultants
£191,200,000 TOTAL including all other tribunal costs plus Ministry of Defence legal costs of which lawyers bills were £100,203,621 - there may be further costs still to come in.

By comparison: some 12-15 years ago I worked on the £24 billion global merger of Guinness-Grandmet- LVMH which became Diageo plc. There were 3000 files but no sophisticated computer system - the legal bill was nowhere near £191 million. I have also worked on a £200 million misrep action in the Official Referees court which used leading edge document imaging technology Norwich Union v Tarmac (1) Schal (2): we acted for the 6th and 7th third party, Ladbrokes (the case settled early). Using computer technology, and my system was a bespoke prototype at the time which I was enhancing as we went along, it did not cost these sums of money, the equipment alone cost under £75,000. Having worked on other database projects in the 80's (Vortex / North West Water / Radius) you can buy bolt on window database compatible software, ie Foxpro is one which provides a good 40 fields of upto 8 different types of field system, popup's, wrap around etc. These are not terribly expensive but if you want a simple bolt on database which can word search or theme search, do boolean searches and OCR (optical character recognition)/ICR (intelligent character recognition) with fuzzy search up to 8 mispelt characters using todays technology, databases and scanners, the price should come down quite a lot - the home market now has these machines at around £100 and even I recently had a home based Lexmark system which I picked up for £60. Whilst systems do have to be slightly different for legal use WORM not WARM (write once read many over write any ready many) (so that documents cannot be altered once scanned), I am surprised at the costs in relation to computers and can only suppose that some form of database over a manual system was used (or both) - it seems excessive but then the Inquiry was over a duration of 12 years. My £24 billion 3000 file manual system worked 100% well over a 1 year period of which I was absolute responsible for 400 files feeding into 3000 files and could locate any document in a maximum of 15 minutes, albeit substantial amounts of the file system were built 2 years earlier for an aborted deal. Office space used 1 small room (400 files) and 2 large rooms (x 3000 each we had a duplicate) for Guinness team. Still, 922 witness statements, should have meant that the system worked quicker - a search can produce 1000's of documents in under 5 minutes, almost seconds, if the fields are set up properly or if the OCR/ICR searches are working well - you just need to then ensure the printer is compatible with the search! (another story). You can of course out-source objective codification part of the exercise (name, to from, type of doc etc) and bring in junior counsel for the subjective codification keeping costs down - a colleague on a UNIX system had objective codification done for him as outsource at £1 a document - saves a lot of time rather than dealing inhouse. My system dealt with it inhouse for Ladbrokes, with a team of 4, it took 4 1/2 weeks to codify 85 lever arch files out of 240 files and with junior counsel working alongside. I wonder how many files this project had, but the costs should have been loaded early in the project and computer problems sorted early on too. Was it a prototype and was it like mine, a common provider system, between more than one party to the Inquiry? I cannot conceive how £2+ million was spent on computers and £25+ million on computer services. Some legal projects can be massive and document control crucial to the outcome of the project, but at £191 million - this was a gravy train by lawyers and others. With a computer based system and I presume it is a document image system that has been used it pays to bear in mind that the "chronological list" system used in court is the "natural cause" way to put time in its place by pagination, and causation is always located earlier rather than later in the system: cause always comes first, effect follows unless there is metalipsis which is a reversal of cause and effect - effect and cause (does not happen often). Just how big was this Inquiry? Just on the figures released comprising £191 million, I think I need more information, please!

Good News Recycling - Incentive v taxation = benefit not burden

2010-06-07T22:12:00.005+01:00

I was most pleased to see the midday news today, where there was an article informing about a recycling bins "incentive" scheme which gives out vouchers to residents who recycle and the dropping off of the taxation scheme for recycling.

My own similar scheme suggested a return to householders by way of their community charge, but vouchers is an acceptable modification as an incentive.

Rubbish is put out on the street for free and is potentially a cash cow industry which should be promulgated for the common good in society, but also with an incentive to engage society.

An interesting newspaper article on the subject is:

Published in Letsrecycle.com, Council News of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead on 7 June 2010 entitled "Government to spell out recycling incentives policy" (Click Here)

On an unrelated topic: another idea of mine that I tried to get off the ground a few years ago by writing to several oranisations for them to chat about at committee level was:

Loyalty Cards - quite often you have a number of loyalty schemes in your purse with a small number of points on each of them, not enough to buy something you want or perhaps only a very small item. With the recession biting and hitting the third sector in relation to funding and funding crisis, I pondered and thought what about companies that operate loyalty card schemes such as Boots Advantage Card or Nectar etc, organising to allow charities to have a card whereby lots of individual users could transfer their points to a charity card (particularly for small grassroots charties) to purchase larger items such as TV's or smaller items for tombola and raffles, or even for specific one off assistance to group members for example the homeless. A few loyalty points on a lot of cards could value add up to a large amount of benefit to cash strapped local based charties to buy TV's, music equipment, projectors and office supplies and bring out the altruist in folks who may not need the points for themselves per se. Just a thought ... what does it take to make it happen? How big could the benefit be? How much of a difference could it potentially make to a small group of people?

Admission

2010-05-23T19:20:00.004+01:00

There is finally an "Admission" concerning Iraq today.

"The Scotsman" 23 May 2010 by Eddie Barnes entitled "Labour's Iraq war wounds reopened in leadership race"

We got it wrong, but unfortunately it was a bit obvious - Hans Blix should have been able to complete his report prior to invasion.

However, I have always maintained that Iraq was a decoy ... the real invasion was a Japanese concept, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), entering the judicial and legal profession of England & Wales via America and promulgated by the Jewish community here in the the UK via the Access to Justice Act 1999, and thereafter ADR entering Scotland and Europe. I did my absolute best to get the information out but can only report a complete failure of democracy ...

Perhaps there is a need for a formal apology by the Government to Rose Gentle, Reg Keys and Malcolm Kendall-Smith and others.

Constitutional Law

2010-05-13T18:11:00.006+01:00

It would appear that the Conservative and Liberal Democrats are prepared to perpetuate the flaw under New Labour and have a politician as Lord Chancellor again, now Kenneth Clarke. Is there a reason why it is not a Judge and, the reason, is it a constitutional issue, ie requiring serious debate in the Houses of Parliament both Commons and Lords? How much "change regime" is the Conservative/Libdem pact keeping or continuing?

On another issue: Lord Donaldson had two nuclear weapons - "the Anton Pillar Order" and "the Maereva Injunction". These are two concepts of "equity" and used to deal with financial problem cases before a court, especially concerning tracing of money. They are objects of law designed to take effect from the 1970's.

Vince Cable is to get to grips with the banking crisis - it strikes me that the bankers have had more success than a nuclear missile attack - the Greek econony is bailed by the IMF bank, the Spanish, Portuguese are on the brink, the UK is printing money and doing "quantative easing" and has a deficit larger than the bailed out Greeks which also includes the bailing out of the Northern Bank, Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland (now largely owned by the taxpayer) as well as the Lehman Brothers, a financing organisations, total collapse. America and Japan / Asian economies and an Arab economy are all also substantially affected to some degree as well as the Madoff (America)/Raza (India)/Di Yimin (China)/Goodwin (UK) scandal in relation to "ponzi schemes" - speculatively - who is the teacher(s).

Therefore, perhaps the issue is that we don't actually need Trident missiles located in Scotland at all, as they would do less damage and harm than bankers hell bent on "borrowing" their bonuses. Bonuses should come out of profits, as dividends secured from shareholder investment come out of profits.

If our economy is in a mess with financial deficit which is way too serious, then getting to grips with the debit and credit columns would secure world order, which is not meant to exist in chaos, but organisation ... as does the natural world so also should the artificial world to include intangibles.

Perhaps there is a need for a universal judgment against a bank to set the system back on course - without a Lord Chancellor who is a judge with executive powers in Cabinet, we may be sorely pressed to deal ...

Social Policy, the Ballot Box, Democracy

2010-04-29T11:45:00.020+01:00

I would like to propose a social policy for folks to consider: that people living on benefits should be able to apply for "Working tax credit" at 16 hours if they do volunteering work. "Something for Something".

The reasoning: I used to be a fee earner paralegal in London charging out at £120 per hour. I worked for several years as a volunteer for Citizen Advice Bureau in Edinburgh and provided the same service to client as I did to blue chip companies as a paralegal. I worked 1 day a week at CAB and saw 4 clients per day. If this was costed as my previous paid employment it would be approximately £500 per day, which is £2,000 per month, or £12,000 for 6 months or £24,000 per year. Friends of CAB reckon a client meeting is approx £16 per hour, which is approx £65 per day, or £260 per month, or £1,500 per 6 months or £3,000 per year. Working tax credit at 16 hours is around £2,000. (I had 4 volunteering jobs working in excess of 16 hours for my benefits only). There is intrinsic social value in volunteering which can have a value added valuation to society.

The Welfare reforms required the core jobless to engage in employability which included volunteering. All well and good but New Labour were expecting something for nothing and people still have to buy clothes, have money to socialise albeit you can claim back travel costs and reasonable expenses. Furthermore, the volunteer organisations did not receive funding to engage with the welfare reforms to take on people as volunteers and many voluntary agencies also experienced a funding crisis due to the recession. Bad timing aside for the reforms, there is still a need to think this one through further via the Office of the Third Sector.

The Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) already gather information about people who volunteer, so it would not be difficult to provide "something for something" to folks who step forward and engage in the welfare reforms and do volunteering by enabling them to claim working tax credit at 16 hours or 30 hours as per paid employees. This could be seen as an anti-poverty measure and social inclusion, ie a half way house between living on benefits and moving back into work. The housing benefit anomaly would need to be sorted out though and it could be extended to pensioners to assist to lift them out of poverty too.

The other area of social policy that needs some improvement is employment rights when volunteering as you should not have to rely on mutual trust and confidence alone. The only statutory reference to volunteering is contained in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, s3 you must not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (deemed to be a volunteer). And this is existant from day 1 minute 1 of employment. New Labour did not think through this aspect of employment in the welfare reforms and it is possible to become volunteer trapped - CV is enhanced by increased skills but still no prospect of paid employment ensues. The core jobless categories include lone parents, disabled, mentally disabled, homeless, ex-prisoners, aged 50+, NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training - Youth), etc.

Volunteering is rewarding in itself but the welfare reforms has created two strands of volunteer (a) the altruistic volunteer; (b) the welfare reformer. The former is usually dependendable and reliable and in with the bricks; the latter is looking for short-term gain to move speedily on to paid employment. Without organisations gaining increased funding to cover welfare reformers they are training people who move on quickly and there may be minimal benefit to the organisation per se.

At the Ballot Box - some women in the Highlands of Scotland deliberately spoiled their ballot at the last General Election by putting "rotten egg, rotten egg, rotten egg" all the way down the ballot - they were not wrong! It is still democracy to spoil the ballot as it has to be counted. The conundrum at this General Election is twofold (a) democracy per se and (b) the need for a Hung Parliament - albeit I believe as soon as the expenses scandal was known, a Hung Parliament should have been an automatic process to suspend all MPs involved and to either (i) hold constituency elections or (ii) request the second place at the General Election to stand forward - I would have preferred the latter in hindsight.

Democracy - we do not exist in a democracy since 1999, nor judicial oligarchy, nor effective monarchy. Our laws have been enacted from the dispatch box, not the Woolsack and we have now got a politician, Jack Straw MP, with Executive powers in the judiciary when it should be a Judge with Executive powers in the Cabinet. (The same situation exists in Scotland where a solicitor has high office instead of a judge). The absence of a Judge in cabinet is a serious democratic failure (a lady chancellor might be a good idea!). There is also the real problem that the English are not devolved which causes an imbalance in political line management. It is therefore no surprise that the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, was in the courts yesterday before Lady Smith on an issue of democracy. Lady Smith found against Mr Salmond on the premis that he had not timeously dealt with the issue and that it was too late to now deal with it, it being merely a stunt and not related to the BBC's "due impartiality" test. Commonsense alone would have found for the SNP I think, three political parties have an undue advantage over the SNP who actually hold power in Scotland even although they are a small party by comparison. The issue was not a timing issue but democratic and a substantive outcome should have occurred. Moreover, even I balk at the proposal that the SNP spent £50,000 on a stunt!

Article in The Scotsman on 29 April 2010 by Tom Peterkin and John Robertson entitled "'Too Late' Alex Salmond loses battle with the BBC over debate" (Click Here)

To clarify: in law the procedure and the substantive outcome are two different issues. Quite often there is a lot of what I call procedural nonsense so as not to get to the substantive outcome. A judgment, or at least a good one, should feature both issues. Concerning the SNP v BBC dispute, if you have gone down the wrong route, it does not follow that you should continue on the wrong route where an opportunity presents to go onto the right route, ie having shown two out of the three programmes, the SNP could still have prepared to feature in the third programme over cancellation or non-distribution of the debate programme to the Scottish electorate. Not having seen the papers or Lady Smith's judgment I am wondering if the contractual matrix was three separate contracts for the programmes or one contract for three programmes, albeit it it is probably a de minimus point in any event and I don't know what body of law the case is founded in. Unfair Contract terms perhaps ...

Whilst I can see where Lady Smith is coming from and she has focused on "procedure" and time in bringing the action which is quite correct for a judgment in procedure, I am more inclined to the substantive issue and that is there is a failure of democracy yet again which is concurrent with New Labour's terms of office. I am more concerned that the parties in opposition, especially so the Liberals who have a PR ticket of "fairness", that they did not also oppose the BBC's headlining only 3 political parties and also evaded the issue of the Greens, the Independents, the looney tunes, etc. I am also concerned that the SNP had a further issue of funding the litigation which they had a 48 hour whip round to raise the £50,000 necessary for the case to be heard before Lady Smith. This raises two issues - that timeousness may have been prevented due to a funding issue and justice is therefore denied. Even late in the day having the funds to litigate should still enable justice. Furthermore, how did it manage to cost £50,000 in the first place ... or is this the cost of losing and paying the BBC's costs. Something needs to be addressed here, as New Labour has again failed at the ballot box to provide a fair process to a democratic ballot - it may be the case that international arbiters will be monitoring the ballot. (The last ballot in Scotland via Douglas Alexander MP saw widespread chaos with the ballot forms causing too many spoiled ballot papers). This time it is the failure to include the smaller parties in the widespread debate on manifesto promises to the electorate: why should this be allowed in our society in the 21st Century! Democracy has to be democratic not a whitewash or a sham. It may be the case that the electorate will deliver a Hung Parliament and spoiling the ballot paper is still democratic these days ...

HAPPY EASTER

2010-04-02T15:20:00.029+01:00

As you are now aware, my mother's family name is "Jermy" and there is a family Crest which is signified by a "Griffen". The Griffen signifies Christendom and the Jermy family were knights from the 12th Century to the 17th Century.

Wikipedia - Griffen (click here)

"Being a union of a terrestrial beast [lion] and an aerial bird [eagle], it was seen in Christendom to be a symbol of Jesus, who was both human and divine. As such it can be found sculpted on churches".

I was heartened to hear a discussion on the radio this morning about Pontius Pilate and his links to Perth in Scotland where he was born. As the most important judge in the world I started to think what if ADR had been around at the time of Christ. A settlement master/mediator would have used a confidentiality agreement to gag the proceedings and the populace would not have been able to know the issues, nor kill an innocent man. Therefore, "No Pontius Pilate, no Christ, no christianity". What would the world be like if these two individuals had never met.

Which set me off - Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The Apple in jurisprudence that would symbolically be ADR. The apple presumably meant there was a child in the Garden of Eden and focus was on the child and not God - or at least that's my interpretation. I don't like to think they were banished. The Christian view of the Garden of Eden is self-restraint on freewill.

But ADR is outlawed in the United States, unfortunately, I don't know much more than this albeit think it relates to anti-trust (but don't quote me please do your own research)!

With Pontius Pilate there were 12 disciples, funny how law is referred to as a professional discipline - have we lost something in translation.

Which started me pondering 12 disciples = Christendom and Rome how does this transpose on society in terms of systems and methods - what is the pattern? Why 12?

Then there is Monarchy - there are 26 left I believe. Republics and Democracies - how many are there? I found this link to "liberalism" on Wikipedia which shows what has been occurring to the 20th/21st Centuries which makes for informative reading: Wikipedia - "Liberalism" (click here)

"In 1975, roughly 40 countries around the world were characterized as liberal democracies, but that number had increased to more than 80 as of 2008. Most of the world's richest and most powerful nations are liberal democracies with extensive social welfare programs."

I then started pondering about systems and methods again:

Greeks and democracy
Rome and republics and Catholicism and cardinals
America and the Senate and Congress
Europe and Supremacy and Directorate Generals
UK - Houses of Lord and Commons

Back to 12 disciples and St Peter and Rome

I am asking myself why are we regulated this way and how different are the systems and methods. Do they still fit the 21st Century and computerisation and digitisation. What are the procedures telling us about ourselves? What knowledge have we lost or need to re-learn from globalisation: knowledge may still exist but not in the places we would naturally look.

Then my eccentricity really kicked in - its the Age of Aquarius, astronomy used to be extremely important in philosophy and knowledge and instead of a law degree in 12 core topics, people would study whole subjects in more than one discipline in Greek or Hebrew or Latin as universal languages. I pondered did the stars have a significant function in process and procedure, system and method which is a direct discernible pattern between the heavens and the earth - and if so, what does it translate too on earth? Why do we do things the way we do them? Why do fishermen follow the north star? Whilst the Greeks had the zodiac, I don't mean the above in this sense, albeit there are 12 signs of the Greek Zodiac!!!! How often does 12 surface as a pattern, process and procedure? 12 core topics in law!!! Paring back to the simplist form, the skeleton of the process, can be as illuminating and aesethetic. Eg, we have a European Parliament, a UK Westminster Parliament, and a devolved Scottish, Irish and Welsh Parliament, but the line management skeleton is not correct as England is not yet devolved! The European Skeleton is very beautiful, I think and simple. Yet, America has a disunited states of America in its legal makeup, as laws are different state to state - so how are they united?

With the reforms under New Labour, the House of Lords is to become an elected chamber and it is no longer to be a birthright to such high office. But I am wondering why is it a problem? Those with this birthright had usually had the best tutoring, had the best professional advantage and presumably want to do their best for themselves and the rest of us as country/nation. Why is there an issue? If the reforms that are coming, what model is being used, what pattern, is it done elsewhere? Are we doing something new or creative? What if it does not work? The first round removed some pretty impressive CV's even, I believe, a person fluent in Japanese and 7 other languages as well as being a professional banker - hard to replicate let alone replace I would have thought? On this blog, I volunteered to be the "virtual" person on the vacant Woolsack whilst laws are being made from the Despatch Box, at least since 1999. Could we have a "virtual" House of the plebiscite as well as a House of Lords made up of nobles and plebes. Liberalisation appears to be anything you want to create so long as you are a plebe doing it!!

Well I have travelled along way from the radio program on Pontius Pilate this morning - there really should be a centre of Jurisprudence somewhere, with whatsoever artifacts that can be located about Pontius Pilate placed amongst the good and the great in Jurisprudence in Europe or the UK/Scotland - Judges, lawyers, barristers and others should have some reason to be remembered - there is a Lord Denning society I believe for the "equity's darling" case perhaps! And whilst ADR is an OPPOSITE and should be located outside of the judiciary and legal profession to compete only, we should socially include Lord Woolf and Lord Mackay of Clashfern for being the two *"£$%* who put in place a concept that undermines the rule of law. Pontius Pilate would presumably be turning in his grave, not washing his hands and leaving the plebiscite to do their worst! We perhaps could also have a Pontius Pilate day or week, where there is an amnesty of sorts as an oomph to settle cases and where accurate statistics could show how judges are speedily dispensing with their cases via settlement or judgment, with bar charts of how long cases are taking to judgment by each judge, so as to dispense with procedural nonsense and to enable a more human side to the judiciary to establish over time. If the courts were more virtual, then stat gathering would be quite simple, and could actually show that there is a need for more judges, or courts ensuring proper regulation of society which is their social function.
What the Woolf Report really did (is anti-Christian) - Access to Justice Table (click here)

Christendom. Happy Easter

POST Modern JURISPRUDENCE

2010-03-22T14:44:00.012Z

Well I started thinking about post modern jurisprudence ... and what could be further done to the legal system to water it down a bit more ...

I did an LLB law degree in England and the core subjects are

Constitutional Public Law
Law of obligations / Contract
Legal Systems and Legal Methods
Tort
Crime
Property
Equity & Trusts
Jurisprudence
Employment
Environment
EC Law
Corporate
Dissertation (in my case Jurisprudence) - I recommend everyone does one
and I also worked for law firms that do

Family law
Intellectual Property
Construction law
Patent law
International law

and there are other topics such as

Human Rights law

But all fit within the 12 core topics above.

What if ... law firms had to be one of 12 core topics, for example

Corporate law firms - with specialisms in corporate, finance, investment, tax, intellectual property, patent law

Equity & Trusts -family, pensions, probate, inheritance - Executory or Inter vivos settlements, child laws

Property - conveyancing domestic and commercial, construction domestic and commercial

Legal Systems and Legal Methods - arbitration, litigation, ADR and legal drafting of social policy process, contempt of court, obstruction of the course of justice, perversion of the course of justice

Environment law - air, sea, land, water, trees, transport, nuisance, contamination

Contract - general or specialised

Tort - personal injury, mental health/health, professional negligence, defamation, slander, libel

Crime - attempt, conspiracy, full crime either statute or common law, private prosecution, contempt, obstruction, perversion and/or article 6 HRA 1998

Constitutional - public law, Councils, Police, Judiciary etc

EC Law - direct and indirect legal issues, horizontal effect, parliament, council, commission and European Court

Jurisprudence - ethics, human rights, social policy and codification, miscarriages of justice, ethics and standards of reasonableness, future direction of law and overseer of litigation, arbitration and ADR, European law and international law, monitoring and evaluation

etc, etc

At the moment, crime is largely defence work, but private prosecutions can also happen. Patent lawyers tend to be just that. But what if the very big large firms could only specialise in one core topic area and all law firms could only deal with one core topic area. This perhaps would cause greater regulation and independence as more than one firm may be involved in a transaction, eg intellectual property and litigation rather than one firm doing all the work within different departments, two firms each monitoring and evaluating the other's conduct professionally. It could mean larger firms working with small firms. Where one firm is working it could mean that department makeup is more relevant to the core business of the firm, so no need to have a property department if dealing with corporate work.

With databasing much of the pro forma or standard contract work which is done by paralegals would mean that "reiteration" type work could drop down to call centre type law firms. Whilst there would still be niche work, most client work would be generalised as it is nowadays anyway.

Getting rid of the "9 to 5" business time frame could mean people work from home, from internet cafe's or from the client's own office or home etc at more convenient times, including weekends, bringing a much needed "life/work/balance" to the corporate world.

Law degrees could be downgraded too:

(a) legal systems and legal methods,
(b) jurisprudence, and
(c) one core topic.
(d) the legal professional training could also be incorporated with a placement

In Scotland paralegals can qualify in one core topic, ie property or litigation, etc. Most lawyers once qualified - which requires a professional training course plus a 4 seats in core topics, tend to work for the remainder of their careers in one core topic which may or may not be one of their chosen core topic seats. So why waste all that time studying ... for an area you are never going to practise in!

With databasing salary levels could drop, and more complicated transactions would no longer be as complex - only the niche specialisms would attract higher salaries and that presumably would mean "challenging" legal work.

If a law firm could only practise in one of 12 core topic areas, then there would be greater competition and choice for the punter with innovative service.

One area that needs improvement is Jurisprudence - this appears to be only an academic topic. It should be possible to leave a university or college and find a job in Jurisprudence, either in Government or the Judiciary or other. I wait in hope ... my blog would suggest that there is a need for a form of employment under this head: the science and theory of human law (science requires certainty which is why it is different from philosophy).

Also, for those who are sceptical, bear in mind that legal secretaries do not specialise in any one area and can go from topic to topic and learn the skills inherent to each topic, what forms are needed, when in the transaction, how to complete them - all secretaries over time "know" what the end product looks like - they might not know how to get there, but they do "know" the standard that is to be reached within the context of the documentation. It's only a short hop, skip and jump on a learning curve ... if secretaries can do reiteration work, so also can all lawyers ... eg in conveyancing in Scotland there are 28 processes to buying and selling property - its one book with a contents page and an index page - not so difficult really when you look at issues practically in relation to tutoring/lecturing/practice.

Or the legal profession could be like hairdressing - self-employed and you rent your chair!
Modernity - Post Modernity should we be going there ...

Here is an issue using information I know about:

In the Highlands, social housing has an 11,000 waiting list for a council house. Private rental property advertises "No DSS, No pets, No smokers" and landlords put their rental for 1, 2, 3 bedroom properties just above the threshold for housing benefit, a 1 bedroom flat can only attract £98 per week from housing benefit so the Landlord puts it on the market at £450 so that he does not attract DSS. This should be contrary to social inclusion policy, anti-poverty policy, equality and diversity policy, financial inclusion policy areas of concern by local and national government. However, landlords and estate agents in the area are getting away with it.

Also in Lothian region there is a lot of empty new-build commercial property. How would this all be dealt with.

There are possible solutions, eg ex Council commercial property changed into council residential property. Attract commercial interests into empty new build commercial property the law could be changed to put back old commercial property to domestic residential use in town centres and thereby alleviate the social housing problems at the lower end of the market. In Scotland I believe all domestic rental property has to be registered, at least it does in Lothian, therefore ex-commercial property in town centres ie vacant property above shops and in residential streets could easily be brought up to standard for domestic use.

How would you go about it? I would think at least you would need to look at the whole social policy of domestic and commercial property letting. This would need a fission between politics and law. You would need to look at legal systems and legal methods concerning procedure and drafting. You would need to look at codification of what laws already exist which can go back to the 19th century and the last codification exercise. You might have to create law via the legislature to meet the requirements of the 21st Century. Who is going to do all this work, where is the synergy between topics, where do the public fit in with the synergy and goals to be achieved ... the fact that 11,000 people are on a waiting list means you do need to do something about social housing. The fact that there is a lot of empty new-build commercial property means there is a need for stimuli in the property market ... the fact that there is obvious discrimination occurring within domestic property use and contrary to existing government driven social policy within the boundaries to be addressed, ie anti-poverty ...

It would be interesting to see how the above would be dealt with, what ideas and creativity could be done to process a social disadvantage which is not compliant with core government policy initiatives ... law reaches into every aspect of society ... but governments all focus on their manifesto and if its not in the manifesto it can get lost to the ether and you then have 11,000 strong waiting lists and empty commercial property - who does the job of engaging society ? Part of the issue is actually recognising the problem in the first place and engaging to find a solution? Concerning the Highlands, the issue is actually discrimination / stigmatisation of people on state benefits - in a recession I would have thought that Landlords would find state housed people attractive as all a landlord should want is the benefit of his rent being paid regularly - apparently not - so why the stigma / discrimination? What are the further issues?

Legal Conundrum

2010-03-22T13:44:00.003Z

I have had a wee bit of a legal conundrum in banking

I sold a couple of items on Facebook and the purchaser payed in Euros via an International Bankers Draft. No problem you might think ...

* I live in Edinburgh and went looking for a Bureau de Change at about 7.00 pm on Saturday night - located two but neither open in Princes Street, the principal shopping mall in Edinburgh our CAPITAL city of Scotland.
* On Sunday one was open but I was informed they do not process international bankers drafts in Euros!
* I attempted to pay the cheque into my automated cheque processing machine at the main Edinburgh branch of my UK wide bank. It only processes cheques in "£" sterling, not Euros and ate the cheque when I tried to cancel the transaction.
* This morning, Monday, I went to the bank to retrieve the cheque, they can process it but would have to send it to Head Office in ENGLAND! They suggested I try other places first.
* I tried the Post Office and American Express both claimed they could not process an international Bankers Draft.
* Back to my main bank branch in Edinburgh to send the cheque to ENGLAND and it will take between 2 weeks and 6-8 weeks to process an international bankers draft.
* An international bankers draft is only a money cheque - you don't say! It is completely different from a UK Banker's Draft which usually signifies cleared funds.
* Phew, luckily the reason I was looking for a bureau de change at 7.00 pm on a Saturday night was because I was away for the weekend, and the purchasers had wanted to pick up the goods on Friday, but I could not be available or arrange for someone to be there. Now we all have to be patient and pray that it ONLY TAKES TWO WEEKS.
* This international transaction came about because of Facebook which tends to make globalisation smaller not complicated. What it has shown up is that the CAPITAL city of Scotland, Edinburgh is not fit for purpose in international money matters.

But what to do about it : is the issue that Scotland needs to look at the International layer of money management, or is the issue European - I hold an European Citizen passport and our banking machines are not capable of processing EUROS cheques. Or is the issue a UK Westminster issue and codification of all banking is needed to bring us up to international level for the 21st Century or is it devolved and do we need a Consultation Paper somewhere in one of these line management areas for social policy reasons.

To put it bluntly, I am gobsmacked by this legal conundrum - I don't think it can just be me or my bank, or the purchaser's method of payment in the 21st Century. Thankfully nobody said "change bank"!

Patience, patience, patience ... I know I'll write to my MEP, MP and MSP ...

Professional Body and Referendums

2010-03-16T13:07:00.004Z

The Law Society for Scotland is giving the legal profession a referendum on the ability to allow the legal profession to be split up:

"The move comes amid increasing resentment among the legal profession about the Law Society's handling of the move towards alternative business structures (ABS) that will permit non-lawyers to own law firms. ...

They insist the Society's "dual" function, which sees it also act as the statutory regulator for lawyers, cannot continue and the roles should be split, as they have been in England and Wales."

The Scotsman 11/03/10 article by Christopher Mackie entitled "Referendum gives solicitors chance to split up the Law Society (Click Here)

There appears to be an issue between "Regulation" and "Independence as a Profession".

I cannot see that it really matters. Some might say there has been an anarchist called "MODERN" at work within the judiciary and legal profession, well there certainly has been a modernisation policy which has the appearance of corruption rather than independence from my perspective anyway. But who are the policy makers?

This month's policy was called "Tesco law" whereby supermarkets can run legal services within their umbrella of anti-high street shopping. Some folks see this is as a step away from "professionalism", but I would disagree. Many law firms especially the top tier are more akin to call centres - the bulk of the work is pro forma or standard form agreements played out as contractual matrix and you can have corporate contracts with over 50 different documents in them with attorney's and lawyers flying across the water in what can appear to be a sweat shop of legalese. Some of those boardroom tables are huge with a toaster rack to file the documents as they complete. Yes, I have been involved in this style of law in the American law firms in London - an experience in itself - at least the American law firms have nice offices and their niceness extends to the toilets and beyond reception area! Lord Woolf did request that law offices upgrade as part of the Woolf Reforms as well as encouraging plain English in text - albeit I did like the latin myself.

But back to call centres - many lawyers are really only filling in the blanks, they cannot justify the salaries that they get and a lot of the work is downgraded to paralegals per se.

Also the City of Westminister provides just the same service as the City of London, so how can they justify the fee differential to clients. Moreover, legal secretaries educated or not cross the boundary with little difficulty - so why is it lawyers have such an issue viz-a-viz the Top 10 or Top 20 London law firms! Bearing in mind law graduates study the same law degree in Oxford as they do in Birbeck College, London, sit the same exams, use the same books with same or similar contents and index pages: I cannot see how universities can justify the "Russell Group" either - over to you Harriet Harman a "LEGAL EQUALITY ISSUE" - you have been there, done that too. (Maybe the issue for Equality is far more simpler - a child has the right to 6 months with its mother, and thereafter 6 months with its father in companies above a certain size in relation to fathers, ie remove maternity/paternity out of employment rights and refocus it on the child right in law - there then would be greater equality in the boardroom ON MERIT of course).

Perhaps "MODERN" is nearly over, there cannot be too much that has not been "changed" and hopefully "improved" left to do in the change management regime we have seen since 1997.

Gordon Brown PM recently had head lines that he is the right person to fix things or something like that - well, that's ok so long as you impliedly accept that something went terribly wrong during office tenure under New Labour or was impliedly wrong before the fact - in which case, spell it out succinctly. WHAT IS OR WENT WRONG and WHAT are you going to FIX? WHO IS/ARE RESPONSIBLE - I know the inherent problem is the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor's position which makes things CONSTITUTIONAL which requires the public's permission or consent to some things that have been taken for granted under MODERNISATION of TRADITIONAL methodologies and concepts: or at least political debate in the Commons and Lords which is above board. ADR was debated but the shallowness was outstanding - my material was not debated at all but was put forward for debate in the Scottish Parliament and European Parliament at least.

Tesco law is about creating "alternative" business structures ... have we done with "alternative" because it is that which is the source of the problems : modern incorporates "alternative" and "contemporary" and "privatisation".

Can we now do "evaluation" and "monitoring" policy to repair any damage that has occurred. We did not appear to have a "stop" button or "stop and think and improve" button. Perhaps FP8 can be "flip a coin policy a 50:50 chance over random and pot luck". Bear in mind that with a change management regime, there is always the danger that you can throw the baby out with the bath water ... ie, some things are already inherently good, and therefore do not require to be changed or improved.

However, having worked in the legal profession for 20 years from the bottom to top echelons and seen lawyers believe they are actually lawyers when filling in blanks in pro forma standard agreements which they have ripped off from the otherside of another transaction, and who probably could not draft a legal document from scratch these days if they tried, and would be defeated by a travelling draft, the watering down of the legal profession to supermarkets could go somewhat further to call centres - much of law these days is reiteration work, not challenging. Also having worked for Citizen Advice Bureau as a generalist adviser it would be a shock to lawyers to know that volunteers solve societies problems in 45 minutes and only minimal casework is sent to lawyers who if using legal aid take 6 weeks to process a legal aid form! With the ability to create databases, use scanners and email and de-legalise lawyers ... there is still some improvement necessary including court cases by email or skype ... (I am still waiting 6 years hence for the procedures to occur to my 2 lever arch court action and/or settlement). I don't reckon that the computerisation of legal matters will detract in any way from the number of disputes that occur in the disciplined areas of knowledge that currently exist via a law degree : law of obligations/contract, tort, crime, property, equity & trusts, legal systems and legal methods, constitutional, EC law, environment, corporate, employment law and of course JURISPRUDENCE - the science and theory of human law and other areas possibly human rights now and I suppose MODERN the anarchy student v TRADITIONAL student which probably is now a serious topic of Jurisprudence or at least I hope it is! I did read my Post-Modern Jurisprudence via my Constitutional law lecturer Costas Douzinas - ahead of his time perhaps.

There is a need to bring society to the 21st Century which can happen naturally or artificially.

My issue was that we also appeared to socially include a n azi concept, bearing in mind that the Japanese aligned themselves to the N azi's in WWII. However, it bizarrely came in via the Jews in America in the 50's/60's (at least that is my intelligence issue via Shapiro which requires some debate and explanation, including from America, especially as Mr Clinton assisted ADR to enter global systems. Scotland is also in the frame as the only N azi who entered Scotland was H e s s, speculation requires me to consider a link without a conspiracy theory here for the time being anyway - my research exists for a reason which has been revealed over time and is targeted at Europe via the UK and succeeded so long as I was covered up) - but then there were two holocausts as an outcome of WWII. My boss aligned with Shapiro and FICA was set up in Germany which I believe is an arbitration club or something like that - privatisation of the application of the rule of law! For some unknown reason many members of the partnership boycotted the Summer Ball when the firm aligned with a German Equity Department in or about 1997. Speaks volumes to me now. If there is such a thing as the cold war, then I reckon Japan won due to Jewish treachery. ADR is a Japanese concept which is used culturally to save loss of face. The Jews modified it to quicker and cheaper than litigation - the public application of the rule of law. ADR bypasses both common law and statute when contained within the same and creates a completely hidden and gagged society. Is that something that we wanted, was debated, needs evaluation and monitoring? Even freedom of the press would be hard pushed to circumvent a gagging order in an ADR agreement - but the parties are always free to break their contract as they see fit, which is what they would have done in the first place but be rewarded with a new contract rather than face a judge and remedies in law via public or private application of the rule of law. Where there is a point concerning ADR in relation to litigation and arbitration, the 21st Century could remedy very quickly if the judiciary wanted to - modernisation could usefully retire some of the older judiciary to enable the more computer savvy barristers to get a post. Only a judge can delay a court case. Only a judge can do procedural nonsense. Only a judge can abuse your human rights. Judges can be made accountable especially in criminal law - obstruction of the course of justice, and perversion of the course of justice. Judges can operate in conspiracy with either party. Judges do say one thing and do the other eg don't steal a march appears to be do whatsoever you like, but what do you do when they get caught and requests for contempt of court are made - make out that you have not complied with procedure - computerisation would mean that this nonsense would have to go where documents are uploaded to the court and everyone can see them - the courts are "public", the full extent of the word is significant especially where there is an ability to do judicial corruption. Whether lessons are learned is another thing.

Unilateralism - Bilateralism - Mulitilaterlism

2010-02-19T13:23:00.018Z

There are several "isms", along with "icity", "ness" and "less" that are add on to words that give them the appearance of importance.

For example "reciprocity", "timelessness" and "unilaterilism".

I see Gordon Brown MP did back the war in Iraq and I had for some time been under the illusion that he was behind Clare Short ex-MP's stance or supportive of it in any event.

I remember the newspapers reporting on Iraq as I was most concerned and alarmed that we had entered an "unjust war" due to my research papers on ADR entering England via the Woolf Reforms, then Scotland (and anyone who thinks Woolf did not get into the Gill Report is mistaken), and Europe via Arlene McCarthy MEP's anti-democratic processing of the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiarity Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation - only 2 of 27 published responses were considered along with 5 experts she calls expert but I do not. She refused to interview me with the "competition model" which is correctly aligned to European methodology!

The term "unilaterlism" arose pre invasion because America with the support of the UK did not wait for the UN to decide upon the resolution debacle and went alone on the WMD sticky whicket.

In any event, Gordon Brown PM's current statements only digs an even deeper hole - it was for the UN to decide the outcome of their imposed resolutions, not America or the UK - why else have a UN if it is without merit or defunct of purpose.

Hans Blix report needed to be completed, that would have dealt with any intelligence issues and would have assisted Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq as well. I am not trying to defend Saddam Hussein but there was in place a process, he was complying to some degree, but he had a battle on two camps - America chomping at the bit for war and the UN attempting peace and diplomacy - who was the bigger threat: you cannot expect a country and its people to always do the right thing, or the best thing ... but you can expect those who are posing a threat to be reined in and by their own intelligence services or the authority that is put in place, in this case the UN.

Bilaterlism and multilateralism would have been more expedient and that is why we sign up to Treaties, contracts, comply with obligations and the UN and other agencies NATO being another.

In hindsight it was a mess, it was deliberately designed to be a mess, that is why it is "unjust".

I was subject to a "unilateral" command many years ago - 16 to be precis, a life sentence - because a Professor of Law and Philosophy, did not engage brain and got his ass whipped by a legal secretary in a disciplinary appeal hearing - Cathy James has got a loud voice - when is Professor Susskind going to take responsibility for his actions whilst working for the law firm Masons, who have also not taken responsibility for Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross bringing computer related allegations in a specialist IT technology law firm, neither the Law Society, Bar Council or Judicial Complaints.

However, the act of "unilaterilism" that I was subjected to was "unlawful" in relation to my bilaterally signed contract. On appeal before Mr Justice Morison, there is no case precedent in judgment as the firm having gone down the route of corruption needed to hide their original case citation in relation to the ultra vires doctrine, ie outwith the scope of ... the contract which was a private law contract, had it been a public law contract they would have perhaps got away with it.

Notice the similarities to Iraq. Unilaterlism and America and the UK's operating outwith the scope of the UN resolution TOO! making the act of war "unlawful" or as is called in Jurisprudence "UNJUST". Why was Lord Goldsmith persuaded ... who did the lobbying ...?

But there are more issues, my LLB degree was graded 2:2 HONS - I received honours because of my dissertation which I had to argue against policy to do and succeeded. My dissertation was contrary to the Woolf Report and subsequently the Access to Justice Act 1999 - it had comprised within it Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). It is a Japanese concept used culturally within Japan. The version we got was American Jewish albeit Lord Mackay of Clashfern originally tried to bring it in when he was Master of the Rolls (or perhaps Lord Chancellor), ie Scottish.

Therefore, I find I am suing the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice, Professor Susskind, and I am exposing academically the top law report in England, the Woolf Report by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. Oops!

You have in England/UK

The Queen
The Prime Minister
The Lord Chancellor (now Justice Secretary)
The Lord Chief Justice
The Vice Chancellor
The Master of the Rolls

Oops

Makes me a little bit special given I was originally a legal secretary of 17 years duration in Scotland and England, and then a fee earner paralegal of 3 years duration in S J Berwin & Co - where you get pay rises for doing no work, but no pay rise if your performance is 109% and profit costs £146k on a £120.00 charge out rate! That's Jewish for you! No something more sinister was occurring - Professor Richard Susskind's long corrupt arm of the law, which I can prove to a degree.

So now that Lord Woolf is outed and Professor Susskind is outed - what did the judiciary in England, or Scotland or Europe need with ADR in the judicial system and legal profession - what was necessary to be HIDDEN, or COVERED-UP - Justice is "PUBLIC", even arbitration still applies the rule of law privately!

WE WERE INVADED by a Japanese concept but directionally formulating from America and the Jewish people assisted by the Scots or is it vice versa!

Professor Richard Susskind OBE ("Professor DISobeDIENT") is Scottish. But he mistakenly believes that I am also Scottish, I was born in England, but have a Scottish accent and Scottish Father, William McDade.

Oops!

I have been covered up for 16 years for some reason: the judiciary and legal profession are knocked over, the Press - spin and are knocked over too, the military are knocked over - because I believe Iraq is a decoy because my research was known by 1997 and definitely by 1998/1999/2000/2001/2002 yet never made headlines - Professor Susskind holds public office, should have made front page when there is certain corruption in the Ministry of Justice or Lord Chancellor's Office - Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg did get sacked - why? Finally, awash with money and Clinton trips the financial sector finally goes down when Greenspan hits the shores of the UK - be it for good or bad reason: it was a short trip in any event, did not make for splash headlines, too quiet given he was head of the Federal Bank of America - did he stop for the lecture circuit!

Back to Scottish issues - this is a shocker:

(Taken from the backpage of a Historic Scotland publication Kings and Queens of Scotland by Colin Baxter)

*
Alpin
Kenneth I (843-859)
Constantin I (863-877)
Donald II (889-900)
Malcolm I (942-954)
Kenneth II ((971-995)
Malcolm II (1005-1034)
Bethoc
Duncan I (1034-1040)
Malcolm III (1058-1093)
David I (1124-1153)
Earl Henry
David
Margaret --------------and Isabella
Devorgilla -----------------Robert de Brus "The Competitor"
John Balliol (1292-1296) --Robert de Brus
Edward Balliol -----------Robert I (1306-1329) "The Bruce
--------------------------Marjorie
--------------------------Robert II (1371-1390)
--------------------------Robert III (1390-1406)
--------------------------James I (1406-1437)
--------------------------James II (1437-1460)
--------------------------James III (1460-1488)
--------------------------James IV (1488-1513)
--------------------------James V (1513-1542)
--------------------------Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1567)
--------------------------James VI and I (1567-1625)
--------------------------Charles I (1625-1649)
---------------Charles II (1649-85) and James VII & II (1685-89)
---------------------!--------------------------!
---------------William III (1689-1702)and Mary II ((1689-94)

(*this is a pedigree line for Balliol only)

The family of "Jermy" of Norfolk, England have a Pedigree from 1221 which establishes the family as "knights" from the 12th Century to the 17th Century.

Sir William Jermy 1221
Sir John Jermy m Marjery daughter of Roger Bigot Earl Marshall of England and his daughter married Thomas Bretherton son of Edward I
Sir John Jermy
Sir William Jermy married Ellin, daughter of King John Balliol, King of Scotland (1292-1306)
Sir John Jermy
Sir Thomas Jermy
Sir William Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir Isaac Jermy
Sir Thomas Jermy

That is the Pedegree of the Scots but Queen Devorgilla of Galloway created "OXFORD UNIVERSITY" for the poor student - a veritable "Rose". King John Balliol was called "tomb tabard" or "empty surcoat". Was he defamed? Was Isabella green because her line did not succeed, but eventually did so via Robert The Bruce? Ellin was married to a Knight not a Royal House of Europe, she may have been furious and probably assisted the English King Edward II. Edward I had 20 children, Thomas Bretherton was the 17th child or brother No 2. Bizarrely, if you look at the Clan Crest Badges for Scotland, there is none for Canmore or Balliol, 13 challenged for the Crown under David I, but I do not know who the others were, but John Balliol was chosen over Robert the Brus (grandfather). It was whittled down to 6 of which Canmore, Bruce, Balliol were the top three. Balliol got it because Margaret was the oldest daughter. Isabella and Robert de Brus did they set out to defame Balliol - why is he empty surcoat?. Certainly the Clan badges do not form history of Scotland for Balliol AND Canmore (bizarrely) on modern maps !! (what was the Canmore issue), and the others? nor is there reference to a tartan for Canmore or Balliol in ancestry books on tartans at least none I am looking at?

Is this a real 12th Century Da Vinci Code?

My mother's name is Lesley Diane Jermy, she has a copy of the Jermy Pedegree only 300 were made - we know little else than that other than the Jermy lands were subject to an issue in Chancery by a bent judge who managed to secure them in the 17/18th centuries. The brief history of The Jermy Family of Norfolk and Suffolk shows the clan badge as a Griffen atop a helmet and shield with the lion rampart guardant with the message underneath "splendidum virtus insigne" on a ribbon. The book claims that all Jermy's of Norfolk are descendents and my mum was born in Norfolk. Amateur genealogy has thrown up a conundrum in the 17th century but .... I would like to know! Invitations to assist from historians with nothing to do OR perhaps a history graduate from Edinburgh University who may be out of a job soon!

Is this another "oops" which is causing a cover up of my court actions - technically I am English but have I been helping the wrong side.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern left comments on Hansard 18 December 1998 informing that history was being made: law is being made from the "Despatch Box" not the Woolsack. The issue is that the Queen enacted the Access to Justice Act 1999 BUT it does the opposite - Access from Justice. Moreover, the Masons/Susskind case and SJ Berwin & others cases going through the courts establishes the methodology:

law is not applied
law that is not applicable is applied
I await law is applied - I wrote to the courts yesterday again - they're not going to be ecstatic!

Concerning the Chilcot Inquiry my documents are ready to be inspected (a) history of the Woolf Reforms to the present day (b) legal cases for methodology not substance.

The Scotsman article on 19/02/10 by Eddie Barnes entitled "Gordon Brown: Saddam's defiance was real cause of Iraq War (Click Here)

Social INJUSTICE

2010-02-13T10:17:00.004Z

Social INJUSTICE is one of my bugbears and I have raised this one before in relation to crime.

Just as "INEQUALITY is something you subjectively do to yourself, UNEQUAL is something that others subjectively do to you. Objectivity = EQUALITY"

Social "injustice" is something the state can do to itself.

Currently there is yet another debacle in Scotland - SNP Minister Nicola Sturgeon has the appearance of being subjective in relation to a fraudster, Abdul Rauf, 59 who has committed several crimes but thinks he should not go to jail. He appears to have played the race card and his MP, Nicola Sturgeon has taken up the issue.

Perhaps we need to see the statistics in Scotland via a policy implemented by Kenny MacAskill MP as Justice Minister of not sending people to jail but to community orders. Some perceive it as "soft justice". I happen to agree with his stance to some degree.

Nicola Sturgeon MP appears therefore to some degree to be correct in requesting an alternative to custody for this person. Disregard the Muslim issue, and yes non-violent criminals should not go to jail at all, or perhaps half and half.

The reason : it costs up to £30,000+ to keep a prisoner in jail in Scotland and £45,000+ in England per year - a burden which serves little or no purpose.

It costs the state approx £12,000 - £15,000 to keep someone who hasn't committed a crime on state benefits, ie income support or employment support allowance + housing benefit. The SOCIAL INJUSTICE is apparent. Someone who has not committed a crime but for whatsoever reason is not in paid employment the state spends less on them than on a person who has committed crime. Potentially a £20,000 difference in Scotland, potentially up to £30,000 difference in the rest of the UK.

Under New Labour in the UK 3000 pages of new criminal law went on the Statute books and the UK prison population went up to around 80,000 with talk of prison ships at one point if it went higher.

Politicians need to go 'hold on a minute', the cost to the state of the prison population is 'x', the cost to the Legal Aid Fund is 'x' and the cost to the judiciary is 'x'. Reduction is necessary and Kenny MacAskill MP appears to have the solution in Scotland, perhaps needing to be put to the public properly along with the statistics of how he has been doing to show accountability and responsibility to the public purse.

For example and by way of suggestion - soldiers are released to civvy street and could facilitate community benefit orders for non-violent crime, such as:

clearing canals and ditches
clearing and maintaining graveyards
snow clearing in winter
dry stane dyking and repair
painting railings
painting housing schemes
gardening in housing schemes and site clearance/maintenance
gardening on roundabouts and maintenance

if they don't behave a fortnight gutting fish on a boat out in the Minch in a Gale Force 8 might do the trick.

It would also improve "family relations" and "employability" if those convicted of non-violent crime could do community benefit orders rather than being imprisoned.

That the criminal is Muslim, or any other religion, is irrelevant and Nicola Sturgeon MP is right to raise the issue of non-violent criminals going to jail, but is she subjectively wrong to deal with the raising of a race card - she will just have to provide the statistics especially in line with current SNP policy for more community based orders. I have no doubt she can make the case, especially if she separates out the two issues. It might also prove opportune for SNP to evaluate their policy and provide feedback to society and whether it is providing a benefit or needs tweaking etc.

The issue to my mind is "VALUE ADDED". Just as when you buy a recycled book or children's recycled book instead of a comic, as I do:

- the charity gets money for the cause
- the book is recycled, potentially further recycled and its environmentally friendly option
- it costs less than a new book, thereby effecting a personal saving

It is not just value added, it is value value added. Some might say it is thrift or Scots mothballs in the wallet!

Looking at society and the prison population and non-violent prisoners in a community benefit way could mean that cost savings are passed onto community projects benefitting everyone not a cost on one person.

Looking at your local areas which are deprived and showing signs of poverty because railings are not painted (ever), buildings are not painted, gardens are not tendered - potentially excess Council plants could be used for community based projects, some youth groups or older groups could use computers, some church grounds need tendered, some roundabouts need conifers, bulbs and rock.

For example, 10 non-violent prisoners could provide a cost saving of £200,000 - £300,000 in Scotland or the UK. That money would pay the wages of a soldier(s) responsible for community benefit orders for non-violent criminals. The project could be associated with other community projects ie, a local church group - funds to assist church repairs whilst assisting the community whilst assisting the prisoner by doing ground maintenance + assisting family relations and future employability. OR, a youth project could receive funding for computers, sports kit, games and trips a cost saving of £10,000 benefiting everyone in the group whilst also benefiting the prisoner doing community based work, + family and employability. Instead of someone being a burden, they become a benefit. It may also assist community relations if the neighbourhood is spruced up especially when CRIME DOES NOT PAY!

There are 800 volunteer organisations in Edinburgh all or some could be linked to the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh as well as the community and Volunteer Scotland could be provided cost saving funding too to assist implementation. What needs to be looked at in relation to Nicola Sturgeon MP's current debacle is SOCIAL INJUSTICE as well as THE RACE CARD - they are two separate issues! Statistics would no doubt assist.

There are plenty to do - no funds available in local authority coffers to do it. With some joined-up thinking there is a social injustice that could easily be used to rectify a burden to a benefit. You know it makes sense and a community benefit order may actually be more demanding than anything currently being done in prison.

Lastly, Abdul Rauf is 59 years old. How many 55+ are in prison who are non-violent?

The way I would look at this is a 5 year sentence is worth £100,000 @£20,000 cost saving or £125,000 @ £25,000 cost saving. That buys a lot of paint. What community project could not use the benefit of this cost saving passed onto them - surely he can paint railings!

The Scotsman 12/02/10 article by Tom Peterkin and Christine Mackie entitled "Alex Salmond dodges defence of defiant Nicola Sturgeon (click here)

Assisted Suicide OR Mercy Killing - Like for Like - Socrates

2010-02-03T12:39:00.009Z

"Assisted Suicide" is topical at the moment. It is also being called "Mercy Killing".

In law case precedent is supposed to be processed on a LIKE FOR LIKE premis. This means that the "ratio decidendi", ie the reasoning of the judge which discovers the point of law is supposed to be similar in every case thereafter, ie it sets the standard of what the law "ought" to be. "Obiter dicta" is persuasive argument to be followed should the law require to progress in a direction beyond a historical case precedent which is being followed for its significant ratio as a point of law.

Law does go out of date, society does progress, sometimes there is a gap in the law or lacuna as it is called which requires to be "discovered" but not created. The legislature create law, the judges discover it (they have the benefit of evidence and pleading bundles to assist truth and the common good). Law is uniformly applicable to all. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the Judges are facilitated with an ability to be subjective, ie act in their discretion via the doctrine of equity, one example of which is "in the interests of justice", which can be used where there is foul play by the othersides solicitors which is certain, ie removal of discovery evidence from agreed court bundles is an example - the judge is supposed to provide equality before the law to all parties.

The greatest suicide in law anyway, was Socrates. He was put on trial and eventually killed himself by drinking "hemlock".

Which brings me to the Assisted Suicide and/or Mercy Killing issues currently being played out before us, the public.

I can understand well the issue of assisted suicide, especially the need for dignity. I also read Terry Pratchett's article in the Mail yesterday* which was of some interest, but also threw up some questioning in myself. I also read Dr Sentamu's article** and was particularly heartened to read that any questionnaire of a broad range of the public should really be done by disabled people, as they know the issues that affect their lives daily and somehow they cope - would they kill themselves willingly?

Concerning Terry Pratchett's article (TP) his diagnosis comes within the mental health sector and he well knows that anything to do with mental health medicine has side effects. You should read the medication side effects list, it beggars belief that the medication prescribed is designed to assist you. You have heard the terms "chemical cosh". It is also very easy to appear to be ill when prescribed mental health medicine. I therefore urge caution in relation to any assisted suicide bill permitting mental health consultants to determine death issues. Many people do actually die in mental health hospitals, possibly as a result of side effects affecting underlying diagnosis - you can be invisible in a system too. How many people focus on the statisticss in relation to mental health hospitals and deaths, or which medication is given for the prognosis/diagnosis and who the consultant is prescribing and his death statistics? It is dangerous to therefore create a legislated pathway to death.

TP raised a very significant issue - quality of life. We are an ageing population in the UK, there is likely to be an increase in particular prognosis but not the facilities to go with it, unless significant breakthrough is made in prognosis. The money is going to have to be allocated more towards the mental health sector to ensure facilities due to the ageing population. Therefore, the issue is not quality of life - this can be manufactured by providing funding or not, providing training or not to nursing staff and others. The issue is "opportunity of quality of life": listening to your favorite music - TP refers to his favorite "Thomas Tallis" - how many elderly people do you see with MP3 players on wards! Ward radio system! Or more importantly, personal "notebooks" and "Skype" keeping in contact with family and friends - if this is not available if I go to older people's services, I will be most annoyed!! Currently in Edinburgh there has been a move (when I was Chair of the Patients' Council) to remove the age 65 cut-off between acute and older people services: just because age 65 is the official retirement age concerning employability, it should be mutually exclusive all other services! The issue is that there is currently a better service available on the NHS in acute than older people services and no one is going to notice if you have a cut-off impact, or very few - you are already invisible in mental health services.

Therefore, Dr Sentamu has got a very very real and serious point - that it should be disabled people who make the decisions in relation to Assisted Suicide in our current society.

The Daily Mail yesterday also have a further interesting article *** of which two paragraphs were of note:

"... In yesterday's report the MPs made a wide-ranging attack on Government counter-terrorism strategy, saying complacent civil servants could be putting the public at risk by settling for second best..."

... Some of these leading the national counter-terror effort are paralysed by a dangerous institutional inertia, the committee said ..."

This is an important issue, counter-terrorism is irrelevant for current purposes of this blog post, but words such as "complacent", "second best" and "institutional inertia" in our Government also exist in other areas of professionalism. TP's article presumes the best, not necessarily the average or the worst. Trust in authority should be done by degree only. Trust only yourself 100%.

Concerning legislation, other areas need to be considered in an Assisted Suicide bill. Joining up legislation included, such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Issues to include are :

- LIVING WILLS and don't resuscitate clauses
- ORGAN DONATION and a tick in the box does the deed via your Boots Advantage card
- HUMAN GUINEA PIGS for medical trials
- CLONING - the Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johannsen film "The Island" is futuristic, but how many movies become reality over time.
- STEM CELL RESEARCH and Superman - therapeutic science is in its infancy
- ETHICS AND JURISPRUDENCE - there is no jurisprudence in Scotland in mental health, and lawyers are not accredited so far as I am aware in mental health law, even although it is covered by the legal aid fund which accredits family lawyers and defence lawyers - the legal aid umbrella should have a minimal accredition scheme to include human rights and jurisprudence and ethics in mental health law.
- CODIFICATION OF EXISTING LAWS in relation to medicine and the NHS
- DATA PROTECTION - the NHS in Scotland is still paper based in mental health, bolt on databases are not procured, and Data Protection only facilitates a statement of accuracy to go on your medical record, not deletion of erroneous information : it is completely easy to falsify or fabricate mental health records - psychiatrists are not expert in everything but they do not reach out to expert fields external mental health. Admission, Care Plans and Discharge should all be working from the same version and this is better facilitated electronically with pick lists for key diagnosis and the avoidance of unreadable long-hand or code forms etc in simplified databases which would also assist statistical gathering and "unmet needs", ie the opportunity for the quality of life.
- PROFESSIONAL COMPLICITY, COLLUSION AND RUBBER STAMPING - it is easy for professionals to be complicit especially where you are deemed somewhat odd, a misfit, eccentric, obsessive etc.
- STATISTICS FOR MENTAL HEALTH IN SCOTLAND IS (1 IN 4) - this should make you think with clarity in relation to Assisted Suicide.
- TECHNOLOGY and MRI scans
- APPLICANCE OF SCIENCE - your prognosis will determine your medication diagnosis - there are usually more than one drug type in any diagnosis. Whether you get the right one first time is up to your Consultant. But you will be proferred medication to medicate the side effects over trying another drug which might assist. You can be a zombie quite easily in a mental health system assisting your appearance of being ill unnecessarily. People you don't know also fill in the forms, yet you are deemed "vulnerable" - the power of suggestion and the ability to influence for subjective reason is powerful but there is little check on the procedure. You can also be processed subjectively by family and friends with no objective check on their subjectivity.
-GENETICS and the ability to "know" a diagnosis prior to its event. Genetic genealogy is an area where genes can be identified through history and people do appear to have a right to this information and to participate in safe and protective investigation together with just society. This is likely to impact on insurance law.

Where I consider there is some merit is that Dignitas in Switzerland does exist. They surely capture statistical information - diagnosis, religious background, male / female / child / youth. If it is the case they do, then perhaps we should look there before coming up with our own option - caution is necessary in this area, which as I have shown above is largely "new" law and potentially wider on legal issues than is being promulgated at the moment under mental health legislation. Switzerland could assist drafting too wide to narrow on prognosis with evaluation and monitoring of impact and outcome on those who make the decision with further legislation to follow if needed. Specific prohibitions or permissions could tie in the Human Rights Act and the Disability Discrimination Act, and delimit to specific diagnosis in the first enacted Act, if legislation over case precedent is deemed the way forward. It is right to have the debate in any event - we are in the 21st Century and law must progress society to make it safe and just. Concerning Dr Sentamu's article - the natural law is facilitated via the reasoning of a judge only. Legislation is a political slice of time which ages, hence we still have statutes going back to the 16th Century. Case law which is ancient can be brought up to date by a new case = progress to what the law "ought" to be by discovery NOT creation in law. Dr Sentanu's understanding of natural law is in relation to religion.

An area which I consider needs repeal is the Mental Capacity Acts. If Stephen Hawkins can communicate with his considerable disabilities, so also can any human being. With the ability to make people appear more ill then they may actually be via mental health medication the virtue of "patience" over "capacity" should be the judicial issue - go to any disabled conference and you will get a judicial eye opener at peoples abilities in relation to communication : there is a governmental body the Office for Disability Issues - all judges and legal professionals could usefully attend a conference as part of their training. All people can communicate to some degree. I would therefore like to see "reasonable adjustment" as particularised in the Disability Discrimination Act concerning employability extended to mental health and disability or it could be added to the Human Rights Act under right to life and also liberty: there should be no such thing as incapacity in the 21st Century with government policy requiring social inclusion.

The publicity of assisted suicide is perhaps of note. Care has to be taken when writing about issues in relation to the mental health sector by journalists - the ability for libel, defamation, slander, misrepresentation, mistake, malicious falsehood all of which is high risk and costly. But that does not also follow that issues should not be made public especially where there are public interest issues when a person has a mental health diagnosis - people are not supposed to be invisible. Government policy also requires that people are socially included, assisted by anti-poverty issues, and equality and diversity issues, financially included, but the stigma of mental health is a very serious one.

Lastly, back to Socrates. He took hemlock. I rather thought that if my opportunity for quality of life was so poor, I would order a rather nice bouquet from a florist, and eat it. I do a bit of gardening, and have a 4 page list of poisonous plants with the symptoms and the words "can be fatal" at the end of each plant description.

Hemlock (Conium maculatum) : poisonous part - whole plant. Symptoms to look for : vomiting, diarrhoea, mental confusion, convulsions, coma and respiratory failure. CAN BE FATAL

I noted Monkshood (Aconitum napellus) : poisonous part - whole plant, especially the seeds, leaves and root. Symptoms to look for: immediate burning and tingling in the mouth, fingers and toes, numbness, vomiting, diarrhoea, convulsions and breathing becomes very difficult. NOTE: the poison acts very fast. CAN BE FATAL

Bluebell (Endymion) : poisonous part - bulb. Symptoms to look for: Gastric pain, diarrhoea and blood in urine.

(Choosing the plants would be the interesting part, you would not want to get it wrong. I could have them sent via a living will.

Bear in mind dehydration at above 20% will cause death, and also it is possible to be put to sleep and not awaken through hypnosis - I am not a botanist or medically trained so check these).

What I don't get is why all the fuss about assisted suicide/mercy killing legislation and its need thereof in today's society with trips to Switzerland occurring over local library and local florist or garden centre. I do get the need to look at "death" in the widest sense in the 21st century to capture ethics, jurisprudence and scientific research to protect, provide safe and just society and balance issues in relation to the mental health sector via legislation. Also, I would prefer to see people receiving permission to do assisted suicide or a mercy killing before a court, ie before the fact, rather than after the fact. In an ageing population this issue is likely to increase, therefore getting it right now may be pertinent to include narrowing the opening of legal floodgates!

Given the Greeks have the trial of Socrates embedded in philosophy and history, it is possible to turn to Europe as the trial of Socrates could provide the ancient case precedent for the progress of this area and the Greeks may have historical data or documentation in that regard. However, beware the "spirit" in relation to philosophy, mind and body. In times of cruelty, sustained negativity and harshness, the spirit is raised - sixth sense. Some call it "animism" and there are different forms "hylozoism" being one of them

Hylozoism (click here)

NB: Psychiatrists potentially may claim this to be psychotic perhaps, others may call it "Hex" or "witchcraft" or something else. But it could also be shown as a sign of life and cognition.

However, I have pondered some more on this one and my thoughts should be deemed speculative below:

There is a saying in law which may assist clarity. A lot of people hide behind the words "it's your opinion". In law "OPINION" can be held to be objective where it is based on fact as it has legal effect. Subjective when it does not and is premised on emotional colouring, ie bias, prejudice, emotion.

As such "Assisted Suicide" as a term of art would require professional objectivity, whereas "Mercy Killing" would not necessarily do so as it involves someone particularly close to the person who is suffering. What society appears to be doing at the moment is focusing the judiciary and law to make the decision - which where a judge is "reasoning" in case precedent sets a 21st century stance, which can only be overborne by a further case or by the legislature.

I want to focus somemore on Dr Sentamu's statement concerning Christianity and natural law in religion. Jesus Christ's message was "LOVE". And his concept of love was not physical in relation to sex. That is why people who are in love say: they "KNOW".

Therefore, turning this to the current situation in relation to "mercy killings", there are several factors:

Unconditional love as a child receives from a parent or guardian
The love between partners, usually signified by marriage
The love for close relations and friends in the absence of family

Concerning marriage, there is deemed to be a "union of the souls" and this is usually premised on love where religious based, especially certain Christian doctrines. Taking this as an exempler, to include longevity as a factor in older couples, I would argue, or at least speculate, that it is appropriate for a person to assist death in their other half where that person is significantly suffering and has no opportunity for a quality of life. The issue would be dignity which should be assured as a person's other half is also suffering - there is not just one involved but two or more. A person should die in peace and any suffering should cease in both. Love should be involved in a mercy killing and the act, should imply care and trust. The act should be deemed "good" as cause and effect in law as there would be balance and harmony in law - the right thing to do. There should be no act of killing by the state - in law safeguards are available, if it were otherwise than a mercy killing people could step forward with testimony, such as friends, relatives, colleagues, community to cause a sufficient check enabling safe and just society (there is therefore a need for a judge and law intervention on this topic). There is a difference from a negative state of mind and a positive one - there should be an absence of disruption. In Scotland we have a concept in contract law "consusus ad idem" meaning a meeting of the minds - people who are couples by marriage or co-habiting are "in union" as they are seen to be by society in general. As are legal guardians. The burden of keeping someone alive where the mind and body has failed is a tough call, and we all have our time even with the "spirit" seen as separate the mind and body - assisting someone is not taking away from Time, it should be seen as their Time. There is no reason to presume that a consenting couple cannot reach that decision together where there is an inability in another. Mutuality, reciprocity, respect will all exist in both because the souls are united. There should be no penalty Christian or lawful, where the other half of a union has to make a decision concerning the other's life and death. With technology it is now possible to show to a judge a person's life, and the extent of their suffering and quality of life and opportunity for a quality of life (which can also be safeguarded by a judge) and its impact on the closest person and others who may also be elderly and have health issues - the burden can be too great. If the issue is "out of love" then I cannot see that there is an issue.

*Daily Mail 02/01/10 article by Sir Terry Pratchett - "When the time comes I'll sit on my lawn, brandy in hand and Thomas Tallis on my iPod. And then I'll shake hands with Death"
**Daily Mail 02/01/10 article by Steve Doughty and Fay Schlesinger - "Archibishop condemns the push for mercy killings"
* **Daily Mail 02/01/10 article by James Slack, Home Affairs Editor - "Taxpayers £8m legal bill for terror suspect control orders".

Belief, Understanding, Knowledge

2010-01-30T11:23:00.015Z

I only caught the evening news on this one ... hmmm.

I lobbied government and political parties and media on the Iraq War which I consider was an unjust war.

I was disheartened to see ex-PM Tony Blair's defiance and stance in hindsight. The reason is because he claims his "belief" is that he was justified in going to war. I have a problem with the fact that we went to war on a "belief" and not an "understanding", which is a higher level of intellect OR "knowledge" which is the highest level of intellect. I also have a fundamental problem with Mr Blair's claim that his "belief" was "beyond reasonable doubt". "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a criminal law standard (evidence and knowledge), and "reasonable belief" a civil law standard (belief), neither should be mixed together. (The other civil law standard is "balance of probabilities", ie understanding). Mr Blair and his wife Cherie Booth, Matrix Chambers, are barristers and pupilled under ex-Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine of Lairg and his other "crony" ex-Lord Chancellor Falconer. If issues are "beyond reasonable doubt" then there is "EVIDENCE" which moves the issue from "belief" to "knowledge". Someone is either a very very very poor law student or engaged in criminality per se - SPIN.

Which is my point - a timeline might assist:

In 1993 I wrote my first essay for my LLB Law degree at Birbeck College, London in the topic of Legal Systems and Legal Methods on the subject of ADR ("Alternative Dispute Resolution") for Dr Lindsay Farmer. Dr Farmer graded my essay at 50%. The essay is in law 100% accurate. It is material to the facts that Dr Farmer was educated at Edinburgh University and also that he comes from Fife, Scotland.

In 1993 I was working for the law firm Masons and had a disciplinary hearing due to my boss Carmela Inguanta bullying me concerning workload whilst working in Anne Molyneux's department (property litigation) - I won the disciplinary process which the firm deemed "we took it on the chin", due to procedural nonsense (documents published on blog).

In 1994 another disciplinary hearing was brought whilst working in Anne Molyneux's department concerning her secretary, Cathy James' incompetence at leaving a confidential memo in the public network directory because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy. Moreover, the substance of the confidential memo established that Anne Molyneux was neither complying with company policy either, as an equity partner. It was also established that Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross, the other partner in the department, could not switch on computers in a specialist computer technology and construction law orientated law firm. 3 allegations were brought against me for gross misconduct, and 3 allegations were brought against my colleague Catherine Johnson for minor misconduct. Allegations were substantially false to include the third allegation that I had represented to another that Cathy James had a loud voice. A barrister, Mr Michael Ford represented myself and Catherine Johnson in disciplinary proceedings, I did not do "softly softly" as per his instruction but fought: after the hearing Anne Molyneux stated to the tea lady in the toilets - "there is blood all over the walls". The upshot was that I was not sacked and Catherine Johnson was sacked. However, my lawful application of my contract meant I was to return to Anne Molyneux's department and I had no problem with this, other than my boss Brian Gegg was eventually seen to be lilly livered. Mr Ford affirmed that even if I had referred to Cathy James' loud voice, it was not even minor misconduct - somebody obviously wanted me out of the department and firm - given I was the most computer literate and both Catherine and I were doing the majority of the work, my doing the most difficult workload - with Cathy James being seen to be completely incompetent, and as I had put it, "as good as a man short in the department" - it is material that the department were having a go for losing their disciplinary the previous year. They also brought the complaints 40 days later during my LLB exams - I was sitting 3 hour disciplinary, 3 hour exam, 3 hour disciplinary on appeal, 3 hour exam. Eventually I had a 1 1.2 hour disciplinary before Professor Richard Susskind (IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - material information) who claimed to be reasonable, reasonable, reasonable in dismissing me because he had made a "unilateral" decision, ie management decision, to sack me, rather than adher to my "bilateral" contract and lawful application thereof. He was moreover fully aware that I was highly competent in the law firm, and also that Ms James, Ms Cross and Ms Molyneux were not: Cathy James should have received a bin liner and show the front or back door, Ms Cross should have had her practising certificate removed, and Ms Molyneux should have been processed for discussions concerning her equity and her practising certificate. Instead, Professor Susskind with the assistance of an in-house lawyer, Neil Biggs and junior lawyers, Ed Goodwyn and trainee Christian Hay and with the assistance of Counsel, Bruce Carr, engaged on a course of conduct of corruption to include the Chairperson of the Employment Tribunal, Mr De Saxe, on appeal Mr Justice Morison (you should note that you cannot see ANY rule of law in his Judgement - yet you can only appeal on a point of law: in the case I used London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman (albeit there were 5 points of law in the pleading which he claimed to have read)). The issue was the ultra vires doctrine - a private law contract does not attract legislation which is outwith the scope of, ie the contract which was intra vires, ie you could only process the application of the rule of law within the four corners of the actual document, and not outwith it. The evidence was the contract. The case then went on appeal to the Court of Appeal Mr Justice Gibson (MI5) and Mr Justice Mance. It thereafter went on appeal timeously the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999 to Lord Slyn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. The £500 petition fee was cashed. The Bishop of Derby said prayers. Bizarrely on a later date, the Bishop of Birmingham said prayers too. The Law Lords refused to hear the case. There were issues of impartiality concerning the law lords. It is noticeable that Lord Hope of Craighead is an alumni of Edinburgh University but is also involved in the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists as is Professor Susskind - somehow there is less than intelligence going on and bear in mind at my disciplinary hearing I am a second year LLB degree student whipping a professor of law's ass (documents as published on this blog)!

In 1995 I joined S J Berwin & Co having been headhunted with a team from Winward Fearon & Co on a £200 m misrep action using document imaging technology in the Official Referees court on a complex litigation: plaintiff, 2 defendents and 7 third parties - we acted for 6 and 7 third party. There was a prototype common provider document imaging system in use amongst parties. Winward Fearon are a very small and nice law firm located in Covent Garden, but how did they get this construction project with IT?! (I do not now consider that this project went to this firm above board as it was more suited to a top 25 London law firm, where it eventually located. S J Berwin is a top 20 London Law firm with a Jewish orientation. (Whilst at this firm Neil Cameron did a report covering my system which was a prototype which I was enhancing whilst supervising a team of four to image 85 lever arch files out of 240 lever arch files in a strict deadline of 5 weeks as set by the judge in the Official Referees court - I met the deadline by days!). Neil Cameron also covered in his report a colleagues UNIX system - I now know that Neil Cameron is a personal friend of Professor Richard Susskind (Facebook). There was therefore an unseen hand in operation and, moreover it was extending due to my litigation against him and Masons - I guess he does not like his ass whipped by intelligent legal secretaries and at this point in time now a fee earner paralegal. My £200 misrep action settled at 6 months, and I was largely dropped by line managment in the firm whilst also being bullied and harrassed by colleagues and other department lawyers. I became unwell during this time and was seconded to a £24 billion global merger and further to client Guinness who were constructing Diageo plc via Grandmet (a Masons client and LMVH). My profit costs were £146k on a £120 charge out rate and my performance was 109% as a fee earner paralegal. I also worked on the £18 m Sandline Arbitration preparing 4 witness bundles for mercenaries to include Tim Spicer re democracy in Sierre Leone: he who could not move equipment around the globe and his life became at significant risk of death. The acting solicitor was Khaled (Colin) Nasir who is a double first from Cambridge/Harvard and it is therefore bizarre that myself, David Shapiro and a Harvard Scholar processing mercenaries are all located in this firm at the same time. (Tim Spicer was bankrolled by America in relation to Iraq). I did fee earner work for Sandline because of the mismanagement of Critchlow/Carnell and their lack of WORKLOAD NONSENSE - don't shoot the messenger! For some unknown reason S J Berwin did not see me as attractive for articles and it is obvious that I was not the problem in the firm. Moreover, S J Berwin appear not to have noticed the ugliness of two cowboys Nicholas Carnell and Julian Critchlow - who latterly was being promoted as a "leading individual and thorough" whilst having no clients (I arranged behind the scenes his move to PFI, but now wish I had not been so considerate) - with no client work, I was given departmental secondment. Mr Carnell whilst appearing to have a very attractive client list as per holiday notes did not actually have any client work/calibre client work for a top 20 London law firm occurring on his holiday notes save one client - which a colleague promptly settled whilst he was on holiday! Get the message. Needless to say I was eventually sacked because I said JC was shit amongst 200 other words - the firm focused on only one word and set in process a retrospective rule so as to sack. My reference states I am honest with integrity. I could not win any of my litigations (because of an unseen hand).

Also in 1997 at S J Berwin a Mr David Shapiro joined the firm setting up his company Jamsendispute processing ADR/mediation. I attended an in-house seminar and was given Mr Shapiro's profile - Coulson and Watergate, Agent Orange, and a case involving the head of the American Nazi party. Acting on conscience and completing "anonymous" seminar forms with my name on them, I provided feedback. I am also on video asking why is Mr Shapiro is underming the rule of law in the UK. ie, I am questioning why a top American litigator in Washington DC is over the ocean processing a concept that compromises the rule of law - my field of study is Jurisprudence, my dissertation is in process (the first draft was done on holiday in Paris Christmas/New Year 1996/7) and suggests the world will revert to savage if the rule of law is undermined. At college, we do subjects, eg "unjust law" and why you should not comply with it, etc. I also wrote the referred above essay in 1993. (I am also following the West Highland Free Press and an ecclesiastical dispute because I know something is remiss in Scotland and Lord Mackay of Clashfern is a (Wee Free!) who previously made headlines concerning Catholic Judges. I therefore definitely KNOW something is up in the British society both Scotland and England and am curious concerning the West Highland Free Press coverage of a significant disruption in their community, whilst doing my dissertation and Lord Mackay's promotion of ADR. (For the record I actually like David Shapiro and he stated: "I am a good kid". He also stated I was experiencing "gross negligence" within earshot. He provided me a note upon reading my Dissertation which includes source references to him: "I have the making of a true academic". So why were the firm treating me so poorly, I was making them profit, I was obviously intelligent - there is unlikely to be an Oxford or Cambridge graduate working as a fee earner at this level in the third year of their LLB degree. I was paid £20,000 (third year LLB +17 years legal secretary experience with shorthand including Dundas & Wilson CS (I coming down in the world working for SJB and Masons) to £22,000 (fourth year LLB + ) a year as a paralegal when others were on £10,000 had LLB degree 2.1, £12,000 LLB degree plus Masters, £14,000 political degree 2:2 + LPC, £16,000 LLB degree + LPC etc. (If I do no work, I get a pay increase, if I do £146k I get nothing - this is most bizarre for a Jewish law firm and I have worked for many Jewish law firms in London as a temp in 89/90!) Since leaving SJB in 1998, and temping in several American Law firms and also Clifford Chance I have not worked in law ever since - am I being sent to Coventry or blackballed or on a black list! Or that unseen hand, or just prejudice by legal agencies in Scotland. I returned to Scotland in 1999. Anyway, getting back to David Shapiro I attended the inhouse conference where he stated he and 5 others brought this Japanese concept to America, I recall "Irwin who is dead" but not the other 4 names - but they are on the video - which I tried to discover on my second litigation and which is discoverable on my third litigation as also the American documents above referred in David Shapiro's profile due to the seriousness of the intelligence issues and treatment at SJB - I do require to cross-examine David Shapiro. The issues are also public interest issues due to the Frost / Nixon issue and Coulson/Watergate. I do wonder why Bill Clinton was running over hear every five minutes at the time. Bill Clinton's administration was responsible for ADR in global judicial systems and legal professions. I am not so sure that the Lewinsky/Clinton sex scandal was anything other than a decoy - I wonder if an inappropriate suggestion was made in that regard, as inappropriate suggestions were made to me by my boss Julian Critchlow concerning my unmarried status which he denied on the second litigation. I did not have a boyfriend at that time and remain unmarried. (There is currently an invasion of my privacy occurring due to my third litigation against SJB and JC/NC/IN which is stayed - info later). Is it a Jewish thing to be subjective when issues get too hot for them, and this is to include references to "holocaust" everytime a Jewish issue surfaces - you cannot hide behind this word all the time especially when you are seen not to have learned your lessons and behaving as nazi's with a small 'n' - SJB did have an employment law department (to which I whistleblew), they also have a human rights department - both departments appear defunct in the firm and Keith Wood out of control as personnel. [I would suggest after having been in the courts for 16 years on 3 litigations and your latest nonsense that you do not use the word holocaust anywhere within my earshot]. The issues concerning David Shapiro are relevant to R v Hennessy [1758] 1 Burr which is a case precedent about political treason, a criminal offence in the UK. The ratio refers to inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom. David Shapiro is a friendly alien, he and Lord Woolf have invaded the kindom of England, now Scotland and most European states where they have a Crown (except Denmark who abstained from the Directive on Mediation process) with a Japanese concept, which undermines the rule of law. It is not the Japanese so far as I am aware as they use the concept in a different cultural sense. It is being used in a Jewish sense - quicker / cheaper (money) than litigation (public) contrary arbitration (private) application of the rule of law. The concept "gags" by confidential agreements and effectively creates a "hidden" society which is contrary to our illuminated society via the public court system and application of the rule of law. If a judge does not reason, then case precedent does not occur, there is then a failure of "ought" and natural law which means law is politicised via legislation as the dominant posited law, ie 'IS' law. We are then democratically unbalanced and at the mercy of politicians and legislation. NB Lord Straw is holding a post of Lord Chancellor whilst not a Judge, but a politician - the issues are constitutional yet no constitutional debates are occurring. Tony Blair and Cronyism.

In 1997 I wrote a Dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" (published on this blog). The topic for my LLB degree was Jurisprudence - the science and theory of human law. I received a grading of 2:1. The tutor responsible was Professor Nicola Lacey, who is now at the LSE. It is material that Dr Lindsay Farmer, 3 years later, admitted to being the second marker of this dissertation.

In 1997 I was aware that Lord Mackay of Clashfern had attempted to process ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) when Lord Chancellor and he was pre-cursor the actual Woolf Reforms. Lord Mackay features on the Edinburgh University alumni.

From 1997 - 2009 I have continued to lobby government concerning my research. Tony Blair ex-PM was fully aware of my research in or about 1997-1999. The Woolf Report was processed at University College London, which is next door to Birbeck College -the Senate Library separating the institutions. I lobbied Professor Hazel Genn who processed the Woolf Report providing a copy of my dissertation and urging her to do further research. I did not concur with particular statements in her fifth report as it was clear she was distorting information. I also lobbied Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg as Lord Chancellor. I also notified the Queen of her Government's activities in relation to the law (but cannot say she actually saw the letter via her minions). I also lobbied newspapers who did not publish. I also became "snowdrop (my favorite flower) lobbying via Channel 4 and The Independent chat threads. I can also affirm that I lobbied Frances Gibb at 'The Times' and she asked for an article from me, and I supplied 4, none of which were published. I also lobbied 'The Times' letter's page, and nothing was published. The only article arguing contrary to the Woolf Report features that I became aware of was an article published by David Pannick QC in relation to Skeleton Arguments. At least there was another onto the plot.

In 1999 the Access to Justice Act became law - I was suing Masons and S J Berwin & Co and others in two separate litigations - albeit they are linked. I was experiencing the same pattern of conduct across both litigations, an "omission to act" via the Judiciary and Police. I even had to have two different sets of papers in on the same day concerning both litigations - and I missed a deadline because of it, ie appeal papers before (1) Mr Justice Gibson and Mr Justice Mance and (2) Ms Manley (who allowed only the sex discrimination issue to be processed as a consequence of my being deemed "as experienced as a practising solicitor" (I have not done the LPC).

(It is material therefore that Professor Richard Susskind is the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Woolf), and also that my dissertation exposes the Lord Chief Justice's report (ie Lord Woolf). It is moreover material that both these firms are source referenced in my dissertation as processing Alternative Dispute Resolution in England & Wales - a Japanese Concept, prior to the the enactment of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The Woolf Report states: "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" in a report entitled "Access TO Justice". How ambiguous - if you don't litigate you don't get justice - what could he be up to in his new regime that will change the landscape for the next century! Not access TO justice, but access FROM Justice - as my case(s) establish as methodology.

In 1999 located back in Scotland, so also was Dr Lindsay Farmer at Glasgow University. There did appear to be an academic haemorrage from Birbeck in 1997. He was by now my choice of academic referee as my personal tutor Emily Jackson, now LSE, was rather shallow as a tort tutor. Dr Farmer is now ex-academic referee.

On 27 June 2000 I received a response from the Right Honourable Mr Charles Kennedy MP affirming that the documents I had sent him were "extremely important" and that he was passing them to Menzies Campbell MP, then holding Shadow Foreign Secretary (I need an investigation of soft furnishings and specifically in relation to judiciary/legal profession people and Iraq and voting). I heard nothing further. I also contacted the Foreign Office when David Milliband MP was Foreign Secretary and running over to the EU when Spain had the seat, not necessarily Lisbon Treaty issue!

During this time Mr Jack Straw MP was Home Secretary, after the 2000 date he became Foreign Secretary - I did not lobby Mr Jack Straw MP. I have never lobbied Mr Jack Straw MP. I am aware that Lord Woolf is head of the Hebrew Society. (I am also aware the Principal of Birbeck College, held Cabinet post - Baroness Blackstone whilst he was in the Home Office seat). I am of the view that if my knowledge was "extremely important" and passed to the Foreign Office via the Libdems then it is likely that it would reach the Minister responsible and action would have had to occur - no one has engaged discussion with me - above board anyway.

By 2002 I was lobbying against the Iraq War and specifically lobbied for Hans Blix's completed report to be provided prior to war. (I anticipate that Hans Blix is going to be interviewed by the Chilcot Inquiry). I was also lobbying that Saddam Hussein was attempting to comply with UN Resolutions and my sources were coming from UK newspapers. I was also lobbying that Saddam Hussein was aged and would only be in power for a few more years in any event. I was also aware that elections in Iraq had placed him back in power largely due to our aggressive stance where he could have been democratically removed. I was also aware by this time of the policy of regime change, change management and change regime in the UK as part of the liberalisation and demokratisation agenda/globalisation and was horrified at the use of the word "regime" coming through government policy in a free society. I was asking change from what to what - liberalisaton/demoKratisation agenda but not democracy. I was growing more and more concerned that we were no longer a democracy in the UK due to ADR. I was also aware that I was apparently covered up - no press would utilise me per se as a voice nor promote my stance in ADR in UK newspapers per se, nor focus on the public profile of David Shapiro or Professor Richard Susskind in relation to my issues. Professor Susskind held public office as IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice - any scandal associated with a person holding public office should have made front page at this level - the Police were asked to act and process for perversion of the course of justice. Plenty was making front page news concerning the Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine of Lairg and cronyism. I had also sent Cherie Booth my research via Matrix Chambers and it may have been discussed at the kitchen table not the Cabinet table!

In November 2004 I issued my third litigation against S J Berwin & Co and others for personal injury and professional negligence. The case is largely unheard to date and has a two year civil liberty issue on it because Respondents' solicitors Beachcrofts (Parker/Jefferson) refuse to accept two NHS letters - where did they get the authority to not accept them. The case is stayed. I have asked Master Leslie to remove himself. I have asked the Senior Master to remove him and he writes I can appeal the decision - the case is stayed, there has been no trial, therefore there is no decision. I have appealed the order requesting me to become a protected party under the Mental Capacity Act 2oo5 WHILST NOT A PATIENT OF THE NHS. No right thinking person would agree to this and my esteem is being lowered, ie defamation. I have asked the Lothian Borders to police to arrange for the arrest of the Master for (a) perversion of the course of justice; and (b) (gross) misconduct in public office - they have not done so, nor dealt with Respondents' solicitors and/or respondents for perversion of the course of justice whilst being complicit with the Master. I have asked my MP Gavin Strang to seek advice from the Attorney General re how to remove a judge who is of unsound mind/ill/inability to reason objectively. (Someone needs my case not to occur - I can also confirm my Christmas 2009 was spent in a mental health hospital when I am not ill. I am receiving anti-psychotic medication because I am alleged to hold a delusional belief about my court case - not because I am ill - I have filed papers with the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh - but heard nothing, not even an acknowledgment). It is not for the police, lawyers or psychiatrists to presume the outcome of my case - that is for a judge. The othersides case has a conflict of interest on it as notified to Parker at Beachcrofts, no response received, that Tim Pullen, their Counsel, is using his Godolphin Chambers address whilst associated with Doughty Street Chambers ie, Geoffrey Robertson QC. Both Geoffrey Robertson QC and Michael Ford were referred to the Bar Council on the Masons case along with Jeremy McMullen QC, Bruce Carr and Sean Brannigan as someone was nobbling my then witness Michael Ford, barrister who failed to attend or else he was upto no good himself (coward). Mr Ford is now at Old Square Chambers. Professor Lacey is associated with Doughty Street Chambers. Mr Ford and others referred above are currently stalking me and doing intimidation and harrassment in relation to my court case. They are also doing intellectual espionage - obviously I am valuable and intelligent. I am not a spy and do not engage in espionage - I don't need to my field of study is Jurisprudence which requires evidence - its a science not a philosophy!

Respondents' solicitors have enabled an invasion of my privacy and others which is quite serious but the police are either aiding and abetting, too dim to deal, or refusing to act for a reason presumably governmental or something else. Jack Straw has the Triple Crown of the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Justice howsoever unconstitutional - I have a 16 year cover up of 3 litigations and my research! Someone is accountable and responsible.

Someone needs my case stayed. The Solicitors Regulator Authority are refusing to deal with solicitors.

In 2006 I lobbied the Scottish Executive concerning mediation in Scotland. I also lobbied Europe as there was now a Directive on Mediation occurring at European level and I participated in the Consultation paper on the Subsidiary Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation. There were 27 published responses, my response was aguing against the Woolf Regime model in England. Arlene McCarthy MEP (New Labour) was processing the Consultation Paper but I could not get a democratic process of my stance and she refused to interview me with the only person promulgating another model - the "competition model".

In 2006-2009 I also engaged in 4 volunteering jobs to include the Chair of the Patients' Council at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital in 2008, and I also became a Generalist Adviser at Citizen Advice Bureau in Edinburgh. There is therefore no material "capacity" issue. I can confirm that all 4 volunteer jobs appear to have been infiltrated since notification to the Judge and Respondent's solicitors that I could not claim to have a capacity issue on the case in England. There is concerted and orchestrated practices which have engineered a one lever arch case file currently located with papers at the Sheriff Court, Edinburgh re my current mental health statement. That unseen hand is in operation.

In 2009 I am doing an HNC in Journalism at college. I am experiencing an unseen hand - Farmer, Ford, Weate, Critchlow, Carnell, Susskind, Nasir, Johnson and others, ie Masons, SJB and Birbeck - I am currently suspended because I have said the class is not attractive and some people are particularly "ugly", and used the word "googly-eyed". I have also had an essay remediated 5 times in relation to "celeb" where I have answered the question set, but not provided the outcome the lecturer thought he had set as an outcome. I have asked for independent adjudication twice. It is likely to be a calibre article 2:1 - double first mark currently marked "0". It should have been obvious I am intelligent and humanitarian, and whilst I do like fashion, whether someone has a roof over their head is substantively more important to me over who kissed who. Unfortunately, the college are having some difficulty in processing human rights law properly and have subsantively damaged my coursework, exams and this terms material covering magazines - I wonder why : somebody does not want me to know how to do journalism properly! - is there a real-time issue some folks are trying to cover up.

I am not aware I am persona non grata. My paperwork is not classified so far as I am aware - my court action has already passed private documentation to the public domain as I did do proper discovery on my first and second litigations -I can publish if needs must as I won't be sub judice - my pleading and evidence bundles are in court and seen by Master Leslie, Mr Justice Hamblen and Mr Justice Mackay the later two were asked to process an appeal, a judicial review or pass to the criminal division and Mr Justice Mackay was asked to pass them to the Police, and I also emailed the Police to pick them up from the court!

Somebody wants to lower my esteem amongst right thinking people, such that I am seen to be mentally ill when I am not. (Believe it or not "a sign of neglect is a button missing" - psychiatrist report in court document). I do not hold a delusional belief about my court case and any beliefs can be rectified when the otherside produce their case! The other side are requesting summary judgment - at 6 years we are not exactly speedy. If the otherside don't want to get their papers into court, then they can get their cheque books out instead, as the judgment falls in my favour - it would be nice for accuracy. However, there are public interest issues and intelligence issues ...

TO THE POINT

Tony Blair - ex PM was aware of my research on the Woolf Reforms and the processing of ADR in the UK and globally via Clinton. He was aware of my litigations x 3 and Professor Richard Susskind's involvement in organised crime and criminality - he could have settled but for some reason he chose corruption of everyone I know and moreover folks seem to be happy to be corrupted! I am dealing with the educated and trained - not! He was aware of David Shapiro and the Woolf Reforms he would therefore have been aware of his profile in law. They are located in my case papers since 1995 re Masons and Professor Susskind and since 1998 concerning S J Berwin and others, and my third litigation was issued in November 2004 and remains unheard in January 2010 via a stay on proceedings. S J Berwin were involved in the Woolf Reforms and are aware of CPR Rule 1.

Therefore to my mind - Tony Blair's "belief" beyond reasonable doubt is a decoy - England/UK was invaded and the invasion knocked over the judiciary and legal profession, the press - spin, spin, spin, thereafter the military re Iraq AND A RUSH TO WAR with solidiers not properly equipped or trained WHICH HAS TO HAVE A REASON and then the financial sector via Greenspan whether for good or bad - something CAUSED subprime and ponzi schemes amongst the EDUCATED and TRAINED! Who was the TEACHER? Madoff (America / De Yemin (China) / Raza (India) / Goodwin (UK). Of note is the similarity to the Nostradamus prophecy and I note Tony Blair's "belief" extends to Iran.

To my mind, the Iranians have Alexander the Great, the Great Saladin, for their historical military prowess and I do not know of any recent wars involving the Muslim directly, but correct me if I am wrong, perhaps 9/11. In any event, if the issue is nuclear re Iran then the world would not get to write the next tranche of history. Besides there is a Hansard issue - it is possible to know who all the world nuclear scientists are - they usually get their education via University - we would at least be able to account for those we educate and train as can others. It is a big leap from being a nuclear scientist re energy to weapons! The nuclear village is likely to "know" who's who - there should be a global list - there are no doubt global conferences! Newspapers recently inform Iran is doing business with China. The next Chinese invasion due in the UK anyway is either Easter or Christmas 2010 - "when China sleeps let her sleep, when she wakes God help us" ... the issue is TRADE WITH CHINA (peace) - go shopping, buy pyjamas.

I consider Tony Blair, ex-PM is himself "deluded and that 179 soldiers have been murdered by the state. Tony Blair has failed during office to get a grip on ADR and given he operates in the legal domain, as does his wife, that he cannot claim "belief" and "beyond reasonable doubt" in the same sentence - the issue is not "belief" when you go to war, it is "KNOWLEDGE". Given Hans Blix had a report which would have corrected any errors of intelligence, the failure to wait for the Hans Blix report clearly means that there was a reason or need to rush to war sourcing from America and the UK and Europe and/or that Scotland via Edinburgh University or judicial/legal profession and the Jewish people sourcing from America and judicial/legal profession were collectively engineering the lowering of standards in society to include Europe by compromising the rule of law via ADR, a Japanese concept, but not sourcing via the Japanese but via the Jewish, and that we would have eventually reverted to savage, ie a state of war. To my mind, we did resort to savage under Tony Blair, the Iraq War is merely a decoy and there is no links to Al Quaida established via the press concerning Saddam Hussein and Iraq. No WMD either. I can only source public domain information.

I am prepared to state my case to Chilcot should I be called and where possible will make my files available for inspection. My litigations are simple - I should not have been sacked because of the incompetence of Cathy James and the failure of her and her bosses to comply with company policy. I could not care at all that Cathy James has a loud voice. I should not experience sex discrimination in the workplace, nor should I be personally injured by my employers. I should not be sacked for being honest that my boss(es) was shit - if the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary it is mean to be used - and my contract not above board. I should expect lawyers to adhere to the rule of law and I should expect judges to reason in a safe and just society. I should also expect the legal profession to properly regulate themselves. I should also expect academics to be intelligent. I should also expect the police to do their duty whether macro or micro criminality and I should not have to do their jobs for them. I should also, as a very intelligent person, have the lifestyle that goes with it. I am not cause in my court actions and there is a timeous and natural process to law. Lawyers should settle their cases where they are being required to do procedural nonsense and or focus on effect but not cause. At 16 years I require answers of those who are responsible and accountable. I also require 179 soldiers and the Iraqi people to be given answers and responsibility too. I expect Prime Ministers to do DEMOCRACY properly. I expect Justice because it is fundamental to democracy. I expect Equality before the law because it is fundamental to Justice and the Monarch MUST be equal to Her people as custom and tradtion and practise. I expect all citizens of Europe and the UK to be kept safe and just and that peace is the path to follow.

The issue for me as a citizen of the UK and Europe conerning "belief beyond reasonable doubt" and Tony Blair ex-PM : "I don't "BELIEVE" you", I KNOW.

In war, there is pre-war : War : post-war activity. The Iraq War was UNJUST and ILLEGAL

Article The Scotsman by David Maddox on 30/01/10 entitled Tony Blair : I've no regrets over Iran.

Our press does not need to "spin". [Apologies for typos in my first draft I am having to use an internet cafe, so published with typos as time running out - my home computer has been sabotaged twice to date].

Happy Birthday to Me

2010-01-28T16:10:00.008Z

It's my birthday today, Happy Birthday to me, and I still feel very young even in my 40's, and live on the sunny side of life in my mind, body and spirit even although life sometimes it is difficult and cruel ... as it has been recently.

These two however, Lucien (which means 'bright light') and Nickerty Nackerty Noo the Noo, bring me lots of joy, and one of them looked me in the eye at Christmas, and then pee'd over my Christmas presents under the tree, and, if he had not got through his message of dissatisfaction of recent events which were outwith my control, he went into the hall, where a coat had fallen off the coat hook, and under which my other cat had been hiding, and pee'd on the coat, necessitating a gamble of dry cleaners and/or bin or the washing machine - the latter luckily worked. Such is life ...

Being an Aquarian in the Greek Zodiac and a "Wood Dragon" in the Chinese Zodiac, I am naturally Independent, Humanitarian, Intelligent and Eccentric but still I take my orders every morning from Lucien - biscuits, "out", "now" with cuddle attacks to follow from Nickerty Nackerty Noo the Noo. I defy the Ministry of Defence to work out cat strategy ...

Double Standards relating to Crime and Prison issues

2010-01-27T11:37:00.012Z

January is topically busy ...

I noticed several articles which caused me some alarm:

'Fred the Shred', aka Fred Goodwin, has become employed one year on from the £26 billion Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) disaster where the Treasury own 80%+ the Bank. Noticeably it is being reported as a "disgrace"!!

Article in the Architects Journal by Merlin Fulcher on 17/01/10 entitled "RMJM hires 'Fred the Shred'" (click here)

Contrast this with an article about an ex-RBS employee, Donald Mackenzie, who has been convicted of a £21 million fraud and has been refused permission to become an Optician. Is there something we are not getting here, the article does say he is a "model prisoner and assessed as unlikely to reoffend".

Article in The Scotsman by Roger Pearson on 26/01/10 entitled "Bank Manager behind £21 million fraud looks to new career as optician"(click here)

Fred the Shred survives and is at large uncriminalised where accountability and responsibility have been seen to fail, another is convicted and cannot move on with freedom of choice of employability, further impounding upon his sentence. It is good to see there is an appeal process.

There is then the issue of Billy Bragg's story and his refusal to pay tax unless bankers's bonuses are curbed. This will attract fines and over time criminalisation. But he does have a point.

Article in The Daily Mail by Kirsty Walker on 19/01/10 "Billy Bragg in Facebook protest as he refuses to pay income tax unless RBS bonuses are curbed" (click here)

The Welfare Reforms agenda impacted in Scotland since 2006-2009 - and I assure you I have kept up with all of the relevant Government reading material on this topic as I sat on committees processing the same for the mental health sector including lobbying my MP on specific issues - the policy agenda is meant to assist core jobless categories re-engage with employability: either voluntary work or paid employment or self-employment. Core jobless categories are : loan parents, disabled, mentally disabled, NEET (youths not-in-education, employment-or-training), Age 50+, homeless, ex-prisoners and others.

I then noticed an article the other day about prison riots in Scotland.

Article in The Scotman published 26/01/10 entitled "Two prison officers hospitalised after riot in West Lothian jail" (click here)

And today, we have a forward thinking prison governor notifying in the press about a women's prison, Corton Vale, and the difficulties of some prisoners who should be doing community benefit rather than being in prison. I wholly agree. Non-violent criminality should be dealt with as a community benefit order or half and half. Linking the courts with Volunteer Scotland and possibly the Council could mean that many people involved in criminality are engaged in fruitful and meaningful employment via volunteering which could assist their future employability and social inclusion. I am aware the statistic for the mental health core jobless category is as low as 11% in Scotland, so it is likely to be even lower in relation to ex-prisoners. Most of the focus on the welfare reforms was directed towards loan parents and any of this category could have issues in other categories too. With volunteering, there is a way out, picking up skills, training and social inclusion issues could make a difference especially in relation to re-offending and paid employment posts in the charity sector do come up from time to time which could assist folks to move on where they do well. The cost savings from not being in Prison could be passed onto community projects and some will know that City of Edinburgh Council has a £90 million funding crisis that will impact from April 2010 and will affect the volunteer sector. This is likely to be the case across the UK. Volunteering, is something that appears to me to be an employability issue assisting the most "necessary" issues in society - the gaps in the system and it does make a difference: you get value and value added, plus some. One area where assistance could prove most beneficial is an improvement to the DLA form especially the section asking about hobbies and interests. Folks who become disabled over time often lose their ability, be it hands or walking to continue to have an interest in things that brought them pleasure in the past, and they don't replace the interest with something else. Volunteers anyone!! Peer support from a person needing assistance and some simple guidance - you can learn a lot from others. Volunteering needs to be seen as twofold: those who can volunteer and those who need the assistance of volunteers and people need to be able to ask for assistance - DLA form is a gateway as the box specifically asks about hobbies and interests (I did voluntary work as a Citizen Advice Bureau Generalist Adviser and these forms take over 1 hour to complete!) - what happens to this information, more importantly why is it gathered and, for whose benefit! (There is not even a volunteer leaflet going out with the DLA pack!) Sometimes volunteer and volunteer assisted can learn from each other, assisting both to not dwell on their significant issues, by focus on "the other". However, the welfare reforms does have draw backs: volunteer trapped; little or no employability rights; job retention issues, organisation not receiving enough support and funding to engage "welfare reform volunteers" over their existing reliable "altruistic volunteers", image of it being unpaid work over valueable engagement with your community for altruistic reward only and something to do, reason to get up in the morning and out the house, etc. The Office of the Third Sector was created by Gordon Brown MP but there are hiccups in the system and the OTS and welfare reforms agenda are still in their infancy. Given my earlier post - feedback would probably be useful, plus direction in relation to the Welfare Reforms given a recession has caused a serious setback in the policy agenda. In a recession where costs cutting needs to occur, the prison population is an area where serious "improvement" and "benefit" over "burden" could be garnered. People are not invisible, neither is poverty or social ex-clusion and "unequal" in society. Folks are always human beings first and they need to move on from criminalisation. 'Fred the Shred' has moved on ... from "disgrace". There needs to be better social justice, to include criminalisation of macro criminality as well as micro criminality rather than double standards. Food for thought ...

Article in The Scostman by David Leask on 27/01/10 entitled "Crisis-hit women's prison 'harms' inmates" (click here)

Express and/or Implied - Feedback/Complaint/Suggestion

2010-01-22T16:37:00.022Z

It is easy to "complain" - and we complain when we have experienced something negative. However, sometimes, it is just as important to provide "feedback" which can be positive or negative. Or even a "suggestion", which may make an "improvement" and at least requires debate. The placing of the issue on a meeting agenda where it can have some collective debate and the result minuted and probably delegated up or down the system per se. The important feature being an OUTCOME.

How many people complain but don't like the outcome? How many provide feedback or a suggestion but never see the outcome?

I applied for some vacancies a while ago in "public" organisations, and I asked for feedback because I had completed the equal opportunities monitoring process. Several bodies notified I could not have feedback. I was furious - I spent a couple of hours filling in the application pack (but would have preferred the 5 second attachment of my resume/CV) over a 2 hour process to not even make interview! I completed the Equal Opportunity form. Having participated in the job application process it should be automatic that the "implied" duty of MUTUAL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE starts at the Job Advertisement, not the Offer-plus-acceptance-plus valuable consideration of the "express" contractual terms and conditions of a common law system (Scotland is slightly different Offer+Acceptance)! I applied electronically via my email address, the outcome of the equal opportunity monitoring, should have applied to me objectively at the close of the application process (instant feedback, someone had the task of monitoring and evaluating the equal op process), not subjectively the employer - to prevent discrimination legislation applying to their organisation: ie, how many applied, what diversity aspects were covering the application, this information would have been nice to know, but should be automatic feedback - EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD BE A TWO WAY PROCESS!. Surely, anti-discrimination starts at the job advert too, not when you get the job! (I did receive feedback from one organisation, men are not filling in the equal opportunity monitoring forms for an advertised post - a man got the job. Gobsmacked was I). [Tip1: email yourself, and place all email addresses in the "bcc" line, that way no one can see your email list]. [Tip2: Online electronic applications could be upgraded so that you fill in one section, submit, then the next and submit, with 5 small sections re essential and desireable qualities limited to 200 or 500 words and submit each section, fill in two email addresses, plus equal opportunities monitoring, and submit - one collated copy to you and to the organisation]. NB: Employers need to time their application process - spending Saturday applying for jobs is not much fun, say 3 applications at 6 hours over 10 CV applications via 5 second attachments of CV, approx a few minutes - sensible which one gives you better job prospects to interview, second interview, job - tax man reality check.

I was pleased to see the Lord Chief Justice (Judge) recent decision on the Munir Hussain case - "ancient" = mercy. Reason = application of the rule of law which is just and safe. The issue appears to be correct in law to me, and the reason is "immediacy". Mr Hussein "reacted" to the situation he was in immediately and events were concurrent. If he had waited a couple of hours it would have involved "premediated" action. Action and "Reaction" are therefore relevant to the "defence" law and self-defence and self-preservation using reasonable force. Self-Defence implies provocation. On appeal, I consider the Lord Chief Justice got this one right.

However, English law is premised on "mens rea" + "actus reus" + offence for the full crime or either mens rea (plus at least one other and a more than merely preparatory act) + offence OR actus reus + offence which are both deemed half crimes also known as inchoate offences, ie conspiracy or attempt.

The above is necessary to know in order to see the point I am getting at "self-defence" can be a crime but it is not "ACTUS REUS". Self-Defence is a REACTION, but I don't know the latin for reaction - albeit Professor Peter Goodridge who taught law of obligations many years ago at Birbeck College, London probably does! I do wonder how the Romans dealt with "self-defence" where technically/academically there is a prima facia difference between "action" and "reaction" - academic play-time anyone, latin orientated, also what is the material difference in Scots law where the verdict can be guilty, not guilty and not proven! Academic minefield. I do wonder - did the Ancient's have the answer all along - mercy!

Article on www.bbc.co.uk 20/01/10 (click here)

President Barack Obama, I am reading his book "Change we can believe in" and the speeches that led to his inauguration. Feedback would be a good idea - how is America doing 1 year into his term of office. There is so much doom and gloom, that some actual real time feedback would be quite nice. Perhaps Gordon Brown PM could also do the same - a feedback to the people report prior to the General Election. (A French Nun, Sister Mary Xavier once told me "there is no such thing as "can't", whilst I was struggling with my long divisions in primary school. She is of course correct, everyone must "try". I like the book, and what it said, and hope it is not just words on a page. I can see the "changes we can believe in" starting to occur from across the ocean. "Yes we can".

However, my request to the Lothian Borders Police that those abusing their term in office need to be processed for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office - I don't consider that waiting untill the General Election assists Democracy, Equality or Justice per se. Harry Cohen MP is fraudulent, mens rea, actus reus, and offence. Soldiers lives, our lives were at risk because of a failure of democracy. Democracy needs to be restored, prior to a general election.

Article by Gavin Corden, The Independent 22/01/10 (click here)

Lastly, does this resemble "Tony Blair" : is Iron Maiden poking fun using "Eddie" and that smile! Album is really rather good.

Democracy - Elections - Hung Parliament

2010-01-04T10:58:00.008Z

The topic on TV at the commencement of the New Year is a "Hung Parliament" with a potential for Westminister (UK) elections in March, May or June of this year.

However, let us not detract from the "Expenses" debacle and that we have currently a complete failure of democracy in the UK. There was 200 names or thereabouts on a list as an outcome of the Public Scrutiny Committee, which recently the newspapers are now reporting is 400 name strong.

The problem - failure of democracy - and it is not acceptable for Jack Straw MP to propose "new" laws which would not come into effect until after a General Election anyway, what is NECESSARY is that EXISTING laws prevail - misconduct in public office being the operative law and others in relation to fraud and criminal conduct.

However, I am also minded to the fact that if the list is 200 or 400 strong, then the word "organised" surfaces in relation to the word "crime" - and I would like to see the "voting" records analysised as a potential information source to establish that people are not voting "undemocratically" or "anti-democratically" against the needs and protection of the UK, ie that subjectivity is occurring in voting, eg soft furnishings, grass cutting in exchange for a vote tending towards this particular pursuasion over and above the needs of a "just and safe society" requirement. Our laws are supposed to be made in "good faith" and implemented in the same light either permitting or prohibiting, and sometimes with a duty of care and a standard of reasonableness as operational requirements. Laws are there to protect us - all of us. (I moreover, want to ensure that 179 soldiers are dead through just warfare in Iraq, and not murdered by the state, as an outcome - the Lothian and Borders police have been passed a letter in that regard which requires investigation, albeit they are less than helpful concerning inquiries and how they deal with members of the public: an issue currently needing rectification in law promptly).

With 200 or 400 MP's entrapped in corruption, there is perhaps a need for a speedy solution.

I propose that for the purposes of democracy each and every MP on the expenses scandal lists be suspended. As the previous General Election was a democratic election process, there are "second place" candidates and my proposal is that all second place candidates be nominated to take up a position on the Commons Bench in the event of suspension of first place candidates. The "Corporate Veil" is lifted. The Expenses Scandal list exists and therefore MP's are not holding office "beyond reproach" in public life. As such, there is a failure of democracy. What should have occurred is constituency elections, but the expenses debacle and Jack Straw MP is caught in it, has the appearance of only covering their own backsides by implying new law which will not impact until after a General Election. I was not aware that it was possible to bind a future government in this way in any event, who could overturn the issue if they saw fit upon office take-up - is Government playing poker at the gambling table, rather than "doing" democracy.

Let the second place general election candidates step forward, suspend those on the list, and Hang the Parliament setting up a coalition government with a General Election remit of 6 months to 1 year hence.

Those suspended would have sufficient time to clear their names or be damned, if their names are cleared they would be permitted to stand again for their Constituencies at a future date. (Any employee in an organisation caught with their hands in the till would be hauled into a disciplinary hearing, and be warned or sacked - this lot appear to think they can go to General Election).

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE = DEMOCRACY

It is a solution, I propose it - suspension of first place candidates on the Expenses scandal list with second place candidates required to step up to the Commons Bench. The reason - people are suffering as a consequence of policy failure, it is also too much to expect Gordon Brown PM to handle this failure on his own - all hands are needed on deck, and rowing in the same direction: the Treasury bail out of the Royal Bank of Scotland at 80%+ means a severe liquidity issue - Bankers should not be holding the Government to ransom, and if they do they can "attempt" to go to "bank of elsewhere with "failure" on their CVs". There is a significant difference between failure and managing failure, only one earns their bonus when IN PROFIT. The EU are looking at the competition issues, and rightly so. 2010 does not have to be "more of the same", it can be "improvement", re-adjustment and putting right what needs to be put right by getting back onto the right path and accepting there are somethings Government just got plain wrong.

As for the Equality Bill does it use the word "meritorious" in it:

Food for thought:

3 words - flip a coin = equality
2 words - meritorious selection = equality
1 word - EQUALITY

When objectively done - equality does really exist ... if in doubt - No "positive" discrimination

The last General Election produced a verifiable democratic outcome - elected representatives - equality also produced the second and third candidate ranks - there MUST be some reason why there is a second and third rank, and perhaps the Expenses debacle is a REASON indeed that could be used to rectify MERITORIOUSLY a need to restore democracy and integrity in a democratic process ASAP (as soon as possible).

Postive "NO" Discrimination is an outcome of suspending those from public office not "beyond reproach" and putting forward the second rank candidates. I reckon I cannot hammer home this point enough, we are currently in disgrace - globally: sooner mended, sooner rectified.

Merry Christmas - 2009

2009-12-20T16:19:00.007Z

Copenhagen, well that was a Christmas present, nevermind that they did not reach a concrete Treaty (ie what they "SHOULD HAVE DONE"), focus instead on what they "DID DO".

They appear to all be going in the SAME DIRECTION, implying that some form of "consensus" has been reached, which will go forward next year, possibly in Germany and thereafter in Mexico. The Latin American's appear to me to have done particularly well, appearing succinctly in the spotlight at Copenhagen. I await next year, the reason ...

The Scotsman publications promoted an article using the word "spin", in association with Barack Obama, President of America. I had hoped that spin was over in relation to newspapers and media - why or what is the need or reason for spin? Did we not have enough in the 1990s affecting journalism and media to such a degree that anyone relying on an article with the word "spin" would have to go behind the source material, to establish with some degree of certainty what actually they DID DO, over what they SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE!!! OR SHOULD HAVE DONE!!!.

Newspapers of the calibre of the Scotsman, a Broadsheet, are used as source material in research papers, therefore promulgating "spin" is a "DID DO" but "SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE". Many thesis may actually be on unsolid foundations or as is said in the construction world - encompassing a "latent defect" ... in nouse.

Back to the point of focus - what is the "SPIN" associated with Climate Change and "Copenhagen"?

On the issues of media and journalism, the Chinese release a story and that ends the investigation and specific nature of the story : what do the Chinese make of "spin", where the story is not exactly obvious?

The only other issue I am still pondering is : "What does "NEW" mean in "NEW LABOUR"?

Well, I am anticipating that I will have a lovely Christmas this year - a friend was mentioning that there is a place where she can go to get "free worms", I said what a lovely idea, can you get me some too - much appreciated Christmas pressie idea. I explained, I have been planting in the garden, but its a hit and a miss this year and last - perhaps Climate Change. However, the soil is over 100 years old and does not appear to have been turned or fertilised, and I have not seen any worms. Worms, therefore, would do the necessary grunt work, and produce possibly a beautiful garden - it cannot possibly be the introduction of unusual flora species, however, I was grateful for the small amount of flowers I did actually receive this year, an improvement on last year. My next door neighbour came up with a novel idea for a fence - recycling pallets, when stood verticle they make a lovely fence. I am anticipating that my ain folks can come up with a couple of bags of logs so that I can create some biodiverse borders - my order is in for Christmas. Other friends have recommended sources where I can obtain some natural fertilisers for a small fee ... I am looking forward to Spring: my favourite flower is "The Snowdrop". November is supposed to be the month for roses, but I am sure they can still grow if planted any month. Someone also usefully provided a wheelbarrow as an attractive water butt. I do have a good copy of Gardening using "Feng Shui" ... and I anticipate with the current cold spell in Edinburgh that Climate Change may be improving ... I think it is about global cooling rather than global warming ... perhaps "emissions" was not the most necessary item on the Copenhagen agenda to secure an International Treaty.

One last question : the Copenhagen summit, where does that leave the Kyoto protocol -is it running parallel, or have we all globally moved on, and Germany or Mexico is the next statement of intent ...?

ECCHR - Transnational Corporations and Human Rights

2009-11-24T02:44:00.014Z

ECCHR : Herewith the link to the Berlin Conference I attended in October 2008. I sat on the employment workshop, however, the event covered the unregulated multi-national layer in relation to human rights, ie parent / subsidiary issues and how to avoid national law. There is a need to look at this layer of law at the international level. (Also, several of the Speakers have books available).

The "Inhumane Working Conditions and other Labor Rights Violations" workshop I attended, covered child labour in employability, the future of trade unionism, disappearing workers, corporate corruption in Latin America, the inability to determine whether child labour was used in the manufacturing process and at which point in distribution from natural source to manufacture to market.

ECCHR Conference Berlin October 2008 - available download conference report and statement (click here)

I subsequently attended an Edinburgh Lecture 2008-2009 "China Connections" at which Lindsey Hilsum, reporter with Channel 4, UK, and Natascha Gentz, Duncan Hewitt, Ma Jianguoothers were on the panel in relation to China. This lecture was exceptionally informative and notified that in relation to the story that surfaced in 2008 about the Baby Food and the deaths of Chinese babies, the story had not broke in China but in New Zealand via, I believe, a parent/subsidiary set-up, thereby enabling the story to surface globally and China to release the story over time.

Article by Jim Yardley 15/09/08 - The New York Times: "Chinese Baby Formula Scandal Widens as 2nd Death Is Announced" (click here)

This to me showed that it is possible to ensure good corporate practices and governance and that it is in everyone's best interests to illuminate rather than attempt to cover up. This is especially so, given our world no longer exists in isolation, the world wide web having a significant impact.

This has recently been seen in the UK via the attempted gagging of an MP in relation to a story in Africa and the inability of the legal profession or judiciary to prevent the story surfacing and identifying the MP in question - contrary to the Bill of Rights Act 1689 - "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" : Bill of Rights Act 1689 (click here)

Article by Noam Cohen 18/10/09 - New York Times: "Twitter and a Newspaper Untie a Gag Order" (click here)

The Outcome:

Article by David Leigh 21/09/09 - The Guardian: "Investigative teamwork pays off over Trafigura scoop" (click here)

Article by Avril Ormsby, Reuters 21/09/09 - The Independent: "Trafigura to settle for £28m over toxic waste dumping" (click here)

I anticipate this is going to be more of the norm, it might therefore be pertinent for parent companies to ensure that their global operations via subsidiaries are engaged in human rights and endeavouring to make adjustments where appropriate in order to avoid the impact of international human rights and the currently largely unregulated multi-national layer of global corporate activities. This may be pertinent for the following reason, if the parent or subsidiary already exists in a country adhering to human rights, even loosely, your subsidiary or your parent could be your downfall, it will have a significant impact on your shareholders and dividends and all they want is profit, but it is possible to have profit and good employee relations too: requires objectivity. Perhaps the Corporate psychopath hijacking your organisation subjectively will become extinct over time. Workers want wages and good conditions - shareholders want profit and dividends. Lenders want minimal risk for return plus stability in the market. The law is meant to assist IN GOOD FAITH ... not abuse in bad faith. This looks like the way forward = progress.

Wilfully blind to the obvious ... 'but for' test

2009-11-19T17:20:00.021Z

The "But for" test is used in negligence cases which can include professional negligence. It specifically encompasses and encapsulates "CAUSATION", which for those of you who operate in the courts is located at the earlier end of the list of documents and evidence bundles - the doctrine of equity ensuring that "the earliest in time prevails" is consistent with the needs and requirements of "natural" law and "REASON" when it gets to the Judgment and ratio decidendi or perhaps even obita dicta (where the law is anticipated or expected to PROGRESS in a particular direction - there is no 'cul de sac' in relation to law's ability to progress society - unless that is you are subjectively doing inequality and fail to issue writ, where circumstances dictate that you should do so - you are not meant to suffer in silence or suppression or oppression or repression, etc. That being wholly different from being "UNEQUAL" in society and those who are provided authority, duty, obligation and "beyond reproach"credibility omitting to act when required to do so.

Acting or omitting to act are keystones of "tort" (in England & Wales), "delict" (in Scotland) and I don't know concerning N.Ireland, presumably the same as E&W ...

*"The BUT FOR test" is the starting point for assessing whether the Defendant's breach of duty is a factual cause of the plaintiff's damage. This basic test is whether the damage would have occurred but for the breach of duty ... [be it contractual at common law, or statutory, or even custom, practice and tradition]. In most cases the but for test presents no difficulties. However where there are areas where the test presents problems, these are in relation to the degree of probability of damage occurring, negligent omissions and multiple causes of harm. The degree of probability of damage part of the but for test occurs where there is uncertainty as to whether the defendant's negligence has caused the damage, it has to be determined what degree of probability of damage occurring has to be established by the plaintiff. The other part of the test occurs when there is a "negligent omission": the but for test also presents problems where the breach of duty consists of an omission to act and where there is more than one cause it does not appear to provide an answer to causation problems - [SAVE the doctrine of equity places the evidence and pleading of both parties within a specific time frame - the earliest in time prevails!!]

Multiple causes are therefore seen as successive or concurrent - [presumably because time stops for no man and time marches forward!] Where the causes are successive and the second defendant's breach of duty has caused the same damage as that of the first defendant, the but for test will exonerate the second defendant -[UNLESS THAT IS YOU PUT ALL DEFENDANTS ON THE SAME WRIT, presumably forcing the issue into "contributory negligence" which cannot be 100% but by degree 99% : 1%]. The problem is when a first defendant is sued and the second defendant has caused similar or greater damage? [Well, you cannot be compensated twice for the same damage or as a consequence of it? That does not follow, however, that you cannot prosecute each and every person for their part in the misadventure where the "omission to act" is being done specifically to ensure others later down the chain can evade or avoid the application of the rule of law. If you "omit to act" under WRIT, that is not a civil article 6 Human Rights Act "ivory tower" moment, that is a (contempt of court), an (obstruction of the course of justice), a (perversion of the course of justice) - the reason is that in order for Justice to occur via Judgment, there first has to be a writ issued (issuing a writ is not inequality, quite the contrary). There then follows a series of procedural rules designed specifically to capture evidence and testimony to assist the truth to surface at trial known as (PROCEDURE). You can win your case in this PROCESS prior to TRIAL as one side in receipt of relevant 'knowledge' will SETTLE or end up in a trial - CPR1 is supposed to assist. However, unfortunately, the PROCEDURAL RULES are used by Defendants and possibly plaintiffs and also by Judges who are NOT independent to abuse one or all parties and this shows up specifically when there is an "OMISSION TO ACT and/or act TIMEOUSLY within limits. This usually encapsulates deliberate activity so as to omit to act as a methodology BUT only exists so long as the Police also fail and omit to act and also politicians also fail and omit to act]. * John Cooke - Law of Tort

The Woolf Reforms did much to the procedural rules and the objective was stated to be "litigation will be avoided whenever possible". However, the ONE thing the Woolf Reforms could not remove or ever remove is TRADITION, CUSTOM AND PRACTICE or so I thought until today. It is the tradition, in Scotland anyway, that all Monarch's are given the Throne on the premis of EQUALITY with the people. Equality is NOT removed from the court process of England & Wales under the Woolf Reforms, albeit Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)/Informal Dispute Settlement (IDS)/or some just call it mediation, enabled the parties to agree to resolve their disputes themselves but located the concept in the judicial system and legal profession per se (as opposed to keeping it in its own backyard out of the courts and law)where it undermines the application of the rule of law, something I call "contemporary equality". I needed to differentiate the ability of the parties to settle their cases themselves from the reason for issuing a writ, so that a Judge will reason via Judgment after trial or it will occur via the parties to the Writ settling in and through the court via a Judge.

Because we still have "EQUALITY before THE LAW", I question WHY do we need an EQUALITY BILL? This would place equality in the hands of the political arena of democracy and the State prior to the judicial arena of "natural law" and the Oligarchy that is supported by the Monarchy - how else does the Queen provide equality to her people, even although it is a ROYAL PREROGATIVE that enacts a Bill. If the State provides equality and not the judiciary the consequences are substantively different - judicial by reason of "ought" to be law (natural law); over political and "IS" to be law (posited or artificial law). If equality moves or shifts to the political sphere, there is not much need for Monarchy, or at all. The other pertinent issue is that when the law is "posited and 'artificial'" it cannot be changed, it really IS the law, unless through time there is another statute or a codification exercise OR someone "challenges" the IS law on the premis of a writ and the law is discovered by reason and becomes what the law OUGHT TO BE as a standard in society located in case precedent. This requires writs issued to "challenge"not "reiterate"what the IS law really is. Get it wrong ...

(Anticipating it is not an Irish thing - you could always resurrect your monarchies ... even if you blew up your ancestry records, presumably you did not also blow up your title deeds ... genealogists new playground etc etc - England, Wales, Scotland - conveyancing deeds and securities clearly identifying who folks were, what they did, etc: might assist, rectify a few historical things too etc)

My research showed (to me anyway) that the Access to Justice Act 1999 does actually do the opposite of its intention and I have been through the system x 3 cases with every judge and ancillary agencies establishing a pattern of "omitting to act" - there's a surprise then whilst actually proving my research. The surprise is that each case showed something ever-so-slightly different concerning legal systems and legal methods methodology (a) rule of law not applied; (b) application of a rule of law which is not applicable but not (a) application of the rule of law that does apply. (Jack Straw is creating new law instead of using the old stuff - to evade or avoid being caught in a crime rather than to make sure criminals including themselves are caught). I currently need advice on how to remove a judge from the Bench, for which my MP has not engaged the intellect of the Attorney General's Office, Baroness Blackstone, nor having not sought advice from apparently any source on my behalf, raised my civil liberty issue of 2 years from the floor of the House. Now I do know it is possible to remove a judge via Parliament - I read it in a law book which I cannot at this time recall the name of and may still have. I have also asked the Police to arrest the Judges x 4 and Respondents' solicitors but I cannot expect ordinary PC constables to go from ordinary to double first in 45 minutes without running out the door, but I can expect them to speak to more senior operatives to include their Commissioner. (With Professors, lawyers, barristers, judges and politicians, seen to be failing in their duty etc you just would not want an exhaustive list and to omit a Commissioner of Police or anything if he "omitted to act" whilst engaging in similar or same "wilfully blind to the obvious" activities. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, means that if you don't get Justice in a civil court it should go to the criminal division as perversion of the course of justice, malicious falsehood, some form of assault, etc - especially after 16 years (because Anne Molyneux cannot switch on a computer in a computer specialist law firm or comply with company policy, nor her secretary (with the loud voice) at that time!) Pandora's box should lead to the word "responsible" and "accountable" when the lid is taken off, currently being changed by Jack Straw MP to "transparency", "accountability" and "probity" but not "responsible"!!! This is not a list you want to be on whilst failing to do your duty with authority in the current climate or at all - my cases have spanned the legitimacy of Jack Straw MP, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw MP the Foreign Secretary (with foreign issues of public interest in the case) and I am not quite sure how he constitutionally managed to secure a questional legitimacy of Lord Chancellor and Justice Minister AS A POLITICIAN, but NOT JUDGE or the REASON WHY / him and not someone else more appropriate! DO WE HAVE A JUDGE IN CABINET UNDER ANOTHER GUISE! I also have a problem that the Queen is enacting legislation from the DESPATCH BOX but not the WOOLSACK unless that is the despatch box is seen as some form of modernity - contemporary, alternative, privatised over traditional EQUALITY. What does "New" actually mean in "New Labour". No doubt someone knows the answer to that one and if so, let's have it.

Besides, if their are any issues relating to Monarchy - they can be dealt with via Europe - "Regulation", "Directive" or even "Decision" if a particular Monarch ...

Lets hope the Queen (UK/Scots) is not playing chess with the King (Greek). Aristotle was an oligarch, living in a democracy whilst educating a Monarch! Aristotle is a very good read over say Plato and Socrates, but he did not advocate much equality concerning women. Now our Queen, even if she is (Saxe-Coburg) a Danish/German royal line with Russian associations inclusive in ancestry and technically in exile on a British throne (Windsor), is required to provide EQUALITY to the people (even although the system may be Greek, it is underpinned by the position played out by the history of custom, practice and tradition upon which at least the Scots Monarchy exists and the need for the monarch to be equal to the people : it is therefore not something that can just have 70 days to rush through the not-quite-democratic process that we currently exist in and Nick Clegg (Liberal democrats) is correct to make the points he has made in Parliament and raise the questions too - there being a serious need for a Constitutional Debate prior to any further enactment of laws and specifically the Equality Bill which is more than likely going to have to fail in the interim). The Queen being a woman should stick to doing what she knows she needs to do and not be broadsided by Equality Bills and words like older people, young people and poverty etc: once bitten, twice shy - the Access to Justice Act 1999 was just treachery in disguise - the clue was Lord Mackay of Clashfern's representations in Hansard on or about 18 December 1998 in relation to the Despatch Box. The clue in the Equality Bill saga is the raising of "positive discrimination" sometimes called "action" in the build up to the event: no matter how you dress the word "discrimination" it always impacts on at least one party to events and discrimination in any form can never be disguised as equality.

(A bit of mischief: the Queen could always pop down to Oxfam and obtain 700-800 copies of the Nichomachean Ethics (a) to assist the charity; (b) to do value added in relation to recycling of books; (c) and go the distance to assist NOUSE in the democratic House ... Christmas wrapping presents for the princes and princesses - magna carte or hemlock giftwrap and tags would be appropriate too. A sign on the Woolsack which is currently vacant could read "Equality before the law" especially at day 70 of the list of 13 bills. OR, we could all place bets at the bookies 13 bills passed by the legislature or their content passed into case law with universal application via the judiciary: 70 days - ready steady go).

So far as the 13 bills being proposed under the Queen's speech and the subsequent flak directed at politicians and the Queen and also my having watched BBC Parliament to view the pomp and ceremony and no substance for myself: I was left questioning why did the Queen just not sit there and rip up the paper she had and say not in 7 minutes but 7 seconds "Hang Parliament" - I reckon there would have been applause not ridicule as a result. No one appears to me to be lilly white across any political party.

BILLS BEING PROPOSED (headings only - the ideas are mine)

Financial Services Bill - this could all be dealt with via the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 - if you are a banker or anyone employed under contract, you should expect your bonus to be paid out of profit. Just as a shareholder anticipates their dividend out of profit. If you need to borrow your bonus, as opposed to wages, then you cannot be deemed to be credibly solvent or there is an administration, receivership or liquidator issue - how do you get past audit with a borrowed bonus. What's more you presumably need your available credit to assist your business client base and provide flexibility to ensure they tick over their wages and suppliers - you would not want a key player to go bust or anything! Borrowing a bonus and "biting the hand that feeds you" should ensure the collapse of the bank on issue of solvency and the appearance of solvency/liquidated and unliquidated assets etc.

The other financial policy that may be useful is to look at bank charges concerning those on benefits or minimum wage. It may actually be necessary for such people to not have Direct Debits or Standing Orders as this would overburden them if they did not have enough in their account, possibly also incurring late payment fees and administration charges on top of a bank charge. Many services such as the TV Licence, Gas and Electric provide "payment cards" where you would not be able to incur a bank charge for late payment. Also you can also get a DD or SO payment as a payment slip/giro slip - walk round the bank named on the slip and pay it in: - some banks charge a fee of up to £10, or the Post Office up to £2, but that is a lot less than still having to pay the bill, plus the late payment fee and/or admin charge + the bank charge on top of approx £30. It is a quick way for people on benefits to very speedily get out of control, miss two direct debits and you wipe out your benefit payment via bank charges - its not easy to recover from such a direct hit whilst receiving the states minimum to survive. If anyone is experiencing this kind of problem now : liaise with Citizen Advice Bureau because they are a volunteer service, completely independent AND FREE and will deal with you holistically and there are no commission charges (but you might like to make a donation). Also, switch to payment card (processed by newsagents) or payment slip direct (at any branch of the bank where the payment is due). The Government should seriously look at this as financial policy - bank charges to those on benefits and minimum wage, child tax credit, pensioners etc can mean folks really struggling with largely unnecessary financial difficulty.

Fiscal Responsibility Bill - I would support the Broadband Tax. This would mean media and press professionalism was not so reliant on advertising and would ensure some degree of quality content and control, similar to that provided to the BBC via the Licence Fee. It would extend to online journalistic content but also impact on TV, Radio and Newspapers - which may also need a international court view, given human rights are engaging into the multi-national layer of parent/subsidiary news and activities. I perceive there is a trend towards "celeb" "news gathering" over say other potential trends such as "not much European material or Euro supplement, green, techies, nerdy/geek type info, real ordinary people" stories as trends, contra competent investigative and specialist news gathering. (People who live in poverty do not have to receive impoverished material to read, they can have good quality content in their newspapers, on TV, etc and it is merely a "presumption" that people prefer celeb material over-reading about ordinary people who are outstanding or truly famous people who are famous for a reason not only image only. There is an issue relating to deliberately creating impoverish material, which unfortunately appears to be specifically attractive to women. It is dangerous, if not unethical, especially if it is a socially constructed "trend" over say a balancing of other "trends"). A lot of people are in debt due to this false economy supported by easy credit. This may require attention under the auspices of "news gathering" per se without due diligence and attention to human rights and specifically the right to privacy over freedom of expression and thought. It should not be that the courts pick up the mischief where a press posse and paparazzi has effectively stalked you to get their 'news gathering' of effectively information which is trivial, which may actually be false if at all believable or credible - there is some things in life you just don't need to know, but where do you draw the line - the reasonable MAN on the Clapham Omnibus or a correctly applied "public interest test" and whatsoever the standard IS. A broadband tax as fiscal policy could tie in Human Rights, Data Protection, Computer Misuse and ensure that news is legitimate, authentically obtained and objectively gathered to a degree that the competent journalist and photographer is under some form of professionalism and accreditation system as well as suspension and training. In all of laws application it is required that people "ACT IN GOOD FAITH", hence misrepresentation, mistake, slander, libel, defamation, malicious falsehood requires court intervention and printed apology, compensation, damages which can be severe concerning economic loss, whilst causing a lot of harm and suffering, to include harrassment and intimidation and duress may also be an issue, to include having to let the issue remain without challenge due to an inability to afford to litigate in person or via lawyer in today's society. Moreover, another danger occurred recently, facebook and twitter prevented a press gag and rightly so. Likewise, I am able to publish my legal documents because private domain material has legitimately passed to the public domain via court discovery, and because the Judgments have been defamatory, false and inaccurate. I effectively publish taking the risk that goes with doing so for myself, but not others as that is the consequence of an inaccurate or false judgment - they can fend for themselves. The only area where there is an issue concerning publishing court documents is where (a) the issue would be subjudice or (b) there is Crown copyright say on a transcript - these may need to be looked at in relation to court documents because in order to ensure the prevention of organised crime and corruption and its escalation it may actually be necessary to publish where the organised crime and corruption is inherent to the courts per se. In Jurisprudence, there is a term called "Unjust law" and you do not have to obey law that is "unjust", that is wholly different from you not liking the courts decision. You can only appeal on a "point of law" and very rarely an evidential point unless that piece of evidence goes substantively and/or specifically to the case before a lower court that it would overturn the decision or require a further enquiry such as judicial review. Therefore not any old piece of evidence can re-open a case, it would have to be substantial to overturn the courts decision: omission of evidence in the knowledge possession and control of say a police officer or prosecutor in the criminal division would inevitably have to be an enquiry issue if it was substantive to the outcome of the court's decision - this would be "deliberate", "reckless", "careless" withholding of knowledge which could have ensured a different outcome from proceedings (which may be compounded by the press/media legitimately reporting the outcome of the case) and would be organised crime and corruption, deliberate perversion of the course of justice (which I believe carries upto a 16 year penalty, ie a serious crime and (gross) misconduct in public office also, I believe, a 16 year penalty: however, if a judge is ill/unsound mind/inability to reason that is a Parliamentary issue, I believe). However, it is possible to "inadvertently" cause a miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence, would not be anybodies fault, but that it should be extremely rare - there is a significant material difference. Our current stance in the UK, which I believe was printed in the Guardian a few years ago, was that data sharing is to occur unless there is a reason not to, which is completely new conceptually, and I am not quite sure whether data sharing has correctly entered law yet. The Information Commissioner is able to be used to access information in the "public domain", but also bear in mind, that under the Data Protection Act 1998 you can now access information specific to you directly, ie your name, initials, or indirectly a code number, a nickname, a project name, or just a filing system of papers where you can be identified either directly or indirectly upon a specific request to receive the information: you only get the information relevant to you, everything else is blacked out! This is now law for both electronic data systems as well as manual filing systems of data: you cannot access third party data, although it will be there, but blacked out: its not for a "fishing expedition", but can be very useful to access "private" information - especially concerning personnel records, where the organisation give you a document telling you one thing to your face whilst placing extra paragraphs on the same document on your personnel file! (There is also a need to get easier access to your NHS record, it should be the case you can show identification to the police and they sign the form ... it is just not that easy - someone has to know you for 2 years who is a professional - you really want that person to know you need to look at your personnel records and why). Some folks may also need to know that if there is an inaccuracy on a record, it remains but there is an addition amending the inaccuracy : albeit data that is historical and of no historical need can be removed - its a mine field. Criminals can also statutorily remove minor spent convictions or fines but have to ask to do so: low level crime/fines are not automatically removed - it may also be a block to your employability or how the police deal with you on any other criminal matter due to the need for disclosure in certain jobs). So linking all this into a Fiscal policy may actually be necessary in 21st Century Britain. Joined-up legislation, there is probably lots more bits n bobs of legislation and case law that could be tied into a Broadband Tax, some of necessity!

Personal Care at Home Bill - I liked the look of this one but a judge could achieve more in 70 days via Judgment on a procedural rule fortnightly cycle to trial - the application of the "ought" rule of law is UNIVERSAL. (This is my bet for a winner at day 70: having once placed a bet on the Grand National - "Last Suspect" with everyone deriding me - 'you picked a donkey' - I was gobsmacked when the horse won.)

Children, Schools and Families Bill - "guaranteed" education - is that a non sequitur in modern Britain - what is that all about, so far as I was aware it was compulsory for kids to go to school under EXISTING LEGISLATION with a raised presumption they are to receive education. However, if you put the Child Benefit under the umbrella of CHILD TAX CREDIT and pay each child the same child benefit, you could link it to the means test level associated with child tax and ensure that the oldest child gets the same as the youngest and its meritorious. You could also give employees and workers who do PAYE tax returns above a certain number of employees a CHILD right to maternity of 6 months and thereafter paternity of 6 months (with a child on solids!). This would greatly assist gender equality and child rights and remove maternity/paternity issues from employment tribunals to family courts.

Crime and Security Bill - with 3000 new crimes on the Statute Book under ex-PM Blair and a prison population that managed to reach 80,000 with talk of prison ships at one point - maybe there is enough already - evaluation, monitoring of what is already existent + codification might be a more appropriate exercise - you would not want to be seen to be not able or competent to catch criminals now - MACRO criminality might be a more appropriate emphasis in relation to new legislation - the MACRO layer appear to do far more damage than the MICRO layer on non-violent crime, otherwise known as WHITE COLLAR CRIME or corporate psychopaths on a vendetta contrary to good employment practices or even ACAS codes of conduct as guidelines.

Digital Economy Bill - I watched "Spooks" on BBC 3 last week, to only turn on to BBC 1 last night to watch the same episode again. Now, what is the world coming to when THE BBC is the repeat from the week before! on BBC 1. Did someone make a mistake ... in any event, on topic ... you cannot be a terrorist if you are issuing a Writ and demanding (a) equality before the law; (b) access to justice; (c) arrest of ... for contempt, obstruction, perversion of the course of justice or removal via parliament - will be evidentially certain - done deliberately, not inadvertently; (d) justice with the independence of the judge to APPLY the law without fear or favour - you should not expect the outcome from issuing a writ that the judge is the criminal and you should question when he is being accused of being a criminal or where politicians are not able to raise issues by their constitutents from the floor of the house .... in a democracy. Means there is something very wrong with Oligarchy, Monarchy, Democracy indicating lack of and can only be located at upper echelons and Cabinet level.

Energy Bill - grants for solar panels to be placed on houses over 15-20 rooms so that they keep the house warm and therefore ensure a decrease in dilapidation and maintenance, whilst enabling upgrade monies to be utilised where the need is most in order to save historic architecture for the nation. Also better use of underfloor heating over radiators and boilers and electric wall units. If you flip a switch it can heat the whole house, on ground level over keeping one room warm only - could be linked to solar panels too. Flipping a switch can mean you control heat when not in home or adjust when home.

Floods and Water Management Bill - I liked the look of this one - Insurers could assist here as well as linking it to non-violent crime work placement employment training and skills opportunity. Also - see post below.

Bribery Bill - you could usefully resurrect my response to the Corruption Bill, which did not succeed for some unknown reason ...

Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill - this looked like a good idea too.

Draft bills

House of Lords Reform Bill - I was appalled when the first round of reforms occurred - we threw out babies with the bath water. Just because someone is privileged does not also follow that they are uneducated fools etc. I watched a person who could speak 8 fluent languages being reformed out of the house ... to be replaced by what exactly. Whilst the ex-PM has a third class law degree I was not expecting him to lower the intellectual standing of the house to his level over and above the needs of the country concerning intellect. Noticeably I read today ex-PM Blair created 300+ new peers whilst Brown only 30! Speaks volumes to me. Desmund with Hons v Dora!!.

International Development Spending Bill - trade with the rest of the world, it is safer than doing war!

Carry-over bills

Equality Bill - scrap this - Equality is for judges to supply and for Jurisprudence to monitor and evaluate to ensure safe and just society - its a science and looks at why we have human law, why we obey it, when we have to and when we should not, etc. There should be very little an Equality Bill can do that a judge can also do right now. You just want to make sure you select judges on MERIT with NOUSE - flip a coin 50:50 policy for FP8 in Europe - raise the meritorious level - you can always issue a writ if you want to. "Postive "NO" Discrimination.

Child Poverty Bill - I have sat in a room with young children speaking and I got a rude awakening, and they got a list of information sources off of me, plus business expansion ideas and the word TRY over can't. There may even be a need for legislation concerning paper delivery rounds with terms and conditions.

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - Lord Straw MP. The Woolsack. the Directive on Mediation and an overhaul of the nonsense put in place by the Woolf Reforms, the Gill Reforms and anything falling out of the Directive via Europe. Wilfully blind to the obvious. There is also the small matter of a letter from Charles Kennedy MP ... my research is "extremely important" delegated to Menzies Campbell MP (a lawyer/barrister) and my inquiry concerning cushions and a list of people on an expenses scandal list and their voting in relation to Iraq. There is also the matter of Romano Prodi, ex EU Commissioner requesting Blair to "separate the powers". I have not spoken to anyone professionally concerning my research, not even via Arlene McCarthy MEP's processing of the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiary Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation, and my specific request to be interviewed because I was advocating a "Competition model" correctly aligned to European modelling over a "Coercive Regime" model via Woolf whilst she then interviewed 5 experts she calls expert, but I don't. Cover-up or because there are intelligence issues in my court cases which are also public interest issues howsoever small etc. I have been in the courts relating to issues from 1993 to date on 3 litigations, I have judgments which are false, there are contempt of court requests which are not processed, everyone omits to act and ARE WILLFULLY BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS.

I require "Equality before the law" - my writ is validly issued - 6 years later, still waiting for trial. I have not received a "Decision"/"Judgment", therefore there cannot be an appeal - I have however, appealed an Order which I refuse to comply with and continue to do so - because the law does not apply to me, which the judge has been informed of twice by the Official Solicitor for England & Wales.

Hypothesis - Climate Change - Water and Water Flow

2009-11-04T17:38:00.018Z

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.

Wikipedia - "Hypothesis" (click here)

I propose the following Hypothesis in relation to Climate Change:

That the issue of Climate Change relates to - WATER

The suggestion I make is that - the water cannot leave the planet. I attended an Edinburgh Lecture a couple of years ago at the Sheraton Hotel, Edinburgh where two Russian Cosmonauts and one American Astronaut showed to the audience the world as seen from outer space and which has been monitored for many years now. The Cosmonauts and Astronauts can establish with certainty that water is disappearing from certain areas and can show images from outer space that lakes have shrunk to almost puddles.

I recently wrote an article about the Karen of Burma and focused on animism as located on wikipedia. This has made me think in a specific way : that there are peoples on this planet like the Karen, the Aborigines, the Navarro Indians, Buddhists, Aristotelian / Hobbes and also Japanese Shintoists who "know" that things are not as they should be and this is perceptible through the senses and specifically through these peoples and others society and cultures.

Now, I read an interesting article in yesterday's "The Herald" today about Kilimanjaro and its melting. I read an article recently, perhaps the Daily Mail, which showed an ice face apparently "weeping". The issue is that the ice glaciers are melting.

This made me think in terms of my own research and some of you will have discerned that the "opposites" are highlighted, and moreover, that in terms of Climate Change, the opposites would relate specifically to "hot" and "cold".

My hypothesis is therefore that WATER specifically is the crux.

If you go into a room, and it is not acceptable as a temperature, you turn the heater on. Gradually, the room becomes warm and usually too warm over time. Then, you either (a) turn the heat source off; (b) turn on a cold source; or (c) open the window to let the heat out - thereby regulating the temperature.

What is certain is that when you entered the room, the temperature was not acceptable to you (as a human being); you heated it to what was acceptable / comfortable and you re-adjusted it when it was too much / uncomfortable.

Imagine if the heater is switched on, but you cannot open the window, the temperature continues to go up - and the ice is melting.

The ice is melting ... is it because the ice is needed to cool down the heater, but in so doing it melts and as they say in the Gaelic proverbs: when the well is dry, you know the value of the well. Eventually, there will be nothing left to melt.

Melt - this is my hypothesis - the "melt" means solid becomes liquid - WATER. Is it the case that the natural world is telling us the issue is WATER.

Now back to The Karen, some research established that Burma is also known as Myanmar and I was aware of the Myanmar Dam but not that there were TWO DAMS. (Given the Karen are historically animistic, and Thailand is historically Buddhist - I find it is illogical for this area of the world would have two dams, and raise the question why? given their spiritual belief system would surely dictate otherwise: a dam is artificial, not natural). The impact on these peoples would, I perceive, be quite horrendous.

If something is dammed, then one side has water, the other has limited water - but the important feature of water is that it FLOWS.

If then in animism societies, something is say dammed upstream, then the volume level is going to increase - try turning up the volume on your stereo: is it that the world volume is turning up - the Aborigines claim to know the world is dying. If there is not enough water, then life is extinguished.

Water is located in the aquifer levels, if you dam, you affect the aquifer layer - ie underground water trapped in the porous of the rocks, and also underground waterways. If you dam you affect the flow of the upper river pathways but unseen the underground too.

I have behind the scenes asked for all cartology (maps) to be brought together on a global basis specifically relating to rivers and water (a computer programme could do this easily), plus any ordnance mapping year on year since ordnance mapping occurred which picks up aquifer and underground waterways.

This should then focus on WHAT has materially changed in the "natural" river pathways and water flow across the planet - it should therefore clearly indicate WHAT is being seen by the Astronauts/Cosmonauts from outer space in America and Russia, and presumably Europe, China and all other space programmes as well as Al Gore and the scientists who surround him via the ground - both affirm each other.

It should also clearly identify (a) stagnation; (b) dammed; (c) pollution.

What is needed for Copenhagen in December is a specific conference relevant to the animistic societies and cultures because they MUST know something which needs to be known by the rest of us.

Water and water flow would be the opposite to focus on : cooling ie "opening the window" when the room is too hot.

My hypothesis therefore is that the world does not exist in chaos but in order (opposites) and even with a chaos theory (the butterfly effect) that a dam or all dams could be the butterfly (a "cause" not identifiable from the impact consequence but two or more steps removed from it making it unseen and needing to be revealed by looking for a circumstance at an earlier point in time - the big clue being it is something "artificial" in a "natural" world sequence). A dam would be an "ARTIFICIAL" occurrence in the natural world and would have an artificial impact. In order to evaluate the theory: the issue would be to flood all dammed areas and measure in some way whether the earth can be cooled, and cooled in a NATURAL methodology, ie water flow, and what the impact is on clearly identified areas seen from outer space by astronauts and cosmonauts. There is a choice - one dam at a time, or altogether - it is after all only water - water cannot leave the planet: imagine your thirst if you were starved of water.

Whatever, the issue is with climate change it affects the NATURAL world, therefore it is most important to engage with those who fundamentally understand and know the natural world - animists.

I wonder what a group of Animists would think of this hypothesis and what they could tell me/you/us for thinking in this way.

(Adding a further thought - Ornithology (the study of birds) - birds migrate - their migratory pathways are pre-determined. When they do so they must reach their food source, ie lakes, rivers, streams. A sure indicator of a problem source of water, would be a particular decline in a bird species which migrates and its normal habitat is linked to water. For example, sparrows have been on the decline in the UK but we possibly do not know why. A global 'ornithology' conference would highlight natural world issues and could specifically assist identification of areas relating to the flow of water, especially where there is an aquifer or underground waterway issue).

I don't think it relates to the natural worlds ability to be hot, I think its the natural worlds current inability to cool down. The natural world has a habit of doing things right under our noses and sometimes you just have to observe as issues are revealed to you : an essay on The Karen forced my focus to animism (which I understood conceptually); which appeared relevant given the Myanmar Dam and a bit of googling research established two dams; which appeared unnatural to me, given someone saying to me: "the water cannot get off the planet", which seemed informative having attended the Edinburgh Lecture of visiting astronaut/cosmonauts, which seemed relevant to sneaking down the corridor years ago to do work in the Environment Department and landing some ordnance checking of contaminated land sites and their position to aquifers, which all came together when I saw recently articles on Norwegian Glacier's weeping and an article on crop failure in America and yesterday's article in the Herald about Kilimanjaro. Why are the ice glaciers MELTING - because it is too hot or because the water is needing to flow to areas where the water is missing or disappearing ... WATER CANNOT LEAVE THE PLANET - where is it going, or where has it gone, where has it not gone to naturally ...? Water is essential for life on earth.

Obituary

2009-10-24T18:55:00.014+01:00

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".

Review or Codification

2009-10-21T15:08:00.023+01:00

I have just received my two doorstop tomes comprising the Lord Gill "Review" of the Scottish Legal System. I will do a line by line analysis, however, I did a spot check this morning - all 5 minutes it took me, to establish the Review is a complete failure.

Why:

(a) there are three references which run contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 - there is no such thing as a litigated case having (i) "no real prospect of success" - there is supposed to always be a judgment, necessitating a trial prior to determination of the success or not - organised crime via complicity of judiciary and (lack of independence)/Respondents (lawyers) anyone. Litigation is a win:lose scenario and all parties have "equality before the law" - the Plaintiff issues the WRIT, the Defendant defends (and counterclaims): there may be third parties. This clearly indicates that Human Rights abuses are designed into the system as procedural nonsense! Because of equality before the law - parties to a litigation always start with a 50:50 chance of winning, which goes up or down in relation to truth - bear in mind both / all parties are required to provide a signature to a statement of truth upon issuing a writ!
(ii) unmeritorious cases - there is no such thing as an unmeritorious case - someone has to win and someone has to lose. The system should not abuse any party when they have "equality before the law" and article 6 of the Human Rights Act. That does not follow that the JUDGMENT cannot say that there was a lack of merit in one parties case as a substantive issue, thereby highlighting the FAILURE of the STANDARD of REASONABLENESS that is EXPECTED AND ANTICIPATED from a CIVILISED - SAFE AND JUST SOCIETY!!!
(iii) vexatious litigants - there is no such thing as a vexatious litigant - everyone has the right to a fair trial, which requires a trial and judgment - someone has to lose!

(b) the Woolf Reforms are in the report - Lord Woolf is DEFICIENT IN INTELLECT - he is focused on costs - NOT Justice. The important feature in a Justice system is JUSTICE not costs. You have had my research on Woolf since 1997, I have lobbied since 1997/98 to date including even requesting the arrest of Arlene McCarthy MEP for misconduct in public office for failure to do a democratic processing of my response to the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiary Principle concerning the Directive on Mediation, ie the "Competition model" (where ADR DOES NOT feature in the legal profession or judicial system at all, but in its own backyard). Dr Farmer had my thoughts on ADR as early as 1993 and the first year of my LLB degree concerning the topic of 'Legal systems and legal methods' in the English legal system: it was 100% accurate for which I got the really good mark of 50%.

(c) there was a small section on processing a case through the courts - they managed to get no (iv) right out of five options. The word "summary" should not feature in a system which provides "Judgment" and therefore "reason" and therefore "natural law" - some folks just need to get real. I would normally expect to see "pleading" as the no (i) feature in a litigation case - but take a look for yourselves - you really do need to read this document.

These little issues are swamped however, by finding ADR is still in the system with the benefit of my knowledge (which you keep trying to cover up). No wonder the lawyers are ASTONISHED (see post referred below). If ADR is in the judicial system then you are in material BREACH of the TREATIES OF EUROPE. Why, because article 6 (known as the Loyalty Clause) enables European law to pass to the national/domestic courts. The methodology used to be called (Article 177 preliminary references - and the last time I looked it was called Article 234 preliminary references). Upon issue of a WRIT, there is a presumption that every European CITIZEN can access justice via the European Court of Justice via an article 234 preliminary reference which is a question sent to the ECJ from the national/domestic court and the answer is sent back to the national/domestic court for inclusion in that court levels judgment. It is discretionary at the Court of Appeal, and AUTOMATIC at the House of Lords. By the judiciary directing a case to ADR or for the parties to consider it having issued a writ, there is a fundamental breach of the Treaty. I asked earlier WHAT IS THE CRITERIA IN THE SCOTS LEGAL SYSTEM FOR SENDING A CASE TO ADR (MEDIATION)/IDS/INFORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT/RESOLUTION?

It is also being promoted as a REVIEW not a REFORM of the Scottish Legal System - so why is Woolf a feature! Besides, prima facia there should never be a review of the Scottish Legal System other than for the purposes of Codification - so call a spade a spade - there are quite a lot of case precedent references in the footnotes - so why use the word "Review" when there appears to be a "codification" exercise occurring. The reason why you never have a review is because Judges are supposed to "reason", thereby ensuring the system is always under review! However, if you have "Reformed" the Scots Legal System then say that, but don't call it "modern" or "modernity" when it is actually organised crime and corruption. You don't expect to see "abuse" designed into a system especially not when prevalent law is the Human Rights Act 1998 - albeit if you need to use article 6, then the real issue is criminal not civil - perversion of the course of justice! No need to build mansions using an ivory tower approach.

PROGRESS UPDATE RE COURT CASE IN THE ROYAL COURTS

I have requested the Police to arrest, charge and prosecute 4 judges of the Royal Courts for (a) perversion of the course of justice; (b) (gross) misconduct in public office - I am awaiting an appointment with the Police to go through the evidence. I am not expecting these judges to be standing in the dock alone - the case papers go back to 1993, Ms Molyneux, Ms Cross, Ms James, Professor Richard Susskind, Mr Michael Ford, Dr Lindsay Farmer, Nicholas Carnell, Julian Critchlow, Ian Insley, David Harrell, David Shapiro, all judges on 3 litigations to include Respondents' solicitors - Kingsford Stacey, Davenport Lyons and Beachcrofts LLP - Ms Alison Parker, Ms Paula Jefferson and Mr Steve Masson and the others Marie Van der Zyl, Susan Kelly and Robin Shaw. I am also expecting my MP Gavin Strang to be questioned concerning his absolute inability to act on my behalf as my constituency representative, and I am expecting a complete focus on the activities of Lord Straw and Cabinet members concerning my court actions and a complete failure of democracy and/or rationality. I am also expecting to put Mr Tony Blair in the Hague. (I am concerned that Gordon Brown PM who was the "opposition" in his own party to the Iraq War alongside Claire Short and Robin Cooke) has no ability to ensure that his MP Gavin Strang is seen to behave according to democracy when there are clearly "intelligence" issues in my court action which are public interest issues, given my research and that Professor Richard Susskind holds public office. I am also concerned that I am clearly experiencing defamation and malicious falsehood via judgments of the courts in England across 3 litigations. I am moreover very seriously concerned that my case has been stayed for 2 years causing a serious civil liberty issue and that I am unable to comply with an Order of the court on the premis I would put every woman in England at risk of being placed under a mental capacity act as a protected party WHEN NOT A PATIENT! The judge is refusing to remove himself from the case, the Senior Master is refusing to remove him and my MP has not removed him via democratic process. I am expecting the Police to now act - bearing in mind their persistence and pattern of "omitting to act" across 3 litigations in England - approximately 14 years now: the issues are organised crime and corruption - I was therefore not surprised at the content of the Lord Gill Review - given my case papers and research already establish AS EVIDENTIALLY CERTAIN - BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - the methodology used in the English Legal System. I did argue before the Court of Appeal and specifically Mr Justice Gibson (MI5) and Mr Justice Mance (now Lord Mance - who was silent throughout), an article 177 preliminary reference which was blocked by Mr Justice Gibson using Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] to which I argued article 6 of the Treaty of European Union (the "loyalty clause"). I left the court stating Mr Justice Gibson was "despicable" - I did not wait to hear his prepared judgment, and slammed the door of the court behind me. I have a taped transcript from Mechanical Engineers transcribers with lots of gaps in it (but not the judgment part) - how convenient that I wrote Martin v Glinware Distributors [1983] on a piece of paper and had been doing some reading on the European Treaties at that time, and was therefore aware of the article 6 'loyalty clause' issue. Mr Justice Mance, having said absolutely nothing, handed me back his bundle of pleadings and evidence - which I still have marked up in his pencil!

If there is a failure of intelligence/nouse by the Judiciary then it is relevant to Senior Judiciary - Lord Woolf (Lord Chief Justice) was under Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor) whilst Professor Susskind was and may still be (IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice). Given my case establishes that his arse was whipped by a legal secretary in a disciplinary hearing, and subsequently by me again as a paralegal in court without having done the LPC, and he clearly cannot determine a contract or legal point when his firm designed and refined the contract, such that he has to organise to cover up 9 pages of pleading in court to focus on effect but not cause (rather than settle), plus corrupt willingly or otherwise my witness Mr Michael Ford (ex-Birbeck tutor in Employment law and ex-Doughty Street Chambers) who failed to attend, and has been upto no good ever since, neither Geoffrey Robertson QC, who was also reported to the Bar Council at the same time as all other barristers - there is a real and serious conflict of interest on my current court action via his Chambers for which Respondents' solicitors refuse to correspond AT ALL let alone apologise ...

Cases don't corrupt themselves ... there is no issue that I am experiencing a "miscarriage of justice" across 3 cases ... activities are deliberate, concerted and by design - the purpose is not necessarily illuminating.

I legitimately passed a piece of paper across the desk to Mr Justice Mackay on 11 February 2009 to trump Master Leslie's piece of paper that illegally crossed the desk with failure of declaration of impartiality and entrapment of Respondents' solicitor Alison (nosy) Parker for complicity with the judge plus invasion of privacy issues. My piece of paper was sent to me by David Shapiro upon sight of my dissertation in 1997 "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". It says, "I have the making of a true academic". So why does Master Leslie's piece of paper say, "no real prospect of success".

I have already won 3 out of 4 issues in Respondents' pleading : I am not (a) out of time in issuing my writ; (b) I am not a vexatious litigant; (c) I am not engaged in procedural abuse - all issues were bog standard items that lawyers/barristers use per se on the hope that a judge might pander too them - in this case they dropped them upon my arguments against in skeleton arguments before the court. They have provided 3 case precedents in their arguments which are not at all relevant to the issues - but I don't have a problem with that - someone has to lose the case! Respondents' remaining case is a request for "Summary judgment" - only the writ was issued in Nov 2004, it is now Oct 2009 - 5 years later the SUBSTANTIVE TRIAL ISSUES need to be dealt with - they are surely NOT complying with the Woolf Reforms in England AT ALL or even CPR Rule 1: if Respondents don't want to participate, then the issue is contempt of court, obstruction of the course of justice, perversion of the course of justice - there are two contempt of court requests in pleadings against Respondents' solicitors: Parker and Jefferson. If they don't want to defend the case - then the Judge requires to provide judgment plus enforcement. There is now a request to arrest, charge, prosecute for perversion of the course of justice - civil liberty issue is outstanding at 2 years now: Respondents' solicitors have no right not to accept NHS correspondence - they do have a right to challenge it (IN COURT OF COURSE): they are doing neither, save acting conspiratorially with the Official Solicitor for England and Wales and Consultants - theirs and mine, and the Judge.

The point of the above is ... if this is what I have experienced over the last 14 years in the English legal system due to the Woolf Reforms ... then guess what has just been incorporated into the Scottish "Review", to include a new personal injury court ... What you have got is a small codification exercise plus the Woolf REFORMS!!! I will line by line analysis to see if and what the "review" is shortly, bearing in mind it is disguised as a 600 page two tome report!

When the police are ready ...

RETROSPECTIVE RULES OR HUNG PARLIAMENT

2009-10-14T18:35:00.002+01:00

This story has been surfacing over a few days now concerning the expenses debacle in the Westminster UK Parliament. My choice of morning radio station for the last two days has informed that the MPs are being subjected to "Restrospective Rules" in relation to their abuse of the expenses scandal and that they are required to pay money back. Letters have been sent out but 3 MPs claim not to have received there's yet and so it went on.

However, I found myself pondering - if we have a democracy then it should be possible to use the rules we already have to deal with any abuse issues: therefore why are we now being presented with information that they need to use "retrospective rules" thereby implying or expressly providing evidence that we do not have democracy, or at all.

Retrospective rules surely is anathema to DEMOCRACY. The issue therefore given all parties are involved is HANG THE PARLIAMENT.

Why are we making new legislation when we have got plenty already on statute and case precedent that is already applicable. Misconduct in public office. The issue is "beyond reproach" and if not ... the judge needs to know why.

The radio informed and I did not quite catch his name an MP - at least one that is - avers "natural justice". Well done - there is nouse in the House of Commons. Just how do you use it.

Epolitix.com

"MPs refuse to pay up

Gordon Brown is facing a growing rebellion, as the daily Telegraph reports that some Labour MPs are openly defying the prime minister's call for them to pay back expenses claims.
According to the broadsheet, some members of the cabinet are also unhappy with the way Brown let Sir Thomas Legg's investigation "run out of control".
The Times also reports that several MPs who already plan to step down at the next election say there is "no chance" they will pay any money back unless the demands are reduced.
And Labour backbencher Martin Salter told the paper that some MPs were so angry they were considering mounting a legal challenge. "

Legal challenge - lets have it then. However, many of you might actually want to take legal advice including the PM who is likewise caught in the scandal, some £12,000+. Try getting a trainee to look into the implications and consequences of banking a cheque - guilty anyone - the police will have the evidence for certain when they come knocking to arrest for misconduct in public office - including the PM! Besides, lawyers might also wish to check the authenticity of Lord Straw as a politician with executive functions in the judiciary and his ability to make new laws or basically do as he likes.

The Guardian was gagged over the last couple of days because a Politician put down a question and I was surprised to learn contrary to my LLB course that there is a Bill of Rights 1688 - specifically detailing "Freedome of Speech" in Parlyiament: that being Westminster - all one line of it. I was also however concerned to read media comment by Geoffrey Robertson QC - and a wee conflict of interest on my current court action in the Royal Courts - for certain, he knows all about "retrospective rules" on that case aka S J Berwin & Co and their completely defunct employment department and human rights department too!

Gagging the Guardian reporting on Politicians - oh the irony given Politicians are causing us to gag too - labels like "rotten eggs"; "pass the sick bucket" spring to mind. Hang the Parliament!

Lord Gill and the Astonished Establishment

2009-10-04T13:54:00.004+01:00

On 1st October 2009 'The Scotsman' notified that the Scottish Judicial System had been reformed by Lord Gill - and managed to keep ADR in the judicial system - why?

The essence of the reforms are quite simple, a downgrade of cases to the Sheriff Court by means of two mechanisms (a) threshold and a £150,000 limit to keep cases from going to the High Court and (b) jurisdiction enabling the Sheriff Court - TO DO THE WORK.

Bizarrely, I read that Lord Gill claimed the Scottish courts were "failing" that is until 30th September 2009:

"Our study has satisfied us that civil justice in Scotland is failing. It is failing to deliver justice to the citizen expeditiously, economically or efficiently. Our structures and procedures are wholly unsuited to modern conditions". He goes on ... "They inflict needless costs on the public purse, on the Scottish Legal Aid Board and on the individual litigants at every level. The system's delays are notorious and in some cases scandalous. Its procedural inefficiencies operate against the interests of Justice". I have not as yet got my hands on a copy of the 600 page report - but I rather suspect it reads just like the WOOLF REPORT - I may yet be surprised - I have noted the word "equality" is missing from the articles in the press - an oversight or do we all need to read the 600 page door stop by next weekend or before using the system via writ. (Oh an aside: Elisha Angiolini is a SOLICITOR, but not JUDGE, with Executive Powers! - who is supposed to be in power in Scotland - SNP which is referred to as "minority" Government - hmmm)

Lord Gill - could be spot on the judiciary is that badly performing - but I am not so sure about the use of these words "expeditiously, economically, efficiently and "MODERN" all in the same paragraphs - sounds ever so slightly like the Woolf Reforms INFLICTED on England - the dissimilarity based on rhetoric alone is the words "efficiency" in your system and "proportionality" in the Woolf Reforms. Modern = the system still incorporates ADR - that is not modern that is stupid - you would not want to undermine the rule of law or put it in another way : what is the criteria for a judicial person to remove a case from "access to justice"/their inherent right to Justice in the "interests of justice" - we know this is the judicial discretionary subjective equitable area of the law you see - we would not want folks to be gagged and hidden for using a "public" system of law which applies the rule of law but does not compromise it in anyway!!!. We would neither want folks to be clearly identified as engaging in a cover up or anything - you might have Journalist ambulance chasing instead of lawyer ambulancing chasing!

However, the next paragraph was informative - "Legal insiders were yesterday ASTONISHED that such a damning indictment of the system should be delivered by one of its most senior figures". Astonished, well presumably folks who have been operating in the system for years were not aware that they were processing their cases to failure - it appears it is black and white - only the Judges are not apparently accepting in any way that they are to blame for Yesterday's traditonal justice system controversy necessitating MODERNITY!. Deep joy come Monday morning 05/10/09 - Modernity - the cases are going to whizz through the system - whehey! Well lets hope there is some veritable substance in their - under competition laws we might have to set up a "Real Justice System based on Jurisprudence" - at least deductive reasoning and analysis (but not Philosophy just throw them induction and hypothesis) to deliver justice.

And Lord Gill wants a stop put to time wasting judicial reviews - well - only you know how as Judges (non sequitur anyone) - get it right in the court of first instance and there will be no need for judicial review! Try looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL LISTS AND APPLYING NATURAL LAW (Time element). So the Daily Mail picked up on this as an asylum issue because they were being objective (news) or subjective (feature) on the front page!

Well it looks good, but I am not so sure it is not the impact of the Directive on Mediation which New Labour Cathy Jamieson put in place but Kenny MacAskill did not then engage the brain to stop - I did try, by participating in the Arlene McCarthy MEP Consultation on the Subsidiary Principle (as available below) with subsequent request for arrest for misconduct in public office for failing to process democratically my response therein - did not happen to my knowledge or yet. I would love to believe that the system has improved rather than changed - time will tell.

The other changes are interesting: something to monitor as they embed in; especially the "personal injury" court that is anticipated to be created (anticipating Alison NOSY Parker and Master Leslie are not engaged in this process or anyone else associated with my case in the Royal Courts including specific named academia on this blog). There has to be a reason why my Writ issued in 2004 is still waiting to be heard in 2009 with a request for JUDICIAL REVIEW / APPEAL / CRIMINAL DIVISION before Mr Justice Hamblin and subsequently as heard before Mr Justice Mackay of the Royal Courts. It remains "stayed". Hmmm.

I anticipate there is an ongoing evaluation facility with MODERN JUSTICE ... with statistical data.

As for Tony Blair ex-PM and his being "tipped" for the EU Presidency

NO

Our newspapers spin, spin, spin - we cannot rely on them as source material for research without going behind the story
Our youth are binge drunk and in the gutter of a Friday night or to put it bluntly they are not aspiring to champagne and haute couture. Even Robbie Williams looked good in his pyjamas in Europe - and that says a lot when you look better dressed in the UK going to bed!
Our banks and finance sector have been raided but we were upto our necks in debt anyway- folks keep paying it off - it compounds down not up! Besides some of you may actually end up better off at the end of the year having learned frugality due to necessity + (value added) happier.
Our military - we imprisoned Malcolm Kendell-Smith (have we apologised yet), he only acted on conscience, the Afghans are doing remarkably well without helicoptors etc I see, you too could put a mule in front of a tank - that is not to detract from bravery.
Our judiciary are undermined - ADR or otherwise we have been "invaded": nouse would be good.
Aparently, our hospitals are unclean and we are expecting 90,000 people to hit the system with swine flu and we send a pregnant lady to Sweden because we can't cope!
Politicians - No, No, No - that is quite categorily NO. Even a group of Highland women managed to put "rotten egg", "ROTTEN EGG", "Rotten Egg" across the ballot - I wonder why, they are surely RIGHT. Expenses scandal - you are there to serve the public, not yourselves - misconduct in public office for not being seen to be "beyond reproach" should not translate a need for new legislation of fines and small sentences, ie further serving yourselves and not the public. What was needed was integrity and credibility which at least should have meant constituency elections rather than clinging onto a General Election so that you can claim your gold plated pensions! and serve yourselves again!
The lawyers are jumping off the cliff, and moreover, even if they were corporate psychopaths and not terribly clever, Agency would appear to be using the word "redundancy" to mean "on the scrap heap absolutely". Some might actually have learnt something from the recessionary process but it is an eye opener to find Agency will not locate employment for you - have experienced this one myself too - I anticipate there are no blacklists in the legal domain, just fair recruitment practises in accordance with employment law and welfare reforms etc.

Lets just call a spade a spade! We have been invaded and Tony Blair ex-PM even when notified of it substantively did diddly squit but to continue down the wrong path leading to the wrong outcome which is emblasoned across our press every day but not necessarily using the word spin these days.

And we would inflict Tony Blair - EX-PM on Europe! Can the press establish who the other candidates are that Tony Blair actually might look convincing, credible and with integrity.

PS - I might as well go the whole hog - G4 and IMF are we surprised that we are apparently being either downgraded on the global platform or sent to Coventry. Perhaps we need to take a really good look at ourselves - lets invite the world to Scotland for a Homecoming Gathering and rip the Capital's streets up (or at least bollard the lot to look credible) - is the project Phased at all - it could not have Phased round the Home Coming Gathering - should we be surprised if folks may not wish to invest in our country but elsewhere.

A highspeed 2 hour link to Heathrow from Scotland - we do have international airports in Scotland!, we also have a Millenium City with airport that needs some attention too + bridge link concerning infrastructure projects - we could redo the entire flight paths to take the traffic OFF Heathrow which only needs a new control tower, not a new terminal plus upset the local populace. Besides one huge terrorist alert would be chaos. Greens - the congestion alone would be horrendous; and you are more likely to get planning consent in the backwaters of Inverness, not London. We appear to have an inability to see ourselves outside certain egotistical areas.

Back to the drawing board on key areas would be quite a good idea really.

America - you put ADR in your judicial systems too - you might want to take a closer look and evaluate what's going on over there on issues of Justice too. I am aware it was outlawed in relation to Anti-trust but am not 100% certain of this - besides concerning law you are "disunited" states of America - you might want to look at your Jurisprudence in light of the fact you follow the English common law, as do the Russians, Israelis and other jurisdictions!

I at least aspire to a "SAFE" and "JUST" society, and I "KNOW" what is required and also "WHAT" we currently do not have ... I also know who and why, when and where etc FOR REAL - I just need an intelligent JUDGE on the Bench not oiks!

A "Quiet Revolution" aka Tony, Dick and Henry

2009-09-30T14:05:00.021+01:00

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

2009-09-08T17:58:00.012+01:00

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

2009-09-06T11:43:00.008+01:00

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!