The Law is indeed, sometimes, an ass in itself!

I see that the ‘Super-duper’ injunction guys have targeted, or rather attempted to target, Parliament once more. One would have thought that after the ‘Ryan Giggs’ débacle , as well as all the other well-publicised failures of a legal system which hasn’t yet cottoned on to the fact that we now live in an age of firstly, instantaneous knowledge the technology and secondly, a culture of irreverence of power.

Trafigura found out that they couldn’t shut Parliament up, and now it looks like the turn of one of the two divorced wives of the Sultan of Brunei to find out that she can’t do it either.

Seems as though this Mark Burby character, who seemingly has his very own super-injunctions placed upon him at the behest of a woman who is alleged to be the ‘richest woman in the world’ has submitted oral and written evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions; the wording of which wouild seem to preclude him from mentioning that he is alive, never mind engaged in legal tangles with both the Sultan’s ex-wife as well as her solicitor.

The questions raised must be delimited as to be listed as following:

  • Has British Law been subverted by the actions of an extremely wealthy foreign woman?
  • Has Parliamentary Privilege itself been threatened in any way whatsoever by the actions of this vastly-wealthy Muslim woman and her extremely-energetic solicitors.
  • Was the Sultan of Brunei the supplier of cash to an Al Quaeda leader?
  • Should we be allowing these petty despots and their well-paid lawyers any access to British Law at all, or access only to the toilets?

‘A team with one focus… Barclays themselves!’

We are told, with appropriate trumpeting of course, that Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC), has blocked a tax avoidance scheme which was to be operated by Barclay Bank. The ‘ins and outs’ of this financial Ponzi scheme are both myriad and circular, but one end result was that Barclays was trying to claim back tax on ‘tax credits’ which hadn’t actually been paid. Just think about that particular sentence, if you will. They were not using ‘tax avoidance’ measures, they were actually using ‘tax evasion’ measures under a heavy disguise.

As I previously wrote, Barclays Bank have lots of form in this area, as can be seen below:-

As I am deeply interested in the political and financial affairs of our Nation, I sometimes wonder if the definition of Justice is different for some people as to the rest of us. For the purposes of this small essay, ‘Some People’ means those with access to extremely large sums of money, along with regiments of lawyers dedicated to help them keep that money from the depredations of nasty people such as the Tax Collection branch of Her Majesty’s Customs & Revenue. Allow me to elaborate if I may.

Barclays Bank is split into two divisions, one is the friendly (sort of) Bank which has branches throughout Great Britain, looking after your money, paying ridiculously low rates of interest for the privilege of using their deposit facilities for that cash, loaning money at usury rates, and in general making substantial amounts of profit for the shareholders. So far, so normal. They of course, like all mega-banks, have another Division, labelled Investment Banking & Wealth Management. This is of course where the jolly boys and girls sit who deal in ‘Casino banking’, earning huge amounts of money for their clients, and also incidentally creaming off profit for the Bank and ‘bonuses’ for themselves. Now what I have just described is perfectly legitimate, perfectly legal and, in the financial world we live in, perfectly acceptable. The owners of all that money ask Barclays to invest it and look after it, and Barclays, for instance goes into ‘Forex’, which is ‘Foreign Exchange’ to the uninitiated, and literally bet mega-sums of money on tiny changes in ‘rates of exchange’ between currencies. If they get their bets correct, and to all intents they are bets, they make massive profits. Of course, for every winner, there must be a loser, and sometimes they do lose, but the boys and girls at Barclays are pretty good at the ‘Casino Banking’ business; witness the massive profits listed even in bad times and recessions!

Now far be it from me to state that Barclays IMWM division is doing anything either criminal, actionable or against the law, but scrutiny must now focus on a sub-division of Barclays IMWM named Structured Capital Markets Division, which features programmes which try and minimise tax liabilities for their clients and themselves. They, together with banks of tax lawyers ranged in levels of scum, formulated a system whereby a series of gigantic loans named Pelleas and Claudas, switching loans through the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and the United States. The sums involved totalled £9.8 billion (that is £9,800,000,000 to we ordinary folk), and involved a complicated structure designed with one thing, and one thing only, in mind; and that was to make it so that any tax eventually paid was a fraction of the amount which should have been paid to the Tax authorities.

A whistleblower obtained copies of all the documents, describing this massive tax-evasion scheme to Vince Cable, and through him to the Guardian.
A Financial Times commentator stated:-

I was lucky enough to read through the first of the Barclays documents…
I will say it was absolutely breathtaking, extraordinary. The depth of deceit, connivance and deliberate, artificial avoidance stunned me. The intricacy and artificiality of the scheme deeply was absolutely evident, as was the fact that the knew exactly what they were doing and why: to get money from one point in London to another without paying tax, via about 10 offshore companies. Simple, deliberate outcome, clearly stated, with the exact names of who was doing this, and no other purpose.
Until now I have been a supporter of the finance industry – I work with people there regularly and respect many of them, and greatly enjoy the Financial Times and other financial papers. However this has shone a light on something for me, and made me certain that these people belong in jail, and companies like Barclays deserve to be bankrupt. They have robbed everyone of us, every single person who pays tax or who will ever pay tax in this country (and other countries!), through both the bailouts and schemes such as this.

Barclays reacted violently to prevent the Guardian from printing the detailed statements on the Web, and this part of the story ended when Freshfields, Barclays’ lawyers, toiled into the night to compel the Guardian to remove the documents from the website. Geraldine Proudler, a solicitor acting for the Guardian, was woken by a high court judge telephoning at 2am and asked to justify their publication. At 2.31am, Mr Justice Ouseley, over the phone, ordered that the documents be removed from the website, by which time 127 people had read them.

At the end of a two-day hearing, Mr Justice Blake ruled that the ban remain, even though the memos were circulating around the web. Anyone could find them within minutes on sites such as WikiLeaks, but he did not accept that all confidentiality had been destroyed.
He also believed that the Guardian was not justified under the Human Rights Act in publishing the unexpurgated documents containing legal advice and other confidential matters.

He specifically ordered the Guardian and other media not to “incite” or even “encourage” their readers to go to other websites to view the documents. Out on the internet, however, members of the public were busy discussing and copying the documents for themselves.
This absurdity was ridiculed a week later by a peer, Matthew Oakeshott, who was then Lib Dem Treasury spokesman. He used parliamentary privilege to tell the public what newspapers could not, when he outlined the case to his fellow peers in the Lords.

Now I have visited the Wikileaks site where the documents are discussed, one discussion giving rise to the above quotation from the Financial Times, and although I have not the skill or the software required to download the Barclays Bank files, I will be continuing to attempt to do so!

I am writing this for the simple reason that I believe in the old-fashioned British idea of ‘fair play’! Not the ‘Fair’ so long spouted or promoted by the likes of Blair, Brown, and all the other Labour Party thieves which states that rich people should be divested of all their earnings, which shall be ‘shared equally’ by the ‘deserving poor’, whoever they may be! My ‘Fair Play’ would be that whether rich or poor, a single person or a gigantic corporation or Company, you all must be given an equal shake, and in return, pay what is considered due to the Government of the day! Its maybe a little simplistic, but that is the way I am.

I am writing this because I have just read and digested the facts of Barclays Bank end-of-year results during which it was revealed that, on earnings of £4,600,000,000 (£4.6 Billion), they paid a total of 2.4% or £113 million, as against the normal rate of Corporation Tax which is 28%.

What a bunch of cheese-paring thieves, vagabonds and plain rogues are resident under the flag of a British bank which used to be above reproach!

Barclays attempted to use the Courts to silence the Guardian, and it was only through the House of Lords, along with parliamentary privilege, that we know about this scheme now. A speedy viewing of at least one document spells out how the scam (scheme) worked, along with the financial trickery used in the scam!

To coin a phrase, what a bunch of Wankers!

‘ shall withdraw the left flank under its cover, ‘

When you send an e-mail, search the web, or make a mobile phone call, even when using the latest digital technology, your call or message is monitored, and can be recorded and stored. Based at Menwith Hills, which is called RAF Menwith Hills, but strangely enough has approximately ten British staff (Cleaners, gardeners, similar-based workers) the Americans have their spy satellite downlink systems; all linked to the Echelon computer system which can pluck ‘key-words’ out of the ether.

The British have access to the feeds and discoveries from Menwith, but only on a need-to-know basis, (and the Americans decide who needs to know), and only through G.C.H.Q. at Cheltenham. This intrusion into our privacy has been going on for a long time, and was encouraged by the hard-left ideals of the Labour Government, who tried to get us all onto ID cards (failed), airport iris-scanning technology (failed), criminal record checks on everyone (failed); as well as the storing of all web traffic searches, e-mail traffic and other Socialist marshalling policies which belonged to the Stasi-segment of that same Labour Government.

Cameron & Clegg promised the following:

Introduce a Freedom Bill. Scrap ID cards, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports. Outlaw finger-printing of children at school without parental permission. Extend scope of Freedom of Information Act. More protections for DNA database. Protect trial by jury and restore rights to non-violent protest. Review libel laws to protect freedom of speech. Safeguards against misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. Regulate CCTV. Mechanism to prevent the proliferation of “unnecessary” new criminal offences. Establish commission to look at creating British Bill of Rights, incorporating and building on obligations under European Convention on Human Rights. Let me repeat one phrase; Safeguards against misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

The Coalition’s own Stasi-enthusiast, Theresa May, has been convinced by the ‘security people’ that the promise to scrap all the high-minded databases set up under Labour is a step too far, and they are proposing to make Internet companies store all e-mail, web and other Internet histories for a year, JUST IN CASE’.

So we can survey and trap terrorists, but we cannot deport the bastards, and we can’t hang them, so why are we bothering?

So starting from the day after these databases are brought back in, I will be attaching the following key-words to every e-mail sent:

Bomb; PET; terror, acid, nuclear, hate, jihad, suicide.

If we all do that, the computers will fill up so fast, the storage servers will simply overload!

How’s about a little Insurrection?

We are, as a nation, not a patch upon our forefathers. Time was, if enough of us didn’t really like something, we got our halberds out, polished up our broadswords, and had a little revolution!  Oliver Cromwell was just the speaker for a much broader force, and if he had done his job correctly, some think we would not be in the state we are today.The modern equivalent is writing on a blogsite such as this, or one of the better-known blogsites such as Richard North’s little effort.

I am not to be accused of fomenting rebellion, I reckon the Queen is both a fantastic person and a great Queen, but, and it is a big ‘but’, just look at the people who allegedly run this country on Her behalf. Left, so-called right, middle of the road; to my mind they are indistinguishable. They put themselves in positions of power, they appoint their mates to all the juicy positions, and there is fuck-all we do about it!

For a start, let us organise the biggest rolling protest this country has ever seen; on the streets of London; all around the roads which have been carefully prepared for the use of the fat-cats and their friends who have been greased by the Olympic Delivery Authority! Lets get everyone out on their bikes, and really screw up all the BMW’s which expect to cruise past all the proles; lets stop the traffic, and really piss them off!

Only some speech is ‘FREE’

Reading through the pages of Max Farquar’s posts, as I page through my own bookmarks, I found a very interesting little commentary on the ‘rights to free speech’ as shown on a article from the Daily Telegraph. That article, which celebrated the speech by Winston Churchill which was given to the Joint Session of Congress on December 26th 1941 was memorable for many phrases, but remembered by most because Churchill asked, rhetorically,  “What kind of people do they think we are?”

The article by Jeff Randall gained 944 comments, as it was a good piece of commentary upon a famous speech by one of the greatest politicians in British history. But one comment which you will not read, was ‘grabbed’ by the ever-alert Max, and I reproduce it here!


Ok but a different part of Churchill might be impressed by the improvements in our military technology, healthcare technology, the fact that there has been fifty years of peace on continental Europe,  the availability of free information and debate on the internet, the rights of black citizens of Britain, our ongoing love for the monarch, the fact that cricket and wimbledon remain popular…This not being the Daily Mail, surely you can admit that not EVERYTHING has been on one big downward spiral in the last 60 years?


I fear that “fifty years of peace on continental Europe” has been bought at a hefty if not intolerable price: democracy has been all but destroyed (Europe is slowly migrating to rule by an enelected politico-bureaucratic elite in Brussels); economies have been fatally undermined by an unprecedented explosion in politically-facilitated debt never before seen in peacetime (to enable political elites to buy and hold power); unchecked migration is beginning to destabilise otherwise stable arrangements between European nations.

I could go on. The irony is that the situation in which we find ourselves today is threatening peace in Europe, not securing it.  We’re about to witness and experience the inevitable endgame of 60 years of the steady onslaught of socialism right across Europe and the UK.

In fact, as Mr Randall points out, the past 60 years have indeed been “one big downward sprial”: we/you have not yet quite suffered the consequences.  They’ll be along any day now.



“…. the rights of black citizens of Britain….”

You mean the ‘right’ of Negro criminal scum to riot and steal as they did in Tottenham, the ‘right’ of a fat racist Negro to sit on the front bench of our parliament and to ‘Tweet’ racist comments with impunity? While whites who protest are persecuted, harassed and jailed for daring to raise their voices against the new (black and brown) Ubermenschen?

Or are you, perhaps, crowing over the ‘right’ of psychotic third world savages to burn poppies in the street in order to desecrate armistice day, the ‘right’ to display banners: ‘God curse the Queen’ and ‘Democracy go to hell’? Or the right to spit on British troops in the street calling them ‘baby killers’?

The mass importation of third world savages has all but wrecked post-war Britain. Failing to adopt Churchill’s proposal that the Conservatives should ‘keep England white’ was one of the great post-war betrayals of those who fought the war, and we are still paying the price now.

Remove all black and brown savages, close down all mosques, madrassas, Asian ’cultural centres’ and Muslim indoctrination centres that pose as schools.

Britain for the the British – enemy aliens go home (while it is still voluntary).

And if that doesn’t work boot them out at gunpoint.



Sadly, I suspect your splendidly pungent comment will not last long before the moderators get to it. Have you backed it up so that you can post it again (and again) if necessary?

I don’t agree with all you say, but your right to say it is sacrosanct.

And of course Caratacus was correct, as the comment disappeared within minutes!

All together now, para.2

In an observation, totally unrelated to the news that Caroline Spelman MP tried to obtain a super injunction for her son, I was wondering if the spelling was his or her undoing?

Define the term ‘Sensitive’

Is it a true description of a son by a loving and caring mother?

Or is it, as rumoured, the hoped-for whitewash of a spoilt clown?

The spelling is in itself yet another commentary upon the sensitivity of this poor, disadvantaged and truly badly-done-by young person ( I was going to use the term ‘young man’, but decided that he didn’t meet the criteria for manhood of any generation!)  H/T to Max Farquar

All together now…


A new specimen of the world-famous ‘I don’t want news to get out about XXXXXX (fill in X-space yourself) reverse-advertising Injunction has emerged.

Caroline Spelman (she’s the expenses-grubbing thieving slag in the Cabinet) has managed to get an Injunction placed on a story concerning her son Jonny from appearing in the tabloid press.

If she and her husband had taken advice, they would have let the story run, and it would have been over in the time it takes to wrap tomorrows chips in the newspaper.

But of course she didn’t!

So we are running a small contest to find out if anyone would venture into giving us the headline which will undoubtedly appear when the story eventually breaks.

My own headline would say something along the lines of ‘Politician’s rugby-playing son in world’s first male pregnancy’


letters to and from the council.

Dear Mr Cunningham,


Your request for information received on 26-JAN-12 has now been considered.

You requested: May I be advised, under Freedom of Information rules, if there are any penalties envisaged for council taxpayers who place the ‘wrong’ items in the ‘wrong’ bins?

Our response: It is Durham County Councils intention to educate residents on what should be placed in each bin either recyclable materials (New blue lidded bin) or residual waste (in original waste bin). It is not envisaged financial penalties will be introduced for placing the wrong items in the wrong bin.


You requested: What these penalties would amount to, per ‘infraction’?


Our response: Please see response to question 1.


You requested: If such penalties are envisaged, how does this policy coincide with the Secretary of State’s requirement that no fines or penalties will be allowed?


Our response: Please see response to question 1.

You requested: May I be also advised how much is being spent, by the Council, on the provision of all these bins for this recycling idea?


Our response: The 225,000 bins being procured to enable the authority to move to Alternate Weekly Collection have cost £4.2 million with a life expectancy in excess of 15 years. Even taking into account these costs, it will enable the authority to make an a saving in excess of £9M over 5 years from reduced operation costs, increased recycling income and reduced landfill.

Yours sincerely,       Christine Paciorek Freedom of Information Officer

Our response: It is Durham County Councils intention to educate residents on what should be placed in each bin either recyclable materials (New blue lidded bin) or residual waste (in original waste bin). It is not envisaged financial penalties will be introduced for placing the wrong items in the wrong bin.

Dear FOI Team,

Further to your response to my FOI query regarding waste materials and the two new waste bins, I would appreciate your enlarging, under FOI rules of course, on the term used which is ‘educate residents’ in the use of the bins.

As the County Council area holds somewhere around 260,000 people, and a likely percentage of those people being resistant to change being around 7.5%, do you believe that a travelling ‘road show’, which drives around the highways and byways of County Durham ‘educating’ the less than subservient amongst us that the County Council ‘Big Brother’ knows best, and we had better look sharp about composting, and recycling and all the other ‘Greenie buzz’ terms in use within the Council these days?

Alternatively, are you proposing to employ special ‘Waste Authorised Recycling Examination operatives’ to carry out random checks on the amounts of glass and paper deposited ‘by mistake’ into the general waste bins, and then force the reluctant residents to sort themselves out, and of course their rubbish, whilst placing the newly re-sorted garbage into the correct receptacles? If this proposal is adopted, will the Council indemnify residents against accidental injury or wounds received by the handling of broken glass or jagged-edged tins, or will this mean that the recalcitrant residents will have to take out special insurance so that they may be able to claim compensation if they are indeed injured whilst re-cycling incorrectly re-cycled material?

If the second of the two proposals is adopted, will the County Council be asking the Police to train the ‘Waste Authorised Recycling Examination operatives’ or W.A.R.E.O.s  for short in the legal aspects of making people understand that tins and glass don’t mix with stale bread and old dollops of chicken curry, or will they be left to sort out the bin problems by shouting at people until they get it into their thick skulls?

Finally, and writing as an freeborn Englishman of a fairly good standard of education and knowledge of the world as it stands, does the Council honestly believe that an amorphous body such as the County Council can tell me, force me, or even ‘educate’ me, into doing something which I really am not bothered about?

ain’t progress wonderful?

I used to own a book; one amongst many. I am the sort of person who can dip into a treasured or well-remembered book for the sheer satisfaction of remembering old lines and plots. But I digress; I used to own a book, couldn’t remember the title, but could not locate it. Something which is not that unusual in my home. So I thought about it, remembering the outline of the plot, the basic features of the book.

Then I went onto Google, and typed in “fiction novel, hurricane, carribean, revolution, weather man, american air base” ; hit ‘enter’ and the fifth result came up as I scrolled down and found ‘Wyatts Hurricane by Desmond Bagley’!

Went on to Abe’s Books, found and ordered a good copy, and I hope to have it in my hands in two days time.

As I said; ain’t progress wonderful?