August 31, 2011

The Tobacco Debate-Main Course

Do tuck in.

First, can we get that old "I have a right to fresh air" myth out of the way? No such right exists, and even if it did, it is unenforceable. Shortly after we fell out of the trees, started to walk upright, discovered fire, then discovered how to start a fire and control it, fresh air went out of the window cave. Since those days we have been breathing in whacking great lung-fulls of smoke and we haven't stopped. Not ever. The make up of the smoke may have changed, but we have continued to ingest it, (or far worse, since the Industrial Revolution), and despite the fact that wood, coal or charcoal emits 10,000 times more carcinogens, cancer was a rare beast. Before 1900 or so, cancerous tumours were almost unheard of. Strangely, when the motor car began to be mass produced, cancer cases rose exponentially. I know, like you do, that correlation does not prove causation, but it is a mighty strange coincidence, is it not?

Luckily, for the governments of the day, there was a scapegoat waiting in the wings.

This wee beastie:


Nicotine protects against a nasty condition called Pellagra. All smokers are naturally protected but governments knew that they had to protect all the non-smokers too. They launched Nicotinic Acid as a supplement to our daily diet. The anti-smokers were horrified. They campaigned and had the name changed to Niacin (a contraction of nicotinic acid) but still, the more idiotic amongst them continued to howl. Eventually the name was changed to vitamin B3. Someone should have told Kellogg. Check the ingredients in that bowl of cereal. Someone should have told Warburton. Check the ingredients in your daily bread. In fact, Niacin is part of your daily diet whether you want it or not. It is in dozens and dozens of products.

Nicotine protects against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). If you prefer your news from an anti-smoking source, you can start with the BBC. If you want to dip into one of my favourite sources of information, pop along here and read away. Non-smokers, you will discover, have higher incidences of AD, Parkinson's, Colorectal cancers, ulcerative colitis and even Tourettes Syndrome, for fucks sake.

From the same piece you will notice that smokers have better cognitive abilities too!

Quitting smoking kills you stone dead. People are often amazed when I quote the figures from this study-unique in the field of science, most anti-smoking groups (who fund these studies) stay the hell away from facts like these. (Note the usual caveat "Smoking is very bad for you and you must quit").

Pub closures cost the Treasury big time.

Pub closures since the bans were enacted here and here.

From my own recollection, the number of closures in England in 2005 were 102, in 2006 it was 204, and in the last six months of 2007 (the ban took effect in July) the number of closures was over four thousand. Please note that this was 7 months before the recession/downturn kicked in. The anti-smokers always blame the economic downturn and they are always wrong about it.

How smoking protects against lung cancer. One of my all time favourites. The logic, and the evidence, is stunning.

Of course, every anti-smoker you come across will say "Second hand smoke has killed hundreds of thousands of people this year alone!"  My standard reply to them? Name three.

Anti-smokers misquote or downright lie about the available studies on second hand smoke all the time. If you want a close look yourself, you need to understand the difference between relative and real risk. They are a world apart. Scoot back over to Dave's place and bone up statistical risk. I guarantee that the very next story you see in the Daily Mail wailing that the sky is falling, you will understand why it isn't falling at all.

Once you graduate from Statistics 101 you are ready to go visit Forces International to see all studies between 1981 and 2006, and you can see at a glance which studies were statistically significant and which ones weren't. I won't spoil the surprise for you.

I'll stop there. You have a fair bit of reading to do to understand why second hand smoke is about as harmful as a pixies fart.

But let's end with good news: Tobacco will be used in the fight against cancer.

If I have missed anything you care deeply about, or feel that I have not proven my case, do let me know and I will provide more links than a sausage factory.


The Tobacco Debate-An Aperitif

The main course will be sumptuous, I guarantee you that.

I'd like you to go and have a read at Dave Hitt's place.

I'll serve up the rest as the day progress, but just to whet your appetite:

"If SHS really is as dangerous as the government, political organizations and charities claim, efforts to prevent it and contain it might be justified. But is it dangerous? We're bombarded by endless proclamations of its horrors, claims that get more fantastic with each passing year. These claims are usually accompanied by impressive sounding numbers. Are smokers really hurting every stranger in the vicinity? The answer to that question is obvious once you know the facts. 

We're not going to rely on hype or hysteria. We won't tell you we have The Truth. We'll just present the hard cold facts and let you figure out The Truth for yourself. Every effort has been made to verify everything on this site, to make sure it as accurate and factual as possible. 

This site will not only make you an expert on the subject of SHS, but also leave you well equipped to deal with anyone using numbers to support health claims."

Back with much more later.


August 30, 2011

A Cause We Must All Support

Smoking in pubs.

I know what you are thinking: "I'm a non-smoker, this has nothing to do with me. In fact, I prefer it now that pubs don't smell".

A reasonable statement, I have heard it a thousand times. Very reasonable. Until, that is, you begin to dig deeper and think harder.

When they banned smoking in pubs & clubs in March 2006 (in Scotland) and July 2007 (In England, Wales & NornIron) something incredible happened; they divided us absolutely. Prior to these dates, friends were simply that, friends. Very shortly after the bans were enacted, we drifted apart. People we had happily co-existed with in the same shared space were badly, terribly affected by the ban. Both smokers and non-smokers.

I spent those years (2006-2010) learning everything I could about tobacco. And I do mean everything. I studied it from seed to smoke. I know what's in it tobacco, I know what "harm" it does, I know which diseases it offers protection from, I know the benefits and the disadvantages of smoking tobacco. I know it's history, who used it and when. (The answer to that one surprises most: shreds of tobacco were found in pyramids dating back more than 8,000 years). I have read 78 of the original studies on proclaimed harm from second hand smoke. I have read a hundred other meta-studies that those originals spawned. I have studied the financial aspects and who earns more from tobacco/nicotine (it's touch and go whether it is the pharmaceutical or the tobacco companies, if you must know), such a great business either smoking or stopping smoking is. The industry employs 105 million people around the world. Tobacco taxes generate trillions for greedy governments the world over. They are, honestly speaking, completely and utterly addicted to tobacco money. Caring for people who contract "smoking related diseases" (this is mostly mythical; I can pretty much prove that whatever malady was contracted can easily be contracted from a dozen different things) costs them but a fraction of what we pump into the coffers.

If anyone ever says to you "Smokers are a drain on the NHS", tell them to piss off. Smokers in the UK alone generate enough money to design, build, equip, staff and maintain EIGHT new hospitals a year. The tobacco take is £12 billion a year and (although this is a big, fat lie), smoking related illness supposedly costs £2.5 billion. As the (turncoat) MP Stephen Pound said during the (very brief) debate on smoking bans "That's not a bad deal for the country". Not a single MP denied it.  Check Hansard. It's in there.

Incidentally, did you know that we debated the Iraq war for 40 hours, the smoking ban for a measly 4 hours, and the fox hunting ban? Over 400 hours of parliamentary time. The war affected the entire nation, the smoker ban affected 15 million people and their friends, and the hunting ban? Around 100,000 people.

None of this is the point of this piece.

This, however, is:

Almost all of you come here to learn about freedom. Whether it is my personal journey you are following, or just to read up on ways you can be awkward, the basic premise is freedom; the getting and keeping of it, or to share your disgust when you learn that freedoms are being curtailed. It is for those reasons that I thought you would all, by the time you have finished reading this, rush off immediately to sign this petition.

"Why should I?", I imagine would be your first reaction.

About that I will say this:

  • When the bans came in they said it would be good for pubs. So far, we have lost 8,468 pubs.
  • They said it would be good for clubs, restaurants and bingo halls. So far we have lost over 2,000 of them
  • They said non-smokers would flock to the new, clean, fresh-smelling pubs. They did not. Hence the wholesale slaughter of some fantastic venues.
  • This one childish Act has put more than 200,000 people out of work.
  • They didn't just ban smokers. They effectively banned tolerant non-smokers as well.
  • They took away your right, Mr & Mrs Non Smoker, to decide for yourselves.
  • They ruined your friendships, interrrupted some brilliant conversations.
  • They sent YOUR older relatives outside to smoke in atrocious weather conditions.
  • Not one single life has been "saved" by this smoking ban. Not one.
  • Yet several people have died as a direct result of it. The first death was a 74 year old man in Scotland.
  • This legislation is nasty. It cost billions to implement and hurts us all.
  • Reinstating the owners right to decide will revitalise the pub industry.
  • It will allow us all to meet again in safety, warmth and comfort.
  • It will allow us all to talk, uninterrupted, once more.

I really could go on. The odours! We will be rid of them (piss, vomit, BO) once more as landlords and landladies can afford once again to switch on their air management systems. Of course, that was always the easier answer, better air management. I have seen systems that allow me to smoke in a bar separated from the barkeep and my non-smoking friends by an air curtain. The only way they know I am smoking is because they can see me.

Several suggestions are put forth by campaigners, such as:

  1. Separation-No. That is a Frankfurt Technique and I will not endure apartheid here.
  2. Segregation-No. That is even worse.
  3. Licenses for pubs that allow smoking inside.-Absolutely not. Too much regulation as it is.
  4. Allow only a set number of pubs to allow smoking. 20% is a popular number. -Nope. All landlords get to choose. 

One thing I think we can all agree on: there is scope for improvement. A great deal of scope.  In order to get those inepts talking about it again-with a fresh and honest look at the legislation-we need to nudge them. We can do that by signing the petition I am going to link to.

Points to note:

Do NOT sign the petition if you are content to be told what to do by nanny.

Do NOT sign the petition if you believe the legislation is working just fine thank you very much.

Do NOT sign the petition if your biggest gripe is having to wash your clothes after a night out.

Do NOT sign the petition if you firmly believe that you have a right to "clean" air. You don't.

Do NOT sign the petition if seeing smokers huddled outside in wind, rain and snow gives you a little buzz.

Do NOT sign the petition if you cannot decide for yourself what is safe and what isn't.

Beyond that little list, you have no reason NOT to sign the petition.

If you have a strong desire to get your MPs/MSPs/Assembly Members doing something worthwhile, creating wealth, jobs, and a safe venue for you and I to meet up and talk, then please go here and add your support for this debate.

If you want to debate the science, bring it on. I have two million facts to share with you.

If you want to debate the finances, I have 12 billion facts to share with you.

If you want to debate the freedom to choose, I have only one fact: every time they "create" a freedom for one, they take it away from another.

Always remember: one right removed diminishes us all. If we never stand together on anything, they will divide us, and divide us, and divide us. We are easier to control in small groups. I will not be controlled by these imbeciles any more. Will you?

When they "created" this freedom for you to breathe clean air (no such thing, do ask me why) they killed many people both directly and indirectly. I have examples of this. When they told smokers to get outside they opened the door for rapists to strike vulnerable women. Many have been raped as a direct result of this ban. I have examples. When they sent us outside to smoke in Scotland, the use of Rohypnol rose by a massive 140%. I have the evidence.

Was even one life (one that was never in danger; I have those facts too) saved by this nonsensical ban? No. Not a single one. Was the health of bar workers improved? Several studies in Scotland show that no, they were not.

Are you aware that 58% of quitters die of lung cancer/lung disease within 30-50 months of quitting? I have that study.

Are you aware that smoking provides protection against Alzheimers Disease? I have that study.

Are you aware that smoking prevents several cancers? I have those studies too.

Smoking is said to kill 100,000 thousand people a year in the UK. It doesn't, but they need you to believe that. The NHS alone kills between 60,000 and 80,000 people a year due directly to negligence and diseases contracted whilst in hospital. How many of those deaths, do you think, are labelled as "smoking related"?

Your government lies to you. It does this day in and day out. Why did you imagine they would tell you the truth about smoking?

I will.

Just ask.


August 28, 2011

Norman Scarth On Russia Today-UPDATED

No-one is suggesting that Norman is an angel. Just that he should not be in gaol.

Meanwhile, EUReferendum show us a couple of examples of who should be locked up. It seems we are a nation of kiddie-fiddlers. And that's ok. The paedos walk free. Almost every time. Makes you wonder about these crusty old judges, does it not?

Awkward sods like Norman need to be locked away.

For shame.

UPDATE: Just in case you think I am biased, take a closer look at our judiciary.  Not exactly saints themselves, are they?


Tip of the beret to blogger TTC and Twitterer ESGI for the heads-up. Thanks guys.

August 26, 2011

Norman Scarth-Court Report For 25th August.

In the interests of fairness, I thought I should post this court record of Norman's hearing yesterday. We have read (or followed links to) Norman's side of the story.

This is how it all looks to a different judge on a different bench.

Is it fair and balanced? You decide.

Did Judge Williams have the power to release Norman? I would say so.

He chose not to. (He explains why near the bottom).

Here you go:

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin)
Case No: CO/7741/2011
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

- and -
First Defendant
Second Defendant
The Claimant appeared in person
Suzanne Lambert (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 25 August 2011

Crown Copyright ©

  1. On 25 August 2011 I heard an application by the Claimant for a writ of habeas corpus. He also applied for bail pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal. I was also asked to consider (by his McKenzie friend, Mr Jarvis) whether or not it was open to me to hear an application by the Claimant to purge his contempt. At the conclusion of the hearing I announced that the application for habeas corpus was refused; that the application for bail pending appeal was refused and that I declined to consider an application by the Claimant to purge his contempt. I also announced that my reasons for these decisions would be given in writing and handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 August 2011. I decided to take that course so that there would be a written record, available generally, of my reasons for making the orders which I announced in court.
  2. History of proceedings
  3. The application for habeas corpus was made by a claim form issued on 12 August 2011. I was asked to consider the claim and the supporting papers as a matter of some urgency and on 15 August 2011 I made an order specifying that there should be a directions hearing on 18 August 2011. I directed that the Claimant should appear at that hearing by video link since it seemed to me to be the most efficacious way of ensuring that a meaningful hearing took place on 18 August.
  4. On 18 August 2011 the directions hearing took place before me. The Claimant appeared by video link. I was addressed by the Claimant at some length and I was also addressed by his McKenzie friend, Mr Jarvis. At the conclusion of the hearing I directed that the application for habeas corpus should be heard on 25 August 2011; that the Claimant should, again, appear by video link and that the proceedings should be served not just upon the Governor of HMP Armley but also that the Secretary of State for Justice should be served.
  5. At the hearing on 25 August 2011 I was addressed at length by the Claimant. Mr Jarvis also made representations on his behalf. I was assisted by a written skeleton argument and supporting documentation prepared by Ms Lambert. The Claimant was provided with those documents shortly before the hearing was due to take place and I accept that he had little time in which to respond to them. However, no application for an adjournment of the proceedings was made and in the light of the representations which were made both by the Claimant and Mr Jarvis I am quite satisfied that the Claimant suffered no prejudice by reason of the fact that the skeleton argument on behalf of the Defendants with supporting documents was not provided to him until shortly before the hearing.
  6. A key document provided on behalf of the First Defendant was a copy of a court order dated 26 July 2011. This case has proceeded on the basis that on 26 July 2011 before HH Judge Rose, sitting in the Bradford Crown Court, the Claimant was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of 6 months' imprisonment. A copy of the court order provided to me confirms that to be the case.
  7. The issues
  8. Despite the substantial documentation filed in support of the application for the writ of habeas corpus comparatively little detail was provided about what had occurred in the Bradford Crown Court which had caused HH Judge Rose to find the Claimant to be in contempt. However, during the course of his oral submissions the Claimant explained to me what had occurred. He told me that he had been sitting in the public gallery when it had been reported to the judge that he was recording the proceedings. My understanding is that there followed a hearing in which the judge concluded that this constituted a contempt of court and that for the contempt a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment should be imposed. Ms Lambert was unable to provide any further information about what had occurred before the judge. She accepted, however, that the judge had apparently dealt with the alleged contempt summarily.
  9. The Claimant was not represented by a lawyer and, according to the Claimant, he was unsure whether or not the recording equipment which he was using was actually working at any material time.
  10. Set against this background the Claimant complains that the proceedings before HH Judge Rose were in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Claimant also alleges that the fact of his imprisonment and/or the conditions in which he is held constitute breaches of Articles 2, 3, 7, and 10 of the Convention. Mr Jarvis made short submissions in support of those contentions. The submissions made by the Claimant were much longer but the thrust of the reasons why he alleged that his imprisonment was unlawful was a complaint was that his human rights had been violated and that HH Judge Rose had been biased.
  11. Article 6
  12. Superior courts, such as the Crown Court, have jurisdiction to deal summarily with all types of contempt, including contempt "in the face of the court". Contempt "in the face of the court" has been interpreted broadly and is not restricted to contempts actually seen by the judge. I have no doubt that it was open to the judge to investigate whether a contempt of court had been committed once it had been reported to him that the Claimant was recording proceedings. The recording of proceedings before a court is capable of amounting to contempt if no permission has been obtained for that course. In my judgment it was open to the judge to conclude that contempt had been committed. Certainly, there is nothing in the papers before me to justify a conclusion that the judge acted unlawfully when he concluded that a contempt had been committed.
  13. As I have said the Claimant was not represented before HH Judge Rose. There is no evidential basis put before me to suggest that the Claimant sought legal representation. I accept that it would have been desirable had a lawyer been appointed to represent the Claimant in what were summary proceedings for contempt. Nonetheless I am not persuaded that the fact that the Claimant was unrepresented of itself constitutes an infringement of his rights under Article 6. Throughout these proceedings the Claimant has displayed utter contempt for all lawyers and judges. In my judgment it is unreal to suppose that the Claimant truly wished to have a lawyer to represent him before HH Judge Rose.
  14. I am also unpersuaded that the fact that the judge invoked the summary procedure infringed the Claimant's rights under Article 6. No authority was drawn to my attention for that proposition and in the absence of clear authority binding on me I am unpersuaded that I should find that the Claimant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention were breached by the procedure which was adopted at the Crown Court.
  15. Articles 2 and 3
  16. As I have said the Claimant complains about the conditions of his incarceration; he also complains that the First Defendant has failed to provide him with appropriate medication. It is also submitted that incarceration, of itself, is a breach of Article 3 given the Claimant's age (he is 85) and his state of health.
  17. I accept the submissions of Ms Lambert that to the extent that this claim is directed to the conditions of the Claimant's imprisonment habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy. If the Claimant has a genuine complaint about the conditions of his incarceration he should make a formal complaint through the procedure available to him at the prison. If his complaint remains unsatisfied he might consider an application for judicial review. In any event he may consider bringing a private law claim against the First Defendant.
  18. I do not accept that the Claimant's rights under Articles 2 and/or 3 are infringed simply by virtue of his imprisonment given the state of his health and his age. As is obvious, it is regrettable that a man of 85 should find himself in the predicament which the Claimant faces. His age, alone, however, cannot be a reason for saying that his incarceration breaches his rights under Articles 2 and 3.
  19. The Claimant has asserted to me that his health is poor. However, there is no medical evidence before me and throughout two hearings the Claimant seemed capable of robust argument and steely determination to put over his point. While, of course, that does not demonstrate that he is not suffering from some ill health it is a factor which is properly to be taken into account when seeking to determine whether it is proper to infer that such is the state of the Claimant's health that his imprisonment constitutes breaches of Article 2 or 3. The reality is that there is simply no proper evidence from which it would be permissible to conclude that the Claimant's rights under articles 2 and 3.
  20. Articles 7 and 10
  21. The Claimant mentioned Article 7 but nothing he said began to explain how there was a breach.
  22. A contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. Unauthorised recording of court proceedings has long been held to be capable of constituting a contempt. The rights conferred by Article 10 are not unrestricted. There is no arguable basis that the Claimant's rights under Article 10 have been infringed.
  23. Bias
  24. The Claimant asserted that HH Judge Rose was biased. That was a theme he returned to time and time again in his submissions. There is no evidence to support this allegation. The Claimant seems to have formed the view that the action taken by the judge against him was explicable only by bias because, according to the Claimant, others have been engaged in recording court proceedings in other parts of the country but have not been dealt with in the same way. That is no basis for a conclusion of bias, real or apparent, on the part of the judge. The reality is that the Claimant considers all (or at the very least most) judges who have dealings with him are biased against him.
  25. Conclusion on habeas corpus
  26. In the absence of any basis upon which it would be proper to conclude that the Claimant has been imprisoned unlawfully or that his imprisonment has become unlawful I could not grant the writ of habeas corpus. As I sought to point out to the Claimant in the hearing on 15 August 2011 his interests are much better served by an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I am satisfied from documentation referred to by the Claimant and sent to me in the post either by the Claimant or persons acting on his behalf that the Claimant has lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. It is that court, in my judgment, which should adjudicate upon whether or not the finding of contempt of court and/or the sentence imposed for the contempt should remain.
  27. I do not pretend that I have dealt with every point which the Claimant made during the course of a speech which lasted about 45 minutes. I have, however, dealt with all of the points made which I considered had any bearing upon whether the Claimant was detained lawfully.
  28. Purging contempt
  29. During the course of his oral representations Mr Jarvis raised the possibility of the Claimant applying to me to purge his contempt. In some ways this was a surprising application since in his own representations to me the Claimant demonstrated nothing but contempt for the order made by HH Judge Rose and, indeed for the judge himself. Nonetheless I felt it my duty to consider this possibility. I did so upon the assumption that I had jurisdiction to entertain an application although Ms Lambert was not able to confirm that I enjoyed such jurisdiction. I reached the conclusion that assuming I had jurisdiction to deal with the matter I should decline to do so. It seemed to me that the appropriate forum for any such application would be the judge who had found the contempt proved and who was, far better than me, in a position to judge the seriousness of the contempt and the genuineness of the Claimant's application to purge his contempt. Alternatively, such an application could be made to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a possible outcome of the appeal that the court will uphold the finding of contempt and also determine that a sentence of six months' imprisonment was an appropriate one. Even in those circumstances, however, the court might be prepared to entertain an application to purge the contempt. I raise that possibility for the Claimant to consider. Whether he makes such an application and whether the Court of Appeal entertains it is not for me to determine.
  30. Bail
  31. I satisfied myself that the Claimant has instituted an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I directed that the hearing of his appeal should take place on the first open date after 2 September 2011. In those circumstances I declined to grant bail. Bail pending an appeal against conviction/sentence is rarely granted especially when there is a real prospect that the appeal will be heard in early course. None of the circumstances surrounding this case persuade me that it was appropriate for me to grant bail. There was little information available to me about the circumstances in which the contempt had been committed and I had no information about the Claimant's antecedent history. I should say for completeness that I assumed I had jurisdiction to grant bail not as the judge who had determined the application for habeas corpus against the Claimant but, rather, as a judge of the High Court who is authorised to sit in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and to whom an application (albeit very informally) had been made for bail pending appeal. 

The next hearing is on September 3rd. Let's see what happens then.

Despite Norman's "obvious contempt" for Judge Rose, I still think that six months is beyond harsh. Whether you are 18 and fit as a flea or 85 and full of piss & vinegar, or somewhere in between, no-one deserves six months for recording a court hearing. Judge Williams may have missed the spite that Judge Rose displayed.

None of us did, Judge Williams.

This was a nasty, spiteful, childish sentence.

Make this undeserved punishment end the next chance you get.


Oops! Forgot to post the link.

Friday Post

A mixed bag for you at the end of a news-filled week.

The Killer Cops have been at it again. No fewer than three people killed for no good reason that I can detect. Here's one story and here is another

Unkie Mu'ummar is being hunted like a rabid dog. I have no wish to hero worship him, but he isn't the monster we are led to believe. He did quite a bit for his people. Have a look at this. Not exactly a candidate for sainthood, but you cannot deny that he did spend some money on health and education.

Those of you seeking answers on personal sovereignty and self-determination could do worse than to put a pot of coffee on, get comfy, and watch these videos by Dean Clifford. We live in a complex world. It ought to be simple but TPTB have a burning desire to keep us confused and scared. To end the War on Freedom, you need start by freeing yourself. These videos are your guide to doing just that.

Regular readers will be aware of my aversion to the 5 million CCTV cameras we have watching our every move. Am I alone in this, or are they useless? Check out this write-up and decide for yourselves.

Our pal Norman Scarth appeared in the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday and was returned to gaol for another week. He will reappear in court on September 3rd. I will advise time and venue when I get them. Every trip from the gaol to the court is torture for Norman. He has no meat on his seat-bones and those trips in a metal truck are extremely painful for him. If you are a member or the Twitterati, could you please try to add the hashtag #freenorman with each tweet? We need a damn sight more than 2100 signatures if we are to free this man. Let's get him home safe, eh?

Let's go into the weekend with a couple of gags.

Knob jokes are always popular:

(Click to embiggen)

This one is worrying:

Paedo alert?

Have a bodacious weekend.


August 22, 2011

What Next For Libya?

Human rights abuses, cronyism, massive amounts of taxpayer money gone in dubious circumstances, "difficult" people assassinated, law book thrown out when it suits the leader, excessive force used by power-crazed cops, bizarre political decisions, countrywide surveillance of its citizens, strange associations with foreign governments, people gaoled on a whim, and massive corruption.

But enough about the UK.

This is about New Libya.

It is surely only a matter of hours before the rebels can claim they have won. They have liberated the country from....well, from what exactly?

Speaking from my own experience (I have been travelling to Libya several times a year for more than ten years. In fact, I spent a huge chunk of 2010 there) the changes have been significant and they have been positive.

Apart from the cost of renting, forced up artificially by foreign oil companies, everything else was reasonably priced. A litre of unleaded was 6p, a can of Coke about 18p, a packet of smokes about 80p. Staples like bread and rice were extremely cheap. I do not recall the price of a loaf of bread changing since 2001. Hotels are priced stupidly, again, this was to take advantage of visiting oil company execs.

Gadaffi did share the oil revenues-to a degree-in that he said any Libyan could simply fill in a few forms and they would be given £250 (500 dinars) each per month. That payment was for each member of the family. Parents with six kids? No problem, here's your 4000 dinars. Friends in Tripoli told me it was a right pain to get the forms signed off, but when they were, free money! Nobody starves in Libya. The poor can get lots of help if they ask for it, and there was a good welfare program in place. They are a highly educated people. Mostly, they emigrate to pastures new when they get their degrees.

The country pretty much runs on paper. If you ever wanted anything from the government, if the right stamp wasn't on your paperwork, forget it. Much of Africa is like this. Bureaucracy is king. There was/is a stunning amount of corruption. At the top, and all the way down. Palms are expected to be greased. A simple traffic stop can be dealt with by handing a couple of folding notes to the cops. Mind you, I did not witness a single crime in over ten years. You could walk the streets whenever you liked. Libyans are friendly, and they are welcoming. I have eaten many a dinner in the home of a guy I had met only hours before in a cafe.

Their views on women are somewhat backward. A womans place is in the kitchen or in the bed. I have seen young Libyans chanting obscenities at a foreigner (usually Tunisian or Moroccan) who dared to show a calf, or Allah forbid, a knee. Female "repression" was not government policy. There are plenty of women in positions of responsibility in government. Gadaffi himself opened a womens police academy not far from Green Martyrs Square in Tripoli. They can drive (unlike in Saudi Arabia) but they tend to drive very timidly. Not surprising as the men drive very aggressively. In fact, the only time I felt I was in any danger was when I crossed the road.

So the country was reasonably stable (until February 2011) and I am not sure where it will go from here. A swift sniff around the web tells us that the head of the NTC is a CIA plant. That the tribal wars will kick off. That the west will secede and the country will be divided as it always was, historically speaking.

Lots and lots of rumours. Unsubstantiated, as ever. Yet the talking heads have all the answers on Aunty Beeb. Cameron thinks that he played a decisive hand in the liberation of Libya, and I know he will milk it like a prize cow. Maybe we can expect a book? "Gadaffi: My Part In His Downfall", perhaps.

As always, we must wait. The country is in a mess and it will take some untangling. And patience. A very great deal of patience. But the Libyans must be left alone to decide their own fate. They have to live there, so they, and they alone, must be the architects of their own new society.

Good luck and godspeed.

Oh, and keep your hands off my DVD collection and my clothes in my villa in Ben Ashur, m'kay? I want them back.


August 20, 2011

Question Everything.

This is a very interesting conversation.

Liz Watson is a forensic investigator and a paralegal. Listen as she asks some basic questions of the Bulk Centre. They "authorise" local councils to issue Warrants. Unlawfully. Warrants must be signed by a judge or a magistrate to have any legality/lawfulness. This local councils simply churn them out, demanding money from people, without even bothering to follow any recognisable law process. And people receiving these "warrants" simply pay up. They assume they are real.

They are not.

If, like me, you enjoy hearing the jobsworths in the judiciary squeal, then set aside some time to listen to the phone calls in this clip.

Listen right to the end as one manager, caught out in the scam, simply hangs up.

Scary stuff. This practise is absolutely illegal and very definitely unlawful. All of your most basic rights are being violated. For the sake of a few quid. It is pitiful.

Listen, learn, and protect yourself. No-one else will. The trick is to always ask questions. Always say no. Say it politely, and firmly, but get used to saying it.

It will transform your life.


August 19, 2011

Norman Scarth Update (2)

Got this in my inbox yesterday but was unable to post.

What a disgusting nation we live in.

Norman Scarth’s case was presented today at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Norman attended by video link from Leeds, was in good mental health, and he presented his case to the judge in very respectful and polite terms.

Judge Wyn Williams DENIED NORMAN DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. He adjourned the case until next week, sending Norman back to prison. There was coverage by Russian TV, and a few members of the press.

The judge ordered that Norman be allowed to have contact with legal representation, which the prison has been denying him. However, he refused to order that Norman be given his prescription medication, thereby forcing Norman to be kept in torture for a further week.

The judge did not release Norman and there were loud shouts and cries from the public gallery. Judge Williams was seen to be shaking.

Judge Wyn Williams has summoned Kenneth Clarke, Minister of Justice to Court next week, along with the Prison Governor, Paul Baker of Leeds Prison, who was supposed to have been present today, but was not.

Norman’s supporters are calling for the public WORLDWIDE to sign the public petition to FREE NORMAN, Arctic Convoy veteran hero, 86 years old who is being denied his human rights and medication in Leeds Prison, UK.

Will the public please help Norman Scarth by signing the petition as quickly as possible and telling all their friends? Will you please help with the campaign by spreading the word far and wide, contacting the media with this story, and  any and all contacts you may have so that this will go viral and we will get more names on the petition. We need many more by next week.


This is not good enough. If you have an ounce of humanity please sign this petition. Ask everyone you know to sign it as well.

Thank you.


August 16, 2011

Event Horizon

Mark this day. Mark it well.

Today the PR campaign to launch the Fourth Reich began. That ferret von Rumpoy has been crowned King by Merkel and Sarkozy. The United States of Europe is just around the corner now.

Practise the new EuroSalute.

If you think this is a good thing, never darken my doorstep again.

Sue has the story here.

A sad, bad, dark, dark dismal day.

Let's swear an oath, you and I, to stop these bastards.


August 15, 2011

Vote For Meeee!

Just kidding.

Vote for whoever you want to, depending on your blog preferences.

As this is the last bastion of free choice, I invite you to vote for your ten favourite bloggers.

Full information can be found here.

Pick any ten from my Awkward Sods list on the right and you will not go far wrong. They produce an amazing array of finely written opinion pieces and I am pleased to have them here. Their writing puts mine to shame.

Right, I'm off to vote for some of my pals. (If there was a way to get you all on the voting sheet, I would do it in a heart-beat).


Norman Scarth Update

Complaints have been lodged with various bodies about Norman's treatment.

This has gone beyond a joke.

Please publicise if you can. He has now served longer than Lord Ahmed who killed a man on the motorway shortly after texting. Ahmed served just 16 days. Refresh your memory here.

These emails arrived in my inbox this morning:

Mr. Geof Dobson
Prison Reform Trust
15 Northburgh Street

Dear Mr. Dobson:

CASE S20110514, COURT 5, JULY 26, 2011  

I wish to draw your attention to a very serious and urgent problem, to which authorities are not responding, and the vindictive circumstances under which a severe and unjust sentence was meted out to Mr. Norman Scarth. Nobody at all is responding; in particular, government ministers who have the power to intervene, yet are wilfully blind, or attempt to be so.  

I ask that you take emergency action by using your influence to help Norman Scarth, who is suffering torturous conditions, and denied medications and access to a lawyer.

Judge Jonathan Rose of Bradford Crown Court committed Norman to Leeds Class B Prison for six months, which he is spending in solitary confinement. He is charged with contempt of court for attempting to switch on a recording device in court.

The courts are denying his right to habeas corpus and it seems that the intent is to cause Mr. Scarth’s premature death in Leeds Prison, simply for turning on a recording device.

There is much media attention surrounding this case, and we intend to release more details to the media at the beginning of the week, along with filing a complaint with the UN and EU for the gross violations of Human Rights Conventions, which filing will take place before the end of the day on Monday, August 15, 2011.

Leeds Court Manager has denied Mr. Scarth’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, twice, and now the Royal Courts of Justice in London is similarly blocking the processing. A full week has already passed, and there is obviously criminal collusion to deny Mr. Scarth, an 85 year old World War II veteran, his rights as a human being.

Her Majesty has been made aware of all the details of this case by the Governor General of Canada. Mr. Scarth was brought into the courtroom like a common criminal, in handcuffs, July 26,  and sentenced by Judge Jonathan Rose.

There is a huge public outcry, and this matter will not be laid to rest.

I am sure you will be similarly outraged.

Your sincerely,



For the urgent attention of the addressees:

Mr. Nick Hardwick, HM Inspector of Prisons
Dr. Peter Selby, Independent Monitoring Board
Rt. Hon. Crispin Blunt, Prisons Minister
Mr. Michael Spurr, National Offenders Management Service
Mr. Paul Baker, Governor, Leeds Prison
Ms. Emma Marshall, Prisons and Probations Ombudsman Assessment Team
The Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke, MP, Secretary of State for Justice
Ms. Maggie Woods, HMPS Healthcare Manager, Leeds Prison
Ms. Ann Lavery, PALS NHS Leeds

Dear Sirs:


You are hereby put on notice for your failure to attend to the matter of Mr. Norman Scarth’s unlawful confinement and official complaints, as advised in previous urgent emails.

Further to previous correspondence on the matter of Norman Scarth, I wish to impress upon your that significant delay on your authority's part may well prove fatal to Mr. Scarth, who is an 85 year old gentleman with health problems. You are aware of the relationship between distress and cardiac arrest. It is clear from Mr. Scarth's correspondence that the Prison is placing him in severe distress. This places him at high risk of deterioration. Essentially, the matter is simple – Mr. Scarth should not be in prison, as he is not a danger to the public. It is therefore in the interests of the prison to avoid a fatality. In order to do that, you must recommend that his sentence and complaints be reviewed immediately.

I am therefore making the following points. Your response/or lack of will be used in the formal complaint made to the United Nations.
1. Attached are further complaints from Mr. Scarth, which are not being actioned, and Ms. Emma Marshall has already been advised of this. I am placing you on notice that Norman Scarth, Prisoner A1903CF, Leeds Prison, is complaining about Age Discrimination and the fear of being abused by prison officers while showering. He is unable, therefore, to attend to personal hygiene.

The  other matters outlined in the attached documents, include
a. Denial of his basic rights,
b. Denial of his medications,
c. Denial of access to legal counsel
d. Theft of his property by prison staff.

2. You have already been advised that his complaints are not being processed. I am therefore  requesting an immediate intervention. Mr Scarth is a human being, and British subject in distress. It will therefore be considered wilful negligence, in the event no immediate action is taken. Unfortunately, slow correspondence will not do when someone is in physical distress and you have been wilfully blind in this matter. In the event this lack of action results in Norman’s death, those who have not acted will be held personally liable.

3. Wilful blindness will be considered criminal recklessness. All parties have been previously advised that Mr. Scarth has been denied his prescribed pain medication and, by denying him, all parties herein are aware of his torture in Leeds Prison, and will be held culpable.

4. Your authorities have a duty of care,  and should have acted immediately in order to alleviate the problem. As this has not happened, it will be considered gross negligence. Should anything happen to Mr. Scarth, it will be gross negligence causing death, which is a very serious matter indeed.

5. May I ask that you provide all internal documents, as I wish to make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act combined with a Freedom of Information Act to access all internal documentation relevant to my formal complaint to yourselves.

In light of the seriousness of this issue, I shall be grateful if  Ms. Marshall  would re-evaluate her plan of action. URGENT intervention is required by all parties to this communication.

In conclusion, please advise, on the basis of previous complaints and several contacts made with Ms Emma Marshall, and the attached further complaints (none of which have been actioned by the prison), and including the complaint that complaints are not being actioned, how you intend to proceed and, when. You will no doubt agree that it is simply not adequate or acceptable for any of you evade the issues in light of the emergency nature of this issue.

As I have explained before to Ms. Emma Marshall, the delays that have been characteristic of this case are currently totally  unacceptable. Significant stress leading to a cardiac arrest will result in death. Given the mortality rate of Leeds Prison is already significantly high, it may be in the authority's best interests for immediate intervention. This may prevent future litigation and adverse publicity.

I hope to hear from you within 24 hours. If I have not heard from you, this document will be sent to the Special Rapporteurs at the United Nations accompanied by a formal complaint against the UK's failure to care for its elderly prisoners in line with current human rights and equality legislation. Please review this link in relation to the steps that will be taken in 24 hours regarding the gross violation of civil liberties meted out on a elderly gentleman in the care of your authorities.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,


This is nothing other than a vindictive sentence, issued by a judge in a bad mood. Is that how we want to continue? Spiteful judges and stupid sentencing? If so, do nothing.

If, however, your blood is boiling like mine, let's do what we can to get him out.



August 14, 2011

A Fine Day For It

Scootering, that is.

Until I decide on a geared bike I am pootling around the countryside on my Sym 125. Every ride is a lesson and I am building on my roadcraft. Generally, other bikers give me a nod or a wave, and some of them studiously ignore my nodding and waving. It is usually the bigger bikes that ignore me. I seem to be in the lowliest caste of two-wheelers. Not that it bothers me overmuch. I am enjoying myself even if I am not capable of ripspeed. The countryside can be viewed comfortably at 50mph.

Or in my case, one of the local harbours. At 0mph.


This is Findochty, on the Moray coast. (It is pronounced "Fin ech tee".)

Lovely old fishermens cottages, with a couple of lobster boats on the left-hand side.

Pics will engorgulate if clicked.

The, erm, Silver Dream Machine.

A good ride today. I am now picking roads that are bendy, having learnt how to lean better.

Still not decided on a cruiser yet. All I know is that I prefer one of those over a bike that travels at the speed of hot snot.

I'm built for comfort, baby, not speed. I may as well buy a bike that suits me.


Norman Scarth Is Still In Gaol

In solitary confinement, no less.

Why does this frail old man frighten them so?

Yesterday his loyal friends held a protest outside Armley gaol in Leeds.

Please follow this link for a very sympathetic report from the Yorkshire News

You may or may not notice the link to a petition for his release so I'll pop it here.

Please do the needful. It only takes a moment to complete. I'd be very grateful if fellow bloggers could publicise this petition and raise awareness.

We know Norman is no angel, but do you really agree to his continuing solitary confinement just because he is an awkward old salt?

Me neither. Sign the petition. Then ask your pals to do the same.

Thank you.


August 11, 2011

The Oath of Constable

Just so you know...

I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

Do you see anything in that Oath that says I, Officer Dibble, of Copperville, will serve and protect you, Joe Public?

Me neither.

Different oaths for different countries here.


Consumed With Indifference

Today I wasted several hours of my life.

I watched a packed House of Commons debate the recent rioting.

Disappointment followed disappointment as the 649 inepts struggled to find a way through the maze. It should have been 650 inepts but the most inept, one Gordon James Brown, showed his grubby, greedy face for less than 30 minutes before sloping off to the wilderness he inhabits these days, on full pay.

"Bring in the army!" wailed some.

"Switch off Blackberries!!!" whined others.

"Tougher sentencing!" screeched others.

"Deploy the water cannon!" howled another.

"Punish the parents!" screamed other, more naive MPs.

Nothing will change. Not for all the tea in China.

Liberties will be lost, as our inepts take guidance from the Chinese on closing down our vital communication tools. How utterly marvellous. How innovative. We have 1000 idiots but the best course of action is to punish 60 million?

The catch-phrases were "Community", "Regaining the streets", "Restoring Laura Norner" (who ever she is), "Lessons will be learned", and that old favourite from CMD, "We are all in this together".

No, we aren't.

I pay my electricity bill. I also pay yours.

I pay my mortgage. I also pay your rent for Westminster Palace.

I pay for my own petrol. I also pay for yours.

I make the payments on my car. I also pay for your cars.

You don't pay my wages. I pay yours.

You don't pay my living expenses. I pay yours.

You (CMD) paid £10,000 per week for your holiday villa. My holiday was spent at home this year.

No, Mr Millionaire, we are NOT in this together. You, and most of those MPs inhabit a whole different planet than the rest of us. YOU live in a bubble where you assume we all support the elected ones. Not all of us do. The very best part of my year is when you lot are all away in Tuscany, Australia, New York, or wherever else it is you descend upon for your holidays. I am not even jealous. I don't care how much money you have. I don't care how much it costs you to accommodate your family on your summer break.

But what really upsets me is that phrase "We are all in this together". We aren't, so stop saying it.

All too predictably, you reached for the stick to deal with this current crisis. No carrots in there, Dave? None at all? No. You thought long and hard about how to make it worse for law-abiding citizens. You agreed with some that we need more cameras watching our every single move. Despite the fact that they are useless. You slammed the looters (rightly) and omitted to acknowledge (wrongly) that we are mostly a law abiding country. You praised the police to the high heavens (and I do not doubt that there were hundreds of acts of bravery) whilst forgetting to mention that they may very well have kicked this all off by charging needlessly into a 16 year old girl protesting peacefully outside a police station.

Listening to (Labour) MPs whining and moaning about this, that & the other reconfirms for me how utterly bereft of intelligence they are. I was embarrassed for the constituents they represent. Dianne Abbott, Kerry McCarthy (both Labour drones) and the absolutely feckless Nadine Dorries uttered inanities. The males fared no better lest you think this is a gender thing. They are all absolutely hopeless. They should have stayed away for all the sense they brought into the HoC today.

I really am consumed with indifference. I am 100% underwhelmed.

These idiots suck every ounce of joy out of my life.

I disavow them all. They do not act in my name. They do not have my consent to curb the liberties of my countrymen.

I wash my hands of them.

But I fear they may never come clean. I helped them to ruin my country. I helped them to turn this green and pleasant land into the most surveilled nation in the world. I helped them increase my taxes to unheard of heights. I helped them to wedge open that immigration door.

I helped them.

I helped them by doing nothing to stop them.

I'm not sure about you, but I will not help them any more.

Not ever again.


August 10, 2011

August 09, 2011

UK Baying For Draco

Despite the fact that he died around 620 BC, Draco the Lawgiver must be spinning with excitement in his grave.

We have witnessed some horrific scenes over the last few days. Acts of violence and theft committed by pure scum. There is no nobility in their actions. There is no honour. There was no need for this scandalous criminality.

I doubt that I can add any more words to a story that will play out over the next days, weeks and months.

What I would like to do though, is ask normally level-headed people to chill out. If I had a quid for every time I saw words like this, I would be a wealthy man:

"Send the army in!"

"Shoot them all!"

"Bring back hanging!"

And so on and so forth.

We pay billions of £££'s every year to ensure that police officers have the very best protective equipment, and that they receive the very best training for exactly this kind of civil disturbance. On this very blog we have looked at the police, live and in full colour, beating the bejesus out of protesters. Last night though, instead of kettling and righteous clubbing from the cops, I saw this:

I saw it time after time after time.

These boys in blue were happy to kettle young students, anti-war protesters, and other "soft" groups. But when it came to violent thugs, they stood by, claiming that "there are not enough of us". (Bear that in mind for what comes later.)

Send the army in? It is a very tiny mind that comes to that conclusion. The police have not yet fully deployed and they have not yet exhausted all methods of crowd control at their disposal. CS gas has not been used. Snatch Teams (to my knowledge) have not been used. Tasers have not been used. For legal reasons water cannon can not be used. So it is far too early to even think about deploying troops. Besides which, it is not their job. They should never be asked to control riots. Never. If you want to see how badly it can go wrong when squaddies are deployed, look south to Tunisia and Libya, look east to Syria and Bahrain. It goes pear-shaped very, very quickly. I am stunned that some empty-heads were screeching for martial law. FFS!

Enough of this. I'm reasonably sure you have read similar elsewhere.

I think we learnt at least two lessons from all this:

1. We are about to lose some liberties.
2. It doesn't take much to take over the streets.

That thin blue line is anorexic. My timing may well be all the way off, but the last few days have demonstrated much better than my words ever have that we are many and they are few. Imagine, if you can, just 500 people in every town and major city demanding full restoration of those rights which the government willingly (and unlawfully) gave away to Europe? Peaceful action by a significant number of people would ensure a complete takeover of the country in a matter of hours or days. Remember this the next time you try to convince yourself that we cannot bring about change if we were determined to.

Just in case you conclude that I am having a pop at the cops: I am not. I actually think they should have gone in hard, faster. With violent thieves, and they are no more or less than that, a spanking is all they understand. A solid teak baton around the napper would have stopped dozens of them cold. And when their cohorts see the claret fly, it concentrates the mind. This is probably the first and last time you will see me condone tough action from the police. The rioters broke my only law: do no harm. I would expect exactly the same harsh treatment if it was me doing the violence and the thieving.

We have been rewarding our thugs for 20 years. Warm, comfy cells, complete with PS3's, laptops and High Def tellies. When they are released, after serving a fraction of their sentence, we send them on their way with a hug. I believe, firmly, that most of this was Labour's doing. I just hope someone tells them that, repeatedly.

No martial law, no troops on the streets, no hanging. Got that?

I refuse to hand over any more of my liberties because a couple of hundred light-fingered bastards couldn't control themselves.

Punish those half-wits by all means.

But leave me the fuck alone.

You already stole too many of my rights. I want them back.


August 08, 2011

Norman Scarth Needs Our Help

Although we never asked him, this war hero was there for us.

It's time to repay him.

If you are not familiar with the story, the bare bones of it are this: Norman, 85, was hauled into court. Fearing (rightly) that he would be stitched up, Norman used his mobile phone to record the proceedings. Someone noticed and told the judge. This was such an affront to the court that the judge gaoled him for contempt of court.

Ordinarily, contempt of court warrants a few hours in a cold cell to "think about what you did". Most people send an apology to the court, they are released, and the case gets underway again.

In Norman's case, they gaoled him for SIX MONTHS!

He has been denied visitors, pens, paper, a hospital visit, and this old man, in no condition to survive and thrive is locked up for 23 1/2 hours a day.

This is the man we are talking about:

Such a huge threat to decent society must be caged, no?

Hell no. He must be released immediately. I rarely get down on bended knee for anyone these days, but I am begging for your help to publicise this travesty. Beyond murder or violent assault, I cannot think of a single reason to justify this man's continuing incarceration. It serves no purpose, and it does not show anyone, least of all the judiciary, in a good light.

This is a letter from Norman:


Martin Narey, Director General of the Prison Service, wrote of “HELL HOLE PRISONS”. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbottom spoke on the Frost programme of ‘BARBARIC PRISON GUARDS’. See his book PRISONGATE.


Solitary Confinement for 23 ½ hours a day, lying on my bunk staring at the bunk above only 12¨ above my head, unable to sit up in bed. (as doctor’s orders).

Nothing to read, nothing to write on, no watch, no radio, nothing to do but stare at the rotten stinking TV pumping out brainwashing garbage. (“Live in luxury with colour TV” says the so-called “News Media”) That IS Hell!!

Bad enough for anyone but for WW2 ‘Hero’ (as others have called me) who has worked honestly & hard for 70 years it is TORMENT!

The previous HMCIP Judge Sir Steven TUMIN told of people being sent to prison “BY SOME SLIMY JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE” (He “DIED SUDDENLY”).

MY CRIME? I had on me a ‘RECORDING DEVICE’ (as do ALL those with a mobile phone, ALL of which have a recording device. But I dared to switch mine on before asking permission of the judge. Why did I do so? It is my belief that there are many rotten apples in the judiciary, and for the last 15 years it has been my mission in life to expose them. It has been THEIR mission to silence me – by ANY MEANS, including potentially lethal terror attacks (as on 8th August 1999 & 20 July 2000).

As part of my mission I stood for Parliament & published the book ‘Cause for Concern’ in 1997. However, I was still regarded as a noisy old buffoon, a Parliamentary no-hoper. This changed after my single-handed success in the ECtHR brought a vital change in British law incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act. The change is much hated (by) lawyers & judges – AND I AM HATED FOR IT. Just 17 DAYS after the ECtHR decision came an attack on 8th Aug 1999. It was intended to silence me by fear, a heart attack or stroke the hoped for outcome. Few men of my age (73 then) would not have one or the other. However, I survived, so 11 months later there was a second attack during which I was given a brutal kicking that put me in hospital. To cover up these crimes there was a malicious prosecution for a NON-EXISTENT ‘crime’. Where others would have been given Probation, Community Service or Suspended Sentence, I was given TEN YEARS! – the intention being that I would die in prison. The horror became worse but I skip that for now. Sufficient to say that I did not succumb to the torment & torture, but survived long enough to have ‘PAID MY DEBT TO SOCIETY’(?). AFTER 7 YEARS, I WAS RELEASED. However, I have continued my mission to expose the rotten apples in the judiciary & am STILL under attack because of it – physical & financial!

Their hatred of me is proved by the savagery of the 10 year sentence & the savagery of this sentence. “It’s only 6 months”. AT 85 how many 6 months periods do I have left?


I INTENDED to ask Jonathan Rose for permission to use my recorder but did not get the opportunity to do so. Why DID I switch it on? I suspected there might be skulduggery during that case.

We are told that only those doing wrong need fear CCTV cameras. Why then are judges so TERRIFIED of being recorded. There is much more to this story, but the fact is that anybody in (the) land can commit ANY crime against me with impunity, but if I blink an eye I will be stamped on with savagery. So far the stamping has not been as that on Andy McCardle.



PS. It has ‘only’ been 72 hours so far, but at 85 every single day is precious to me, especially for the VITAL work I have to do to prevent Britain becoming even more of a POLICE STATE than it is now.

The present excitement about the Olympics is reminiscent of Berlin in 1936. To keep the people distracted from the horror behind the scenes.

The Opium of the Masses” said Karl Marx. He said it about Religion, now it is SPORT

Monday 1st August 2011. Tomorrow I SHOULD be keeping an appointment at BRI (Hospital) but they refuse to take me.

Got the first sheet of paper on Wed 27th July. Got this one Sat 31st. No stamps or envelopes until Sat 7th Aug, so will be unable to post this before 9th Aug. IF they get it before 10th Aug it will be because I have managed to scrounge them from other prisoners. Please send copies of these documents to: My legal consultant xxx xxxxxxx who is a Human Rights Specialist.

My Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Paul Beavan (Bevan?) & Psychiatric Nurse Helen Poulter at Lynfield Mount Hospital: to Neil Craig at the Royal Hotel, Low Moor, & to THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD.

Stamps sent in for me have been sent back to the sender. A blank card with a stamp affixed has been given to me, but the stamp has been torn off. That is THIEVERY!

Please adopt the slogan ‘HELP for Heroes’. Get on to that organisation & DEMAND they do something dramatic NOW! If they do not then they must hang their heads in shame forever more. 6 months at 85 is equal to 15 YEARS for a younger man.

Visiting Order enclosed. It says “CONCERNED OR WORRIED ABOUT A FRIEND AT HMP LEEDS? Ring 0113 203 2972.” Please ask the WHOLE WORLD to do so.

Please copy the Complaint Form & send it to the prison. My hands are in cramp and I CANNOT write everything out again even if I can get the paper.

This is a death camp. They drive people to take their own lives, then they call it ‘SUICIDE’.

Please be quick. I think they will send me to a prison far away suffering the TORTURE of prison vans. With no flesh on my buttocks & very low seats my thighs make no contact, all the weight on my seat bones.

I have already put in a Complaint at the seizing of the envelope with the bundle of documents which were to be posted to the Court of Appeal. That is Obstructing / Perverting the Course of Justice – a crime subject to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

JUDGE” Jonathan Rose was acting in GROSS breach of his own Judicial Oath & that of the Queen (in whose name he purports to act) who swore before ALMIGHTY GOD to Deliver JUSTICE with MERCY. He was thus MASQUERADING as a judge and ‘Obtaining money (his salary) by false pretences.

I am forced to sleep in my clothes as I am very cold (a symptom of shock?).

I do suffer from agonising cramp & have been prescribed tablets for it, but am denied them here.

See the ‘United Kingdom Standard Minimum Treatment for Prisoners 1984(?).

Demand that the prison doctor reads them.

I can post without a stamp, but it goes 2nd Class ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT TODAY MON 1st AUG!! But I can only remember a few addresses anyway.

Please thank Sabine McNeill for her WONDERFUL letter.

Get on to Patrick Cullinane & remind him (of) our conversation at Harrow.

NEIL CRAIG at Royal Hotel, Low Moor might be best man to get on to ‘HELP FOR HEROES’. Demand that they do something for THIS Hero.

Can you please send me a copy of the report in the Telegraph & Argus.

As you will read eleswhere, Norman is no angel. He is an Awkward Sod with a Black Belt 6th Dan.

Remember though that the judge was not passing sentence on his past misdeeds, he gaoled him for what he did on the day.

If you wish to drop him a line, please use this address:

Prisoner A1903CF
D-Wing 240
2 Gloucester Terrace
Stanningley Road
LS12 2TJ
Please, please, please spread the word. Let's get something done for this man.

Thank you,