Monitoring men in the media 31 July 2005


There's been some attention given to the representation of women in the media. But now it's time to look at men, argue William Bird and Gemma Harries for the MMP, which has undertaken a project to do just that."" William Bird and Gemma Harries for the MMP write:

Going by numbers, Statistics South Africa has revealed that women comprise 52% of the South African population. Numerous research initiatives on the media, however, indicate a radically different picture. In terms of media content, men quite simply, dominate. The recent research undertaken by the Media Monitoring Project, commissioned by Soul City, shows that men are three times more likely to be seen, and heard in the media than women.

So why look at men?

Firstly, the research addressed men because of the continuously changing understanding of masculinity and male identity. Not only is South Africa’s society still in a state of continued change, but notions of identity, gender equality, and masculinity are also continuously changing. The context of growing recognition and enforcement of the rights and roles of women in society has sometimes resulted in the perception that these rights somehow undermine men’s rights, dignity, power, and masculinity. A similar argument is often made about affirmative action as undermining the rights of white people, when it is clear that affirmative action is aimed at bringing about equality not undermining rights.

Secondly, it is valuable to analyse the representation of men in the media is important because the fight for gender equality continues. The Men in the Media research highlighted how much of an effort the South African media is making in improving the representation of women. The number of women who speak (sources) in the media has risen dramatically. In 1999, the MMP’s research during the national elections showed that women accounted for a mere 10% of all sources. In 2004, over a similar period, the national elections, and number of media, the MMP’s monitoring showed that this figure had more than doubled to 23% female sources. During the Men in the Media study (admittedly a shorter and random monitoring period), the MMP found that the number of female sources had risen again to 26%. Clearly, while women only comprise just over one in four sources in the media remains significantly inequitable. However, compared to the global average of 18% female sources (Global Media Monitoring Project 2000), the South African media’s improvements are to be commended.

One of the key focus points of improving the representation of women in the media has been in addressing the roles in which women are represented. Women are most often represented within the domestic and social spheres as entertainers, residents, and victims. The challenge lies in representing women in roles that are traditionally and stereotypically associated with men, such as politicians, business people, professionals, experts, and sports people. While these challenges still remain, they have served to highlight the gaps and inequitable representation of men in the media. While it is critical for the media to seek alternative representations of women in the professional and business spheres, the Men in the Media research highlighted that the media portrays men in limited roles in the domestic and social spheres.

Sadly, the problem for the media, and in fact society, is that men do occupy limited roles in the familial sphere; they do kill, abuse, and rape members of their families, they desert their children, they fail to pay maintenance, and often resort to violence as a way of resolving conflict. This raises two concerns. Firstly, not all men fulfil these roles, and secondly, gender equality in the media is about seeking balance and representing society not only as we’d like to see it, but also as it should, and in many ways, is. Not only does the Human Sciences Research Council’s initiative, the Fatherhood Project, highlight alternative and positive roles for men as fathers and caregivers, but it also challenges another common stereotype; that caring for children is the responsibility of women. Another element of the struggle for gender equality is to show men that they have an equal responsibility for the care and upbringing of children, and other roles and responsibilities in the domestic and social sphere. Addressing the representation of men in the media is not only compatible with, but also integral to an analysis of the representation of women in the media, and the concurrent struggle for gender equality. In supporting and promoting the rights of women, one is also supporting and promoting the rights of men.

For the full report, go to:

Parents, Politics And The Breakdown Of The Family 31 July 2005

By Timothy N. Stelly, Sr.

Children can bring so much joy. From that moment they enter the world wet and full of wonder to adulthood, is an emotional rollercoaster ride. It is also an expensive undertaking. And while it has been written that it takes a village to raise a child, the village itself needs help. It is filled with working mothers, absent fathers, disinterested teachers and a generalized apathy.

To borrow a line from Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, "It takes two." That is, a family’s chance of attaining its maximum potential requires a mother and father in the home. However, politicians and social service programs have created conditions making it difficult for fathers to do so. And when the home is broken, even to where the children are in unsafe situations, fathers must struggle to gain custody of them. Author Lee Hubbard, Jr. writes, "Fathers, and especially single fathers, face outward hostility from family courts, pandering politicians and women's advocacy groups that treat men with disdain...Our culture has internalized the idea that children belong with their mother. A father's presence may be considered desirable, but it's also considered expendable." Two parents serve to complement one another and reinforce the methods of teaching responsibility, and encouraging acceptable behavior. These behaviors and responsibilities include life outside the home: School, church and in other public venues. Responsibility should be more than a task, but an attitude. This is best accomplished by getting the child to understand that there are rewards and repercussions for certain behavior. The mother with an unruly child screaming and kicking in the grocery store doesn’t deserve our pity; she needs help.

Children also need discipline, which was once left to parents. Now courts have limited the sphere of corporal punishment. Psychologists and other professionals are encouraging families to rely more on "timeouts" and the issuing of restriction. Many of these professionals are desirous of creating no-spanking zones, as was tried in Sweden some 16 years ago. The findings of that failed experiment indicated that the ban led to an increase in child abuse, but was inconclusive as to whether it caused the rise in juvenile delinquency. Nonetheless, the anti-spanking lobby cites flawed studies indicating spanking leads to defiant and deviant behavior. Robert Lazelere, Ph.D countered that school of thought, stating "Child outcomes associated with ordinary physical punishment are also associated with alternative disciplinary tactics when similar research methods are used. Detrimental child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment. Therefore, it is the excessive misbehavior that is the actual cause of detrimental outcomes in children." (Child Outcomes of Non-abusive and Customary Physical Punishment by Parents: An Updated Literature Review, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Pp. 199-221, December 2000).

In single-parent households, one finds an increase in poverty rates and aberrant behavior by children. Children from fatherless homes are 20 times more likely to have behavioral issues. 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless home. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report). 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992). But there is a more important reason why a father’s presence is essential: That is, the cost of rearing children from birth to age eighteen. Including housing, food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care, education and other factors, the price tag runs up to $165,000. (These figures were gleaned from 2003 reports by The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Marsha K. Weaver). Politicians and women’s groups have sought to alleviate these problems by advocating strict child enforcement laws. They garnish the wages of working fathers and drag them into superior court without an inkling of how this financial ambushing impacts upon the father. This is especially hurtful when the father is already paying support to the mother that she has never reported.

At the same time the issue of visitation is passed off to family courts where a father’s right to see his children and offer emotional support is often overlooked. This despite the fact 79% of fathers with visitation rights pay the amount of support due. (Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173, 1994). The breakdown of the American family has been attributed to many factors, including poverty, drug addiction, crime and school drop-out rates. These problems are further exacerbated in the absence of a father. In summation, the maintenance of two-parent families is essential. This unit is but a microcosm of how our nation functions as a whole, which is to say, dysfunctional families breed similar communities and a eventually leads to a changing in our nation’s mores and values.
About the author: Timothy Stelly is the 46-year old author of "Tempest In The Stone" and the soon to be released, "The Malice of Cain". His third novel, "Darker Than Blue" is under consideration for publication. Mr. Stelly currently resides in Pittsburg, California with his three youngest children Dante, Kimberly and Lawrence. Excerpts from The first two books and the first two chapters of his anthology, "Frankenigga--And Other Urban Tales" can be viewed at:

VAWA Everyone needs protection 31 July 2005

As the Violence Against Women Act comes up for another extension, I wonder how many innocent fathers have been falsely accused, had perjured protective orders served on them and then had their parental rights trampled on? How many children have been robbed of having a father because some women want to get the upper hand in divorce proceedings and are willing to use a good law for ill purpose? How many innocent dads have found themselves in jail for wanting to see their children and spend time with them?

What society needs is a Violence Against Spouses Act. Any act that does not honor the constitutional rights of the accused is not honorable and fails to provide equal protection under the law. As a libertarian, I regard the rights of all equally. Unfortunately, the VAWA doesn't honor men's rights equally. Instead, it robs many fathers of their constitutional rights and consequently their precious parental rights in custody and visitation proceedings. The name of the act is sexist and gender-biased, implying that only women need protecting. Everyone needs protection against domestic violence, and this act needs to be updated to reflect that. Equal protection for all, including the accused. We cannot destroy the rights of others without losing our own.

Donald W. Johnstun

Problems with publication of a deadbeat parents list 31 July 2005

Problems with publication of a deadbeat parents list
'Inadequacies' in the system

A deadbeat dads list won't address the inadequacies in the concept of child support itself. For me, child support is a good deal. The weekly installments come out of my check and go to the state, and in return the state provides my son Cameron with day care and health care. However, not every child has a beneficial child support situation. I have discovered that child support is less about supporting the child, and more about evening out wealth inequalities between parents. Even if the child is handily provided for by both the mother and father, a payment may be determined simply because of wealth inequality, the goal being that if one parent can afford to spend excessively on the child, the other one should have that ability as well.

The current child support system . . . encourages mothers to take advantage of the services and spend the money however they please. Also, a deadbeat dad list based on child support wouldn't be fair without these other publications:

(1) a list of mothers who misuse child support money

(2) a list of mothers who alienate children from their fathers, and

(3) a proper public apology for anyone whose name incorrectly appears on the list.



So you think you know about the courts! 

Questions and answers about how our judicial system really functions

Q: Does the United States Constitution grant you rights?  

A: No.  The founding fathers believed that the Creator grants you rights, and the Constitution, mainly the Bill of Rights and other amendments, enumerates and guarantees certain rights.  However, the Constitution is a sheet of parchment, and in reality, your rights are only upheld if you can find a court willing to do so.  

Q: If any of your rights are violated, will a court take action to provide redress?

A: At the present time, probably not.  Unless you have a large organization behind you, extensive press coverage of your problem, or the backing of a government agency, your complaint is not worth the judge’s time.  

Q: What can you do to compel a judge to give attention to your complaint?

A: Nothing.  

Q: Can the judge be called to account for failure to do his job?  

A: A dissatisfied litigant can file a complaint against a judge with an independent oversight committee.  However, fewer than 1 in 1000 such complaints actually result in a finding that the judge did anything wrong, and even for the most serious misconduct, a judge can expect no more than a mild reprimand.  

Q: What will be the most likely result of a justified complaint filed against a judge?  

A: The judge will be exonerated and then find a way of taking reprisal against whoever filed the complaint.  If the complainant is a lawyer, he will probably be suspended or disbarred, and if it is an ordinary citizen, the judge will find a way to get revenge.  

Q: Can a judge be found liable for blatantly malicious actions against litigants or for corrupt decisions?  

A: No.  

Q: What Constitutional provisions or laws passed by Congress guarantee judges immunity for all of their official actions?  

A: None.  

Q: Why then are judges immune?  

A: Judges have granted themselves immunity.  

Q: Do judges have the right to make laws?  

A: No.  

Q: How then can judges grant themselves immunity?  

A: Judges develop what is called “case law,” making a decision that is theoretically binding for all future decisions.  It is case law that judges are immune for all their actions, even those that are malicious and corrupt.  

Q: What is to prevent a judge from simply demand a bribe for any favorable decision?  

A: In practice, nothing.  In theory, a judge could be charged with a crime for soliciting bribes.  However, prosecutors work together with judges and are unlikely to charge a friendly judge with a crime.  They also know that it is very hard to get a judge convicted because it is difficult to obtain evidence that other judges will not prohibit the jury from seeing.  

Q: If a judge makes an adverse ruling in a lawsuit, can anything be done about it?  

A: An appeal can be filed with an appeals’ court.  However, it is not unlikely that the appeals court judges will simply uphold the bad decision without even reading the submissions from the aggrieved party.  

Q: What can be done to force the appeals court judges to do their jobs?  

A: Nothing.  Appeals court judges have immunity, too.  

Q: Will the Supreme Court rectify faulty lower court decisions?  

A: Yes, but in less than 1 in 1000 cases.  The United States Supreme Court and the supreme courts of most states are not obligated to hear appeals, and they do so only in the rarest cases, usually those that will gain them maximum publicity or permit them to create “case law.”  

Q: Will a supreme court actually overrule an appeals court?  

A: In those rare appeals that supreme courts agree to hear, they actually overturn appeals courts in the majority of cases.  Some United States appeals courts have been overturned in every appeal of their decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear during an entire year.  This is an indication of the poor job that appeals courts do to monitor the lower courts.  

Q: Will the rights of a person who cannot afford a lawyer be respected by the court?  

A: In theory, courts are supposed to give special consideration to litigants who cannot afford lawyers.  In practice, the judge will simply dismiss the lawsuit of a litigant without a lawyer to reduce the number of cases on his docket.  

Q: Don’t litigants complain about the courts simply because they do not agree with the decisions of the judges?  

A: No.  Most complaints against courts concern disregard of the rules of evidence, false application of the law, and lack of due process.  

Q: Aren’t judges usually required to reach difficult decisions because the facts do not support just one side in the case?  

A: No.  Our Bill of Rights enumerates trial by a jury of peers in criminal cases and civil disputes involving a sum of money in excess of $20 as a fundamental civil right.  When a judge decides an issue of fact at all without the permission of both parties, he is violating a fundamental civil right.  

Q: Aren’t judges the lawyers most qualified to interpret the law for all of us?  

A: No.  As a leading lawyer has pointed out, judges are usually the least talented lawyers.  A competent trial lawyer, corporate lawyer, or senior member of a major law firm can expect to make over a million dollars per year without any special effort.  A judge earns a salary up to $200,000 to $300,000 per year.  Even mediocre practicing attorneys can earn more than judges on the higher courts.  It is suspicious when a lawyer with a degree from a respected law school seeks to become a judge.  The lawyer may not skilled enough in the courtroom to earn a reasonable living.  He may be lazy.  He may have sought to go into politics but been unsuccessful at it.  Or he may be supplementing his salary considerably through corrupt practices.  In any case, judges are not the cream of the crop within the legal profession.  

Q: If the courts are so bad, why is litigation increasing?  

A: Bad courts make bad decisions.  This makes it more likely that evildoers will prosper.  Bad courts are less likely to weed out frivolous lawsuits, and cheats can make millions by suing large corporations.  At the same time, criminals are less likely to be punished; government agencies find it easy to violate the fundamental rights of citizens; employees are more likely to be mistreated by employers; ordinary people are frequently impoverished through fraud.  This increases the number of lawsuits, in spite of the fact that most of the lawsuits will not result in justice being done.  

Q: Haven’t recent decisions been on the side of civil rights?  

A: No.  Recent decisions have had the effect of closing off the courts to ordinary citizens and providing due process only to those acting in behalf large organizations, which have political agendas and the money to pursue their ends.  Many recent court decisions have provided case law that supports controversial political goals of these organizations, which would be impossible to achieve by the legislative process.  Without effective courts to fairly adjudicate day-to-day disputes with government agencies and large corporations, the ordinary citizen finds that he has no civil rights at all.  

Q: Will the courts reform themselves?  

A: History teaches that corrupt organizations to not reform themselves.  They only become more corrupt.  

Q: Can Congress pass a law to improve the courts?  

A: Short of a complete judicial reorganization, it is unlikely that any law passed by Congress would improve the courts because the courts would simply ignore the law or declare it to be unconstitutional.  

Q: Will the newspapers of television networks help to bring attention to the problems in the courts?  

A: Because the owners of the news media want to have courts that can be made to rule in their favor through unfair means, they are not interested seeing a restoration of fairness or impartiality.   

Q: If you have a just case, what are your chances of winning in court?  

A: It depends on who your opponent is.  If you sue a government agency, the court will always support the agency.  If you sue a powerful organization, your chances are slight.  If you sue another citizen who lacks money and political influences, your chances to win will be substantially better.  

Q: How important should good representation by a lawyer be?  

A: The outcome of a lawsuit should be based on only on the law and facts of the case.  The competence of the lawyer should be of minimal importance.  

Q: Why is it so important to have a good lawyer?  

A: Things are not as they should be.  In most cases, the competence of your lawyer and of the lawyer retained by your opponent is much more important than either the law or the facts of the case.

  Q: Should the judge play a role in the outcome of a lawsuit?  

A: No.  The outcome should depend upon the presentation of the law and facts to a jury.  

Q: Do lawyers think that judges will influence the outcome of a lawsuit?  

A: Most lawyers are convinced that the outcome of a lawsuit will largely depend upon which judge is assigned to the case.  Some lawyers try to influence the assignment of their more important cases.  

Q: If the case is decided by a jury, how can a judge influence the outcome?  

A: A judge may not allow a lawsuit to be heard by a jury.  He may issue a summary judgement, which  seems to be unconstitutional but is tolerated.  He may withhold vital evidence so that the jury does not know all of the circumstances of the case.  In some cases, judges tell the jury how it is supposed to decide the case.  Finally, if the jury reaches a verdict that the judge does not agree with, he may throw the jury verdict out.  

Q: What law gives a judge the right to do these things?

  A: There is no law that gives a judge these rights.  

Q: Why does he do it if it is not legal?  

A: He does it because nobody can stop him and because he has complete immunity for everything he does on the bench.

Charles Heckman



"Clever crooks seize power by small steps so as not to waken the populace before the time is right to put their plans into effect. Americans, or some Americans, are witnessing that now"

Dorothy A. Seese

There is always this hue and cry going up from those who pay attention to what is going on in the world that things are going to Hell. Perhaps because they are, always have been, and won't stop until they arrive. From the annals of history and investigations of things behind the legends that we invent about our past, Americans are or should be finding out that things were never what they seemed to be. We had a bit more freedom in our personal lives, but the trust placed in leaders was largely faith in what we were told. Media, whether written or spoken, has dominated our collective thinking since the world began, and it continues to do so. People, all people, now people, past people, future people, want freedom until they cannot handle it, then they want government. Governments have never been fair, upright or equitable, existing to serve the people even when sworn to do so. But, we need government if for no other reason than to organize the population into armies to fight the enemies around us, whoever they are at a given point in time.

Then the government becomes the enemy.

If the government were a computer, it could be programmed to function according to a set of rules, like the Constitution. But things don't function without people, and that is where the problems all originate. People simply will not follow the rules as written, they have to interpret them and if the people doing the interpreting are political (as people are) then the rules will be bent to suit the needs of those doing the interpreting. That's called being crooked. People are by nature crooked, skewed in their thinking, limited in their interests and guided by self-interests. When they become adept at being skewed, we call them politicians because they dupe the masses of other self-interested souls into electing them to government positions. Then we complain about the government. In America we were duped into thinking that a free society could long survive in a world of people. We have a Constitution that was supposed to be the basis of the Rule of Law over the populace. But we saw how far it went when the interests of the politicians needed to bend the rules. It happened as far back as our second generation of leadership, it was surely evident during the period 1861-65, and in the disasters that followed. The stronger government became, the less freedom people had and the less relevant the documents upon which this nation was founded. They were there for some but not for all. Because -- the problem is people. They just don't have a common understanding or common interests for the well being of others and fairness for all. Self is too powerful, and opportunity presenting, self will rule everything but itself. Finally, the expansion of self-interest spills over into the self-interest realms of others and the war is on!

The masses have always been the pawns of the leaders, whether they are pharaohs or emperors or presidents, representatives and senators, governors or mayors. Titles have nothing to do with the amount of power. The world has a great number of "constitutional monarchies" with monarchs who do nothing but attend state affairs and breed more monarchs. If the monarchy gets in the way, there's a coup and an exiled or dead monarch. Sometimes the monarchy is overturned only to be replaced by a banana republic dictator, who is a de facto monarch. All the world wants a king as long as he isn't too kingly, or she isn't too queenly. Give us a benevolent monarch. If such a person were to come forward they would so trample the self-interests of those with money and power that they would end up like Julius Caesar ... stabbed to death. Even in "civilized" countries today, those who attempt to bring about a free society often meet with untimely deaths.

Crooks rule.

Clever crooks seize power by small steps so as not to waken the populace before the time is right to put their plans into effect. Americans, or some Americans, are witnessing that now. Change happens, it is seldom to the advantage of the people but it is to someone's advantage or there would be no change at that time. The end result has been the nation or empire being swallowed up and left in the dust of history, for either the Goths come raging in and devastate the land, or agreements are made to rearrange the politics of the nations concerned. In America, the Constitution has been subjugated to the will of the global governance group, or NWO, whatever one wants to call it.

It too will fail.

How do I know? Because essentially, people simply don't like one another. The old adage "politics makes strange bedfellows" came from the observation that hostile interests will seem to agree until someone's objective is accomplished. Then the alliance calls for not only separate beds but separate rooms or separate homes. People do not like one another and no amount of legislation or global villages will change that which is inherent in man's nature. Time and again this observer of times, trends and events has been asked to stop telling us the problem and give us the answers. It seems obvious enough that the answer is to get rid of all the people ... that would settle everything! If you leave people in the equation, there will be wars, rumors of wars, nation rising against nation and people hating one another while smiling and obeying all the politically correct norms. The hatred seething underneath comes out misdirected at other people rather than at leadership, until finally (if it is possible) revolution overturns the whole mess and starts out again.

Most folks just want to be left alone and have the freedom to live their lives out peacefully and see their grandchildren grow. Other folks become politicians. And therein lies the problem, and by observation, the answer to it.

The only war that will end all wars is the calling together of the nations at Armageddon to put an end to the world's evils and usher in the rule of the Kingdom of God. Which is why the Christians have such great hope in the future and none for the present or immediate future of earth. When leadership is just and the heavens and earth are cleansed once and for all of the evil in man's heart, then peace will be possible. Until then, the people are the problem.

The Real Yorkshire Ripper is still at large 30 July 2005

Man sentenced over court outburst

A MAN who disrupted a rape trial claiming he wanted to make a citizen's arrest of the judge has been sentenced for contempt at Leeds Crown Court. Anthony Wilde was arrested last Thursday following his sudden outburst during the trial, in which he stated he had an arrest warrant for Judge Kerry Macgill.

The rape trial ongoing had nothing to do with him but Wilde said later in court he was trying to get the judge's attention about the case of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, who was represented by Judge Macgill when he was a solicitor in Bradford prior to being appointed to the Bench. Wilde, 49 of Crossflatts Mount, Beeston, Leeds, was arrested by Det Con William Potter who was giving evidence in the rape trial at the time. Wilde was taken before High Court Judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith, who then remanded him in custody, barring reporting of the incident until the rape trial ended, after hearing the outburst had caused considerable stir and upset in what was a serious sexual case.

Appearing back yesterday before the High Court Judge with legal representation, Wilde admitted his actions had amounted to contempt of court. Jane Brady, for Wilde, said he now accepted his actions were misguided and wanted to apologise. Jailing Wilde for three months but suspending the sentence for two years, Mr Justice Andrew Smith told him to disrupt the court process in such a way amounted to contempt He warned Wilde any similar behaviour would be viewed even more seriously.
The Real Yorkshire Ripper, Billy Tracey, is still at large:
Noel O’ Gara.

Author of The Real Yorkshire Ripper

Peter Sutcliffe is NOT the Yorkshire Ripper

For the record:

On Thursday 21 July 2005 caseworker Anthony Wilde read out the following statement in Court 2 where Kerry MacGill was on the Bench:


Kerry MacGill, on behalf of Noel O’Gara, author of this book “The Real Yorkshire Ripper”, and on behalf of all the victims of the Real Yorkshire Ripper (Billy Tracey), I am here to make a Citizen’s Arrest on you.

I charge you as follows:-

1) 1) While you were the acting solicitor with sole access to Peter Sutcliffe (the lunatic copycat Killer), you did conspire with George Oldfield, Dick Holland, Keith Hellewell and senior police officers in the Ripper Hunt, and with four police psychiatrists to offer Sutcliffe a “good deal” for his confessions to all the Ripper murders and assaults, knowing he was not responsible for them.

2) 2) Your above actions allowed the Real Ripper (Billy Tracey) to avoid investigation and prosecution allowing him the freedom to commit further murders, and thus you are an accessory to those murders.

Kerry MacGill, we deem you unfit to be a judge; and any convictions made under your authority are thus unsafe.

This is a Statement of Truth by me, Anthony Wilde (Date of Birth 01-06-56)


Dated………………….…..” End.

When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence and distortion will be given as the primary cause of death.

Patrick Cullinane.

Royal Prerogative 30 July 2005

Royal Prerogative

Is the term given to the formal powers of the Crown within the executive process of British politics. The Royal Prerogative are the powers of the Crown and are part of common law. The UK has a constitutional monarchy – not an absolute monarchy. This means that the monarchy is apolitical and impartial. The work that it does in politics is largely symbolic. The work of the monarch within the remit of the royal prerogative is seen as being on behalf of elected ministers.

In the C19th Walter Bagehot described the monarchy as being “symbolic and ceremonial” but with little actual power. In the C21st this is even more true.

“The Queen reigns but does not rule”.

What are the royal prerogatives:

Ø The Queen has the right to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. However, in the C21st this is convention as opposed to reality. In fact, after an election, the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party to lead the Commons. However, what happens if the Prime Minister refuses to quit after losing a vote of no confidence is unclear – as it has never happened in recent political history. Theoretically, the monarch can exercise powers of appointment and dismissal. How this would fit in with a democracy is difficult to decide.

Ø The monarch has other powers of appointment (ministers, peers, senior C of E officials, head of BBC, senior civil servants etc) In reality these are chosen by the Prime Minister; only the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit are at the personal disposal of the Queen. Therefore, a vast amount of power with regards to senior appointments rests with the Prime Minister.

Ø The Queen opens and dissolves Parliament. She also approves all statutes of law. In reality, the date of a general election is set by the Prime Minister and the Queen, in the State Opening of Parliament, simply reads out the proposed bills for the next 5 years of a government and plays no part in deciding them. No monarch has refused to give the Royal Assent to a government bill (passed at this stage by both the Commons and Lords) since 1707. Now it would appear to be completely untenable that the Queen would refuse to sign a government bill that had passed the Commons, select committees, the Lords etc. It would spark off a major (the major?) constitutional crisis.

Ø In theory, the monarch has the right to grant pardons and input some sentences. In reality this power is exercised by the Home Secretary; a classic example was when Jack Straw stated that Myra Hindley’s life term meant life.

Ø The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch. One is a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate via an election; the other is in the position by a quirk of birth.

The monarch is above the law and has crown immunity. The legal immunity conferred by the Royal Prerogative may extend to institutions and servants of the Crown. Cabinet ministers may try to use crown immunity to avoid the release of parliamentary documents as they are servants of the Crown. This remains an issue that lawyers discuss and analyse to this day – can ministers of the government use the Royal Prerogative to stop an investigation in to the work that they do on certain issues?

VAWA Acts of a police state and the policies of tyrants 29 July 2005

VAWA: A four-letter word that means tyranny

By: Terri Lynn ·

Today the American family is under attack. Not from remote foreign terrorists, but from the various laws that operate under the guise of protecting someone from someone else. One of our major concerns today is the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005 by U.S. Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). This action conclusively proves that both of our major political are anti-family and hold no respect for our civil rights or the United States Constitution. There are no words strong enough to express both the heartbreak and outrage over this betrayal of the promises to uphold and protect our family values has caused. It must be mentioned that most of the funding for VAWA goes to the Lawyers and Social Workers whose organizations support the DNC and their anti-family progressive agenda. The GOP's support of VAWA is in effect forcing Republicans to fund the very people and agenda we have worked so hard to vote out of Congress and the White House with our tax dollars. That is intolerable!

After eleven years as law, "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA) has done little more than destroy families and fund social engineering schemes unrelated to intimate partner violence. This dysfunctional law leaves violent criminals free to abuse at will, but inflicts brutalities unworthy of a free society on innocent victims of false allegations of domestic violence. The plain truth is VAWA is unconstitutional. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the Commerce Clause, authorizes the Congress to regulate and control personal relations between individuals. Further, the blatant and undeniable gender bias seen on the face of VAWA is discrimination against a subject class, men, in direct violation of Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution notwithstanding pious statements to the contrary by uninformed Senators. Destruction of Civil Liberties

We oppose domestic violence and believe attackers of any innocent person should be brought to trial. However, violence is propagated more commonly and broadly by denying civil liberties than controlled.

VAWA has promoted, funded, or mandated:

Mandatory arrests without a warrant, often based on nothing more than hearsay;

A standard under which the accused is guilty until proven innocent and mere allegations now suffice as proof;

Forced citizens from their homes and children with nothing more than the clothes on their back without any pretense of due process;

Endorsed searches of homes without a warrant;

Allowed seizures of property without redress;

Denied defendants the assistance of counsel, the right to confront their accuser and obtain witnesses in their defense;

Punishment and imprisonment that occurs before a trial or without one;

Invoked public censure for crimes men have not committed.

These are acts of a police state and the policies of tyrants.

A system without redress is tyranny; those who support it are tyrants. Those who do nothing about it have abnegated their right to freedom and accepted slavery by acquiescence.

The abuse protection laws in this country lend themselves to the abuse of the courts and gross violations of our civil rights. They also flagrantly misrepresent the alleged protection victims of abuse are promised and count on, which in violent cases turns out to be none at all. VAWA has created a new subclass of citizens who find themselves defendants in domestic violence cases. Many of these citizens are innocent fathers who simply want to be a loving part of their children's lives. They find themselves denied their civil rights and due process, tortured and coerced into submission, degraded, and humiliated by a justice system that now accepts hearsay as proof.

Domestic violence laws at all levels of government must hold accountable law enforcement agents, judges, attorneys, social service providers and advocates to ensure equal protection in the enforcement of the laws. The dialog within these groups also needs to specify that fraudulent claims and suborning perjury are criminal acts. Public money used for the prevention of domestic violence must deal solely with that issue. Laws must forbid the funding of operations to support any other legal, political, or social agendas such as; rape, divorce, child custody, or any gender specific issue under the guise of "domestic violence."

Ever Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence

The domestic violence industry's survival is dependent on abuses never ending and inventing them. For it to grow, as any industry desires to, the level of abuses must seem to increase and the definition of domestic violence must expand indefinitely. Ending domestic violence is incontestably a conflict of interest for the industry that VAWA funds as it depends on more and more "victims" or for greater levels of fraud and perjury to be committed.

The needed reforms are:

Domestic violence is a state matter. Existing Federal laws should be repealed or allowed to expire. Domestic violence laws must be gender neutral in all respects and practice.

Domestic violence and abuse laws must not violate the rights to due process and equal protection under the law. False allegations of domestic violence and suborning perjury must be dealt with as criminal acts. Domestic violence laws at all levels of government must exist solely in the criminal codes. As citizens, we do not have an issue with seeing violent criminals put in jail when, following due process, they have been proven guilty of committing a violent crime. It makes no sense at all for an attack on a spouse or domestic partner to be a civil issue when the exact action against a complete stranger is a criminal act. Battery is battery no matter where it happens or who commits it. Civil restraining orders will only restrain civilized people who were no real threat to begin with; violent criminals need to be imprisoned.

However, under VAWA the Federal government is paying states to violate both the Federal and, often, the State Constitution. Moreover, under these practices we punish the innocent and free the guilty. The law must guarantee citizens their rights to equal protection under the law and due process in all cases. Prosecution of criminal acts is critical regardless of whether they are acts of physical violence or false allegations of violence. Enactment of future anti-domestic violence laws must be in our criminal codes and those currently within our civil codes be repealed. Domestic violence laws and their operation throughout the country need reviewing under the highest level of scrutiny possible. Qualified scientists must conduct a comprehensive, well-funded study of domestic violence rather than ideologues in order to establish how pervasive this problem is and what methods are most effective in reducing it. The study needs to evaluate and document the different ways the sexes assault and murder each other. Knowing what methods of abuse and homicide both sexes use and recognizing the symptoms will assist the people that treat the abused, collect evidence and enforce the laws.

Don't forget that the industry VAWA built is a large part of the core support network for the DNC and the progressive agendas which are all now supported by the GOP by proxy. To the Law makers we say to make no mistake about it: our blood is on their hands as much as anyone else's and we plan to never let them forget it. We are nothing more to them than media fodder, used to proclaim how more of the same is needed.

Preventing fraudulent claims must be a requirement of all domestic violence support systems. The failure to do this for the past ten years has allowed a system rife with fraud to run amok and prevented those with valid claims from receiving needed services. The rework suggested in VAWA 2005 only promises to provide more funding to the current fraud-ridden system riddled with advocacy research studies and government propaganda. Renewal of this law will expand a level of civil rights violations unequaled since the abolition of slavery.   Please understand that leadership of CCJ Chapters and EJF have seen this first hand. Being victims of abuse ourselves and/or having worked in the abuse industry, we have sat in the same waiting rooms of the Courthouses and listened to the boasts of the false accusers of abuse. We have also watched tax dollar paid court workers and social worker's subornation of perjury as they assisted with these overt acts of fraud by helping the portrayers of false allegations of abuse develop their stories and inspired them to lie.

We personally heard them proclaim how easy it is to have the courts torture their soon to be ex-significant other for them and that all parties concerned will be financially rewarded for doing so. It was clear that there is no fear of reprisals even if they are caught in flat-out lies to the courts, all of which should have been prosecuted as criminal acts. There is a dire need to start doing what makes sense so that the domestic violence laws effectively deal with violent criminals. Our system must be free of perjury and fraud, and operate within constitutional constraints. We must let VAWA sunset and rethink our needs and priorities from the beginning. A system of Justice hanging on bare threads of morality and truth cannot withstand the influences of the rage and spite that plague our society today.

Blind Acceptance

Despite repeated requests no victims, requested expert witnesses or voices of dissent for the reauthorization of VAWA testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on July 19, 2005. Is our Congress trying to prove they only serve special interest groups? Republicans seem blind to the fact that VAWA has been a direct assault on a major voter stronghold of the GOP, men, and especially divorced fathers. There is already broad vocal dissent from these voters over support by Republicans for VAWA 2005. They are promising to take revenge in the 2006 and 2008 elections for what they feel is an outright betrayal. Supporting VAWA 2005 could be the quickest route for the Republicans to become the minority party again. We look forward to seeing meaningful reform of our nations domestic violence laws through the actions of our Congress, for the benefit of children and parents throughout our country. We, however will not tolerate being lied to by those we have worked so hard to see elected. Yes, we are holding the GOP accountable for the actions of some Republicans. When they are not our representatives and have no requirement to listen to us, but we will certainly suffer just as much as their own constituents by their acts of betrayal to our core values. Therefore they are the GOP's problem to deal with.

Fathers fall victim to domestic-abuse laws 29 July 2005

Violence Against Families
By Stephen Baskerville  

FEMINISTS ARE PLAYING the victim card with a vengeance, mostly because it is the only card left, with sympathy for feminism's strident campaigns at a low point. Yet beneath the media radar, victimhood has helped feminism advance virtually unopposed to aggrandize power in realms few perceive. Victim politics requires exploiting traditional gender roles. This does not mean feminism has moderated; simply that it has exchanged ideological purity for power. Much as Stalinism inherited the habits of czarist absolutism and nationalism, feminism now exploits the stereotype of helpless damsels in distress and the public's good intentions. Today's foremost case in point is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), currently up for reauthorization in Congress. VAWA appeals to mom-and-apple-pie sentiments: what legislator can oppose protecting women? The bill commands bipartisan sponsorship, and its renewal in 2000 was mostly unopposed.

Yet VAWA illustrates a serious problem with political conservatism and demonstrates how the Left advances despite its unpopularity. More than a failure of nerve, VAWA exemplifies a trend not so much to discard traditional values as to politicize them. Politicians can posture as champions of motherhood and family while turning them over to the safekeeping of the state. Thus domestic-violence legislation is pitched as an appeal to male chivalry, and Republicans are quick to volunteer. In contrast to traditional chivalry, however, today's political version does not proceed from personal duty and requires no risk or heroism. The gallantry feminists demand is bureaucratic, exercised by functionaries who wield state power that they expand as a result. "Domestic violence" is now a vast and growing government industry. Yet the term has never been clearly defined. Given that criminal statutes against violent assault already exist, precisely what purpose is served by laws creating special categories of crime of which only some people can be victims? Domestic violence designates criminals politically, in terms of their membership in a group rather than acts they have actually committed. It also creates crimes based on relationships rather than deeds. Conflict that is not criminal between strangers becomes a crime between "intimate partners." Whereas criminal assault charges require due process of law, designating a matter "domestic violence" circumvents constitutional protections. Law-abiding citizens are issued "restraining orders" that do not punish them for illegal actions but prohibit them from otherwise legal ones. Because violent assault is already punishable, the only people effectively restrained are peaceful ones.

Men's groups complain that VAWA excludes male victims and point to research showing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic assault. Yet something more than "gender bias" is at work. Though advertised to protect women, VAWA's provisions are better seen as weapons in divorce and custody battles. As Thomas Kasper writes in the Illinois Bar Journal, measures funded by VAWA readily "become part of the gamesmanship of divorce." Groups like the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence lobby strenuously on custody laws, using unverifiable assertions like "80% of fathers who desire shared custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer." Restraining orders are routinely issued without any evidence of wrongdoing to criminalize fathers' contact with their own children. "Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply," and "the facts have become irrelevant," writes Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association. "In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had." Even feminists backhandedly acknowledge what the social-science literature clearly establishes: that domestic violence and child abuse are overwhelmingly phenomena not of intact families but of separated and separating families and that the safest environment for women and children is a two-parent home. By encouraging marital breakup, VAWA exacerbates the problem it ostensibly exists to solve. VAWA also blurs the distinction between violent crime and ordinary disagreement. Federally funded groups like the National Victim Assistance Academy (NVAA) and the Justice Department itself use vague and subjective terms to define "violence" where none took place: "extreme jealousy and possessiveness," "name-calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling the victim," "blaming the victim for everything," "ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim's needs."

If domestic violence were a major problem, one would expect limited resources to be reserved for serious cases and those concerned about true violence to resist this cheapening of the language whereby the stuff of lovers’ quarrels becomes grounds for arrest. Instead, activists use vague terms to imply criminal violence where none has taken place. In The Battered Woman, psychologist Lenore Walker excuses a women who violently attacked her husband because he "had been battering her by ignoring her and by working late." Though part of VAWA was declared unconstitutional on federalist grounds, the judiciary refuses to pass constitutional review. On the contrary, it is implemented by the very judiciary that is normally expected to protect constitutional rights. Strikingly, judges openly acknowledge the unconstitutionality – and their own indifference to it. "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order," New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell told fellow judges at a government-run training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya around.'" VAWA also funds special courts to administer not equal justice but feminist justice: ideological justice reminiscent of the French Revolution's political tribunals or Hitler's dreaded "people’s courts." Some 300 "integrated domestic violence courts" now operate nationwide. In New York, Chief Judge Judith Kaye declares that the courts are created not to dispense impartial justice but to facilitate punishment: "to make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions."

These courts bear little relation to most Americans' understanding of due process. There is no presumption of innocence, hearsay evidence is admissible, and defendants have no right to confront their accusers. Even forced confessions are extracted. Warren County, Pennsylvania, requires fathers like Robert Pessia, on pain of incarceration, to sign prefabricated confessions stating, "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner." The father must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. The formulaic documents state, "I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked." VAWA also subsidizes ideological advocacy of feminist organizations. Though Republicans in particular are feeding a mouth that bites them, the larger principle is whether taxpayers should ever sponsor political ideology. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," wrote Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Especially questionable is federal funding of lobbying by judges, who are professionally obligated to be apolitical. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) – consisting of judges who sit on actual cases and are required to be impartial – receives federal support to attack fathers' groups and fathers themselves for being "at odds with the safety needs of the rest of the family." Can fathers summoned before these judges expect equal justice? NCJFCJ advocates administrative termination of paternal rights, termination of fathers' rights to their see their children with no evidence of violence, ignoring officials who question abuse allegations, ignoring visitation orders, re-education of judges, and labeling law-abiding American citizens who criticize the government as "dangerous." They even seem to endorse the fabrication of evidence and a presumption of guilt. NVAA's Jacobin-style agenda is likewise endorsed and disseminated by the Justice Department: "establish a Family Violence Coordinating Council," "implement a massive community education program," "specialized domestic violence courts, and vertical prosecution," "fast track domestic violence prosecutions through priority docketing," "electronic monitoring," and "warrantless searches of their persons or homes."

The complaint that VAWA excludes the large percentage of male victims is not petty. Men are much more likely to experience violence that is premeditated or contracted and which may be excluded from categorization as domestic violence: shootings in the back, hired killers, midnight castrations, attacks with cars. Not only does this violence seldom elicit public sympathy; it is not foremost among the terrors of men themselves. "The most common theme among abused men is their tales not of physical anguish but of dispossession," writes Patricia Pearson in When She Was Bad, "– losing custody of children due to accusations of physical and sexual abuse." "They may never see their children again," says Philip Cook, author of Abused Men. "They don't feel that they will get a fair shake in the courts regarding custody no matter what happens or what she does. And it's actually true. There are many cases…in which a woman who was actually arrested for domestic violence still receive[d] custody of the children." Losing custody is not the only danger: "A battered man knows that if his wife has been abusing him, she has often been abusing the children," writes Warren Farrell. "Leaving her means leaving his children unprotected from her abuse." Here we arrive at the most insidious consequence of the moral grandstanding by VAWA's champions. Though advocates rhetorically intermingle child abuse with domestic violence, natural fathers commit a small fraction of child abuse; the overwhelming bulk is committed in single-parent homes. "Contrary to public perception," write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, "the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household." Fathers commit 6.5 percent of child murders, according to a Justice Department study. The Department of Health and Human Services found that "women (the majority of whom are natural mothers) murder children 31.6 times more often than do natural fathers." A study by the Family Education Trust found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a home without a father.

This is precisely the home environment VAWA subsidizes. Judges claim they remove fathers, even without evidence of abuse, to "err on the side of caution." In fact, they are erring on the side of danger, and it is difficult to believe they do not realize it. Recalling Dickens's observation that "the one great principle of the…law is to make business for itself," the domestic-violence industry appears to be making business for itself by creating the environment conducive to child abuse. Appalling as this sounds, this proceeds from the logic inherent in all bureaucracies: to perpetuate the problem they ostensibly exist to address. It gains plausibility from the verbal smoke-and-mirrors domestic-violence activists employ. "Adult domestic violence and child maltreatment often occur together," says Meredith Hofford of the NCJFCJ, "with the same assailant responsible for both." Hofford provides no documentation, but to the extent it is true, the "assailant" is likely to be not the father but the single mother. Hofford herself wants more money to "support" what she describes as "battered women who maltreat their children." This spiral of more funding to address the "needs" created by the previous funding illustrates how the domestic-violence juggernaut, and with it the crisis of family dissolution and fatherless children, will continue to expand indefinitely until we learn to ignore hysterical people whom the government pays to cry wolf.

Details of US microwave-weapon tests revealed 29 July 2005

VOLUNTEERS taking part in tests of the Pentagon's "less-lethal" microwave weapon were banned from wearing glasses or contact lenses due to safety fears. The precautions raise concerns about how safe the Active Denial System (ADS) weapon would be if used in real crowd-control situations. The ADS fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam, which is supposed to heat skin and to cause pain but no physical damage (New Scientist, 27 October 2001, p 26). Little information about its effects has been released, but details of tests in 2003 and 2004 were revealed after Edward Hammond, director of the US Sunshine Project - an organisation campaigning against the use of biological and non-lethal weapons - requested them under the Freedom of Information Act.

The tests were carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Two experiments tested pain tolerance levels, while in a third, a "limited military utility assessment", volunteers played the part of rioters or intruders and the ADS was used to drive them away. The experimenters banned glasses and contact lenses to prevent possible eye damage to the subjects, and in the second and third tests removed any metallic objects such as coins and keys to stop hot spots being created on the skin. They also checked the volunteers' clothes for certain seams, buttons and zips which might also cause hot spots. The ADS weapon's beam causes pain within 2 to 3 seconds and it becomes intolerable after less than 5 seconds. People's reflex responses to the pain is expected to force them to move out of the beam before their skin can be burnt.

But Neil Davison, co-ordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at the University of Bradford in the UK, says controlling the amount of radiation received may not be that simple. "How do you ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent damage?" he asks. "What happens if someone in a crowd is unable, for whatever reason, to move away from the beam? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?" During the experiments, people playing rioters put up their hands when hit and were given a 15-second cooling-down period before being targeted again. One person suffered a burn in a previous test when the beam was accidentally used on the wrong power setting. “What happens if someone is unable to move away from the beam?” A vehicle-mounted version of ADS called Sheriff could be in service in Iraq in 2006 according to the Department of Defense, and it is also being evaluated by the US Department of Energy for use in defending nuclear facilities. The US marines and police are both working on portable versions, and the US air force is building a system for controlling riots from the air.

From issue 2509 of New Scientist magazine, 22 July 2005, page 26

THE PRISONER SERIES (relevant today) 28 July 2005

THE PRISONER SERIES (60's tv series)
Editorial Reviews

If a top-level spy decided he didn't want to be a spy anymore, could he just walk into HQ and hand in his resignation? With all that classified knowledge in his head, would they let him become a civilian again? The answer, according to the 1960s British TV series The Prisoner, is no. In fact, instead of receiving a gold watch for his years of faithful service, our hero (played by Patrick McGoohan) is followed home and knocked unconscious.

When he awakens, he finds himself in a picturesque village where everyone is known by number. But where is it? Why was he brought here? And, most important, how does he leave?As we learn in "Arrival," Number 6 can't leave. The Village's "citizens" might dress colorfully and stroll around its manicured gardens while a band plays bouncy Strauss marches, but the place is actually a prison. Surveillance is near total, and if all else fails, there's always the large, mysterious white ball that subdues potential escapees by temporarily smothering them. Who runs the Village? An ever-changing Number 2, who wants to know why Number 6 resigned. If he'd only cooperate, he's told, life can be made very pleasant. "I've resigned," he fumes. "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." So sets the stage for the ultimate battle of wills: Number 6's struggle to retain his privacy, sanity, and individuality against the array of psychological and physical methods the Village uses to break him.

"Free for All" sees the Village gripped with campaign fever (it's a "democracy," Number 6 is told, though he retains a healthy skepticism). He's encouraged to run for the job of Number 2 against the incumbent, but what's the point? And why is the Village so keen to have a defiant troublemaker like Number 6 take the reins of power? In "Dance of the Dead," Number 2 stages an elaborate costume ball that turns into a nightmarish courtroom scene--and guess who's on trial? An allegory of the conflict between person and society, individuality and conformity, and freedom and slavery, The Prisoner asks more questions than it answers, and that can be a maddening experience for viewers who like their TV neat and tidy. McGoohan (Braveheart, Escape from Alcatraz) also created, wrote, and directed much of the show, yet it's his screen presence that sets its tone. His terse body language, sardonic half-smile, and simmering anger at his imprisonment are used to maximum effect in scripts that emphasize strict word economy and witty repartee. So does he ever escape? And does he ever find out who Number 1 is? "Questions are a burden to others," the Village saying goes. "Answers, a prison for oneself." Besides, only 14 more episodes until all is revealed. Or is it? --Steve Landau --This text refers to the VHS Tape edition.


"The Prisoner," one of the most remarkable and challenging science fiction series of all time, follows "No. 6," a former government operative sent into a seemingly idyllic but twisted prison known as "The Village," where he struggles to retain his identity in the face of sophisticated and relentless attempts by the powers-that-be (known as "No. 2") to extract his secrets. "The Arrival" (pilot episode)--A first look at the Village, and The Prisoner, Number Six, its newest resident. "Free for All"--Elections are about to be held in the Village, including the position of Number Two. Will Number Six run, and can he win the election, and his freedom? "Dance of the Dead"--Sadistic, secretive experiments are performed on Number Six as the Village prepares for its annual carnival.

Woman charged with child neglect 27 July 2005

The radical feminists are wrong when they state a child is safer with mother

Woman charged with child neglect

A 24-year-old woman from County Durham has been charged with three offences of child neglect. The woman, from Darlington, is alleged to have left her three young children with a babysitter while she went for a two-week holiday in Turkey. The incidents, involving girls aged four and two and an 11-month-old boy, are alleged to have happened in June. The woman was released on bail and is due to appear before Darlington Magistrates' Court on 2 August.

Fixing a broken legal system 27 July 2005

Consider the Civil Rights Movement.

At first, it must have seemed entirely hopeless. Second-class citizens were blocked at every turn, and no one was for them. The entire legal and political system was stacked against them. How did they change the nation? They did it, even if some may say it isn't entirely finished.

First, they had an over-arching grand plan. . No, they did not lash out in a hundred different directions uncoordinated (at least not when they were winning). And they did not just act for the moment, but had the big picture in mind, looking years ahead. They were willing to do things today even if the results might not be seen for years. And they did nto expect to change everything with one blow, and then go back to microwave popcorn and a re-run of "Friends" (gag).

To an amazing extent, the court cases that changed the American landscape were a well-planned, well-executed slow march, each one building brilliantly on the last. And the examples used were carefully chosen as good examples upon which to build, ignoring less- perfect cases and plaintiffs. It was brilliant. And it was all supported by public events that grabbed the headlines and by befriending open-minded journalists and working with any politicians they could find who would listen.

In other words, they did everything (that was peaceful and reasonable). There was NO tool that they left in the toolbox, unused. They did not enter the fray with half their weapons left back at the base. When people say they are still waiting to hear how, I have to disagree. We have heard a dozen "how's" on this list. Pick one of those projects and run with it. There are enough "how's" of things that need doing to keep all of us busy.

What we have not heard is a single magic bullet that we can use to fix everything during the commecial break in our favorite TV show, on our way to the kitchen. My point is we will NEVER find a simplistic, effortless solution, that will fix everything without putting time and effort into it.

There is no one solution, and never will be. We cannot be like the mythical man in some novel somewhere: The man who "jumped on his horse and rode of in ALL directions." We need to stop and think about where we are going before we run around like chickens with our heads cut off.

A great example is in the movie "Atilla" about Attilla the Hun fighting the Roman Empire. The city of Lyon has impenetrable walls. No way Atilla can ever conquer Lyon. So what does he do? He sets up a catapult (projectile weapon) and he spends DAYS just aiming at the exact same point on the wall at the gate. Hour after hour, his army pounds the exact same point with rocks from the catapult. Eventually, after being pounded again and again, the wall crumbles, the Huns rush in, kill the Roman soldiers, and conquer the city.

On the one hand, Atilla had to have a plan that did not involve instant gratification and instant success. He had to think ahead, like Jacob is asking us to do. Look at the big picture. Yet, he was also willing to do something that was NOT glamorous. He was willing to just patiently, repetitively, hit the wall over and over again... in a strategic spot, naturally.


Indiana mother charged with beating two sons to death 27 July 2005

DYER, Ind. (AP) -- A northwest Indiana mother has been charged with two counts of murder. Police say she beat her two sons to death with a ten-pound dumbbell because she thought they'd be better off in heaven.

Magdalena Lopez was arrested after police officers answered a 9-1-1 call and found her nine-year-old son Antonio and two-year-old son Erik dead in separate rooms of the family home in Dyer, Indiana. A police report says as officers approached the house, the mother walked out, her clothes and feet spattered with blood. She told officers she had to kill the children because she couldn't take care of them anymore, saying, "They're in a much better place now." .

Relatives say Lopez was being treated for bipolar disorder but had been coping better recently. The boys' father was at work when he was told of the deaths.

Woman charged with child neglect 22 July 2005

The radical feminists are wrong when they state a child is safer with mother

A 24-year-old woman from County Durham has been charged with three offences of child neglect. The woman, from Darlington, is alleged to have left her three young children with a babysitter while she went for a two-week holiday in Turkey. The incidents, involving girls aged four and two and an 11-month-old boy, are alleged to have happened in June.
The woman was released on bail and is due to appear before Darlington Magistrates' Court on 2 August.


The Secret Files That Reveal How A Nation Was Deported by John Pilger
October 22, 2004

Three forgotten, grainy films shot more than 40 years ago reveal the evidence of a crime committed by British governments against some of its most vulnerable citizens. What they tell is a shocking, almost incredible story in which the Blair Government has played a major part. One of the films, made in 1957 by the government's Colonial Film Unit, shows the people of the Chagos islands, a British Crown colony in the Indian Ocean. The setting is idyllic; a coral archipelago lying midway between Africa and Asia: a phenomenon of natural beauty and peace where, says the commentator, "most of the people have lived for generations". There are thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a railway, docks, a copra plantation. In the second film, shot by missionaries, the islanders' beloved dogs splash in a sheltered, palm-fringed lagoon catching fish; and there is a line of proud mothers, in their finery, with their babies awaiting their baptism. Here surely was Britain's Empire at its most benign. The third film marks the end of all this: an act of ruthlessness and duplicity with few Imperial parallels. The year is 1961; a stocky man strides ashore in Diego Garcia, the main island of the Chagos group.

He is Rear-Admiral Grantham of the US Navy and his visit is followed by a top secret Anglo-American survey of the island for a military base - one of the biggest American bases outside the United States: what the Pentagon in Washington calls an "indispensable platform" for policing the world. Today on Diego Garcia there are more than 2,000 American troops, anchorage for 30 ships, including nuclear-armed aircraft carriers, a satellite spy station and two of the world's longest runways from which B-52 and Stealth bombers have attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Through the vapour haze as the bombers take off you can just see, on the other side of the lagoon, the broken villages: the houses claimed by the jungle, some still with their furniture, pictures and other personal belongings that were left the day the people were expelled. Roaming wild are their donkeys and dogs that are now feral, but there are few of these descendants of the islanders' pets. As the Americans began to build their billion-dollar base 30 years ago Sir Bruce Greatbatch, KCVO, CMG, MBE, governor of the Seychelles, ordered all the dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. More than 1,000 pets were gassed with exhaust fumes. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked", Lisette Talatte, in her 60s, told me, "and when their dogs were taken away in front of them our children screamed and cried." Sir Bruce had been given responsibility for what the Americans called "cleansing" and "sanitising" the islands; and the killing of the pets was taken by the islanders as a warning. For what had been agreed between Washington and Whitehall in secrecy was that the 2,000 Chagos islanders would be forced from their homeland. A 1965 Foreign Office memorandum describes how the Americans made the expulsion of the entire population "virtually a condition of the agreement". As for the gentle Creoles they were throwing out, "these people have little aptitude for anything other than growing coconuts". They are, wrote Sir Bruce Greatbatch, "unsophisticated and untrainable". In other words, expendable.

Files found in the National Archives in Washington and Public Record Office in London provide clear evidence of a conspiracy between the Labour government of Harold Wilson and two American administrations in the form of a searing narrative of official lying that will be all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq. The conspiracy got under way with the creation of a fake colony called the British Indian Ocean Territory, or BIOT. The sole purpose of this was to get rid of the people. To do it, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,000 miles away. This was the equivalent of "returning" the majority of Australians, whose ancestry dates from 1770, the same year the first islanders settled in the Chagos. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents into shortterm, temporary residents". What the files also reveal is an attitude of brutality and contempt. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill of Harrow. "Along with the birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays?" Under the heading Maintaining The Fiction, another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating population" and to "make up the rules as we go along". As for the United Nations and international law, which invested in the remaining colonial powers a "sacred trust" to protect the basic human rights of their citizens in dependent territories, a senior Foreign Office official proposed "a policy of 'quiet disregard' - in other words, let's forget about this one until the United Nations challenge us on it". Reading these documents, I could find not a single word of concern for the suffering caused or even recognition that Britain was, in effect, kidnapping its own citizens. There is worry about the press finding out and "damaging publicity" and now and then the conspirators appear to get the wind up. "This is all fairly unsatisfactory," wrote one official, "We propose to certify these people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else?"

The cover-up went right to the top. In 1968 Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart wrote that "by any stretch of the English language, there was an indigenous population and the Foreign Office knew it". Yet on April 21, 1969, in a secret minute to Harold Wilson, Stewart proposed that the government lie to the UN "by present(ing) any move as a change of employment for contract workers - rather than as a population resettlement." Five days later Wilson gave his approval, which was copied to senior members of the Cabinet. At first the islanders were tricked into leaving; those needing urgent medical care in Mauritius were prevented from returning home. There is a photograph taken outside the administrator's office on Diego Garcia. It is a haunting image, taken in 1973, not long after the massacre of the dogs. The stunned crowd has just been told their islands have been sold and they are to be expelled. They could take only one suitcase. On one journey in rough seas the copra company's horses occupied the deck, while women and children slept on a cargo of bird fertiliser. Arriving in the Seychelles they were held in a prison until they were transported to Mauritius. In the first years of exile suicides were common. "Elaine and Michel Mouza: mother and child committed suicide," said a report in 1975. "Josie and Maude Baptiste: poverty - no roof, no food, committed suicide." Lisette Talatte lost two children. "The doctor said he cannot treat sadness," she told me. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was informed the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died.

Only after more than a decade did the islanders receive compensation: less than £3,000 each. In 2000 the High Court ruled their expulsion illegal. However, the Blair Government, although it did not appeal the decision, blocked them from going home by conjuring up a "feasibility study" to determine whether the islands could be resettled. It found they were "sinking" - perhaps under the weight of the thousands of US servicemen, their bars, barbecues and bombers. In 2003 the islanders were denied compensation in a now notorious High Court case, with the judge referring to "we" as if the Foreign Office and the court were on the same side. Last June the Government invoked a "royal prerogative" - a decree - to overturn the 2000 decision, bypass Parliament and ban the islanders from ever going home. Last week, after the screening of my documentary on ITV, this epic struggle turned yet another corner when the High Court agreed to a judicial review of the royal decree. The islanders, led by Olivier Bancoult, who went into exile as a child, and their extraordinary London lawyer, Richard Gifford, say that if this fails they will head for the European Court of Human Rights. Article Seven of the new International Criminal Court leaves little doubt that what was done to these gentle, tenacious people was a crime against humanity. As Bush's bombers take off from their homeland, his collaborator in Downing Street might reflect on that.

John Pilger's ITV documentary, Stealing A Nation, can be ordered on video. Write to: Video Library, ITV1, Gas Street, Birmingham B1 2JT, UK. If you would like to help the islanders, you can give to the Ilois (islanders) Support Trust. The London bank account is Natwest, No 90213319, sort code 60-30-06.


The biggest threat to world peace is the massive grip the illuminati -freemasons have over the UK ,USA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. It is no surprise both countries conspired to steal Iraq oil while doing enormous damage to its infrastructure BUT ESPECIALLY TO ITS CHILDREN.The secret society cults that dominate and control the worlds media are leaving many important points out of their coverage of world affairs,one being that Saddam Hussein formally funded by illuminati money was closing down masonic halls all over Iraq.

That all senior politicians in the UK , judges ,Chief constables ,MI5,MI6 ,government departments at all levels,senior bank officials,senior staff at the BBC ,ITV ,CH4 ,CH5 ,the crown are all signed up to a world wide cult controlling us all with their lies and deception pumped out to brainwash the masses. Our organisations daily receive information from all over the world but particularly the UK and USA of atrocious events taking place right on our doorstep that show attacks against British and American families caused by our own governments and legal systems TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR CHILDREN.

Let no one underestimate the utter evil secret control that has been masterminded for centuries by the illuminists who are blackmailing everyone who is indoctrinated into their secret cults. That ensures they keep an iron grip over the world by controlling the mass media.There are a very few exceptions to this(they know who they are)but until the TRUTH is fully published we will continue to see chaos caused by that evil influence .



Time to dispose of radical feminist pork 20 July 2005

If Republicans are looking for a way to return to their principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, a good place to start would be rejection of the coming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. It's a mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, promote divorce, corrupt the family court system, and engage in liberal political advocacy. Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush administration, but there's been no accountability or oversight for the act's spending of many billions of dollars. There is no evidence that the Violence Against Women Act has benefited anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is gearing up for a battle royal over the Supreme Court vacancy, has scheduled a hearing on the act for mid-July. It's apparently designed as a be-nice-to-Biden-before-the court-fight event, since no critic has been invited to speak. Let's have a reality check. The Violence Against Women Act's gender-specific title is pejorative: it's based on the false, unscientific, unjust and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men.

The president of Harvard University was publicly pilloried for months earlier this year for implying innate differences between men and women. But the act is spending a billion dollars a year to inculcate that very notion in the minds of men and women who are having marital difficulties, as well as police, prosecutors, psychologists and family court judges. Feminists staged tantrums at the suggestion of innate math-aptitude differences between men and women, but the whole premise of the Violence Against Women Act is that men have an innate propensity to violence against women. It's not because some are bad individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but because men want to keep women subservient in an oppressive patriarchal society.

The Violence Against Women Act was passed using such bogus statistics as "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds" and "80 percent of fathers who seek custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer." Remember the Super Bowl hoax, the ridiculous claim that "the biggest day of the year for violence against women" is Super Bowl Sunday? It's an assertion conclusively refuted by Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers' research. The Violence Against Women Act comes out of Andrea Dworkin's tirades of hate such as, "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." The act comes out of Gloria Steinem's nonsense, such as "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."

Here is some mischief in act-funded activities that should be investigated in the coming Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The act refuses to provide any help whatsoever for male victims of domestic violence. Let's hear from professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach who compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses, which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men. The act encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.

The act promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. This powerful weapon (according to the Illinois Bar Journal) is "part of the gamesmanship of divorce" and virtually guarantees that fathers are expelled from the lives of their own children. A woman seeking help from an act-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. The Violence Against Women Act ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation and saving marriages. The act denies that alcohol and illegal drugs are a cause of domestic violence, a peculiar assumption contrary to all human experience. In fact, most domestic violence incidents involve those components.

The act uses a definition of domestic violence that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and refusing to help with child care or housework. The act funds the re-education of judges and all law enforcement personnel to teach them feminist stereotypes about male abusers and female victims, how to game the system to empower women, and how to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of men. The act forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men. The accused men are not given treatment for real problems, but are assigned to classes where feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male conspiracy to subjugate women.

The Violence Against Women Act-funded centers engage in political advocacy for feminist legislation such as the "must-arrest" laws even if there is no sign of violence and even if the woman doesn't want the man arrested, and political advocacy against non-feminist legislation such as shared parental rights. It's time to stop the act from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.

Are the Illuminati taking over the world? 18 July 2005

What I will be writing on is a controversial topic, one that cannot be answered easily. If a person states that the Illuminati are planning to rule the world, many in the media immediately label the person as a "conspiracy theorist" with the wild-eyed look of Mel Gibson in the movie of that name. Or accuse them of "fanatical fundamentalist Christianity" as if that were an epithet (oh, that we lived in a world where that was considered highest praise instead of a term of shame).

On the other hand, to ignore the evidence that appears to be accumulating worldwide would take either a large dose of denial (which is apparently available in maximum doseages in many media quarters) or a desire to ignore the obvious. Other factors also complicate answering this question readily.

1. Members who are survivors of this group, and who leave, are reporting what they were taught within the text of cult programming. It can be difficult at times to separate cult rhetoric from the actualities that are ocurring, or events may be interpreted with a bias due to the programming.

2. People will also be influenced by other factors, including : their core beliefs about humanity, religious faith, the nature of good and evil, and the possibility of organized abuse on a global level.

I readily admit to all of the biases above, and ask that the reader be aware of this. I am still trying to undo the influence of a lifetime of being taught lies, lies which I once believed whole heartedly. Lies which make it difficult even now to sort truth from fiction, teaching from fact. But I also believe it is important to share what I know about the agenda of what I believe is one of the most destructive organizations operating today.

Until the age of 38, I was a programmer with this group, and as such I was aware of much of the underlying agenda behind the programming. I had to be. I was teaching other trainers to do their jobs better, more efficiently, and as a former member of the group, totally "sold out" on the idealogy that motivated me, I became excellent at what I did. The reason? I believed that the group would rule the world within my children's lifetime. In fact, I was told that my children would be leaders in the New order, which would be brought in by the middle of this century. I was taught this from infancy on. My parents believed it, the leaders around us taught and believed it. And the things that I saw certainly showed great organization and concentrated effort towards this goal.

What things did I see that indicated this? There were several:I saw a large amount of money being used to fund the projects of this group, funds that poured in from around the northern hemisphere and the world. Couriers were sent to the corners of the globe, and many of the top financial institutions had a vested interest in bringing this "new world order" to pass. This was discussed in leadership meetings; shown in videos to members of the group (such as the grainy films I saw in the 1960s showing a large round table with 13 members sitting around it, and the words "these are your leaders" spoken as the members rose and pledged allegiance to the coming new order. I will not mention the figures shown in this film in order to avoid the claim of "libel" but they were well known, influential, and many were behind the banking system of the modern world. The Illuminati are funding this coming world order quietly, behind the scenes. They believe that money not only "talks" as the saying goes, but buys media coverage, or silence; protection; and the influence needed to shape our modern world. "As the economy goes, the nation will go," I was taught in my teens by leaders in this group. They are practical pragmitists, in spite of their occult bent, who understand the motivation that drives much of mankind: greed, or the desire to gain wealth and power. Other indications of the worldwide agenda:

The Illuminati have been slowly linking themselves with other world wide occult and religious organizations over the years. There are no press releases announcing the merger of Illuminist intellectualism with a local coven's leadership, but this has been occurring with regularity over the past decades. They have been funding paramilitary groups, extremist groups, and any groups with an agenda that includes hatred, ego-centricism, racism, or other isms to an extreme. They are funding educational institutions, believing, and rightly so, that the youth of today will be molded by their education. This influence is subtle, but certain classes have been opened up, or certain instructors brought in, due to the subtle influence of quiet businessmen who has contributed heavily over the years. Again, the cynical pragmatism of the Illuminist leadership comes out, as they wield influence with financial power; power gained, unfortunately, through their esoteric practices and contracts with evil. Local and national media have been influenced for years by their financial pull. I was taught that the average person would be slowly and unknowingly "edged towards" acceptance of more and more immorality and idolatry. All a person needs to do is read or look at a magazine from the 1950's and compare it to those on the market today; to watch a movie from 50 years ago (when John Wayne was considered "action") compared to a modern tale of violence and spirituality; or compare the changes in modern television programs to see that the media has had an enormous (and, I was taught, calculated) impact on society.

The Illuminati have not created our modern society's ills or weaknesses. But they have encouraged and exploited them, often laughing at the gullibility and lack of moral fibre of the "average citizen". We as human beings have created the familial and social climate that is present today in our country. More and more, this is a climate adversarial to fundamental Christianity and morality. Mankind without God will turn to fill the vacuum, and the Illuminists and other occult groups have rushed to fill it.

UK's Chann 4 Big Brother promoting perverts 16 July 2005

Name: Derek Laud
Age: 40
Lives: London
Occupation: Speechwriter and political analyst
Status: Single

Why do you think your fellow housemates will nominate you?: “Because I kill furry animals – foxes and birds, I have too much confidence which could irritate others and my outspokenness gets me in trouble.” Other Info: Derek is a Tory who has worked as a political researcher and speechwriter in the House of Commons and The Lords and has written speeches for many high-profile MPs including Margaret Thatcher, Michael Heseltine and Neil Clark. He has been privy to many politicians’ secrets and features in John Major’s autobiography, Alan Clarke’s Diaries and John Mortimer’s latest book, Where There’s A Will.

He describes himself as “strong, sensitive and humorous” and claims that his unique selling point is that he is a very loyal person who would never go behind anyone’s back. Derek was the first and only black master of foxhounds and he has Jamaican roots.
Now defunct magazine Scallywag covered events at Bryn Alyn in detail, some years ago. Scallywag is still available online -

The magazine alleged that the peer referred to in the article is Lord McAlpine, at the time of the offences treasurer of the governing Conservative Party. Another regular participant in the activities at Bryn Clwyd was alleged by Scallywag to be Derek Laud, for years a leading mover and shaker in successive Conservative administrations.

Scallywag alleged that Laud was a sadist with an abnormally large penis, who was particularly violent and without mercy in his treatment of the boys. The magazine alleged that on regular occasions his victims would end up in casualty wards. He was a leading political fixer and adviser to Margaret Thatcher although never an MP; indeed he was pictured waving down to the crowds below from an upstairs window of 10 Downing Street as the Conservatives celebrated their 1988 election victory.

The former children connected with this empire of evil who died in mysterious circumstances may have been murdered by the British security services, the price of their silence their lives. Scallywag alleged that MI5 used to take foreign diplomats etc to the North Wales homes, give them boys to "play" with, secretly filmed them as they buggered, abused and tortured boys then kept the tapes as evidence. Amazing what a little blackmail leverage can do in delicate situations...

Michael Brown is one of the very few Conservative MP's who volunteered to "out" himself as a gay. Derek Laud, now standing for parliament, (against Bernie Grant in North London) ran a Pimlico PR agency called Ludgate Communications for a number of years which supplied young boys for selected parliamentarians from children's homes now being investigated in North Wales. He sometimes did this in cahoots with Ian Greer Associates which has since been scandalised because of the Neil Hamilton Affair and payment for questions on behalf of Al Fayed.

Ludgate Communications was at the very hub of our investigation into the "boys for questions" allegations. At his Pimlico flat, and selected addresses in Dolphin Square nearby, Laud threw paedophile parties and we have one sworn affidavit from a former boy (presently giving evidence in Wales) who claims he was seriously molested (among many others) by Lord McAlpine who was at the time the Tory party's clandestine fund raiser.

It was alleged by this boy and others that Messrs Portillo and Lilley were also guests of Derek Laud. We are assured that this particular volcano is about to erupt, both in North Wales and elsewhere. Michael Portillo has always publicly disassociated himself from Derek Laud, yet here we find him not only acquainted but seemingly in the inner sanctum of private friends.

Calvi's death remains a mystery 20 years on 16 July 2005

Vatican's banker 'was murdered'

Calvi's body was found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge

A top financier found hanging from a bridge in London 20 years ago was murdered, forensic experts appointed by judges in Rome to investigate the death have reportedly said. According to media reports, the panel said Roberto Calvi, who was nicknamed God's Banker because of his close ties to the Vatican, could not have killed himself as originally suggested.

Roberto Calvi's death remains a mystery 20 years on

They said his neck showed no evidence of the injuries usually associated with death by hanging and his hands had never touched the stones found in the pockets of his clothes. The results of the investigation, based on a new autopsy of Calvi's body, will be reviewed by two judges in Rome presiding over the case, who will decide whether to order a murder trial involving the mafia, reports say. Investigators suspect Calvi was killed by the mafia for failing to repay their "deposits" on demand. The findings have yet to be officially handed over to the tribunal, Rome prosecutor Salvatore Vecchione said in reaction to the reports. Friday's findings appear to confirm the results of forensic tests carried out earlier this year which reportedly showed the banker had been murdered.

Financial scandal

Calvi's son, also named Roberto, was quoted by La Repubblica newspaper as saying that although he was convinced the mafia carried out the murder, it was on behalf of a third party. "Behind the mafia, there's someone else," he said, adding: "The politicians who gave the order must be found." Mr Calvi's body was found hanging from scaffolding on Blackfriars Bridge in June 1982, days after the suspicious collapse of the Vatican-controlled Banco Ambrosiano.

His family has always maintained his death was not suicide. When Calvi arrived in London, he was on the run, using a false passport. His corrupt dealings had brought the bank to the verge of collapse with debts of more than $1bn.

Inquest verdicts

The case developed into one of the biggest political and financial scandals of the post-war era in Italy, with widespread speculation about mafia involvement and links to a shadowy Masonic group, known as P2. Mr Calvi's body was exhumed four years ago, following his family's insistence that he had been killed. Calvi was a member of the secret right-wing P2 Masonic lodge and was also linked to the Sicilian mafia. The coroner initially recorded a verdict of suicide but, under pressure from the family, a second inquest was called and an open verdict was recorded. In recent years more evidence has come to light, suggesting Calvi was murdered by the mafia to stop him divulging damaging details about links between the mafia, the Vatican and P2.

How rich are the Royals? 16 July 2005

I've spent the past six months making a programme with an absolutely obvious conclusion: how rich are the Royals? The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is - wait for it - very rich indeed. Surprised? No, nor me. So, why did we bother asking? Funnily enough that was the question implicit in the tone of the Palace officials we dealt with: why are you bothering? That, and what business is it of yours how rich the Royals are? Well, surely it is all of our business how rich the royals are. I'm no expert on constitutional matters but my understanding is that it boils down to this: the Royals are only royal because we, the electorate, allow it to be so. In which case we surely have a right to know how much they are worth?

Kevin Cahill, author of Who Owns Britain, says there is a constitutional issue here: the Royal Family are kept in check by Parliament as long as Parliament controls the purse strings with the civil list. But if the Royals are independently wealthy, as they most certainly are, then Parliament's control is weakened. But I would argue it doesn't matter if you embrace or reject the monarchy, it should be absolutely transparent how much money they are given and how much they have. They say there is all the transparency you could want in the civil list. And those fabulous sources of personal income for the Queen and Prince Charles, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively, obviously file accounts. But the civil list is set on the basis of need and it's impossible to assess how much they actually need if you don't know how much they have.

And, trust me, it's impossible to find how much they have because they're just not telling. The most obvious example is the Queen's share portfolio. It could be worth nothing. It could be worth billions. But we will never know because she holds shares anonymously in a company called the Bank of England Nominees - the logic being that it could destabilise the market if we knew what the Queen was buying and selling. However, if the chairman of BT sells off all his personal shares in the company that will certainly affect sentiment. And his transactions, like yours and mine, would almost certainly have to be in the public domain.

Some of the arguments we had with the Palace over the making of this programme have been positively Pythonesque. Long and hard we've bickered over what the Royals own and what they don't. Take Windsor Castle. Go on, take it, because it's actually yours. Or ours. They're just keeping it on our behalf you see. They don't actually own it. So whatever it's worth we've not included it in our grand total. Fine. And no-one expects to go marching over the drawbridge to stake their claim to a bit of Windsor Castle. But if it's ours then why should we have to apply for permission to film a tiny bit of Royal Millions on the Long Walk, the park leading to the castle? Permission was denied, incidentally. So I couldn't film a piece explaining that this was actually our land because we had been told we couldn't film on our land. Walter Bagehot advised the monarch not to "let the light in". But the light, like the tide for King Canute, is coming in whether they like it or not. Royal Millions is broadcast on BBC One on Wednesday 5 May at 2235 BST.

How family law came into existence 16 July 2005

London, September 2, 1998

Dear client

You asked me to set out shortly, for your meeting with (name), a summary of what has happened in Divorce Law since 1970, to lead to the present state of affairs.

Essentially, what has happened is that the Courts have virtually turned the Law upside down, contrary to the express intention of Parliament, they have created a situation whereby people can break up marriages and obtain the same financial benefits as would only have been received had the other party broken up the marriage. Since actions may be taken without consequence, there is no incentive to refrain from those actions.

Prior to 1970, the position was quite simple. Divorce could only effectively be obtained for desertion, adultery, or cruelty (i.e. very un reasonable behaviour causing injury to health). There was no liability in law to maintain the other party if they deserted, or if a Court had found them guilty of cruelty or adultery. This was a very real constraint in that somebody who was bored with their marriage had to consider the consequences. If the they walked out, they lost their maintenance. They therefore had to make a value judgment as to what to do.

In passing the 1969 Divorce Reform Act., which became the 1970 Act, and is now the 1973 and 1984 Acts, Parliament made absolutely clear its intentions, as was also shown in the House of Commons Committee Report from the Bill. What Parliament contemplated was the following:

I. Cruelty would be replaced by unreasonable behaviour to deal with the common situation of somebody who was subject to cruel behaviour but was not affected in their health.

2. Those who wished to bury their marriage by agreement without proving the matrimonial offence could do so on the basis of two years separation and Parliament clearly contemplated that that would be in the vast majority of cases. This was in fact. not so.

3. Those who formerly could not obtain a divorce because they had no grounds could enforce a divorce after five years separation provided proper financial provision was made for the innocent party.

The conduct provision remained, so that if a party had committed cruelty or adultery they could not expect to be maintained, and the common law rule that a party in desertion had no right to claim maintenance also was unaffected. An attempt was made by he “Reformers to overturn this in the Committee stage but it at failed.

The Courts proceeded to turn this upside down. The language of the Act in relation to conduct was virtually the same as it had been since the 1857 Act, and there had been no changes by way of developments in case law which altered in any way the statement of the law that I have set out above. Notwithstanding this, the Courts made two fundamental changes in the Law which have brought about the wave of divorce.

The first of these was to apply a subjective and not an objective test to unreasonable behaviour, so that behaviour which the average man or woman would not regard as unreasonable was treated as unreasonable if the party claiming it said that they found it unreasonable. This opened a floodgate of petitions on grounds which Parliament never contemplated, and this round became by far the most popular ground for divorce whereas it had been the least used (under the name of cruelty) before he 1970 Act.

The Courts were supported by the Law Society in this, which proceeded to grant legal aid to bring contested divorces but to refuse legal aid to those who had defended upon the ground that the marriage must have broken up or there would not be a petition. If Parliament had intended divorces not to be defended it would have provided for them not to be defended. Effectively the Courts brought in divorce on demand in express defiance of Parliament.

The second development was a 1974 case in which it was held that ‘conduct’ was no longer relevant unless it was “gross and obvious” and effectively the Courts rarely hold any conduct to be relevant, or if they do, pay lip service to it and otherwise ignore it. If the wife broke up the marriage the Courts would treat her in the a way as if it had been her husband who had broken up the marriage. Whereas if the husband did break up the marriage he could rely upon being treated with greater harshness.

The other subsidiary development was that the Courts announced that they would not enforce their own access Orders. The affect was rather like saying that in future burglars would not be prosecuted. You get a wave of burglaries. The specious ground for this was that if the custodial parent was upset the child would be upset. You might say to the contrary that the image to the child not seeing the non custodial parent would ‘ much more serious.

We tried to keep this as short as possible. Essentially what. it boils down to is that:

The Courts have quite willfully frustrated the intentions Parliament. I was actually present at a seminar when the 1984 Act, which was supposed to have altered things, had just been produced and an eminent Barrister said that “it was the opinion of the judiciary that nothing should change”. Just as courts had turned the 1970 Act upside down they simply denied the spirit of the 1984 Act.

Since the Courts take the view that wives may break up their marriage without any consequence, it is not surprising there is more of divorce. My own observation of the “unreasonable demeanor petition” is that the vast majority are thoroughly bad and reflect no more than boredom with the marriage and more so the majority of cases what triggers off the divorce is the arrival of the boyfriend hidden in the background.


As a divorce practitioner with many years experience I find that most clients come to me in a state of total bewilderment and astonishment over what happens to them in divorce proceedings.

Injustice in Secret Courts

What astonishes these clients is the perceived injustice, the abandonment of any generally recognized principles of justice and morality, and the hostility to men which characterize the divorce courts. The bewilderment results from a widespread lack of public understanding - until themselves involved - in the way in which the Divorce Courts (not the weasel words ‘Family Courts” for courts winch exist to break up families) have, over the past 25 years, deviated from the laws as Parliament intended and expected them to be applied, and from the generally held views of men and women as to justice and fair play.

This bewilderment is found whatever the degree of education of the client. Its prime cause is the conspiracy of silence in which only a distorted and limited picture emerges from the closed doors behind which matrimonial cases are heard - in secret courts such as have not been seen in Britain since the days of the Star Chamber. Behind closed doors, and with closed eyes and ears, the legal and social work professions operate in an “invented world”, where it is assumed that their actions arc fair and just, and will be so regarded and approved of by right-minded people, and the general public. it also results from the approach of the media, who tend to accept without question the smooth and misleading picture put to them by the lawyers and social workers and, with a few honourable exceptions. tend to suppress any alternative view.

This deviation from justice began with the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and the 1970 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act. For a number of years pressures had built up from various influential quarters for what was described as ‘reform” of the divorce laws. The public and Parliament were sold the idea that there were many people who could not obtain divorces. although they had lived apart for many years, who ought to be free to do so, and many others who wanted a divorce without the need to allege a matrimonial offence against the other. This seemed just on the face of it. just, which was why there was so little opposition to proposals for change. The Church of England further muddied the waters by its call for easier divorce but with an inquest into the causes of each marital breakdown. The divorce activists, working to a hidden agenda, used the Church to gain its support, but made sure it got something very different from what you hoped for.

The Activists for ‘Reform”

Among those most actively pushing for changes in the divorce laws. principally the divorce lawyers and senior judges, and the upper intellectual and professional classes, there were a range of motives, but among the lawyers particularly, a hidden agenda. The intellectual and professional class, as in many other fields, suffered from the bizarre belief that, if the machinery of conflict were removed or minimized, people would resolve their differences in a civilized mariner. Tame (1) wrote in the 19th Century. that the principal cause of the French Revolution had been that the governing classes were moved, above all oilier things. by an extreme horror of conflict and violence, and preferred the lives of maniacs and malefactors to the maintenance of order. Corelli Barnett (2) wrote few years ago that the educated classes of Britain not only thought the world ought to be a place where civilized people settled their differences over tea in the drawing room, a noble ideal, but in an extraordinary delusion really thought it was such a place.

They believed, and still profess to believe, that if the causes of divorce and the parties? behaviour were excluded from discussion conflict and bitterness would cease They entirely failed to realize that people in marital conflict are fighting over the most important matters in their lives, their children, and all they have worked for, and that such fundamental issues can usually only he resolved by conflict. They also failed to realize that there is no greater bitterness than that caused by injustice. In a word, they thought that weapons cause war, not that war causes weapons, and failed to understand that most people of any spirit prefer conflict to submitting to injustice.

The Naivete of the Educated Classes

On the whole, the educated classes, except where they themselves have been involved in divorce, still naively believe they have a civilized divorce law, and the serious press is constantly full of letters from well-meaning people who say that those in divorce need sympathy and help in “fairly distributing their property and helping the children?. They fail to realize that for the bulk of the population there is not enough property to distribute, fairly or otherwise, and that all, whether rich or poor. regard their property as theirs and not something to be taken from them or. as one eminent judge described it, “redistributed within the family". A woman solicitor even wrote to the legal press saying we should develop a system in which all Court Orders were Consent Orders!. This is the fear of conflict of which Tame wrote.

In the real world, however, two nations who wanted the same piece of land fought for it, and in the domestic sphere two people who wanted the same house or custody of the same children also do. This is blindingly obvious to all but the ‘civilized? classes. People in the real world continue to believe that it is ‘their” child and ‘their? house, and will not accept that the Olympian disposal of their child and house to someone else is some how “fair” and thus to be meekly accepted with a pat on the back from the social workers. In the invented world of the lawyers and social workers, however, the holding of such views is seen as mad or bad or both, and is guaranteed to incur judicial hostility. I have even heard one woman lawyer say how much she admired the ‘rnoderation and reasonableness” of men who voluntarily gave up all contact with their children because their wife objected to it.

What I suspect underlies he desire of. the lawyers. the social workers and the ‘well meaning' classes to avoid conflict in divorce is the delusion that their anti-male attitudes are shared by the general public and that, if the machinery of conflict were somehow removed, everybody would happily accept the diktats of the divorce courts.

Behind the scenes were other forces, most strongly represented in the legal and social science professions, who had a fanatical belief in feminism in the widest sense. They wanted a system in which women had no obligations or duties in marriage, but unqualified rights regardless of conduct. I well remember being told by a lady barrister in a well known divorce chambers that most of the men in her chambers, Eton and Oxford types, considered that any woman who married, however briefly and regardless of her conduct?, should he entitled to be kept in comfort for the rest of her life without working. The rise of this element, always strong among the lawyers, was compounded by the growth since the war, as a result of widespread university education, of a large arts graduate intelligentsia, whose views on social and moral issues had come to depart radically from those held by the general public.

The Debate in Parliament

All these various elements made their big effort in the House of Commons Committee stage of the 1970 Act when they attempted to have conduct deleted as an issue in maintenance and capital orders. Until then the law had been clear for generations, adultery. desertion, and cruelty were a bar to any claim of maintenance and therefore a heavy deterrent to breaking a marriage. If a woman was “bored” with her marriage or ‘fancied” somebody else. or “needed space”, she had to make a value judgment before breaking up her marriage. Was it so unacceptable that she was prepared to forgo the financial benefits? The Committee threw this out with great firmness. and a reading at the records of the Committee in the House of Commons is a salutary exercise. The Committee thought. outrageous that conduct should be irrelevant, and pointed out that such move would only lead to widespread divorce and injustice.

One other move by the “reformers as I shall now call them, was also defeated, although actually introduced by the government a statutory requirement for the courts to seek by financial orders, to maintain the financial position of the wife only, but not that of the husband. The ‘reformers” had been defeated. But this defeat was short lived.

The 1970 -73 Legislation

The 1970 Divorce Act preserved conduct, and the only significant chance in that respect was that cruelty as a ground for divorce was replaced by unreasonable behaviour, the difference being that the element of injury to health was no longer required. There was no suggestion in Parliament that the test of acceptable behaviour should change.

Further legislation followed in the form of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 that was, in many ways, a consolidating Act for the 1970 Act, and the associated legislation that had taken place immediately before and after it. These Acts had answered the pressures of the ‘reformers? by adding two additional grounds to the existing three grounds for divorce The existing three had been adultery?, desertion, and cruelty (i.e. behaviour plus injury to health). The two additional grounds were: two years separation in the case of consent by both parties to divorce, or five years separation if one parties? did not consent. The two years? separation plus consent ground catered for the more sensitive elements of the educated classes who, in the case of genuine mutual consent, were repelled by divorce petitions containing allegations against the other party and wanted to do everything “by consent". The five years separation ground catered for those caught in the position where they could never obtain a divorce for lack of grounds.

It was quite apparent that Parliament contemplated three classes of divorce: 1) a compulsory divorce after five years separation, 2) a consensual divorce after two years? separation in which people could make their own arrangements, and 3) a non-consensual divorce where one party did not want a divorce, or in the case of adultery, desertion unreasonable behaviour ( i.e. cruelty, without the need to prove injury to health). It was naively anticipated that most divorces would be by consent. This never proved to be the case. The financial provisions rested, as to the criteria for making orders, on a more detailed reiteration of the provisions, based on conduct, which had been in the original 1857 Divorce Act. The courts had to make such order as was just “having regard to the parties' conduct.”

Parliament’s Intentions Frustrated

The excesses of the reformers had apparently been frustrated by Parliament, but the Courts proceeded immediately to undermine Parliament’s intentions in a devastating manner. First, they ruled that the test of unreasonable behaviour was subjective as opposed to objective, so that conduct which an ordinary reasonable person would find insufficiently unreasonable to justify? divorce was nevertheless to be held sufficient if the petitioner claimed to find it so (3). This opened the gates to the ridiculously weak “behaviour” petitions of the past twenty years, and led to a widespread practice of anybody (particularly a man) who sought to defend a weak “behaviour” petition being subjected to hostile assault by judges. In addition, such litigants received extreme pressure from their own banisters and solicitors, who would tell them that there was no purpose in defending, since the marriage had broken down. Legal aid was usually refused although sometimes granted to women. The Courts themselves, in defiance of Parliament, had brought about the “divorce on demand” which most of the lawyers and academics favored.

The Removal of Conduct

The second and fatal step was for the Family Division, in the case of Wachtel (4), to hold that conduct was usually irrelevant in the case of financial matters. This was only partially stalled by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that conduct was relevant if it was gross and obvious. Soon afterwards, the Court of Appeal, differently constituted, held in the case of Rogers (5) that the Wachtel decision was plainly wrong, and contrary to the expressed intention of Parliament. This decision, although it appeared in the law reports, was virtually kept out of the legal press, and most lawyers are unaware of it. Wachtel was followed by the courts, and not Rogers, although each were of equal authority. This was a period in which the legal press tended to give great publicity to the views of those who supported the anti-conduct trends, and to ignore the views of those who opposed them. We now know from the recent memoirs of a Judge that this decision resulted from a private meeting of the Judges who decided this policy approach in secret, over twenty years ago. This revelation has received little publicity beyond an admiring comment in The Times, which seemed to fail to realize what it was saying. In practice it became rare for the courts to find anything ‘gross and obvious? or on the fairly rare occasions when it did, to do anything about it. Judicial hostility to raising conduct, at least against wives, became the norm. Finally the Courts abandoned the age old rule that a deserting wife was not entitled to maintenance.

The Courts were required under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 to put the parties in the some position as prior to the divorce so far as possible having regard to their conduct”, and in doing so to consider a number of factors including that of ‘need?. However, despite Parliament having thrown out the reformers attempts to have “need” apply specifically to wives only, “need” became the only consideration that the Courts took seriously. ‘Need was interpreted as meaning getting wife absolute security to the extent that this could be squeezed out of the husband. Whereas, the widow of a Falklands war hero was left to a meager pension, the adulterous wife was showered with sympathy and held to be entitled to the utmost security for the rest of her life. As shown in Wachtel, the orders of the court were made “without having regard to their conduct,” In direct contravention of the Act. The Courts ignored all other statutorily required considerations that involved merit as distinct from need, and in so doing ignored all considerations of justice, “need being the only consideration that involves no “merit”. A common approach was to give the wife (and her boyfriend) the house on the grounds that they? “needed” it to bring up the husband?s children. In contrast the husband without wife or children was then told that a bedsitter met his needs.

The “Weak” Behaviour Petition

The net effect of these developments was to create a pattern in which spouses, mainly wives, brought weak behaviour petitions when they became bored with their husbands or found somebody else. Husbands were then pressured not to defend themselves and found they were stripped of their assets and children by hostile Courts applying a quasi-Marxist interpretation of ‘need? and a Court of Appeal determined to decide any question in favour of the wife if it possibly could, under the leadership of the same judge who had decided the Wachtel case before it went to appeal.

The Ousting of Husbands from the Home

The 'reformers' had thus succeeded in fooling Parliament into passing legislation and then using that legislation to achieve the very opposite of what Parliament had intended, without the public ever being aware until it hit them, and usually not even then. The situation was reinforced and worsened by the domestic violence legislation, coupled with an extremely wide interpretation of its provisions. The Courts made use of a claimed inherent jurisdiction to oust husbands at the slightest pretext, the commonest one being that the wife suffered distress husband to arrive at court to find his own barrister pressing him to leave those lawyers, like myself, who came along and announced that the husband was not leaving, found themselves the subject of the most indignant and outraged pressure from courts and wives' lawyers alike.

The Courts Held to He Acting Without Lawful Authority

Significantly, in 1984, in the case of Richards (6), the House of Lords held that the Courts had wrongly assumed an inherent jurisdiction arid had been issuing ouster orders for many years without, in many cases, any lawful authority whatsoever. Ouster became much less frequent after that with considerable restrictions being placed on it by the Courts. The bulk of ouster cases I encountered for some years were ones where the pressure came not from the Court, but from the husband?s own lawyers. The situation has gradually resumed to the pie-Richards position and the l990 Act, with its absence of references to justice, is highly likely to worsen the position, as most judges are eager to restore the Richards position of ouster on wife?s demand, Indeed, the recent case of the Portsmouth headmaster, ousted from his home, is likely to be the precursor of many more.

Public Bewilderment

All of these developments took place without being realized or understood outside the ranks of those involved in divorce, and it was widely assumed that divorce was as it had been but merely easier to obtain. Those involved in divorce did not really realize what had hit them until it did. Many could not believe what had happened to them, let alone understand it.

Bizarre Processes of Reasoning

In order to justify their approach, bizarre processes of reasoning were adopted by the Court. An eminent student of those developments, Dr John Campion, as part of the wider picture, has summarized in the phrase "the invented world". By this he meant a world in which the weird views of the "family" lawyers and social workers were regarded as the only normal approach to human relations, so that anyone who objected to being stripped of their home, property and children, in a way they would not be if they had committed a grave crime, was assumed to be mad or bad. It was a world in which it was normal, right and proper that men who had committed no crime could be stripped of everything, in which the Courts refused to enforce their own orders against wives if they chose not to obey them, in which it was “in the best interest of the family” for children to be deprived of their fathers, and to see their fathers stripped and humiliated, and in which husbands/fathers were not only expected to work to support or at least house their former spouses living with their Children and a new lover, but actually regarded as mad or bad if they raised any objection. There was no hesitation about throwing them into prison if they did not comply with the Court's order. It was a world in which several very senior judges proclaimed that there was no significance in the “blood tie” between father and child, but only in that between mother and child.

Bogus Principles of Social Behaviour.

A number of quite extraordinary principles of social behaviour were put forward by the courts to justify their reasoning, in response to the sense of moral outrage that began to develop among the public. A bizarre view was put forward by the judges that the husband was the “cock out feathering his nest while the wife was sitting at home on the nest", and that the husband could not have feathered his nest were the wife not sitting on it. This has been uncritically repeated throughout the legal profession and the law reports, although even momentary examination reveals it to be manifestly)? absurd. The man who has regularly worked would, in most cases, have acquired his property, whether married or not. A possible exception is in the case of the man pushed on by an ambitious wife, but then for every man pushed on by an ambitious wife there is likely to be one held back by an unambitious one. Indeed, it should further be pointed out that the wives who have acquired houses and property would, had they not married, have been unlikely to acquire such property, or even own any property, because of the lower pay of women.

Injustice Better than Conflict.

It was argued that, by stripping husbands of their property without investigating the causes of the marital breakdown, Courts were sparing the parties the distress of conflict and the bitterness which would have resulted from that conflict. If the victim protested, or expressed bitterness at being “stripped,? or pointed out that it was being “stripped” rather than conflict to which he objected, judges regarded and treated him as mad or bad. The lawyers would patronizingly boast that they had spared the husband the distress of a Court battle by stripping him at the courtroom door.

Willful Confusion of Reasoning.

It was said that relationships broke down for complex reasons, and that the Courts could not investigate these reasons in depth. Often true, but irrelevant. What should matter, and to the ordinary member of the public did matter, was who broke up the marriage and that they had objectively substantial reasons, not what the feelings were in a relationship. If this were not so, then, in the eyes of the Courts, marriage as an institution is of less importance than other relationships, including cohabitation. It is the contract of marriage, and its breach, upon which Parliament intended the courts to adjudicate, not a ‘relationship’.

The Underlying Prejudice Against Men.

The reality was that the Courts did not wish to investigate the facts, mainly because investigation might reveal matters adverse to the wife, and partly from an Olympian distaste for conflict. The same factors were involved in the reluctance of the Courts to hear the view?s of children as to where they wished to reside. They might hear what they did not want to hear, children saying that they wished to live with their father. Again., it was said that it was best for the children to see a difficult marriage broken up, and the wife in secure accommodation, preferably? with her new “man? to form a new “family”. Why the children should benefit from losing a father, seeing him impoverished, probably losing contact with him, and a decline in their living standards, was not explained.

It was only explicable on the ground that the judicially and the bulk of the legal and social work professions saw fathers as figures of no significance. Indeed there many judges, and many more lawyers, quite prepared to say that they were not in the least concerned with what happened to the husband/father, and often that the ‘blood tie” between father and child was of no significance. The Courts wholeheartedly embraced this view, ruling that, when the parents divorced, there is a new family consisting of the wife, children and the new man. The old family, i.e., the husband, had ceased to exist, except for maintenance, where the courts did not hesitate to say that the husband “ought to be supporting his family”, even if not allowed to see the same family of which the same courts no longer regarded him as part.

New Principles to Justify Prejudice.

The Courts justified their prejudice by developing principles ad hoc, whenever they were necessary to place the wife in a favorable position. If the property was in joint names it was said that the wife was entitled to her half, regardless of the merits and issues, because her name was on the deeds, in accordance with the law relating to land, whereas the husband was stripped of his half share, despite his name being on the deeds, on the grounds of the wife's “needs”. The “principle” which caused the greatest outrage was that adultery by? wives could not be criticized because “it took three to commit adultery” - yet another absurd generality without foundation which, significantly, applied only in favour of wives. I remember being in the Court of Appeal, in a case in which a most senior judge, then a household name, who had repeatedly said that wives? adultery was of no consequence, remarked “Your client [a man] has committed adultery”. My client's woman Counsel replied “Conduct is not in issue”, whereupon the Judge replied “I am not saying conduct is in issue. I merely remarked that your client has committed adultery?. My client then found himself going downhill, castigated for adultery, with remarkable speed! Public outrage over these attitudes became so widespread that a Lord Chancellor, in the face of this public outrage over the exclusion of conduct, started to talk about punishing adulterous husbands, while making no apparent mention of punishing adulterous wives at all.

New Judges - Increased Prejudice.

These views persisted and intensified and the practices which resulted became the subject of a rather sick joke in the 1970?s; men committed more crime than women because the man who wanted £50,000 had to hold up a bank, whereas the woman had only to take a man with £50000 to the Register Office.

Not only did those views persist but the new breed of liberal judges upheld them much more vigorously. The occasional maverick, brought up in a non ‘family law? background or in an older tradition of justice, is dying out. We now have judges who have carried on most of their career in the post-1970 environment. They know nothing different; their attitudes generally are such that it would not occur to them to challenge the injustices which they daily administer, let alone to see them as injustices. and they are further inhibited both by the general tendency of English lawyers to conform and by the national tendency not to think too hard. An illustration of the attitudes of the ear, from which most judges are drawn, was contained in a recent article in a law journal, where comment was made that it was useful that solicitors could appear in the new Patent County Court as barristers appeared to have “problems” about cross-examining female witnesses.

Judges Provide Incentive to Divorce.

Applied to everyday situations, all this meant that the law as Parliament intended it pre-1974 had gone. Prior to then, a wife who deserted her husband was dis-entitled to maintenance at common law, and could be divorced without maintenance after three years, and an adulterous or cruel wife was divorced usually without maintenance. in none of these cases did she have a capital claim against any property not hers in law. Until only a few years before there had been no maintenance for the child if with a mother in a state of desertion. This was a powerful deterrent to desertion. Those who planned to ditch their husband without good cause had to make a value judgment. If they went off with the boyfriend they received no maintenance and no capital. In the new situation the judges said ”if you want to ditch your husband and take a boyfriend we will support you and see that you do not lose out. You can have your husband’s money and your boyfriend.” They then proceeded to express surprise and even puzzlement at the huge rise in the divorce rates, to become the highest in Europe, without in the faintest degree seeing that they were the cause. Those that did understand it seemed not concerned. If easy divorce without consequences was what women wanted, women should have it.

The Corrupting Effect of Injustice on the Lawyers.

The development of judicial attitudes was accompanied by a corresponding corrupting effect on the legal profession. Judges who cease to do justice according to law, themselves come to be indifferent to legal principles, and ordinary principles of justice. Lawyers become similarly infected. The basis of all professional relationships is a duty to the client, the duty in the case of a lawyer being to do his best on behalf of a client, impartially to advise the client, and then to put the clients case and wishes to the best of his ability, subject to the general limits of professional conduct and keeping within the law.

It soon became obvious that many divorce lawyers (who began hypocritically to call themselves ‘family lawyers”) were not acting in the interests of male clients. Attitudes to male clients often ranged front the openly hostile through the plausible sell-out approach to hopeless defeatism. The quality of advice was frequently poor, helpful case law frequently ignored, and serious attempts to resist or answer claims were not frequently made. A general attitude developed of find out what she'll take and give it to her. So accustomed were wives? lawyers to meeting no resistance that I found that, if resisted, they either treated the resistance as some type of joke or pretense to impress the client, or exploded with outrageous indignation. One significant consequence of this was that fewer and fewer really able lawyers did divorce work. The quality of divorce lawyers markedly deteriorated.

The Effect on the Clients.

The hostility of the judges reinforced by the unwillingness of lawyers to stand up to judges, and the prejudices and failings of the lawyers. led w clients frequently? not being advised of their rights or their case not acme pressed in the Courts. What also happened was that Courts often made orders quite beyond their powers if they felt they could get away with it. That is to say, if they felt the lawyers in front of them would do little about it, as was usually the case. Such attitudes spread throughout the profession to such an extent that some firms in London boasted that “We only act for wives”. Solicitors at Law Society conferences called for lawyers to cease to be obliged to act in their clients? interest but, in a new and ominous phrase “to act in the interests of the family”. This was a code word for acting in the interests of the wife, and has become general usage among family lawyers. It became common practice, particularly among barristers, for them to get together and ‘settle? the case usually to the husband?s disadvantage. The process of indoctrination began at an early stage. Exam papers with a dozen questions on Family Law contained as many as eleven saying ‘advise the wife”. The tendency of the Englishman not to think had enabled a small and highly motivated minority in brainwash a profession into unthinking acceptance of its views.

The So-Called “Interests of the Family”.

The absurdity of the expression “acting in the interests of the family” is shown when one actually examines it. The only person in Court who is there to act in the interests of the family is the Judge. His function is to do justice between the parties. This is something which they now proudly boast of not doing, saying their function is to protect the wife and children, not to do Justice. The “family” clearly does not include the father The function of the lawyers is to put forward the interests of their women not the interests of the so-called ‘family’. The other principal member of which in any event will have another lawyer. Indeed, the matter goes beyond that, since if the lawyers “act in the interests of the family” as they think they are doing, all they are doing is acting in what they think are in the interests of the family. They may be wrong, and thus do damage to the family. The ultimate line became “putting the child first” which really meant putting the mother first, and this has become the all-embracing excuse for all manner of injustice. Indeed, putting the child first appears to have been the basis of the recently reported case of in re:B (Times Law Report, 9th July,1997) in which a father was barred from seeing his child after the step father threatened to leave the mother if contact were granted. This seems a questionable view of the child?s interests, since continued contact with its father would seem of more importance than any short term distress of the mother caused by departure of the stepfather. indeed this law appears to regard fatherhood as of no great significance.

Public Outrage

Increasing public outrage led, by 1979, to the formation of organizations such as Campaign for Justice in Divorce. Vigorous bombardment of the Press and Parliament began to lead to awareness of something being wrong, even though the precise nature of it was not understood. The casualties of the matrimonial battlefield appeared in social gatherings like disabled men after the First World War. in l982 three hundred and fifteen MPs signed a motion to investigate the position. The pressure for change became so intense that the legal establishment decided that something had to be done. What happened, though was that then effectively seized control of the legislation and through skillful selection of the Committee, and vigororous control of the voting in Parliament, ensured that Parliament never really understood what was being complained about and, what went through was relatively innocuous. The establishment skillfully conned Parliament and was disastrously helped by many of the leaders of the inert?s organizations, who went along with what was happening. apparently jollied along by the civil servants involved.

The Failure of the First Men?s Organizations: the Conduct Issue.

In my view it was an unfortunate feature of those attempting to end the abuses that they failed to accept that, in order to get public opinion going with them, they would have to accept that middle aged and elderly ladies could not be seen to be left for young women and not provided for. This was a major cause of the failure of the husbands groups to achieve wider support. Because the husbands? groups failed to push the “conduct? issue, which was the cause of most outrage among ordinary people, and campaigned instead for the total ending of all maintenance, they alienated a larger body of public opinion which would not support this. I cannot over-emphasize that conduct is the key to everything because conduct is the issue that outrages ordinary people, and it is the abolition of conduct, together with the various invented “principles of social behaviour?, which has made divorce so easy and tempting to wives, in essence, wives have been told by the Courts that it is right and proper to say, “I don?t want him, but I want his money”.

What Is Conduct?.

What do I mean by conduct?. The Courts will tell you that they have not the time to go into nit-picking issues of conduct and that, in any case. usually? one person is as bad as another. The lack of time is a quite extraordinary argument, because the implication is that the Courts are far too busy doing injustice on a production line scale to have the time to do justice on an individual scale. But, importantly, conduct does involve nit-picking issues. To most people, conduct means adultery?, extreme violence and desertion and similar matters. Neither men nor women see why the adulterous or deserting wife receives maintenance or is allowed to strip the husband of his assets. More subtly, though, the real issue relating to conduct is who brought an end to the marriage itself and for what reason. Thus, if a wife breaks up a marriage for no good reason, there is no reason why she should receive maintenance other than her capital contribution to the marriage. It is quite wrong that a wife should be free to say she does not like her husband yet still wishes to have his money.

The current approach to conduct is to exclude it in nearly all cases, unless it is the man’s conduct. One other approach has been to limit conduct to the consequences of financial misconduct e.g., dissipation of assets, and then to top up the award so as to cancel the effect of that conduct. This, at least on paper, has been limited by the 1996 Act provisions which make clear that conduct is not limited to financial misconduct, in practice the courts are likely to ignore Parliament’s intentions, and lawyers will continue to reject conduct as an issue.

The First Men’s Organizations Collapse.

The failure of the men?s organizations to achieve anything in the 1984 legislation, reinforced by their leaders? support of this useless legislation, led to a decline in their membership for some years. Exemplifying the tendency of men?s organizations the world over to split and even to litigate between themselves

The Revival

By the 1990?s the men?s organizations were beginning to revive under new leadership. The new organizations, of which the United Kingdom Men?s Movement was the most significant, had a better grasp of what had happened in the past, and had more defined policies on how to deal with the problem. They understood the conduct issue more clearly. I had written the original version of this paper in 1988 to create an understanding, precisely because I had watched the men?s organizations. for many of whom I had acted, floundering. in the dark, railing against the system without understanding its causes. I concluded that I needed to update it to meet the challenge of the 1990?s.

The Prospect of Change.

So powerful however, had become the weight of the establishment thinking in this field combined with a lack of public and Parliamentary? understanding of its cause - the lawyers - that the prospect of change in the foreseeable future seemed low. Change began to come from unexpected sources.

The first was the increasing concern generally, and in the academic field about the breakdown of the family in this country. Second was the Government’s desire to save money on Legal Aid.

Social breakdown led to the increasing publication of articles on the breakdown of the family and the injustices in the Courts by outstanding writers such as Martin Mears in the Sunday Telegraph, and other writers in the Daily Mail. Only Martin Mears, however, grasped the importance of the conduct issue and that the attitude of the Courts and lawyers as the cause of the breakdown of the family. The others tended to see the cause as moral decline and the remedy as education in marriage and the seeking of reconciliation in mediation. They failed to realize that if you tell people that they can dump their spouses, and still take their money, all the social workers in the world will not hold them back.

It might have taken many more years for these truths to sink in, and the pressure to do something to develop, but for the Government?s desire to save money.

Here two factors came together, the Government wanted to save money, and the family lawyers, and apparently the lawyers who advised the Government, wanted to realize their dream - divorce on demand. This led to the 1996 Family Law Act put forward by the Lord Chancellor.

The Government Proposal.

The Lord Chancellor's proposals, in effect, were for divorce on demand mediators to solve the financial issues and save Legal Aid money. A widened power of ouster was extended to cohabitants, thus reducing marriage to the mere equivalent of cohabitation. Upon all the evidence, much of the Cabinet did understand what was happening and certainly did not want it, but it was forced through the Cabinet by a small and powerful element that did.

Parliament’s Reaction.

When Parliament, concerned by social breakdown, considered the legislation, it, as a result of an outstanding campaign by pro family campaigners, indicated that it was beginning to understand a little of what had been happening. All honors are due to the Daily Mail in particular for the way it mobilized opposition so that a strong opposition developed and the situation reached the point where the legislation was threatened with failure. A desperate Government made many concessions which for the first lime may drive in beginnings of a wedge into the present system. Despite us now having divorce on demand, conduct is supposed to be taken into account to a greater degree than in financial and child issues. It is my belief that the Courts will continue to defy Parliament’s intention. I remember hearing a barrister, now a High Court Judge, claim at a lecture on the 1984 Act that they would ignore it. Nevertheless the continued social breakdown and the further flagrant defiance by the Courts, of which a wider public understanding is developing, will continue to arouse further Parliamentary and media concern.

The Child Support Act..

Another factor which had contributed to social breakdown was the Child Support Act, sold to Parliament as a means of saving the Exchequer from the cost of so-called “dead-beat dads” who were not supporting their families, in particular, the unmarried fathers.

It was later admitted by the Child Support Agency chief that the real target, however, was the middle class married father with means. In other words, once again there was a hidden agenda.

The whole concept was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. The burden of the Child Support Agency exactions was so heavy that, for 95% of fathers, it would mean working at subsistence level. If it be subsistence level they might as well as give up work anyway. Indeed, if they did carry on working, they would not be left with sufficient means themselves to found a family. Thus, a further under-class would be created of impoverished men who could not afford to support a family, and of women who, in consequence, could not find a husband with whom to form a family. The obviousness of this seemed entirely to elude the Government in so far as it was concerned about it all. In reality, despite the expenditure of nearly two billion pounds, the new Agency has recovered far less than the DSS did under the old liable relative system, and the position is worsening.

Two thirds of all persons who receiving a Child Support Agency Assessment give up their employment within six months. Every form of falsification of figures disguises the non-recovery and arrears continue to rocket by hundreds of millions every year. The cost in Social Security for the men who have given up work is phenomenal By depriving men of the family, the incentive to work, the system was accelerating the move to the matriarchal society that now dominates the American inner cities and many of our industrial areas - a world of unemployed single fathers and of fatherless children running wild. Feminists boast that stone age societies were matrilineal - that is why they remained primitive.

The Pension Issue.

One other development in recent years has been the successive Acts of Parliament, first providing for maintenance out of pension provision, and then (1996 Act) providing for the pension to be treated as an asset and divided, so that a wife who has remarried will many years later be collecting a chunk of her ex husband’s pension.

There is a false logic in the whole pension issue. Pensions are being treated as a capital asset when they are not. A pension is a contingent income dependent on many factors. Splitting it could lead to the absurd and unjust situation where; on retirement, the ex husband has a proportion of his pension and his ex wife, by now married to somebody else, has the rest of his pension as well as her own and her ‘new? husband?s. Previously, the principle had been that pensions are really only relevant if maintenance liability continued beyond retirement age. Once again the so called “reformers? had pushed through Parliament a provision the implications of which were not understood by MP?s. Another encouragement to easy divorce had been created.

The Solution.

I wrote in 1988, and still hold, that the logical consequence of any situation which sought justice was that there should be three classes of divorce. The first would be where the parties agree both to have a divorce and on financial and related matters. The second would be where one party that wanted a divorce for good and substantial reason, such as grave misconduct by the other party, i.e., adultery, desertion, or serious (in the pre-1970 sense) behaviour, objectively assessed as justifying termination of the marriage. The third, and perhaps the great majority of cases, would be where one-party-only wants a divorce, and could not show such misconduct by the other party. In the first case, no dispute would arise. In the second, the payment of maintenance to the innocent party would be appropriate in some cases, particularly where the petitioner was a middle aged or elderly lady. In the third case the party wanting the divorce should effectively be put to their election. Either they continue with the marriage and its obligations, or repudiate the marriage and its obligations and thereby forego the right to receive any financial benefit from the marriage which they had unjustifiably broken up.

“I do not want him, but I want his money is a morally unacceptable position (even prostitutes provide services for their reward), and one which has led to Europe?s highest divorce rate. I have no doubt that if this approach were adopted there would be a radical reduction in the number of divorces. The “principle” invented by the Courts, that both parties are at fault in the termination of a marriage, results from a mixture of blind prejudice and deliberate intellectual muddle, and has led to Courts effectively determine marriage as a state in which the wife should have no obligations of any kind yet should have financial rights far greater than those of a widow, regardless of her terminating the marriage for no good reason. The justifiability of the termination of the marriage should be the key issue. There is no reason why someone should expect to break a contract arid still benefit from it.

The Future.

it is clear from the content of the debates in Parliament that a substantial number of MP?s are beginning to understand what has happened. The change of Government and the influx into Parliament of a mass of feminists and pro-feminists strongly suggest, however, that only slow progress will be made in this Parliament.

However, the first floodgate likely to collapse is the Child Support Agency. Its ever increasing cost, and decreasing recovery rate, plus the reported billion plus bill to replace its computers, will make it increasingly insupportable. It is also likely that litigation over pensions will greatly increase the volume and bitterness of litigants in the courts, and bring home the scale of the disaster to more members of the public.

Getting the Truth to MPs

The only way forward is to get home to MPs the message in this article which clearly sets out the true case of the divorce disaster: the way the Courts have overridden the intentions of Parliament. and the way in which the divorce lobby have conned Parliament and the media.

Laws to Override Judicial Prejudice.

An essential aspect of any ultimate reform must be to have laws drafted in sufficient detail that the Courts, in their decisions, are unable to fly in the face of the intentions of Parliament. Courts who are prepared to order a man to maintain a wife who is living with somebody else and see nothing wrong with this (7), or to maintain an ex-wife from a short, childless marriage who cannot work because she has become pregnant by another man subsequent to a divorce (8), cannot be entrusted with wide discretions.

Financial Orders: Fundamental Changes of Principle.

There is considerable scope for the law on financial entitlement to be far more clearly defined. In particular, it is quite wrong for the Courts to act as if there were an actual right to maintenance. There is no right as such, either in common law or statute, only a right to apply. This is as it should be. Maintenance should then only be awarded to mothers while with young children and to middle aged and elderly women, and then, only if they have not broken up the marriage without good reason. Equally, as a late 1980?s Law Society paper pointed out (9) there is no justification for matrimonial courts, when dividing assets, to take away property inherited or received from relatives or friends or owned before the marriage. This outrageous aspect of present practice, unique to the English Courts, amounts to giving the Family Division a general power of appointment over one?s property, and is effectively taking money from the divorced person?s relatives.

Further Legislation Called For.

I do not believe that it will be possible for those who seek reform to achieve that reform through the gradual development of cases in the Courts (which will be barred by the defiance of the lawyers). Further legislation is called for by stripping the courts of their wide discretionary powers, and that legislation will not be effective unless Members of Parliament actually understand the real issues and the part the Courts have played in the social disintegration of our society.

1.Taine, Hippolyte: The French Revolution.
2.Bamett, C.: The Decline of British Power
3 i.e., the subjective test
4 Wachtel v Wachtel, 1973
5 Rogers v Rogers, 1 973
6 Richards v Richards, 1984
7 Atkinson v Atkinson, 1987
8 Wagner v Wagner, 1978
9 Green, D. Maintenance & Capital Provision on Divorce.


Bigamous lawyer stole from client 16 July 2005

A bigamous solicitor has been jailed for six months for stealing thousands of pounds from a dead client's account to pay for her marriage. Marylena Shuti, 29, wrote cheques for £6,000 and £2,000 from the estate of Clifford Parkinson, and paid them into her account, Luton Crown Court heard. The first amount was taken while working for a Stevenage law practice and was used to pay for her wedding.

Mr Parkinson's bank stopped the second cheque before it could be cashed.

Life in tatters

Prosecutor Alan Landsbury said Shuti got married on 5 December last year at Stevenage Register Office but her previous marriage to a man called Thomas Brickhill had not been dissolved. Shuti worked in the wills and probate department at Howe, Roche and Waller in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, and had access to the cash.

The court heard Shuti had also lied when she got the job by saying she had received a settlement for unfair dismissal from a previous employer. Shuti, of Sunnyside Road, north London, pleaded guilty to theft, attempting to obtain £2,000, obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception and bigamy.

Defence barrister Imran Mahmood said her life was "now in tatters" and she would be struck off as a solicitor. The judge, Recorder Anthony Coleman, jailed her for six months and described her case as a "complete tragedy".



By John Pilger

The front page of the London Observer on 12 June announced, "55 billion dollar Africa debt deal 'a victory for millions'." The "victory for millions" is a quotation of Bob Geldof, who said, "Tomorrow 280 million Africans will wake up for the first time in their lives without owing you or me a penny...". The nonsense of this would be breathtaking if the reader's breath had not already been extracted by the unrelenting sophistry of Geldof, Bono, Blair, the Observer et al. Africa's imperial plunder and tragedy have been turned into a circus for the benefit of the so-called G8 leaders due in Scotland next month and those of us willing to be distracted by the barkers of the circus: the establishment media and its "celebrities". The illusion of an anti establishment crusade led by pop stars - a cultivated, controlling image of rebellion - serves to dilute a great political movement of anger. In summit after summit, not a single significant "promise" of the G8 has been kept, and the "victory for millions" is no different. It is a fraud - actually a setback to reducing poverty in Africa. Entirely conditional on vicious, discredited economic programmes imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, the "package" will ensure that the "chosen" countries slip deeper into poverty.

Is it any surprise that this is backed by Blair and his treasurer, Gordon Brown, and George Bush; even the White House calls it a "milestone"? For them, it is an important facade, held up by the famous and the naive and the inane. Having effused about Blair, Geldof describes Bush as "passionate and sincere" about ending poverty. Bono has called Blair and Brown "the John and Paul of the global development stage". Behind this front, rapacious power can "re-order" the lives of millions in favour of totalitarian corporations and their control of the world's resources. There is no conspiracy; the goal is no secret. Gordon Brown spells it out in speech after speech, which liberal journalists choose to ignore, preferring the Treasury spun version. The G8 communique announcing the "victory form millions" is unequivocal. Under a section headed "G8 proposals for HIPC debt cancellation", it says that debt relief to poor countries will be granted only if they are shown "adjusting their gross assistance flows by the amount given": in other words, their aid will be reduced by the same amount as the debt relief. So they gain nothing. Paragraph Two states that "it is essential" that poor countries "boost private sector development" and ensure "the elimination of impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign".

The "55 billion" claimed by the Observer comes down, at most, to 1 billion spread over 18 countries. This will almost certainly be halved – providing less than six days' worth of debt payments - because Blair and Brown want the IMF to pay its share of the "relief" by revaluing its vast stock of gold, and passionate and sincere Bush has said no. The first unmentionable is that the gold was plundered originally from Africa. The second unmentionable is that debt payments are due to rise sharply from next year, more than doubling by 2015. This will mean not "victory for millions", but death for millions.

At present, for every 1 dollar of "aid" to Africa, 3 dollars are taken out by western banks, institutions and governments, and that does not account for the repatriated profit of transnational corporations. Take the Congo. Thirty-two corporations, all of them based in G8 countries, dominate the exploitation of this deeply impoverished, minerals-rich country, where millions have died in the "cause" of 200 years of imperialism. In the Cote d'Ivoire, three G8 companies control 95 per cent of the processing and export of cocoa: the main resource. The profits of Unilever, a British company long in Africa, are a third larger than Mozambique's GDP. One American company, Monsanto - of genetic engineering notoriety - controls 52 per cent of the maize seed in South Africa, that country's staple food. Blair could not give two flying faeces for the people of Africa. Ian Taylor at the University of St Andrews used the Freedom of Information Act to learn that while Blair was declaiming his desire to "make poverty history", he was secretly cutting the government's Africa desk officers and staff. At the same time, his "department for international development" was forcing, by the back door, privatisation of water supply in Ghana for the benefit of British investors. This ministry lives by the dictates of its "Business Partnership Unit", which is devoted to finding "ways in which DfID can improve the enabling environment for productive investment overseas and contribute to the operation of the financial sector".

Poverty reduction? Of course not. A charade promotes the modern imperial ideology known as neoliberalism, yet it is almost never reported that way and the connections are seldom made. In the issue of the Observer announcing "victory for millions" was a secondary news item that British arms sales to Africa had passed 1 billion. One British arms client is Malawi, which pays out more on the interest on its debt than its entire health budget, despite the fact that 15 per cent of its population has HIV. Gordon Brown likes to use Malawi as example of why "we should make poverty history", yet Malawi will not receive a penny of the "victory for millions" relief. The charade is a gift for Blair, who will try anything to persuade the public to "move on" from the third unmentionable: his part in the greatest political scandal of the modern era, his crime in Iraq. Although essentially an opportunist, as his lying demonstrates, he presents himself as a Kiplingesque imperialist. His "vision for Africa" is as patronising and exploitative as a stage full of white pop stars (with black tokens now added). His messianic references to "shaking the kaleidoscope" of societies about which he understands little and "watching the pieces fall" has translated into seven violent interventions abroad, more than any British prime minister for half a century. Bob Geldof, an Irishman at his court, duly knighted, says nothing about this.

The protesters going to the G8 summit at Gleneagles ought not to allow themselves to be distracted by these games. If inspiration is needed, along with evidence that direct action can work, they should look to Latin America's mighty popular movements against total locura capitalista (total capitalist folly). They should look to Bolivia, the poorest country in Latin America, where an indigenous movement has Blair's and Bush's corporate friends on the run, and Venezuela, the only country in the world where oil revenue has been diverted for the benefit of the majority, and Uruguay and Argentina, Ecuador and Peru, and Brazil's great landless people's movement. Across the continent, ordinary people are standing up to the old Washington-sponsored order. "Que se vayan todos!" (Out with them all!) say the crowds in the streets. Much of the propaganda that passes for news in our own society is given to immobilising and pacifying people and diverting them from the idea that they can confront power. The current babble about Europe, of which no reporter makes sense, is part of this; yet the French and Dutch "no" votes are part of the same movement as in Latin America, returning democracy to its true home: that of power accountable to the people, not to the "free market" or the war policies of rampant bullies. And this is just a beginning.

Pilger: These Were Blair's Bombs 11 July 2005

Lest We Forget: These Were Blair's Bombs
By John Pilger

In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth is struggling to be heard. It is this: no one doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs, but no one should also doubt that this has been coming since the day Tony Blair joined George Bush in their bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are "Blair's bombs", and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about "our way of life", which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled.

Indeed, the only reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was that which predicted a sharp increase in terrorism "with Britain and Britons a target". A House of Commons committee has since verified this warning. Had Blair heeded it instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat the Londoners who died on Thursday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion, however tyrannical the regime. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to his neighbours" and that Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda".

Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling; Blair's epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain. For more than a year, he has urged the British to "move on" from Iraq, and last week it seemed that his spinmeisters and good fortune had joined hands. The awarding of the 2012 Olympics to London created the fleeting illusion that all was well, regardless of messy events in a faraway country.

Moreover, the G8 meeting in Scotland and its accompanying "Make Poverty History" campaign and circus of celebrities served as a temporary cover for what is arguably the greatest political scandal of modern times: an illegal, brutal and craven invasion conceived in lies and which, under the system of international law established at Nuremberg, represented a "paramount war crime".

Over the past two weeks, the contrast between the coverage of the G8, its marches and pop concerts, and another "global" event has been striking. The World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul has had virtually no coverage, yet the evidence it has produced, the most damning to date, has been the silent spectre at the Geldoff extravaganzas.

The tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation, the kind governments dare not hold. Its expert, eyewitness testimonies, said the author Arundathi Roy, a tribunal jury member, "demonstrate that even those of us who have tried to follow the war closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq." The most shocking was given by Dahr Jamail, one of the best un-embedded reporters working in Iraq. He described how the hospitals of besieged Fallujah had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment, with US marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering, and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency blood prevented from reaching them. Children, the elderly, were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood.

Imagine for a moment the same appalling state of affairs imposed on the London hospitals that received the victims of Thursday's bombing. Unimaginable? Well, it happens, in our name, regardless of whether the BBC reports it, which is rare. When will someone ask about this at one of the staged "press conferences" at which Blair is allowed to emote for the cameras stuff about "our values outlast [ing] theirs"? Silence is not journalism. In Fallujah, they know "our values" only too well.

While the two men responsible for the carnage in Iraq, Bush and Blair, were side by side at Gleneagles, why wasn't the connection of their fraudulent "war on terror" made with the bombing in London? And when will someone in the political class say that Blair's smoke-and-mirrors "debt cancellation" at best amounts to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalising Iraq, where British and American violence is the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown (Unicef).

The truth is that the debt relief the G8 is offering is lethal because its ruthless "conditionalities" of captive economies far outweigh any tenuous benefit. This was taboo during the G8 week, whose theme was not so much making poverty history as the silencing and pacifying and co-opting dissent and truth. The mawkish images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park included no pictures of murdered Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush's snipers. Real life became more satirical than satire could ever be.

There was Bob Geldoff on the front pages resting his smiling face on smiling Blair's shoulder, the war criminal and his knighted jester. There was an heroically silhouetted Bono, who celebrates men like Jeffrey Sachs as saviours of the world's poor while lauding "compassionate" George Bush's "war on terror" as one of his generation's greatest achievements; and there was Paul Wolfowitz, beaming and promising to make poverty history: this is the man who, before he was handed control of the World Bank, was an apologist for Suharto's genocidal regime in Indonesia, who was one of the architects of Bush's "neo-con" putsch and of the bloodfest in Iraq and the notion of "endless war".For the politicians and pop stars and church leaders and polite people who believed Blair and Gordon Brown when they declared their "great moral crusade" against poverty, Iraq was an embarrassment. The killing of more than 100,000 Iraqis mostly by American gunfire and bombs -- a figure reported in a comprehensive peer-reviewed study in The Lancet -- was airbrushed from mainstream debate.

In our free societies, the unmentionable is that "the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people", as Arthur Miller once wrote, "and so the evidence has to be internally denied." Not only denied, but distracted by an entire court: Geldoff, Bono, Madonna, McCartney et al, whose "Live 8" was the very antithesis of 15 February 2003 when two million people brought their hearts and brains and anger to the streets of London. Blair will almost certainly use last week's atrocity and tragedy to further deplete basic human rights in Britain, as Bush has done in America. The goal is not security, but greater control. Above all this, the memory of their victims, "our" victims, in Iraq demands the return of our anger. And nothing less is owed to those who died and suffered in London last week, unnecessarily.

TruthOut -

Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack 11 July 2005

London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack
Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.The transcript is as follows.


At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it.

And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

Click here for a clip of this dialogue. Click here for a longer clip where the comments can be heard in their full context.

The fact that the exercise mirrored the exact locations and times of the bombings is light years beyond a coincidence. Power said the drill focused around 'simultaneous bombings'. At first the bombings were thought to have been spread over an hour, but the BBC reports just today that the bombings were in fact simultaneous.

Mr. Power and Visor Consultants need not have been 'in on the bombing' or anything of that nature for this to be of importance. The British government or one of their private company offshoots could have hired Visor to run the exercise for a number of purposes.We are not suggesting that Mr. Power had any knowledge of the real purpose of the exercise, and the open shock he exclaims in relating the story underlines this.The exercise fulfils several different goals.

It acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise.This is precisely what happened on the morning of 9/11/2001.

The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning.It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked.

The Anglo-American establishment that controls the military-industrial complex of the West has been caught over a hundred times carrying out bombings and other terrorist attacks around the world to further their corporate aims and to blame their enemies.The US government has been caught planning to carry out attacks and carrying out attacks. The British government has been caught red-handed as well. Members of Vladimir Putin's FSB were caught planting bombs in a Russian apartment building in 1999 by the Moscow police.This is not speculation. Kermit Roosevelt admited on NPR radio that in 1953 the CIA and British intelligence carried out a wave of bombings and shootings in Iran. He then went on to brag about how they subsequently blamed the bombings on Iran's President, Mossadegh. Do you understand, these people brag about what they do 40 years later?The London bombings have the same signature as the Madrild bombings of 3/11. Both of these bombings are almost indistinguishable from the Bolognia bombing in 1980 that killed over 80 people.

The bombing in Bolognia was part of a CIA operation code named Gladio, where the US government would pay right-wing terrorists to carry out bombings to be blamed on leftists in Europe. All of this was blown wide open when two of the Bolognia bombers were convited in an Italian court, forcing them to spill their guts admitting that they were neo-fascists contracted by the CIA.

Operation Gladio documents have since been declassified.The London terror alert level was lowered before the bombings took place. This gave the purpotrators extra cover to plan and execute the attack without having to evade the most stringent security.In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA.

They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.The wider agenda will become clearer when Blair firmly points the finger at the selected patsies designated to take the fall.

But for the moment he's happy to grandstand as the courageous leader who immedately returned to London to take control of the chaos.BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction.

Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?From Putin blowing up his own apartment buildings to Israel being behind Hamas, the evidence is consistently clear that large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.

The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.The London Underground exercises were used as the fallback cover to carry out the attack. This is the biggest smoking gun yet pointing directly to the most secretive levels of the British establishment itself being behind the attack.More on this story as and when it develops.

Lone parents say goodbye to marriage 8 July 2005

English speaking ,English law influenced countries especially the USA and UK allowing lawyers and judges to destroy families while stealing the families assets in particular family homes.

Lone parents say goodbye to marriage

THE number of families headed by a married couple has fallen by half a million in less than a decade, according to government statistics released yesterday. Only seven in 10 of Britain's 17 million families include a mother and father who have tied the knot, with the others led by lone parents or couples living together. Across the UK, the national average of lone parent families is 25.6%. In Glasgow, 46% of families are headed by a single parent, one of the highest figures in the UK. It joins eight London boroughs and Manchester, Liverpool, Belfast, Nottingham and Knowsley as areas where more than 40% of families are headed by a lone parent. Stirling has 23%, while Edinburgh has 34%. Many of those who are married may not be quite the traditional family unit either, as up to one in 10 families are stepfamilies – couples where children may be from previous relationships.

The latest Focus on Families report for the National Statistics organisation said 12 million families were led by a married couple last year, down by half a million since a similar study in 1996. However, there have been other changes to the traditional British household over the decades, according to the report. The ageing population means that there are now seven million people living alone in Britain, nearly four times as many as in 1961. It also means the average household no longer matches the so-called "nuclear family" of mother, father and 2.2 children. Instead, the average home in Britain today contains 2.4 members in total, down from 3.1 in 1961. One in four dependent children live with one parent, compared with one in 14 youngsters in 1972. One in 10 of all families are stepfamilies. Younger couples are most likely to be cohabiting.

More than half of all couples living together include an adult aged 35 or younger compared with only one in 10 of all married couples a decade ago. London has the most one-parent households, closely followed by other built-up areas such as Glasgow and Manchester. The study also found that lone parents are more likely to be working than ever in order to support their children. More than half (54%) of lone parents were in work last year, compared with just 42% a decade earlier. Most of these are probably single mothers. There are fewer housewives among married couples too. The proportion where both parents work has gone up from 60% in 1994 to 68% last year. In just 23% cases only the father works. The image of modern men becoming house-husbands is still rare with only 3% of families where just the mum works. The number of families where neither parent works has fallen from 10% in 1994 to just 6% last year.




Netanyahu had been on way to London hotel near blasts

Click here for the full story:

THEN, WHEN THAT STORY BREAKS ... SUDDENLY THEY WERE NOT WARNED ... Israel not warned about blasts - foreign minister

Click here for the full story:


Today we have been subjected to the puke-making sight of Tony Blair faking emotion as only he can in his endless 'statements' about the London bombings. The rehearsed pauses, the pathetic looks to the side. just as he did with the death of Diana, the promises to Afghanistan that he would not abandon them after the invasion [as he has], and when he said how hard he had tried to avoid a war with Iraq that he knew had been agreed years earlier.



As I have said in the books and have said so many times in the last few months, another terror attack was inevitable with London very high on the list.

There is an agenda to create an Orwellian global fascist state and with the blatant lies over Iraq exposed and the nightmare continuing daily in Iraq itself, the manipulators were losing momentum in the face of growing public skepticism.

Blair is now famous for his lies and genetic inability to tell the truth about anything. Bush is losing public support in America as the people also begin to understand the scale on which they have been misled.

Yet these two liars are front men for an agenda to impose a fascist police state that involves invading many more countries. How could they do that given their disolving credibility ... unless ...

It was obvious that their masters would do what they always do in these situations - create a problem so they can offer the solution. They did it with 9/11, the Madrid bombing and now in London.

And it will not be the last because these guys are simply insane and, like cornered rats, they will do anything they believe to be necessary to implement their plans - no matter what that may mean in death and suffering.


Click here for more info:

'A series of bomb attacks on London's transport network has killed more than 30 people and injured about 350 others. There were three explosions on the Underground - which police said left 33 dead - and one on a double-decker bus in which an unknown number died.'

Click here for full story:
Bush urges Americans to be vigilant after London explosions (pity enough Americans weren't vigilant at the last two elections)

Bush tells people to be vigilant less than 24 hours after riding his bike into a British policeman '"The war on terrorism goes on,'' he said. ``We will not yield to these people.'' The president offered the ``heartfelt condolences'' of the American people to the victims and their families in London.'

Sure you do George - see earlier posting today: 'Mom, Who Lost Son In Iraq, Talks About 'Disgusting' White House Private Meeting With Bush; Claims He Was Arrogant, 'Totally Detached From Humanity' And Didn't Even Know Her Name'

Click here for full story:
Statement issued claiming responsibility for London attacks is such blatant bollocks

'The BBC has located an Islamist website that has published a 200-word statement issued by an organisation saying it carried out the London bombings. The organisation calls itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda [literally the base] of Jihad Organisation in Europe.

The group not previously been heard of.'


Click here for full story:
Report: Israel Was Warned Ahead of First London Blast - Netanyahu Stays Away From Hotel Near First Explosion

( Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than making his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit. At present, train and bus service in London have been suspended following the series of attacks. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility at this time. Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks.

"It is important that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world."




Click here for the full story:

'A police spokeswoman confirmed there had been two deaths at Aldgate and UK home secretary Charles Clarke said the explosions caused "terrible injuries". The BBC's Frank Gardner said Arab sources said the blasts were probably the work of al-Qaeda.'


Click here for the full story:
Timeline of explosions

Click here for the full story:
London explosions: Eyewitness reports

Click here for the full story:



Pink Floyd the illuminati band 6 July 2005

Dark side of the Moon cover (Pyramid)

Wish You Were Here (Secret handshake)

P.U.L.S.E. (All seeing eye)

Comments about the killing of Perry Manley 6 July 2005

Comments to newspaper about the shooting of Perry Manley at a Seattle courthouse;

Letters to the editor
The Seattle Times

Absent father
Wiped out by a system implacable to all reason

Editor, The Times:

Every divorced father knows exactly how that poor guy, Perry Manley, felt ["Man killed at court was upset over child support," Times page one, June 21]. He was absolutely correct in his assessment of "child support." It is destructive in many ways: It pretends to support children but the amounts are way beyond basic needs and really go to support the lifestyle of a mother who these days has the income of the father, and usually owns the house as well. It destroys relations between ex-spouses and thus is detrimental to any children as they grow up: They sense the resentment and are frustrated that their father is bitter and poor. If a father remarries, it is destructive to a second wife who must see her husband's income frittered away to another woman. It must give any son pause before he marries a nice girl and raises a family, knowing there is a good chance he will get trapped in the same situation as his father.

Coping with this system is very challenging and this man could not do it. Now his daughter will wake up every day with the knowledge that she will never see her father again, propagating the system's injustices. Washington state family law says to the father, "You are now divorced. You have the privilege of seeing your children a few days a month, and for that you will pay a monthly fee. A big one." It is a system that feeds off greed and vindictiveness, is fundamentally corrupt and ultimately does nothing good. Frankly, I'm surprised incidents like this are so rare. Believe me, there's a little of him in every one of us.

— Philip Siers, Mountlake Terrace

Man against nurture

Long-suffering fathers may be recognized in this man's tragedy

Perry Manley's death this week, while tragic, has thankfully brought the state's child-support laws back into the public arena where a discussion is long overdue. As primary custodial parent of two small children whose husband sued me for divorce last year, I am extremely familiar with the state's child-support laws. I was appalled that Mr. Manley, whose income was just $2,000 per month, was required by the state to provide $650 a month in support for his three children; while my ex-husband, who earns more than $8,000 each month, was required under state law to pay only $750 a month for his two children.

A child-support system that allows such huge discrepancies in payments should be challenged by both custodial and non-custodial parents. It is high time for the Legislature to revisit this issue, and it can begin by restructuring the child-support table, which not only fails to reflect the actual marginal cost of raising one child in this state, but also has not been adjusted upward in probably 20 years. In addition, the state can do a much better job of determining both custodial and non-custodial parents' ability to pay, assigning financial responsibility based on that ability, and making periodic adjustments to reflect both increases and decreases in each parent's income. More than 50 percent of the marriages in this state fail, and a lot of them involve kids. Let's get sane about our child-support laws and let's do it soon.

— Virginia Vanderlinde, Federal Way

Harsh paternal punishment

The financial burden of Perry Manley's monthly child-support payment was obviously odious, but monthly payments are only the beginning. The state's practice of "proportional" division of child support means a father who is obligated for 66.7 percent of the total state-calculated child support must also cover 66.7 percent of other expenses, such as uninsured health costs and often non-essential expenses such as music lessons. The courts have no sympathy for any non-custodial parent who protests his/her obligation for such costs. In Washington, a parent's financial obligation can continue even after the child reaches the age of majority. Washington's courts regularly order divorced parents to pay for their child's college education, and it's not just the wealthy; average parents are ordered to pay.

Ostensibly, the state's concern is for the "welfare of the children." But laws that force divorced parents to pay for a college education, when no similar obligation exists for so-called "intact" families, are simply discrimination against the divorced. It is clear the courts too often view non-custodial fathers as little more than checkbooks. If nothing else, Manley has shown how devastating such a myopic view can be — for fathers and their children.

— Carl Dombek (former Seattle radio reporter), Indianapolis, Ind.

Lend a supportive ear

"Seattle courthouse shooting strikes chord for activists" [Local News, June 22] struck a chord for me, too, both because I've been in that courthouse, and because I rejected Perry Manley's plea for help. Years ago, while working as the intake attorney for a law firm, I received a rambling e-mail from him. I could not help him because we did not handle child-support cases. But he had two valid points. Child-support obligations are seldom reduced, even when a father loses his job, even though child support is supposed to be based on income. And when the father goes broke, judges hold the father in contempt of court for failing to pay, without appointing counsel to enable him to show he is unable to pay.

These problems stem from judges' failure to implement the Washington Supreme Court's 1975 Tetro decision. That case held that poor fathers charged with contempt of court for failing to pay child support have the right to a court-appointed attorney. That way, they can prove they are in fact unable to pay, and thus do not deserve to be jailed for contempt. Appointing counsel might reduce fathers' desperation and thus prevent more courthouse shootings. It would also save taxpayers money by preventing unnecessary jailings.

— Hans Bader, Arlington, Va.

Every mother's sum

The Times [coverage of] Perry Manley, which has been circulated worldwide, represents but the tip of the iceberg. What pushes divorced fathers over the edge and into post-divorce depression is a combination of the domestic-violence industry and the divorce industry, which together grant mothers physical custody of children upwards of 90 percent of the time, while simultaneously marginalizing or severing the father's relationship with his children through visitation. Further, the father is required to pay for the lifestyles of his former wife and children and, should he not pay what the courts award, they put him in debtor's prison.

Until the laws of every state are changed to require that all marriage dissolutions begin with the presumption of equal, shared parenting and financial responsibility — adjusted to each family's needs — we as a nation will only see more and worse of what we saw Monday.

— Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., professor of psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Fla.

Judiciary free woman murderer 6 July 2005

The judiciary once again showing appalling gender bias in sentencing.There is no way any MAN would have walked free after killing .

Parking killer sentence condemned
Carol McMillan appeared at the High Court in Dunfermline

The husband of a woman who died after being attacked over a parking space row has condemned the judge's decision not to jail the culprit. Carol McMillan, of Spey Walk, Holytown, Lanarkshire, admitted the culpable homicide of Ann Whittle, 58, on 15 August last year in Glasgow. The 34-year-old was given probation and community service. Norman Whittle said McMillan should have received a five year sentence for causing the death of his wife. The High Court in Dunfermline heard that McMillan and Mrs Whittle clashed over a space at a car boot sale at Blochairn Road, Glasgow.

'Tragic case'

Co-accused, Charles Freeburn, has had his sentence deferred after he admitted assaulting Mr Whittle. During the attack, McMillan grabbed Mrs Whittle by the hair and kicked her three times on the head. Ann Whittle collapsed and died in hospital

Her victim suffered a heart attack, collapsed and later died in hospital. Passing sentence, Lady Dorrian told McMillan: "This is a tragic case in which your irresponsible and unbridled actions led to the death of an innocent woman. "That is something that you will have to live with for the rest of your life. "You were not to know that Mrs Whittle suffered from an undiagnosed heart condition which was destabilised by the physical and mental stress caused by your attack on her. "Your actions were unprovoked and even without the underlying condition this would have been a nasty assault resulting in deep bruising and abrasions." Lady Dorrian added that she had to take into account that a "blameless woman" lost her life. Norman Whittle said McMillan's sentence was "lenient"

However, the judge said she accepted that the behaviour displayed by McMillan was "entirely out of character". Mr Whittle branded the sentence a "disgrace" and said his wife would not harm anyone. He added: "I don't accept at all that McMillan and Freeburn were sorry." Mr Whittle paid tribute to his wife of 38 years and spoke of his fond memories of "being married to her and loving one another so much". Lady Dorrian told Freeburn that it was unacceptable that he had resorted to violence in the course of a trivial argument. But she said she recognised that he had shown "genuine remorse".

Father killed at courthouse was acting alone 6 July 2005

Perry L. Manley was killed in courthouse on Monday.

Evidence found in the home of the fathers' rights advocate who was killed by police at the federal courthouse in Seattle earlier this week indicates he acted alone and likely intended to commit "suicide by cop" to draw attention to his cause, according to court documents and law-enforcement officials. Perry L. Manley, 52, was shot to death in the foyer of the U.S. District Courthouse Monday after brandishing a deactivated grenade. Officers tried for nearly a half hour to get him to surrender before he made what police described as a "furtive" movement and was shot twice by Seattle police officers. Within hours, FBI agents searched his apartment on Western Avenue in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood. What they found there has led them to conclude that, barring any new evidence, Manley was acting alone, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Todd Greenberg. "There are still a few loose ends," said Greenberg, who noted that the FBI should conclude its investigation next week. "But based on what we know right now, it doesn't appear that anyone else was involved."

Among the items found in Manley's apartment was a copy of his will, which was in plain sight on the kitchen table, Greenberg said. Another will, dated the previous day, was in a folder Manley was carrying when he was shot. Officials say they believe, based on those documents, that Manley intended to die when he went to the courthouse. While numerous other documents were found in the house, including what agents described as "child-support propaganda" and leaflets regarding custodial issues, no suicide note was found, Greenberg said. The search warrant outlines Manley's legal frustrations since his divorce and separation from his three children 15 years ago. He filed at least five lawsuits alleging unfair treatment at the hands of the state's family-law courts, particularly the requirement that he pay child support. Each lawsuit was more strident than the previous one and all were dismissed.

In April, Manley caught the attention of the U.S. Marshal's Office after he accused U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly of treason in a pleading that pointed out that the crime is punishable by death. In May, Manley authored an e-mail in which he described himself as the "grim reaper," and he was seen several times at the courthouse, according to the search warrant. On May 10, he told a security officer that "in the next 48 hours" the judge would be held accountable. Later that month, Manley attempted to burn a flag on the courthouse plaza.

On Monday, according to the warrant, Manley was seen in the unsecured portion of the courthouse lobby for several minutes before he pulled out what later was determined to be an inert fragmentation grenade. Court security officers drew their weapons and repeatedly asked him to stop as he edged along a reflecting pond past security. One officer asked him what he wanted and Manley held out a folder and replied: "The answer is right in these papers." The will was later found in the folder. Officers attempted to negotiate with Manley before he was killed.

An e-mail attributed by his friends to Manley, and sent an hour before he was shot, called for the U.S. government to declare war on the 50 states for violating the rights of noncustodial fathers and mothers in America. "The governments duly sworn by oath to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights deny the just liberty and freedom of 25 million citizens forced into involuntary service and peonage in violation of guaranteed protection of human rights," the e-mail said.

Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or

State taking over the management of our families 6 July 2005

For any unit to operate and flourish, like the family or a business or a ship it needs a hierarchical structure for its ordered management, its health and safety in crises.

The person designated for millennia to be the head, the authority or the leader was the Husband. He was 'entrusted' to do this job by literally sacrificing his own life. (See Ephesians 5. 22-32 to see how nothing has changed since then and how Christ was given as an example to all men as to how to conduct their role as Husband).

With this responsibility he has the liability to maintain and protect the family. We say he has the Custody of the children. They and his wife are his dependents.

If the socialist (Labour or Democratic) state wants to take over the family, which it does because it thinks it knows best and must be free to dictate to everyone, it must displace the Husband.

The state re-deployed feminism as it gave them the perfect vehicle for fomenting a mutiny by wives within the family unit with the aim of undermining Marriage to the extent that the Husband could no longer protect the privacy of the family home from invasion by the state.

In this way the state got to micro manage the family and take over the rearing of the children according to its own image.

Of course women have said that they want 'equality'. Logically and in practice it can't exist in a unit. You can't have two heads of the family any more than you can have two equal captains of a ship and still expect it not to founder.

The National Mens Council of Ireland have suggested that the people be invited by referendum to decide whether they are happy with men as the figurehead or whether women might want to reverse the position and take over his responsibilities within the Family.

We have in fact asked that question here in Ireland. Not surprisingly so far no women have called for such a change. Instead the state continues to spread the myth that there is in fact 'equality' between Husbands and Wives as the deadlock this notion causes opens the door for the state to step in through the courts by offering their judges as referees to the inevitable differences that arise.

Cynically women are encouraged by the state to break up their own families by ousting the Husband or by not taking one in the first place before having a child.

Women are too myopic to see that they have replaced their Husband who used to love them (and probably still does!) and protect them by a cold and heartless state who cares for no individuals and never can.

One only has to look at what befalls children who are "taken into care" by the state. Their tragic outcomes prove that the state is the worst of all possible protectors of children.

Until women begin to look beyond their skirts and the state 'handout' and see what is actually happening and then unite with men against the totalitarianism of the state the state will happily play the 'divide and rule' card and we will all end up as isolated individuals at their mercy without extended family support to call on for help.

Roger Eldridge

Queen dines the illuminati G8 5 July 2005

The Illuminati dinner for G8 leaders hosted by the Queen at Gleneagles

McConnell grabs limelight with high-profile G8 dates The highlight of Mr McConnell's diary, however, will come tomorrow night when he attends the centrepiece dinner for G8 leaders hosted by the Queen at Gleneagles. The First Minister was not expected to be on the guest list for such an exclusive event, but has been invited and will also stay at the hotel after the dinner is over.

SACL website interfered with by government officials 5 July 2005

SACL website interfered with by government officials

Legal Services

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Court Service has been involved in any attempt to have the website of the organisation, Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, closed down and, if so, what costs it has incurred.


Cathy Jamieson: The existence of this organisation’s website became known to the Scottish Court Service through a leaflet being distributed to members of the public. As the contents of the website appeared to include material that was potentially defamatory, officials felt it appropriate to draw this possibility to the attention of the site’s internet service provider. No demands were made of the internet service provider. The decision to terminate the service was made by the service provider. The cost incurred was approximately £50 of staff time.

US government pursued stability at the expense of democracy 5 July 2005

Changing The Spots?
By Dr Les Dove

Ye God’s, who would have though we would ever hear it, the U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, going on television to state: “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy.” She was referring to the Middle East in her speech, but as most honest journalists already know the United States has pursued that same policy of ‘stability’ all over the world. Perhaps Ms Rice might one day admit what she missed out and find it in her heart to offer some sort of apology and recompense to the six million people, men, women and children - at the last conservative estimate, whom the United States government and it’s CIA, NSA led death squads have murdered (1).

These unfortunate victims of U.S. foreign policy were horribly raped, tortured and murdered throughout the entire world to maintain that so-called ‘stability’. Perhaps Ms Rice might also speak out on behalf of the of people who are still being tortured, both in and out of the United States, by U.S. and other covert security services and their allies. She might, but I doubt it very much. Leopards don’t change their spots. Only a total fool would believe otherwise. It’s one thing to sucker up to world leaders and admit to being the supporter of fascist dictators and tyrants for sixty years but it’s quite another to go face to face with victims whose entire lives have been ruined and destroyed by bare faced liars and murderers who didn’t give a damn whether innocent people and their families lived or died (2).

That so many millions of people, whose only ‘crime’ was to believe in true democracy, were killed on orders from the United States government only goes to show what the U.S. really believed in. And indeed, until we see otherwise, still does. So if Ms Rice really wishes us to believe her good intentions what might she do to convince us? Well, for a start she might begin by rooting out all the murderers and torturers in the CIA, FBI, the NSA, and all the other covert agencies that were involved in these gross human rights atrocities, past and present. She might then have all these monsters arrested as war criminals and held in prison until they can be turned over to the International Criminal Court. She might also provide some of the trial evidence needed to convict them. She might also turn over all the instructors at the infamous “School Of The Americas” at Fort Benning, Georgia, where countless despicable torturers from around the world were taught the most horrible techniques of torture so that they could inflict them upon their own people (3). And of course, it shouldn’t stop there.

Where did these criminals, both American and foreign, get their orders from? Who gave them? What Presidents and Senators were involved, and who was responsible for covering up all these vicious crimes during all those years? And why didn’t the American media inform their public what was happening, and still is? Is it because the CIA still has an iron grip on America’s media? As indeed it has for at least forty years (4). Just as Britain’s press has been controlled by MI-5.

Yes, Ms Rice might do something about that? But she won’t. Indeed, she cannot. Quite simply because at it’s heart the United States government is fascist to it’s core. It is to all intents and purposes owned by huge international business concerns that selects Senators and Presidents to do their bidding, which has little if anything at all to do with what the rest of the American public might need or want. That the ‘democracy’ fraud perpetrated upon Americans is finally being exposed for what it really is will make little or no difference. Huge multi-national companies will not under any circumstances allow their annual profits of hundreds of billions of dollars to be diluted by anyone. These unseen manipulators control all the organs of state. They buy and sell Presidents, Prime Ministers and Dictators like so many bags of corn. Anyone who won’t, for whatever reason, go along with what the multi-nationals want quickly find them selves removed from office or dead. What these all powerful companies will do is to continue to fool gullible people into believing they live in a democracy rather than the police state America has obviously now become. When two-faced hypocrisy is backed up by a state controlled press the multi-nationals can and do get away with just about anything. Divide and conquer has been brought to a fine art.

Like their British ‘friends’ Americans are decent people at heart but they aren’t very savvy when it comes to politics. They tend to believe their politicians and the press no matter how brazen their lies might be. Americans simply cannot believe that their own country is a terrorist state, which has murdered millions of people all over the world under the flimsiest of excuses. They genuinely do believe that America invades other countries to ‘save’ them, rather than plunder them. Yet how many poor countries without oil or goods the Americas want have been ‘saved’ by them?

At this time America’s standing in the world is at it’s lowest point ever. Being two-faced is certainly no way to make friends. If the United States is to regain its prestige in the world it should start be being honest for a change and turn itself into a true democracy all Americans can be proud of. As it is many Americans are leaving their country in record numbers. They can no longer stand the hypocrisy of their Congress nor the inability of their so-called representatives to halt the rampant political and business corruption that has overtaken their country. There was a time when the American media stood up to government and truly voiced the concerns of citizens, but today that is no longer true. Many journalists in America have become little more that prostitutes, more intent on manipulating their readers opinions than truly informing them of world events. As in Britain journalists who dare write the truth as they see it are unlikely to last long in their jobs. Indeed, the best of American writers can now only be found on the Internet, the one place left where they can honestly express themselves. The price they pay for that independence is being smeared by government agents and ‘security stooges’ who consistently cast doubts on the character of anyone, American or otherwise, who dares to defy them by exposing government corruption, deception and lies.

In an article Condoleezza Rice wrote in the San Diego Union-Tribune she talked about freedom at length (5). Basic human rights that governments should protect, fair elections, the right of free speech, the freedom to educate your children, the freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police, freedom from brutality and terror, freedom from imposed tyranny. Half a democracy is not a democracy, she wrote. Freedom is the result of choice, not of coercion. Wonderful words, but no more than the usual hypocritical rhetorical lies we have come to expect from many of our politicians. Words without substance, and in effect just more of the lies we now hear from them on a daily basis. Those who are not liars are usually fools who believe just about anything the security agencies tell them. They simply cannot imagine the USA and the UK to be anything other than what their respective leaders say they are. They fail to see how modern methods of repression work. They still believe in the old ways, that torture involves bodily contact that leaves marks upon victims. It doesn’t. The security services know full well that such obvious marks would be evidence of torture and therefore hard to refute, so they simply don’t use those methods. Sophisticated torture techniques and methods as used by the CIA in America (and elsewhere), and by MI-5 in Britain, involve hi-tech weaponry in the form of microwaves that destroy the human body from within.

Indeed, western security services have been using these methods for the last twenty-five years at least. These methods and the bodily effects they cause have been well documented by countless writers, dissidents and doctors who have been abused by them (6). Those effects are deadly and they leave no obvious traces that they have been brought about by any of the security services, which are then easily able to maintain their deniability of any wrongdoing. Indeed, heart attacks are but one result of these weapons being used against dissidents, so many victims are disabled or dead. That these weapons were used in the first place was because victims of them tried to use the ‘free speech’ Bush and Blair so often lie about. Free speech that if used would allow the proper and truthful education of all our children, so that when they grow up they might free themselves from the tyranny imposed by liars like George Bush and Tony Blair. Then, and only then, will we all be free of their phony ‘democracies’ their secret police and the knock on the door.

A long time ago someone wrote that there is no such thing as a form of democracy, that it was akin to saying a woman was a little bit pregnant. There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. A woman either is pregnant or she is not. The same applies to the democratic process. There is no such thing as a ‘form of democracy.’ You either have the real thing or you have a police state. It is one or the other. So-called forms of democracy are nothing more than a political deception used to deceive populations into believing that they are in charge of a country when in fact they are not. Many of today’s ‘democracies’ are owned by a very small and extremely wealthy percentage of the population. These people do in effect own the county in that they have the wealth and power to ‘own’ every mainstream politician in office and so dictate to them whatever laws serve their own selfish interests. The rest of the population has in truth almost no say at all in how their country is run, how it is managed, or the political direction it will take. Such countries can only be regarded as police states. They cannot be true democracies in any sense of the word. Countries that repress and torture their own citizens, as do the Untied States and Britain, may claim to be democratic but their actions tell us far more than mere words ever could.

This tyranny from within is getting worse by the day. Britain is in the process of outlawing any form of political dissent whatsoever whilst in the United States the so-called Patriot Act is doing the self same thing. The day is soon coming when all political pretence of ‘democracy’ is dropped altogether and citizens of either country will be persecuted, jailed and worse, simply for questioning what is being done in their name. Unless citizens quickly rise up in great numbers and protest at the disastrous charade being played out right under their noses they will become no more than poorly paid wage slaves with no more rights than a flea-bitten donkey. Indeed, many millions of citizens are already in that position. Their plight is simply not being reported by the media, whose main occupation appears to be the continuation of fooling their readers into believing they live in ‘the finest country on earth’ where the ‘American Dream’ is but a stone’s throw from reality and where justice, the ‘democratic process’ and the law will forever protect them.

They don’t. It isn’t. It won’t. And if you can’t see that already you need a quick reality check. The seen and unseen tyrants who control and run Britain and the United States all but own every citizen in both counties. Your very lives depend upon these tyrants and the only time they need you is when they invade other countries to despoil them and make their citizens into slaves too. That ten’s of thousands of young lives will be lost doing just that means nothing at all to the multi-nationals. Their only concern is one of profit. Nothing else. So if you wish to be truly free you had better open your mind to the vast deceptions that have engulfed you and resist – whilst you still have the time. The very few remaining genuine human rights organizations (most have been ‘neutralized’ by the security services), have known of America’s own terrorist machine for decades. That elected public officials and successive governments, both Conservative and Democratic, have lied to and deceived the American public for 60 years is no surprise to them at all.

Indeed, that so many millions of people have been so utterly conned by so few for so long is quite apparently known by just about everyone but the Americans themselves. Yet many American’s still continue to believe that their country is a democracy. Their manipulation by the press and TV continues to enforce that belief. Whether or not American’s will allow them selves to be conned for another 60 years is a question only they can answer. At this moment in time the United States government is spending an estimated $7.2 billion a year to promote secrecy and unaccountability. This allows the American public to be kept in total ignorance of what it’s own government is really doing throughout the world (7). Why the law can’t or won’t help torture victims:

Governments from the United Kingdom and the United States have conspired together to prevent their own torture victims from getting protection through using the law. To prove they are being persecuted and tortured victims need evidence they can present to their lawyers and in a court of law. Without that evidence there is no case. It is simply the word of the victim against the government, and no more than that. Something no lawyer or courts can act upon. The security services know this only too well and they take great pains to make very sure that no evidence of their wrongdoing is available. Indeed, using the high-tech torture methods that are available to them, both psychological and physical, security services can totally ruin a person’s life and kill them without leaving a trace of any evidence whatsoever that can be presented in a court of law. The vast almost unlimited power of unscrupulous security services leaves their victims totally helpless, either to prevent further repression or seek legal redress of any kind. These victims are being used as public examples of what could happen to anyone should they dare to defy repressive governments.

Over the last thirty years thousands of victims from all over the world have all give highly detailed descriptions of their repression and suffering at the hands of government security services, and this evidence has been remarkably similar in almost every respect. In spite of being a proven security tool microwave weapons have continued to be used against defenseless civilians in ever increasing numbers. Indeed, it appears that these terrible weapons are now even being issued to the police for general use against anyone that the police may view as being a dissident in any way. A mere foretaste of what is to come. Make no mistake on this point; government dictatorships and their secret police (8) are deeply into the process of neutralizing all forms of dissent. Their vindictiveness and cruelty knows no bounds. While most of the state controlled media features daily appearances by Presidents and Prime Ministers who loudly proclaim that ‘freedom and democracy’ should be a God given right for all, those self same hypocrites are spending hundreds of millions every single year to make very sure that no such thing will ever happen.

© July 4th, 2005


(1) ‘The Association for Responsible Dissent’ estimates that by 1987, over six million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations.

(2) Victims page.

(3) ‘CIA. America’s Secret Government.’ Bill Moyers documents U.S. Support of terrorist regimes and the brutality of America’s foreign policy.

(4) ‘CNN / CIA The Enemy Within. The Masters of Deception.’ Forty years ago, the CIA’s, “Operation Mockingbird,” went into full swing. The goal of the program was simply to control all mechanisms of opinion - the print news, the public opinion polls and the television news media. Their thinking was, if you control what people think, you’ve won the war before it has even begun.

‘CIA Agents Infest US Mass Media,’ ‘The Power of Delusion.’ Dale Allen Pfeiffer and Elizabeth Anne Pfeiffer.

5. San Diego Union-Tribune. Sunday, June 26, 2005.


7. ‘Secrecy measures reach all-time high.’ The San Diego Union-Tribune. July 3, 2005.

8. ‘America’s Secret Police’ Article by J.R. Hobson.

Further reading:

‘Tavistock - The Best Kept Secret In America’ Source: CTRL

Article also at:

‘The Rise of Corparations’

‘BRAINWASHING: How The British Use The Media for Mass Psychological Warfare’ By L. Wolfe Printed in The American Almanac, May 5, 1997.

‘Electromagnetic Torture: EM Weapons’ By Alex Constantine ‘Who Really Runs America? The Hidden History Of The United States’

Presented By John Judge, November 1994

‘Who Is Running America?’

‘A History of CIA Atrocities’


By William R. Pabst. My address is 1434 West Alabama Street, Houston, Texas 77006. My telephone number is: (713) 521-9896. This is my 1979 updated report on the concentration camp program of the Dept. of Defense of the United States.

List of American ‘Concentration Camps’

“The [Central Intelligence] Agency has owned outright more than 240 Media operations around the world, including newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, radio and television stations, and wire services, and has partially controlled many more.”

Michael Parenti
Political scientist and author of
Democracy for the Few and
Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

William Colby
former Director of the CIA

Scottish Court Service involved in pulling websites 5 July 2005

Scottish parliament questions

S2W-17629 Phil Gallie: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether it is satisfied that the actions of Scottish Court Service officials did not contravene section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

S2W-17630 Phil Gallie: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether it is aware that the website referred to remains up and running.

S2W-17631 Phil Gallie: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether Scottish Court Service officials routinely take action in cases of alleged defamation of individuals in respect of matters that do not directly affect their departmental interest.

S2W-17632 Phil Gallie: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether any person can take individual legal action for defamation if they consider that their reputation may be damaged by a website such as that of Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

Judges' misdeeds will remain secret 4 July 2005

No naming and shaming in legal system shake-up

Judges who are disciplined for bad behaviour will not have the findings against them made public under a complaints regime to be launched next year.The decision to treat judges differently to doctors, barristers, solicitors and police officers was announced by the lord chancellor and the lord chief justice yesterday. The exception, as at present, will be those judges whose misdeeds are trumpeted in the media - for example, those who make racist remarks in open court which are picked up by reporters.

In those cases, it is necessary for the sake of public confidence in the justice system to reveal the outcome of an investigation, the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, said.He disclosed that 250 complaints of misconduct against judges and tribunal chairmen had been investigated by the Department of Constitutional Affairs last year, 68 of which were upheld and resulted in disciplinary action. Eleven were serious enough to be referred to senior judges for investigation. Judges have been admonished or reprimanded for such behaviour as racist language, sexual harassment, discourtesy in court, delays in delivering judgments and drink driving. One referred in court to "the nigger in the woodpile", while another said that fraud was an offence prevalent among Nigerians. One who had previously been reprimanded for kissing a court usher had to apologise after saying, in reference to doctors writing sick notes: "I know many people with duodenal ulcers who work like niggers."

Yet another was reprimanded for falling asleep twice in a rape trial, causing the hearing to be abandoned. Circuit judges may be removed by the lord chancellor "on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour". This power has only once been exercised, in 1983 after a judge was convicted of smuggling whisky and cigarettes into Britain in his yacht. From April 2006 a new Office for Judicial Complaints will deal with allegations about judges' personal conduct, though complaints over the way they conduct court proceedings will be outside its remit. That will be part of a shake-up which will transfer the responsibility for choosing and promoting judges from the lord chancellor to a new Judicial Appointments Commission.

A judicial appointments and conduct ombudsman will be appointed to oversee both the appointments commission and the complaints office. Candidates for the bench who feel they have been treated unfairly will be able to take their cases to the ombudsman, as will a judge subject to a misconduct complaint or a complainant who feels the investigation has not been properly handled. Unlike judges in the US and Canada, those in England and Wales will not normally be subjected to public disclosure of the fact that they have been disciplined. An agreement between the lord chief justice and the lord chancellor, under which they will share responsibility for disciplining judges as part of the new arrangements, says the two "may agree in a particular case that public confidence in the justice system demands that the fact that a judicial office-holder has been subject to disciplinary action, or has been exonerated, be made public". The lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, said he supported keeping judges' names under wraps: "One has got to take into account the need still for the public to appear before the judge and for him or her to continue to perform his or her job as a judge.",2763,1517593,00.html?gusrc=rss

Website attacking lawyers under fire 4 July 2005

THE Scottish Court Service (SCS) has moved to shut a website dedicated to exposing corrupt Scottish lawyers. Cathy Jamieson, justice minister, said the site, operated by lobby group Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (Sacl), was "potentially defamatory", and that SCS officials had contacted the website's internet service provider (ISP). Ms Jamieson made the admission in a written answer to Phil Gallie, Tory MSP. However, she stressed that "no demands" were made of the ISP which made the decision to terminate the service.

The site remains accessible through search engines, possibly because it has been shifted to another ISP. Sacl, which claims to have hundreds of members, has run a vocal campaign demanding the Law Society of Scotland be banned from investigating complaints against solicitors. Its leading light is Stuart Usher, scion of the family that paid for Edinburgh's Usher Hall. In 2003, Mr Usher was the subject of a TV documentary focusing on his unproven allegation that stewardship of Borders family estates by Brodies, the Edinburgh law firm, had cost the Ushers millions of pounds. A £45m claim against the firm was withdrawn by his legal representatives.

The Sacl site has featured "rogues' galleries" of lawyers alleged to be corrupt, including some eminent members of the Scottish profession. American ISP Freewebs had told the pressure group it could not continue to support the site last November. But it was unclear what prompted that decision. In a letter to Sacl, Freewebs said: "Unfortunately, the parties you have offended have aggressively pursued the take-down of this site, and the British free-speech laws are not as forgiving (as US laws)." Mr Gallie said: "Why has a public body taken this action in the way it has done? Any charges of defamation should be for the individuals concerned to protest about, not the (court) system." Mr Usher was unavailable for comment.

G8 concert 2 July 2005

Geldof despite all his good intentions blew it big time by introducing fellow knight of the realm Bill Gates as some goody goody.

Seems like a fellow member of the illuminati being congratulated for his good charity work underlies his continued failures to produce a secure internet system that isnt full of bugs that allow virus;s and backdoors for the CIA and M.I.6 to read all our emails.

The reality of Live 8 is that it is run by the corporate slaves who have been promoted using illuminati money and DO NOT speak for any generation only the corporate bankers who fund their rise to stardom.

Maybe if Geldof hadn't accepted the mark of the devil ,a knighthood ,he wouldn't have blown his credibilty

Lawyers exposed once again 2 July 2005

Whatever happened to that report on complaints?

The Law Society of Scotland conducted research on its much-criticised complaints-handling record three years ago ? but apparently reneged on a pledge to share its findings. Linda Costelloe Baker, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, told The Herald that she was promised a copy of the research but never got one. The development raises the suspicion that the results of the survey were not to the society's liking, amid its fierce lobbying campaign to retain its right to regulate solicitors. Costelloe Baker was responding to a vigorous defence of the society's complaints-handling record published in the society journal, following the recent Scottish Executive consultation paper proposing reforms.

"There is no informed analysis of the complaints-handling position in Scotland by any of the other parties with an interest," wrote Douglas Mill, the chief executive. Mill also alleges that the society is being judged on "perception" rather than the reality of its record.

Costelloe Baker said: "In September 2002 the law society told me that their complainants' survey was having its final amendments and I would be sent a copy. "In March 2003 at a meeting with them it was mentioned again and they told me I was not going to get one ? I was told they were not happy with the quality of the research." The Herald asked the society why the survey was never published, whether the society is willing to divulge its contents now, and if the survey's findings were shared with the executive.

A spokesperson responded: "The society carries out research from time to time in a number of areas to help inform decision-making and make improvements to the way it regulates the Scottish solicitors' profession. "Research was carried out in 2001/02 with people who had complained to the society about their solicitor to help the society find out what improvements could be made to the way it handled complaints. "The findings ? which were for internal use only ? were discussed with the Ombudsman at the time and helped shape the new complaints-handling system introduced in September 2003." Costelloe Baker denies that the society ever discussed the survey's findings with her.

Fingerprinting is not fullproof 2 July 2005

Executive moves to settle McKie case out of court THE Scottish Executive is prepared to negotiate with Shirley McKie, the former police officer seeking £750,000 in damages after losing her job following false accusations of perjury. Ms McKie lost her position with Strathclyde Police after her thumbprint was said to have been found at the home of murder victim Marion Ross. In 1997, David Asbury was jailed for Ross's murder, but his conviction was overturned after independent experts cast doubt on claims that prints found in the house, in Kilmarnock, belonged to him.

Ms McKie was cleared of lying on oath in 1999, after insisting the print found at the murder scene was not hers. Her plans to sue the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO), which made the identification error, was blocked by ministers who said that records office staff should be given immunity from prosecution. But a ruling by Lord Wheatley meant that her claim could go ahead against the executive, representing the SCRO.

A spokeswoman for the executive said: "We can confirm that we have written to Ms McKie's solicitors indicating our willingness to explore whether there is any scope for resolving matters without proceeding to litigation. We want to make it clear however that we are doing so on the basis that we are not admitting liability." She would not comment further as the matter was sub judice. Iain McKie, the ex-officer's father, said: "This decision is long overdue but there are still lots of matters to be discussed. "It seems quite clear that this is an admission that this is not Shirley's fingerprint and we are certainly pleased to hear this. We hope it will mean she does not have to go through more months of psychological hell."

Ms McKie planned to sue the executive for £750,000. Five weeks had been set aside in court early next year, but yesterday ministers wrote to Ms McKie's lawyers to discuss settling the matter out of court. The letter follows calls this week from her supporters for the executive to negotiate, as three fingerprint experts published a report saying the print was not Ms McKie's. John McGregor, John Dingwall and Gary Dempster, of Grampian fingerprint bureau, also called for an independent inquiry. Mike Russell, the broadcaster and supporter of the McKies, said: "This is a step in the right direction and the first step towards a rational outcome."

Lawyers selling dodgy endowments 2 July 2005

Disgraceful' endowment mis-selling faces test case

A Glasgow financial advisory firm is planning a legal test case on behalf of nearly 100 clients allegedly mis-sold endowment policies by Scottish solicitors. Macarthur Denton Asset Management accused lawyers of a "disgraceful" failure to fulfil their professional responsibilities, alleging that they have "collectively shrugged their shoulders" when pressed for compensation. Governing body the Law Society of Scotland continues to stress that it is powerless to act, effectively because it does not have the power to order a solicitor to make good the shortfall in an endowment mis-selling case. The society can only award compensation for inadequate professional service up to a maximum of £1000 in cases dating from 1991 until April 1 this year. On that date the compensation threshold was increased to £5000 for new business. However, Macarthur Denton alleges that the society's regulatory independence is, in any case, compromised. To the consternation of one Macarthur client, it emerged that the same individual defending her legal adviser against mis-selling allegations is himself a society functionary. Endowment mis-selling cases are disproportionately numerous in Scotland. The nation's house buying system, where solicitors often act as estate agents, means thousands of home owners bought endowments from them rather than financial advisers. Regulator of last resort, the Scottish Legal Services ombudsman, increased her investigation team from four to six individuals earlier this year, specifically to cope with a flood of complaints about the law society's handling of complaints concerning alleged endowment policy mis-selling by solicitors. The chances of seeing a complaint upheld are slim, however, even when measured against the narrow criteria of service standards.

The law society received 113 complaints about alleged endowment policy mis-selling in the first nine months of 2004. Just one was upheld, triggering a compensation payment of £250. Forty-six complaints were abandoned. In the year to May 31, 2005, meanwhile, the ombudsman received 111 complaints to her own office about the way the society handled complaints about endowment mis-selling. Macarthur Denton's Ken Nicholas said the asset manager had become deeply frustrated with its inability to obtain compensation from law firms, in sharp contrast with its experience in dealing with financial institutions. He said: "In the last 18 months reviewing clients' mortgage arrangements we have encountered close to 100 individuals who, based on the information imparted to us, appear to have been mis-sold endowment policies by solicitors in Scotland. Despite pursuing complaints on their behalf through the approved process, including eventual referral to the Law Society of Scotland, not one case has been upheld, nor has a single penny of compensation been forthcoming. "In comparison, under identical circumstances where advice was provided through a bank, building society, or directly by a life assurer, the success rate for our firm in obtaining compensation exceeds 80%." Nicholas is savage in his assessment of the professionalism with which Scottish lawyers handle mis-selling complaints. He added: "In many cases, the legal firms in question simply ignore or fail to adequately address the issues put to them in complaint letters, and on occasion have displayed an extremely patronising and often overtly aggressive stance when we have the temerity to ask them to respond. "Our firm is currently seeking legal counsel in respect of the viability and client cost of taking a test case to the Court of Session with the aim of proving professional negligence, which now appears to be the only way in which justice will prevail. The law society and legal services ombudsman appear, respectively, to be either unwilling or unable to obtain justice for the public in these circumstances. "The whole issue is the most disgraceful example imaginable of so-called professional practitioners failing not only in their duty to clients but in their willingness to own up and accept responsibility for their actions. Having happily accepted generous commission payments from the insurance companies in question, they are now prepared to shrug their collective shoulders when called to account, and should hang their heads in shame." Macarthur believes a test case could cost as much as £20,000. The law firm's defenders will be well aware that the intention is to set a precedent, and one can expect expert witnesses to be called. However, Nicholas has discussed the possibility of a joint funding effort, reasoning that once a precedent has been set, a lengthy queue of complainers will be well-placed to benefit. Nicholas is seeking help from the Pursuers Panel for Professional Negligence Claims against Solicitors, though there is some irony in the fact that this body is run by the society.

The density of the regulatory thicket confronting those seeking redress is familiar to Gail McEwan, of Johnstone, Renfrewshire. McEwan, director of a voluntary organisation, first complained to Glasgow law firm Bishops in April 2003 about a Scottish Provident endowment policy allegedly mis-sold by predecessor firm Bishop and Robertson Chalmers. McEwan took out the £42,000 policy to buy a £65,000 house in 1997, in tandem with a separate Woolwich policy worth £21,000. The handling of McEwan's complaint was marked by an extraordinary degree of inertia from the outset. The file is several inches thick and difficult to digest, let alone summarise. But it is possible to give a flavour of the bureaucratic imbroglio into which she stepped. Bishops partner John Welsh replied in May 2000, nearly a month after her first letter, apologising for the delay in responding. He asked for Scottish Provident documentation indicating the projected endowment shortfall. She sent that information in June but did not receive a reply for another two months, when Welsh again apologised for his tardy response, without giving an explanation. McEwan wrote back reiterating the reasons behind her claim for compensation, to be tersely informed by Welsh on September 5 that he was referring the matter to the firm's professional indemnity insurers - again without any guidance or explanation. McEwan wrote to Welsh again, after several more weeks had passed, saying she had heard nothing from the insurers. She accused Bishops of "wasting time unnecessarily", warning him that she would refer the case to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) were she to get no satisfaction. Welsh surely knew the FSA had no jurisdiction. Yet he did not mention this in his reply of October 17, 2003, when he said the firm's indemnity insurers had told Bishops that they had referred the matter back to the firm because the sum at issue - a few thousand pounds - would be less than the firm's self-insured amount. Why, in that case, Welsh referred the case to the PI insurers in the first place is unclear. Welsh then told her Bishops had instructed an external solicitor, Derek Allan of Brechin Tindal Oatts, to deal with the claim on the firm's behalf "without any conflict of interest". McEwan accused Bishops of "bully-boy tactics" designed to intimidate her into backing down, something Bishops has vehemently denied.

It was only when McEwan complained to the law society months later that she discovered that Allan acts as a nominated panel solicitor under the society's master policy for their insurers in defending claims made against solicitors for alleged breach of contract or negligence. He also conducts society seminars. For McEwan, this demolished the entire credibility of the complaints process. In letters to her MSP in April 2004, she observed: "I am beginning to feel like my story reads like a chapter from a John Grisham novel . all the parties involved obviously have a variety of interests in common and know each other particularly well. For someone who is a layperson within the legal world, what chance do you have?" Welsh's dealings with BTO's Allan were even less expeditious. Allan told her on October 28, 2003 that he would confirm details of Bishops' position as soon as possible. He already had the file but did not write to her again for more than eight months. McEwan later tried to complain to the law society, but the society refused to countenance that complaint - of poor service - because she was not Allan's client. When Allan did write back, on July 2, 2004, his explanation exonerated the Bishops predecessor firm for mis-selling, apparently on the basis of little more than Bishops' word that the IFA involved had not told her that the Scottish Provident Policy was guaranteed to pay off her mortgage. McEwan pointed out that Allan was not in a position to say what the IFA had told her, since he was not present at those meetings. She was also angry at not being asked for her own comments, especially since Allan's explanation was, she alleges, riddled with factual errors about the circumstances of the case - even in respect of such fundamental matters as the ownership of properties and mortgages involved. In a letter to Allan on July 6, 2004 she declared: "As any investigator worth their salt knows, the reason for collecting evidence from all the relevant parties is to ensure all known aspects of the case are clearly and factually explored before any conclusion is drawn." A further six weeks elapsed before Allan replied, apologising for any "erroneous assumptions", but stressing this did not affect or change his opinion. Allan declined to comment on his involvement in the case.

The saga continued when McEwan complained about Bishops' handling of her complaint. In short, the matter went through three case managers - two left the society during the course of the investigation - and months of further delay before McEwan was eventually awarded £500 in compensation for Bishops' failing to advise her adequately on its complaints procedure. Bishops told The Herald it accepted that finding and revised its procedures. However, McEwan, no nearer recouping the £8000 she is out of pocket, is not placated and has now complained to the ombudsman. "There must be a couple of thousand people in Scotland in the same situation as me but many give up because of the process you are put through when you complain," she said. "To my mind it is all designed to put you off." There was a glimmer of hope earlier this year, when it appeared the society might indeed have the power to order solicitors to make good the shortfall or potential shortfall on endowment policies. The ombudsman, Linda Costelloe Baker, had asked the society to consider whether its power to order solicitors to rectify any "deficiency" in the service provided allows it to use the same approach as the Financial Services Authority. If an endowment policy has been mis-sold by an adviser regulated by the FSA, compensation is based on comparing the current financial position, taking the endowment policy into account, with what the position would now be if the client had taken out a repayment mortgage at the outset. To get compensation, this comparison has to show that the client is now worse off financially, as a result of following unsuitable advice to take out the mortgage endowment. The society did take advice. However, a spokesperson said it was told that so-called "rectification" cannot include financial compensation, only putting right a mistake. She added: "The society cannot order the solicitor to pay direct compensation for any financial loss to the clients - the clients would need to go through the courts." So that appears to be that. The only hope for victims of alleged mis-selling is a court case, assuming Macarthur Denton can raise the cash. Perhaps. The ombudsman was somewhat inscrutable on the subject. Costelloe Baker said she believed the counsel's advice on "rectification" to the society was reasonable, but added: "It is something I am keeping a very close eye on to see what else might be possible."