Theories, conspiracies and blowing of whistles

Memes (an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means), like this one here, are ten a penny and while many of these iconic messages try to share information, it is just as easy for them to be used to debunk or ridicule what might otherwise be a serious matter.

Anyone who questionmad-theoristss a message put out by the government will be subjected to such ridicule and the vehemence of these messages will be determined by how much the government (or organisation) wants to debunk those who are asking the questions and this should be a clue to how serious the subject might be.

By why should asking questions be considered a joke? Of course, there are a load of nutters out there who go above and beyond all reason and include alien abductions, witchcraft, satanic rites and a whole bunch of other nonsense which does nothing but undermine legitimate questions that need to be answered.

Even when scientific evidence, expert opinion and wild coincidences contradict those so-called sane, logical explanations, ridicule is thrown at those asking poignant questions in order to make it all go away.

9-11-is-a-lieThere is one recent event that leaves so many questions unanswered and so much scientific evidence unaccepted by the majority of those who choose to ignore it. I refer of course to the tragic events of 9/11.

There is no question in my mind (which is unprotected – no tin foil in sight) that all is not as it should be with this event. As a novice, I followed the news avidly, more so because I had just returned from America the day before with my children and you consider what slight changes to those events might have put those young lives at risk.

I was aghast at the devastation and particularly the loss of life – the image of those people falling to their death is something I will never forget as long as I live. As the news coverage progresses, a tale of terrorism is woven to account for the events, single-minded radicals whose aim is to bring down a culture they despised.

bbc-blooperHowever, it wasn’t long before silly inconsistencies came to light; seasoned fire-fighters on the scene hearing series of explosions; a passport miraculously intact on top of the dust of the collapsed buildings; building 7’s collapse; the media’s reporting of the buildings collapse before the event actually happened; steel girders melting at temperatures that could not possibly have damaged them, and the list goes on.

Any reasonable person would ask questions like ‘how’ and ‘why’. Doubt comes very easily when reasonable, logical thinkers who ask such questions begin to drop like flies as if the ripples of the so-called terror attacks were striking down those who were not there but were, in some way, associated with those who died. Perhaps especially telling is the reaction of then President Bush who was visiting a school and seemed untroubled by the news that New York had suffered such a devastating attack –  we’ve all seen movies where someone farts in the presence of the US President resulting in their being immediately ushered from the room to safety. It’s so easy to feel that he was not surprised by the news because he was expecting it and knew that he was in no danger.

all-we-need-is-the-right-major-crisis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-new-world-order-david-rockefellerWith so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions, it is easy to look at the words of David Rockefeller speaking at a UN Business Conference on September 14, 1994.

Considering the changes that have been brought into law in the US and here in the UK, these words reverberate and ring all sorts of bells.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder at these things. There is enough detailed analysis, expert opinion and documentation freely available on the Internet for any free-thinker to check for themselves and begin to say … what if?

snowdenWhen someone decides to take action and expose government corruption, they do so knowing that they are putting their life on the line.

People like Edward Snowden who has been forced to take up residence in Russia as a result of his exposé of the NSA’s collection and analysis of telephone calls, emails, text and social media of not only US citizens but those of many other countries around the world should be hailed as modern-day heroes.

These ‘whistle blowers’ put their lives on the line and they become the subject of a witch-hunt and a concerted effort to demonise them as traitors, terrorists or radicals. Mr Snowden was part of something with which he did not agree and his principles as a human being and advocate for the rights of the individual means that he chose to give up his safe, comfortable and compliant life in favour of doing what’s right.

Some may argue that whistle blowers and conspiracy theorists are not the same thing but when governments are caught in a lie by the revelation of the truth, then clearly there are other lies which have yet to come to public attention and only by questioning and seeking those truths will such lies be exposed.

Sitting complacently in your little bubble of life, ignoring the howling of the wolves and their scratching at your door will not save you from the consequences of government machinations in the long run.

Ignore what is happening at your peril!

Judges who blog

I just came across ‘Trevor‘, a blog written by a Magistrate. Reading through some of the entries, you could accuse him of being a human being which, considering my view on the Judiciary as a whole, means that I may have to vary my opinions in future. I found this blog through the UK Human Rights blog entry about the banning of blogging in any judicial capacity.

I want to explore a couple of comments from the HR blog because I feel that they are important issues; the first written by an anonymous writer on the Near Legal housing law blog argues that the ban is “short-sighted” and likely to have a “damaging effect on public understanding of the legal system and transparency“.

Royal 13 B.VIII, f.22In my experience, the public have very little understanding of the legal system and the profession as a whole do their utmost to ensure that the public never does. Like the Cistercian monks, they maintain domination over the law by clinging to Latin, an obscure language that, while at the root of English, does little to foster understanding in this modern age.

There may be value in this medieval language but when a member of the public is presented with terminology such as a mensa et thoro or absque hoc they do not immediately know what it might mean and most importantly, they will never know the nuances inherent in its use within the legal profession. The result is that they have to call in a professional, a solicitor and/or a barrister who will interpret the obscure meanings. The public are not part of the club, they will not have lunch with their opposition, discuss a deal over drinks or on the tennis court.

With the removal of most legal aid, the public are even more at the mercy of the legal system and the courts. Any forum that fosters understanding must be encouraged in order to redress the imbalance which has formed as a result of changes to legal aid and the ability to have a fair trial only if you are able to pay for it.

Another comment comes from the guidance issued to members of the judiciary which reads;

“They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general”.

'Hmmm...It is: innocent until proven guilty? Or is it: guilty until proven innocent?'The democratic process and purported transparency in public office demands that the truth always be made known. If a judge finds himself at odds with the laws as passed by Parliament, they must interpret them to the best of their ability but it is this self-interpretation that leads to such a bollixed system and gives an out to a judge who might make a decision that reeks of injustice – it’s simply not good enough.

I’m not saying that being a judge is an easy role but when anyone in public office decides to use their position inappropriately as in the Guardian’s ‘Who is judging the judges?‘, all decisions of that judge should immediately come under scrutiny to ensure that there was no bias, corruption or other hidden agenda or just plain incompetence.

 

You’ve gotta SOCA a POCA or two

On the suggestion of Jason (thanks) we’ve made a FOIA request on the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website.  The first interesting point is that SOCA is not subject to FOIA and therefore will not process FOIA requests.  Under Regulation 4 of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), environmental information relevant to the functions of the Security Services, which does not adversely affect national security can be requested.

Apparently, it is SOCA policy to make non-operational information available on the SOCA website, in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. SOCA website have undertaken to take into account suggestions for additions to their website.  You can only request information about the environment from this authority.

Never ones to say never, we’ve made a request anyway which you can follow here.  The text of the request is:

Dear Serious and Organised Crime Agency,

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 (POCA)

Please provide information on numbers of central government, local government, senior civil servants and others employed by government related departments who have been subjected to POCA.

Please provide information on numbers of Members of Parliament who have had POCA applied to them.

Please provide information on numbers of members of the House of Lords who have had POCA applied to them.

Please provide information on numbers of members of the general population who have had POCA applied to them.

We understand that no information that may affect national security can be requested and believe that the information is demographic in nature and relevant to environmental issues.  No information on specifics are required just simply number of POCA processes enacted against the above cross section of the
population.

Yours faithfully,

Diogenese Associates

We’ll keep you posted.

MPs should work for less than minimum wage – oh no, it’s the disabled who are a drain on this country isn’t it?

As advocates for disabled people and having provided support, guidance and advice to disabled people looking for work and for employers who want to consider employing disabled people we are fully aware of the realities of disabled people in the workplace and find that Mr Davies’ comments are not only wrong (on so many levels) but utterly and completely evil.

He has shown us a clear and unequivocal example of ‘institutional discrimination’ as anyone could wish for.  Not only is he uninformed, he is insulting beyond belief – he should not apologise, he should resign and head for the darkest corner he can find and thank God that he doesn’t have to himself endure the kind of life many disabled people face every day of their lives – a prison sentence that has no parole and where the light at the end of the tunnel is death.

A wrong but honest reply in The Mail only goes to show how ill informed employers are; the long term disabled are far more reliable because they actually know what their barriers are and have spent a lot of time adjusting and managing them the result of which is greater reliability rather than less.  We could give an endless list of examples such as how PP, a blind person has replaced two ‘able’ bodied people on a switchboard and retains phone numbers, doesn’t need a directory, has perfect voice recognition and so makes his employer seem able to offer a personalised service to all his customers.

Many disabled people have been failed by institutional discrimination from education onwards but it only takes finding (or making) the right opportunity for them to be able to shine – often brighter than their ‘able’ counterparts.

There are suggestions of a “trial run” for disabled people which seems, on the face of it, sensible but consider how discriminatory it really is; are ‘able’ people required to work without pay to prove themselves, of course not – there is a probationary period during which people prove they can do the job.

Institutional discrimination is rife in this country and even those who feel they ‘understand’ the needs of the disabled often do not – the problem we face now is that the previous and current governments have set up to demonise the disabled of this country and present them as scrounging, whining lazy and complacent layabouts which cannot be further from the truth.

Government spin prevails and the most vulnerable suffer as a result; when has it every been acceptable to prey on those who face barriers in every day life that would exhaust most ‘able’ people after a week of effort?

 

ID database gets go-ahead; ID cards will surely follow

The Telegraph reports on the Condem’s latest initiative to remove our civil liberties – where did this little gem spring from?  A new database to be introduced next week that holds the details of 15 million people (a quarter of the population of Britain) must have taken some effort to fund, organise, purchase, develop, install and ‘test’ – so where’s the white paper on this?  Included are the details of around 6 million innocent people and victims of crime so it’s not a great leap of the imagination to see a database that contains details on everyone.

Apparently more than 12,000 ‘approved’ people will have access to this database and bollocks to anyone who says “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.  With so many new laws introduced by Labour it is only a matter of time before everyone breaks one law or another which will warrant them being included in the ever growing database until every man, woman and child will be included as a matter of course and the abandoned ID register will suddenly be in place with ID cards being compulsory for those with a criminal record, perhaps a blue one for those who are not guilty of any crime but you will have to carry it to show to any uniform that has the power to stop you to prove that you have no criminal record – what a clever government.

We know of someone who works in Westminster who has been interviewed four times by her local council housing office because there is a “flag” against the address although they have no idea why – this is the result of the database mentality (it must be right cos the ‘puter sez so) which will have some jobs-worth going along every 3 months because the database says they should although they don’t know what they are looking to achieve and can’t possibly gain any results from this waste of time.

This is a real life example of that reliance on computers does to the brain and the size of this proposed database (a Condem initiative despite slamming a similar Labour idea) will mean that there will be considerable errors which will never be corrected and while will – over time – change the perspective of the data it supposedly represents.

The events of 9/11 and 7/7 gave both the US and UK governments exactly the excuse they needed to implement their ‘terror’ legislation and to slowly erode our civil liberties – a freedom lost is never regained; there are always unintended consequences to legislation but there appear to be no efforts to deal with those consequences but only compound them but never to the advantage of the individual and always to the advantage of the ‘state’.

This creeping abuse of powers has been going on for a lot longer than people realise and most fail to comprehend the extent to which their rights and safeguards under law are being systematically removed – this is nothing short of tyranny.

YOUR freedoms – yeah right!

Nick Clegg, the deputy PM created his website called “Your Freedoms” and called for the people to suggest which laws should be looked at or repealed.  When the website closed down, the suggestions made there were thrown away and despite writing to his office to find out what was happening to the suggestions, there was no definitive answer.

The ConDems made much of the thousands of new laws that Labour enacted while in power; the thousands of new ways that money could be generated through the courts to swell the coffers of the government.

No laws have been repealed, no action taken so there are thousands of people turning to legal aid assistance to fight frivolous cased in courts and so the bill goes up.

Repeal some laws, restore some balance and the legal aid bill will go down as a result; do we really need money spent by councils on bin inspectors and do we really need to burden the courts with frivolous litigation to fine old Mrs Jones for putting a baked bean tin in her waste bin?

The burdens are imposed by the government and local councils, they should be the ones to sort out the problem, reduce the number of laws that have painted the people of this country into an ever smaller corner to the point that you can’t take a breath without fracturing some law, statute or governance.

Government denies justice to those who can’t pay

No one likes ambulance chasing lawyers – in fact, it’s doubtful whether many people have a good word for an industry that benefits from other peoples misery but these plans make it even more difficult for those without money to have any equality under law which is, of course, contrary to the Human Rights Act.

Our maritime law justice system flaunts the common law system that was originally set up to protect the ‘people’ – those laws still exist but the courts pretend they don’t and call your sanity into question if you raise common law in their courts.  It is doubtful that judges confirm their oath on a daily basis as they are bound to do and abandon ship when challenged.

The so-called justice system depends on peoples ignorance to rail-road them into compliance; the previous Labour regime enacted thousands of new laws to further bury common law under an avalanche of statutes that even the Law Society could not keep pace with.

These new plans seek to further deny individuals access to justice and with the government seeking to do away with the human rights legislation (as controversial as it may be) the inevitable consequence is that the people of this country will find themselves falling foul of the law and having no way in which to protect themselves or to argue their case.

Kenneth Clarke, the so-called ‘justice’ minister has announced cuts that will further deny people of this country from ever proving their innocence in an effort to save money yet government departments such as the DWP have access to the entire public purse in pursuit of any allegations they make – so they can spend your money to criminalise you but you can’t defend yourself in the same way – clever.

Ambulance chasing lawyers may be an unsavoury breed but at least they provide a voice to those who can’t speak for themselves.

THIS is justice? THIS is democracy?