I am writing this as an open letter on my blog because I don't want any NuNazi shinnannigans of me writing to you, Mr Kidney, and then you either throwing my letter in the bin unread or some halfbaked legalistic yarn about how Parliamentary protocol prevents you from addressing the issues that I am about to bring up.
THE STAFFORD HOSPITAL COVER UP
Mr Kidney, I don't give a monkeys how many people your corrupt political party has employed (using taxpayers money) to cover up this absolutly diabolical scandal. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, how on earth can you look at yourself in the mirror, though of course, with you being so two faced I expect that when you get up in the mornings you are not really sure which visage you are supposed to focus on.
I WILL get to speak to Julie Bailey. You and your wicked cronies are NOT going to stop me. Julie Bailey is certainly going to find out exactly what you lot have been up to now, and she is going to be hopping mad when she realises what you have been up to.
You can tell Diane Smith that I certainly will not be tuning in to watch her on the Politics Show as well, why would I want another big load of boring NuNazi lies being propagandered, I had some new DVDs bought me for Christmas, I would rather watch something decent on my television set like Cranford than have to suffer listening to that sneaky old cat's political spin.
I think you are a very crafty and bad man. You ought to repent. It is a disgrace to pretend to pretend to help someone like Julie Bailey, who has suffered so much and lost her mother in that hell hole that is supposed to be a hospital, and all the time be laughing behind the poor woman's back, calling her nasty names such as a "banner waving exhibitionist"
You really disgust me David Kidney and I am very glad to have found out what you are really like. I really was talken in by you - I thought you were a decent person. I think it is hateful what you have done.
We will get justice, because the Lord is watching and He will give us justice.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
CURE THE NHS
THE STAFFORD HOSPITAL COVER UP - THIS IS BEING SENT TO EVERYONE I CAN THINK OF TO EXPOSE THE COVER UP AND MOLE BLOCKING
I am a survivor of the Staffordshire Pindown institutional child abuse scandal and also the secret family court persecution. My late solicitor, Richard Wise, who was also an independent candidate in the 2001 Stoke on Trent election – he had been a member of the Labour Party but became so disgusted with bullying and corruption within the party that he decided to put himself forward as an Independent candidate in order to try to truly represent the people of Stoke on Trent, had exposed the Pindown scandal and the fact that many of the people, like myself, who had been abused, were being deliberately criminalised and even being put into prison. I can testify to this wicked treatment, as I have been deliberately persecuted in the secret family courts and repeatedly threatened over several years with imprisonment if I commit contempt of court, however that may be interpreted. The man who raped me, X, who was a member of the Labour Party and stood for election as a councillor, and was deputy mayor of X at one time, and whose father was a member of the freemasons in X, maliciously took me to court over a 7 year period, because he wanted to have sex with me and I would not let him.
I have suffered dreadfully because of this awful treatment. The secret family court tried to use brainwashing techniques on me to gloss over all the abuse I have been subjected to. They tried to force me to have NLP treatment from a bullying and unethical psychologist called Joanna Simpson Blake, near the place where I had been abused as a child. The secret family courts are forcing people to have mental health treatment, and they are doing this without any proper consultation with the family GP. I had been seeing my GP and begging for appropriate child abuse counselling and it was like coming up against a brick wall, I just was not listened to, but eventually I did get referred to EMERGE, a specialist child abuse counselling therapy organisation based at St Georges Hospital in Stafford. On 16th November 2006 I went for an EMERGE therapy session at St Georges Hospital, Stafford, but it was very traumatic as St Georges Hospital was one of the places where I was abused as a child, so it triggered a lot of bad memories being there. As a result of the trauma, on the way home, I collapsed in the street and was taken to hospital. I was treated in a vile way by the staff at the hospital, in short, I was physically assaulted in front of a busy A and E waiting room, there were many witnesses to the completely unprovoked attack (I was unable to move my arms and legs or speak at the time due to trauma) and I was completely at the mercy of the staff who were assaulting me. I assume they were angry with me for being a PTSD trauma patient instead of a road accident casualty.
Since then, I have been trying to complain. I contacted Cure the NHS, and gave evidence to the solicitors who have taken on the case, Leigh Day and Co, and they took a statement from me. I am sorry to say that they phoned me up on 3rd February 2010 they told me that they were going to drop my statement, as it was not cost effective for them to take on my complaint! I was outraged, but I tried to reason with them that as there were so many witnesses to the vile treatment I received at Stafford Hospital it was important that my case was included in the complaints, and that I was not in any way motivated by any desire to be financially compensated at all – I had already repeatedly told them that I would consider any monitary compensation for what they had put me through as an insult, and that all I wanted was a proper apology and for the staff members who had assaulted me to be investigated properly. I had thought that the police should have investigated the assault, as I had reported the incident to Stafford Police, but just as my complaints of institutional child abuse and rape have been airbrushed away, so was this. I asked Leigh Day and Co to at least put me in touch with Cure the NHS, as I have lost touch with them, and the Cure the NHS meetings are no longer publicised on their website, which means that no-one else can go to them.
I have lost touch with Cure the NHS and realise that I am being maliciously prevented from being able to contact this group. I have read in the local newspaper that Julie Bailey has received threats and so she does not put out her phone number any more, and any messages I leave on the Cure the NHS website are not responded to, so I can only assume that moles have taken over the site, I know this sort of thing often happens with grass roots websites, as I know that Julie Bailey and the others would defiantly want to hear how I have been treated by Leigh Day and Co, and I wonder how many other people have been blocked from contacting this group?
I know that Leigh Day and Co are to get the Dr David Kelly enquiry contract, and I have grave doubts about this law firm, as I think the way they have treated me, scotching me out of the investigation and not passing on my details to the self help group Cure the NHS is disgraceful.
I am telling you this because it is in everyone’s best interest all over the nation to be aware of this kind of cover up.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANN RICHARDS
I, Barbara Ann Richards, of [X[ will say as follows:
1. I make this statement in relation to the appalling way in which I was treated in the Accident and Emergency Department at Stafford General Hospital on the afternoon of Wednesday 16th November 2006.
2. I have suffered through a history of abuse which has left me extremely vulnerable and frightened of authorities. It is necessary to explain this background in order to demonstrate the vulnerable state which I was in when I arrived at the hospital on the aforementioned afternoon.
Background
3. When I was 13, I cannot remember exactly, I tried to run away from home with my boyfriend because I was being abused by my brother both physically and sexually. As a result I was placed in a children’s home where I suffered as a result of the “pin-down” system of abuse, and later on in a psychiatric ward.
4. I was the victim of a rape later on in life, and as a result of escalating mental health problems and my struggle to come to terms with my very traumatic past, I was referred by my doctor to Emerge, a child abuse therapy course.
My experience at SGH
5. On the afternoon of 15th November 2006 I had been for a counselling session with Emerge at St George’s hospital in Stafford.
6. I became very ill on the way home from the session because St Georges Hospital was one of the locations where I had suffered abuse as a child, and the trigger of a lot of bad memories. As a result, I collapsed at the crossing near the bus station in Stafford.
7. Somebody must have called an ambulance because the paramedics arrived; but I was in such a state that I had lost the feeling in my legs, my face was numb and I was unable to remember where I lived and to where I was going and so I was unable to provide them with any information.
8. The paramedics arrived and took me to the Accident and Emergency department at SGH. When I arrived there I was treated in an appalling and inhuman way.
9. I was put on a trolley and a nurse who was quite fat and with dark hair started asking me questions. These were only basic questions such as what my name was, but I was unable to answer because I was extremely distressed. I felt that I could not talk about what had happened even though I wanted to. I could not even move my face.
10. This nurse told me to get up and I couldn’t. She was very brusque and l felt frightened of her because of her manner. She took my shoes off, and then jammed a biro into my foot. I heard her say “naughty, naughty”.
11. The things that the staff did to me caused me pain but I was unable to stop them doing anything because I was frozen. She kept shouting “Get up!”, but I couldn’t.
12. At least 2 nurses grabbed hold of me by the shoulders and threw me off the trolley and I landed on the floor. I must have landed with some impact because this caused me to cut my knee.
13. I was left crying on the floor of A and E and the left me there. I was near some sort of desk in the A and E and I must have been there for about 20 minutes. Somebody put something under my head and they were all walking around me. It was so humiliating; I felt like dirt.
14. Somebody then came again and told me to get up and that they were going to call the police.
15. I was trying to tell them that I had been to Emerge and that I had been raped, but nothing came out right and I think they thought I was saying I had been raped that day.
16. I told them that the police already knew I had been raped. Then someone said “we are not going to get the police, we are going to get a Security Guard to throw you out of the hospital”.
17. They grabbed hold of me and pushed me into the Outpatients department. All the while I was crying. It was really busy and they kept on shouting at me.
17 In the end, they did not get a Security Guard. An old lady who was waiting in the Outpatients department came over to me and helped me to find my bag and coat. I did not realise I had my bag with me and I so I was worrying about not having my bus ticket home, and I could not even call my boyfriend to come and collect me. I felt sick.
18. The next thing I can remember is being in the carpark outside the hospital. I eventually managed to find my way out of the car park onto the main road and some young people stopped and made me sit in the bus stop to wait, and then a man came in the van who must have been one of her friends took me to the police station.
1. At the police station I told them I had been assaulted at the hospital by being grabbed and thrown off a hospital trolly and that they had jammed a biro into my foot. The policeman found my address book and asked me for a next of kin.
2. Nobody at the hospital asked me if there was somebody who could come and pick me up or if there was somebody they could call for me. They should have looked through my bag to find my boyfriend’s number and then called him. He could have explained exactly what had happened and why, and I would have been fine.
3. I do not think anybody should have shouted at me or physically assaulted me at all. If anything, they should have been particularly kind to me, and not shouted at me, making everything worse.
Complaints
4. I wrote to Chris Buttanshaw of North Staffs Combined Healthcare NHS Trust on 16 November 2006, who passed my letter to Martin Yeates. Unfortunately, as I was still shocked by the incident I made a mistake over the date and referred to the incident as happening on Wednesday 16th November 2006, when I meant to say Wednesday 15th November 2006. I received a reply from Martin Yeates on 8 January 2007. He said that the removal of the shoes was to test my reflexes, but this is a funny way of doing this. He also said that at no point was I mistreated, which is untrue. I replied to this letter and expressed my grievances but I have received no response at all to this.
5. All I want is a proper apology from the hospital and an admission of the fact that they did treat me in this manner, instead of attempting to cover it up. The A and E was very busy that day so there were plenty of witnesses, also the CCTV cameras would have picked up the way I was treated. I think it is an absolute disgrace that somebody in such a state as I was at this time should have been subjected to such cruel and inhuman treatment. I do not want any compensation, just an apology, plus the staff who assaulted me to be disciplined.
I am a survivor of the Staffordshire Pindown institutional child abuse scandal and also the secret family court persecution. My late solicitor, Richard Wise, who was also an independent candidate in the 2001 Stoke on Trent election – he had been a member of the Labour Party but became so disgusted with bullying and corruption within the party that he decided to put himself forward as an Independent candidate in order to try to truly represent the people of Stoke on Trent, had exposed the Pindown scandal and the fact that many of the people, like myself, who had been abused, were being deliberately criminalised and even being put into prison. I can testify to this wicked treatment, as I have been deliberately persecuted in the secret family courts and repeatedly threatened over several years with imprisonment if I commit contempt of court, however that may be interpreted. The man who raped me, X, who was a member of the Labour Party and stood for election as a councillor, and was deputy mayor of X at one time, and whose father was a member of the freemasons in X, maliciously took me to court over a 7 year period, because he wanted to have sex with me and I would not let him.
I have suffered dreadfully because of this awful treatment. The secret family court tried to use brainwashing techniques on me to gloss over all the abuse I have been subjected to. They tried to force me to have NLP treatment from a bullying and unethical psychologist called Joanna Simpson Blake, near the place where I had been abused as a child. The secret family courts are forcing people to have mental health treatment, and they are doing this without any proper consultation with the family GP. I had been seeing my GP and begging for appropriate child abuse counselling and it was like coming up against a brick wall, I just was not listened to, but eventually I did get referred to EMERGE, a specialist child abuse counselling therapy organisation based at St Georges Hospital in Stafford. On 16th November 2006 I went for an EMERGE therapy session at St Georges Hospital, Stafford, but it was very traumatic as St Georges Hospital was one of the places where I was abused as a child, so it triggered a lot of bad memories being there. As a result of the trauma, on the way home, I collapsed in the street and was taken to hospital. I was treated in a vile way by the staff at the hospital, in short, I was physically assaulted in front of a busy A and E waiting room, there were many witnesses to the completely unprovoked attack (I was unable to move my arms and legs or speak at the time due to trauma) and I was completely at the mercy of the staff who were assaulting me. I assume they were angry with me for being a PTSD trauma patient instead of a road accident casualty.
Since then, I have been trying to complain. I contacted Cure the NHS, and gave evidence to the solicitors who have taken on the case, Leigh Day and Co, and they took a statement from me. I am sorry to say that they phoned me up on 3rd February 2010 they told me that they were going to drop my statement, as it was not cost effective for them to take on my complaint! I was outraged, but I tried to reason with them that as there were so many witnesses to the vile treatment I received at Stafford Hospital it was important that my case was included in the complaints, and that I was not in any way motivated by any desire to be financially compensated at all – I had already repeatedly told them that I would consider any monitary compensation for what they had put me through as an insult, and that all I wanted was a proper apology and for the staff members who had assaulted me to be investigated properly. I had thought that the police should have investigated the assault, as I had reported the incident to Stafford Police, but just as my complaints of institutional child abuse and rape have been airbrushed away, so was this. I asked Leigh Day and Co to at least put me in touch with Cure the NHS, as I have lost touch with them, and the Cure the NHS meetings are no longer publicised on their website, which means that no-one else can go to them.
I have lost touch with Cure the NHS and realise that I am being maliciously prevented from being able to contact this group. I have read in the local newspaper that Julie Bailey has received threats and so she does not put out her phone number any more, and any messages I leave on the Cure the NHS website are not responded to, so I can only assume that moles have taken over the site, I know this sort of thing often happens with grass roots websites, as I know that Julie Bailey and the others would defiantly want to hear how I have been treated by Leigh Day and Co, and I wonder how many other people have been blocked from contacting this group?
I know that Leigh Day and Co are to get the Dr David Kelly enquiry contract, and I have grave doubts about this law firm, as I think the way they have treated me, scotching me out of the investigation and not passing on my details to the self help group Cure the NHS is disgraceful.
I am telling you this because it is in everyone’s best interest all over the nation to be aware of this kind of cover up.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANN RICHARDS
I, Barbara Ann Richards, of [X[ will say as follows:
1. I make this statement in relation to the appalling way in which I was treated in the Accident and Emergency Department at Stafford General Hospital on the afternoon of Wednesday 16th November 2006.
2. I have suffered through a history of abuse which has left me extremely vulnerable and frightened of authorities. It is necessary to explain this background in order to demonstrate the vulnerable state which I was in when I arrived at the hospital on the aforementioned afternoon.
Background
3. When I was 13, I cannot remember exactly, I tried to run away from home with my boyfriend because I was being abused by my brother both physically and sexually. As a result I was placed in a children’s home where I suffered as a result of the “pin-down” system of abuse, and later on in a psychiatric ward.
4. I was the victim of a rape later on in life, and as a result of escalating mental health problems and my struggle to come to terms with my very traumatic past, I was referred by my doctor to Emerge, a child abuse therapy course.
My experience at SGH
5. On the afternoon of 15th November 2006 I had been for a counselling session with Emerge at St George’s hospital in Stafford.
6. I became very ill on the way home from the session because St Georges Hospital was one of the locations where I had suffered abuse as a child, and the trigger of a lot of bad memories. As a result, I collapsed at the crossing near the bus station in Stafford.
7. Somebody must have called an ambulance because the paramedics arrived; but I was in such a state that I had lost the feeling in my legs, my face was numb and I was unable to remember where I lived and to where I was going and so I was unable to provide them with any information.
8. The paramedics arrived and took me to the Accident and Emergency department at SGH. When I arrived there I was treated in an appalling and inhuman way.
9. I was put on a trolley and a nurse who was quite fat and with dark hair started asking me questions. These were only basic questions such as what my name was, but I was unable to answer because I was extremely distressed. I felt that I could not talk about what had happened even though I wanted to. I could not even move my face.
10. This nurse told me to get up and I couldn’t. She was very brusque and l felt frightened of her because of her manner. She took my shoes off, and then jammed a biro into my foot. I heard her say “naughty, naughty”.
11. The things that the staff did to me caused me pain but I was unable to stop them doing anything because I was frozen. She kept shouting “Get up!”, but I couldn’t.
12. At least 2 nurses grabbed hold of me by the shoulders and threw me off the trolley and I landed on the floor. I must have landed with some impact because this caused me to cut my knee.
13. I was left crying on the floor of A and E and the left me there. I was near some sort of desk in the A and E and I must have been there for about 20 minutes. Somebody put something under my head and they were all walking around me. It was so humiliating; I felt like dirt.
14. Somebody then came again and told me to get up and that they were going to call the police.
15. I was trying to tell them that I had been to Emerge and that I had been raped, but nothing came out right and I think they thought I was saying I had been raped that day.
16. I told them that the police already knew I had been raped. Then someone said “we are not going to get the police, we are going to get a Security Guard to throw you out of the hospital”.
17. They grabbed hold of me and pushed me into the Outpatients department. All the while I was crying. It was really busy and they kept on shouting at me.
17 In the end, they did not get a Security Guard. An old lady who was waiting in the Outpatients department came over to me and helped me to find my bag and coat. I did not realise I had my bag with me and I so I was worrying about not having my bus ticket home, and I could not even call my boyfriend to come and collect me. I felt sick.
18. The next thing I can remember is being in the carpark outside the hospital. I eventually managed to find my way out of the car park onto the main road and some young people stopped and made me sit in the bus stop to wait, and then a man came in the van who must have been one of her friends took me to the police station.
1. At the police station I told them I had been assaulted at the hospital by being grabbed and thrown off a hospital trolly and that they had jammed a biro into my foot. The policeman found my address book and asked me for a next of kin.
2. Nobody at the hospital asked me if there was somebody who could come and pick me up or if there was somebody they could call for me. They should have looked through my bag to find my boyfriend’s number and then called him. He could have explained exactly what had happened and why, and I would have been fine.
3. I do not think anybody should have shouted at me or physically assaulted me at all. If anything, they should have been particularly kind to me, and not shouted at me, making everything worse.
Complaints
4. I wrote to Chris Buttanshaw of North Staffs Combined Healthcare NHS Trust on 16 November 2006, who passed my letter to Martin Yeates. Unfortunately, as I was still shocked by the incident I made a mistake over the date and referred to the incident as happening on Wednesday 16th November 2006, when I meant to say Wednesday 15th November 2006. I received a reply from Martin Yeates on 8 January 2007. He said that the removal of the shoes was to test my reflexes, but this is a funny way of doing this. He also said that at no point was I mistreated, which is untrue. I replied to this letter and expressed my grievances but I have received no response at all to this.
5. All I want is a proper apology from the hospital and an admission of the fact that they did treat me in this manner, instead of attempting to cover it up. The A and E was very busy that day so there were plenty of witnesses, also the CCTV cameras would have picked up the way I was treated. I think it is an absolute disgrace that somebody in such a state as I was at this time should have been subjected to such cruel and inhuman treatment. I do not want any compensation, just an apology, plus the staff who assaulted me to be disciplined.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Lardarse Falconer is at it again!
Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle fiddle fiddle, this bloke never gives his obsession for political manipulation a rest! Obviously feeling the noose tightening round his neck, he's trying to brainwash the nation, using the good old British Brainwashing Clan, to sneakily dump the law of treason, probably because the evil old bastard knows that he has committed it!
Are laws against treason still relevant or useful?
By Chris Bowlby
Analysis, BBC Radio 4
There have been calls for the UK's treason laws to be used against radical Muslim groups such as Islam4UK in response to their protests about the British army's campaign in Afghanistan. But how relevant is legislation which dates back to the 14th century?
Should Anjem Choudary from banned group Islam4UK be branded a traitor?
Islam4UK proposed to demonstrate against the war at Wootton Bassett, where locals pay tribute to British soldiers whose bodies are brought home.
The organisation's plan was greeted with outrage, with some claiming it could be considered to give "aid and comfort" to Britain's enemies, one of the definitions of treason.
The treason laws are among our oldest, and most symbolic legislation. And prosecution and punishment for treason was once one of the most powerful actions the British authorities could take.
But Islam4UK was subsequently banned under modern anti-terrorism legislation.
And former Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer argues that "total loyalty to the state is now no longer required by the state of its citizens". So is treason an outmoded concept?
Originally medieval, the laws condemning those who "compass or imagine the death of our Lord the King" or "levy war against the Lord the King in his realm" remain on the statute book today.
But they have barely been used since William Joyce - "Lord Haw Haw" - was hanged for treason in 1946 after broadcasting for the Nazis.
'Patriotic feeling'
So could they still be used to prosecute in Britain?
There is in fact a fascinating debate at the top levels of law and politics in Britain and beyond - about using treason law.
Adam Gadahn urged militants to bomb George W Bush in an al-Qaeda video
In the US it has already happened.
In 2006 Adam Gadahn, who had appeared in al-Qaeda propaganda, was charged with treason. He became the first US citizen to be charged with treason since the Second World War.
American legal scholar Kristen Eichensehr says the mood in the US after 9/11 helped make this possible.
"I think what's different about treason is the very fundamental betrayal that underlies it. It's something that has resonance not just at the state level, but something in people's individual lives."
Is there a similar mood in Britain?
Anjem Choudary, who led the calls for the Wootton Bassett protest by the now-banned Islam4UK, says "there is a very strong patriotic feeling among the British".
Talk of treason, he argues, tries "to bond people together in times of war", and is used "in order to silence people" who disagree with British foreign policy.
'Unhelpful signal'
But Lord Falconer says modern ideas of individual rights and allegiance now make treason hard to apply.
People might feel their strongest allegiance to be towards their religion or even, say, to an organisation like Greenpeace.
"We live," he says, "in an era where the freedom of the individual is put above practically everything else".
There are still some actions, such as fighting against British armed forces, where the call for treason prosecutions is especially strong.
When British citizens were reported to be joining the Taliban in 2001, then government minister Lord Rooker was forthright:
"Treason's like an elephant on the doorstep. You recognise it when you see it.
"And if you take up arms against your own country, your own state, whether in that state or abroad against that state's agents, that's an offence under the 1351 (Treason) Act."
But a range of more modern laws are being used to prosecute terrorism today, and it is striking that no prosecutions for treason were brought against republican terrorists during the recent conflict in Northern Ireland.
So should the old treason laws simply be repealed?
Edward Garnier, the Tory shadow attorney general, has his own doubts about their practical use. But he worries about the message a repeal would send.
"Would people say Parliament doesn't think it's as important as it used to be to accept that there is something which used to be called allegiance but is now called the duties of the citizen?"
Lord Falconer thinks the laws remaining in force "probably do send an unhelpful signal" as far as individual rights and freedom of speech are concerned.
But they have been kept, he suspects, because "there is an uneasy sense that there may be something which one can't imagine which would be so offensive to the collective view of the country…where treason might be of value".
So the idea of treason is still with us, the word is still used, even if Britain has not followed the US in reviving the use of treason law.
There is, for many, still a sense of a line not to be crossed, a betrayal too far in undermining your country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis: Cry Treason is on BBC Radio 4 on Monday 15 February at 2030 GMT and Sunday 21 February at 2130. Listen via the BBC iPlayer or download the podcast.
Are laws against treason still relevant or useful?
By Chris Bowlby
Analysis, BBC Radio 4
There have been calls for the UK's treason laws to be used against radical Muslim groups such as Islam4UK in response to their protests about the British army's campaign in Afghanistan. But how relevant is legislation which dates back to the 14th century?
Should Anjem Choudary from banned group Islam4UK be branded a traitor?
Islam4UK proposed to demonstrate against the war at Wootton Bassett, where locals pay tribute to British soldiers whose bodies are brought home.
The organisation's plan was greeted with outrage, with some claiming it could be considered to give "aid and comfort" to Britain's enemies, one of the definitions of treason.
The treason laws are among our oldest, and most symbolic legislation. And prosecution and punishment for treason was once one of the most powerful actions the British authorities could take.
But Islam4UK was subsequently banned under modern anti-terrorism legislation.
And former Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer argues that "total loyalty to the state is now no longer required by the state of its citizens". So is treason an outmoded concept?
Originally medieval, the laws condemning those who "compass or imagine the death of our Lord the King" or "levy war against the Lord the King in his realm" remain on the statute book today.
But they have barely been used since William Joyce - "Lord Haw Haw" - was hanged for treason in 1946 after broadcasting for the Nazis.
'Patriotic feeling'
So could they still be used to prosecute in Britain?
There is in fact a fascinating debate at the top levels of law and politics in Britain and beyond - about using treason law.
Adam Gadahn urged militants to bomb George W Bush in an al-Qaeda video
In the US it has already happened.
In 2006 Adam Gadahn, who had appeared in al-Qaeda propaganda, was charged with treason. He became the first US citizen to be charged with treason since the Second World War.
American legal scholar Kristen Eichensehr says the mood in the US after 9/11 helped make this possible.
"I think what's different about treason is the very fundamental betrayal that underlies it. It's something that has resonance not just at the state level, but something in people's individual lives."
Is there a similar mood in Britain?
Anjem Choudary, who led the calls for the Wootton Bassett protest by the now-banned Islam4UK, says "there is a very strong patriotic feeling among the British".
Talk of treason, he argues, tries "to bond people together in times of war", and is used "in order to silence people" who disagree with British foreign policy.
'Unhelpful signal'
But Lord Falconer says modern ideas of individual rights and allegiance now make treason hard to apply.
People might feel their strongest allegiance to be towards their religion or even, say, to an organisation like Greenpeace.
"We live," he says, "in an era where the freedom of the individual is put above practically everything else".
There are still some actions, such as fighting against British armed forces, where the call for treason prosecutions is especially strong.
When British citizens were reported to be joining the Taliban in 2001, then government minister Lord Rooker was forthright:
"Treason's like an elephant on the doorstep. You recognise it when you see it.
"And if you take up arms against your own country, your own state, whether in that state or abroad against that state's agents, that's an offence under the 1351 (Treason) Act."
But a range of more modern laws are being used to prosecute terrorism today, and it is striking that no prosecutions for treason were brought against republican terrorists during the recent conflict in Northern Ireland.
So should the old treason laws simply be repealed?
Edward Garnier, the Tory shadow attorney general, has his own doubts about their practical use. But he worries about the message a repeal would send.
"Would people say Parliament doesn't think it's as important as it used to be to accept that there is something which used to be called allegiance but is now called the duties of the citizen?"
Lord Falconer thinks the laws remaining in force "probably do send an unhelpful signal" as far as individual rights and freedom of speech are concerned.
But they have been kept, he suspects, because "there is an uneasy sense that there may be something which one can't imagine which would be so offensive to the collective view of the country…where treason might be of value".
So the idea of treason is still with us, the word is still used, even if Britain has not followed the US in reviving the use of treason law.
There is, for many, still a sense of a line not to be crossed, a betrayal too far in undermining your country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis: Cry Treason is on BBC Radio 4 on Monday 15 February at 2030 GMT and Sunday 21 February at 2130. Listen via the BBC iPlayer or download the podcast.
HOORAY!!!! HE IS STARTING TO SPEAK HIS OWN MIND!
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister says that changing the law to permit assisted suicide would run the risk of putting the frail and ill under pressure to end their lives.
His warning comes a day before Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will set out final guidelines on assisted suicide. He is expected to make it clear that those who help others end their lives are unlikely to face court action if they acted out of compassion. The guidelines, which follow a series of high-profile court cases, are seen by many as effectively decriminalising assisted suicide by the back door.
Mr Brown says that while Mr Starmer should be free to clarify the legal guidelines on assisted suicide, the law itself should not be altered by Parliament.
Creating a legal “right” to die, no matter what safeguards were in place, would put unacceptable pressure on the sick and old, Mr Brown claims.
“Let us be clear: death as an option and an entitlement, via whatever bureaucratic processes a change in the law on assisted suicide might devise, would fundamentally change the way we think about death,” he says.
“The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may for example feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded.”
Two attempts to legalise assisted suicide have failed in the House of Lords in recent years. Mr Brown suggests that, rather than heralding a change in the law, Mr Starmer’s guidance could weaken the case for new attempts to legalise assisted suicide.
“I believe that because of the clarification of the public interest factors now being discussed, and because of some important developments in care over recent decades, the case for a change in the law is now weaker,” he says. “I know in my heart that there is such a thing as a good death. And I believe it is our duty as a society… to use the laws we have well, rather than change them.”
Mr Brown also warns that any move to give doctors and nurses greater freedom to end the lives of the sick and old would harm the medical professions.
“The inevitable erosion of trust in the caring professions – if they were in a position to end life – would be to lose something very precious,” he says.
Mr Brown has consistently opposed legislative changes on assisted suicide, and the strength and timing of his intervention today could be seen as a signal to Mr Starmer not to go too far. Mr Starmer will issue new guidance on the circumstances in which someone is likely to be charged if they help another person to die. Lawyers have pointed out that there is no precedent for prosecutors to set out in such detail the ways in which people can commit a crime and avoid being charged.
Pointedly, Mr Brown does not express support for Mr Starmer’s decision. “It is for him to clarify his approach and the Government has not made any representation to him,” he says.
Rather than alter the rules on assisted suicide, Mr Brown says that more must be done to address the fears many people have of a slow painful death, or of becoming a burden on their family in old age. “I believe that a duty of government is to minimise the fear of dying badly,” Mr Brown says.
A poll for The Daily Telegraph found last month that four out of five people believed that relatives should be allowed to help terminally ill loved ones take their own lives.
Mr Brown conceded that recent high-profile cases had bolstered public support for a change in the rules on assisted dying.
Earlier this year, a judge criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing a case against Kay Gilderdale, who was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her daughter, Lynn, 31, who suffered from the neurological condition ME.
“Cases now dominating the public arena make harrowing reading and the first and most obvious response is to say that something must be done,” he says.
“But when these complex, individual and distressing cases are considered in detail, a solution that at first seems sensible – the right to die in a manner and at a time of one’s choosing – swiftly becomes less straightforward and more worrying.”
Aiding or abetting another to end their life is punishable by up to 14 years in prison under the 1961 Suicide Act.
Mr Brown said his thinking on the issue had been informed by the work of Dame Cecily Saunders, the founder of the hospice movement who died in 2005.
Her work brought about advances in palliative care, improving the lives of the sick and old in their final days.
Further progress in that area, Mr Brown says, is more important than changing the law to make it easier for people to die.
His warning comes a day before Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will set out final guidelines on assisted suicide. He is expected to make it clear that those who help others end their lives are unlikely to face court action if they acted out of compassion. The guidelines, which follow a series of high-profile court cases, are seen by many as effectively decriminalising assisted suicide by the back door.
Mr Brown says that while Mr Starmer should be free to clarify the legal guidelines on assisted suicide, the law itself should not be altered by Parliament.
Creating a legal “right” to die, no matter what safeguards were in place, would put unacceptable pressure on the sick and old, Mr Brown claims.
“Let us be clear: death as an option and an entitlement, via whatever bureaucratic processes a change in the law on assisted suicide might devise, would fundamentally change the way we think about death,” he says.
“The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may for example feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded.”
Two attempts to legalise assisted suicide have failed in the House of Lords in recent years. Mr Brown suggests that, rather than heralding a change in the law, Mr Starmer’s guidance could weaken the case for new attempts to legalise assisted suicide.
“I believe that because of the clarification of the public interest factors now being discussed, and because of some important developments in care over recent decades, the case for a change in the law is now weaker,” he says. “I know in my heart that there is such a thing as a good death. And I believe it is our duty as a society… to use the laws we have well, rather than change them.”
Mr Brown also warns that any move to give doctors and nurses greater freedom to end the lives of the sick and old would harm the medical professions.
“The inevitable erosion of trust in the caring professions – if they were in a position to end life – would be to lose something very precious,” he says.
Mr Brown has consistently opposed legislative changes on assisted suicide, and the strength and timing of his intervention today could be seen as a signal to Mr Starmer not to go too far. Mr Starmer will issue new guidance on the circumstances in which someone is likely to be charged if they help another person to die. Lawyers have pointed out that there is no precedent for prosecutors to set out in such detail the ways in which people can commit a crime and avoid being charged.
Pointedly, Mr Brown does not express support for Mr Starmer’s decision. “It is for him to clarify his approach and the Government has not made any representation to him,” he says.
Rather than alter the rules on assisted suicide, Mr Brown says that more must be done to address the fears many people have of a slow painful death, or of becoming a burden on their family in old age. “I believe that a duty of government is to minimise the fear of dying badly,” Mr Brown says.
A poll for The Daily Telegraph found last month that four out of five people believed that relatives should be allowed to help terminally ill loved ones take their own lives.
Mr Brown conceded that recent high-profile cases had bolstered public support for a change in the rules on assisted dying.
Earlier this year, a judge criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing a case against Kay Gilderdale, who was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her daughter, Lynn, 31, who suffered from the neurological condition ME.
“Cases now dominating the public arena make harrowing reading and the first and most obvious response is to say that something must be done,” he says.
“But when these complex, individual and distressing cases are considered in detail, a solution that at first seems sensible – the right to die in a manner and at a time of one’s choosing – swiftly becomes less straightforward and more worrying.”
Aiding or abetting another to end their life is punishable by up to 14 years in prison under the 1961 Suicide Act.
Mr Brown said his thinking on the issue had been informed by the work of Dame Cecily Saunders, the founder of the hospice movement who died in 2005.
Her work brought about advances in palliative care, improving the lives of the sick and old in their final days.
Further progress in that area, Mr Brown says, is more important than changing the law to make it easier for people to die.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Why Britain should declare war on Jersey - Guardian 8th Feb 2010
Why Britain should declare war on JerseyIf we can attack Iraq, why can't we invade – sorry, liberate – this 21st century pirate cove?
Mark Thomas The Guardian, Monday 8 February 2010
Jersey . . . now that Bergerac is a distant memory, war can go ahead
Over the last year I have toured the country getting audiences to propose policies they think will change the world, improve their life or just annoy people they don't like. Before the shows the audience would submit ideas, we'd then discuss them and finally vote to select the policy they wanted to represent them. Over a series of shows these policies have developed into a manifesto, and subsequently this has been turned into a Radio 4 series, a booklet, an action figure and a range of clubwear.
If the people that come to my shows represent a side of Britain, the policies (chosen and rejected) suggest a strong sense of scepticism, a flair for creative revenge and such an intolerant love of decapitation that I imminently expect the twinning of Maidenhead with Riyadh – though the Saudis might find Maidenhead a little reactionary for their liking.
The twin themes of revenge and scepticism featured heavily in the audience choices, and last year homeopaths became the focus of attention at a show in Leicester; overwhelmingly the audience voted in favour of the policy that ruled that "anyone who sells homeopathic remedies should be allowed homeopathic treatment only if they have a major illness". In Cheltenham the two themes merged with the suggestion that "Mediums should be imprisoned but with a combination lock. If they and their spirit guides can find the number they are free to go." In London the mob rule element got the upper hand when one show voted that "Noel Edmonds should be beheaded . . . and his head placed in one of 22 sealed boxes."
Amid the creative curmudgeons who suggested and voted for these ideas were those who displayed a charming and absurdist streak too. In Swindon someone boldly wrote in hearty cheer, "My policy is: Terry Wogan for euthanasia tsar!" To my mind just imagining Sir Terry's breathy brogue muttering the word "Switzerland" spreads cheery charm on the subject of assisted suicide. In Birmingham, one of the most popular policies was that "Mecca bingo halls should be made to face east" and Nottingham voted en masse that "anyone in favour of banning immigration should sign a register and be banned from travelling abroad".
A bizarre and joyous mix of ideas emerged at every show and often it was the plain old-fashioned and decent that won the vote. Bristol, Birmingham and Lincoln audiences chose as their policy "more council houses". Which is bloody marvellous: council housing is the political C word. They are demonised places, painted as the homes of a sub-Dickensian underclass full of people who automatically become parents at 13 and then leave the baby in the pitbull's basket. And frankly it was a breath of fresh air to argue with an audience that saw the failure to build and protect council stock as part of the sub-prime fiasco, rather than view the issue through the spite-filled eyes of a Mail hackette.
One of my favourite ideas was the simple proposal that "Britain should invade Jersey". Now that TV's Bergerac is just a distant memory this policy has become truly popular, not least because Jersey is one of the tax havens that have become the legal pirate coves of the 21st century. The Tax Justice Network (not to be confused with the rightwing Tax Payers' Alliance) estimates the UK loses about £18bn a year in tax revenue due to "corporate tax efficiency" ie companies moving offshore. The Iraq war cost at least £8bn. So war with Jersey would not only be morally right but self-financing too. In fact we could probably do a bond issue for the invasion to pay for everything up front with the promise of a steady yearly return for investors.
However the case for invading Jersey is made even more compelling by whistle-blower Stuart Syvret, the longest-serving senator and "father of the house" in the Jersey parliament. Syvret recently posted documents on his blog claiming that the island's political elite were refusing to investigate malpractice in the health service. He was rewarded with a morning raid by 10 police officers who searched his home (without a search warrant), confiscated his computer (holding his constituents' private data and communications) and imprisoned him while they did so. Syvret now lives "in exile" in London and says Jersey should be invaded "for regime change" – although he prefers the term "liberate" to invade.
But the Jersey idea, while brilliant, was just one of many. And for every policy that suggested that "fatty foods should be stacked in very thin aisles" there was a policy to "cap bankers' bonuses" , "introduce a maximum wage", "reintroduce the Glass-Steagall Act" or "re-mutualise Northern Rock". For me the variety of ideas is what has made the project interesting – that, and the fact that an audience can one minute bemoan crisp packet sizes and the next vote for a Tobin tax on currency transactions.
PS: Ebury Press has put up a £500 election deposit and £500 campaign costs to an independent candidate who would stand on issues from The People's Manifesto. Go to www.thepeoplesmanifesto.co.uk for details of how to apply.
Mark Thomas The Guardian, Monday 8 February 2010
Jersey . . . now that Bergerac is a distant memory, war can go ahead
Over the last year I have toured the country getting audiences to propose policies they think will change the world, improve their life or just annoy people they don't like. Before the shows the audience would submit ideas, we'd then discuss them and finally vote to select the policy they wanted to represent them. Over a series of shows these policies have developed into a manifesto, and subsequently this has been turned into a Radio 4 series, a booklet, an action figure and a range of clubwear.
If the people that come to my shows represent a side of Britain, the policies (chosen and rejected) suggest a strong sense of scepticism, a flair for creative revenge and such an intolerant love of decapitation that I imminently expect the twinning of Maidenhead with Riyadh – though the Saudis might find Maidenhead a little reactionary for their liking.
The twin themes of revenge and scepticism featured heavily in the audience choices, and last year homeopaths became the focus of attention at a show in Leicester; overwhelmingly the audience voted in favour of the policy that ruled that "anyone who sells homeopathic remedies should be allowed homeopathic treatment only if they have a major illness". In Cheltenham the two themes merged with the suggestion that "Mediums should be imprisoned but with a combination lock. If they and their spirit guides can find the number they are free to go." In London the mob rule element got the upper hand when one show voted that "Noel Edmonds should be beheaded . . . and his head placed in one of 22 sealed boxes."
Amid the creative curmudgeons who suggested and voted for these ideas were those who displayed a charming and absurdist streak too. In Swindon someone boldly wrote in hearty cheer, "My policy is: Terry Wogan for euthanasia tsar!" To my mind just imagining Sir Terry's breathy brogue muttering the word "Switzerland" spreads cheery charm on the subject of assisted suicide. In Birmingham, one of the most popular policies was that "Mecca bingo halls should be made to face east" and Nottingham voted en masse that "anyone in favour of banning immigration should sign a register and be banned from travelling abroad".
A bizarre and joyous mix of ideas emerged at every show and often it was the plain old-fashioned and decent that won the vote. Bristol, Birmingham and Lincoln audiences chose as their policy "more council houses". Which is bloody marvellous: council housing is the political C word. They are demonised places, painted as the homes of a sub-Dickensian underclass full of people who automatically become parents at 13 and then leave the baby in the pitbull's basket. And frankly it was a breath of fresh air to argue with an audience that saw the failure to build and protect council stock as part of the sub-prime fiasco, rather than view the issue through the spite-filled eyes of a Mail hackette.
One of my favourite ideas was the simple proposal that "Britain should invade Jersey". Now that TV's Bergerac is just a distant memory this policy has become truly popular, not least because Jersey is one of the tax havens that have become the legal pirate coves of the 21st century. The Tax Justice Network (not to be confused with the rightwing Tax Payers' Alliance) estimates the UK loses about £18bn a year in tax revenue due to "corporate tax efficiency" ie companies moving offshore. The Iraq war cost at least £8bn. So war with Jersey would not only be morally right but self-financing too. In fact we could probably do a bond issue for the invasion to pay for everything up front with the promise of a steady yearly return for investors.
However the case for invading Jersey is made even more compelling by whistle-blower Stuart Syvret, the longest-serving senator and "father of the house" in the Jersey parliament. Syvret recently posted documents on his blog claiming that the island's political elite were refusing to investigate malpractice in the health service. He was rewarded with a morning raid by 10 police officers who searched his home (without a search warrant), confiscated his computer (holding his constituents' private data and communications) and imprisoned him while they did so. Syvret now lives "in exile" in London and says Jersey should be invaded "for regime change" – although he prefers the term "liberate" to invade.
But the Jersey idea, while brilliant, was just one of many. And for every policy that suggested that "fatty foods should be stacked in very thin aisles" there was a policy to "cap bankers' bonuses" , "introduce a maximum wage", "reintroduce the Glass-Steagall Act" or "re-mutualise Northern Rock". For me the variety of ideas is what has made the project interesting – that, and the fact that an audience can one minute bemoan crisp packet sizes and the next vote for a Tobin tax on currency transactions.
PS: Ebury Press has put up a £500 election deposit and £500 campaign costs to an independent candidate who would stand on issues from The People's Manifesto. Go to www.thepeoplesmanifesto.co.uk for details of how to apply.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Social Services falsely label woman with brain tumour "Personality Disorder"
I thought I had heard the worst of what these childstealing social work scumbags have done, but they just keep sinking deeper and deeper into the depths of depravity.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
GOOD CHRISTIANS? BLOODY CHILDSTEALERS!!!
American Charged in Haiti Had Some Troubles in Idaho By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: February 4, 2010
MERIDIAN, Idaho — The leader of the group of Americans charged on Thursday with abducting children in Haiti is an Idaho businesswoman with a complicated financial history that involves complaints from employees over unpaid wages, state liens on a company bank account and lawsuits in small claims court.
The leader, Laura Silsby, defaulted last July on the mortgage on a house in an unfinished subdivision here in Meridian, a suburb of Boise, according to the Ada County Tax Assessor’s Office. Yet in November, Ms. Silsby registered a new nonprofit, the New Life Children’s Refuge, at the address of the house, which she bought in 2008 for $358,000.
New Life Children’s Refuge is the name of the orphanage Ms. Silsby and the nine other Americans charged in Haiti said they had planned to establish in the Dominican Republic.
Ms. Silsby lost the house in Meridian to foreclosure on Dec. 7, records show, and it now stands empty, with signs in the yard promoting a foreclosure sale.
“I get mail for her all the time,” said LaChelle Bohner, who lives two doors down from the house. Ms. Bohner said the mail included collection notices.
Ms. Silsby and her business, Personal Shopper, which provides shopping services for Internet customers, have faced multiple legal claims.
According to state records and officials, Personal Shopper has been named 14 times in complaints from employees over unpaid wages. Among the reasons cited by the employees for having not been paid were “no money for payroll” and “fully investor funded and investors have been hit hard by the economy.”
Employees won nine of the cases, forcing Personal Shopper to pay nearly $31,000 in wages and $4,000 in fines. The Idaho Department of Labor initially put liens on a company bank account to get the money.
“They didn’t like that so they said: ‘How much do we owe? We’ll pay it,’ ” said Bob Fick, a spokesman for the department, adding that unpaid wage complaints were not uncommon.
State officials said Personal Shopper had paid all the wage claims upheld by the state. But another former employee has sued Personal Shopper in civil court. A jury trial is set for Feb. 22 over a claim by the employee, Robin Oliver, that Personal Shopper owes her more than $22,000.
A lawyer for Ms. Silsby said Thursday that he could not comment on the case.
One of the people awarded unpaid wages was Chris Holmes, who said he was not surprised that Ms. Silsby had run into trouble in Haiti. Mr. Holmes, who did database work, said Ms. Silsby often showed a “lack of forethought,” shifting business models to suit the investors who kept the company afloat.
“She would come up with an idea on Wednesday, and on Friday there would be a new idea that was 180 degrees different,” Mr. Holmes said.
In 2006, Ms. Silsby received a Femtor Award for “Businesswoman of the Year”; the awards are sponsored by the eWomenNetwork, a group that promotes women and their businesses.
Ms. Silsby, who has young children in Idaho, was divorced in 2007. She and her former husband lived in Meridian, but public records were not clear about where she currently resides.
The offices of Personal Shopper, in an office park in Meridian, have been shuttered this week, with mail dating to at least last week stacked on the floor.
Clint Henry, pastor of Central Valley Baptist Church in Meridian, where five of the Americans charged in Haiti attend services, said Ms. Silsby had attended his church for about two years.
“You wouldn’t find any finer Christian people than these people,” Mr. Henry said in an interview earlier this week.
Toby Lyles contributed research.
Published: February 4, 2010
MERIDIAN, Idaho — The leader of the group of Americans charged on Thursday with abducting children in Haiti is an Idaho businesswoman with a complicated financial history that involves complaints from employees over unpaid wages, state liens on a company bank account and lawsuits in small claims court.
The leader, Laura Silsby, defaulted last July on the mortgage on a house in an unfinished subdivision here in Meridian, a suburb of Boise, according to the Ada County Tax Assessor’s Office. Yet in November, Ms. Silsby registered a new nonprofit, the New Life Children’s Refuge, at the address of the house, which she bought in 2008 for $358,000.
New Life Children’s Refuge is the name of the orphanage Ms. Silsby and the nine other Americans charged in Haiti said they had planned to establish in the Dominican Republic.
Ms. Silsby lost the house in Meridian to foreclosure on Dec. 7, records show, and it now stands empty, with signs in the yard promoting a foreclosure sale.
“I get mail for her all the time,” said LaChelle Bohner, who lives two doors down from the house. Ms. Bohner said the mail included collection notices.
Ms. Silsby and her business, Personal Shopper, which provides shopping services for Internet customers, have faced multiple legal claims.
According to state records and officials, Personal Shopper has been named 14 times in complaints from employees over unpaid wages. Among the reasons cited by the employees for having not been paid were “no money for payroll” and “fully investor funded and investors have been hit hard by the economy.”
Employees won nine of the cases, forcing Personal Shopper to pay nearly $31,000 in wages and $4,000 in fines. The Idaho Department of Labor initially put liens on a company bank account to get the money.
“They didn’t like that so they said: ‘How much do we owe? We’ll pay it,’ ” said Bob Fick, a spokesman for the department, adding that unpaid wage complaints were not uncommon.
State officials said Personal Shopper had paid all the wage claims upheld by the state. But another former employee has sued Personal Shopper in civil court. A jury trial is set for Feb. 22 over a claim by the employee, Robin Oliver, that Personal Shopper owes her more than $22,000.
A lawyer for Ms. Silsby said Thursday that he could not comment on the case.
One of the people awarded unpaid wages was Chris Holmes, who said he was not surprised that Ms. Silsby had run into trouble in Haiti. Mr. Holmes, who did database work, said Ms. Silsby often showed a “lack of forethought,” shifting business models to suit the investors who kept the company afloat.
“She would come up with an idea on Wednesday, and on Friday there would be a new idea that was 180 degrees different,” Mr. Holmes said.
In 2006, Ms. Silsby received a Femtor Award for “Businesswoman of the Year”; the awards are sponsored by the eWomenNetwork, a group that promotes women and their businesses.
Ms. Silsby, who has young children in Idaho, was divorced in 2007. She and her former husband lived in Meridian, but public records were not clear about where she currently resides.
The offices of Personal Shopper, in an office park in Meridian, have been shuttered this week, with mail dating to at least last week stacked on the floor.
Clint Henry, pastor of Central Valley Baptist Church in Meridian, where five of the Americans charged in Haiti attend services, said Ms. Silsby had attended his church for about two years.
“You wouldn’t find any finer Christian people than these people,” Mr. Henry said in an interview earlier this week.
Toby Lyles contributed research.
Lard Falconer and the fixed Highly Questionable Time plants
That smelly lump of lard is not fit to sit within 100 miles of Clare Short and George Galloway.
I saw the yellow T shirt plant and the man in the spectacles plant as well. Dim Bull Bee and his Common Purpose buddies will have to do better than that to catch the people out now. If he has any sense he had best not sit too close to Fatty Falconer, lest he endeth up in a Swiss clinic!
I saw the yellow T shirt plant and the man in the spectacles plant as well. Dim Bull Bee and his Common Purpose buddies will have to do better than that to catch the people out now. If he has any sense he had best not sit too close to Fatty Falconer, lest he endeth up in a Swiss clinic!
Ann Clwyd at the Iraq enquiry
Ann Clwyd's evidence will certainly sway a lot of people's emotions into believing that the illegal Iraq was was justified.
But Common Purpose is an ILLEGAL organisation, and all the dreadful stories about professional rapists in Iraq and blood drained corpses are not going to wash away the stains of that clinically blood draining organisation.
Common Purpose also hire professional rapists. Common Purpose put criminals and murderers in positions of power and authority.
You can't hide behind your Common Purpose brethren on these issues Ann!
The emotional anecdotes Ann Clywd has related today will be dwarfed with the horror that is being censored out of our own media in the UK. Prison hangings that look like suicide, professional executioners, SS child stealing, and some well dodgy activities in the Concierge industry - plus the genocide of tens of thousands of old people in hospital wards undser the Liverpool Care Pathway - oh yes, and the Pindown child abuse scandal, which was nationwide, I don't think that this government has any reason to stand on a holier than thou pedestal beatring all this in mind.
Oh yes, and she spoke about chemical weapons. All I want to say about that is Porton Down!
No excuse for this ILLEGAL war. Not one single excuse will suffice.
B.Liar lied, Goldsmith lied, Straw lied, big massive lies.
The ones who told the truth, or tried to, were ridiculed, persecuted and murdered.
No excuse.
But Common Purpose is an ILLEGAL organisation, and all the dreadful stories about professional rapists in Iraq and blood drained corpses are not going to wash away the stains of that clinically blood draining organisation.
Common Purpose also hire professional rapists. Common Purpose put criminals and murderers in positions of power and authority.
You can't hide behind your Common Purpose brethren on these issues Ann!
The emotional anecdotes Ann Clywd has related today will be dwarfed with the horror that is being censored out of our own media in the UK. Prison hangings that look like suicide, professional executioners, SS child stealing, and some well dodgy activities in the Concierge industry - plus the genocide of tens of thousands of old people in hospital wards undser the Liverpool Care Pathway - oh yes, and the Pindown child abuse scandal, which was nationwide, I don't think that this government has any reason to stand on a holier than thou pedestal beatring all this in mind.
Oh yes, and she spoke about chemical weapons. All I want to say about that is Porton Down!
No excuse for this ILLEGAL war. Not one single excuse will suffice.
B.Liar lied, Goldsmith lied, Straw lied, big massive lies.
The ones who told the truth, or tried to, were ridiculed, persecuted and murdered.
No excuse.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
For the record - a letter to Stephen O Brien MP
Dear Mr O Brien,
I am contacting you because of your involvement in the pressure group Cure the NHS who are trying to get some honest answers about what happened in Stafford Hospital.
I was assaulted at Stafford Hospital by staff in a very busy area, and have tried to get an apology and the staff who assaulted me disciplined. I do not care about compensation, I've said that over and over again. All I want is to be treated with some respect and for someone to apologise about the dispicable way I was treated, and to know the people who did it to me will never ever treat anyone in that way again.
Leigh Day and Co, the solicitors who have taken the mass case have decided to drop my case, and the excuse given to me today over the telephone is that my case is not cost effective! I told the man that the CCTV cameras would have been running, and there was a waiting room full of witnesses, so the treatment I was subjected to would have been very very clear. I asked him if the real reason my case has been dropped was because I am one of the Pindown child abuse survivors, and he denied it.
I cannot get in touch with Julie Bailey. I have tried again and again, but it seems that someone is blocking my emails to her organisation, Cure the NHS, plus she appears to have changed her telephone number. I read in the local paper that she has recieved threats over the telephone.
Julie Bailey would definatly want to hear from people like me, people who have been abused at the hospital, I know she would. I have asked Leigh Day and Co to pass on my contact details to Julie, but I do not think they can have done so, as I am sure that someone from Cure the NHS would have contacted me. So it seems that I am being deliberatly blocked from this group by some outside influence. I wonder how many other people are also being blocked from contacting Cure the NHS?
Yours faithfully,
Barbara Richards
I am contacting you because of your involvement in the pressure group Cure the NHS who are trying to get some honest answers about what happened in Stafford Hospital.
I was assaulted at Stafford Hospital by staff in a very busy area, and have tried to get an apology and the staff who assaulted me disciplined. I do not care about compensation, I've said that over and over again. All I want is to be treated with some respect and for someone to apologise about the dispicable way I was treated, and to know the people who did it to me will never ever treat anyone in that way again.
Leigh Day and Co, the solicitors who have taken the mass case have decided to drop my case, and the excuse given to me today over the telephone is that my case is not cost effective! I told the man that the CCTV cameras would have been running, and there was a waiting room full of witnesses, so the treatment I was subjected to would have been very very clear. I asked him if the real reason my case has been dropped was because I am one of the Pindown child abuse survivors, and he denied it.
I cannot get in touch with Julie Bailey. I have tried again and again, but it seems that someone is blocking my emails to her organisation, Cure the NHS, plus she appears to have changed her telephone number. I read in the local paper that she has recieved threats over the telephone.
Julie Bailey would definatly want to hear from people like me, people who have been abused at the hospital, I know she would. I have asked Leigh Day and Co to pass on my contact details to Julie, but I do not think they can have done so, as I am sure that someone from Cure the NHS would have contacted me. So it seems that I am being deliberatly blocked from this group by some outside influence. I wonder how many other people are also being blocked from contacting Cure the NHS?
Yours faithfully,
Barbara Richards
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Clare Short
"Sir Lawrence Freedman asks about post-war planning, and what happened when Short heard that the Pentagon had taken over responsibility for this from the state department.
Short says she was "shocked" when she heard about this."
****************************
It's no surprise to any of us secret family court persecuted parents. I keep saying this, I've said it over and over and over again, and I will keep on saying it over and over and over again, there is a big link between this ILLEGAL war in Iraq and the ILLEGAL childstealing of the secret family courts. I showed the MOJ the involvement of David Abrams (or Abrahams, or Martin, or however he surnames himself these days) and his military equipment supplier Eagle Associates, inviting the American paedophile psychologist Richard Gardner to give a talk to secret family court lawyers and "professionals". The same firm was making plans to stop soldiers with PTSD from claiming compensation.
Anyway, Clare is magnificent. I knew she would be, she is a decent honest person (well, she's a Brummie, salt of the earth!), I would love to see B. Liars face as he listens to this though!
Short says she was "shocked" when she heard about this."
****************************
It's no surprise to any of us secret family court persecuted parents. I keep saying this, I've said it over and over and over again, and I will keep on saying it over and over and over again, there is a big link between this ILLEGAL war in Iraq and the ILLEGAL childstealing of the secret family courts. I showed the MOJ the involvement of David Abrams (or Abrahams, or Martin, or however he surnames himself these days) and his military equipment supplier Eagle Associates, inviting the American paedophile psychologist Richard Gardner to give a talk to secret family court lawyers and "professionals". The same firm was making plans to stop soldiers with PTSD from claiming compensation.
Anyway, Clare is magnificent. I knew she would be, she is a decent honest person (well, she's a Brummie, salt of the earth!), I would love to see B. Liars face as he listens to this though!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)