Women’s pensions

That is the state of how pensions changes affect women and men according to government statistics.

pension-peopleaffected-nc

It clearly shows that women are adversely affected during the early implementation period.

The court case will come to a conclusion today and I surely hope we’ll win because I was badly affected by the pension change. I did expect my pension age 60 and was totally baffled when I received that letter that I will not get my pension until I am 62 1/2 about 9 months prior to becoming 60. Then suddenly the Work and Pensions department madly pushed me into work quickly.

So watch this space, I shall continue this post later.

See source

So the court has decided against the women, one reason was, “Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.”

Women historically were encouraged to be wife and mother and to equalise the assymetry between men and women is not to punish the women for doing what they were encouraged to do.

Advertisements

In the interest of national unity

Today’s unanimous judgement of the Supreme Court will strengthen national unity and is good for Britain’s future.

Had the Supreme Court found against the appeal of Gina Millar and quashed the Scottish ruling, then the rift between Britain’s regions would have deepened considerably.

MP’s are calling for a Unity Government whilst Boris Johnson is at the UN Climate Summit and has endless calls to resign. Boris said he would not resign. But if even Nigel Farage asks for the sacking of Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s adviser, then things are getting really serious for the government.

Boris behaved like a tinpot dictator and probably could get into the history books as the shortest serving Prime Minister ever.

The Supreme Court quashed the prorogation as if it had never happened. So all laws, which were in preparation do not have to be done again.

government stalls subsidy on localised solar electricity

I thought it was an excellent idea to stimulate house owners to install solar panels on their roofs and allow them to sell on the extra electricity created for a profit. The principle is the best solution for a planet that suffers from severe energy problems and has problems generating naturally produced and healthy energy. Instead the government wants to bank our future on more nuclear reactors. There are many natural energy producers around the country, who produce energy in a variety of ways. That may be from waste, water generators, wind turbines, etc. All the surplus energy can be sold to energy companies who in turn sell on the energy to consumers who subscribe to green energy schemes or larger companies who sell it on as part of their general energy supply.

People are paid to generate their own electricity with solar panels and that seems an ideal solution to make people bear the cost of installation.

Apparently Friends of the Earth argue that the government stops subsidising an industry that is beneficial for the environment and creates jobs. It also helps create energy independence. I suppose it is this aspect that governments dislike in general, that people can live locally without needing a centralised mechanism to keep going.

The argument is that renewable energy has created 39.000 jobs and with the cutting of the subsidies Britain has fallen from 3rd to 13th place in the world’s renewable producer rankings.  I said it many times already that it was the most disappointing thing for me about this government that they abandon renewable energy production and instead want to revert to nuclear energy. We are told it is not so dangerous and risks are low. We have seen what an earth quake did in Japan. With the Iran nuclear program we are constantly reminded how dangerous nuclear energy is, yet here in our own country, the government is suddenly very keen on it.

I think what we need is transparency who financially supports our governing parties and if necessary put an end to political corruption, which arises out of the fact that political parties rely on sponsorships from commercial companies. There comes a point when profits and production methods are only partly important because the environment does not care about any of it. Of course for some companies large centralised operations are profitable and it is easier to account with large scale supply mechanisms, but that is not always a good solution to pressing environmental problems.

The dialectic of Justice

I am surprised that Mr Justice Eady made that judgment in the football privacy case after all the arguments I brought before the court in my own cases, which I lost. I provided the court with lots of evidences about how electronic communications and communications networks function and how users can be established and the arguments came that whatever was written was fair comment. I evidenced also and so did many before me that communications work on different channels (Lennox Lewis case), a bit like the old-fashioned village gossip really. Can anyone stop people from talking about something?

Word goes around and does not stop at certain borders but one should expect that facts stay facts really. It is not a question about the facts in the footballer case, which is different from my own cases. In my own cases the facts were disputed but this is not so in the footballer privacy case.

I heard only yesterday who that footballer allegedly was because it was on the BBC website and I usually only get wind of things once its on the BBC. The Scottish Herald argues that Scotland is not within English jurisdiction, quite right but why was that Injunction granted in the first place.

In my view its because justice always worked to defend the rich and those who can afford it even if it is a little bit silly. If it bothers someone really a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on it then justice will serve that person. Of course I also argued in my case about seeking Judicial Review that this principle “We are all the same under the law” was only invented so that the rich could be prosecuted for the same crimes as the poor but that was not properly digested by the court.

Especially in cases where there is no legal aid the courts are only willing to find for those who can afford the best lawyers for th longest amount of time and of course footballers can really spend the most money on anything.There is some very pungent case law that proves that cases were only continued because litigants could proof they can pay costs and those cases where then won by those who could afford to pay costs; the case of Prince Radu is the best example.

That is why this silly judgment came about that really doesn’t make sense especially not as the story seems to be true. How can anybody stop people from talking about something that is true?

I posted about this before, if people do not want people talking about their sexual behaviour they should simply not exercise that sexual behaviour. It is the oldest story on earth that the rich and famous always had “concubines” as they were called under the French royal courts. And it is a bit the same, isn’t it, that what the old Aristocrats did then the rich still do now. Who can blame the poor girls for wanting to be fancied by the rich? No one really can apart from the church.

The matter has by now become ridiculous and I am not about to make myself very popular with those who do not want to be able to look truth into the eye or have been made to believe that their case has really good merit because they could afford to pay justice to allow them to rule that make belief. That is really the danger, that if you can afford to pay for something then very powerful people will support you and you will only be shown the door by the poor masses who do what they always did, Gossip in one form or another.

The question arises should English justice really always serve the rich in civil cases or show more common sense and avoid making a few bucks out of some applications?

Education in the courts

I do not really want to make a comment about the recent judgment of a Judicial Review application into the Education Secretary’s policies. Michael Gove just cancelled some of the School Building program that the former government administration had planned. Please read BBC report about the matter here.

What however I would like to go on about, is the fact that fundamental differences in policies can cause a serious hindrance on any party’s ability to govern because policies cannot be changed from one day to another and 5 years are not a long time to implement or structure any policy that then can be overturned by somebody else’s government.

I think we seriously have to consider removing such long-term strategic policies from 5-year plans, or the length of a voted in government because it is simply not possible to couch long-term policies into the length of one democratic process.

It is understandable, to say the least that locals just do not want to give up on eduction plans that were worked upon by students, pupils, parents and educationalist alike over a period of years and projected as future plans for education just for somebody to come along and throw it all into the bin. Yet that is the situation today’s democracy has created. I do not think that any consultation would produce other results because a consultation does not bring with it a duty to change one’s mind but only a duty to listen to concerns, so that the whole project will probably only be shelved for a short while and then re-kindled.

Climb every mountain

that is the implication of Mr Justice ‘s  judgment, that I can still continue the path of righteousness but it is a very steep mountain to climb.

Yet are the hills still alive in English Justice? I certainly hope so because if they aren’t then there is a lot of dead wood on the mountain in England.

It is very worrying though that the court has already used one of my judgments to throw out another case and that of a woman at that. Knowing that this case is up for permission to appeal the court is very hasty to apply its new-found resolution strategy.

I am always positive and as such, since I have gotten rid of my frustrations taken a deep breath and noticed that I do not have a bad case but I simply have a badly pleaded case.

There is a remedy and that is to apply to amend the pleadings and particulars of claim. I wonder whether the Appeal Court judge can resists the temptation to refuse a drop-dead-gorgeous pleading.  It really is a matter whether the hills of English Justice are still alive or does it suffer from Rigor Mortis, to not let anybody up that mountain once made a mistake.

I was a bit worried when Justice Stadlen proclaimed that I would be unable to go through a jury trial because I am too slow and a litigant in person could not cope with that. Well that is an attitude that could have come from my husband who had a similar view to women in general and was very dismissive of inventive thinking.  We can divorce a husband but we can’t divorce a judge. There are many more where he came from in any case. So its a matter of arguing and convincing with a steady pace. To say it with the words of Joan Amatrading, I am not in love but I’m open to persuasion of the legal ideas of course, I hope that this is what the judge will think.

Joan Amatrading, singer of I am not in love but I'm open to persuasion

Yet looking at the situation from Mr Gray’s point of view, if the case went to trial and it wasn’t a jury trial then he would have grounds to go to Strasbourg if he lost. There, we now see the shortcomings of the Access to Justice Act, that yes, we want to allow litigants in person to bring Defamation Claims, but no, they can’t really have a jury trial. I don’t think that is going to work. I am going to apply for a Declaration of Compatibility. My second attempt to query the judicial system, since my application for Judicial Review on the matter failed, currently also before the Strasbourg court administrator.

I think it would be best all around if we could resolve the matter on the claims before the court because otherwise we open the gates for filing future claims on old matters just with different pleadings. I think that Hilton, Osler and Gray should have allowed me to amend the pleadings, now that I have finally caught up to the legal side of law as it was in Germany in 1975 and able to compare that to today’s Human Rights Act.  Because, frankly speaking, if the Court of Appeal now allows me to amend my pleadings and I win the case, then the Defendants will have to pay a much higher bill but also if the court does not allow me to amend then we will see more action both in Europe and in England.

So the English should not complain about the high EU contributions they have to pay as that is what much of the money to Europe goes on, to maintain the European Court of Human Rights amongst other things.

Frankly matter of being able to pay costs has been decided against me whilst the Defendant’s cashflow is zero too, they could not pay costs if they had to but the court has never even put them into the awkward position, isn’t that nice of the court.

Is there a general rule in English Justice that says, whoever gets the first costs against them is going to lose the case? I think the court should not give preference to Gray, Hilton and Osler just because they are young and middle-aged men who have better things to do than come to court and leave me with all the frustration and paperwork, to file with Strasbourg and then having to wait for years before I can get my costs back. The approach should be to resolve this matter now because the solution to the problem as it is now is unsatisfactory in so far as a publication is declared as untrue but the publisher has not been banned from re-publication. I do have a case but it is badly pleaded. I could get damages but because of the bad pleadings the damages are low. What does that mean to the rest of the world?

Blog Stats

  • 52,819 hits