Labour exploits policing either way

This latest Dawn Butler story, in which she blames police for racially profiling her, is simply another way to exploit policing negatively to score political Brownie points.

Remember the years of hassle I had from labour councillors and supporters over a story they ran, digging out that age-old arrest I once suffered in Germany.

Now they still blame the police for doing their job.

They practically tell them: “Dont’ stop black people or we’ll accuse you of racism”.

Who would want to vote for a political party that pressurises our law enforcement to treat people differently according to their colour?

I was never black, yet I had been arrested once. I never complained abour Racial Profiling of White people.

But, some Labout politicians now complain about profiling of black people for only stopping them.

I never complaint about police doing their job. I had a lawyer who went through a simple compensation process for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, as it is standard procedure in such cases. Colour doesn’t even come into it.

Personally I never liked colour-coded values. Black Lives matter as much as any other live matters. All lives matter!

Nobody should kneel on anybody’s neck. That is the simple message we need to get across. It doesn’t matter whether they are police or black or white.

Nobody should kneel on people’s neck.

Stop and search is a great method to reduce carrying of weapons and drugs. Simple.

Anybody can get stopped, anybody can get accused.

In the end it is an argument of time and money and how many good results police get with using the most effective methods.

As kids we were told: “The police is your friend and helper”. A much better outlook in life for a child to get rather than accusing law enforcement as the enemy of the people.

Clumsy mistakes

Noone can accuse the British for ousting people for clumsy mistakes. We have accepted all horroundes mistakes that Boris Johnson made, from the letterbox ladies to the Care homes. Yet Harpers is an American publication and published a letter about censorship and Freedom of Speech.

During my time at the High Court, I suffered the most horrendous online bullying, being called names and people generally very negative with swearwords woven in.

Now I find myself warned by Facebook if I say something that offends somebody there and they threaten you with expulsion if you say something as hateful as that again.

I re-posted an optical trick illusion – it was clearly marked as such – Facebook deleted the video saying it was not realistic.

Taken censorship to that breadth and width is overdoing things a lot.

Perhaps, now in hindsight, I would not bring the libel action again on the strength of radicals posting over-radicalised stuff, just to make their case and impress the Anarchists, I would just argue as I did in a recent posting, that people who do not like education come up with all kinds of tricks to make educators look silly.

But also perhaps I had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and the trauma of what had happened to me, even though a very long time ago – was still firmly wedged within my psyche. It helped me to get over it though.

The over-anxious police actions like they recently happened to Olympian Bianca Williams are a sign of the time.  This kind of stuff happened in Germany during the 70s everywhere, its just that they didn’t search you, they locked you up for months. I wouldn’t attribute that to racism, they are generally freaked out about the fact that they lost control over some crimes.

I went to Lidl yesterday and wondered why the queue at the self-checkout was non existant when normally most people queue there. I attribute that to the fact that they sold knives only available at the cashier.

 

 

Ofcom to regulate harmful content

How could I ever forget that I spent 3 years as a litigant in person at the High Court in London – and part of it in relation to an infringement of my publication rights also at the commercial court-.

The whole aim of my efforts was to help reduce harmful content and to keep publishers to sensible limits on how to report things to do especially with terrorism.

Remember at the time a Labour Party member put pictures of the blazing machine gun logo of Baader-Meinhof on a website to report about ancient history.

It should be made illegal to use the logos of outlawed terrorist organisations to report about something, just as it is illegal to use certain Nazi salutes and phrases.

Using the logo of a terrorist organisation to report about something actually brings the organisation back to life and promotes that organisation. I fought against that, and though I lost, I now feel that the government has finally woken up to the manner of publication as well as to the content.

Actually I think libel laws are not fit for purpose as they allow the use of harmful pictorial material without making it illegal to do so. That is why I formally lost my case but now the purpose I pursued is finally winning.

Ofcom will now be given power to regulate harmful content. Hopefully they will also realise that school children and local communities are sometimes receptive to the promotion of unlaw aims by the use of pictures and logos that are associated with terrorists.

out of the blue

The past seems to catch up with me as I just received an email, from an individual, asking me to get in touch because he read my articles about Robert Dougans and he has been hounded by that man for years.

May I please ask you to understand that I literally could not even remember who Robert Dougans was at first sight. I literally had to search my site and read those articles myself and it all came back to me. The last entry about that was in 2010 and it is 2020 now. I had to throw away the old case files as they gotten mouldy. I have not even gotten the space to store them.

This is all ‘Water under the Bridge’ now. In reflection what stands out for me is the fact that it took the court 3 years to throw the case out. I spent hours and hours each week/months almost attending court. I was running my own business under the supervision of the DWP. I also had a disabled person to care for.

I produced enormous amounts of paperwork and had to bring that to the court in large suitcases. That took a very long time too.

The rules then said that a litigant must see the case through to the end to be able to complain to the European Court of Human Rights.

That person contacting me did not leave an address, but seems a prominent person with their own website. I may contact them.

I don’t think a ‘Litigant in Person’ situation would be able to arise with today’s Employment laws as the employment rules are much stricter enforced.

 

 

French judge agrees with me

I wish I would have had this nice French judge in my libel cases against Gray, Hilton and others because this beautiful judge ruled that a French blogger had to pay damages to a restaurant, after posting a hugely negative blog title, which had great prominence in Google searches. The judge obviously thought that just the negative title was able to bring the restaurant into disrepute and put people off from going there.

This was an important point in my case in that I argued that people just do not have the time to follow up each headline and cannot read whole articles to find somewhere at the bottom the explanation for a sensational headline.

But this judge at least agrees with me that high ranking Google search results can do huge damage just from the headline. Kiss him. Caroline Doudet was ordered to amend a post about restaurant II Giardino.  Article link.

In Britain a person is expected to read each and every article they come across just to find out the facts, if they are attracted by a particular headline. It is quite impossible already to even have the time to read the small print on contracts or other important information as there is so much of it about.

Miliband sees my point on publishing

Labour has now experienced first-hand how publishers character assassinations can ruin someone’s public profile completely. Reason, political tendencies are being created by denouncing a person’s character using political rhetoric. BBC has produced several articles about this, see one link here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24361040

However it was Labour’s own strategy to use those denunciations whilst Brown and McBride worked together. Indeed David Osler, John Gray and others, used the tactics to smear me publicly and I lost a libel case due to the fact that high-profile publisher Iain Dale, started to collect funds and several friends of the defendants used a Conservative lawyer to produce mostly falsified evidence in court. The court was of course only too glad to accept the evidence because it helped to protect the British flagship publisher Der Spiegel.

But one of the defendant’s ally, namely Iain Dale is already falling victim to his own bad character. He recently assaulted a peaceful protester and got a caution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24285711

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!!!

The German propaganda hole

This BBC story epitomizes in my view what is wrong with publishing these days but it quite clearly also shows the elaborate concealment of neo nazi activity in Germany in that Germany is helped by some major English publishers to do so.

Apparently the Germans are over-interested in keeping the nostalgia about the Baader-Meinhof group alive and do anything to give everything radical the RAF slant. Yet as these pictures show there is now a considerable silent right-wing opposition that is extremely well organised by the looks of it. It takes some consent to be able to pull a mass demo on the spot, with people who are in respectable jobs, coming out all masked up for a quick demo.

But seeing that the new neo nazis get the same training routine as the former Baader-Meinhof terrorists did and my previously voiced suspicions that not all is what it seems, I think we are dealing with a huge public concealment of facts and that Germany, helped by publishers like Der Spiegel and the British free press, is sitting on a Nazi time-bomb that is probably going to go off in a space of 10 years, or at the latest when the European dream collapses.

The article says that “Human rights groups say more than 180 people have been killed in right-wing attacks in Germany over the last 20 years.

Neo-Nazis have murdered more people in post-war Germany than any other single group, including Islamists and the far left. But this is not yet reflected in official data.

Could it be that Germany’s sensitivity to its history has made it want to play down modern-day right wing extremism?”

And when I then read that “Weapons training is carried out in secret. In the Arab world, for example, with freedom movements there. The right-wing scene sees itself as a freedom movement.”and think of the fact that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists started off their careers by taking training in the Arab world I wonder whether the concealment of actual intent is almost perfect for the German propaganda machine.

And of course the article is about a group of Nazi killers and it asks ”

It turns out intelligence agencies had had the group under surveillance for years, and even found a bomb-making factory in their garage back in 1998.

So why were the trio not stopped earlier? Why were they allowed to disappear and then stay underground? And why was it that security services blamed the murders on the Turkish mafia at the time? A right-wing motive was never investigated.”

Of course there we have it, the right-wing native connection is always swept under the carpet and some illusive left-wing terror connections created to give it all a bad left-wing stint.

But then in my own case before the High court for over 3 years I exactly used those arguments when I asked, how does the Honourable Mr Justice Eady actually make out his judgement by saying that I must have been accused of left-wing affiliations when there is not one shred of proof for that whatsoever? That is just showing that even top judges make public assumptions to talk away any suspicions of right-wing activities and that is what we are having to digest, that there is no real attempt to deal with facts.

I personally was never involved in any right-wing or left-wing activities in any event but what my case really shows is that the mainstream press uses tactics to tint events to suit a publicity campaign to protect certain political movements that they want to protect and to blame something that doesn’t really exist but that is in the best interest to use in order to protect something that is brewing underneath it all.

Mr Justice Eady used his position to say that something must have been happening over 35 years ago and that he knows what happened in the minds of German authorities then and that he has the right to do so and he has been backed up by the Court of Appeal in saying that Mr Justice Eady can determine what German police thought in 1975 when that went against existing paperwork in the case.

So there we have it, a publicity machinery that blames everything on the left and the right-wing movement actually brews up under the surface to face us with totalitarian actions like the shooting of Labour youth in Norway by Breivik.

I also said it in a previous blog that I do not belief that the latest attempts to show that Baader-Meinhof were funded by the East German government are actually true but that this is just an attempt to conceal that Baader-Meinhof all along where just used to put a left-wing stint over the new terrorism in the nation.

I had put plenty of material before the high court to show that the laws then were not proof of political affiliations but that the state at the time could just about arrest anybody on the flick of a finger without much evidence needed. But that arrests had nothing to do with any type of political or religious affiliations but were just intelligence gathering exercises.  I had put plenty of evidence before the court to show that the names involved were never ever connected to any Baader-Meinhof group and still the court found it more important to protect Der Spiegel and affiliated British publishers rather than get to the bottom of the facts on the matter.

Of course then the case was defended because some thought it is more important to defend the right to spread lies under the mantle of freedom of expression. I did in fact proof to the court that non of the names involved where ever connected to the Baader-Meinhhof gang but that didn’t impress the court who still fiddled the case to allow the Big British win and the press to connect anything to Baader-Meinhof to stop people thinking in different places.

Keep free speech real and responsible

Another person agrees with me and he has the luck of support from the high and mighty BBC publication machinery. In his case its a false case of saying he is a paedophile to ruin his business.  His case was as bad, Tony Bennett of Kwikchex was falsely accused of child molestation, I was accused of Terrorism connections by bloggers but in a way that sounded very serious to the readers.

Yet when I complained to the court, I was inundated with further abuse and a barrage of defences from the English Defend Free Speech League. Here the business man finds that it is very easy to ruin a reputation within 5 minutes and that it takes months to get it removed if ever. It is not possible to ask an online publisher to agree to responsible publishing because its all to do with freedom of speech and expression and once editors starts editing then they become responsible but not otherwise. Well, that is exactly the sticking point.

I made my complaint to the High Court and was put through 3 1/3 years of hell, further accusations and no right of any defence. I was accused of other hideous crimes in the course of the proceedings. The court then even came along and put things in judgements that are unsustainable and took it upon themselves to imagine what the police force of another country could have been thinking without consulting them on the matter. A sheer nightmare.

If a German court would put judgements in which they assume the thinking of British police, I bet the British would not like it at all.

The British are so confused about their procedures, it is a complete mess. As my matter stands after over 3 years of civil proceedings the police issued a crime number against the original publisher because of further hate-crime publications, whilst the English court gave the publisher the right to continue publishing the original untruths.

I have now asked the police to formally take action on the crime number given and await their reply on this. My business was ruined, I had no such luck as Mr Bennett had, who could repair his business and save it from going under.

This happens to many every day and they have no support from publishers like the BBC, they are left to rot with the online abuse and nothing is done to help them. It ruins lives. Most people have no other choice but to take legal action because the publishers refuse to remove content. Then there is the great danger, that a lack of legal support makes things worst, as it happened in my case. The court has now given my torturers the best reason ever to additionally stalk everything I do because I now owe them money. I suppose it makes it easier for the court to ill-treat a German woman immigrant, who is not so lucky to get the support of the mighty BBC.

Normally the English are rather cowardly when it comes to publishing and justice. They do not shy to completely destroy a single individual without the aid of legal support in a court of law, they are also proud of it; what a nation of cowards. If they were so courteous and gallant as they make out to be they would give a person a chance to have legal support, yet they are not strong enough to show that they could never win if they gave everybody an equally good chance. They do not mind to be really rude in public and they never apologise for bad behaviour. Long gone are the days of Mr Steed with his bowler hat and the old-English gentlemen, those were the days.

Now they hide behind masks and anonymity and rudeness.