APPLICATION OF HUMANITY

  IN THE APPLICATION OF HUMANITY

THE SHEEP IN WOLF'S CLOTHING

V

THE WOOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING

_____________________________________________

VICE VERSA

______________________________________________

THIS WRIT IS HEREBY SERVED

DATED:  1993-2025

 

Professor Richard Susskind - dismissal letter

I have noticed that the links to my "virtual court" blog post have been tampered with and no longer open as a document when you click on the link.  This has lead me to believe that someone (probably Richard Susskind CBE KC (hons) or Michael Ford KC has removed access to the evidential documents of corruption by them on the Lesley McDade v Masons case.

As such, I copy you in on my termination letter by Richard Susskind its quite long but don't be fooled into thinking he is being reasonable at all.

Firstly I did not breach confidentiality, Cathy James did and no disciplinary hearings occurred concerning her.  I had to go through two disciplinary hearings during my law exams,  Secondly in IT specialist law firm they were quite ignorant on how to measure megabytes - the system does it automatically.  Thirdly, the loud voice allegation was for gross misconduct - my barrister Michael Ford said it was not even minor misconduct.  This allegation should have been withdrawn, instead it was deemed "not proven" a verdict in Scottish criminal law not available in English civil law.  This was blatant mismanagement by Richard Susskind and others and the unilateral management decision to force me to go on the float team was more of the same. Historically, I had moved by bilateral consent 4 times between float and permanent.  I did not give consent to a unilateral management decision as there were other permanent positions available.  Also Richard Susskind had "expanded without commitment" a paralegal role which I had said I was interested in,  Also I was not safe on the float team anyone could get at me and cause trouble.  The reason given for placing me on the float team was convenience it was there disciplinary procedures that destroyed the working relationship by having the department both managers and secretaries in the same room.  So lets not delude ourselves that this management decision was in any way or form was reasonable.  There then followed corruption in the court case by Bruce Carr, Counsel nobbling the judge to override 9 pages of pleading allowing full discovery process to not disclose 40 man hours of investigation material and nobbling my witness Michael Ford to not attend.  Thereafter on appeal 4 case precedent are missing from the judgment : one of which relates to the ultra vires doctrine which was used against me even although mine was a private domain contract,not public domain then.  Incidentally, both my brother John NcDade and Louise Christiian of Christian Fisher, solicitors notified Richard Susskind that he had a management problem in the firm, namely Anne Molyneux, Siobhan Cross and Cathy Jamesl  h#e chose to focus on me as causaion rather than deal with the management pooblem and added to it hence the not proven verdict treating me like a criminal.

"Disciplinary Hearing 28rh June 1995

This letter is further to your hearing on Wednesday 28th June, 1995 from 1500 hours to 1700 hours approximately.  The hearing itself followed on from Tony Bunch's letter to you dated 23 June 1995 to which he said that your continued refusal to work as directed gives us grounds for reviewing your behaviour as gross misconduct, and that you must attend a disciplinary hearing,

The hearing was convened under Clause 11(b) of your employment contract and was chaired by me with Ava Pinnock in attendance).  Its purpose was to investigate the above allegation and to give you an opportunity to state your position.   I understand you have now received a transcript of the hearing.

In the letter I deal with the following issues:

-  The Facts

-  The relevance of your previous disciplinary hearings

-  The Management decision to direct you to work as part of the float team; and

-  The consequences of your refusal to work as directed

These seem to me to be the central questions in your case and in the remainder of the letter I deal with each in turn,

The Facts

I take the key relevant facts underlying your position to be the following.

1,    You were the subject of two earlier disciplinary processes with a disciplinary hearing and a disciplinary appeal hearing (on 18rh May and 9th June respectively). the findings of which were communicated to you in letters of 1st June and 13th June, 1995 respectively.  The cumulative result of these was a finding of serious misconduct and a written warning (from Ric Martin) in a letter dated 1st June 1995.

2.    In light of the first hearing you were directed in Ric Martin's letter to you of 1st June 1995 not to return to your previous work group but instead to join the float team for a period, and after the appeal hearing, this management decision was reaffirmed by Ric Martin in his letter of 13th June 1995 which also asked you to report to Mike Orton at 1000 hours on the 14 June 1995.

3.    On Wednesday 14 June 1995 you reported to Mike Orton as requested  and were allocated by Ava  Pinnock to your first assignment.

4.    On Thursday 15 June 1995 you returned to Mike Orton's office and told him (in Ava Pinnock'a presence) that you were not going to work on the float team.  You also indicated your position not to work for Neil Biggs who joined you later in the discussion.  Mike Prton wrote to you on 15th June 1995 asking you on his and the  firms  behalf to return to the float team as soon as possible to reconsider your decision not to work and to call him on 19th June 1995 to let him know what you had decided/ You did call Mike Orton on 19rh June and said you would not return to work.  He again urged you to reconsider but you indicated you had settled on that decision.

This is my understanding of the basic facts stripped at this stage of any explanation or justification I believe this summary of the facts is accurate and moreover in light of our discussion at your hearing. I expect you will accept it.

The Relevance of your Previous Disciplinary Hearings

It was clear to me at your hearing that you were concerned indeed that I fully understand the details of the earlier two hearings as mentioned above.  For this reason, I was willing to hear you express your full views on these hearings and I have since read the extracts that you directed me in the course of the hearing.

I have two general observations to make in this connection.  The first is I do appreciate that you feel frustrated with the results of the previous hearings and that you are of the view that others are at fault and should themselves be subject to disciplinary action.  My second observation, however, is that no matter how strongly you feel, the purpose of this disciplinary hearing I was asked to convene was notor investigate or question the findings of your previous hearings, for that earlier disciplinary process has formally been completed (in accordance with your contract).  

Nonetheless, I do believe the hearings are relevant to my purpose - as a partial explanation (but not justification) of your feelings, as a partial explanation (but not justification) of the feelings of others and some insight into some of the background events which led to the management decision to direct you to work on the float team.

I have taken seriously your concerns about the earlier hearings.  I hope you do now understand the extent to which I believe they can bear on this current investigation. 

The Management Decision to Direct you to Work as Part of the Float Team

The next issue for consideration, is the nub of the matter.  A management decision was made to remove you from your previous position to allocate you to the float team (where you had worked well in the past).  You feel this was unfair and not justifiable, whereas the Managers concerned believed this the best management option in the circumstances. I would like now to outline my understanding of these views towards many of the Federation, it would be hard for any reasonable employer to understand why you would want to go back there,  A satisfactory working relationship with one fee earner hardly seems sufficient. especially as you would be expected to have to work with others as part of a team.

Given their feelings towards you and you towards them I endorse and support the view of the managers that not permitting you back to your former Group was in your own interests  as well as those of the firm,  It was your previous conduct that led to a formal warning..  It was principally your behaviour that caused and continues to cause considerable unrest. To direct you to not return to your previous position is not to punish you. it is in my view the only management decision available in the circumstances. Our firm requires effective team working and not just individual technical competence.

I am satisfied that at that time there were no other permanent positions available and so I also support that you should be asked to join to the float team - there were no other options at that stage.

In summary, I conclude, that the management decision directing you to work as part of the float team was a reasonable one in all the circumstances.

I am conscious that I may have been procedurally remiss in not giving you an opportunity to hear for yourself the views of all members of the Federation. I have given this matter a great deal of thought;  I know I did ask you how you would prefer to proceed and you indicated you would like an opportunity,  But you will also remember that I would like to reserve my position on this and that I wanted to talk to members of the Federation informally myself before I decide how to proceed.  I now take the view on the strength of the substances of the transcripts of all three hearings and my meetings with the relevant partners and staff that there is so much acrimony from you towards managers and staff and in reverse that having a further hearing to confirm what is beyond any doubt the feelings of those concerned would be emotionally damaging for you and the Federation members and damaging for the well-being of the Business Unit.  I believe I have followed the requirements of your employment contract, complied with natural justice. and acted in your and the firm's interests in concluding that no further meetings take place as part of this level of disciplinary hearing.

The consequences of your refusal to work as directed 

Given my finding about the management decision to direct you to work as part of the float team I must finally consider in that context the consequences of your refusal to work as directed.

As I understand it, you believe taking you from a position as a permanent secretary and putting you on the float team involves such a fundamental change in your employment contract that this cannot  lawfully be done unilaterally.  Because this direction to you was unlawful, you argue, this justifies your decision to work on the float team.

I have taken advice on this issue and have come to the view you were misguided in refusing to work on the strength of the arguments  you have put to me.  In coming to this view, I rely on one or both of the  following arguments

First, I believe the direction to you to float was lawful.  Moving to a floating position  does not in my view constitute a fundamental change to your agreement to require consent.   Both positions are secretarial in nature, with identical pay, working hours, benefits and conditions of employment.  I accept there can be a shift in emphasis and working relationships but not nearly so your refusal to work causes me alarm.  It was a most extreme reaction in the circumstances.  A far more balanced approach would have been to float while you discussed the matter further with various managers  (given, in any event, there were also indications that floating would not necessarily be a permanent state of affairs - see for example Ric Martin''s letter of 1st June.1995).

Given my conclusion that the decision to direct you to work as part of the float team was reasonable, justifiable and necessary in these circumstances your refusal to work is a very grave matter indeed.

Given that undertaking work for the firm  is the very heart of your employment contract with Masons. I feel I have no option but to take your refusal to work as constituting gross misconduct.

In mitigation, snd on your behalf, I would like to record formally, that I do not believe your refusal to work was intentionally to commit an act of gross misconduct.  I believe you genuinely thought, or were advised, that you were entitled to refuse to work in the belief that the direction to float was not lawful.  However, because the test for gross misconduct is an objective not subjective one this cannot affect my finding of gross misconduct.

I should add that under Clause 11(f) of your contract of employment you are liable for summary dismissal where gross misconduct  on your part has been established.  It is beyond the scope of my powers to exercise or waive the right to dismiss you but you will hear from the firm in that regard very shortly/

Finally I would like to remind you that there is an appeal procedure now open to you under clause 11(d) of your contract..

Yours sincerely

Dr Richard E Susskind"

 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2025

Why does USA President Donald J Trump say Europe is decaying.  

We can definitely say that Great Britain is decaying.  The judicial pillar fell in 1999 wherein ADR was promoted as "Access TO Justice", when in fact it does the opposite "Access FROM Justice" by doing "Access to Compromise".  Then the defence pillar fell causing an unjust war in Iraq. Then the Press and spin, spin, spin. Then the banking pillar fell causing a bailout of the banks, then there was massive youth unemployment, then foodbanks started to appear.  Whether this was also happening across Europe is not known.  But ADR in the judicial system coercing people to settle via mediation stops societal progress via judgments and the common good via the universal application of the rule of law.

But ADR in the British legal systems sourced from America and 6 American Jews brought the concept to America in the 1970s and was spread worldwide by Executive Order of ex USA President Bill Clinton when in office and taken up in the UK as the Woolf Reforms.

So President Donald J Trump maybe right that Europe is decaying and ADR in judicial systems maybe the reason for the decay.

Just saying.

Discuss.

I am 60 today

Whoo Hoo I am 60 today.  Had a long spa Weekend at the McDonald's Resort in Aviemore with my two sisters and two brothers.  The massage was wonderful.

WORK

Five past nine, late again
Bus, clock, slept in

Ten Past, breakfast
Cup of coffee, gasp.

Letter, deed, Oh what speed
Five o’clock approaching

Five past, please pretty please
Home time past.

Lesley McDade

To the King

Your Majesty, your son Prince Harry settled his case through mediation due to a coercion about costs.  He did not get Justice or the universality of the common good and we are left hoping their will now be criminal proceedings as a consequence of the report out of the mediation.  The mediation went on for longer than anticipated something a court cannot do.  But there has been a cover-up which means we are left wondering to what extent the court case would have revealed at the goings on in the media and who were the investigators involved and what punishment they would be given.  A Judgment would have meant case precedent would be established creating a ratio decidendi - judicial reasoning, and probably also obita dicta - persuasive arguments for the future direction of judges in case law. A Judgment would also have brought the law up-to-date.  Ah well. all in all I had hoped that Prince Harry would hold out for Justice but something has to be done about using costs as a means to defeat justice.

Statutory Public Inquiry or Select Committee

I recently wrote to my MP Jamie Stone for him to get me either a public inquiry or a select committee.  Unfortunately, he claims to be unable to do so because he lacks professional knowledge and also lacks capacity and has suggested I do a Judicial Review.  I am now writing via him to others in Government to see if they can act on my behalf.  If there is a pro bono unit out there who could take up issues as a judicial review I would be grateful as I am unsure what this entails.

My email to Jamie Stone MP is as follows:

"I have given consideration tp the parliamentary procedures referred to below and I consider I would like a statutory public inquiry and for a government minister to ok my blog www.lesleymcdade.blogspot.com which details three miscarriages of justice (Lesley McDade v Masons and Lesley McDade v S J Berwin & Co x 2) and  my research on the Woolf Reforms which now apparently is implemented in Scotland.  Please can you refer me to an appropriate government minister to begin the process.

I do not want to do judicial review as apart from having no faith in the courts, I am a litigant in person and it has been 15 years since my last court appearance before Sir Robert Owen in February 2014.  I neither can afford the expense of instructing lawyers so would have to do it myself.  This would add an additional layer of bureaucracy when what is needed is now a political solution as events commenced in 1994 and took twenty years to get through three court cases and a mediation.  I have been lobbying politically re my research since 1997 when I wrote my dissertation on the Woolf Reforms which was awarded a grade of 2:1.  I have been lobbying for parliamentary sovereignty for 15 years since 2014 concerning my three miscarriages of justice hence my blog.

If I cannot get a statutory public inquiry then I would like a select committee which is important and in the public interest due to Professor Richard Susskind OBE sacking me who holds public office as IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and promulgated mismanagement and his need to cover it up by getting his Counsel Bruce Carr to nobble the judge and bring the case forward by 6 months to do so.  I attach the response by Bruce Carr to a Bar Council complaint process in that regard.  Someone has removed his response from my blog.

It is hopefully my year this year and I am seeking an outcome of a new law - defamation by dismissal as a tort law and also a new law - corporate mismanagement as a criminal law along the lines of Swiss law and the Fifa case.  I am also seeking compensation that I would have received if my cases had been processed properly."

Response to complaint to Scottish Government

 DIRECTORATE FOR JUSTICE DJUST : Civil Law and Legal System abc d Lesley McDade lesleymcdade364@msn.com Our Reference: 202400432484 Your Reference: Case Ref: KF21042 22 October 2024 Dear Lesley McDade, The Scottish Government position, as set out within the Vision for Justice in Scotland, is that preventing disputes and resolving them earlier and more effectively, benefits individuals, organisations, the economy and the Justice system as a whole. This includes being able to access alternative dispute resolution or mediation forums for civil justice issues. Over the past 3 years the Scottish Government has invested in our 3 major Mediation partners: • University of Strathclyde Mediation Clinic • Edinburgh Citizens Advice Mediation Service; and • Scottish Mediation who are the professional body for Mediation in Scotland. In 2023 the Scottish Government provided funding to expand mediation services to offer free mediation in simple procedure cases (under £5000) to every area of Scotland. This is intended to provide savings in terms of cost and time to both the court and litigants. However, this is on a voluntary basis in cases where mediation is considered appropriate and agreed by the parties. The position in Scotland differs from England and Wales, where parties now require to attend a mediation appointment to try and resolve their case ahead of having a court hearing. In respect of The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2024 - Explanatory Memorandum (legislation.gov.uk), paragraph 4.2 is clear that the instrument applies to England and Wales. In Scotland, statutory responsibility for preparing court rules lies with the Scottish Civil Justice Council, Scottish Ministers, special advisers and the Permanent Secretary are covered by the terms of the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016. See www.lobbying.scot St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.gov.scot not the Scottish Government. The Council was established on 28 May 2013 under the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013. The Council prepares draft rules of procedure for the Scottish civil courts and advises the Lord President of the Court of Session on the development of the civil justice system in Scotland. The Council is also responsible for keeping the civil justice system under constant review. The Council recently published its Annual Programme of work for 2024/25, the priorities for this year are: Consultations: · the next draft of the new Ordinary Procedure Rules · the extension of simplified divorce; · Simple Procedure Special Claims (SPSC) · the proposed withdrawal of the walls of court · the options for the withdrawal of signeting Rules: · Inner House rules; · Protective Expenses Orders (PEOs) · UNCRC rules (under the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (Scotland) Act 2024) The full publication can be found here: scjc-annual-report-2023-24-and-programme-2024-25.pdf (scottishciviljusticecouncil.gov.uk) and further information about civil rules of court in Scotland can be found on the Scottish Civil Justice Council website: Scottish Civil Justice Council The Council Secretariat welcomes feedback on any aspect of court rules and can provide advice on current rules and procedures. You can contact the Secretariat by writing to: Scottish Civil Justice Council Secretariat, Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RQ or by email: scjc@scotcourts.gov.uk. I hope this information is helpful. Yours sincerely Jamie Wilhelm CLLS : Access to Justice

Scottish Legal System and ADR

I am concerned that ADR is to become part of the CPR Rules in the judicial system for Scotland in October 2024 according to the Scottish Mediation Network.    I do not consider the courts should participate in ADR which effectively privatises the dispute and engages in gagging clauses thereby hiding the issues.  Also ADR is about "compromise" not "justice" and effectively is access from justice.  When the parties intend to litigate and issue proceedings there is a raised presumption that they are issuing proceedings in the "public" domain not the private domain.  It is necessary that cases go the  distance to trial otherwise society stagnates.  Case law and judgment enables society to update itself and progress.  There is a difference between case law that merely reiterates what the law is and case law that challenges the status quo to what it ought to be.  ADR prevents progress in society and compromise and justice are two distinct entities, the former is individualistic and the latter is universal.  That does not mean that ADR cannot exist in a democracy, it just does not fit in with public institutions as it effectively privatises them.  In that regard ADR should be outlawed from  use in public institutions such as the courts.

Also from my knowledge ADR in its American form  as promulgated by Bill Cllinton incorporated in the Woolf Reforma to the Legal System of England and Wales upon  which my research is based establishes Jewish hegemony on the topic of ADR and that a deliberate act of spin was done by the misleading of parliament that ADR is access to justice when it is access from justice and access to compromise.  I have no doubt that this current incorporation of ADR in  the CPR  Rules is more of the same.  The co-conspirators in misconduct in public office were Sir Tony Blair ex-PM; Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg, Lord Chancellor; Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Master of the Rolls along with Lord Woolf as Lord Chief Justice - all were involved in spin and as judges must be deemed to  know what they were doing was wrong..

ADR has several models namely the Japanese model - to save loss of face; the Jewish/American model - its cheaper and quicker than litigation or arbitration; the English and Welsh model - a coercive regime and my model the competition model which Lord Gill adopted for the Scottish legal system as the Gill Report.  With the new consultation the Scottish legal system  is going down the route of the Woolf Reforms to the English and Welsh legal system, ie the coercive regime model.

The Scottish Mediation Network says "... and to come into force on 1 October 2024, a        remarkably rapid process. The relevant    statutory instrument is the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2024 SI 2024 No. 839 (L.11). 1. What are the Amendments in their  Final Form? The full text of the relevant amended Rules (which are CPR 1, 3, 28, 29 and 44) will not appear on the official CPR website until they come into effect in October 2024. To summarise the three main areas of change: 1. The first and most striking are the         insertions into CPR 1, where the overriding objective of civil justice is enshrined, and against which judges often measure the     exercise of discretions given to them. The     familiar objective – “enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost” – is said to include “so far as is       practicable” such matters as equal footing, speed, economy, appropriate resources, and rule compliance. Now it is expanded to       include “using and promoting ADR”[1]. For use and promotion of ADR to have become an objective of civil justice is startling indeed [2]. CPR 1.4, dealing with the court’s duty of active case management, is now said to     include “ordering or encouraging[3] the    parties to use an ADR procedure if the court considers it appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure[4]. 2. The second set of amendments relates to clarifying the court’s management powers over ordering ADR, set out in CPR 3, 28 and 29. CPR 3.1(2)(o) and (p) now read: “(o) order the parties to participate in ADR; (p) take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective,     including hearing an Early Neutral Evaluation with the aim of helping the parties settle the case.” CPR 28 (which deals with matters to be dealt with by directions in fast track and intermediate track cases) now includes “whether to order or encourage the parties to participate in ADR”[5]. CPR 29 (which deals with case management in multitrack cases, so all litigation of        significant value and complexity not covered by other Court Guides) requires directions hearing in every case and now provides: “(1A) When giving directions, the court must consider whether to order or encourage the parties to participate in ADR[6].” This latter provision is expressed very strongly. “Must” is not a frequently used verb in the CPR. 3. The third instance of amendment relates to the costs provisions in CPR 44, in which the way litigation is conducted is identified as a possible basis for sanctioning unreasonable behaviour. The conduct of parties is now said specifically to include: “whether a party failed to comply with an    order for alternative dispute resolution, or unreasonably failed to engage in alternative dispute resolution proposed by another party [7].” Note that the word “participate” in the     original draft has been changed to “engage” as a result of the consultation. CMC/CEDR/ Ciarb pointed out in their response that “participate” might allow an intrusive judge to feel entitled to assess the nature of a    party’s participation during a mediation      behind the veil of privilege and confidentiality and suggested “failed to agree to participate” as an alternative. “Engage” connotes “initial engagement” and answers the point.         Arguably, this amendment encapsulates   settled law since 2002 set out in such court decisions as Dunnett v Railtrack and indeed in Halsey itself. ...".

I have written to the Lord Advocate and Justice Secretary to raise my concerns as well as Kate Forbes, Douglas Ross, Emma Roddick, Tim Eagle, Jamie Halcro Johnson, Ariane Burgess, Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain as my 8 MSPs to see if I can get a debate going in Parliament.  Perhaps you could support me by raising the matter of ADR in the Scottish Legal System with your MSPs at www.writetothem.com.

Nano Technology

Yesterday evening and late last night a piece of nano technology placed within me by a person unknown flared up.  This must have been in response to me sending a copy of my latest report to Sky News in response to their interview with Sir Tony Blair concerning his promotion of his new book "On Leadership".  My concerns were raised as Sir Tony Blair ex-PM was involved in the Woolf Reforms to the Legal System of England and Wales in which there was spin on Lord Woolf's Final Report on "Access to Justice" wherein he actually gave access to compromise thereby misleading Parliament and doing misconduct in pubic office a serious criminal offence.

So whoever activated the piece of nano technology is aware of three criminal offences against me and is choosing to suppress them,  namely Michael Ford KC for sexual assault and stalking; Lord Woolf and others for misconduct in public office; and Professor Richard Susskind OBE for perverting the course of justice.

I am still actively seeking Parliamentary Sovereignty or a Select Committee or a Public Inquiry to the above via my new MP Jamie Stone but he currently has  not answered four pieces of correspondence.

I will keep you posted.

Esoteric conduct

 

Two nights ago during the night i was sexually assaulted using nano technology. It is believed to be associates of Michael Ford KC who has sexually assaulted me in the past, namely in 2015 and 2016 using nano technology. In fact there are three pieces of nano technology in my body which flare up from time to time. Also telepathy is used which defames me and is at the construct of Michael Ford KC. It is presumed that Michqel Ford KC is defaming me because I brought a complaint with the Bar Counsel of England because Michael Ford KC failed to attend court as a witness in the trial Lesley McDade v Masons for which I have called him a coward. In that trial Respondent's Counsel, Bruce Carr, informed he knew my witnesses itinerary which was more than I knew. The resultant Bar Counsel complaint into Bruce Carr saw him admitting he nobbled the judge and my witness. My witness Michael Ford informed me that the judge would only deal with my case from the point of transfer covering up the previous disciplinary hearings - how did he know this if he had not been nobbled. (The Bar Counsel complaints documents are uploaded to this blog but have been removed by a hacker presumably Michael Ford KC or Professor Richard Susskind OBE - email me at lesleymcdade364@msn.com if you want to see the documents for yourself). As a consequence of the nobbling, Professor Richard Susskind OBE perverted the course of justice by 9 pages out of 11 pages of pleading being overruled and his failure to do discovery properly or at all failed to deliver up an alleged 40 man hour investigation report as a management issue of a disciplinary hearing and appeal which he mismanaged (and the court relied on the document in his judgment even although no one had seen it) - the diciplinary third allegation was "not proven" which is a verdict in Scots law only (and events took place in England) and Michael Ford had stated was an allegation which did not meet the criteria for gross misconduct nor even minor misconduct - allegedly saying Cathy James had a loud voice something I was not concerned about at all, I was more concerned about her lack of skills and known incompetence. The perversion of the course of justice allegation may also be misconduct in public office as Professor Richard Susskind OBE is IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. That is to say if the Police would get their act together he would face criminal proceedings. For what its worth Michael Ford has been stalking me for 25 years on and off and I appear to be listened into on a regular basis. 

By way of update, I asked my MP Drew Hendry to get me "parliamentary sovereignty" or some kind of committee to deal with 3 miscarriages of justice as a litigant in person and my research on the Woolf Reforms. After 6 years of asking he finally got back to me claiming he lacked legal training so could not deal with my issues - so much for democracy. It's an excuse because presumably he could access legal advice from within the SNP ministers. 

I have subsequently written to Dominic Raab when he was Justice Minister to no effect. I currently await a response from the Conservative party and Rishi Sunak PM but have not heard anything as yet unless the esoteric conduct I experienced two nights ago was a response - perhaps MI5 or MI6. 

I will continue to lobby Parliament and hopefully one day I will succeed to get justice. 

I duly noted in the Horizon Scandal that Mr Bates received an offer of compensation that was unsatisfactory and not accepted. I have written to my MP to raise my concerns that ADR - alternative dispute resolution - would not secure justice for people caught up in the scandal and that ADR should not be used as a means to compensate victims because there is compromise and cover up by gagging clauses.

Lastly, for my birthday this year I went to see the ballet Manon streaming live from the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, London.  Beautifully danced by Natalia Osipova and Reece Grant.  Amazing music and choreography.  It was superb.

Misconduct in public office

Misconduct in public office is my latest article on the Woolf Reforms to the legal system of England and Wales. (email me to get a copy: lesleymcdade364@msn.com)  It proves that a "noble lie" was told at the time that we were getting "Access to Justice" via the Final Report. Instead we were getting "Access from Justice" by being given "Access to Compromise". Justice and compromise are not the same thing, hence misconduct in public office by Lord Wool as Lord Chief Justice and his associates the Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine of Lairg, Lord Mackay of Clashfern as Master of the Rolls, Ex-PM Tony Blair all supported by ex-President Bill Clinton where this version of ADR sources from America. So should Lord Woolf be criminalised for misconduct in public office?

Debating Europe - Should we be sending so many people to prison

Debating Europe have asked me to share a link on my blog as an issue up for dicussion:

https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2019/08/06/should-we-stop-sending-so-many-people-to-prison/#.XUsyTehKjIU

Would love to hear what you think,

Regards

Lesley

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2017 as well as Happy Birthday to me 2018

I had a brilliant Christmas and partied at New Year too. I am going to the ballet,The Nutcracker, for my birthday treat at the weekend  My New Year Resolution is to upload case number 3 in the Royal Courts of Justice as I had promised to do sometime ago.

I was very disappointed with case No3 before Sir Robert Owen QC not least because he refused to deal with the corruption on the Masons case - at the EAT stage (refer elsewhere for data).  He said if I pursued this I would definitely loose my case against  S J Berwin and others.  So I said "in a raven's nest you should find a raven".  "in a judgment you should find a rule of law" and left it at that.

However, I did not win the SJB case either largely through in experience. My cross-examination was a disaster.  I had only just got started when the judge asked me whether I had finished yet.  So I said finished even although I had substantial cross examination yet to do.  I got the impression I was being ordered to finish.

Had I gone on to cross-examine properly, I would have broken the case down into its four component parts : sex discrimination both direct and indirect; breach of contract; professional negligence; personal injury.

1.  My cross-examation would have shown sex discrimination concerning the performance figures especially the page where Elie Zekaria was doing 131% and I was doing 49% with Solomon Wifa doing 79%.  Solomon was an agency worker, whereas Elie Zekaria and myself were employees hence Elie Zekaria was the male comparator.  The second litigation refused to accept Elie Zekaria as the male comparator and a complete nonsense occurred via the court.   

Bundle of Performance figures released by S J Berwin & Co which establish that there was sex discrimination and a workload problem in the department concerning me and that less favourable treatment was as a consequence of activities by management which was mismanagement and detrimental man management practices (Click here)

2. Indirect Sex Discrimination occurred in a meeting with Ian Insley and Julian Critchlow on 10 June 1996 wherein I was sidelined to administrative tasks and all other paralegals were assigned to paralegal assignments, such as Elie Zekaria under Zak Mulla, Solomon Wifa under David Stewart and Simon Williams and Chris Drayton to the first tranche of the Guiness Grandmet merger creating Diageo plc which I subsequently engaged with in Tranche 2.  My performance figures are demonstrative that there was a workload problem in the department and rather than treat me as a paralegal proper (perhaps because my contract was in repudiatory breach) I experienced less favourable treatment having to do archiving and a pilot library for which there was already existing personnel to do these activities.  As I had previously been a legal secretary from a group comprised mostly of women it was deemed that I should do administration tasks rather than paralegal tasks albeit I did get work from Nicholas Carnell who was bullish and unfit as a supervisor.

3.  The contract had been in repudiatory breach for 2 1/2 years until I whistleblew in an Employment Seminar which resulted in  a new contract on or about 18 May 1998.

4.  Most of the paperwork relating to Nick Carnell was professional negligence.

5.  And finally both our Consultants were agreed that I had developed paranoid schizophrenia during my time at SJB as a consequence of the Woolf Reforms.  Respondents' consultant was a professor of psychiatry and was in joint agreement with my own consultant.

The Official Solicitor was requested twice and on both occasions deemed herself unable to Act.  The first because I was not a patient and the second due to the funding cuts under the Woolf Reforms impacting on her department.  She could have tried the pro bono unit but did not do so and there was a distinct lack of empathy from her [Samson-Tandoh], ie she did not try at all to do an order of the court.

Needless to say the Judgment does not reflect any of the above in it yet it was clear from pleadings and evidence.  Sir Robert Owen QC's judgment appears to be one of fabrication but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it as you do not automatically receive a copy of the judgment from the Royal Courts of Justice.  I would say that justice was deliberately denied to me.

2007-12-27 Application Notice
2005-02-14 Defence
2005-03-26 Skeleton Argument
Skeleton Argument Court of Appeal
2005-03-20 Medical Report D
2005-05-10 Order
2005-07-05 Medical Report L
2005-08-10 Joint Medical Report D&L
2005-09-23 Claimant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2005-09-23 Defendant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2005-09-27 Order
2006-03-09 Claimant's Second Supplemental Skeleton Argument
2006-03-24 Order
2006-07-28 Order
2007-11-07 Application to lift the stay
2012-05-26 Application hearing
2012-07-17 Order
2013-04-10 Witness Statement LDM
2013-06-25 Originating application 2
2013-07-22 Response to Defendant's Request for Further Information
An attempt at conflict resolution was made with 10% of losses being proferred but not accepted.
2013-09-16 Consent Revised Order
2014-02-16 Skeleton Argument
2006-28-07 Order

These are all the documents I had in my possession up until trial.  There may however be further documents in the trial bundles [15 lever arch files] which were delivered up to the court on the day of trial.  I have not looked to see what the 15 lever arch files comprise.  My bundle was 1 lever arch file only.

As I  have suggested before there is a need to split litigated cases into two categories: those that reiterate what the law is and those that challenge the law.  The latter are the most important stages in society.  I would also respectfully suggest the Woolf Reforms be deemed a complete nonsense and failure as just a Jewish scam and that the courts be significantly overhauled such that a case cannot take more than 6 months as opposed to in my case 22 years in court on three litigations two of which took 10 years or more.

I am still waiting for parliamentary sovereignty and will contact my MP again.

Anyway have a lovely 2018.  I am more or less finished blogging for now as there is not much going on in society due to Brexit politically.  Remember this is meant to be a blog book albeit I may have to pay to get it published in some format and have an offer - but I have been told I should not pay to get published! Ah well.  As a blog book it was discovered that there is a jurisprudential secret in law concerning the opposites, so take note when reading as it is subtle in this blog book.

I also intend to find somewhere to archive my papers: it is not often that a litigant sues top 20 London law firms and one being Professor Richard Susskind OBE, IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice whilst also arguing academically against the Woolf Reforms as Lord Chief Justice - there must be some historical merit in the bundles of documents [15 lever arch files].

Happy Birthday to me ...

Room 101 

Lord Woolf (as he is American) :
Professor Richard Susskind OBE (as he is corrupt) :
The Lord Chancellor (as he is also an American) :
The English Legal System (as it is legally and morally bankrupt) .

Lord Woolf wants a “regime”, which is liberalisation;
Professor Richard Susskind OBE wants courtroom IT;
The Lord Chancellor wants contemporary, alternative and privatisation;
I want a fair justice system for all, and publically!

Discard Rule 26 and alternative dispute resolution;
Discard anything preliminary or ex parte;
Discard Hope of Craighead, Slynn of Hadley and Bingham of Cornhill, as part of the solution;
And we will again have equality and democracy.

To hell with my lecturers at Birbeck;
To hell with them again at the LSE;
To hell with the patronage of the EC law course at Kings College;
And now back to reality.

The common good ensures discovery by the wise;
And the knowledge is essential for law students;
No rights are derived from compromise;
This is the current issue concerning Jurisprudence.

So, in all these political nuances;
The separation of the powers is for a reason;
Do just the best “good” that you can and take no chances;
No person is indispensable, above the law, else it is act of Treason.

If you really want to go to heaven you will find;
The universe is the sun, moon and stars operating on the spirit;
Entry is internalisation of sense and pure thought previewed by the mind;
With externalised knowledge of how to observe and study nature and the natural prerequisite.

“Thy Kingdom come” when “thy will be done” is God’s promise;
Equality, fairness, impartiality and justice the highest form of Order;
“On earth as it is in heaven” is God’s will to the wise;
Judgment is the gate, doorway or border.

Of the quest, I anticipate that you will find success;
Law applied, not applied and no law equal progress, digress and regress in function form;
Aristotle establishes the ethical view as degeneracy, reasonableness and excess;
Whilst I re-clarify behaviour jurisprudentially as perverse, reasonable or corrupt as the natural norm.

Uniform application of law leads to social order and is the ideology of the Holy Grail;
Right and wrong are opposites and relative only to cause and effect;
The methodological flaw is alternative dispute resolution which is designed to fail;
As the best legal system does not need to abuse human rights, because of judicial discretion, ‘equity’ and intellect.

Solicitors, barristers and legal academics comprise a profession, educated and trained to a standard of ability inclusive of ethics;
When processed correctly, case marshalling, legal argument, advocacy and cross-examination ensure “independence of the judiciary”;
With filibustering and contempt being seen as despicable dirty tricks;
Which lead to abomination and aberration, corruption and judicial subjectivity.

Justice is done when it is seen to be done;
Via abstract judicial reasoning;
Mind over matter, is substance over form;
With a sprinkling of magical seasoning! 

Lesley McDade

Merry Christmas 2016 - have fun

The Artist and the Bumble Bee

One morning in my garden I found

a Bumble Bee lying dead on the ground

I picked him up, studied him, then,

Thought "I will sketch him with my drawing pen,

Next, with a very fine sable brush

Colour in his gorgeous coat of plush".

As I painted this colourful bee

I hoped he lived on in Eternity.

For what would heaven be like, after all,

If there was no place for such creatures small.

Phyllis Jermy (deceased) (My Grandmother)

Look out for Bumble Bees in 2017.  I grow a lavender border just for them and it buzzes away on one side with the bumble bees other favorite a cotoneaster hedge on the other.  In the autumn, I cut the lavender and give it to my sister who makes wonderful presents out of small swatches of fabric stuffing them with lavender.  I am anticipating something nice to hang in my wardrobe as my Christmas present.  Bumble bees most welcome in my small garden.  Merry Christmas folks.

300 th Post - to recapitulate

I have been sacked twice with devastating effects:

Because Cathy James was "knowingly" incompetent and left a confidential memo in the public network directory [because she did not have confidential directories as per company policy - I did], because she has a loud voice which I am supposed to have represented to Anne Glazebrook and it is denied as I have no memory of it and allegations were brought 40 days out of sequence.  I am also alleged to have measured megabytes which I did not do, my colleague Catherine Johnson was so doing because she wanted to show the workload was unevenly distributed in the department and a certain Cathy James was not pulling her weight.

Professor Richard Susskind mismanaged the whole debacle and sacked me, someone who had done absolutely nothing wrong - and which he establishes himself in proceedings at an early date by claiming issues were "unproven" which is a Scottish jurisdiction legality only and issues are based in England.  Both myself and Catherine Johnson were sacked because Professor Richard Susskind did not take the hard decisions necessary for gross bullying by employers as well as issues of favoritism.  Basically Professor Richard Susskind is not a manager and is involved in serious mismanagement.

I sued, only to experience organised crime and corruption.  Professor Susskind did not disclose to the court his 40 man hours of investigation he alleges he did - he did not take the oath.  As such he either perjured himself or did perversion of the course of justice.  He either did not do a 40 man hour investigation as represented to the judge or he did and failed to disclose it deliberately.  But it should have been obvious to the judge that you dont sack someone because someone else has a loud voice! which in any event she does and their witness Louise Fell sat furthest away and represented as much in papers before the court. But the Judge Chairperson De Saxe chose to override 9 pages out of 11 pages of pleading and refused to hear the case.  It had been thought that Professor Susskind was covering for Ms Anne Molyneux who became a Judge on the High Court bench, but it is now known by the words "not proven" he was covering for himself.  By sacking me he hoped to cover up the previous mismanaging activities of Ms Molyneux and Ms Cross and himself in the earlier proceedings which show that Ms Molyneux is not a fit and proper person to be a judge - how did she get past vetting?

The legal issue is called METALIPSIS - the reversal of cause and effect to effect and cause. Where you move away from initial causation of the Cathy James debacle and effect a new cause by transfering away ie effect so as to cause further disruption and reason to sack. Professor Susskind was attempting to transfer me to the float team by a unilateral not bilateral decision and I was sacked for refusing to obey an order of the company, which order was unlawful under contract.  ie you use the effect of an earlier outcome as a new cause to sack. There was therefore an apparent cover up of the earlier proceedings in which Cathy James is causation.

See Louise Christian's of Christian Fisher, lawyers letter to the firm - it if was obvious to her it should have been obvious to Professor Richard Susskind which means there is some deliberacy to his activities - not nice then.

Letter by Louise Christian of Christian Fisher & Co who represented myself and Catherine Johnson and instructed Counsel, Michael Ford. Louise correctly identified a management problem within Masons and told them so thereby establishing KNOWLEDGE(Click here)

My second dismissal was for saying my boss Julian Critchlow was shit amongst other things.  And he was up to nonsense and was contemptible as a manager.  The firm focused on the word shit and nothing else and brought in retrospective rules.  It became clear my employment was not above board, I experienced sex discrimination, professional negligence, breach of contract and personal injury.  I even saved Julian Critchlow's secretary from getting the sack as he was that much of a not nice person.  Again the issue is largely mismanagement which is obvious in pleadings.  I reacted badly to a memo stating my boss was a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory - as he had not given me any work in 2 1/2 years and had no clients that I was aware of this was a fabrication.  It is my human right to use a word contained in the English dictionary. I was asked to show remorse and refused as I meant what I said and was being honest.  I was given a reference which says I am honest with integrity - so why was I sacked = defamation by dismissal.

I sued twice and was given the almighty run around by the courts with Sir Robert Owen QC refusing to deal with organised crime and corruption at all.  Subsequently, I could have appealed but having gone through the system three times, ie the Woolf Reforms system, there appeared to be no point so I wrote to the Lord Chancellor Gove refusing to use the system until  Woolf is overhauled.  I also asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Running alongside this has been the antics of Mr Michael Ford now QC and I appear to have been abused / tortured, albeit I did call him a coward for failing to turn up as a witness concerning case 1 above.   I do wonder what's next as a MO is developed as a stalker.  Anyway, he must have a reason so lets have it.

For what its worth:

I lost my job as a Legal Secretary
I lost my job as a fee earner paralegal
My law degree is damaged by dismissals albeit I scrapped a 2:2 but I am obviously not a 2:2 hence this blog
I have not been able to progress my career in law
I lost a flat in Edinburgh because I could not get work and agencies would not take me on as I had been sacked twice and I did not receive independent advice
I have been made out to be mentally ill when this is disputed or at all
I do not have a relationship with someone I love nor a family
I have endured 23 years of organised crime and corruption since 1993 by the courts and respondents' solicitors
I have not had paid employment for 17 years but do volunteering
My pension is affected by no paid employment
The police will not deal with issues as they arise

All because Cathy James left a confidential memo in the public network directory and her bosses were bullish.  I did not care that Cathy James had a loud voice, I was concerned at her level of incompetence.

Lastly, my dissertation was on the Woolf Reforms which I was rightly concerned about.  My court cases x 3 show the methodology of how they operate such that there is a real need to overhaul the Woolf Reforms.  My blog is street justice.  The Wool Reforms coupled with Professor Susskind's activities amount to an abuse of power and he is the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice.  He needs to be given the boot especially as my court papers establish he has suspicious credentials as an IT specialist.  What I did not know until recently is that Professor Susskind is Jewish so also Lord Woolf.  My dissertation and my knowledge via S J Berwin & Co establishes a jewish plot within the English judiciary,  ie an enemy within.  I have seen other writings that the judicial system is being destroyed in England & Wales.

So whilst I have had 23 years of disruption to my life, I have gathered the proof that that disruption is deliberate and the methodology and who is doing it and why.

Also I was proferred 10% of my actual and forecast losses which I turned down via a mediation.  Who, in their right mind, would accept 10% of actual losses.  The whole process was a waste of £1000 and was a scam to only benefit the employer.  However, that the judge on the case did not find 10% of damages is actually quite serious as employers were admitting liability via mediation.  Sir Robert Owen QC refused to deal with organised crime and corruption on my case when put to him, thereby refusing to deal with half the case.  How did I get a right to a fair trial?  Hence my request to my MP for Parliamentary Sovereignty.

This is my 300th blog post - I don't know if you can do a 301 but please read my blog and if you can kick some ass along Whitehall if you're in a position to do so.  My cases show there also needs to be an umbrella Act for mismanagement covering discrimination as a criminal offence as well as a new category for dismissal cases - defamation by dismissal - in the workforce as I did not sign my contract of employment to experience so much abuse by my employers, their lawyers and the judiciary. The Woolf reforms need to be admitted as a failure hence the need for parliamentary sovereignty concerning my 3 cases.  Noticeably my career on doing an SNC Legal Secretarial certificate all doors were open to me and I gained access to the top flight of law firms in the UK including the top law firm in Scotland.  But on starting my LLB degree in 1993 I have known nothing but abuse with little opportunity and apparently no doors open to me.

On a slightly more tenuous issue Well done Mr Donald Trump on being elected to the post of President.  I concur that NATO needs to be revisisted concerning "collective security" and the preponderance of power in relation to the "perception of threat".  You should only kick in when there is an "actual" threat and I note that Bill Clinton changed the way NATO operated when he was in power.  As such, for the last 25 years, since my exam essay in Legal Systems and Legal Methods in 1993 I have perceived a threat which I subsequently found out when doing my dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" in 1997 was sourcing from America via the Jewish community (Shapiro/Clinton).  That perception of threat sourced from the USA undermined the rule of law, is a scam, and has lowered standards around the globe and my court cases are an example of how serious the lowering of standards have been via Woolf Reforms.  We did in the UK, get to savage via the Midstaffs and Francis Report.  Where we are headed is not certain but something has to give or be corrected globally.  Hopefully revisiting NATO, even scrapping it in favour of a Genome project and uniting the disparate of the world, would perhaps be an improvement, ie removing the perception of threat from my perspective anyway. 

So please Mr President, remove Alternative Dispute Resolution - ADR/Informal Dispute Settlement -- IDS/informal justice or mediation sometimes known as compromise agreements by outlawing them from the public and private domain or at the very least the public domain because by their very essence and nature the dispute is always removed to the private domain.  Whenever you see ADR/IDS/informal justice or mediation you know that the parties are going to be gagged by a compromise agreement, ie there is going to be a cover up.  You now know what is wrong with American society and how to make America Great Again.

Regards

Lesley

Refugees at Calais / Airport / Train infrasture - my thoughts

I was pleased to turn on the news tonight and see that finally clearing the camp at Calais is happening with the UK permitting unaccompanied children who have family in the UK to settle in the UK.  This is a significant step in the right direction - but why stop there - take a giant leap of faith and take all 10,000 in the camp.  This would greatly enhance our international standing and restore our faith in humanity which has taken a battering over recent years.  If the Germans can do it ...

I feel sure that Scotland could accommodate a significant number especially over the winter. In the Highlands, the cold would ensure that these people eventually return to their country - not all asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants will want to stay here permanently.  The University of the Highlands and Islands is likely to have places where people can upskill or maintain their skills so that they can return to their countries at a later date if they wished to do so.  And it is important that people go back skilled such as judges, doctors, teachers, plumbers, builders, computer techies etc.

The person who moves a mountain starts by taking away the little stones.   The children are the first step - please keep going.

I now retract my statement that Theresa May is rascist and have to say Well done for starting the process seeing children as just that, now if you can see nurses, teachers, footballers, musicians, shop keepers, mums, dads, uncles, brothers, aunts, sisters, grandparents, disabled etc that would be another small stone moving a mountain.

Regards

Lesley

______________________________________________________________________________

On airports [and trains] politically should this be EVEL and English only EXCLUSIVE debate on Heathrow/Gatwick third runway or should it be UK level politics and INCLUSIVE debate from all MPs.

I throw this into the ring because Scotland needs to develop Prestwick Airport and there are probably other airports around the country that need to be developed as a priority over a third runway at Heathrow or Gatwick which may mean that that runway is no longer necessary.  If for example Prestwick was developed then traffic could come the otherway from the North of England and North of Scotland.  Other airports around Scotland probably need developed further.

London has Stansted, City, Gatwick and Heathrow and the Channel Tunnel as well as Luton airports. Why would anyone going London to Paris not use the Chunnel as there is little point in lugging a suitcase out to a London based airport and lugging it into Paris from Charles De Gaulle when you can go door to door by train.  So maybe greater use of all 5 airports is necessary rather than another runway especially if domestic traffic does not need to go through Gatwick or Heathrow at all.

For example, I went to a Human Rights Conference in Berlin in 2008.  I flew Germanwings (excellent by the way) from Edinburgh to Cologne to Berlin as a return ticket which cost £140.  Another person attended the Conference from Edinburgh as well and he flew Easyjet: Edinburgh to Geneva to Berlin for £25 - I  don't know if that was return.

Under no circumstances did it make sense flying from Scotland to Europe to use Heathrow or Gatwick and that is probably true of most domestic flights to Europe.

Up here in the Highlands we now have a Heathrow link, but we also now have a Schipol link via Inverness airport.  So it probably does not make much sense to fly through Gatwick or Heathrow other than for an international flight and probably nearer airports such as Manchester or Birmingham or even Glasgow would be a preferred option.

Which brings me to Donald Trump and Prestwick Airport.  He has rightly pointed out why would he fly into Heathrow when he can fly to Prestwick.  This makes the case for this airports strategic development as an international airport for Scotland that would stop the need for traffic to 5 London airports including Gatwick and Heathrow from Scotland or almost.

This then makes it significant that a UK airport strategy is necessary looking at domestic and international flights in order to justify - even on environmental grounds - a third runway, when smaller airports need to be developed in preference to or first in time.  An airport strategy might mean you don't need a third runway at Gatwick or Heathrow at all, but you still need to develop airports across the whole of the UK.

In the Islands the cost of getting from the Island to Aberdeen, Inverness or Edinburgh Glasgow on top of a domestic flight probably needs to be looked at as well as in Cornwall, Devon, Brighton and even Norwich.  By developing smaller airports per head of the population you would be taking cars off the road as congestion around Gatwick (a route I know about) is horrendous when going to Brighton from London and return.

Maybe a survey of incoming and outgoing passengers from Luton, City, Standsted, Gatwick and Heathrow and the Chunnel needs to be done to find out where people are travelling from or going to in the UK - it might be an eye-opener to show two things (a) the congestion on roads and environmental impact and (b) that airport development needs to occur at smaller nearer the passengers travel destinations to actually take congestion off Gatwick and Heathrow.  You need to make the case why would you fly Gatwick or Heathrow or any of the other London serving airports? especially given my Berlin example above.

Its not all about the flight path noise and homes.

The question is Gatwick or Heathrow a necessary improvement to airport infrastructure or at all?

Lastly, holiday brochures could usefully be specific to the local airports.  For example some brochures fly Gatwick and Heathrow perhaps Manchester and maybe Glasgow but not Inverness or Aberdeen or Prestwick.  If I am starting my journey from Inverness then I am going to use the local or nearest airport rather than Gatwick or Heathrow - that Berlin example again.  Why are UK holiday brochures wasting paper telling me about flights in Gatwick and Heathrow when they should be telling me flights from Scotland if not Inverness.  Similarly people in Cornwall presumably have the same problem or they go Gatwick or Heathrow!

________________________________________________________________________________

Trains - I was opposed to HS2 as a transport scheme again because I think it is a UK inclusive issue - do we really need it.  I have spoken to a couple of MPs, MSPs and some green activists recently at a hustings earlier in the year and have changed my mind somewhat - yes it is a good idea.

But first I would like to see a transport policy that looks at our 18th, 19th and 20th century train infrastructure and superimpose on top of it a 21st century infrastructure.  This could mean tweaking a bit of track hear, linking another bit of track there, removing a link somewhere else first before doing HS2.  This would mean smaller projects taking 10, 20, 30, 45, 1 hour off journey times just by using 21st Century technology.

For example, a person suggested to Nicola Sturgeon at a hustings a year or so ago, that there is a need for a 22 mile piece of track from Fort William to Dalwhinnie which would connect the north west of Scotland to Inverness and to Glasgow or Edinburgh to London.  All that was needed was 22 miles of track - where in the grand scheme of things is that going to happen.  From Fort William they could do infrastructure to Ullapool to Bettyhill to Thurso and link back down to Inverness via Wick.  The chances of that ever happening is probably zilch.  But 22 miles of track is a possibility.  A lot of traffic would come off the road and tourism would receive a huge benefit.  There is definately a case to be made.  But I am wondering how many other rural areas just need a wee bit of track as a link from A to B to C and that could shave off 30 minutes of journey time or indeed 2 hours re Dalwhinnie to Fort William by road as an example.

So whilst I do consider HS2 is necessary - I would not necessarily start HS2 at London, but more northerly and cut journey times.

The reason why I was opposed to HS2 was because I could not see a reason why Scottish people would use it to go to Heathrow when they can fly.  I could not make the case for it, but Scottish money will presumably go into the project.  Further I thought taking lorries off the road as haulage and sending them by sea down the Ports would be a better option, but I now consider upgrading the train transport system would effectively do the same thing.  It was even put to me that dualling the Inverness Perth line would be a good idea, but a train can only be on one piece of track at anyone time - so it would be a good idea but not necessary.  Sending trains down the track at night would be a good idea and this probably happens already.

So whilst I  am happy to see HS2 go ahead, I would prefer the Government to do a proper transport all encompassing with bells and whistles train survey and transpose a 21st century map on our old infrastructure to see if a tweak here and there could not achieve the same result of 30 minutes lobbed off a train journey first.  I would also like to see all of the UK surveyed as a train infrastrure project and money allotted accordingly.  It should not all be about the south.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I am hoping they sorted out the issues with Hinchley Point and the need to do due diligence properly.

_________________________________________________________________________________

On Donald Trump and his golf course problems - have a round of golf with the local Mens Shed.  On going round the course, every time you see the Windmills think what about some trees or a statute or a tea or wee dram hut or pavillion/folly with a pot of environmental questions in it to discuss everything but the windmills as a pitstop.  Might make for an interesting round of golf and you might learn something, ie block out the view if you dont like it by supplanting another view rather than antagonise the locals,

_________________________________________________________________________________

To round off - Theresa May is doing really rather well at the moment - well done.

Chilcot

I saw the news late last night on the Chilcot Report. I have no doubt the report was a good report and have not read it yet. But I am still of the view that the Iraq War was a "decoy" war: the invasion having taken place in the English legal system using a Japanese concept modified by American Jews. Tony Blair ex-PM was notified of this in 2000, but also I was lobbying the Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine of Lairg prior to that time, and my knowledge was known by Dr Lindsay Farmer ex-Birbeck College, University of London as early as 1993 concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution. You have evidential documents elsewhere on my blog.

Tony Blair claims he can look people in the eye, he was not deceitful or misleading etc etc: I ask what about Malcolm Kendell Smith, the conscientious objector who went to prison. What about the millions of people who lobbied government informally and formally - I was "snowdrop" on the Channel 4 Chat Thread as well as later going under my own name. I feel completely ignored and lately I appear to be a political prisoner on a mental health ward when not actually being mentally ill - I am supposed to be deluded about the Woolf Reforms and a Mr Michael Ford and Professor Richard Susskind OBE. An issue of delusion is cured by "knowledge" not "clinical need". I am not deluded and never have been, have always disputed my diagnosis and refused to take medication willingly, always under protest. I have had my right to freedom of expression removed from time to time, I have had what appears to be gynocological treatment without my concent possibly using nano technology - which could fall within the realm of torture albeit I have benefited from the process. My right to life has been impacted as I have not had a personal family life other than through extended family and I am socially engineered into poverty whilst being highly talented and skilled: I cannot get a job but I do keep applying. I consider I am currently under surveillance and have been for the past year or so and I know who but cannot prove it: I have been hacked several times including intellectual espionage, I have had trespass, been poisoned via my toothbrush - yes the same MO (elsewhere on blog), my clothes have been dyed yellow and my shoes, slippers and wellingtons have been damaged. I cannot get a judge or lawyer to act on my issues and my current lawyer is doing her advice rather than my instructions - with I can't I can't I can't even "your not rational" when I am one of the highest minds in the country in law at this time. My previous lawyer stitched me up doing her advice rather than my instructions and had to come off the record when presented with a 30 point email on issues to which she was genuinely upset and shocked. I have notified my MP and MSP's that SLAB lawyers are refusing to take on client work in the Inverness area concerning me. My MP is also having to deal with a welfare benefits issue which is potentially fraudulent via the DWP not me and if I am correct then my medical records are falsified too. The hole that is being dug, and they are still digging, is getting deeper. So if you don't mind, and I don't mind, I would appreciate it if you would read my blog and the document attachments - there is little point in stealing from me because by now they should have appreciated that I put a spot light on the issues - as they say ... let there be light.

To my horror a BBC Journalist/Correspondent on BBC News 24 "Papers" was unhappy about some material in the public domain and said so the other night. I don't know what he was referring to substantively BUT in the current climate of Alternative Dispute Resolution / Informal Dispute Settlement / informal justice / mediation and compromise agreements - journalists should be grateful for any material that falls into the public domain - carpe diem. ADR/IDS/IJ/Mediation and compromise agreements AUTOMATICALLY identify a cover up.

China appears to me to put out the press that they want to be known and that is it: we are supposed to have freedom of the press - yet under Blair we had spin, spin, spin. So the press are just as responsible and accountable for Iraq and if I am correct the "decoy" issue - Woolf Reforms - where was the press intervention on my research issues - I did write four articles for Frances Gibb at the Times, but went unpublished. The Times have been happy to publish a Susskind column, happy to publish Professor Hazel Genn who "concocted" the Woolf Reforms at the University College, London - whilst I was next door at Birbeck College doing my dissertation for Professor Nicola Lacey and Dr Lindsay Farmer. The press gave Woolf maximum coverage, Derry Irvine of Lairg and also some to Lord Mackay of Clashfern - but why not Miss Lesley Diane McDade. Kamlesh Bahl and Jane Betts even managed to get a news blackout. The only person that I recall being published anti-Woolf was David Pannick QC, now Lord Pannick and he was anti-skeleton arguments and he was right - check out my skeleton arguments and then look at the judgments! My three court cases and my research material have been largely covered up - Woolf was processed without any press checks of any significance - the judiciary and legal profession were intellectually "knocked over" as a pillar, then the press pillar - spin; then the Defence pillar - Iraq; then the banking pillar and then mass youth unemployment ... where do you think we were headed logically, intellectually or just plain guessing.

Standards have lowered and are lowering still - I can't even get a lawyer to do simple human rights or get a Scottish Legal Aid Board solicitor to practise in my area concerning my issues - where did they get the right not to take on a client for any area of SLAB work - the only reason you should be able to turn a SLAB client away is "conflict of interest". When you do have a SLAB lawyer - who claims to be "out of jurisdiction" for certain SLAB work - "use local SLAB solicitor" she said and the service is so poor she wont do your instruction but forces you to do her "advice" which you are not obliged to take - it better work.

So back to Chilcot - his report started at 2001 and specifically excluded my material which was 2000. That does not mean to say he did not have my material - he did - and that also does not follow that Blair is off the hook. Just saying - as the War in Iraq is deemed "unjust". It naturally follows "misconduct in public office" is an offence that is applicable. There is an "enemy within" - Jewish plot and it sourced from America using a Japanese concept which was modified. If you compromise your rights, then soon you will have few or none. I have asked for Parliamentary Sovereignty - a very large cheque would be nice too.

Just saying further Hilary Clinton has been in office for 20 years or more, ie she has never been out of office. I have also been oppressed, suppressed and repressed for 20 plus years - not quite. Just so that you can see I am impartial on American politics - maybe, sort of, getting there ...   Donald Trump is doing "distraction" politics - he says look at the Hispianics and you do - look at that ugly woman  and you look; don't let the Muslims in - spotlight all Muslims.  He has done more for minorities than anyone.  However, I perceive Bill Clinton and Monica - the scandal - did just as much distraction politics as anything - and ADR got in globally - like you all noticed.   So what has Donald really been getting up to ...  well he did highlight Prestwick Airport over Heathrow Airport for the Scots - you know it makes sense so give him credit where its due - here's a credit - when you next manage to get a round of golf with "The Donald" in Scotland - stop to spot the windmills, and, everytime you see them say what about this tree species or that statue or that we hut for a dram and if you put a pot of environmental questions beside the wee dram, you might learn something, you didn't know - do golfers only talk about golf! Problem solved.   Let there be light.

On Brexit - I voted "out", but fully appreciate the Scottish vote was to stay in.  I am now supporting Leadsom as I do not consider May has the qualities necessary to be a prime minister as she does not come across as a people person, especially concerning migrants.  Also I don't consider she is correct about the nuclear option - this is twentieth century thinking.  We are in the 21st Century and we need to think and act like it - there is another option available - international cyber centre at Faslane with a court dealing with international matters such as hacking and intellectual espionage, banking, data protection, one-stop software legal jurisdiction, robotics, artificial intelligence, gaming to name a few.  In the next ten years cyber is going to take off and that is where we as a country need to be - at the forefront.  Nuclear is a burden, we need "cyber" to be processed as a "benefit".  Theresa May is not even in the mindset for the 20th Century let alone the 21st.  Leadsom voted out, so the race should be between Gove and Leadsom now: if you think otherwise then you need to pull your socks up and wise up.

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder what Malcolm Kendell Smith has to say ... presumably he needs an apology ...