My Blogs
December 2017
20th December 2017

Liam Allan trial: Why disclosure failings can prove crucial

The Met Police is to hold an "urgent" review of a rape case after being accused of failing to disclose vital evidence.

Liam Allan, 22, was charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault but his trial collapsed after police were ordered to hand over phone records.

The BBC's Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman gives his analysis on the issues surrounding the case.

So what's new about this? Ever since the beginning of time, the police and prosecutors have withheld and/or doctored evidence that is crucial to the defence of the accused. Many people have suffered psychological torture lasting years, because of this. It's called a 'fit up', usually executed by the police and CPS who will stop at nothing to get a conviction. One ex-police officer told me one time that he frequently lied on the stand in court, in order to secure a conviction. This is particularly close to home. I don't know how these people sleep at night, they must have not even the slightest trace of compassion or humanity in them. This story high lights just two incidences, but there are many. A pity the police couldn't have been as zealous in Rotherham and Rochdale when incontrovertible evidence was put before them upon which they did not act.

In a case that I was present at, the judge announced to the court: "I disagree with the verdict; this has been a witch-hunt from start to finish by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, who between them, decided that because so much time and money has been spent on this case, we will HAVE to charge him with something."

I would strongly advise people to think carefully and consider all options before engaging a lawyer. A Barrister has only one objective in his sights, and it isn't your acquittal, it's his fee that he gets win or lose. If you are capable of D-I-Y-ing, do it! What is a barrister? He's just a middleman. You tell him what happened then he tells the court. As long as you are telling the truth, all you need to do is tell the court yourself. You don't need a flash barrister to polish it up.

If you end up in the dock of a Crown Court, you are not on anything that even resembles a level playing field. It's just little old you versus the Crown. The Crown has unlimited funding and access to professional advice and expertise. You have nothing and nobody. Nobody is in your corner, you are there all alone and if you're new to this, you'll be scared, terrified in fact. Your defence barrister doesn't care about you, he just cares about his fee. I was chatting with two lawyers one time. They told me that at least 95% of their clients are guilty. "We just have to be good actors in court," said one of them.

1st December 17
Brainwashing First in Britain

Sadly folks, we live in a world where people believe and repeat what they hear from sources other than their own minds. They don't think things through anymore. If the media says it often enough, it's taken as true.

Take for example the farce this week that dominated the British news about Donald Trump's retweets of Britain First's Tweets. This and other things he's said have labelled him a racist and a bigot. Britain First is labelled as a hate group, not because people have listened to what they say, but because they have listened to what the tabloid newspapers and the BBC say.

What's Donald Trump's problem? Basically, he only ever says that he wants to target ILLEGAL immigrants who are enjoying the fruits of the American Dream usually at the expense of others in the US.

What is Britain First's problem? They protest against the claims by Muslims that they will take over this country (UK) and will fly their Muslim flags above Buckingham Palace, No. 10 Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament. Last week, Jayda Franson said that our parents and grandparents gave their lives in two world wars so that Muslims could enjoy the freedom to proceed with their aspirations to take over this great nation.

Here in the UK, we don't have the First Amendment, so we can't say what we like either on Facebook or anywhere else. Nevertheless, Muslims DO seem to enjoy the right of free speech when they can hold their rallies in London and Luton, with impunity.

Quite frankly, most people don't seem to know what racism is because as I said earlier, they don't think it through. When somebody makes a blanket statement such as: "Donald Trump is a racist bigot," try asking them, "Why do you say that?" I guarantee that their first word will be "WELL". The word 'well' buys them time until they think of a response, or make one up.

To follow on from the post above this, the question, do we know what racism is, comes to mind. Well, do we? If you think the aspirations of Donald Trump and Britain First constitute racism, you've been paying too much attention to the media whose intent is to brainwash and control us all. The following story IS racism, and it's NOT from the Sun, BBC or Daily Mail, it's a personal account by Patricia Raybon who is a journalist, teacher and award-winning author:

"I didn't mean to grow up bitter. I was a good girl as a child. I obeyed my parents. I respected my Sunday School teachers and worked hard at school, aiming for excellence and trying to do my best. But some people treated me without love because of my skin colour. Calling me names. Making fun of me. Turning me away. Closing their doors. In one school one teacher refused to call on me in class for an entire year. She called me "Nobody" - making it clear how little she thought of me. Laws in my county stopped me from using certain public water fountains, toilets, restaurants or living in certain areas.

In no time at all, I grew bitter. I knew Jesus then, but I also knew hurt. Hurt fertilises bitterness, making it grow like a weed. Indeed, bitterness is like a root that sinks deep into the soil of our hearts and spirit. When watered with resentment and anger, it springs up and causes trouble, defiling many around it. Everyone around me hated people. I learned hate from them. I taught hate to others. What a tragic outcome that bitterness multiplies like a bad seed, sprouting yet more ugly wrongs.

But what about God? While I loved the Lord and believed He loved me, my bitterness was a wall of sin, separating me from Him. As I grew, that separation grew. Bitterness became a nagging, sour, hateful habit. I'd forgotten the Bible's call to strive for peace with everyone and for holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Instead, I was obsessed with racial hatred, always looking for it in others. Not to root it out or to ask God to end it, but to lay blame.

How do we rid ourselves of this bitterness? Finally turning to God for help. He mercifully revealed three ways:
Take our bitterness to Him, ask Him to teach us and rely on the Holy Spirit's great power.

True, my 'soil' always needs weeding, but I know the gardener. May His love keep turning my bitter sin into a harvest of grace and light."

This story comes from Our Daily Bread. NB, if you usually receive this publication free in the mail, send them a donation at Christmas because this organisation is unique in that it NEVER asks for money nor does it send out begging letters. Nevertheless, it survives only on donations.

November 2017
30th Nov 17
Trump's Retweets

This is by far the biggest story in the UK news today (and yesterday and tomorrow and the day after etc.). Kim Jong-un's desire to destroy us and much of the world is mentioned only in passing. Do we still have what has for many decades been called a special relationship with America now? I very much doubt that. It's not Thatcher and Regan any longer. Currently, there's a petition being distributed in an attempt to have President Trump's invitation to this country withdrawn. 
Yesterday, a Labour politician suggested that were Trump to arrive on British soil, he should be immediately arrested. Doesn't that IDIOT realise that such a course of action would be a declaration of war between our two nations? Would that make life better for us here? 
If we listen to the phone in shows on BBC Radio, we'll only hear from those who condemn President Trump. That might be because those of opposing views wouldn't dare call up for fear of being berated by all ensuing callers and the BBC presenters, because make no mistake, the BBC's views on this are crystal clear. 
OK, I'll admit that president Trump is brash and doesn't always think before he acts, but he's even more American than blueberry pie. It would be folly for us to expect him to flaunt a typically British stiff upper lip. And as for Theresa May, she only ever says what she's expected to say. Had she not responded to Trump's tweets the way she did (......"It was wrong for him to do this."), she would have been in the firing line as much as he is. Don't let anyone get the wrong idea, she's is no more popular here than Trump is. She might just as well be a puppet on the end of somebody else's strings.

Just heard on the radio that Trump won't lose a wink of sleep over this. He's got far more important things to deal with.

30th November
While the UK is considering banning Trump from its shores, North Korea is making progress. Without America on side, can we defeat this? It's not WW2 any more, can we really stand alone again?
29th Nov 17
Whatever you do, DO NOT CRITICISE SHARIA LAW, otherwise, you'll be labelled a far right supporter.
The Prime Minister Theresa 'Sharia' May has condemned Donald Trump for his actions, despite the fact she is presiding over the implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws here in the UK.
24th Nov 17
In case anyone is wondering, life means 5 years. However, this is the price that we the public must pay while the Government saves money. Much cheaper to allow the mentally ill to roam the streets and kill our children, than to keep them incarcerated. Y'know what, this unnecessary fake austerity makes me sick even more today than it did yesterday. This little girl who harmed no one was cut to ribbons. I can't imagine what the scene must have looked like to the first people to arrive.
Wonderful Technology - 24th November 17

Isn't modern technology marvellous? I'm not so sure. I think it's to blame for slowing the world down and wasting time. If you're a young person, you won't have a clue what I'm getting at, will you? That's because you've never known life before call centres and pay by phone car parking. You've never known instant contact with humans on the phone.

Pay by phone parking, a system devised to save having to pay the wages of cash collectors from parking meters. This is how it works. In the old days, you would drive around central London, find a parking space, get out of the car, place a coin in a meter and you're done, on your way to your destination. 
Nowadays, you find the parking space, get out of the car, note the phone number on a sign, dial the number, give the description (make, model and colour and registration number) of your car. That done, then comes your credit card - type in the 16 digit card number, expiry date, security code. Then the computer tells you that something isn't recognised, so you have to start all over. You feel like hitting the first person who walks by.

You want to report your washing machine has broken down. In days gone by, you'd phone your local Curry's or Comet, the phone will be answered by a real person fairly quickly. You report the fault of your machine and within a few hours, an engineer comes round to fix it.
These days, you phone a call centre. A computer tells you how valuable your call is, then it recites several options that you have to select from with a button push on your phone. After a wait, you will be told 'all of our operators are busy, but you're the 9th in the queue'. You'll then be listening to Mozart, or Greensleeves or some other boring music. Eventually, you speak to a human being who explains that the engineer is in your area on Wednesdays, and it's your responsibility to be home on that day.

You go into a cafe for a cup of tea. In the old days, you'd offer the payment, and two buttons on the cash till are pressed, and the job is done. Now, it takes 45 pushes on a Smart screen (typing in a log on, personal password etc) in order to just pay for a cup of tea.

Is technology really a time saver? No wonder I'm a retro fan.

Ludicrous BBC Salaries

24th July 17
This could be defined as a breach of our civil liberties in that we do not have a choice when it comes to financing the £2.2 million salary of this man. Some people in the United States will read this and they will be aghast at its message.
This is Christ Evans who earns £2.2 million per annum for simply playing records and speaking into a microphone, in other words, he's a disc jockey, an expression that radio presenters despise because it undermines their glory. And rich people like that woman who complained about Grenfell Tower victims moving into her wealthy apartment block last week, perpetually claim that they work hard for what they have. I've been a radio disc jockey and the job is so easy, I worked at it for free.

I don't have a say in this, neither does anyone else who finances this salary. WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO PAY THIS MAN'S SALARY AND WE CAN BE ARRESTED IF WE ARE CAUGHT USING A TELEVISION OR VIEWING TV PROGRAMMES ON LINE WITHOUT A TV LICENCE. We have no say as to how this money is distributed once it's been wrenched out of our pockets. Someone else decides that I must pay towards this salary because if I don't, this valuable commodity (AKA Chris Evans) will leave the BBC and go to a competitor.

It gets better: I never use what this guy produces. I never listen to his radio show and I never watch anything he does on TV. This is an indictment of our freedom to choose. Normally, when purchasing a service, we can examine the service and make the choice as to whether or not to purchase. Furthermore, I would add that if I never use BBC services, but only listen to commercial radio and only watch commercial TV, I still have to pay for Chris Evans' salary.

What did I tell you, Americans reading this will be shocked. Americans choose whether or not to subscribe to PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), it's not forced onto them even if they don't use it.

Acid Attack Epidemic in London - 17 July 2017

Some cops think 'stop and search' will solve the problem, yet some cops think it won't. I must agree if there is a control on the availability of acid, it'll be used less, but the low lifes will switch to drain cleaners, the likes of which I saw on the shelves in Tesco this week. 

They talk a lot about how this offence can come under the GBH law and punishment, stating that they CAN (not will) get life imprisonment. Give me a break, can you imagine anybody getting a life sentence for hurting another human being? NO! IT COSTS TOO MUCH TO KEEP SOMEONE IN PRISON FOR LIFE. They'd be more likely to get a stiff sentence if they defraud the Government out of some money, but not for assault. Come on! Human life is worthless as are we, the citizens.

5 Year old girl fined for selling lemonade. You couldn't make

 this up.
15th July 2017

This was my 'You Couldn't Make It Up' topic of last night, now it's all over the news. It's so good and comforting to know that we are being protected against these ruthless criminals, AKA little girls. What we have in London is a huge increase in knife crime, acid attacks, street robberies, moped thieving, but the most dangerous of all is a little girl who is selling lemonade to passers by for 50p per glass. This cannot go on and Tower Hamlets Council is protecting us from this manic individual. 

Bottom line---- SHAME ON TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. They have done untold damage to the moral of this lovely little lass who was trying out an idea she had thought of herself. After this, she cried, believing that she was bad and had done something terrible. A RIGHT SICKENER!!!

A five-year-old girl was fined £150 by a council for selling 50p cups of lemonade to festival goers.

The girl's father Andre Spicer said his daughter had set up the stall in Mile End, east London, while thousands of music fans were on their way to the Lovebox Festival at the weekend.
Mr Spicer said his daughter burst into tears and told him "I've done a bad thing".
Tower Hamlets Council has since cancelled the fine and apologised.

Image copyright
Image caption

Mr Spicer said his daughter loved the idea of setting up a stall near their home.

"She just wanted to put a smile on people's faces. She was really proud of herself," he said.
"But after a small time trading, four enforcement officers walked over from the other side of the road.
"I was quite shocked. I thought that they would just tell us to pack up and go home.
The Toxicity Charge

6th April 17

Now, the majority of voters in London's mayoralty election last year showed that they lack the ability to see how Sadiq Khan is undermining their intelligence. Perhaps they do lack the intelligence to see through his lying and scheming, but some of us do not.

What does he have on the table? He's going to charge the owners/drivers of Diesel powered vehicles an extra premium for driving their vehicles in the capital. Why? It's because these vehicles are causing the deaths of several thousand residents of London each year. How many thousands is unclear, I heard four thousand, then six, and more recently, nine.

To start this rant, let us take the figure of several (albeit uncertain how many) thousands of people whose death is caused by polluting vehicles. Where do the figures come from? What I mean is, how do Khan and his sympathisers know whose death is caused by traffic? Are there any death certificates that state: 'Cause of death, traffic pollution'?

Why all of a sudden are we blaming Diesel vehicles? I don't own one, but had I recently bought a diesel Jaguar or a Volvo, I wouldn't be too impressed with Khan's proposed scrappage scheme wherein he's offering something like 2 thousand pounds for owners to scrap their cars and go and buy a petrol one. 

Why are we being told that Diesel vehicles are the biggest polluters now, when a few years ago, we were encouraged to buy them because they polluted less than petrol vehicles did? Of course, I neither trust nor believe all I'm told, therefore I don't believe this latest report, or bunch of almost daily reports. What could be the reason for this 180-degree turnaround?  Could it be that a few years ago, there was more profit to be made from the sale of Diesel fuel,  but now Petrol commands the higher fiscal return? 

How can Khan and his clean air cronies get the message of pollution over to the public? The people are going to say that the air looks clean, unlike in the early 1950s when one couldn't see a hand in front of one's face. "Ah, yes, I've got it, we'll tell them that it's Nitrous Oxide, a gas that can't be seen, that'll do it." Well, it might and to some extent, it will because there is a large section of the populous that believes all that it's told. 

The whole concept is a cash cow - a big money spinner for TFL and whoever drains its resources. How do I know this? This applies to all punitive taxation measures. They do NOT achieve what they are supposed to achieve. All they do is generate extra income for councils and other authorities. Take for example the congestion charge.

The congestion charge has done nothing to reduce congestion in Central London, although the very blinkered Ken Livingstone, who created it, will argue otherwise. What these punitive taxes do is they force people to pay for the privilege of driving their vehicles in a certain area. They won't stop Diesel vehicles entering London. If someone needs to be there and the vehicle is a Diesel powered one, that person will go there regardless of the cost. People have businesses to run and most businesses do use Diesel vehicles. Taxis, Fire Tenders, Ambulances, trucks and vans all use Diesel engines. 

If Khan really wanted to cut traffic pollution and he really believed Diesel engines were the root cause, he would ban the use of them entirely. A vehicle whose owner is paying a Toxin Tax will be just as polluting as one that enters the Capital at no cost. The charge doesn't reduce the pollution coming from the exhaust pipe. So, a total ban on them is the only answer. Of course, this will be a springboard to the next level because let us not forget, Khan is craving for the glory that would go with his aspired claim to have cleaned up the greatest city on earth. Would it then be the greatest city on earth? The next level being referred to here is a total ban on all motorized vehicles. Everybody would use the Underground trains (which are currently working flat out to carry the maximum they are capable of carrying), cycles or their own feet. What a ghost town London would be. 

There will be a backlash of course. There would be mass unemployment and loss of revenues that would hit unprecedented levels. Imagine the number of people who earn their living from the existence and use of vehicles. The list is endless, but I'll go for it: Petrol station staff, Petrol refiners, raw oil importers, petrol pump maintenance staff, delivery tanker drivers, motor mechanics, garage reception staff, car salespeople, tyre changers, tyre suppliers, spare parts manufacturers, insurance company staff, road maintenance staff, gritters in adverse weather conditions and traffic reporters on radio stations. As I said, the list is endless. I've probably only covered a small part of the total. Add to this the loss of Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel tax and VAT. The treasury would be in a crisis like never before. The economy of the nation would be crippled like never before. The Government would be begging us to return to car usage, explaining that there had been a misunderstanding and that the air isn't polluted at all. The deaths would have happened anyway. 

The Wall

23 March 17

I've been at a meeting just now where, a) I was the only bloke (guy in US English) and Donald Trump's wall was being discussed. Because I was the only bloke, and because my views differ enormously from those being submitted by others, I did the right thing and endorsed the fact that one learns a lot more from the use of one's ears and eyes than one learns from the use of one's mouth. In other words (as we say in Yorkshire), I kept my big gob shut. But on here, as this is my personal blog space, I can say virtually whatever I like, so I will.

Basically, I agree with Donald Trump's wall, in fact, there are only two choices available to us: either we have a wall, or we have totally free access to our countries by anyone who wishes to enter them. 

We already have a huge wall surrounding the United Kingdom. It's called the sea - comprising, the English Channel, the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. It works to a point. It kept the Nazis out in World War 2. Unlike France, Holland, Belgium, Poland and several other European nations, Great Britain was not invaded and subsequently occupied by the Nazis. No, although we had slight food shortages and rationing, that was far better than having to dig tulip bulbs out of the fields and eat them, like they did in Holland. We didn't have to duck and dive in our own country because a nazi patrol was approaching. We didn't have to step aside and walk in the gutter when Nazi officers walked by on the pavement (sidewalk). We didn't have Nazis building concentration camps in our country to be used for our persecution. Why not? Because we had the wall. 

Now to modern times - refugees and others can come from the middle east, all the way across Europe and reach Calais in northern France, but they can't manage that final 20 miles to get to the UK. Why, because we have the wall. 

So, we had a terrorist attack in London yesterday. It's universally alarming because it's so rare now. When I lived in London in the 1970s and had to go into central London every day to work, we had 3 IRA bombings each and every day. They were so common, that they ceased to spark the outrage that yesterday's incident did. It was a case of, "Another bomb went off in Central London this morning." Then on to the next news item.

One of the masterminds of those bombings and many other forms of murder was the guy whose funeral is today (which Bill Clinton is attending......WHY?), that of Martin McGuinness. Many deaths are down to him and what retribution did he face for it? None at all. He was commended for being part of Tony Blair's 'Good Friday Agreement' which led to the peace process. This is tantamount to me going around towns and cities shooting everyone I see, then handing my Kalashnikov over to Tony Blair and saying, "I quit now". Then I become a politician, get into Government and become Deputy First Minister. Isn't that wonderful? 

Whining about kept promises

January 30th, 2017

I've had enough of this on the radio and TV today. Why is everyone so shocked at the developments during the past few days. Trump has been saying what he was going to do for the past year. He was voted in on that manifesto, he kept his word, now everybody is in shock as if this had just been pulled out of the blue. 

People will not realize that it's the silent majority that wields the power in this world, not that bunch that is protesting in Whitehall this evening, not that million plus that has signed a petition to get Trump's invitation to this country reversed. No, they're the noisy minority, but because only they are making a noise, they create the impression that they are representative of most of us. 

As for reversing the invitation, shouldn't the Queen have a say in this? She is her own person with her own free thinking mind. She's not a puppet on somebody else's strings. I'll bet nobody has asked her. So, a million have signed the petition, that means about 64 million have yet to sign it. If they do that, so will I.

London Mayor proposes emissions charge, scrappage scheme, and larger Ultra Low Emission Zone to improve air quality.

12 July 2016

Vehicles registered prior to 2005 in the firing line.

London Mayor proposes emissions charge, scrappage scheme, and larger Ultra Low Emission Zone to improve air quality.

Vehicles registered prior to 2005 in the firing line.

I was watching Sadiq Khan on the TV last week. He was visiting a small boy in Great Ormond Street Hospital; a boy who suffers from a respiratory problem and has to use a nebuliser. Khan explained that almost 10,000 Londoners are dying every year because of the air pollution in the capital. With what he followed it with, I don't think my intelligence has ever been so insulted since I was born.

He says he's going to make London the cleanest air city in the world, and this is how he's going to do it. He's going to enforce a further charge on the use of all cars made before 2005. So, when he's done that, just watch all the smog and pollution rise up and vanish from our capital city. You'll be able to stand on Euston Road and Oxford Street and take in deep breaths, just for the pleasure of it. Do you think so?

Now to the reality. The average car travels only a small number of miles each day, then it's usually standing in a car park for most of the day, then it travels a few miles back to its home base.

A bus and/or a taxi on the other hand, is driven at relatively low speeds in London's heavy traffic, ALL day and often ALL night. Its engine is NEVER EVER switched off.

Here's another one. Firstly we had roads that all vehicles could share equally. Then came bus only lanes, so all other vehicles were pushed into a smaller road space, which increased congestion and consequently, more idling engines belching out more pollution.

The next phase followed. Suddenly, London's Roads are sporting Cycle Super Highways which are painted blue. Only cycles are allowed to use them, so other vehicles are cramped into an even more confined space, thereby creating more congestion and more pollution.

Sadiq Khan expects us to believe that he is working on the problem. Oh, if only the Tories had had a better opponent that Zac Goldsmith for the mayoral election, we might have had somebody sensible running London.

A final gripe: Doesn't Khan realise that most people who run older cars do so because they can't afford to buy and run newer ones. If Khan gets his way, people will not pay the extra charge, they will be forced off the roads forever. Only the better off will then be able to drive in London. Is this the Labour way?

The EU Referendum

15 July, 16

Until today, I have refrained from expressing my views on the referendum or stating how I voted although I have shared the views of many others on my Facebook Timeline. I'll say how I voted now. I voted to leave, not because of my educational attainment and/or qualifications (or lack thereof), not because of my age and certainly not because of my fiscal status or the rural area in which I live, all of which the article below this would suggest such a vote is attributed to.

The main engine that spawned my vote was the disgraceful behaviour of the remain campaigners such as David Cameron whose constant distribution of threats seemed to cement his view that the most likely leave voters are inherently stupid and would absorb his fearful rhetoric. Could this, risk of that, might the other, could could could. I just became so sick of hearing the word, 'could' which must be one of the most meaningless words in the English language.

Worst of all though was the engagement of Barak Obama who was clearly reciting from a pre-written script which explained that if we vote leave, the UK will have to take its place at the end of a long queue if we are to continue to do business with the USA.

As I read through the long winded blog (below) from the vice chancellor of Hallam University in Sheffield, I detect a slight suggestion of a doubt that there had ever been a UK unattached to Europe. I also feel that it insults all who do not share his views, howsoever guided (or otherwise).

My final view is that I don't think we shall be plunged into a nuclear winter or abyss of misery, hardship and despair, as some of the losing side suggests.

I had hoped to bury the referendum by now, but rancid offsprings of it keep coming my way. I'll share this, but I don't expect many people will tolerate the monotony of it though. On the actual blog page, I added the following comment which is still awaiting moderation. It'll probably be deleted, but I don't care: 

" Is this another of those, “I told you so” blogs? This won’t win any points for its author. It’s pure conjecture. When I voted, I didn’t leave my date of birth at the booth, a list of my qualifications attained at school nor my fiscal status. In essence, it says: “If you’re clever, you voted as I did, if you’re stupid, you voted the other way.” Shame on whoever composed this personal rhetoric."

free templates