Police chief states Lockerbie evidence fabricated by CIA 28 Aug 2005
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
The retired officer - of assistant chief constable rank or higher - has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.
The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, gave the statement to lawyers representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, currently serving a life sentence in Greenock Prison.
The evidence will form a crucial part of Megrahi's attempt to have a retrial ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The claims pose a potentially devastating threat to the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.
The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses "wrote the script" to incriminate Libya.
Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.
But Esson, who retired in 1994, questioned the officer's motives. He said: "Any police officer who believed they had knowledge of any element of fabrication in any criminal case would have a duty to act on that. Failure to do so would call into question their integrity, and I can't help but question their motive for raising the matter now."
Other important questions remain unanswered, such as how the officer learned of the alleged conspiracy and whether he was directly involved in the inquiry. But sources close to Megrahi's legal team believe they may have finally discovered the evidence that could demolish the case against him.
An insider told Scotland on Sunday that the retired officer approached them after Megrahi's appeal - before a bench of five Scottish judges - was dismissed in 2002.
The insider said: "He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents.
"Asked why he had not come forward before, he admitted he'd been wary of breaking ranks, afraid of being vilified.
"He also said that at the time he became aware of the matter, no one really believed there would ever be a trial. When it did come about, he believed both accused would be acquitted. When Megrahi was convicted, he told himself he'd be cleared at appeal."
The source added: "When that also failed, he explained he felt he had to come forward.
"He has confirmed that parts of the case were fabricated and that evidence was planted. At first he requested anonymity, but has backed down and will be identified if and when the case returns to the appeal court."
The vital evidence that linked the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Megrahi was a tiny fragment of circuit board which investigators found in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity.
The fragment was later identified by the FBI's Thomas Thurman as being part of a sophisticated timer device used to detonate explosives, and manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo, which supplied it only to Libya and the East German Stasi.
At one time, Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was such a regular visitor to Mebo that he had his own office in the firm's headquarters.
The fragment of circuit board therefore enabled Libya - and Megrahi - to be placed at the heart of the investigation. However, Thurman was later unmasked as a fraud who had given false evidence in American murder trials, and it emerged that he had little in the way of scientific qualifications.
Then, in 2003, a retired CIA officer gave a statement to Megrahi's lawyers in which he alleged evidence had been planted.
The decision of a former Scottish police chief to back this claim could add enormous weight to what has previously been dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory. It has long been rumoured the fragment was planted to implicate Libya for political reasons.
The first suspects in the case were the Syrian-led Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), a terror group backed by Iranian cash. But the first Gulf War altered diplomatic relations with Middle East nations, and Libya became the pariah state.
Following the trial, legal observers from around the world, including senior United Nations officials, expressed disquiet about the verdict and the conduct of the proceedings at Camp Zeist, Holland. Those doubts were first fuelled when internal documents emerged from the offices of the US Defence Intelligence Agency. Dated 1994, more than two years after the Libyans were identified to the world as the bombers, they still described the PFLP-GC as the Lockerbie bombers.
A source close to Megrahi's defence said: "Britain and the US were telling the world it was Libya, but in their private communications they acknowledged that they knew it was the PFLP-GC.
"The case is starting to unravel largely because when they wrote the script, they never expected to have to act it out. Nobody expected agreement for a trial to be reached, but it was, and in preparing a manufactured case, mistakes were made."
Dr Jim Swire, who has publicly expressed his belief in Megrahi's innocence, said it was quite right that all relevant information now be put to the SCCRC.
Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity, said last night: "I am aware that there have been doubts about how some of the evidence in the case came to be presented in court.
"It is in all our interests that areas of doubt are thoroughly examined."
A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "As this case is currently being examined by the SCCRC, it would be inappropriate to comment."
No one from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was available to comment.
Prison population at record level 27 Aug 2005
ALL OF SCOTLANDS CRIME IS PREVENTABLE
RICH picking for lawyers and judges who NEVER want to see a crime free Scotland.Crime pays in the eyes of the crooked lawyers and judges running Scotland.
It also makes judges LOOK GOOD when they sentence a so called major criminal,in their eyes anyway, even though they are in fact the SCUM of the earth who steal billions from unsuspecting victims in our civil courts .
We have a society were the POLICE wont act to prevent crime and allow crimes to soar by their own failures, then they blame anything from alcohol to drugs for the rise in the prison population.When are the mass media going to tell the truth that Scotlands crime ,ALL OF IT, is preventable if it is dealt with at source .The evil masonic agenda encourages the mafia running Scotland to gain substantially from criminal acts ,one look at the legal aid bill is enough to know they earn substantially from the ned culture encouraged by those who are supposed to prevent these acts taking place in the first place.
Prison population at record level
More adults are being imprisoned for violent crimes
The number of prisoners in Scottish jails has risen to its highest level, according to official figures. The Scottish Executive statistics showed the average daily population rose by 2% over the past year, with almost 7,000 people behind bars.
The biggest rise was in the number of women in prison, which was up 6%.
About 5% more adults were serving longer periods for violent crimes but 2% fewer young offenders were receiving custodial sentences.
The Scottish Prison Service publication showed the change in average daily population figures between 2003/04 and 2004/05.
The study found that Scotland jailed more people per head than Canada, Germany, France and several other European countries.
It revealed more than four in 10 of Scotland's inmates had committed violent crimes and that the number of long-term adult prisoners was on the increase.
Defaults on fines
The number of short-term adult prisoners, those sentenced to less than four years (excluding fine defaulters), increased by 4%.
The number of long-term adult prisoners, those sentenced to four years or more (including life sentences and recalls), increased by 5% to 2,766.
But the number of young offenders and fine defaulters being jailed fell slightly over the year.
We need to stop this overuse of prisons
The number of people dealt with for defaulting on fine payments fell by 11% from 6,888 to 6,098.
This could reflect Scottish Executive policies to reduce custodial sentences for these groups.
The study also found that the average daily remand population had decreased by 2% over the year.
The Scottish Tories said there had been an "alarming" 15% rise in the number of prisoners who had breached terms of the automatic early release scheme.
Home affairs spokeswoman Annabel Goldie said: "The Scottish Conservatives have long argued that this system should be scrapped and is quite literally creating needless victims.
"Every crime committed by someone on automatic early release is a crime that should never have happened."
Sue Matheson, from community safety organisation Sacro Scotland, said it was time to look at alternatives.
She said: "The executive are focusing very strongly on a strategy to reduce reoffending.
"To do that effectively we need to stop this overuse of prisons.
"We know that prison makes reoffending more likely and what we need is a presumption against imprisonment."
THE GOLDDIGGERS CHARTER 27 Aug 2005
Why should men lose their most valuable possession their home when a woman wants to walk away from marriage and steal his children to justify her remaining in the family home?
Wives winning the battle of the exes
IVANA Trump once said of divorce: Don't get even, get everything - now British women are taking her advice.
Women are more likely to demand a greater share of household possessions following a divorce than men are, according to a new survey.
While in the 1970s, Dolly Parton could not even bring herself to say the word "D.I.V.O.R.C.E.", today's women are positively relishing the battle over who gets what, and are even demanding items they apparently do not want, such as the television and DVD collections, to spite their ex-husbands.
Out of a list of 24 items, including the family home, photographs and pets, men wanted their former partners to keep 19 of the objects listed.
Women, meanwhile, only wanted their former husband to have eight items on the list, even though this meant they themselves took objects in which they admitted they had little interest. The survey of 3,515 men and women conducted by Yorkshire Building Society revealed crucial differences between the sexes in their attitude to household objects.
Men were keen for their wife or ex-partner to keep items such as the bed, television, wedding album, lawn mower, garden accessories, house plants, coffee machine, Monopoly board and the family pet.
The only items which men were keen to hold onto were the house, with 32 per cent wanting it compared with 30 per cent who wanted their ex to have it, along with the car, the laptop, digital camera and CD and DVD collections.
Women, however, were much keener to hold onto the family home, with 50 per cent wanting that as part of the division of property, although they were more likely to want the dog or cat. In the survey, 64 per cent of women wanted to hold onto any family pets. Other items that ranked high on women's list of things to keep were the car and house plants.
Curiously, while women did not particularly want the television, CD and DVD collection, wedding photos, Christmas decorations, toaster, Monopoly board and pots and pans, they were determined that their ex-husband would not profit from possession of them either.
The women were, however, happy for their husbands to keep the bed, sofa, lawn mower, coffee machine, laptop, digital camera, PlayStation and any wine and drinks they had in the house. Unsurprisingly, given their strong feelings when it comes to the division of possessions, women ended up keeping more items than men.
The survey found that in divorces, about 46 per cent of women kept the house, compared with just 29 per cent of men, with other couples selling the property. When it comes to the television, 56 per cent of women kept this item, while just 39 per cent of men got to retain it. There was no figure on who kept the remote control.
Women were also more likely to keep family pets, wedding photographs, the bed and lawn mower.
The only items that men were more likely to get were the car, CD and DVD collections, the laptop, digital camera and any available alcohol.
Denise Knowles, a counsellor at Relate, is aware of the pain of divorce, but also that men and women view objects in a different manner: "These findings reflect the hugely different emotional attachment that divorcing men and women feel towards their shared possessions.
"Men are far keener to put their past behind them and want to move on, which is why they are happy to let their ex keep almost all of their shared possessions - apart from those items that provide entertainment such as the car, digital camera and music system.
"Women, by contrast, have a far greater emotional attachment to their home and its contents, seeing these things as the fabric of their lives and things that should be preserved, both for themselves and any children, as symbols of their family history and life."
When the husband of Fiona Duff, the director of Duff Publicity in Edinburgh, left her for a younger woman, she took revenge by detailing their divorce in the pages of a national newspaper.
Yesterday Ms Duff, who has since remarried, said there were only a few items she fought for, but said she has had friends who deliberately demanded items they did not want in order to hurt their former husband.
She said: "One friend demanded a wardrobe and agreed with her husband's suggestion that they chop it in half.
"Others have fought for items, then sold them off or given them away. They want their husband to know that they are taking something precious and just throwing it away."
Split straight down the middle
WHAT MEN WANT THEIR EX TO HAVE:
Bed, TV, Wedding album, Antiques, Lawnmower, Art/paintings, Sofa, PlayStation, Christmas decorations, Garden accessories
WHAT MEN WANT TO KEEP:
House, CD/DVD/record collection, Laptop, Digital camera, Car
WHAT WOMEN WANT TO KEEP:
House, House plants, Dog/cat
WHAT WOMEN DON'T WANT THEIR EX TO HAVE:
TV, CD/DVD/record collection, Wedding album, Antiques, Art/paintings, Christmas decorations, Toaster, Monopoly board, Consumable contents of kitchen, Pots, pans and crockery
WHAT WOMEN WANT THEIR EX TO HAVE:
Laptop, Lawnmower, Sofa, PlayStation, Coffee machine, Digital camera, Wine collection, Other drinks collection
Grandmother's guilty plea over baby bodies 27 Aug 2005
WHERE IS WOMENS AID NOW?
A GRANDMOTHER has pleaded guilty to concealing the birth of three of her own children, following the discovery of babies' remains in two attics earlier this year.
Ann Mahoney, 65, of Merthyr, South Wales, pleaded guilty to three counts of endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child, during a brief appearance at the town's crown court.
Mahoney, a former nurse, will be sentenced on 23 September, following the preparation of medical and psychiatric reports.
The first offence occurred between January 1959 and March this year, and the second two took place between January 1959 and May this year, the court was told.
Jennet Treharne, for the defence, told the court: "The basis of plea is that she was the mother of all three children, that each child was stillborn."
Mahoney was released on bail and must live at a bail hostel. She is banned from entering Wales, unless she is attending court.
She was arrested and charged following the discovery of a baby's body in the attic of one of her former homes in Penyfan View in March.
Following the discovery of two more bodies at a second address, she was charged this month with two further counts of concealing a birth.
California justices define parenthood 26 Aug 2005
State’s high court rules partners who conceive by scientific means are both legal parents of child
The California Supreme Court, ruling on three cases, said Monday that gay and lesbian couples who conceive a child through assisted scientific means or surrogacy are jointly the parents of the child and equally responsible for the cost and responsibilities of upbringing that subsequently arise.
The unprecedented ruling pushed one segment of gay rights law farther, faster than any previous court, and recognized the rights of gay parents on an equal basis with opposite-sex parents.
It also imposed responsibilities, saying gay and lesbian couples must jointly provide for the child if they break up. The state’s custody and child support laws that hold absent parents accountable also apply to estranged gay and lesbian couples who used reproductive science to conceive, the justices ruled.
The decision comes a month after the justices upheld a California domestic partner law that grants gays and lesbians who register with the state most of the same rights as married couples.
“The court is now protecting the children of same-sex parents in gay families in the same way children are protected with heterosexual couples in heterosexual families,” said Jill Hersh, who argued the case of a Marin County woman granted the right to be the second mother of twins after the birth mother moved out of state.
Groups opposed to extending marriage to same-sex couples criticized the justices’ decision.
“Today’s ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,” said attorney Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel, a lawyers’ group that has litigated a variety of cases of concern to cultural conservatives. “That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.”
The court’s ruling came in three consolidated cases involving lesbian parents.
In the Marin County case, the court gave parental rights to Hersh’s client, who had donated her eggs to her lesbian lover. The partner then had twins in 1996. After the couple split up in 2002, the partner identified as E.G. in court papers, denied her former partner, identified as K.M., any access to the children. E.G. maintained that she was the child’s only parent.
A lower court agreed, and said the egg donor, K.M., was not a legal parent because she did not give birth.
Lower courts and dissenting justices noted that K.M. voluntarily signed a document declaring her intention not to become a parent of any resulting children.
But Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the majority, said a woman who supplies eggs to impregnate her lesbian partner, with the understanding the child will be raised in their home, cannot evade her responsibility to the child.
In the second case, an El Dorado County woman, identified in court as Elisa B., was ordered to pay child support for her former lesbian partner’s biological children. Emily B. and Elisa B. had children together using donor insemination with an anonymous donor. Emily gave birth to twins in 1998. One has Down Syndrome. After the children were born, the couple decided that Emily would stay home to care for the children and Elisa would be the family’s breadwinner.
When the two split up 18 months later, Elisa eventually cut off all contact and support, prompting Emily to apply for welfare from the state. Emily’s application for welfare triggered a child support action against Elisa.
The court’s ruling strongly affirmed the trial court’s decision that Elisa is a legal parent who cannot walk away from her obligations to support the two children.
In the third case, a woman from Los Angeles was told she could not legally terminate the parental rights of her former lesbian lover, years after obtaining a court order stipulating both were parents. The couple ended their relationship two years after getting the order, and the birth parent filed an action to vacate the judgment and to have the court declare her as the child’s only parent. The justices held that both women are the child’s legal parents.
The last two cases were decided unanimously.
Emily B., the El Dorado County woman whose former lover, Elisa B., must now pay to support the children, said she might be able to get off of welfare now.
“I’m absolutely overjoyed today,” she said.
The court followed its 2002 decision in which it said men who establish themselves as parental figures may become legal fathers even if they did not help conceive the child.
“These legal principles apply with equal force in this case,” Kennard wrote in a concurring opinion in the Marin County case.
In a sign of the broad acceptance same-sex parents have in California, the state attorney general’s office supported the women who had asked the justices for an updated interpretation of the state’s parental rights laws. Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side.
“Monday’s decisions build on a solid foundation of California statutory and common law intended to protect California’s children, regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which worked on two of the cases.
But Pizer, who serves in Lambda Legal’s western regional office, added that many same-sex couples are not registered under the state’s domestic partnership plan, or have children born before the plan became effective. She called on the Assembly to broaden the California Family Code to protect the children of these parents.
Pizer also proposed a constitutional amendment, to be voted on next year if sponsors obtain the necessary signatures on petitions, that would strip the domestic partner law from the California code. Gay parents and children would have no protections in that event, Pizer said.
The leader of a Washington-based group that advocates for the interests of gay and lesbian parents said the California decision could affect cases in other states.
“These groundbreaking decisions wil undoubltedly have influence as courts in other states grapple with these issues,” Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, said in a written statement.
The Associated Press in San Francisco and Los Angeles contributed information used in this story.
Calif. court backs custody rights for gay couples 26 Aug 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Same-sex couples who raise children are lawful parents and must provide for them if they break up, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday. The precedent-setting decision puts former gay and lesbian couples on equal ground with unmarried heterosexual couples who break up and marks the latest decision by the court recognizing rights of same-sex couples.
The justices, ruling in three cases, said for the first time that custody and child support laws that hold absent fathers accountable and protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy also apply to estranged gay couples who used reproductive science to conceive. In doing so, one woman was granted the right to be the second mother of twins after the birth mother moved out of state.
The court also ruled that a lesbian woman cannot avoid paying child support for her former partner’s biological children, and that another woman could not go to court to terminate the parental rights of her former lover, years after obtaining a court order stipulating they were both parents. Courtney Joslin, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said, “This is the first time any state supreme court in the country has made this ruling.”
MI6 Agents Caught Trying To Blow Up Chicago Subway 26 Aug 2005
Tony Blair's MI6 Agents Caught Trying To Blow Up Chicago Subway
French Intelligence and The U.S. Marshall Service Monday night July 18, 2005 caught eight of Tony Blair's British MI-6 Agents trying to bomb the Chicago Subway system. A shoot out killed 4 British Agents. Four were captured in the act of Terrorism and arrested. The British Agents part of Bush & Blair's Al Quaida network were charged in Federal Court today with explosives. The British MI-6 Terrorist Cell Operated out of Laidlaw Corp in Chicago.
Chicago US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald served Tony Blair a subpoena in the CIA Valerie Plame case on July 13, 2005 to answer questions regarding his role in the leaks connected to George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Condi Rice, Andrew Card, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. Tony Blair has not yet responded to his subpoena. George W. Bush has not responded to his subpoena either. Tony Blair had supplied George W. Bush with falsified British Intelligence stating that Iraq leader Saddum Hussein had obtained "Yellow Cake" Nuclear materials from Niger. This was the reason Bush gave to start the war in Iraq. This has all now been proven to be lies by Bush and Blair.
CIA Valerie Plame's husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson submitted his report prior to the Bush-Blair lies that Niger never sold yellow cake to Iraq. Wilson came forth stating Bush lied in his State of the Union address to the nation. Valerie Plame's CIA Network was further investigating Bush & Cheney's orchestrated attack on America on 9-11-2001. New York Police Bernard Kerik who ran a FEMA operation out of pier 29 known as Code Angel also known as Tripod II planted the bombs on the 7 World Trade Center Building that were demolished on 9-11-2001. This operation was a US Justice Department operation involving Gary Best of Defense Intelligence Agency a George H. W. Bush Shadow Government Crony who is currently in Prison in the French Guinea for espionage against the French Government. Best has admitted to French Authorities of his 9-11 involvements. As I am writing this press release two more British MI-6 agents were arrested a few minutes ago details are forthcoming.
Also today British Stooge MI-6 Agent Linda Fanton Pike of Iowa tied to Hillary Rodenhurst Clinton, today made death threats against a Investigative Journalist on behalf of Department of Defense agency operatives under Criminal Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Journalist was told to stay away from Tom Heneghan & Stew Webb.
Federal Whistleblower Mary Schneider www.maryschneider.us gets bogus mocking email from a 9-11 connected P-Tech software company, (Mitre) that was used to over ride the Pentagon computers on 9-11-2001.
Federal Whistleblower Tom Heneghan's tires were stolen off his car today in broad daylight, by Bush Goons.
Bush & Blair obviously are trying to cause a Terrorist attack in America to derail the Federal Grand Jury Investigations of their roles of the Plame leaks which is violations of National Security Laws and their War Crimes against Sovereign Nation Iraq with intentional falsified reports. Their further Treason Attacks on America involve Rouge CIA, DIA, British MI-6, Russian and Mossad agents who were also involved in the 9-11-2001 World Trade Center Attack and Pentagon attacks.
More to come, stay tuned.
Tom Heneghan & Stew Webb
CSA Cashes in on Blunders 26 Aug 2005
It rakes in £6.8m interest by making late payments
The Child Support Agency made £6.8million in interest from hanging on to
cash destined for single mums.
It kept £6.2million of that and passed on £670,000 - just 10 per cent - to
families in need since Labour came to power in 1997.
Lone parents are meant to be paid within 10 days of the CSA getting the
money from their absent former partner.
But they are kept waiting while their ex-partner's money sits in the CSA's
special bank account - the Client Funds Account.
Delays were so bad last year that £14million built up in the account over
Parent Mark Pacey, 48, said: "It is an absolute disgrace but it doesn't
really surprise me.
"The only thing to do with the CSA is wind it up."
Danny Alexander MP, Lib Dem Work and Pensions spokesman, said: "These
figures seem extraordinarily high.
"It takes forever for cases to get a calculation, many decisions are never
enforced and now it seems that even when payments are made, significant
amounts are not distributed as quickly as they might be.
"If the point of the CSA is to be so inefficient it earns millions of
pounds in interest for the Government then it is doing well. If its role is
to serve the interests of children in broken families, then it is clearly
The CSA's website says interest from delayed payments will be handed over
to parents in "specific circumstances" but does not reveal what they are.
Since 1997, on average, only 10 per cent of yearly interest is given back
That shot up to 40 per cent in 2004 to 2005 when carers got back £380,000
of interest with £570,000 going into the Government's pocket. The CSA only
gave back two per cent of interest in 2003 and 2004 - £10,000 - and kept
Mark and partner Lisa Pacey, of Caterham, Surrey, have both suffered in the
Lisa, 31, had hardly received any payments for her sons aged 10 and 14
because the father of the oldest boy wanted a DNA test before he would
Mark, 48, had paid in full for his former partner's nine-year-old daughter.
But he was mortified when the CSA docked his wages without telling him -
embarrassing him in front of his new boss.
The couple, who have one-year-old twins, are furious that the CSA is also
Mark said: "The CSA is in such a mess I don't think it can ever recover.
It's just a catalogue of errors."
Lisa said: "It seems they haven't been passing on the payments they receive
from the responsible fathers like Mark in time and are actually making
money out of their own incompetence."
Education minister Lord Hunt said: "The Child Support Agency collects more
than £600million each year on behalf of children.
"The amount of interest accrued annually reflects the very large amounts of
maintenance collected each year both on behalf of the Secretary of State
and for parents with care."
Police control CCTV images of their illegal acts 26 Aug 2005
One good reason why CCTV systems should be removed from the control of the POLICE.When THEY commit criminal acts such as shooting an innocent person THEY have the power to block or lose vital CCTV footage.
Also why does CCTV systems stop at the the doors of our courts in the UK? If we require protection from criminals outside court with CCTV ,so we are told, why in the place that deals with criminals everyday do we not have CCTV ?Also why do police stations not have all areas of the inside of a police station covered by CCTV? Is this so the police can deal in whatever way they wish with people they lift without CCTV to capture their treatment or mistreatment ?
IPCC confident investigators have all CCTV images
CCTV footage recovered from the scene of the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has proved to be "crucial" to the inquiry into his death, the head of the police watchdog revealed last night.
Nick Hardwick, the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), said he was confident his team now had all the relevant images from Stockwell Tube Station and that there was "no reason" to believe any had been deliberately withheld.
However he said last night that the delay between the shooting and the IPCC taking on the investigation had been a "cause for concern" that his organisation would have to address.
Speaking after a meeting with a delegation of senior Brazilian officials, Mr Hardwick said he was not aware of any "missing" information about the incident on 22 July.
He confirmed that the issue of the CCTV was something that the Brazilian officials had asked about.
"I am confident that we have all the CCTV footage but as I have said on many occasions, we are not going to believe anything until we have independently verified it," he said.
"Some of the CCTV footage we have had has been crucial to the investigation. I have seen it and it is very helpful.
"I have no reason to believe that anything has been withheld."
However Mr Hardwick declined to definitively clarify whether there was any CCTV film from the platform at Stockwell Station which would show Mr de Menezes's last moments.
It has been variously reported that the platform cameras were either not working or that the tapes had been removed - claims denied by transport authorities.
Asked whether the footage did exist, Mr Hardwick said: "I am not going to go through a detailed list of all the evidence we have got or not got. At the moment we are still establishing some of that."
He said the meeting with the Brazilians had been "constructive" and that his team had been able to give them a "full account" of the progress of the IPCC investigation.
Mr Hardwick said he had told the delegation that the first people to see much of the material they had obtained about the shooting would be Mr de Menezes's family.
"We will deal with the family in the way we would deal with any bereaved family," he said. "We will sit down with them and talk about what they want, about how best we can liaise with them.
"There will be some material that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security and because we do not want to prejudice any future action."
Mr Hardwick said the IPCC investigation was a "search for the truth", and admitted that the delay between the shooting and the handover of the inquiry to his organisation had been an issue of concern.
"The delay will be something that we will address in due course," he said.
He added: "I have an excellent team and I am very confident that we will find out the truth. I believe I have all the information that I need."
However he emphasised that his team would do nothing to jeopardise the continuing police investigation into last month's terror attacks.
"I am a Londoner and I travel on the Tube every day," he said. I will do nothing that gets in the way of the anti-terrorist action."
Concern about the way Britain is being governed 26 Aug 2005
CONGRATULATIONS to Iain Macwhirter for his outstanding article, Iraq recipe for civil war (August 24). His piece reflects exactly what most intelligent people are thinking about the whole sorry mess, and should be required reading for those such as Messrs Neill and Gallagher who think your regular correspondents on this subject are just a bunch of whingers who don't like Tony Blair.
On the letters page opposite there are renewed calls for public inquiries, into the shambles of the police operation resulting in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and into the still unexplained deaths at Deepcut barracks 10 years ago. I can guarantee that our political masters will not allow a public inquiry into either of these human tragedies. In any case, if the experience of the recent Hutton and Butler inquiries is anything to go by, such inquiries are no longer a way of getting at the truth, but part of the establishment system for concealing it.
Those who still care are now very concerned about the way Britain (no longer "Great") is being governed, but are powerless to do anything about it. Despite being supposedly a democracy, there seems to be no way of holding those in authority to account. Even when a general election comes round, tribal party loyalties take over from common sense, and liars and war criminals are re-elected to do as they wish for another four years.
Meantime, the brain-dead majority are completely unaware of what is happening and couldn't care less. They are more interested in mind-numbing TV shows like Big Brother, the private lives of so-called celebrities, or the performance of overpaid foreign imports on our sports fields.
So thank goodness for journalists such as Iain Macwhirter who have the courage and ability to tell it like it is. And well done The Herald letters page, for being a true reflection of what so many of your readers are thinking. What a pity that most of our politicians seem to be illiterate.
Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow
Family courts have no interest in family 26 Aug 2005
Billy Miller asked to write this guest editorial for us. We thought his words were worth consideration. Editor.
The statement of a family court judge to me that I would not be permitted to say a word about my objection to a divorce set off soul-deep emotions and activated a relentless, personal campaign to right a legal wrong. "Your wife wants a divorce and she will have one," is what the judge said, as I expressed my objections to this divorce before court convened. Suddenly, that "justice for all" that we have heard about, talked about, and recited in the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag, was nowhere to be found.
This is America, I was half the marriage, and there was absolutely nothing that I could do to stop the destruction of our marriage, family, and home, by the divorce machine. It took two of us to"agree" to marry and the logical conclusion is that the two of us would need to agree to terminate the marriage vows.
Our laws call for judgment in any case to be reserved until after all the facts are known, but this was definitely a predetermined outcome. There are supposed to be testimonies and rebuttals, but none of this was going to be done. I quickly learned that courts have only one solution for troubled marriages: unilateral divorce. This means that a stranger, motivated by money, makes decisions for both spouses that the marriage is over.
Every American citizen has a right to their day in court. The 5th and 14th Amendments to our United States Constitution guarantee due process: 1) hearing what you did wrong, with proof; 2) offering a defense: 3) hearing a judge's decision based on facts presented in the courtroom, and 4) appealing that decision if desired. Our Louisiana State Constitution, in Article 1, Section 22, says, "Access to Courts - All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him in his person, property, reputation, or other rights." All of these actions are part of the court procedures in every case, except divorce!
Children who, up till now, have been able to see their Dad every day, are told that they can see him under a schedule set by the Family Court. Mom and the children are going to need money for housing and the other usual living expenses, and Dad gets to pay these. The amounts of these items are set by the Family Court. The community properties must be divided, and the schedule for doing this is supervised and finalized by the Family Court. When changes and problems in these areas arise in coming days, it is understood that all of them will be handled by the Family Court. If you don't see it already, the Family Court literally takes control of your family, your time, your budget, your actions toward each other in your family.
Just who is the "Family Court?" They are a group of very tight-knit judges and attorneys who have no real interest in the well-being of your family. Their motivation is money. Attorneys get huge fees to keep the animosity stirred up, requiring filing after filing with the court. Naturally, each time any papers are filed the court gets their cut. Face it, divorce is an industry where the court system and everyone involved profits from the destruction of your family. Is this really what you want? Wouldn't it be better to find solutions to the marriage problems and keep the marriage and family together?
We need to get our state laws changed so that they agree with our Constitution. We need a mandatory "cooling off" period before any court action is taken. Spouses should be required to communicate with each other in a non-threatening environment as to encourage a healing of the marriage.
If there is to be a divorce, attorneys and the courts should not be able to profit from the destruction of the bedrock of our society, the family unit.
Write us at: www.northsidejournal.com
PSYCHIATRY = FRAUD 26 Aug 2005
This site is part of the 'Ears Campaign' for debate towards replacing the dominant but failed Biomedical Model of mental illness with the proven, economical, humane Social Model
Our position is supported by the Royal Colleges of Psychiatry, General Practitioners and Nursing, as well as the General Medical Council and many others
The practice of psychiatry is unprofessional; unethical. It causes great socio-economic loss and denies the basic Human Rights of some 280,000 Scots (2M. British people)
Based on prejudice and stigma with no shred of reliable evidence for diagnosis or treatment; it is pseudo-science
Through its high salaried psychiatrist agents it serves the international pharmaceutical industry (world second most profitable after arms - which also feeds on human misery)
We call on professionals worthy of the name in all disciplines to help expose and resist this shameful treatment of vulnerable men, women and children; and waste of human resources amounting to some £4bill/a. in Scotland (£20bill/a. in Britain)
Dedicated to the memory of Lorraine Barr, so very many other dead victims, and the 'Ears 140'
Father's Rights Survival Guide 25 Aug 2005
This is a document I have prepared for the benefit of separating and
divorcing fathers. Please feel free to copy it and pass it around. If you
would like to receive a Microsoft Word version of this document, please
contact me at Allan O'Marra email@example.com.
The Father's Rights Survival Guide
By Allan O'Marra, March 2001
The following is a comprehensive list of recommendations for men who are
facing marital separation and divorce where children are involved. These
recommendations are not legal advice. They are "street smart" suggestions
gleaned from personal experiences and the experiences of other men who have
worked their way through the minefield that is family law.
Although the statutes stress that decisions taken in family law litigation
should be, first and foremost, in "the best interests of the children", the
fact is that almost all rulings are made in favour of the mother, as
"primary caregiver" - ostensibly "on behalf of" the children. As a father,
you, supposedly, have rights under the law, but, quite realistically, have
few rights at all. 85% of custody decisions go to the mother (mothers have
custody in the vast majority of cases); mothers rarely pay child or spousal
support fathers are routinely forced into personal bankruptcy or go
underground because they cannot pay onerous support orders; mother's
routinely withhold children from court-ordered 'access" with their fathers
as court orders for access are virtually unenforceable; family equity is
split right down the middle, even though a mother may have only provided
barely adequate child care and indifferent housekeeping as her
contribution. So you must take steps to preempt and mitigate, where
possible, a situation wherein you are at the mercy of cut-throat lawyers,
biased judges and a very flawed system.
Although the tone of this article may seem pessimistic, I propose that it
is, in fact, realistic. The plight of fathers in family law disputes is
grave. However, I am optimistic because of the tremendous devotion that so
many fathers display for their offspring in facing overwhelming emotional
and financial challenges in the simple desire to play a meaningful and
critical role in their children's lives. And I sense a rising tide of
awareness and anger in the general public, at large, at the inequalities
and abuses of their rights that fathers have been suffering for far too
long. It's time that innovative solutions like mandatory shared parenting
be written into the statutes to give fathers a chance at participating in a
reasonable fashion in their children's lives.
Once again, it must be stressed that the following is not legal advice. Ask
your lawyer / attorney for a definitive opinion on any and all of the
recommendations presented here. This document is prepared specifically
relative to Ontario, Canada family law, but most principles should work
relative to other North American jurisdictions.
The recommendations begin with the supposition that you are still in the
matrimonial home, that your marriage is beyond saving and that mediation is
not an option. If you have already separated, pick up the suggestions at
the appropriate point.
1. Do not move out of the family home. If no custody order is in place, and
you move out, you are granting your spouse de facto custody of your
children; you immediately expose yourself to petitions for child and
spousal support; you abandon all joint possessions and even your personal
possessions to your spouse (and you don't have to be a lawyer to know
that possession is 9/10ths of the law); and you give your spouse leave to
petition for exclusive possession of the house in perpetuity in "the best
interests of the children" thus tying up the house as an asset.
2. Throughout the period of final co-habitation with your spouse, do not
engage in any verbal battles. PERIOD. If the situation is volatile, do not
engage in any discussions about legal or settlement issues. Do not engage
in any kind of verbal or physical confrontation with her. If you do, you
put yourself at the risk of her getting an order to have you thrown out of
the house and possibly restrained from going anywhere near her, the
property and, possibly the children. If she becomes confrontational, walk
away and avoid close contact. Make the only dialogue between the two of you
be about the care and well-being of the children and the day-to-day running
of the home. If you simply must communicate directly to your spouse
regarding matrimonial issues, do so in a written note. You can organize
your thoughts better that way and avoid a verbal joust. Do not use
inflammatory language stick to the facts. Date the note and write
"Without Prejudice" at the top (this protects you from later use of your
note against you). And keep a copy of it for your files.
3. Throughout the period of final co-habitation with your spouse,
eliminate, or at the very least, reduce, your consumption of alcohol. If
you have a drug / alcohol problem, GET HELP IMMEDIATELY, otherwise you may
be dead in the water. Alcohol - and most drugs - reduce your inhibitions
and may make you more aggressive and thus in danger of confrontation with
your spouse. And later, when you come down from your high, you will suffer
from depression that will impair your ability to function and may make you
susceptible to suicide. In almost all cases of murder / suicide in marital
disputes, alcohol is a contributing factor.
4. If there are firearms in your home, GET RID OF THEM. Take absolutely no
chances that someone may lose it and grab a gun.
5. Get emotional counseling if you need it. There is no stigma attached to
getting help for the stress and the anxiety depression that almost everyone
experiences during the ordeal of a high-conflict divorce. Have your family
doctor recommend a psychiatrist - covered under provincial health plans in
Canada (psychologists and social workers are not usually covered) - or
check your employment health benefits to see if referral to a counselor is
available to employees. If you are a member of an organized religion, your
clergyman / priest / rabbi or affiliated lay counselors may provide assistance.
6. Transfer all money from joint spousal accounts to your own sole
accounts. If you don't, chances are that she will clean out the accounts
before you do.
7. Have your spouse's name removed from all joint credit cards for which
you are responsible, get her spousal cards from her and destroy them.
8. Engage legal counsel sooner rather than later. Be prepared for the fact
that you will have to provide a legal retainer of (typically) a minimum of
$1,000 for a lawyer to begin working on your case. Make sure your lawyer is
an experienced family law specialist not someone who does part-time
family, part-time real estate, etc. law, Ask him (or her) if he / she is
aware of the bias of the family court system against fathers and if he
(we'll assume it's a man from here on) is willing to fight for your rights
as a parent and not be intimidated by biased court officials. For your
first meeting with him be prepared with a written outline of the issues of
your case. Do not make this a novel about the emotions of your marital
breakdown stick to the hard, cold facts. Go to all meetings with your
lawyer with a written agenda, and with all issues, questions, etc. spelled
out in detail. Write down all responses and action items. Be prepared to do
any legwork for him that you can (document searches, brief preparations,
etc.). Use his time wisely. The meter is ticking all the while you are
sitting in meetings with him or consulting on the phone. And remember two
things: he works for you so be demanding; and he will not (nor shouldn't)
make decisions for you you must make them yourself with his guidance.
9. Start and maintain in chronological order a comprehensive and
well-organized file of ALL documents, memos, letters, briefings, affidavits
pertinent to your case. Your file is critical for referring to past
actions, issues, details. Take all relevant files with you for meetings
with your lawyer; and take the originals plus a second set of all relevant
files with you to court appearances as back up in case your lawyer does
not have the appropriate ones with him.
10. Court actions. Don't even THINK about going to court without a lawyer.
In most cases, judges will just laugh and scoff at you literally and
tell you to get representation. If you persist in forcing them to allow you
to represent yourself, her lawyer and the judge will take you apart.
Consult with and rely on your lawyer for the timing and the appropriateness
of court actions. It may be in your best interests to get to court first
with a petition or motion (to be the "petitioner"); or the other side may
move quickly and make you the "respondent" to a court action. Your lawyer
should know what strategies are best. Assist him as much as you can with
written briefs for the affidavits, financial statements, etc. he will
prepare on your behalf.
11. Start, and maintain, throughout the duration of your case, a daily
journal of all activities relative to your interaction with your spouse and
the children. Memory is a faulty faculty. Being able to go to your journal
to find the unfiltered facts regarding events that were written at the time
of occurrence can be a critical asset.
12. Micro-manage your money. Legal fees and, inevitably, support payments
will be major financial hurdles you will have to deal with. Go on an
austerity budget. When you finally physically separate, you should be aware
that you may be primarily responsible for financing two households. Start a
war chest of any and all money you can squirrel away. Line up resources for
borrowing because, eventually, you are going to have to solicit loans.
13. Be prepared for the "equalization of family assets". This means that,
even though your spouse may not have worked outside the house a day in her
life (her parenting and housekeeping are her contribution to the marriage),
in general, she is due 50% of all the assets accumulated during the
marriage. That is, in general: she gets half the proceeds of the sale of
the house and properties, half the RRSP savings, half the investments, half
the family liquid assets, half your employment pension, half the value of
all vehicles and half the furnishings, etc. of the home accumulated during
the marriage. If she works, all her assets including RRSPs and pensions
she may have accumulated - will be included in the division of assets.
14. A note about the "separation date": This is a critical date for
figuring out the equalization of assets. In general, you both keep whatever
assets you brought to the marriage. However, all assets accumulated between
from the "date of marriage" until the "separation date" are split 50/50 .
The separation date is typically the date that one of you leaves the
matrimonial home. The status of that date may change if the one who left
returns for any amount of time. A separation date may be established while
you are still together. Usually, it's the date that you stop sleeping
together in the same room, but may require the added proviso that you have
stopped doing things together as a family.
15. Be prepared to not get any form of custody of your children. In
general, at the present time, if you go to court in dispute over custody of
the children say you want joint custody and she wants sole custody the
biased judges in the family law system will rule that: "since you two are
in dispute over the custody arrangement, joint custody will not work.
Therefore 'in the best interests of the children', the primary caretaker of
the children (guess who?) will have sole custody of the children." In
general, the only way you will ever get joint custody is if she agrees to
it; the only way you will ever get sole custody is if she does not want
custody at all or you can prove that she is completely unfit and
incompetent to be the custodial parent (and you will have to have
comprehensive and incontrovertible evidence). There are cases of
enlightened judges granting joint custody when there is a dispute, however,
it is a very rare exception.
16. Be prepared to pay child support. Because you will not get joint
custody of your children in a contested case, you will automatically be
ordered to pay full child support for all children of the marriage,
common-law relationship (or proven paternity situation). The support order
in Canada is based solely on your gross income and the number of your
children relative to tables provided by the government. And it will be
enforced by the enforcement branch of your provincial government if you
default on payments. Once the order is registered, the support amount will
be automatically collected from you by a government agency and paid to your
ex - unless you both agree to opt out of the plan and make arrangements for
you to pay her directly. You may also be liable for a percentage of
childcare expenses, based on the inequity of your salaries, if your ex is
gainfully employed. And you are liable for other "reasonable" extra
expenses, i.e.: medical, dental, schooling, sports activities, etc.
17. Be prepared to pay spousal support. If your wife is a homemaker, you
will be required to pay "spousal support" until such time as she can become
gainfully employed. Some judges put a time frame to spousal support
giving the wife a period of one year, etc. to find / return to work. In
some cases, where the wife has never worked and is at home with small
children, you may be liable for spousal support for quite some time. If
your wife is a part-time employee or "under-employed" you may be required
to provide an equalizing amount of support relative to your income and
hers. The fact that women, typically, make less money than men means there
may be an equalization of income by way of spousal support. There are no
tables for spousal support. The lawyers and the judge will work out an
amount and you will be ordered to pay it.
18. Pay your support orders when humanly possible. You have an obligation
to financially support your children even if you believe the order for
support was unreasonably arrived at. If you do not pay your support, the
money will be garnisheed from your wages at source and your savings and
RRSPs, etc. will be seized. You will get yourself into very serious
financial straits if you let the ordered amounts accumulate over the years.
And you will be hounded forever by the enforcement office. If your income
declines, go back to court and petition for a reduction in support. But pay
the support as ordered until you get the amount reduced. Do not withhold
child support if your spouse is interfering with your time with the
children. The courts treat child support and access as two completely
separate issues. And they are. If you withhold child support, you are
engaging in the same dirty tactics that she is. And the children are the
ones who suffer. And you look like the bad guy. And you can't afford to
look like the bad guy, given the existing bias against you as a father.
19. Be prepared to fight for "access" with your children. When you don't
get custody status with your children, you will be required to petition for
regular visitation or access time with your children. The terms "access"
and "visitation" are demeaning to non-custodial parents ("family time with
the children", although long, would be a better term.), however they are
the terms used in the family courts. Depending on your circumstances: job
responsibilities, other personal obligations, etc. you will figure out how
much time you wish to have with your children. It may be several weekday
evenings and one of the weekend days with overnights, etc.
petition, be prepared for the majority of judges in the family court system
to rule in favour of the mother's suggestions for your time with the
children, invariably much less time than you want. Typically, rulings are
for the father to have the children every second weekend. Every other
weekend is not nearly enough time to maintain the bonds you have developed
with your children, but you will have to make the best of a bad deal. If
the mother does not want you to have overnight visitation, you can be sure,
in general, that you won't get it. Once you have an order for access in
place, you can be sure that the mother's control freak nature will surface
and she will find all kinds of excuses to withhold the children from you on
a regular basis. And, even though she may be in contempt of a court order,
don't waste your money taking her to court. A judge will almost never
penalize her in any meaningful way for her actions, except, maybe, to
lecture her (is anyone going to fine or throw a mother of children into
jail?). Keep a record of all the withheld access visits and have your
lawyer lodge official protests that may be used, cumulatively as proof of
her contempt at later court appearances.
20. If you have been cut off from seeing your children because of malicious
and false allegations of abuse: Take the unusual step of petitioning for
"supervised access" at a centre provided by your local or provincial
government. There would have to be tremendous extenuating circumstances for
a judge to deny this kind of petition. Even though the circumstance of
spending time with your children under supervision will be stressful and
humiliating, it will ensure that you have regular contact with them. And,
in the meantime, you can pursue having a "family assessment" by an
appropriate professional to disprove the allegations.
21. Malicious and false allegations of child sexual abuse have become an
insidious phenomenon in family law. A 1998 report by the Ottawa Ontario
Children's Aid Society revealed that, of 900 cases of allegations of child
sexual abuse linked to matrimonial disputes, 600 of them were proved to be
completely groundless. Meanwhile the victims of this devastating weapon
(fathers fighting for meaningful relationships with their children) are
required to PROVE their innocence. The custody / access issue grinds to a
halt as the Children's Aid, the police and psychiatric professionals
involve themselves in an already crowded process. Access between the father
and his children is severely curtailed or terminated and the emotional and
financial costs of an already painful process escalate. The perpetrator of
this gross injustice (the mother, usually by prompting the children) faces
no recrimination or penalty for her actions. And the relationship between
the father and his children is severely strained or, all too often,
22. Family assessments have become a growth industry. With all the
malicious allegations flying, courts routinely order "family assessments"
to be conducted by social workers and psychologists who have trained as
experts in this area of the family law industry. They interview all
relevant parties and then come back with findings and recommendations that
are usually accepted by the judge who ordered it. These professionals have
to be paid; and guess who usually gets stuck with that bill? Often when a
family assessment has been ordered, you at least get to suggest a candidate
for the job. Make sure you propose someone who is at least impartial about,
if not outright sympathetic to, fathers' issues. And lean on your lawyer to
be forthright in the decision-making for the assessor.
23. Face the fact that you may have to endure a very long period of
frustrations and disappointments. The processes of the court system are
slow enough and frustrating enough on their own. Then there are the
lawyers. In collusion with their intransigent clients, they are masters at
delaying and frustrating court actions. They conveniently and consistently
"miss phone calls", ignore messages, "miscommunicate" and "misunderstand";
disappear on holidays; ask for continuances (delays in proceedings), all
with the intention of frustrating you from getting court actions completed
that they may feel are not in their client's interest. And the judges: it
is so unnerving to go before a judge, as a taxpayer, sound citizen and
devoted father and to be regarded by this "god in his kingdom" as a
second-class (at best) citizen, a wannabe parent and a bottomless pit of
financial resources. And, on the other hand, treating your wife as the only
trustworthy, sane, long-suffering puritan in view. Patience and persistence
is the only thing that will get you through, guys. Patience and persistence.
24. Maintain lines of communication with your children. LISTEN TO THEM. Let
them express their fears and concerns and hurts. Reassure them, as much as
you can. Prepare for your time with them. Line up activities: bowling, a
movie, etc.; have the fridge stocked with their favourite meals (from lists
you can have them prepare). Don't just let them plunk down in front of the
TV and order in fast food (although that's what they may demand). Get them
outside participating in sports and physical activities, walking by a lake
or stream, visiting favourite relatives (don't forget Grandma and
Grandpa!). Avoid shopping even grocery shopping with them. Your
finances will be strained and you don't need the pressure they will bring
to bear on you to buy them "things". Instead, listen and watch for a
special item they may be yearning for and, where practical, buy it for them
as a surprise gift. Make sure you buy something for each child, though.
25. Do not trash talk your ex in front of the children. Even if you are
aware that she puts you down in their presence. The children love you both
equally and your criticisms of one another will only confuse them and
stress them even more than they already are. In the long run, it is
counterproductive for either parent to put down the other. Eventually - and
it may be a long way down the road - the children will see through the
criticisms and lies and will turn against the trash-talking parent. And
never argue about aspects of the case or any other issue in front of them.
This will just make them more anxious and angry about their new fractured
26. Keep in touch with your children through any channel possible when you
see them very little or not at all. Write to them, send them cards and
little gifts, telephone them, send them emails. Keep a record / copies of
the things you send if you suspect your ex is intercepting your
correspondences and the children are not getting them. Somewhere down the
road, you can show your child proof of your efforts to keep in touch. And
they are going to know that it wasn't your lack of interest in being part
of their lives, but their mom's interference.
27. Throughout the ordeal of the divorce process, rely on your spiritual
path be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist to help you get through.
Attend your church, synagogue, temple on a regular basis. Find some quiet
time for reflection and meditation, to drop right out of your ordeal and
renew your soul and spirit.
28. Don't be too proud, as a man, to rely on your friends and family for
emotional support. Don't think that you have to carry the often
overwhelming burden of the injustices and the stresses of your case by
yourself. Your friends and family, who love you, will usually be there to
share the weight of the ordeal. WARNING: realize that, even though your
family and friends can lend a sympathetic ear, they can also get
overwhelmed by your case if you go on about it too much. Don't be a broken
record; use their sympathy wisely. And let your friends periodically
entertain and distract you to help you relieve yourself of the seriousness
of your circumstances.
29. Help others in similar circumstances and join the fight for Fathers'
Rights. Be generous with your time and advice with fellow victims of the
sham of so-called "family" law. Write letters to newspapers, your elected
representatives, the governing bodies for judges and lawyers. Join a
father's rights organization and picket and protest the inequities in court
decisions. It will take serious and concerted efforts by all of us to bring
about the changes that are needed in the true application of the principles
of family law.
30. Get regular exercise and eat well. Try to jog or participate in sports
on a regular basis. Avoid the grease and salt and sugar of fast food. Take
the time and care to feed yourself nutritious and healthy foods. It bears
repeating here: eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables; have good amounts
of whole grain breads and cereals; eat lean cuts of red meat, poultry and
fish. Make sure you go for your yearly physical.
31. Get yourself a pet. Especially a dog. There's nothing like the
unconditional love and affection of a faithful pet when you return home
from work at the end of an exhausting day. That wagging tail, affectionate
gaze and total lack of attitude can do wonders for you. And the walk it
will demand every night will be good for your mind and body too.
32. Be easy on yourself. You are going to feel like a failure: a failure in
marriage, a failure to your children, a financial failure. Accept
responsibility for the role you played in the debacle, but DON'T BEAT
YOURSELF UP OVER IT. About the perceived failure of your relationship with
your wife: realize that "incompatibility is like rain: it just happens."
Realize that your children need your emotional support, so give yourself a
break: be easy-going and affectionate with them. Realize that you walked
into a financial minefield when you entered the domain of family law.
Unless you started off filthy rich, you are going to take a financial
pounding, and it ain't your fault. Try to not let it stress you out.
33. Last point: Women are not the enemy. Just because your wife turned out
to be your worst nightmare; and just because family law is completely
biased in favour of mothers - even mothers from Hell; don't get down on the
"fairer sex". Family law has swung so far askew because of the extreme and
consistent lobbying efforts of feminist organizations and because of the
overt actions of feminist-sympathizing politicians. However, your mother,
your sister, your female friends, your new partner are all as appalled as
you are at the injustice of it all. And they stand by to help and support
and nurture you in your fight for fairness for you and your children.
Divorce Survival Guide by Allan O'Marra
SON SUES DAD 24 Aug 2005
Student demands his father pays for New York break, laptop computer and golf lessons
By Jane Hamilton
A HARD-UP student sued his dad for cash, tennis lessons and a stress-busting break in New York.
Design student Adam Gourlay, 22, also demanded his father Richard, 50, stump up for a laptop computer, video camera and golf coaching.
And that was still not enough. Lawyers for Adam, who is in his third year at Dundee University, claimed Richard should also pay £18 per week for art materials, £25 for magazines for his course and up to £40 per week for books.
But Richard, a marketing director, counter sued to try to claim Adam's £62,200 flat in Dundee The bitter legal battle between father and son started after Richard's marriage to Adam's mum, Eleanor, fell apart after 23 years.
A friend of the family said: "It's very sad. Adam and his father are not speaking because of these rows about money.
"Adam claims his dad has not paid for any of his education and decided he would go to court to try to get him to pay up.
"Richard then decided he wanted the flat back that he's helped Adam get. It's all very messy."
Richard, who now lives with new partner Lorna Clark in Dundee, even received a summons to appear at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. A friend said: "Adam didn't want to take his father to court but felt that he had no choice but to sue for maintenance.
"Tennis lessons and golf fees may seem an excessive luxury but his father paid for them when he lived at home and Adam felt that he should continue to do so while he was still at university.
"He needed the laptop and video camera for his course work and wasn't really asking for anything that he wasn't entitled to from his dad."
After a series of court appearances, a sheriff rejected Adam's legal claim.
Richard, who is off work with stress, is still trying to claim the three- bedroomed flat after discovering Adam was trying to sell it for over £110,000.
In 2003, Adam had asked his father to act as guarantor for the flat on Perth Road.
Richard paid the £1200 deposit and claims he spent more than £6000 helping to buy and decorating the flat.
The title deeds show Adam as the owner but in court papers Richard claims he has paid for repairs and maintenance.
Last night, Adam, who has a summer job in the St Andrews aquarium, refused to comment on the case.
His cousin, who refused to be named, said: "Adam has been through a lot and this is very upsetting for him Adam's mum, Eleanor, who has an older daughter Erin, said: "I don't know what his father is up to and I really don't want to talk about it until I can find out."
Richard said: "I'm not rich, I don't own the company that I work for like Adam and his mother tell everyone, I can't afford to pay for the things he's asking.
"We had an agreement that when he finished university the flat would be signed over to me. I acted as guarantor and later, by chance, saw it up for sale for offers over £110,000.
"I paid all the legal fees and property registration fees for the flat, I chose it and saw it as an investment for my future.
"I had no choice but to instruct my solicitor to stop the sale and take Adam to court
Biased VAWA Pushes Gender Supremacy 24 Aug 2005
By Lisa Scott
The federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization in
2005. VAWA funds billions of taxpayer dollars to combat violence against
women, principally domestic violence (DV). The definition of DV touted by
victim advocates runs the gamut from jokes and insults to murder, with
"power and control" being the overriding characteristic of the man's
behavior towards the woman. Real violence is rarely at issue.
When women commit violence against men, VAWA and the DV industry go AWOL.
Despite the federal government's own statistics showing nearly 40 per cent
of domestic violence victims are men, VAWA persists in its monolithic response.
In the same way that some minority groups argue they cannot be racist
because they aren't in power in society, gender feminists contend women
cannot commit DV because they can't assert power and control over men. Any
violence committed by women is, by definition, either de minimus (it could
not possibly have hurt him), or self-defense (SHE is the victim of HIS abuse).
All interactions between partners are subject to this twisted logic. When
the relationship sours, the woman has an easy out: "I am a victim of
domestic violence and can do no wrong." VAWA supports and maintains female
supremacy. It should be re-titled Victory Assured for Women Act.
VAWA's gender bias permeates law enforcement response to domestic conflict.
All it takes is a woman calling 911 to summon three squad cars, teeming
with police officers eager to carry out today's "tough" domestic violence
laws. The centerpiece of the system is "mandatory arrest." Every domestic
disturbance call must result in arrest, usually the man.
Domestic violence is whatever the man does that the woman doesn't like.
Declaring he is going to file for custody of the children is a "threat."
Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is "abuse."
Unknown to most men, such interchanges often precipitate false charges of
DV. In my 17 years as a family law attorney, I have seen this pattern occur
over and over.
Even when the facts clearly show the man is not an abuser (and perhaps the
woman is), prosecutors refuse to drop charges. "No-drop" policies are a
great publicity tool, and a way to ensure more funding. Charges that would
never see the light of day if they happened between strangers on the street
(accidentally bumping against someone when walking by), are routinely
charged as DV "assault." (But only if the man does it to the woman; a man
can be bleeding from a head wound and he won't be considered a victim).
Indiscriminate charging clogs the system with minor transgressions, yet
ensures a steady stream of cases justifying more taxpayer money at budget time.
Both spouses are usually at fault when a marriage ends. Many women have
discovered a surefire antidote against taking any responsibility: playing
the domestic violence victim. While the husband is reading the newspaper
and relaxing after work, the wife is contacting the domestic violence
hotline, getting step-by-step instructions on what to say: "His abuse is
escalating," "I'm fearful for my safety."
VAWA funds battered women's shelters and their misandrist staff, always
ready to welcome another customer for their anti-male, anti-father and
anti-family agenda. Ask a victim advocate what causes domestic violence,
and she will immediately blame our "patriarchal society," ensuring that
only men get the blame. One might ask what causes women to abuse children.
Presumably, the patriarchy by proxy. VAWA gives short shrift to child
abuse, which is most often committed by women. Indeed, VAWA earmarks a
paltry $7000 per year to develop home visitation projects to look for signs
of child abuse or neglect.
To assure victory in the divorce/custody case, the woman claims the man is
an abuser, no matter how good a husband and father he is. Whatever wrongs
he has committed, from leaving the toilet seat up to not making enough
money, failure of the marriage is his fault. "No-fault" divorce laws really
mean "no fault unless it's the man's fault." In other words, the
Oprahization of family law.
What we really have is MAWA: Men Annoying Women Act. The man is either a
relentless abuser or a hopeless wimp. Any modern man not terrified of being
in a relationship with a woman has not been paying attention.
The government seems unable to define gender bias except as "bias against
women." Title IX forces college sports programs to spend equal amounts of
money on men's and women's sports, despite the fact that the vast majority
of athletes are men. Even though 1/3 of domestic violence murder victims
are male, not one dime of VAWA's largesse is devoted to prevention of
violence against men.
Men are far more likely than women to be victims of violence overall, yet
there's no Violence Against Men Act. Men also comprise nearly all workplace
injuries and deaths, but try to find a Male Workplace Injury Prevention Act.
VAWA is not about stopping violence. It is about greedy special interests
slopping at the federal trough, perpetuating gender supremacy for women. If
proponents were truly concerned about helping victims, they would demand
that all intervention and funding be gender neutral and gender inclusive.
The existence of male victims threatens gender feminists because it knocks
the underpinnings out of their theory, that the "patriarchy" causes men to
abuse women. The DV industry has succeeded in creating the "victimarchy."
With VAWA in their corner, women win no matter what: victim or abuser, they
can do no wrong.
Lisa Scott firstname.lastname@example.org is a Bellevue, Washington attorney practicing in
the areas of family law, divorce and domestic violence. She is also a
founding member of TABS, Taking Action against Bias in the System,
BBC men haters latest " Bring Your Husband to Heel" 22 Aug 2005
Of course women don't rule the world.
(Just don't let them tighten their grip any harder...)
‘I didn’t say women ruled the world,” said Michael Buerk carefully. “And I didn’t say that would be a bad thing even if they did. I did say that women increasingly set the agenda in business, politics, the media and in society at large, and that women’s values are now considered superior to men’s values.” Buerk, a veteran broadcaster, was talking to Sarah Montague on Radio 4’s Today programme last week. It was a terse exchange because he had come in for a lot of stick after daring to express his view that men now possess a lowlier status than women.
The female of the species had taken over the top jobs in broadcasting, he had initially been quoted as saying, and “life is now lived in accordance with women’s rules”. Men, he had said, were reduced to being “sperm donors”.
When those views appeared Buerk, hardly the most tactful of people, was accused of living up to his name. But he fought back, continuing his defence by telling Montague: “Look at the way we have so many lifestyle programmes — aimed at a female audience — at the expense of current affairs and documentaries. And look at how men are continually portrayed in adverts, drama and sitcoms as clueless and idiotic.”
Many commentators rejected his remarks. Buerk is just jealous of his high-achieving women colleagues, they sneered. But even if you think he is moaning because he no longer reads the prime-time news (think Fiona Bruce instead), you do not have to look far to see what he means.
Take a series starting on BBC2 this week called Bring Your Husband to Heel. Its premise is to use a dog trainer to help women to control the men they married.
One such technique involves toilet training.
“You will not always be around to lift the toilet seat for your husband,” explains Annie Clayton, a canine behaviourist. “So try giving him a target — such as a sticker — to aim at in the bowl. If the worst comes to the worst and his aim doesn’t improve, you could always put him out in the garden with the dog.”
It is not the first time that a BBC show has set out to ridicule men in a way that would cause outrage if the target were women. A current documentary series on BBC3 called The Week the Women Went presented the carefully edited consequences of removing girlfriends, wives and mothers from a village in Nottinghamshire.
Not for nothing did a recent newspaper cartoon depict a woman rushing to the living room door and yelling upstairs: “Quick! Kids! There’s a positive male role model on the television!” Buerk suggested that the thrust of these broadcasts has something to do with the unusually high proportion of senior women at the BBC — and it is notable that at the Beeb the directors of television, radio and news are all women.
Commercial TV has essentially the same outlook as the advertising breaks make clear. John Webster, who has created several of Britain’s best-loved commercials, confirms that it is always best to laugh at men while “it’s pretty dangerous to poke fun at women”.
Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, drawing on ancient Greek, describe the modern contempt for men as misandry, the opposite of misogyny.
Nathanson is a writer, editor and film critic. Young is professor in the faculty of religious studies at Canada’s McGill University. Their book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, spells out Buerk’s thesis in detail: “Misandry has become so deeply embedded in our culture that few people — including men — even recognise it.”
It can be found in almost every genre: books, television shows, movies, greetings cards, comic strips and commercials. It works in various ways: laughing at men, looking down at men, bypassing, blaming, dehumanising and finally demonising men.
“Misogyny has been studied and taken seriously for decades,” the authors write. “Political pressure has eliminated or at least hidden a great deal of misogyny.
ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE CHILD PROTECTION INDUSTRY 22 Aug 2005
Enclosed please find James Roger Brown's FIOA to the Portland OR City Police. Mr Brown is investigatimg the organized crime involvement in the child protection industry using the CIA methodology. Mr. Brown has an extensive background and has compiled an evidence book of such organized crime in the child protection industry and it is part of the CA WAYS AND MEANS committee in their hearings on such.
Why was Emily Lake a 9 year old girl threatened by attack dogs,
tasers and pepper sprayed twice by Portland City police when they
were SUPPOSED to be protecting her or finding out if she were ok? Why did they enter a residence without warrants or any kind of paperwork of any kind? Why did it take 11 police cars and 15 police officers to find out if she was alright?
Attached find pictures of Emily before she was taken to "kiddie jail" and after.
Was she alright? Perfectly!
Was she alright after the police STORMED the house like Osama bin
Laden was here? NO!
Why did DHS force her to promise not to tell her mother what they
were doing to her?
Why was her mother arrested and thrown in jail when she had no
charges against her. This was then used as an excuse to take Emily into "protective custody" where Emily was systematically abused.Why did DHS try to bribe Emily?
Why does Emily appear to be drugged now that she is in "protective custody" when she has no medical issues?
Why did the mother get held in jail so that a "secret" hearing could be held to spirit her out of the state of OR?
Why were the hearings predetermined.
Why did the child attorney commit perjury?
Why did the child attorney when confronted with her perjury state "I have nothing to say"
Why did the child attorney object when a letter was introduced that Emily had written begging to be left alone?
Where is Emily Lake and why isn't her mother with her?
Why has the court refused to give the final order to the mother?
Why has DHS lied to the child and the mother about visiting?
Why were the court proceedings pre-determined?
Who is accountable? Who's best interests are served?
Why is the State of MI involved in a cover up - creating and
falsifying documentation in the child protection industry. Why is
Judge Nan Waller (OR) and Judge Doreen Allen (MI) colluding and
conspiring in child trafficking?
Who is Dan Rogalny and Eileen Pearson and what have they got to gain by this child's being withheld behind the wall of "confidentiality" that shrouds the child protection industry?
As the MI Legislators look on what will they find. Hearings on this and other cases of abuse, conspiracy racketeering, fraud, and exploitation of children for profit are just now finally being explored.
All across the nation thousands of families and former foster
children are telling what happens once they enter the doors of the child protection industry and how the agencies that are supposed to protect and strengthen them are the abuser and the neglector with nowhere to turn.
UK Police murderers ,liars with masonic agenda 22 Aug 2005
The undoing of PC Blair
IT IS 30 days since Jean Charles de Menezes met his gruesome and untimely fate on the grubby floor of a London Underground train. In a few short weeks the controversial shooting of the young Brazilian electrician has rocked the British establishment to its core. Last week it became clear that the botched police operation which led to his death, and the allegations of a cover-up which have followed, may very well claim the scalp of the nation's top policeman.
In the days after the mistaken killing of Menezes at Stockwell Tube Station the focus was on the immediate events: the Met's "shoot-to-kill" policy, the senior officers orchestrating that secretive policy and the highly trained men and women expected to grapple with its enormous implications on the front line. The revelations of the past week, the crucial failures and the apparent breakdown in communications that contributed to the killing of an innocent man, have merely intensified concerns over the use of lethal force by the nation's foremost police force.
Yet above all else the last seven days have marked a seismic shift in focus away from the misapplication of a controversial policy by a squad of armed officers on July 22, to the murky tale of what their superiors have done in response since then.
Rather than simply admit the mistake, the Metropolitan Police allowed untrue accounts of de Menezes's "suspicious" behaviour to circulate, even including the incorrect account some days later as part of an official police report of the circumstances surrounding the shooting.
"I want the people of London to imagine hearing that your son, your brother or your father had been killed on the Tube," de Menezes's cousin, Alessandro Pereira, declared in a haunting public statement on Friday. "I then want you to think how we felt when we were told he was a suspected terrorist. That he looked like a suicide bomber. That he was wearing a big jacket. That he ran from the police. I want Ian Blair to imagine how we felt having to listen to the lies about Jean. About why he died.."
It has taken a month for the gathering fury at the behaviour of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to erupt into naked demands for his head, but Pereira's intervention was a critical development. Blair, a policeman for over three decades, has been at the pinnacle of his career for a mere six months. He is in charge of over 30,000 police officers and in the service of more than seven million Londoners; but tonight he is the loneliest man in the city.
"All talk of the commissioner folding over and falling on his sword is rather preposterous," one government source insisted last night of a man who originally described his force's response to the terror alert as "close to genius". But, confronted with the acute political embarrassment that his management of the terror crisis has provoked, the source added: "You can take it for granted that no one in the Cabinet is happy about this fandango."
The refusal of de Menezes's family to countenance any mitigating factors in the killing of their son had been one of the most distressing elements of the furore. It was officially acknowledged, barely 24 hours after his death, that he had been innocent of any involvement in terrorist activity, but there remained questions over his behaviour. While regretting their mistake, the police maintained that de Menezes had failed to obey their instructions. Furthermore, reports from witnesses suggested he was wearing a heavy padded coat in midsummer, that he ran from police, vaulted the turnstiles at the entrance to Stockwell Tube and bolted into a train. It has taken a month, and an avalanche of leaked documents from the commission investigating the catastrophe, for de Menezes to be granted his absolute exoneration.
The Met's own evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is conducting the inquiry, confirms that de Menezes was an innocent caught up in a surveillance operation designed to snare Hussain Osman, the man suspected of attempting to bomb a Tube train in Shepherds Bush the previous day. He was observed leaving the block of flats where both men lived but a surveillance officer was unable to capture an image that would prove he was not the wanted man, because he was apparently urinating and thus unable to switch his video camera on.
Despite orders that the object of an operation involving almost 20 surveillance and firearms officers should be picked up "as soon as possible", a suspected suicide bomber was followed for almost half an hour, allowed to take a bus, enter the Tube and board a train before he was intercepted.
A former police firearms officer said last night that the view within the ranks of the Met was that the ultimate error was the interpretation of a command to "intercept" de Menezes as an order to kill him. But he claimed the instruction, issued by Commander Cressida Dick, head of the elite Gold Command, was not explicit enough.
"Do not forget the urgency of that situation," the ex-officer added. "The guys on the ground would have been nervous and Dick herself cannot have been expected to have been totally cool. But sometimes something absolutely clear - 'don't kill him', or 'take him alive' - is required."
But a former Scotland Yard commander identifies the fault further down the chain, on the front line where the so-called 'Bronze Command' was expected to convert remote orders into action. Despite the freedom of action afforded by Operation Kratos - or shoot-to-kill - Roy Ramm is "absolutely sure" that commanders did not issue an order to kill.
"First, it would not be legal," he said. "There is no such thing as an officer being ordered to open fire. Gun officers have the final authority - it is their decision alone.
"It looks as though a communication breakdown happened between the surveillance Bronze, who knew only that he had a possible suspect in view, and the firearms Bronze, who must have thought he was a definite suspect with a bomb."
The full truth about who must bear responsibility for the de Menezes incident will eventually emerge through inquiries, or even court action. In the meantime, the apparent breakdowns in the functioning of the most significant of all Sir Ian's policy decisions has sparked an urgent re-evaluation of arming British police officers.
While the Association of Chief Police Officers launches itself into a profound review of shoot-to-kill, Scotland on Sunday understands that Home Secretary Charles Clarke last week ordered chief constables throughout the country to revisit their firearms policies and tactics, chains of command and training regimes. The move, agreed following furious behind-the-scenes lobbying from opposition parties, is expected to lay the foundations for a 'summit' of chief officers to discuss the armed response emergency, before parliament resumes.
The findings may threaten the credibility of commanders like Cressida Dick, and her boss, Sir Ian Blair.
His performance before and during the de Menezes operation, which occurred at a time of unprecedented terrorist threat, may not, however, be the factor which decides Sir Ian's ultimate fate.
For the de Menezes family, the official refusal to clarify the circumstances surrounding Jean Charles's death is a key failure for which Sir Ian must answer. "For three weeks we have had to listen to lie after lie about Jean and how he was killed," Pereira said. "The police knew Jean was innocent. Yet they let my family suffer. They let us suffer. Ian Blair let us suffer."
Hours after the killing, Sir Ian claimed de Menezes, to the best of his knowledge, "was challenged and refused to obey police instructions". Police were aware that he had not been wearing a heavy coat, that he did not jump over the barriers - in fact, he picked up a free newspaper and passed through the ticket barrier normally - and that he was shot in the head after being restrained by a surveillance officer.
Sir Ian's own account of how he learned the truth, appearing in a newspaper interview today, offer an unnerving picture of chaos and a lack of communication between senior officers and their men and women on the ground. Admitting that he did not know his officers had killed an innocent man until 24 hours after the fatal shots were fired, the most experienced policeman in the country said: "Somebody came in at 10.30 [Saturday morning] and said the equivalent of 'Houston we have a problem'.
"He didn't use those words but he said, 'We have some difficulty here, there is a lack of connection'. I thought, 'That's dreadful, what are we going to do about that ?'."
Although he uses the interview to dismiss allegations of a cover-up, Sir Ian fails to explain why, once the force was in possession of the full, awful truth, it failed to correct the misleading accounts in circulation.
Even after it was admitted that his officers had killed the wrong man, Sir Ian continued to give misleading details. When pressed on standard procedure for handling suicide bombers who were trying to surrender, he said: "We will try and get them under control and that was what this man was being asked to do."
Subsequent revelations have now confirmed that the police themselves were retailing the inaccurate account of de Menezes' final seconds. The Brazilian's post-mortem report, dated five days after his death, recorded the information that he did vault the ticket barrier and fled on to the train - information that experts maintain could only have been provided by the police.
The revelation that Sir Ian later attempted to delay the official inquiry, in order to maintain the primacy of the anti-terror campaign, only reinforced suspicions that he had something to hide.
The allegations of an official cover-up are inevitable and damaging for a man who has invested much of his career in modernising a service previously criticised for secrecy and a reluctance to respond to public concerns. Critically, the distrust has also further poisoned relations between the Met and the IPCC, which has previously complained about police interference in its investigations.
"The golden hours of an investigation are those that immediately follow the death," said Tony Murphy, an independent adviser to the IPCC. "It's critical to have involvement in the gathering of evidence at this stage. The fact that the commissioner resisted that [means] the family will not get all their questions answered and that the allegation of cover-up may linger over the commissioner."
Murphy merely gave a public hint of the deep fury felt within the IPCC over the Met's behaviour since the killing. Commission chairman Nick Hardwick's original warning to the police to "shut up" about the case has been followed by a series of increasingly shrill public statements.
Scotland on Sunday understands that the organisation has now complained to the Home Office about the Met's failure to co-operate with its inquiry, amid suspicions that officers are dragging their feet and even withholding vital information. The frustration does not distinguish between top brass and rank-and-file.
"They are clearly furious about how the Met is behaving," one senior source close to the IPCC leadership said last night. "It is about reverting to type, closing ranks and not co-operating. It goes all the way to the top."
The assumption that the leak to ITN of "literally bags of documents" relating to the inquiry came from the IPCC is perhaps an indication of the hostility between the two bodies. If so, it is an uncomfortable portent for Sir Ian, who would struggle to survive a critical report on his ability to protect the nation at a time of crisis.
The senior policeman derided for being the most politically correct in history faces ruin against one of the pillars of the liberal establishment.
Scottish Mental health campaigner Dixie Dean forcibly injected 19 Aug 2005
An Uncorroborated Report from Dixie Dean
Using the new Freedom of Information Act a Moray pensioner has uncovered a conspiracy to deprive him of his liberty, human, legal and civil rights reaching up to the Minister of Health and the Scottish Executive.
On February 11th 2004 mental health campaigner Dixie Dean was arrested by police and held in a locked ward in the Royal Cornhill Hospital in Aberdeen on instructions passed to the Grampian Health Trust and others.
Forced injections were ordered which he escaped by breaking through a ward window
onto the hospital roof only to fall 12 metres, breaking both legs and ending up with frostbite after spending a night hiding out.
Dean said ‘I was astonished to read a letter circulated in the Executive 22.02.04 with instructions that action must be taken to silence me.
I know my campaign got up their nose, but I was only exercising my democratic rights.
Now I'm crippled for life. I've submitted complaints to the Parliamentary Presiding Officer and Standards Commissioner; First Minister; Minister for Health; Mental Welfare Commission; Grampians NHS Trust; Grampians Police; Moray Council and others to find out all the facts and I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this. I've never been mentally ill and this has devastated my life
(Walter) Dixie Dean, Hon Lecturer, European Centre for Professional Ethics
Corroboration of basic facts is available from Geoff Huggins, Head of the Executive's M.H. Division; Dinah Aitken, National Co-ordinator Depression Alliance Scotland; Margaret Ewing, my own MSP; Jim Royan, Chairman Grampian NHSTrust.
All were party to the conspiracy. Only Dep. All. has apologised so far, but I'm roasting the lot (you'ld think the numpties would know better than try it on with a professor).
Feel free to quote me and pass this information on, post to web sites etc. if you wish.
Very best regards
Walter (Dixie) Dean (prof)BSc, MIIE, MBA, BIM, FRSAHon. Lect., European Ctre. for Prof. Ethics
From: Dixie dean
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:30 AM
Subject: Ears Website Launched
I hope you may be interested in the Ears Campaign website:
Here you can learn how to 'fight City Hall' and win.
See why we are campaigning for repeal of Mental Health Law; an end to the system of psychiatric abuse and compulsion. Our objective, plans and progress. Our tools: The 'ethics in public life' Nolan Principles; Crossman Catalogue of Public Maladministration; GMC Code of Practice; Freedom of Information Act.
Learn our experience fighting devious Government; Executive; NHS; Local Authority; Police Force - everyone and his dog who abuse and deny human rights.
Still under development, I would be glad to know what you think of it
dixie dean (prof)
Policeman facing extortion charge over naked pictures 19 Aug 2005
A COMMUNITY policeman has been suspended from duty after being accused of attempting to extort money from a woman over naked and indecent pictures he had obtained of her for his own private use.
Police Constable George Hall, 44, who lives in the Aberdeenshire coastal village of Cruden Bay, has been charged with threatening to display the images in public unless the married woman gave him money. Hall, who faces an alternative charge of breach of the peace, is due to stand trial at Peterhead Sheriff Court on 30 September.
A spokeswoman for Grampian Police said yesterday: "Grampian Police can confirm that a serving police officer has been the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal at Peterhead.
"The [alleged] incident, which took place in March 2005, occurred while the officer was off-duty. As the case is now live we are unable to make any further comment at this time.
"We can confirm this officer has been suspended, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings. As is usual in these instances, consideration will be given to any internal disciplinary process only at the end of criminal proceedings."
Hall first appeared at Peterhead Sheriff Court on 11 March and formally pled not guilty on 8 June when the case was adjourned to an intermediate date on 30 August.
What to expect from a country controlled by the OCcult 19 Aug 2005
When most ,if not all chief constables in the UK and their underlings, are connected with secret society cults i.e. Freemasons,Speculators and the Illuminati and they are the ONLY ones authorised by their grand masters with guns and shooting powers .
You can see why it is so easy for them to shoot innocent people and know that so called elitist system will protect them ,as they have for centuries, in an utterly corrupt and evil country .The UK has been run this way for so long thanks to their propaganda machine the mass media of the UK.
It may be only that the people of Brazil not only see the UK's appalling stance with the USA in Iraq but UK police shooting innocent brazilians on the streets of London that has caused the sudden backlash in the press.No wonder tourists of all nations will be avoiding entering a country showing such despicable abuse of their police powers.
The whole issue of the UK's policing system should be opened up to scrutiny and EXPOSED.
Thomas Hamilton and the Dunblane massacre is another extreme example of that system and why it is so utterly wrong .
No cover-up on Tube killing, says Met chief
BRITAIN'S top police officer last night rejected allegations of a cover-up over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by anti-terror police.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, who yesterday faced calls for his resignation over the death of the innocent Brazilian, dismissed claims he had tried to block an independent inquiry into the incident.
His comments emerged shortly after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) claimed Scotland Yard had "initially resisted" its investigation into the shooting.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the family of Mr Menezes said it was "looking more and more" as though there was a "deliberate cover-up and a prevention of the IPCC inquiry" after it was revealed that Sir Ian had written to Sir John Gieve at the Home Office in the immediate aftermath of the shooting "to clarify the role of IPCC".
But Sir Ian told London's Evening Standard: "These allegations strike to the heart of the integrity of the police and integrity of the Met and I fundamentally reject them. There is no cover-up."
It was also reported last night that the person who leaked information about the police watchdog's investigation had been identified. Sky News said the source who leaked documents and a photograph of Mr Menezes lying dead on the floor of the Tube train at Stockwell station to ITV News on Tuesday has been suspended. However, the IPCC refused to confirm or deny the report.
Earlier, Scotland Yard said Sir Ian had written to the Home Office after the shooting because it "appeared" as though a suicide bomber connected to the previous day's attempted bombings on the London transport network may have been involved.
The force said it was "crucial" the terrorist investigation took precedence over any IPCC investigation at that time.
This letter led to further conversations that day, which the Met described as an "entirely transparent discussion in the face of an unprecedented situation".
However, lawyers for the Menezes family claimed that by failing to invite the IPCC to start its investigation immediately, police had breached their statutory duty.
This "fatal delay of several days" meant vital evidence in the case could have been lost, they claimed.
But Sir Ian insisted: "If you were going to define how to do a cover-up you would not write a letter to the permanent secretary of the Home Office, copying it to the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the chairman of the IPCC."
He said: "That unique situation was that I and everyone who advised me believed that the man we had shot was a suicide bomber and therefore one of the four people who we were looking for, or someone else.
"It seemed to be utterly vital that the counter-terrorism investigation took precedence – the forensics, the ballistics, the explosives."
Sir Ian added: "I'm not defending myself against making a mistake or being wrong, but I am defending myself against an allegation that I did not act in good faith and I reject utterly the concept of a cover-up.
"Yes, of course a mistake was made because this was an innocent man."
Sir Ian's defence of his actions followed a statement by John Wadham, the IPCC's deputy chairman, in which he said his organisation had secured an "important victory" for its independence in overcoming the Yard's resistance.
He also promised the inquiry would be completed in three to six months.
"The Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that," he said. "It was an important victory for our independence. This dispute has caused delay in us taking over the investigation but we have worked hard to recover the lost ground.
"This inquiry is making very good progress. We are determined that this investigation – like our other five firearms inquiries – will be completed quickly.
"We are working to get it concluded in between three and six months. The inquiry that we are conducting will be thorough, impartial and we will not be rushing to conclusions."
Allesandro Pereira, a cousin of Mr Menezes, was last night informing the dead man's parents in Brazil of the latest development.
He was said to be "deeply disappointed" at apparent confirmation that police had resisted the inquiry.
Asad Rehman, of the Justice 4 Jean campaign, said: "This only goes to reinforce exactly what the family have been saying, that they find it unbelievable that the Metropolitan police and Sir Ian Blair blocked an independent inquiry of the death of Jean.
"Allesandro said they are deeply disappointed by this and by the time frame that the inquiry will take, especially with so much information in the public domain."
Tony Murphy, an independent member of the IPCC advisory group and a solicitor with Bindman and Partners, told BBC Radio 4's PM programme the evidence collected during the initial "golden hours" of an investigation into a death was "crucial" because otherwise it could be lost.
"I think when we consider this is the first time that the so-called 'shoot-to-kill to protect' policy has been employed and the natural concern that raises in citizens, the idea of the police not contacting the watchdog established by the government, the IPCC, the moment someone is killed pursuant to that policy, in such controversial circumstances, I think is shocking," he said.
Mr Murphy said it did not appear that the draft statutory guidance had been followed and added: "I think Sir Ian must explain why that was."
Watchdog backs calls for reform of Law Society 18 Aug 2005
A consumer watchdog has added its weight to calls to strip Scotland's 10,000 lawyers of the right to police themselves – and wants to go even further by having the Law Society itself governed by a majority of non-solicitors.
The government-backed Scottish Consumer Council condemned self-regulation as "anachronistic and outdated", stressing that Scots could be placed in a less favourable position than consumers south of the border if major reform is not introduced soon.
The organisation, which is sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry, accepts that the Law Society of Scotland has responded to the need for reform by introducing improvements in recent years, but believes not enough has been done to restore public trust.
It feels the society should be governed by a majority of non-solicitors – regardless of whether it continues to handle complaints about members.
In its response to Scottish Executive proposals to overhaul the present much-maligned system of complaints-handling, the SCC said: "We are not convinced there are any credible arguments that would justify requiring Scottish complainants to continue to use a system that is run by the legal profession.
"The greatest weakness in the present system for handling complaints against solicitors is the lack of consumer confidence in the ability of the Law Society of Scotland to adjudicate impartially on complaints.
"The prevailing mood in the twenty-first century in relation to consumer complaints is very different to that of 20 or 30 years ago. The development of ombudsman schemes in financial services, and the reform of regulation in other professions such as medicine and architecture, all point to the significant impact the consumer voice has had in recent years.
"The move is away from in-house complaints-handling towards independent schemes, because that appears to be the only way to ensure consumers will have confidence in the adjudication of complaints. This issue of confidence is crucially important, particularly in the provision of legal services.
"At present the society's governance arrangements reflect the interests of a membership body rather than a regulator in the public interest."
In the wake of growing disquiet over the regulation of Scotland's lawyers, Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, unveiled the consultation paper on the issue three months ago.
The number of complaints to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, the external "watchdog of last resort", about the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, its sister institution, rose by 27% last year.
The SCC favours a mix of the most radical reform proposed by the executive. A "single gateway" model for handling complaints should be established, it recommends, built on the existing Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman's scheme but with a lay chair and a lay majority.
In response, the Law Society conceded the need for lay members on its ruling council, but rejected all the executive's reform proposals.
BBC now run by women 18 Aug 2005
Men have been reduced to sperm donors, says Buerk
The veteran BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has complained that "almost all the big jobs in broadcasting [are] held by women," and that men have been reduced to "sperm donors".
The former Nine O'Clock News presenter, who now reads the news on BBC World, also said that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far, saying that "life is now lived in accordance with women's rules".
Buerk, who was promoting a new channel Five series, said that when he started making the programme he saw that changes that have taken place in modern society were reflected in his own experiences.
"Almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC 1 television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear," he said in an interview with Radio Times.
At the time the programme was being made, the BBC 1 chief was Lorraine Heggessey, the channel's first female controller. She resigned in January after four years at the head of the channel.
Ms Heggessey was one of several female broadcasting executives who were promoted by the former director general Greg Dyke to senior BBC positions as part of a campaign to rid the corporation of its image as a network of middle-class white men. Others included the director of television, Jana Bennett, the BBC Radio director, Jenny Abramsky, the head of entertainment, Jane Lush, and the director of BBC News, Helen Boaden.
In October last year, another former director general, Alasdair Milne, sparked a furious response when he said that the dominance of female executives was to blame for too many "dumb, dumb, dumb" lifestyle and makeover shows.
Ms Heggessey has been replaced as BBC 1 controller by a man, Peter Fincham, while Radio 4 is still run by Janice Hadlow.
Buerk said that social changes were not only felt at the BBC, and that the majority of middle management positions were held by women - a development which has "changed the nature of almost every aspect of the marketplace".
He continued: "Products are made for women, cars are made for women - because they control what is being bought.
"Look at the changes in the workplace. There is no manufacturing industry any more; there are no mines; few vital jobs require physical strength.
"What we have now are lots of jobs that require people skills and multi-tasking - which women are a lot better at."
Buerk spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent before becoming one of the main anchors on the BBC's flagship news programme, but he is still best-known for his reporting from the 1984 famine in Ethiopia.
In the interview, he said that typically male characteristics have been sidelined. "The traits that have traditionally been associated with men - reticence, stoicism, single-mindedness - have been marginalised," he said.
Buerk said that the result is that men are becoming more like women. "Look at the men who are being held up as sporting icons - David Beckham and, God forbid, Tim Henman," he said.
He admitted that some changes have been for the good, but asked: "What are the men left with?"
He said that, while men measure themselves in terms of their jobs, many traditionally male careers no longer exist.
"Men gauge themselves in terms of their career, but many of those have disappeared," he said.
"All they are is sperm donors, and most women aren't going to want an unemployable sperm donor loafing around and making the house look untidy. They are choosing not to have a male in the household."
Teacher jailed for sex with boy 18 Aug 2005
A married primary schoolteacher was jailed for 15 months yesterday after admitting having sex with an underage teenage boy.Hannah Grice, 32, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to two counts of indecent assault on the boy, who was aged 14 and 15 at the time of the offences.
Sentencing her at Stafford crown court, Judge John Shand told Grice, from Cannock, Staffordshire, she had abused her position of trust.
"Cases such as this are, of course, made worse by the fact that you were a member of the teaching profession," he told her. "You should have been very sensitive indeed to child welfare issues." Grice was also ordered to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
Her family said she had been a victim of "schoolboy fantasies". Grice's husband, Mike, a 34-year-old IT consultant, said: "I stood at the altar with my wife and said, 'In sickness and in health and for better or for worse.' I will stand by those vows I took."
The teacher's father, Trevor Pyke, 61, who works for the RAF, also attacked the decision to prosecute: "In my eyes, she's innocent. She's just an ordinary person who's been caught up in such circumstances that's escalated.
The hearing was told that the pair progressed from hugging and kissing to full sex and kept in touch via text messages and email.
After suspicions grew in Etchington, where Grice taught, the relationship became public last year and she was arrested. She initially denied having sex with the boy, who cannot be named because of his age, but then pleaded guilty and resigned her teaching post.
Stephen Bayley, defending, asked for a suspended sentence and told the court that Grice had been under pressure from illness and was determined to make amends.
The boy's mother said after the hearing: "Prison's the best place for her. She was actively pursuing my son. This was the biggest breach of trust imaginable."
Law Society seeks tribunal to investigate complaints over solicitors 18 Aug 2005
THE body that deals with complaints against solicitors said yesterday that if the Scottish Executive wanted to give the public an independent complaints system it should set up an appeals tribunal funded at the taxpayer's expense.
The Law Society of Scotland, which represents and regulates 10,000 solicitors, and is self-financing, has long been accused by some complainers of "looking after its own".
The society said the new tribunal's rules should be devised by ministers and the Lord President. Its members would be nominated by Scottish ministers and it would decide appeals from cases heard by the society or the Faculty of Advocates.
The comments came as the society submitted its response to the Scottish Executive's consultation on reforming the legal complaints system in Scotland.
The executive asked for comments on four proposals. The society responded but also put forward its own 'Option E' proposals which it claims will be more cost- effective, more efficient and less bureaucratic.
The society's plan also includes a plea for "blue sky thinking" to update the law on complaints and make it "fit for the 21st century".
Suggested changes include giving the society the power to issue severe warnings to solicitors and increasing the current powers of suspension.
Douglas Mill, the society's chief executive, said the society had already implemented a number of changes following an inquiry and a recommendation by the Justice 1 Committee to speed up and simplify complaints.
"But just as the system has been speeded up, we must not introduce change that will slow it down.
"Just as it has been simplified, we should not make it more bureaucratic.
"We must introduce reforms that work, rather than make change simply because of perception. We would encourage evolution rather than revolution."
The Executive would not comment on the details of the society's response, but added: "Ministers will be studying this response with great care alongside all the other views put to them."
Opening up legal regulation 18 Aug 2005
Advancing a vested interest or a sincere attempt at reform? Critics of the way the legal profession polices itself will see the Law Society's response to a Scottish Executive consultation document on regulation as an exercise in the former. The Law Society, not surprisingly, sees its contribution as the latter. Under the present system, the Law Society, which promotes the interests of solicitors, also investigates complaints of malpractice against lawyers and strikes them off in the most serious cases when a complaint is upheld.
However, the executive has recommended an end to self-regulation (or co-regulation, as the Law Society prefers to call it). Ministers said in the consultation paper that the complaints procedure takes too much time, is too complicated, and can demand too much of the public. They said there was a general feeling that the process might be loaded in favour of lawyers, and outlined four options for change in the paper. In its submission, the Law Society has rejected each option and proposed in their place a seven-point plan for reform. It suggests appointing non-lawyers to its governing council and establishing a Legal Profession Appeal Tribunal for customers unhappy about the handling of their complaint.
This role is at present performed by the Scottish Legal Services ombudsman, Linda Costelloe Baker. The Law Society proposes replacing the ombudsman with the new tribunal. It has had its differences with Ms Costelloe Baker but that in itself is no justification for doing away with the office. If anything, there is a case for strengthening the ombudsman's hand, whether in handling complaints about the legal profession or the public services.
The Law Society's blueprint would leave ultimate control over the resolution of complaints about lawyers in the hands of society officials and representatives of the Faculty of Advocates. It advances the case for evolution, not revolution, and concludes that the executive's proposals would create more red tape and be expensive to implement. Yet cutting red tape and making complaints procedures more cost-effective to operate are two of the aims the executive's proposals are intended to deliver. Both the executive and the Law Society cannot be right on these points. There must be good reason for changing the present system. As the status quo is not an option, the opportunity must be seized to best represent the public and boost trust and confidence in the legal profession. The Law Society has reservations, but there remains a strong case for opening up regulation.
Lawyers defy move to end power over complaints 18 Aug 2005
SCOTLAND'S 10,000 lawyers are defying attempts to strip the profession of its right to police itself.
The Law Society of Scotland claimed yesterday that reforms proposed by the Scottish Executive to overhaul the much-maligned system of self-regulation would be too expensive and create unnecessary red tape.
These reforms include a proposal to establish an independent complaints-handling body, with a non-lawyer majority.
The law society has now proposed its own seven-point plan for change, which leaves ultimate control over the resolution of complaints about lawyers in the hands of people appointed by the lord president of the Court of Session and representatives of the Faculty of Advocates.
Disquiet over how Scotland's lawyers are regulated has soared in recent years.
Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, unveiled the consultation paper on the issue three months ago. She acknowledged then that piecemeal changes have failed to win public confidence.
The number of complaints to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, the external "watchdog of last resort", about the law society and the Faculty of Advocates, its sister institution, has more than quadrupled to 500 annually since 2001. Last year, complaints rose by 27%. More than nine-in-10 were linked to the society.
The options put forward by the executive also include strengthening the powers of the external watchdog.
The law society does suggest having non-lawyers on its governing council and creating a legal profession appeal tribunal for consumers unhappy with the way their complaint has been handled. However, the tribunal's members would be personally appointed by the lord president who would also lay down the body's rules.
The society has claimed the increase in complaints reflects people's belief that it is worth complaining.
In its response to the consultation paper, the organisation also says criticism of its complaints-handling processes is a matter of "perception" and not reality. It stressed that the executive's proposals, which also include strengthening the ombudsman's powers, did not take account of recent im-provements.
Douglas Mill, the law society's chief executive, said the complaints handling procedure had been speeded up and simplified since 2002. "But just as the system has been speeded up, we should not introduce change that will slow it down. Just as it has been simplified, we should not make it more bureaucratic. We must introduce reforms which work, rather than make change simply because of perception."
The proposals did not impress John Swinney, former SNP leader and North Tayside MSP, who has taken up the cause of constituents allegedly ill-served by the society's handling of complaints. He said: "The essence of the problem is the degree of bureaucracy and the burden of time involved in dealing with these matters through the law society. That will only be remedied by the establishment of a swift, powerful and independent complaints-handling process."
The law society is also at odds with the Office of Fair Trading, the UK's most powerful consumer watchdog.
Earlier this year, the OFT took the rare step of going beyond its fair competition remit to ask searching questions about the public's access to justice when complaining about solicitors. In a separate response to the executive's consultation, it does so again.
The OFT is sceptical about whether professional bodies can simultaneously act as both trade associations promoting the services of their members and regulators protecting the interests of consumers. It favours the most radical of the executive's four options: the independent complaints-handling body with a lay chair and a lay majority, with all members to be appointed by the executive.
"Manifest independence is the key to public confidence. This is the model most likely to achieve this," the watchdog said. "We think consumer confidence requires that substantive handling of complaints be the responsibility of a body that is entirely functionally independent of the body whose members are complained of."
DIAL-A-CROOKED-LAWYER 17 Aug 2005
TEL:0131 476 8138
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND
Dial our hotline to receive information from our panel of experts in the art of deception and fraud.We will ensure you are put in touch with our highly trained staff were you will end up in a lifetime of litigation crippling you financially.Whether you have one of our crooked lawyers acting for or against you ,ultimately they will be acting solely for the Law Society of Scotland .
You will receive our regular threatening letters via Royal Mail recorded delivery or better still our messenger at arms the sheriff officers who ultimately will persecute you for so long and with so much pressure ,regarding our ever expanding legal costs ,that even the most sound individual will ultimately crack and look for a high building with a view on the way down or a suitable sharp instrument to end the pain and dark thoughts brought on by our vindictive and destructive system.
If you feel at anytime you need to complain about our services, we have a highly skilled staff operating from our PLUSH offices at Drumsheugh Gardens across from our partners in crime the highly secretive Legal Aid board .They will ensure you spend years running around in circles pushed from pillar to post to make sure you haven't a hope in hell of obtaining redress from being fleeced .We have the only International insurance master policy you cannot claim against and operated by the internationally famous insurance company Marsh UK ,who's chief executive resigned recently after he was implicated in a massive world wide fraud using contigency payments to those who use their insurance.The Law Society of Scotland directors are their BEST customers.
We also have our Masonic and Speculative brothers sitting in the courts rubber stamping our deception and corruption to ensure our system remains watertight.Our Judges,Law Lords and auditors of the court who are all PAST members and masters of our system of extortion we instill at the earliest opportunity.
This usually happens during inauguration into law starting at Scottish universities and our highly trained law professors who are part of our blackmailing system .We capture young naive law students at the earliest stages of indoctrination into our rackets ,we put those into our little black books and only use that against them if they try to speak out against us or expose the Dell boy racket we have been getting away with for far to long.
The Scottish Parliament have run both an investigation and now a consultation into our corrupt and fraudulent system for more than 5 years and now the the Legal Services Ombudsman,Office of Fair Trading ,Scottish Consumer Council and Which magazine all state our days are numbered and the public at large need to be protected from us and the tyrannical hold we have had over Scotland, in particular the mass media,were our media lawyers ensure little if any of our corruption gets exposed and only when WE decide to take action against a lawyer who may have BUCKED our system.
It is unfortunate that we have fleeced so many people who are now organised and exposing what we do to the general public that haven't as yet been caught up in our little multi billion pound scam .We will continue to use our propaganda machine to try and convince the populous at large that we are still the best way to take their legal cases through the courts even if it leaves them bankrupt,insane or in many cases DEAD.
PLEASE GET IN TOUCH IF YOU FEEL THIS KIND OF SERVICE IS FOR YOU . IF YOU WERENT DEPRESSED BEFORE YOU MET OUR HIGHLY TRAINED STAFF YOU CERTAINLY WILL BE AFTER AND WE HAVE PSYCHIATRISTS ON HAND FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE.
COPIED TO INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS AND MEDIA
Why independent complaints system is needed
Your Letters August 17 2005
It is sadly predictable that the Law Society of Scotland should wish to retain its current role as both trade association, protecting the rights of its members, and of regulator, protecting the rights of consumers. It has manifestly failed to do both to the satisfaction of the public, and it is now imperative that the complaints process for legal services in Scotland is handled through an independent body.
At the moment the process is lengthy, time-consuming (it can drag on for years), and is neither transparent nor fair. As the UK's largest independent consumer organisation, we know this both from our own research, the large numbers of people who have contacted our offices, and the numbers of complaints to the ombudsman.
People's lives are sometimes being ruined by this injustice, because when complaints arise they are not properly dealt with, and when they are not seen to be dealt with properly, this in turn undermines public confidence in our civil justice system.
Scotland must not risk falling into a legal backwater, with less public access to justice and right to redress than in England and Wales. Anything less than the introduction of an independent complaints system for legal services in Scotland would be disgraceful.
Julia Clarke, Which? 7-9 North St David Street, Edinburgh.
Bankers Behaving Badly 14 Aug 2005
Sex, Harassment, Racism, Embarrassing E-Mails, & Outrageous Extravagance
The banking industry and the financial services sector in general have received plenty of bad publicity in recent years, much of it well-deserved. Although rogues can be found in every occupation the City of London and Wall Street seem to attract more than their fair share.
Sexual Harassment, Sexism and the City
Many of the cases of scandalous behaviour involve sexism and sexual harassment. No doubt it could be said in defence of those accused in such cases that the increasingly litigatious nature of British society, following the American pattern, encourages such claims, and that it would be a pity if fear of the legal consequences made people scared of flirting. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 16, 2000 claimed that sex is secret of young businesswomen's success. According to the Sunday Times on November 17, 2002, in an article about harassment on Wall Street, "men are sick of gender awareness and the politically correct culture." That may be so, but simple, common decency could have prevented both the original problems and the imposition of a culture that makes men feel resentful.
Mum abandons girl 15 14 Aug 2005
Mum abandons girl, 15, for new life in Turkey
Yorkshire: Police are trying to trace a woman (Elaine Walker) who has abandoned one of her children and moved to Turkey. They say the 15-year-old, who was left to fend for herself, is safe and well.
It is understood the woman and an older daughter decided to move permanently to Turkey after going there on holiday earlier this summer.
LAWYER STOLE £108K 14 Aug 2005
A FORMER solicitor faces jail after admitting embezzling £108,000 from clients when his firm plunged into debt.Calum Blyth, 34, transferred the cash into his firm's accounts but dipped into it to fund an 'elegant lifestyle'.
Yesterday, he appeared at the High Court in Glasgow over the scam carried out at Blyths Solicitors, in the city's St Vincent Street, between December 1996 and April 1999.
The police were alerted in 2002 after an audit revealed discrepancies. Blyth was quizzed when he returned to the UK from America, where he had been living.
He confessed to taking the money before he was struck off as a lawyer and his firm wound up.No client who had money taken suffered because his father repaid them.
The court was told Blyth was now unemployed and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment. Sentencing was deferred until next month for reports
Half the Bar & Bench are homosexual and hate dads 13 Aug 2005
About half the Bar & Bench are homosexual, and They hate you (Dads)
What I think we have a right to know is how many of our Jurists are homosexual, given that they are clearly anti-Canadian, anti-Parliamentarian, Activist, and reports from many Law Society members here is that “about half” the Bar & Bench are homosexual, and “They hate you (Dads)”.
We must ask the question. On what basis would we be denied an answer? The Judiciary are Civil Servants of the Canadian Taxpayer. Their professional class is itself a creation of Parliamentary Statute, not of their own creation. Without that Statutory privilege, which they are given IN TRUST, they are no better than you or me. They are forming international conferences on how to govern their home countries, displacing the proper role of national Parliaments by these international bodies of jurists. It is probably reasonable to make memberships in such bodies illegal for our salaried Jurists and have them tried as treasonous for subverting our Parliamentarians. There needs to be a separate Statute for two self-governing bodies for Law Society, and for Judges to prevent the Judges from tyrannizing us and the Lawyers representing us.
We have a right to know the status of our Judiciary. If a Judge is 40 something times more likely to be homosexual than a Canadian, I say we have a right to know the facts and what is gong in our Courts. We have the right to weed out the Activists and fire them forthwith. It is not about approval or non-approval of behavior. It is about Homo-Activists displacing Natural Parents as parents, their Activism, subversion of the Courts and the Supremacy of Parliament.
A Lawyer's View of the Justice System 13 Aug 2005
by Joseph H. Delaney
The following, written by a practicing lawyer, is excerpted under the
doctrine of fair use, from an article entitled "So, You Want to Write a Law
Story?", in the July/August, 1999, issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact,
Vol. CXVIX No. 7 & 8:
Contrary to popular notion and to egotistical belief among judges
(particularly federal judges), getting elected or appointed, taking the oath
of office and donning a judicial robe is not the equivalent of pouring legal
knowledge into the judicial head.
Corruption, in all its many forms, is also a fact of life. There are many
ways to ascend to the bench, not the least uncommon of which is for the
judge to buy the office. These range from political influence, powerful
friends in the state capitol or national government, to public apathy and
correspondingly little or no opposition to his/her investment, the latter
situation being endemic throughout the country.
Too frequently the best, most able, most successful lawyer disdains to
sacrifice himself on the bench, so the mediocre lawyer fills in for him/her,
enjoying the comfort and security of public employment/entrenched
incumbency. Lack of competition provides little incentive to study and many
such judges never crack a book, preferring to simply order all parties to
file briefs while taking cases under advisement. Judicial opinions
containing extensive verbatim recitations from the brief of the prevailing
side are the rule, and most of these, again particularly in the federal
system (which has ample taxpayer money for such conveniences), are actually
written by law clerks or secretaries, not by judges.
Sadly, there are more disquieting realities about judges that need some
public daylight on them. Just as all judges are not intellectually and
educationally equal, the proportion of judges who are dishonest, who are on
the take, who harbor prejudices against parties or counsel, is far greater
than the lay public realizes. (The classic example of Catch 22 is a
community in West Texas which got rid of an illiterate district judge only
to have the governor appoint the town drunk to succeed him.)
Corruption is rampant in courts at every level throughout the country. It is
equally rampant among prosecutors and law enforcement people. You cannot
write a realistic law story without taking this into account. The primary
corrupting influence is the drug business. As Al Capone bought the justice
system in Cook County, Illinois, back in the 1920s, the dope interests own
contemporary justice. (They have more money than Al did, even accounting for
Only the little guy, the so-called "mule," ever sees the inside of a cell.
Of the many I have defended there has not been a single one who did not tell
me, in strict and privileged confidence, that when arrested he had at least
twice the quantity he was charged with possessing (the rest got new owners).
Realistically -- and realism is the lifeblood of an Analog story -- there is
a world of difference between what the law is and what finally emerges from
If drama is your bag and you really like your protagonist squirming, just
inject a little of this reality into the mix. There is no greater shock than
to find that even with both law and the facts in your favor your
constitutional rights are worthless because you can't get the crooked regime
to enforce them. Who knows, you might even do society some good with such a
Who control the judges 13 Aug 2005
If you want to know the control factor in "REALITY" over Judges:
1.) all Judges have numerous complaints filed against them for ethical
violations. These complaints are not acted upon, ignored and tossed in
the garbage can.
2.) If a Judge rules against the "Boys" the "Boys" can pull one of those
complaints out of the garbage can and ram it through against the Judge.
3.) a conviction for an ethical violation against a Judge will cause
forfeiture of that Judge's Pension.. he or she better not rule
contrary to the "Boys" objectives.. or an attorney better not pursue
a misconduct charge against a judge if he wishes to continue
The definition of 1,2,3 control.....
STATE JUDGES (Retirement Pensions)
New Jersey Judges = $5,000,000.00 after 1 year tenure. (1989's figures)
Arizona Judges = Approximately $3,000,000.00 after 18 Months tenure
Federal Judges = $8,000,000.000 + after 2 years tenure (1996's figures )
To find the value of a Judges Pension in your State, look at that States
CAFR under pension funds, "Judicial Branch".
Why women's rights are wrong 13 Aug 2005
By Vox Day
The greatest media scribe of these latter days, Bill Simmons, is known for
a certain pithy mantra. "The lesson, as always: Women ruin everything."
While one does not usually expect to find deep sociological truths in the
sports pages, so great has been the degradation of the acerbic art once
known as the editorial, so filled with fear are the vanilla-minded
commentators, that one finds more veracity on a single page of ESPN than in
opinion pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall
Street Journal combined.
Now, at this point, it is customary for women to immediately reject any
assertion that women's rights are wrong as the Talibanistic ranting of an
embittered man who has been denied ready access to attractive women's
bodies. In the interest of dismissing this red herring, I merely note that
few men fortunate enough to possess a turbo Porsche and a record contract
at 23 have any reason to be bitter about the hand that life has dealt them.
In fact, I very much like women and wish them well, which is precisely why
I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated. For
what is rather more difficult to dismiss are the simple and easily
verifiable facts that indicate women have seldom been less able to pursue
their dreams and less able to achieve their desires than today, the Golden
Age of Feminism.
Consider the two great laments of the modern American woman. For the
unmarried woman, it is the reality that she must marry later in life than
ever before, if she is able to marry at all. For the married woman, it is
that unlike generations of women before her, she cannot afford to stay home
with her children unless she is fortunate enough to have married to a man
of the financial elite.
Both of these developments can be traced directly to women's rights. Men's
increasing unwillingness to marry stems primarily from two causes - the
feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually
beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the
removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women.
Ergo, the need for marriage has been eliminated while its liabilities have
increased. As Blue America and de-Christianizing Europe increasingly show,
in the absence of religion there is now very little impetus for marriage.
And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work
is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When
women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th
century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron
law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply
has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand
for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973.
Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is
why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor
alone would have sufficed.
(The decline in wages would be much more obvious to the casual observer if
men had not begun retiring earlier at the same time women entered the work
force. To state that young women are working today so their grandfathers
can play golf is reasonable shorthand for what happened.)
But the greatest evil of women's rights is demographic. Europe's demise is
all but assured, thanks to them, as women's individual choices taken in the
collective have stricken European society and brought on successive waves
of feminist-friendly Islamic immigration by reducing Europe's birth rates
far below replacement levels. And women's-rights advocates are now finding
themselves in an ironic intellectual bind, as the onset of sex selection
technology has them arguing that while a woman has a right to choose
abortion, she can only do so for approved reasons.
This is because scientists are estimating that there are 100 million women
missing from India and China and as the technology becomes cheaper and more
widespread, this rate of loss is increasing. A U.N. official named Khalid
Malik has warned that at present birth rates, with only 826 girls born per
1,000 boys, China will be missing 60 million more women within a decade.
And in India, when a family already has two girls, a third pregnancy
results in 78 percent of unborn girl babies being aborted.
The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished
gains of the right to vote, work, murder [abortion] and freely fornicate
are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and
little girls. They can at least console themselves with the thought that,
in the long run, it doesn't matter what they do, because the women's-rights
ideology is an evolutionary dead end, and it is increasingly apparent that
societies embracing it will not survive.
In the end, it's not that hard to understand. A little girl who is not born
will never vote, work or raise a little girl of her own.
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the
SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden
since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and
responses to reader email.
Crowned heads of Europe are plotting to divide up America 6 Aug 2005
"Overthrow of the American Republic". And what the crowned
heads of Europe are plotting to divide up America. For the benefit of the British Monarchy, if not actually orchestrated by them, have been the political assassinations of SEVEN U.S. PRESIDENTS,1841 to 1963, three by poisoning, four by gunfire (falsely attributed to "lone assassins").
Updated details of the forbidden DOMESTIC dirty business of the Secret Political Police, the American CIA.
Further details of the bribery mess involving FIVE JUDGES (of the Nine total) on the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of the four other judges and their Law Clerks are whistleblowers being harassed and threatened into attempted silence by the American Gestapo, Homeland Security and the F.B.I. who are unlawfully blocking communications into the headquarters building in Washington, D.C. of America's High Court. Implicated in the High Court corruption are Coca-Cola, Mickey Mouse (Disney), and others as spear-headed by an arrogant Fascist-inclined High Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, known as a "Go To Hell" Judge for his mannerisms. The first stories about all this were issued by us months ago. . Without mentioning us, Vanity Fair Magazine in their October, 2004 issue went part way into this mess.
updated details of financial Sucker Traps, the Blackmail Business, Buying and Selling of Media Jobs and Judgeships.
Bush White House links to Jeff Gannon alias Johnny Gosch, traveling whorehouse and espionage operative,
Omaha, Chicago, D.C.
updated details of who all is involved in murder of Chicago Federal Judge's family including complicity of FBI and Russian underworld, the Russian Mafiya.
updated details of Court Rackets, such as Divorce and Bankruptcy. Examples of corrupted Banker-Judges and their Banks (Banker-Judges do not disqualify themselves.). Guess who wins in their crooked court when ThEIR BANK ends up in THEIR COURT?
The Pedophile/Homosexual Political and Media Underground. Naming names. Used by the Red Chinese Secret Political Police, for example, for blackmailing out of the White House, U.S. MILITARY, financial, and industrial secrets, not purely personal matters but obvious violations of NATIONAL SECURITY.
allowed, permitted, and condoned by U.S. authorities, that is, bloody, dirty business, on U.S. SOIL, of the Red Chinese Secret Political Police, including with and for Wal-Mart.
Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts, Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 So. Oglesby Ave., Chicago IL 60617-4870. Send cash, check, or money order (U.S. Funds ONLY). No Paypal or credit cards please.
HERE IS SOME BACKGROUND ON OUR WORK since 1958:
Since 1958, we have been court reforners. Since 1963, I have been the Founder/Chairman of the Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts. Our work is devoted to researching, investigating, and disclosing certain instances of judicial and lawyer bribery, and secret background data and reports on political murders and secret nests of plutocrats of the Aristocracy..
Our group has a repository of more than one million documents, some traceable that cannot be disclosed; some untraceable. We have many clandestine audio, video, and other interviews of those "close to the horse's mouth". Secret notebooks and reports, in and out of law enforcement. Some video and other excerpts from the twelve years we conducted a one-hour, non-commercial, public access Cable TV Show, weekly, cablecast only within the city limits of Chicago, to upwards of 400,000 viewers. We have the audio interviews of Hotline News, which for 30 years was a recorded phone message heard by a large audience. We have little-known court and administrative agency files, many of them later suppressed, or ordered destroyed by the aristocracy, with us somehow now having the only remaining copy. Various other pieces of evidence and undercover law enforcement reports.
In plain lingo, we do PRIMARY INVESTIGATIONS. Unlike others, we do not rely solely on the magazine and newsclippings of others as our main sources. As a consequence, we are often heckled by naive, poorly-informed sorts who expect to see a raft of footnotes in our reports referring only to the work of others.
In more than four decades of our original work, we have again and again been shown, long after our exclusive stories, of being quite correct and vindicated. Our policy is to confront bribe-taking judges directly to their face. As the scrivener and spokesman for the group, this throws a huge jeopardy and burden upon me. Since childhood, I have had polio and require use of a wheelchair. Nevertheless, some eight times in 40 years, corrupt judges had me grabbed and jailed, wheelchair and all, not for crimes, which I commit none, but for "contempt of court", an ancient arbitrary power, created out of the mists and vapors of nothingness.
You may now be pleased to know, each and every such judge, later was removed from the bench because of corruption or put in jail for bribery. That is, we somehow generated publicity requiring the plutocrats, "the powers that be", the Establishment, the Ruling Class---that is THEM---to throw away some of their judicial fakers and stooges as scapegoats, long-known as corrupt and corrupters.
In 1969, for example, our work, touched off the biggest judicial bribery mess in U.S. history, causing the downfall of Illinois' highest tribunal, the Illinois Supreme Court.
[Now the subject of a book by Law Professor Kenneth A. Manaster, "Illinois Justice", 2001.]
In the 1970s, our work caused the jailing for bribery, of the highest level sitting federal judge in the nation's history, a federal appeals judge in Chicago. Also, in the 1970s, our work led to Congress considering the impeachment of one of the judges on the nation's highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court, that became the subject of an extensive U.S. Government Printing Office Document. As stated in the Government Report, key members of the Congressional Committee decided to hold their deliberations in my residence. That was, about high court Associate Judge William O. Douglas, who while on the bench, as we showed, was also President of a gangster-originated money laundry, known as the Albert Parvin Foundation.
A director of the gangster group, while on the bench, was the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Chicago. Because I brought up his gangster links in his court, the Chief Judge had two of his court bailiff goons commit an unprovoked assault and battery on me while I was sitting quietly in his courtroom, waiting to present a Motion to Remove the Judge in a class action voting case brought by me. Without cause, they attempted to throw me and my wheelchair upside down. Eighteen chicken-hearted media bastards witnessed the event, but reported nothing. The bailiffs, when sued by me, were nevertheless granted immunity, by the banker-judges of Chicago's federal appeals court. The federal appeals court heavily censored ruling is in the law books, Sherman H. Skolnick .vs. Campbell, Guadagno et al,, 454 Federal Reporter Second Series 53l (7th Circuit, Chicago, 1971).
A further example. Our work, 1983 to 1993, led to the jailing for bribery of twenty judges and forty lawyers.
In the entire history of the U.S. Judicial system, most all the judges ever sent to jail for bribery occurred within the past four decades as a result of our activities.
I have been told there is apparently no other group in North America that operates like we do and there are few, if any, very outspoken and daring like us.
THANKS FOR READING THIS. Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman.
Please note: subscribing to my e-mail list is NOT the same as being a member of CloakandDagger.
Police ‘withheld vital evidence’ in murder case 5 Aug 2005
A SCOTTISH police force is facing claims that its officers suppressed vital evidence that could have cleared a man currently serving life in prison for murder.Documents obtained by the Sunday Herald cast serious doubt on the conviction of Steven Johnston, who was jailed in 1996 for life for the brutal murder of his friend Andrew Forsyth at the victim’s home in Dunfermline.
They reveal that officers in the murder case failed to pass on witness statements to the defence and to the Crown Office that could have led to Johnston being acquitted of the crime.
The Crown’s case rested on the belief that Johnston killed Forsyth in a frenzied attack on November 3, 1995. During the trial, the jury was told that “to bring home a conviction against Steven Johnston, the deceased would require to have died on Friday, November 3”.
But in its report, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) – which looks into alleged miscarriages of justice – reveals that it traced four witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased after the date the police claimed that Johnston had killed him. Each of them told the police during the murder investigation that they had seen Forsyth alive after November 3.
Despite this, none of their statements was passed on by police and so their evidence was never heard at trial.
Michael Healy, a shopkeeper tracked down by the SCCRC, claimed that Forsyth, whom he knew, came into his shop on Saturday, November 4, bought a newspaper and asked about bus times. Mhairi Cormack, a housing officer, said that she went to the dead man’s house on Tuesday, November 7, and looked through the front window – directly at the spot where his body was found – but could not see anything suspicious.
Michael Franklin, said he saw Forsyth at Jinty’s bar on Wednesday, November 8 – the day before his body was discovered. Karen Wheelright told police at the time that she had seen Forsyth in the street after the date he was supposed to have been killed.
The damning report by the SCCRC states: “ The commission has found it difficult to conclude other than the police took it upon themselves to filter out the existence of witnesses whose evidence might point to the deceased having been alive after November 3.
“The commission also believes that the defence put forward on behalf of Mr Johnston would have been presented in different terms had counsel been aware of the full extent of the sightings of the deceased after November 3. These actions by the police resulted in the jury not being made aware of the full timescale and range of movements of the deceased in the days immediately following the supposed date of his death.”
The Sunday Herald has also discovered that the Fife force attempted to suppress evidence from a further six witnesses prior to the trial but failed.
Submitted to the high court, the SCCRC report will form a crucial part of Johnston’s appeal when the case is heard in October. If successful, it will raise the prospect of a massive damages claim and a criminal investigation by the Lord Advocate against the Fife force.
Last night, however, there was widespread anger at the conduct of Fife Constabulary. Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the former Lord Advocate, said: “ At best, this is unacceptable, bumbling incompetence, and at its worst, if there was a deliberate suppression of evidence, then it may be criminal because it might amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. There might be the basis here for criminal proceedings.”
Stewart Stevenson, the SNP deputy justice spokesman, described the conduct of Fife Constabulary as “a cause for serious concern” .
John McManus, of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation Scotland, said it was a “scandal” that Johnston was still in jail as the Crown Office was aware as far back as 1997 that statements had been withheld by police.
A Crown Office and procurator fiscal service spokesman said: “As there is a live appeal in this case, where the actions of Fife Police are due to form part of the considerations, it would be highly inappropriate to offer any comment at this time.”
Fife Constabulary also said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the claims.
Top lawyer kills himself 5 Aug 2005
Top lawyer kills himself days before office closes in merger
A SENIOR partner at an Edinburgh law firm committed suicide yesterday just days before his office was due to shut in a merger with another city legal firm.
Gordon Lockerbie hanged himself outside the building where he worked for more than two decades for Menzies Dougal.
The body of the 53-year-old property solicitor, who was a lifelong Hearts fan, is understood to have been spotted hanging from a railing behind the office at about 8am by a member of the public.
A spokeswoman for Lothian and Borders Police said: "We were called to an address in Bruntsfield Crescent this morning after the discovery of the body of a 53-year-old man. There are no suspicious circumstances and a report has been sent to the procurator-fiscal."
Mr Lockerbie was separated from his wife and leaves three sons and a daughter.
As a member of the Hands Off Tynecastle committee, he vigorously campaigned to keep Hearts at their Gorgie home, writing numerous letters to The Scotsman on the subject.
He once served on a Bangladesh cyclone disaster appeal committee and raised funds for the cardiac unit at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.
Close friends of Mr Lockerbie last night said he had a "heart of gold".
Leslie Deans, a leading Edinburgh property lawyer and former Hearts chairman, said: "I'm utterly and absolutely devastated. I've known Gordon for 30 years - he was, like myself, a lawyer specialising in property, based in Edinburgh, and was a similar age to myself.
"Of course we shared a mutual passion and that was for Hearts. He was an absolute dyed-in-the-wool Jambo. We often had long discussions, arguments, about Hearts. He was passionate about the club."
He described Mr Lockerbie as "one of life's nice guys".
"If you bumped into Gordon he usually had a smile on his face. He was a bright spark.
"Some people can be dismal but Gordon was the opposite of that. It's just tragic that he has taken his life."
Gillespie Macandrew last week announced it will take over Menzies Dougal's work on 1 August.
Under the merger, two of Menzies Dougal's partners, Colin Mackay and Gerrard Clark, will become partners in Gillespie Macandrew, while Alan McLaren will take on a role as a consultant in the amalgamated firm.
It is not known what role Mr Lockerbie would have played in the expanded firm, which is expected to relocate to expanded premises.
The former Hearts captain Gary Mackay said he was "devastated" by Mr Lockerbie's death.
"He was a huge Hearts fan - that's where our friendship came from. It was friendship which grew and grew over the years.
"He was secretary of my testimonial committee and he put everything into that. Everything he did, he did with 110 per cent passion, that was the kind of guy he was - he had a heart of gold.
"I'm absolutely devastated. He was a huge character in Edinburgh and he will be sorely missed. My thoughts are with his family at this time."
A spokeswoman for the Law Society of Scotland said: "The firm has been in touch with me to confirm that Gordon Lockerbie has died at their offices today. They've assured us that his ongoing work is being handled within the firm. We extend our sympathy for his family and friends at this difficult time."
Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything 5 Aug 2005
THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION:
by Dr. Tim O'Shea
We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased.
The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country.
Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given story in today's news.
If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that Conventional Wisdom.
In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually contrived: somebody paid for it. Examples:
· Pharmaceuticals restore health
· Vaccination brings immunity
· The cure for cancer is just around the corner
· When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
· When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
· Hospitals are safe and clean.
· America has the best health care in the world.
· And many many more
This is a list of illusions that have cost billions and billions to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in this country think generally the same about most of the above issues?
How This Set-Up Got Started
In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in America.
They trace modern public influence back to the early part of the last century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Spin. From his own amazing chronicle Propaganda, we learn how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself, and applied them to the emerging science of mass persuasion.
The only difference was that instead of using these principles to uncover hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays used these same ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
The Father Of Spin
Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During all that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a public perception about some idea or product. A few examples:
As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays' first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen)
A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with.
He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation. Such publicity followed from that one event that from then on women have felt secure about destroying their own lungs in public, the same way that men have always done.
Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.
Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the advertising format along with the AMA that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes are beneficial to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time from the 40s and 50s.
Smoke And Mirrors
Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light. Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership."
Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens with the people unaware that they are being manipulated.
Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this:
"the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42
These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral service for humanity in general - democracy was too good for people; they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays' Propaganda:
"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."
Here Comes The Money
Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than he could handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting the new Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these players have had the money to make their images happen. A few examples:
Procter & Gamble
Though world-famous within the PR industry, the companies have names we don't know, and for good reason.
The best PR goes unnoticed.
For decades they have created the opinions that most of us were raised with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value, including:
medicine as a profession
fluoridation of city water
household cleaning products
cancer research and treatment
pollution of the oceans
forests and lumber
images of celebrities, including damage control
crisis and disaster management
genetically modified foods
food additives; processed foods
Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create credibility for a product or an image was by "independent third-party" endorsement.
For example, if General Motors were to come out and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by selling automobiles.
If however some independent research institute with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a scientific report that says global warming is really a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts about the original issue.
So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius, he set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45)
Quietly financed by the industries whose products were being evaluated, these "independent" research agencies would churn out "scientific" studies and press materials that could create any image their handlers wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding names like:
Temperature Research Foundation
International Food Information Council
Center for Produce Quality
Tobacco Institute Research Council
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Air Hygiene Foundation
American Council on Science and Health
Industrial Health Federation
Global Climate Coalition
International Food Information Council
Alliance for Better Foods
Sound pretty legit don't they?
Canned News Releases
As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the image of the global corporations who fund them, like those listed on page 2 above.
This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every radio station and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports read like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news format.
This saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects on their own, especially on topics about which they know very little. Entire sections of the release or in the case of video news releases, the whole thing can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of the reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant news - copy and paste. Written by corporate PR firms.
Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases... (22)
These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able to tell the difference.
The Language Of Spin
As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation. Here are some of the axioms of the new science of PR:
· technology is a religion unto itself
· if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is dangerous
· important decisions should be left to experts
· when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images
· never state a clearly demonstrable lie
Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an example. A front group called the International Food Information Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified foods.
Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our grocery shelves which are said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants to reassure the public of the safety of GM foods, so it avoids words like:
Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful scientific methods of real crossbreeding doesn't really matter. This is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a passing myth. (Trevanian)
Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council? Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, NutraSweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods. (Stauber p 20)
Characteristics Of Good Propaganda
As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:
· dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling
· speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words
· when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for time; distract
· get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street people - anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand
· the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you
· when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable, point out the benefits of what just happened, and avoid moral issues
Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find - look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing; these guys are good!
Science For Hire
PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at. (Stauber, p 201)
This is a common occurrence. In this way the editors of newspapers and TV news shows are often not even aware that an individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at least they have "deniability," right?
Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave cars more horsepower.
When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake "testing" and publish spurious research that 'proved' that inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.
Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an executive with General Motors.
By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering institute issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the body and that the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure.
Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all anti-lead research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific opposition, for the next 60 years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% of our gasoline was leaded.
Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and highways. 30 million tons.
That is PR, my friends.
In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science. Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology, industry, and progress.
Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was supported by the industry-backed Manhattan Institute.
Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.
True scientific method goes like this:
1. Form a hypothesis
2. Make predictions for that hypothesis
3. Test the predictions
4. Reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings
Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in science are themselves like "living organisms that must be nourished, supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and flourish." (Stauber p 205)
Great ideas that don't get this financial support because the commercial angles are not immediately obvious - these ideas wither and die.
Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science pretends there were no flaws.
The Real Junk Science
Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.
It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions are true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to science has shifted the entire focus of research in America during the past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely to admit.
Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)
The Two Main Targets Of "Sound Science"
It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate PR today opposes any research that seeks to protect
· public health
· the environment
It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk science," it is in a context of defending something that may threaten either the environment or our health.
This makes sense when one realizes that money changes hands only by selling the illusion of health and the illusion of environmental protection. True public health and real preservation of the earth's environment have very low market value.
Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of images.
The Language Of Attack
When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative medicine people, they again use special words which will carry an emotional punch:
outraged sound science
junk science sensible
The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training.
Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified foods.
They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food and to end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually have lower yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p 173)
The grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost all GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides and pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
Kill Your TV?
Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start watching TV news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had before.
Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it? And if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility of advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your brain to mass media.
That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time magazine or Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you could do with the extra time alone.
Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in the world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past couple of years for a minute.
Do you really suppose the major stories that have dominated headlines and TV news have been "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually think there's been nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump, the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign violence and disaster, and all the other non-stories that the puppeteers dangle before us every day?
What about when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or the Oklahoma city bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail, day after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we wanted to? What is the purpose of news?
To inform the public? Hardly. The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected to the same advertising.
Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media mastery - simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays said, the people must be controlled without them knowing it.
Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming back for more.
If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:
What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether?
Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual or academic loss from such a decision?
Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless values of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are these fake, programmed robots "normal"?
Do you need to have your life values constantly spoon-fed to you?
Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out yourself by doing a little independent reading?
Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and reading the evening paper.
What measurable gain is there for you?
Planet of the Apes?
There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever notice the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising and billboards?
Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools. Three fourths of California high school seniors can't read well enough to pass their exit exams. (SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01)
If you think other parts of the country are smarter, try this one: hand any high school senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to open to any random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year by year.
At least 10% have documented "learning disabilities," which are reinforced and rewarded by special treatment and special drugs. Ever hear of anyone failing a grade any more?
Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial arts, and cretinesque dialogue.
Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the falsely animated corporate simians they hire as DJs -- they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they just repeat at random.
And at what point did popular music cease to require the study of any musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps we just don't understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man.
Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound like they were all written by the same guy? And this guy just graduated from junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions on social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him to assure us that everything is going to be fine...
All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody explained it to them.
Tea In the Cafeteria
Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room. So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your friend for a few minutes.
Now, coming back to your tea, are you just going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a crowded place and you've just left your tea unattended for several minutes. You've given anybody in that room access to your tea.
Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda, anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.
As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is, like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access to it.
This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be shaped, crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?
There are many important issues that are crucial to our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. If it's an issue where money is involved, objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody knows something, that image has been bought and paid for.
Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at least one level below what "everybody knows."
American Judicial and Legal Corruption 3 Aug 2005
Table of Contents and List of Questions for this FAQ on American Judicial and Legal Corruption (F.A.Q., Frequently Asked Questions)
Here is the complete internet FAQ, or Frequently Asked Questions with Answers, on American judicial and legal corruption - the most hidden and ugly secret about life inside the modern United States.
Information for the many victims of USA legal injustice, and for anyone seeking to understand America's terrifying legal system, and how America really works.
Why American lawyers and judges are destroying families, sending innocent people to prison, and why average working people cannot get justice in American courts.
This FAQ is especially important, because America's major news media are afraid to talk about wrongdoing by lawyers and judges. Here is the truth that the U.S. media knows, but hides from the public.
The courthouse is where lives and fortunes are changed “by the stroke of a pen.”
Each year the nation's judges decide hundreds of thousands of cases, most of which receive no public attention, discussion or scrutiny. As a way of increasing awareness of courthouse a
Who Is Who, And To Whom They Sold Their Souls 1 Aug 2005
If you are bullied, threatened or persecuted in any society or walk of life this is the SOURCE of ALL of it, the elitist illuminists who control, with an evil sinister occult iron fist, everyone on this planet
aided and abeted by the SILENCE from the WORLD'S media who are ultimately controlled from the same source. Most mass media journalists hands are tied, some who have lost their jobs for daring to run stories that expose this evil satanic system.
History has been grossly distorted by ALL the worlds media to allow this EVIL tyranny to continue,anyone who stands up against this disappears or ends up in psychiatric wards for daring to challenge that control.
Who Is Who, And To Whom They Sold Their Souls
Compiled By: Louis Turner
"The ancient Greeks built a wooden horse and the poor old Trojans couldn't overcome their curiosity. I'm gonna build a Golden Hammer, and see how many Socialists I can force into the slammer" - Louis Turner
George Bush - Skull & Bones, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Committee of 300, Illuminati , Skull & Bones
Bill Clinton - Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission, CFR
Saddam Hussein - 33° Freemason
King Hussein - 33° Freemason
Tony Blair - 33° Freemason
Gerhard Schroeder - 33° Freemason
Benjamin Netanyahu - 33° Freemason
Yasser Arafat - 33° Freemason
Ronald Reagan - 33° Freemason (on sight), Knights of Malta, Rosicrucian Order
Michail Gorbatjov - 33° Freemason
Helmut Kohl - Committee of 300
Shimon Peres - 33° Freemason
Francois Mitterand - 33° Freemason (Grand Orient Lodge)
Yitzak Rabin - 33° Freemason
Willy Brandt - Committee of 300
Gerald Ford (frm President USA) - 33° Freemason
Karl Marx - (Grand Orient Lodge)
Frederick Engels - (Grand Orient Lodge)
Franklin D. Roosevelt - (32 or 33° Freemason)
Sir Winston Churchill - 33° Freemason (but Resigned from the English Lodge!) Member of the Druid Order
Harry S. Truman - 33° Freemason
Neville Chamberlain - (Committee of 300)
Vladimir Lenin - Illuminati (Grand Orient Lodge)
Joseph Stalin - Illuminati (Grand Orient Lodge)
Leon Trotsky - (Grand Orient Lodge)
Henry Kissinger - (Committee of 300, P2 Freemasonry, Knights of Malta, Bilderberger)
J. Edgar Hoover - 33° Freemason
Cecil Rhodes - 33° Freemason
Aleister Crowley - Grandmaster Ordo Templi Orientis
Walt Disney - 33° Freemason
Olof Palme - Committee of 300, Bilderberger
Al Gore - 33º Freemason
Tony Blair - 33° Freemason, Bilderberger
Josef Mengele (Dr. Green) - Illuminati Implanter
Robert McNamara - 33° Freemason (at least)
Pehr G. Gyllenhammar (frm Volvo) - Committee of 300
Percy Barnevik (ABB Sweden) - Committee of 300
Col. James "Bo" Gritz - 33° Freemason
Billy Graham - 33° Freemason
John Glenn (33° Freemason)
Buzz Aldrin (33° Freemason)
Virgil I. Grissom (Freemason)
Edgar D. Mitchell (Freemason)
Francis Bacon (Freemason, Rosicrucian Grand Master)
Lord David Owen - (Royal Institute of Int. Affairs, Committee of 300)
Lord Peter Carrington - (Committee of 300, Bilderberger)
Richard Holbrooke - (33° Freemason, Committee of 300)
Jimmy Carter - (Tril. Comm., CFR)
Carl Bildt - (Bilderberger)
David Rockefeller - Czar of the Illuminati
Edmund de Rothschild - Illuminati
Alan Greenspan - Federal reserve Bank (Committe of 300)
Peter Wallenberg - S-E Bank of Sweden (Committee of 300)
Queen Elizabeth II - Queen of the Committee of 300
Prince Phillip - 33° Freemason, Committee of 300
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands - Committee of 300 (Bilderberger)
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands - Committee of 300 (Bilderberger)
King Carl XVI Gustaf - (Bilderberger)
Prince Bertil - (Grande Orient Lodge of Freemasonry)
John Jacob Astor
W. Averell Harriman
John D. Rockefeller Sr.
Baron Guy de Rothschild
Hillary Clinton - (6° Grand Dame)
Albert Pike - (founder of Ku Klux Klan)
Sam & Edgar Bronfman Jr. - (Seagram Whiskey)
David, Nelson, Winthrop, Laurence, John D. III
Lord J. Rothschild
Bertrand Russell (scientist)
Otto of Habsburg
George W. Bush Jr. - Illuminati , Skull & Bones
Irenee du Pont, Illuminati
Adam Weishaupt Founder of the Bavarian Illuminati
Related Article: Click Here
[Constructed 4 April 1999]
Novus Ordo Seclorum [New World Order] Source: CentrExNews