Government investigates Tower Hamlets again

Apparently people like Sylvia Pankhurst and Danny Boyle are among a high-profile string of supporters of the Raine’s Foundation Trust and Steering Group and the many grateful parents and pupils who happily attend the school.

This new investigation is mainly concentrating around the illegal attempt by Tower Hamlets council, trying to close Raine’s Foundation, Church of England Secondary school and Sixth Form prior to a consultation.

Tower Hamlets Council made an application to the Government Schools Adjudicators in May for a zero published admission number (PAN), cutting the future pipeline of the school. A final decision on this application was due for February 2020. Yet the council already and illegally informed all new year 7 pupils, who had been given confirmed places for the year 2019/20 at Raine’s, that they had to leave Raine’s and be placed in other schools, mainly Oaklands.

Whilst the council told parents at meetings that there were only 29 viable applications for a year 7 place at Raine’s, for 2019/20, further evidence suggests that there were actually 70 – 100 pupils applying for places.

Incidentally all year 9s were also told by the council they could not progress to year 10 within the Raine’s Foundation school and should continue their education at Oaklands school.

Raines Foundation Interim Executive Board (IEB)

Whilst the previous board of governors were dismissed, acussed of being unable to run the school, an Interim Executive Board was put into place.

The school advertised a position of parent governor but we were told at the last meeting with the borough that no suitable person could be found to fill the post. I had applied for it. As a former LEA school governor, I should be more than qualified. But I suppose they didn’t want anybody on the board who would want to put a spanner in the works of their devious plans.

In the interests of ‘transparency and openness’it might be interesting to see what the Interim Executive Board (IEB) of Raines Foundation secondary school have been getting up to and you can download all ten documents here.

Raine’s Foundation hired Irwin Mitchell Solicitors who went to the High Court and obtained a judgement including directions to Tower Hamlets Council that they have to write to all parents and pupils who were originally told that they cannot continue their education at Raine’s that they now can continue their education there.

Yet, the council, to date, has not followed that order of the judge.

There are now new applications in preparation to again go to the court for further orders by the solicitors Irwin Mitchell.

It seems very strange that the council tries every trick in the book to dismantle the only traditional school with a 300 year history in the borough.

Please also see a good article from  Wapping Mole though I would not want to go so far as to call for a return of Lutfur Rahman.

It is just really sad that our current Labour council under John Biggs, makes such dreadful decisions. John Biggs. It was a seriously political and administrative mistake to illegale incite the closure of a traditional Church of England school in Tower Hamlets. It will cost the Labour Party a lot of votes.


Christians loose right to refuse unmarried couples

There it is anybody who has strong Christian beliefs and happens to run a guest house cannot only not refuse to accommodate gay couples but is also not allowed to refuse abode to those who want to share a room without being married. story link

It’s this drive for equality that takes away the rights of individual to make their own decisions as to what or what not they want to happen under their own roofs.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull obviously are the good guys.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: “Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.” Out of the window goes the cautionary approach, which tells people to wait until married of course.

Prison in lock-down

I find this story that a Serco run private prison is in lock-down quite interesting in a very personal way.

During my trial against Gray in particular Kaschke v Gray, Mr Gray’s most important argument was to say to judges that because I had been locked up for 23 hours per day, I must have been perceived as potentially a very dangerous prisoner. The judges throughout the high court accepted his argument.

Looking at this Serco prison, Thameside jail, it seems that locking up prisoners for that amount of time is merely a matter of prison management and cannot reflect on the status of the prisoner.

I was merely on remand in 1975 and found to be completely and totally not guilty of anything, yet prison authorities found it easier to put me in as isolated prisoner with 23 hour lock-up rather than let me mix with others.

This is yet another reason why the judgements of the High Court of Justice and all Justices finding on my cases is totally unacceptably flawed and should be struck out retrospectively.

It is quite obvious that the High Court was practically looking for reasons to strike my cases out and any reason was gladly accepted. Of course Mr Justice Eady was the leading judge in the proceedings against me who held these biased trials right from the start, to protect Der Spiegel.  That then rubbed off on the cases against Osler and Hilton too.

Wikileaks 70s revelations

Since in his judgement, the Honourable Mr Justice Eady suggested that I had been involved in left-wing activities in the 70s in Germany, an assumption I strongly denied, I now looked at this latest Wikileaks documents that publishes more than 1.7 million US diplomatic and intelligence reports from the 1970s.

Especially since I have shown a letter from the German Solicitor General that cleared be of any suspicion to do with German Baader-Meinhof terrorists, the English High Court still assumed that it must have been the case that I had been involved and suspected.

Very strange way of delivering justice and it reeks of complete and utter incompetence. But since I was unrepresented, I could not do much about it as they just wipe the floor with litigants in persons really.

Back to the Beginning. My thinking is that if I really would have been involved in concerning left-wing activities in Germany,the Americans would have gotten wind of this, so my name would also appear in their files.

Yes when I search those records on Wikileaks my name does not appear, which is I think further proof that Mr Justice Eady delivered a spoof judgement. They just could not stand the fact that a German immigrant women could win in an English High Court and defy the English system, could they!!!

Iain Duncan Smith in the dumps

It gives me immense pleasure that the Department of  Work & Pension has lost a case in the Court of Appeal. The same court has quashed regulations that force people to work for free or lose their jobseekers allowance. In fact now all those who had their allowances stopped can claim the money back immediately. See the approved judgement before Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton. Case Ref. [2013] EWCA Civ 66.

It is slavery, to force people to work for free, it does not create jobs; in fact it prolongs unemployment. It brings us back to the dark ages, where people were enslaved. Today’s modern slavery just forces people to work for a government handout, so that they have enough money to buy clothes to attend at work for free every day.

It is very good that the courts have finally seen that Duncan Smith’s schemes are a backward development and actually damage the free market economy.

It is very important that employers have to pay employees for doing work for them. It is part of our capitalist culture that profit making companies pay workers directly  and not that government pays them an allowance to let companies make more profits. This would swallow all taxation the country gets back as we pay for the labour ourselves.

The amount you need to live on

Currently it says on benefit letters for Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance ‘The amount the law says you need to live on’. That amount has been calculated on the basis that means tested benefits assume that recipients of such benefits do not pay rent or council tax.

From April of this year, benefits change. We will see universal benefits caps and those stop benefits at a ceiling regardless how many children you have. But that does not assume that single claimants or small families that would fall under the benefits cap would have an amount to live on that the law says they need.

Also the universal benefit will not be paid to old claimants straightaway. Normal benefits will still be paid the old-fashioned way to people.

If Haringey council wins their bid to charge benefit recipients 20% of the council tax then that means that the law will assume that these people need that amount less to live on; yet not all councils charge that minimum payment of 20% of the council tax to all.

As I understand from this article severely disabled residents will be exempt from the council tax. overall though disabled residents get far more benefits than Jobseekers or income support pays.

Nowadays people on Jobseekers or Income Support are pretty much on the bread line already,  so how much does the government say we can be squeezed. Irwin Mitchell lawyers have taken the brave step to represent the disadvantaged before the courts to sort out the dilemma.

There would be no limit as to what a minimum living standard should be if councils can charge council tax to the already destitute. Living standards will fall well below the poverty line even further as they have fallen already.

Considering the government also wants to get rid of tax credits, that will also severely affect the workers on low wages because their standard of living will also erode considerably because the law will no longer assume a minimum standard as a safety net.

But it is probably of significance that the council that gave us Baby P, also are the first to introduce 20% council tax for the destitute to pay.

No more plain sailing

I read with delight today that Abramowich won the action brought by Berezovsky whose streak of luck has finally run out. I am even more delighted to read the quotes about Mr Berezovky’s character that was delivered by Mrs Justice Gloster at the Commercial court.

I quote from a BBC article as her saying: “On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.”That was my impression as well when I sat in a day’s worth of proceedings that Mr Berezovsky then brought in libel and won with the assistance of Mr Justice Eady. Eady J of course likes transitory truths and flexible concepts about truth, as I felt it personally when he ruled over my libel cases against various publishers.

I have absolutely nothing to do with either Abramowich or Berezovsky but think that this ruling gives me a little bit of a break in that it throws some doubt over Justice Eady’s ability to properly judge people’s evidences when he allowed in my case doubtful and doctored evidences to happen to suit his purpose. It is gob-smacking stuff that Eady allowed an “inherently unreliable” witness to win a case, just as he allowed my opponents to win with dodgy evidence.

Of course I wrote about the case right at the beginning of it link to that story.

Partisan election leaflets or Stone the Crowe

Anybody hoping to get a good idea about election candidates is going to be bitterly disappointed with the latest ruling of Mr Justice Tugendhat who said that  in an election, statements made about candidates and their associations were “not capable of being understood as anything other than partisan”, reports the BBC.

So in fact we can now count on worst election leaflets to come from all sides involved.

That ruling allows now less clarity, less truth, less facts to be used to win elections and to further deteriorate the content of election leaflets. No truth required, we are all partisans.

But then people keep on asking themselves how it came about that such and such dictator came into power. Of course Justice Tugendhat together with Justice Eady is one of the more colourful judges at the High Court.

Coppers narks

I find it quite amazing that Mr Justice Eady and Lord Justice Moses relieved the media of their obligation to supply essential evidence that can help prosecute criminals. The media is worried they might be seen as coppers narks.

Why would the media not want to assist in the solving of crime? why would the media be getting this value free area, in which they can witness crime but do not have to help solve it?

Ordinary residents and businesses are very keen to assist the police by giving information if they can. We hear the appeals via Crime Stoppers, Crime Watch. Every country has crime and wanted criminals bulletins. The recent riots saw the pictures of wanted rioters distributed everywhere.

The ruling of Mr Justice Eady and Lord Justice Moses could now prompt mainstream publishers to refuse showing wanted posters of criminals because they could be seen as coppers narks.

What is in fact the benefit for society if people can report about crime and have evidence of it but have no obligation to give information about the crime to police? There is no value on that at all. We do not benefit from it that we can see ongoing crime, but we only benefit if we see a reduction in crime.

I have long had quarrels with Mr Justice Eady and the High Court myself, who has a strange idea of citizenship and freedom of the press in general. What this judgement actually promotes is crime and it helps the press be a sensationalist instrument that shows crime to sell papers and sell Internet publications on the basis of showing these sensationalist breakages of the law and it suspends their normal citizen duty to help solve crime. That is a completely and utterly ridiculous decision.

continued from before

Or lets say a reporter watches an old age pensioner being mugged and assaulted in the street, he takes photos and only shows the one where the mugger’s face is unrecognisable; this ruling of Mr Justice Eady will sanction it that the reporter can withhold the photos that show the face of the criminal. The paper can then run a story, the brutal face of crime in the UK, police unable to stem the tide of crime or something along those lines.

It is scary and frightening how both the current government and the judges at the high court systematically undermine the police in their duties. But strangely enough, they haunt any publisher that cooperates with the police like News International did (at least so I assume, but don’t quote me on that). It seems even more strange that the High Court and Mr Justice Eady of course wrote a blank cheque to Der Spiegel when I complaint about their reporting and laid open a lot of discrepancies in the law of data capture and publishing but that only News Corp. International get systematically haunted.

In my very personal view I think Mr Justice Eady is a first-class nerd.

Don’t do to others ….

Unfortunately I have to use this very sad occasion, where an enemy of this state might get positively discriminated against by another, higher force, to show that this very old saying still is true and always will be true and it goes: “You should not do to others what you don’t want done to yourself” or another commonly understood one is “What goes around comes around”. I cannot even feel Schadenfreude or glee that this happened to the government because I am not on the side of the bad guy.

But in this instance the government fell victim to the very same rule that was used against me in my own cases before the High Court in that procedural rules are allowed to be broken if the court favours a particular legal outcome.

In my own case against Der Spiegel, dates were obviously falsified, appeals made on the wrong forms, but still the court allowed it all to help the defendant,  win the case. In other cases all types of evidence was allowed against me that by established case law would be forbidden normally.

There we have it if there is a desired legal outcome then courts can break all rules they want because they are the highest authority and what the highest judge says that is the law.

It is particularly upsetting that the UK has to learn that point in the case against Abu Qatada, who is an enemy of the state. It remains to be seen why the EU wants to protect him so much, what does he do for them?

One can now ask the question is there any justice at all if outcomes can be set from the start to reach a desired goal and ignoring all rules along the way to get it.

Looking at the principle of this, our whole education system is set up to teach children to be fast and accurate and correct, but in the legal world, fast and accurate method is not required,all that is required is acting for the pre-determined, winning side and all other principles are forgotten. Is that corrupt or is it freedom?

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,737 hits