The fascinating psychology of the Stadlen – Kaschke – Dougans proselitysm

Whenever I am involved in something I am most interested in the psychology of the situation and in this court case the psychology of all the parties including the judge is most interesting. Of course, to start most people would say that I am raving  mad to even write about a judge who is sitting on a pile of papers at the moment to deliberate on a judgment but then I have always been different from others and never allowed anybody to tell me what to do. Freedom of speech is for all, not just for those that write nonsense about me.

I was thinking of my chances, whether I could win this case before the Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen and decided to search about him on the Internet and because before the Internet nobody is sacred, I found some very interesting stuff about this judge, that makes my mind buzz with excitement.

Personally I think Sir Stadlen is a very pleasant person but I could not understand the hardline on rules enforced on me as litigant in person, like the rules are for all of us and if I chose to be a litigant in person nothing is excusable.  [Later insert, yet it is understandable that a high court judge that earned in excess of £1 million per year as a barrister is not exactly keen to support litigants in person as that would undermine his profession.  What will the European Court of Human Rights make of that?]

Yet as I found out Mr Justice Stadlen felt sorry for Gypsies that built on a site and he felt sorry for them because one was expecting a baby. I brought that excuse that I had to look after a child and a disabled person and wanted leniency from the rules without success on many occasions.

Mr Justice Stadlen is further fascinating in that his father was a classical musician and his mother a champion for the underprivileged. His decision to allow Gypsies (Daily Mail version) to convert a camp site into a site with more permanent buildings has enraged Eric Pickle, local Conservative MP of Blackmore. Read the judgment here. Now what interests me about this is the ideological mess the poor judge must be in. He loves to support those who are treated as cancer of our society because he loves to support those who need it most, I admire that. It is true they do need support.

But whose side will he rest with in my case, who does he think is the biggest underdog, or who deserves justice on their side the most? What of course further complicates the situation is that Eric Pickles is a high-ranking Conservative Party member. The lawyer acting against me (Robert Dougans) is also a Conservative party members, I am a Conservative Party member and the Defendants are all Labour.

From the party political side, both Dougans and I should have to hate Justice Stadlen because he decided in a manner that is alien to traditional property law especially as this happened in the constituency of a fellow Conservative MP Pickles.  Yet Dougans represents Labour members, when Labour members are traditionally representing the underdogs, and the British love the underdogs as a matter of fact.

What is not in my favour, is that I once supported and loved rock music, tell that to a son of a classical musician who loves listening to classical music. Even though I now like listening to classical music more than when I was young I suppose Justice Stadlen gets nothing more than tooth ache when he only thinks about Uriah Heep, Jethro Tull and Joe Cocker, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and many more.

However I do love the underdog as well and think it is noble that someone sticks up for Gypsies. I personally hate signs in pubs, that say no Gypsies, its so discriminating and rude, unnecessary and inhuman even. What does mess with my mind is that Justice Stadlen reminds me a lot of my late husband Robert who was also a free thinker, though not quite as rich as Justice Stadlen is.

So where do we stand, will Sir Stadlen decide with Dougans, a loyal Conservative member and loyal with Pickles, who fights Stadlen J on the planning issue or with the Labour party rebels that give Dougans popular fame on the local scene, with no chance of gaining more vote for the Conservatives in exchange for the favour Dougans did for Osler free of charge.

interesting is the fact that Dougans slimes up to the  judge by saying that my attempt to appeal against a high court judge’s decision is a collateral attack on a high court judge. I bet Eric Pickles doesn’t see it that way and that implies that Dougans is such a hard-liner who doesn’t believe in the right of us all to appeal. God help us all should Dougan ever get powerful, he’ll probably revert justice to the bare of Victorian times.  It is a fascinating constellation of problems that I cannot wait to get the solution for.

Will the honourable Justice Stadlen help us innocent victims of anti-terror legislation retain our pride and good names?  And more will the honourable Mr Justice Stadlen put an end to using terrorism as a source of jokes and trivial banalities that can ruin lives?

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 53,940 hits