September 29, 2011

Picking Fights-Updated

Two stories to tell this week.

The first is about electricity and the unreasonable (in this case unlawful and illegal) costs demanded by suppliers. I suppose we can mostly agree that they want too much money, but what gets my goat is the "green" shit attached to my energy bill.

They sent me an estimate for the next 12 months. £2,800. That's two thousand eight fucking hundred British pounds. I phoned them up to ask if they were doolally. They are. And it has forced me to write to their legal department to ask several questions. The wifey on the phone, (a very cheerful lady) said that 12% of my bill goes to the government for "environmental & social schemes, CO2 emissions, and the like". And the like? She couldn't expand on that last fuzzy definition of what the charges went to.

I asked her "Who says you have to charge me 12% for this nonsense?".

"Government", she says, quite emphatically. (She thought she had dodged a bullet there. She was wrong).

"Really?", I ask, "So can you just quote me the statute, Bill or Act that says so?".

"Erm, no. I don't have it to hand" she says.

"No problem, I'm paying for the call, go and get it from your legal peeps".

8 minutes on hold.

"I called them and they can't put their fingers on the exact law at this time" she says.

"That's because no such law exists", says I.

She had lost all of her earlier cheerfulness. I think I may have ruined her day.

Anyhoo, I knew it wasn't her problem, and we had already discovered that no-one told her that they were scamming customers out of (what must be) millions of £££'s each year.

So I have sent them an FOI request to discover just exactly when they started charging me this 12%, to ask for the statute by name, and for them to point out specifically where it says that I, the consumer, must pay it. I asked them a couple of other awkward questions while I was at it. I'll get back to you on this when they get back to me. They have 20 days and counting.

Courtesy of our pal Nige, check this video out:

Good stuff this. It is information you can and should use. I fully intend to.

The second story is about that bully we pay billions to every year-the taxman. I used to dread talking to them, nowadays I find unparalleled joy in our little talks.

Back in 2003 I wasn't earning much. One day a form drops through my door entitled "Do you qualify for working tax credits?". I had no idea, so I filled it in and sent it off. They wrote back and said "You DO qualify! We will start sending you truckloads of money". And they did. It all went well for about three months. I got a promotion and a pay rise at work and I duly informed them by phone, as instructed. "We will send a new form for you to fill in" they said. The form arrived, I filled it in and sent it off. (Basically the form was the written version of our telephone conversation). Instead of reducing the amount they were paying, they increased it. I phoned and said "Stop sending me money. I do not qualify for (this much) anymore". "No problem" said they, "We will amend the figure". They didn't. The money kept on coming. Long story short, I made about 14-20 calls to them over an 18 month period. I filled in more forms than you could wave a shitty stick at, and they kept getting it wrong. Every time. Their gormlessness reached unprecedented heights.

Fast forward five years. I forget to complete the annual form. They write to me saying "We want our £6K back". I said "Nope. Not paying that. How do we make this go away?". They said "Keep filling in the annual forms we send and we will never ask you for the money". So that is what I did. They paid me something each year (a small sum) but they took it off me again and used that to whittle down the total. All good until last Friday.

I got a demand. In the post. I rang them for a chatsky.

They said, "We want our £4K."

I said, "Nope. Not paying it. You told me...etc etc".

They said, "Well, you no longer qualify for any money whatsoever and now we want that overpayment back".

I said, "How do we make this go away?".

They said, "Let's set up a standing order".

"Ain't gonna happen", says I, "Think of another way".

"We---ell," they said, "If you think we messed up that might be a way of getting rid of your debt".

"WHOA!", says I, "Let's never use that expression again. It is not my debt. You screwed up every step of the way. This is not my problem, it is yours. You fix it".

"Erm, okay. We'll send you some forms", they said.

The forms arrived yesterday. They mostly state both parties responsibilities and I rapidly discovered that I had honoured every single one of mine (and I told them so) and that they had dishonoured every single one of theirs (and I told them so), I used every available millimetre of white space to explain why, how and when they had fucked it all up. It went in the post this morning.

They have two weeks to get back to me. One thing I will guarantee: it will be a cold day in hell before I pay them a penny. Even if they don't like my version of events, I have at least six other ways to tie them in knots.

My reasoning is this: if I call the garage and order a mini, but they deliver a  BMW 320 and I point out their mistake, and they do nothing to correct their mistake, I am going to drive the Beemer. Then, 8 years later when they ask me to pay for a Beemer and not the mini that was promised, I am going to say....fuck off.

The two stories are related in that they are both demanding money from me. The energy company (with whom I have a private contract) will be paid what I lawfully owe but I am not paying them an additional 12% when they have absolutely no legal obligation to charge me for this shite in the first place. I am not the first to challenge an energy company on this issue. The precedent is in place.

The taxman screwed up. Apart from any other lawful excuse I may employ to make the problem go away, I also remember (Blair?) announcing to the HoC that overpayments would not be clawed back. I searched Hansard but could not find that particular speech. I'll keep looking.

In the meantime, try saying no. It works a treat.


September 28, 2011

Whose Brine Is It Anyway?

One of my cleverer blog titles. Like it?

If you are Scottish, you will not like what follows.

In 1999, Labour politician and later Scottish First Minister-from 2000-2001-Henry McLeish signed away ownership to the waters surrounding Scotland. He gave away oil, gas, fish, and all that presumed wave-power the Scots thought were theirs by birthright.

Have we learned yet? Politicians never give. But they take plenty. It doesn't even have to belong to them in the first place.

If there was ever a reason for the 5.2 million Scots to rise up, or at least enter Lawful Rebellion, it is this.

Read it and weep, my Scottish cousins. Then, cause a stramash. It's in your DNA. You are good at it when you need to be. Remember the Poll Tax? That was a scratch. This is an amputation. As usual, you were not asked. It all happened in secret.


(Article begins)

Is it the United Kingdom’s Sea?   

Or, all as listed  as ‘united’ in the UN under the 12 mile Limit? To be eventually transferred to the EU for its Motorway in the Sea?

This is what it states on the site below:  On the 23rd of March 1999 Scotland handed over jurisdiction of 6,000 square miles of North Sea to Westminster. The remarkable thing about this transaction is the fact that it occurred without the knowledge or consent of the people of Scotland. 

In fact it was a Labour government led by Tony Blair that ordered this bizarre act of treachery towards the people of Scotland and it was a senior Scottish Labour politician, Henry McLeish that sanctioned it.  What is even worse is the fact that the whole affair was conducted in secret at committee level denying the House of Commons or the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to properly debate the issue.

To their eternal shame Tam Dalyell (Labour), John McAllion (Scottish Labour) and Sir Robert Smith (Scottish Liberal Democrats) sat on this committee and allowed this act of treason to be carried out without authority from the Scottish electorate or the Scottish Parliament. 

Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

Tuesday 23 March 1999

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Draft Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 But here=

To amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes.
Brought from the Commons on 22nd June 2011Debates in the UK Parliament re this Bill that is to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament.  Debated here regarding the number of SNP’s in the UK parliament etc. To amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes. Each item voted upon separately etc. Brought from the Commons on 22nd June 2011

The Bill: 


MSPs call for 6000 square miles of fishing waters to be returned to Scottish Murray Ritchie and Graeme Smith 10 Dec 1999


The Scottish Parliament seems set for a showdown with the Scotland Office and Westminster after cross-party MSPs yesterday called for the return of 6000 square miles of Scottish fisheries handed over earlier this year to England. Holyrood's Tory-chaired rural affairs committee - where Labour is in the minority - produced a critical report on the fisheries boundary issue and recommended that Scottish Secretary Dr John Reid should have the controversial decision reversed by Westminster, as demanded by Scotland's fishing fleet. Only the Government in London has the power to change the boundary again.
Labour's coalition partners in Scotland, the Liberal Democrats, abandoned the joint party line and voted with the SNP and Tories. By doing so they were adding force to moves in the Commons by Lib Dem MP Archy Kirkwood to have Westminster reinstate the old boundary. Scottish Executive spokesmen have argued since the change that technically there never was a boundary and that the decision to create one was purely for administrative reasons after devolution. The new fisheries boundary no longer bears resemblance to the boundary which delineates Scotland's territory in oil and gas fields as formalised in 1987

Scotland is a NATION not a Region!  (Then they should read this from their Parliament, European Committee,Tuesday Afternoon 22 May 2001 -- Ben Wallace (North-East Scotland) (Con): Manfred Dammeyer talked about constitutional regions. Will he define them?

Ben Wallace: We are aware, especially within our regional devolved national Parliament, that we have different political agendas. My colleagues in the Scottish National Party would like to have greater influence above the national level and directly into Europe. As a member of a unionist party, I favour a different method. I was interested to know how constitutional regions fitted in at a national level and Mr Dammeyer has answered my question.

Mr Dammeyer: (simultaneous interpretation) We have to respect that Scotland is a nation but, at the European level and in the European discussion, Scotland is like a region.

Colin Campbell: In size, but not in spirit.    End of quotes

The above complete is here:-

1975 letter and alleged “Secret” article

The debate re Coast Guards-Why do we need to update Coast Guards? 

column 208

The shocking thing about this secret order is that it was not openly discussed in the Commons, passed by the House of Lords and then passed by a very select Labour and Liberal committee in the Scottish Office. 

or read this pdf file on Scotland reduced fishing zone.

Why did the UK Government do this and why was it not debated in the House of Commons?   Is it for the same reason I have put in the Title? The United Kingdom’s Sea.    All as listed  as ‘united’ in the UN under the 12 mile Limit, to be transferred eventually to the EU for its “Motorway in the Sea”? To make sure you realise this is not a fabrication of the truth, here you can access the “Official” Documents. 

Just change the /1/ to 2, the 3,the 4, then 5

If you look at 

you will note that many changes were made (See Falklands too) in 2009.

A must read for interested Parties the UK’s Standard note. Here:  

The letter is of course dated 23 April 1975 all to do with the then The European Community, but what was the reason for the 1999 “grab”?

From page 15 of the letter, but perhaps it is better to read in full.  It should also be remembered that the Treaties are signed-without the people’s agreement-and ratified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

Conclusion:-This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with theproper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future. 


And this is why Scotland wishes to be independent from the UK. 


European Union today,  UK Library Note.  Just in case they have forgotten what they have done!


The REAL treachery and tragedy for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland started in 1972.  

(Article ends).

My thanks to Peggy (made up name) for the piece. Great research!


Lessons In Law

If you are due in court anytime soon, listening to the following podcasts and using the information in them may well see you leaving the court with no fines issued and with a big smile on your face.

If you use the words suggested, it may well be the cleverest thing you have ever done.

As you will hear, there are only really two people in the court: you and the judge/sheriff/magistrate. (Although you will have to determine what he or she is first). If you enter the court as a sovereign, you will be the judge. Using certain phrases let's the person (I use that term deliberately) in the high chair know that.

This is a fascinating series of talks and I urge you to set aside some time to listen to them. Even if you are not going to court they will help you to know what really goes on, how to act, what to say, and just as importantly, what not to say.


I was struck by Dave's attitude to using "calmness" in the court. And of course he is right: if you storm in looking for a fight, you will find what you seek. Maintain your composure at all times. Show respect. For yourself, not the thing you find yourself standing in.

The common thread through all of the talks above is the use of the question "Are you addressing me?". We had a live example of this in March this year. The "accused" asked the judge, twice, "Are you addressing me?" and the judge could not answer. She has no power, no license, and no right to judge sovereign men and women. Her magical powers only work when she is fining or punishing a corporate fiction. Sounds mad, I know, but it is all true. If you missed it, check it out here.

As I said in that piece, the court is a magical place, full of spells and curses. It is a play. You just need to know your lines before you get thrown on stage. Remember though that you are the actor, director and producer. Let them handle the special effects. Just don't be distracted by them.

Enough from me. Have a listen and let me know what you think.


September 27, 2011

Ridding England Of The English

How long have you suspected that there is an agenda to dilute English culture?

How long have you been wondering just why multi-culturism was a defined project, another target to be met, by those gibbons in Westminster?

Wonder no more. Your suspicions were correct. Your worries were genuine. Below I will link to a fantastically well-researched piece that will do nothing to aid peaceful sleep.

I think it's fair to say that I am one of the most inclusive people I know. I absolutely welcome different peoples to come and visit, and even settle, in my land. I say "my" land because I know for certain that we have been here since at least 1198, and with a bit more searching, I think I can take us back another few hundred years. I do not discriminate on race, creed, colour, or sexual orientation. My personal motto has long been "If you ain't harming me or others, crack on".

We are a Mongrel Nation. We have been welcoming foreigners to this land since time out of mind. But in the last 50-60 years there has been no-one watching the gates. This may not have been important at one time, but it is now. Not only are far too many coming in, they are also a very real threat to the way we live. Not for them the old adage "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". For them, this place is a place where they import their own culture, not in itself a bad thing, as long as they keep to themselves. But they do not. There are enough examples of this for me not to have to list them here. They are also costing us a ton of money to house, feed, educate, and treat, should they become ill.

Here are a couple of snippets from the paper written by Tony Shell.

The true purpose for promoting multiculturalism – of making genocidal population change seem desirable– is never admitted. It is the indigenous people (the English) who are the victims of that process, whilst at the same time immigrant people are cynically manipulated by an authoritarian elite. It is the engineering of substantial demographic change, over the last sixty years, that has been used by the ‘progressives’ to justify the effective destruction (or expropriation) by the political aristocracy of those social institutions created by the ordinary, native people. The principles of government by consent, and of the right to selfdetermination are contemptuously ignored.


In February 2011 research by the independent body Migration Watch used official ONS data to show that: “Under Labour 3.2 million foreign citizens arrived in Britain, about 80 per cent from outside the EU, whilst nearly one million (941,000) British citizens left”. [27] Observations on past census records, plus other data, can put the effects of this ‘progressive migration’ into an informative, historical perspective.

In 1851 approximately ninety-six percent of the population of England were native indigenous people (the English). [28] One hundred years later (1951) the proportion of English people in England was almost exactly the same – despite a huge influx of refugees fleeing from famine, revolution, pogroms, the upheavals of two devastating World Wars, and a brutal partitioning of Europe. [29] It was the natural increase of the native population over that one hundred year period (from 16.03 million English people in 1851, to 39.50 million in 1951) that played a major part in the maintenance of a relatively stable, cohesive society.


Despite a change in Government (in 2010), that ‘progressive’ agenda is still being vigorously pursued.

The UK State no longer serves the people, but acts as local administrators to a global oligarchy. The intention is to be effectively rid of the native English people, whilst asset-stripping the country. Such behaviour is entirely consistent with a State that is a servant of global finance, engages in unlawful foreign wars, is institutionally corrupt, has no moral scruples – and is engaged in High Treason.

Go and read the whole thing here.

You know things have gone wrong when to be a white Englishman/woman is a cause for concern. Native peoples should not have these concerns in their own countries. It's all very well blaming politicians for the mess we find ourselves in. I agree that they shoulder most of the responsibility for this sad state of affairs, but there is someone else to blame.

You. We. Us.

We did nothing to stop this. Those that did say something were vilified. Even producing this post will make me a "racist" in someone's eyes. Shamefully, some of those mis-attaching this label will be my fellow countrymen. Racism is not in my DNA. I have travelled to dozens of countries and I have been amazed, astounded and delighted at the opportunity to learn about other cultures. The difference between me visiting other nations and those that settle here? I left my culture at home. I did not attempt to change the way they live. I did not import and impose my values on others. I quietly did what I had to do in their country and left.

The figures speak for themselves. If immigration is left unchecked, as per the grand plan, by 2050 the English will be a minority in their own land. This will not do. It will not do at all.

Step away from the telly. Throw that trashy newspaper away. Go and see your MP. Tell him or her to do something. If we say nothing, they think we are okay with what they do. The old maxim applies, "He who does not disagree, agrees".

It's time to disagree.


September 26, 2011

Beautiful Freedom

Ever wondered just what our nation would be like without a government?

Me too.

But I never could answer some of the trickier questions. Stefan Molyneux helps us out with some of the answers.

Check out Part 1 here.

The very thought of anarchy (for those who misunderstand its true meaning) is terrifying. I do not want lawlessness, I just want fewer laws, and a government dramatically shrunk in size. The present system (always growing despite the mythical "cuts" we hear about) is obviously unsustainable. Far too many people clock on for the government every day. They (collectively) are inefficient and they are a massive drain on our resources. Many thousands are employed just for the sake of it. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Give me a free society any day. I am responsible for my own actions, and if I mess it up, then I will accept the consequences. For many years now all kids have been taught "It's not your fault". Well, sometimes it is. Denying that they/we can ever be held responsible for what we do has had catastrophic consequences. Are we grown-ups, or are we to stay locked in some government drones version of childhood forever? Do we really, as adults, need to ask permission from people who hold no more power than we do? Can I build this house here, on my own land? Can I own a gun? Can I smoke in a bar? Can I please have a license to drive a car, even after passing the stringent tests needed to demonstrate that I am capable? Please can I have a license to sell beer to my fellow-villagers? There was a time when no permission was needed. There is no need today. The proviso, of course, is that you employ the "Do no harm" principle and all will be well.

Here is  Part 2

Part two involves feedback and questions/statements from people who watched the first video. Note that the first few are from the terminally frightened (and who can blame them? We have been force-fed a daily diet of fear for a couple of decades now) and the socialists who say big government is the answer to all of our problems. Really? Take a long, cold, hard look at the government. They rule by force. They do not know (nor want) any other way. Taxes are "voluntary". Try not paying. There will be men at your door eventually. (Unless you tie them up in knots using their own legalese, like I have done). Start by withholding one particular tax-Council Tax, for instance-and see how you get on. Research the ways you can do this legally and lawfully, be ready for any counter-moves and I think you will be pleasantly surprised. My focus is on winning the fight before the first punch is thrown. Only a fool goes to a gunfight with a knife. Have your weapons well prepared before battle commences. It is a little unsettling at first but when you win, it is a tremendous feeling and it spurs you on to do more. I would not recommend picking fights with everyone at the same time, that way lies chaos.

Governments are by their very nature, immoral. Throw in some corruption, some theft, gross mismanagement, treason, some very dodgy judicial decisions, and you quickly realise that we would be far better off without them. I do not pretend that it would be any easy path to tread, there will be hiccups, but ultimately, who knows what a truly free society has to offer? It has been eight hundred years since we tried it. The system they had then (with adaptations to modernise it, of course) could and should work very, very well.

As always, let me know your thoughts in the comments.


September 25, 2011

Thrive-The Trailer

This short trailer raises more questions than it answers and I will be watching the whole film when it is released on 11/11/11.

Here's the blurb:

"THRIVE lifts the veil on what's REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream -- uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future"

The industry I have worked in for over 20 years is accused of trashing or eradicating potential new energy sources. Their biggest problem with these new sources? They are free.

Big Oil & Gas is worth trillions. It employs millions. And just about all of us need its products. Looking around my office, I can see that every thing in it has either used oil (or its derivatives) to be manufactured or transported so that I can use it. A highly useful substance, is oil.

We would not have made the progress we did make in the last 150 years without it. No question about that at all.

But is there something better, cleaner, cheaper?

The film will tell us in October. Keep an eye out for it.

I have a stake in the status quo. I really need the O&G industry to thrive itself for the next 15-20 years until I retire. It has provided a good living. It keeps a roof over my head, it puts food on the table, it has educated one of my sons, and it will soon be paying for my youngest sons education. As an aside, it has transported me to over 75 countries and has enriched my life in ways I cannot count.

It has been an adventure. Perhaps selfishly, I do not want that adventure to stop just yet, but I love change. I know that we have made some fantastic discoveries in the last several hundred years, and oil allowed us to do that: it allowed us to travel to the stars, and to the depths of the deepest oceans. It plays a part in almost everyones life every single day, yet I hope I am around to see the new sources of energy carry my kids, their kids, and their kids forward into a bright new future.

That's always assuming, of course, that the much discussed X Class Flare doesn't mess us up too much. Note that most of the worlds leadership are hiding away for the next five to seven days. What do they know that they aren't sharing with us peons?

As with everything else, time will tell.

Stay safe.


PS-tip of the beret to my pal JB on Twitter for the link.

September 23, 2011

Dear The EU,

You suck.

I do not usually have a kind thought in my head for the money-grabbing power-hungry unspeakable monster that you are, but today, whilst thinking about you, I was happy. You are an abomination. You are unelected, unaccountable, and unable to recognise your own sheer incompetence. In everything. At all times.

I am happy because you are finally dying. After dozens of transfusions of our cash, we, the once-wealthier, have realised that all the transfusions in the world will not reanimate your worthless, pox-ridden, stinking body. You don't know it yet but your end is near, and for that, I am spectacularly grateful. It is time for you to lay down and die. It is time for you to be gone from our sight.

When you look at this:

You see unity. You see some Utopian dream of 27 utterly different peoples uniting in a forced love-fest. This unity exists only in your tiny, undeveloped minds. The experiment has failed. The Fourth Reich will not be taking command in the way you imagined it would. You coerced, you threatened, you cajoled, you conned, and you stole. Despite that monumental stupidity, unique to you and all of your brain-dead supporters, the jig is up.

You should understand that when we look at the EU flag, we see this:

Not freedom, just more slavery. More of the same. More of our continued existence as cash-cows for your pet projects. The only thing you do excel at is wasting our money. Trouble is, Herman and Co, we already have a government hell-bent on stealing as much as they can from us. You are a leech upon a leech. Is there a lower life-form on the planet? I seriously doubt it.

NEWSFLASH: We don't want you anymore. We have had quite enough.

You crossed a line. I was giving up, to be honest. I thought the beast that you abuse so, so badly would never wake up. It did. It is angry, and it has focused a bloodshot eye on you. If I were you, I would tremble. I would run and I would hide. I would be terrified to know that millions of people were coming back for the money, for the freedoms, and for the very sovereignty you stole from them.

So you can take your precious flag and do this:

It will save us the trouble of rooting them all out and doing it for you.

Now, how many times have I wronged ye? Let us count the ways:

1. I insulted you. Several times.

2. I criticised you. Several times.

3. I posted altered images of your precious piece of material.

4. I suggested that you die. (The Union, that is. YOU, HvR, can go back to being a nobody).

5. I dared to make the (rational) connection with the EU and Hitlers Dream.

How many of your inane "laws" did I violate there? Enough to ruffle your comb-over? Enough for you to dispatch a snatch squad of EuroPol goons?

Come and get me.

I duly swear an Oath here today that I will resist you until you are dead and buried in an unmarked grave. I will never forgive you for the harm you, Ma Windsor, and countless, spineless, traitorous British MPs did to my nation.

Nor will I ever forget.


A Briton.

September 22, 2011

Ranty Breaks The Law!

Shock! Horror! Societal meltdown!

Not really. It is an EU "law" and therefore meaningless.

But break it I shall. Repeatedly. Until they get the message that they are a useless, unwanted, unnecessary, unsupportable abomination.

You ready?

Let's violate their childish rules and regulations:

There you go. I haz broken their latest law.

The above slogan was coined in 1940 or thereabouts by the government of the day. It has since been copyrighted by someone, and that someone has whined to the EU. The EU loves whiners and they supported that someones right to the slogan. So we are not allowed to use it ever again. Got that? It is verboten.

I'll add the image to my piccie selection on the right shortly. Please do the same if you want to piss them off.

See you in the gulags.


PS-tip of ye olde beret to fellow blogger BJ for the find. He found the story here.

September 21, 2011

My Return Trip, And Other Stuff.

I am returned safe, to your bosom.

It is good to be home. That was a shitty trip, and I mean that literally. Cameroon went very well, but Nigeria? Not so good. Let's not dwell on it though.

The Return Trip

Had a bit of fun at Lagos airport. They are obsessed with taking/not taking lighters off people. They pawed through my suitcase and carry on bag at the check-in desk, (It's the only airport-that I have used-that does this), they spot my smokes and they ask for my lighter. I said "I need it". The guy closed my suitcase and waved me on. Through passport control-no problems. On to security and they pawed through my carry on bag after it goes through their x-ray machine. They spot my smokes and ask me where my lighter is. "They took it off me", I said. They closed my bag (the lighter was in it-how crap is their x-ray machine?) and waved me on. Fast forward three hours, (replete with pleasant buzz on from all the gin), and they are pawing through my carry on bag at the gate. They spot my smokes again and ask me for my lighter again. "They took it off me at security", says I. "Go for a pat down", says she. The security chap pats me down, misses my lighter completely-it's now in my shirt pocket-and waves me on. Bloody ridiculous.

So, we're on the plane. I paid a little extra (68 euros online when I checked in) for a bulk-head seat up the front. The only reason I do this is for the little telly that comes out of the arm rest. If you are watching the screen on the back of the seat in front, and the person reclines, it is mostly impossible to see the screen without possessing a doctorate in practical contortionism. I park my delicate arse. Minutes later a family of four plonks down in the two seats to my right. A young Nigerian couple with twins. Babies. This is not looking good. I usually attract the immensely fat or the ear-shatteringly young. Meanwhile the seats all around me are filling up. To my left is Milo Lady. She is dressed head to toe (including baseball cap) in bright green Milo branded stuff. (Milo is a chocolate drink-similar to Nesquik and is found all over Africa. I loved it as a kid when I was growing up there). More about Milo Lady in a bit.

Fast forward 40 minutes. We are up at 40,000 feet and people are up and homing in on the empty seats. Big Dutch trolley dolly asks me to move to the row behind me. I tell her I paid extra for the telly. She nods, "It's up to you" she says. Wifey next to me whips out her doo-dahs to feed the little ones. Looks self-conscious. Don't know why as it is perfectly natural. (Not too sure of the etiquette, but I murmur "Nice baps missus" just in case one is meant to pass comment). I decide to move anyway to give her some privacy. The empty row behind me is no longer empty. There is now a giant sat in the aisle seat. I gently slide my still-delicate derriere into the other aisle seat. He says "Can't you pick another row? I want to stretch out. There is an empty row six rows further back". "No" says I, "I am going to stay close to my luggage". He starts to grumble, and then tries to convince me to bugger off when the flight purser shows up. "Can I see your boarding card?" he asks the giant. The giant hands it over. The purser says "This is row 11. Your seat is in row 42. Please go there now". "I am very comfortable here" says the giant. "You may be" says the purser, "and you can stay if you pay 150 euros". The big guy argues a bit longer, throws me a filthy look, and buggers off. The walk of shame. Next up, Milo Lady. Seems she just plonked her green arse down wherever she fancied as well. The purser tells her to move. Nine times she says "Just leave me here. I like it". "Sure", says the purser (nine times), "Just pay me 150 euros and you can stay". She also did the walk of shame to the back of the plane. The purser found another 11 people who just took any seat they wanted to. He moved them all on. I was glad about this. Seat discipline must be maintained, otherwise it is just chaos. (On Air Nigeria, for example, it's a free for all. People get hurt in the rush for the good seats. Fist fights are common. They could end the punch ups by, and this is just a wild suggestion, I'm not airline trained, assigning seat numbers to each passenger. It isn't bloody rocket surgery).

Anyhoo, they switch on the entertainment system, and the minute they do, wifey (who was in the middle seat in my old row), immediately sits in my old seat (now in front of me) and reclines the fecking thing. Telly is buggered. Can't see a thing. Moved my (increasingly delicate) arse into the middle seat. Normality returns. Flight unevenful from that point on.

At Schiphol airport whilst checking in for the Aberdeen flight this morning they try again to make me go through the body scanner. I tell them no. "Why not?" is the now familiar question. "Just watch" says I. Together me and the security lad watch four people go through the scanner. Three people need pat downs. "I'll use the arch", I say. Through the arch I go, no pat down needed. "See?", I said to the security chap, "Those things are useless. You pat down 75% of the people using them". He nods, defeated. I walk away, triumphant.

Enough of the travel tales. I am sure you are bored with them by now. Suffice it to say that I would love an uneventful trip. Beginning to end. Never happens with me.

The Other Stuff.

I wanted to thank you all again for your votes. We did pretty well in the Total Politics Voteathon and if you haven't trawled the lists, I thought you would be interested to know where we are in the four categories we we were placed in. I say "we" because this was all down to you. Without your votes we would be unlisted. Not that that's a bad thing, but it is nice to know we are being read.

So, our highest ranking was in this category:

Dropped one place from number 13 in 2010. Now at number 14. Orphans of Liberty squeezed us out but that is good news. I am very pleased to see them storming the charts.


Not sure what went wrong with the badges. This should be non-aligned bloggers. We are in at number 18.


This was a nice surprise. Last year we were at 107. We are now placed at number 67.


We were unplaced in this category last year. This year we are at number 71.

You can see the full lists (all categories) here.

And while we are wittering on about badges, we made a remarkable leap in the Wikio rankings this month. We are now up to number 38 from 47.

All in all, we are doing rather well. Someone out there likes us. Pat yourselves on the back, light 'em if you got 'em, and have a glass of something tasty. Our combined voices are being heard, and the dissent is growing. This is a good thing. Keep adding your voice, in any way you can, to the growing crescendo.

Thank you for your continuing support. This country is in a mess and we won't clean it up by just whining about it.

But The League Of Extraordinary Bloggers And Their Commenters will make change happen.

Let's roar like the lions we are.


September 18, 2011

The Green-Eyed Monster

This is sort of related to the post I did on the upcoming strike by public sector workers.

It involves that thing that has killed millions over the centuries. That thing that causes so much trouble between us. That thing that we can't live without. That thing that if we have too little of, or, paradoxically, too much of, has the power to make us miserable.


Regular readers of my bloglet will know that I have made and lost a million pounds. I have had a super-abundance of money, and I have been wretchedly poor. I don't recall being spectacularly miserable when I had no money, and when I had a lot of it, I just rolled with it. It is what it is. I was fairly philosophical about it. Ambivalent, even. I enjoyed the ride but when the crash happened, I took stock: I was still alive, my family were okay, I learnt the lessons and moved on. What else could I have done? Curl up in a ball and bawl? Nothing to be gained by that. I found something else to do. I found another way to defur the feline.

Nowadays I am a middle-income earner. Mr Average. Not poor, not rich. Happy enough that I have enough to pay my bills with a little left over each month. Not quite enough to save, and not quite enough to squander.

The point of this post is to ask a simple question:

Are you jealous of those with bulging bank accounts?

Which feeds on to other questions like:

Are you envious of their fancy houses, big cars, foreign holidays, designer clothes and all of their other stuff?

Does it matter what they have? Do you deserve more just because they have more? Should we all earn the same and all have the same stuff? Sounds like communism to me. That system has continually failed. I think only Cuba remains as a true communist state and I can promise you that those at the top (in a land where all are equal) have a damn sight more than the peons. The "leaders" have bigger houses, better cars, bigger bank accounts, better health care. So let's dump that myth. "Prizes for all" never works. The world is unequal. It always has been, and unless we all miraculously transcend the material, it probably always will be unequal. Live with it. The alternative is to whine and moan or worse, try to take it off those who have it.

I don't care what the bloke next door earns. He may well be a tool but he works for what he has. And even if he doesn't, what business is that of mine? None at all, is the right answer.

I think I differ from "true" anarchists in that I don't mind captialism. Let's face reality for a moment: without entrepreneurs who gamble a very great deal of their time, money and energy on new ventures, create wealth, and they create jobs, which feeds the beast known as the economy. In turn, those employees spend their money into the economy and help to sustain other companies, which in turn helps to provide jobs for their employees. So let's lay off Big Business, it isn't all bad. Yes, we can argue about the ethics, and the lack of morality regarding the way those businesses are managed, but the main thing to remember is that they are not inherently bad.

That leads me nicely on to what those "fat cats" earn. The numbers are obscene, but often relative. I read today about a CEO who earns $114 million per year. Before bonuses. I know of entire nations that run on a smaller budget. Dig a little deeper and you discover that the CEO works a 15 hour day in an effort to grow the business, therefore providing yet more jobs to yet more people, and the same guy donates many millions to deserving charities every year. The arguments start when we learn that the same chap banks offshore in an effort to give the state less in taxes. Fair enough, I say. The Lefties will scream that this guy must pay 75% tax while they pay nothing. For the sake of a fluke, "right place, right time", or genuinely hard graft, our hero must now give two thirds of his wages to an inept government, who, in turn, will hand it out to the idle and the feckless?

That is uncool, IMHO.

I happen to know that all taxation is both illegal and unlawful. I have written about it often enough here. Dig around, and you will find the articles, or view the same videos I viewed.

I happen to know that our currency-all currencies, in fact-are fiat. Which is to say they are worthless. They operate like Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jehova's Witnessism or Islamism. They operate on faith and faith alone. Our notes have no value. No intrinsic value. A twenty pound note has an actual value of around 3p. It is a belief system.  No more and no less.

This piece is not about that. Years ago I got over the jealousy, the envy, the bitterness, the resentment. Some people earn more than others. The world owes you nothing. You make and take what you can. Ideally, you don't hurt anyone else while you are doing that and if you can lay your head down and sleep the night through with a clear conscience, then I wish you well. Sincerely.

There is much chatter in the MSM, on Twitter, and around the blogs about this 50% tax for the rich. I do not think that is fair, no matter how much you earn. 50% is too much. It is a desperate grab by a bunch of idiots in government who don't have the sand to make savage, but necessary cuts. Who don't have the sense to know that they have created and overfed a bloated monster and point blank refuse to trim the fat. Because they lack the courage to do the right thing, our wealthier citizens must be punished. And to what end? What would YOU do if they suddenly said "We are going to help ourselves to half of your earnings. Because we can"? If it was me I'd be looking at foreign properties. I'd be instructing my bank to start moving all my liquid assets to a bank account far, far away. Then I'd be following the money. Literally. I'd be bugging out. And who could blame me/them?

There is nothing (fundamentally) wrong with Big Business, and there is nothing (fundamentally) wrong with high earners. One thing is clear: we need them here, to carry on creating successful businesses so we can have something to do with our time, and earn some coin.

But there is something fundamentally wrong with a government that would take half of their money by force to satisfy the Lefties, with whom, I might add, there is also a fundamental flaw. These freaks we would not miss. Let them move out. Let them go and seek this Utopia where money is hurled at them just because they hold out their hands. Where opportunities are gifted, not sought, earned and worked for.

Grow up. Man up. Realise that the world does not revolve around you. Take responsibility. If you really want more digits in your account, earn them. If what you do does not create enough digits to satisfy your money-lust, do something else that would allow you to do so.

Just don't expect my taxes to pay for your imagined/would-be/wannabe lifestyle. I owe you nothing. I already give too much, so leave me be.

While you're at it, leave the wealthy alone as well. Without them, we'd all be in a mess.

Find that Green-Eyed Monster and slay him.

You'll feel 100% better. I absolutely guarantee it.


September 17, 2011

Sick Like Dog

Please forgive the lack of posting, and replying to comments, over the last few days.

Thanks (again) to to some filthy bastard in the kitchen not washing their hands (again) I have had mild dysentry (again). I only ever get this in Nigeria, and this is the second time I have contracted this horrible thing here. Not bad, considering that I have been coming here for 15 years, but three days of this... extremely unpleasant.

Shooting hydrochloric acid from your southern end is bad enough, but the stomach cramps really do concentrate the mind. I have never been stabbed in the belly with a claymore but I now have a pretty good idea what it must feel like.

My colleagues here in Lagos sent some medication to the hotel for me. I have no idea what they are or what they do but I took 'em. And, contrary to the chart hit of some years ago, the drugs do work. I think I may be on the mend.

I'll rejoin the conversation shortly.


September 14, 2011

Disconnected From Reality

With a little luck and a fair wind, they will stay disconnected. Permanently.

Over 5 million public sector workers are muttering about strike action.

Go ahead, you greedy, grasping, selfish people.

This action is not about a "living wage", is it? No. It's about having the taxpayer guarantee your pension. Well guess what? This taxpayer is fed up to the back teeth of parting company with ever-increasing amounts of his hard-earned coin to ensure that YOU have a great retirement. I won't be living high on the hog either. But here's the thing: I already know that. I already know that I will struggle mightily, just like millions of pensioners already do. Do you hear them whining? Me neither. Nowhere near as much as they should be whining. They worked harder than you do, they did not trot around with a sense of entitlement. They did not take absolutely every second off sick that they could get away with in each and every year of their employment. In fact, in the last 15 years we find that public sector workers take off more time due to "illness" than any other sector. Four times as much, you idle gits.

There are 5 million of you. 5,000,000. FIVE MILLION.

WTF do you all do? In amongst your number are unwanted administrators, unrelenting jobsworths, unnecessary Outreach Coordinators For The Emancipation Of One-Legged Blind Slovakian Lesbians With Learning Disabilities With A Penchant For Stamp-Collecting, and the like. I am tired of working like a dog to support you. I'm not even going to get into those lazy bastards that can, but absolutely will not work. Chip in, or piss off. It's that simple. 2.5 million of you right there. This gets worse! I am supporting 7.5 million of you now. FFS!

We know where we are with the idle and the indolent.

But you, you with your hands out, you are something else.

Newsflash: I don't want you to earn anything, far less give you a pay-rise, a golden handshake or a gold-plated pension. You don't deserve any of those things. Wake up and smell the reality: you are not owed a damn thing. You are responsible for yourself. I should not be forced to carry you.

YOU are a drain on the economy. YOU produce nothing. YOU do not add to my life but YOU do subtract from it. Because of YOU I am penalised. I have to part company with over 80% of my salary every year. If it isn't wasted on you, paying your wages while you sit on your arse at home claiming to be "stressed", it is wasted on the prosecution of illegal wars, or is spent on the Commons wine cellar, or iPads for binmen, and a thousand million other useless things.

I have some sympathy. You grew up being taught that if you wanted anything, all you had to do was put out your hand. So that you weren't offended, someone would thrust my cash in your grasping little hand. You are entitled, are you not? I blame the last government for this feckless, irresponsible notion, and I blame the current government for not getting this notion out of your heads. I blame your parents for allowing you to nurture the idea that the world owes you a living. It does not. I blame you for never growing up and realising that to get ahead, you have to sacrifice some things. The very first thing you have to get rid of is that imaginary bubble that you think will keep you safe and snug and warm. The world is a harsh place, it is time you got to grips with that.

Your government is the criminal in all of this. They are the ones who tax everything that moves, and just to be sure, they tax everything that doesn't. They think OUR money is theirs, and what's worse, so do YOU.

And in amongst you are true heroes: hard-working nurses and doctors, dedicated and caring teachers, brave Fire & Rescue workers, courageous Forces personnel and yes, even good coppers. I do not begrudge those people anything. (I'd prefer to pay a local tax to fund the people that stand by ready to help me rather than fling a big chunk into a central pot, which is badly managed, but other than that, I agree they are necessary).

It's the pen-pushers, the pecksniffs, the bureaucrats, the tobacco wardens, the traffic wardens, plastic cops, all of you with made-up job titles, and several million other wasters that stick in my craw. I need none of you.


Got that?

When you dick-heads go on strike no-one will notice. Least of all me.

Hopefully, your pathetic government will realise that it could shave down the public sector "work" force and the taxpayers will be far better off.

But hey, while you are on strike, you don't get paid, m'kay? I will expect a full rebate for the "services" you withdrew. You don't provide, so you get no pay. I get no services, so I will not pay for them. How do you like them apples?

Go ahead. Strike.

You are entitled, after all.


September 13, 2011

On The Move

All good things must come to an end.

I am leaving Cameroon and heading to Lagos.

Many of you will have noticed that your 419 scam emails have been abysmal of late.

I am holding a few seminars here:

 an effort to improve on spelling, syntax, sentence construction and grammar.

If my mission succeeds, you will soon be reading scam emails that will not make you wince at the butchery of the English language. Recent examples have been very poor indeed.

And that, dear readers, is something up with which we shall not put.

Play nice.


September 12, 2011

Wanted: Alive Or Alive (So We Can Gaol Him)

For crimes against humanity.

For giving our nation away.

For foisting McSnotgobbler on us.

And assorted other misdemeanors. Please feel free to remind me.

Here he is:


Look What You Did!

To all who voted for my 'umble blawg.

As a result of you lot we came in at Number 18!

So thanks.

Thanks a bunch!


September 09, 2011

Norman Scarth Is Free!

Details are thin on the ground but Sky News have announced that the Court of Appeal has ordered the immediate release of 85 year old Norman Scarth from Armley Gaol.

This is a happy, happy day!

Thank you to all who offered support.


EDIT: Short report here.

September 07, 2011

It's The Law, Ken Clarke, So Act Upon It

I thought you good folks should see this letter from Albert Burgess to Ken Clarke in his position as Lord Chancellor.

Albert knows his onions. So should Kenneth Clarke. Any bets on the man doing as he must, in law?


Kenneth Clarke
Lord Chancellor                                                                               
The House of Lords

My Lord 

Each house of parliament has a common law cognisance to run its own business, in its own way; neither house can by Common Law interfere in the internal working of the other house.

This is the constitutional settlement placed upon parliament by our forefathers, and described in the Prerogatives of the King by Sir Mathew Hale 1713 Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. And F W Maitland Late Downing Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge. At the university press 1908. 

Sir Edward Coke Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 1628 ruled that parliament may some times pass a law which is repugnant or impossible to perform in which case the common law will intercede and strike it down. Giving the Common Law the status of higher law than statute law. 

There are a number of cases of the cognisance of the commons to conduct its own business its own way, but I have not been able to find one case which deals with either house interfering in the running of the other house. Yet this is exactly what the House of Commons has done to the House of Lords, they started this process in 1661 after the restoration of King Charles II when the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill only accept it or reject it, the commons were claiming without any legal authority, complete autonomy in all things financial. This was the commons interfering with the cognisance of the upper house to do its job of scrutinising legislation.  For some inexplicable reason the Lords accepted this state of affairs. This was the precursor to all the subsequent parliament acts.

In 1910 Asquith put forward a money bill and the upper house being erroneously of the opinion that they had no authority to amend this bill rejected it. In fact the upper house had the common law right to amend it and return the amended bill to the commons for approval.

As a result Asquith put forward the first parliament act which limited the authority of the upper house, Asquith told the upper house if they did not consent to this bill he would put 500 new Peers into the hose who would vote for its abolition, when this bill to restrict the upper house was submitted to King Edward VII he refused the assent on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects. In fact it interfered with the cognisance of the upper house to perform its duties in the manor laid down by the constitutional and common laws of England, these laws are so good they have travelled to every common law jurisdiction in the world. Even Talleyrand our sworn enemy said when the English Constitution goes freedom goes.

King Edward VII fell ill and died, and on coming to the Throne King George V was told by a government minister he keeps all his prerogatives but may not use any of
them unless he has the backing of a government minister. This principle is unknown to our constitutional or common law. The assent was given to the 1911 Parliament Act which effectively weakened the authority of the upper house but with no constitutional or common law authority for the commons to even contemplate such a move. The mere fact they are the elected house does not authorise their actions. Because at no time have the public been put in the constitutional picture, which would allow them to make an informed decision. As to whether they wish to weaken the upper house in this or any other way. In fact Asquith toured the country slanting the true position so much as to be an outright lie.

The 1948 Parliament Act was yet another interference with the cognisance of the upper house to perform its constitutional duties, as our forefathers set it up. Once again this was done without the benefit of law, nor is there any justifiable legal principle which can be quoted to justify the unjustifiable. 

The 1998 House of Lords Act by the same token interferes with the cognisance of the upper house to determine itself who does or does not sit in the upper house. This is a clear breach of the constitutional arrangements of parliament and is contrary to constitutional and common law. 

Each of the above acts has subverted the constitutional arrangements of parliament; this is the major crime of Sedition at Common Law, and at this level of Sedition an act of High Treason. 

The letters patent as granted to a Baron of the realm are such as to be a clear and lawful order from the King, to the recipient of the letter patent to undertake certain duties on the Kings behalf, it is clear that the King can not possibly know or understand every thing put before him, he should have a good general understanding of his Kingdom, his subjects, and world affairs. But there will always be occasions when his knowledge or understanding will fall short of allowing him without assistance from reaching the right decision. In order that he has a ready source of advisors who are good and capable men, he uses those peers of the realm that he or his ancestors have appointed to Baronetcies, and the letters patent represent a lawful order from the King to the holder of the Letters Patent to undertake this work. They instruct the holder of the Letters Patent that he must sit in the upper house of parliament and scrutinise legislation passing through the parliament to ensure it is in the best interests of the country and his subjects, it further gives a lawful order to the holder of the letters Patent that he is to act as an advisor to the King. In short the King requires those with the best available knowledge and experience to advise him as to the best course of action under any circumstances. 

England is a Monarchy and we all owe a duty of loyalty and obedience to our lawfully anointed sovereign, the letters patent are by our laws to be obeyed. For any one who ever they may be, whatever position they hold within the Kingdom be they farm labour or Prime Minister to come between the King and the holder of the letters patent so as to prevent the holder from carrying out the lawful commands of the King is for that person to set himself above the King. That by our law is an act of High Treason contrary to the Common Law of England and the 1351 Treason Act.   

I respectfully submit that is just what Anthony Blair did when he put through the 1998 House of Lords Act. He in effect set Her Majesty’s lawful order to those hereditary peers sat in the upper house at nought thereby imagining the death of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen. Contrary to Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act. 

He also removed Her Majesty’s honour as a Sovereign Queen by assuming he had a greater authority in this Kingdom than Her Majesty. Contrary to Common Law and the 1848 Treason Felony Act.

I would like you to explain to me why I should comply with any law passed in Parliament since 1911 because since that day parliament has not been properly constructed according to the tripartite agreement set in place by our forefathers, and as such it has no mandate to pass any legislation. 

I would further request that for every hereditary peer removed from the upper house, under the 1998 House of Lords Act. A warrant should be issued for the arrest of Anthony Linton Blair one time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on a charge of High Treason for imagining the death of the Anointed Queen of England Queen Elizabeth II Contrary to Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess 

I won't be holding my breath. The law is not for the elites. They can, and do, act with impunity.

Mind you, I do have lawful excuse and I do ignore statutes.

Lawful Rebellion;-it has its advantages....


September 06, 2011

It's Goodbye From Me Too

I am just setting off for Cameroon. I'll be there for a week and then I'll scoot over to Lagos for ten days or so.

The next time someone says to me "It's really glamorous all that travelling", I am going to kick him in the swedes. It's 3:30 in the morning, I am already knackered and I will be at this travelling lark until at least 9pm tonight.

Thought I'd leave you with a jaw-dropper.

Look at this big boy:

The bugger weighs over a ton!

Play nice while I'm gone.


September 04, 2011

And It's Guten Abend From Her....

Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Merkel is finished.

Can't think why....

....don't let the door hit yer arse on the way out.

Sarkozy? You're up next.

Then that little (alleged) sex pest, Berlusconi.

I love it when a master plan falls apart.


September 03, 2011

Gross Injustice: The Jeremy Bamber Story

Regular readers will be aware of my thinly disguised disgust for the judiciary: I have come to believe that it is a very, very lucky man or woman that gets a fair hearing in a courtroom these days.

A couple of days ago I was reminded of the Jeremy Bamber case. Jeremy was sent to gaol for life in 1985. He has maintained his innocence steadfastly throughout his sentence. Having read the details, I am not in the least surprised.

Like me, I am hoping that when you read those same details, and discover the players in this tragic event, you will be just as surprised and outraged at this miscarriage of justice.

Just for openers we have:

  • A bungled police operation at the crime scene
  • A "dead" body that moved itself from the ground floor to the upstairs of the house
  • Tampered ballistics
  • A scorned woman
  • An extended family's greed for the inheritance
  • Suppressed evidence

I am not going to lay out the case for you here. I'd prefer you to go and have a look at it first hand at the site set up for Jeremy. It is here.

There is a lot to take in, but you should have a look at the videos on the site because they will give you a condensed version of events. Then, because the devil is always in the detail, you need to look at the evidence more closely. The column on the left hand side allows you to do just that.

In order to stimulate your interest though, I want you to take a look at this video:

After watching that, you need to ask yourself why the police would not release the logs of the conversations heard at the crime scene from the moment Nevill Bamber called the police to say his schizophrenic daughter, recently released from hospital, "was going crazy with a gun". The line he called the police on remains open, and it is from here that detectives wrote the 25 page transcript. Instead of handing this to Jeremy's defence team, they locked it away in a cupboard and refused to hand it over. Worse than that, the police insisted that Nevill never called them. They also deny that Jeremy called them.

You may be wondering where Jeremy was at the time the murders took place. So was I. He was at home in bed. Much later, a police search found a silencer at his house. It looks as if the police took the silencer and used it to run their ballistics test, and it is after this that a whole bullet is found on his dead sisters body. The original fragment that was found (it clearly did not match the rifling on the silencer) mysteriously disappears. This evidence largely convicted Jeremy back in 1985. The scorned woman (Jeremy's girlfriend) added some damning evidence that was pure fabrication: she was clearly very pissed off about his having had a fling with another woman. The extended family, scenting blood in the water, leapt in with all sorts of tales to ensure young Jeremy was locked away, thus giving them an unhindered run at the inheritance.

Perfect, isn't it? Bungling cops, suppressed evidence, the real killer dead, others queuing up to testify against Jeremy, a big pile of money, a judge that took far too much at face value, and a prosecutor hungry for the fame of winning a sensational case.

With hindsight we can see that Jeremy was fucked from day one. With persistence, we can force the police and the prosecutor to release all the evidence that proves Jeremy's innocence.

The only small problem we have, is that it proves their guilt.


September 01, 2011

Ranty Makes The MSM!

And by "make" I really do mean "make".

Check it out:

Click to embiggenulate.

You too can make fake headlines. Go here and do what the MSM does.

Fabricate your own stories....

Or, just infuriate the Righteous:

Tip of the beret to  Sue for the fag packet link.