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!!!

Breivik a warning to all lone wolves out there

I think in a way it is good that Breivik at least agrees to talk freely about his experiences and explaines what goes on in his mind because it helps us to understand the psychology that is behind his behaviour. It would also have helped tremendously if at the time the Germans would have captured Baader-Meinhof’s sstate of mind, which was stopped by untimely deaths.

What seems clear from what I can read from the distance is that he had a lot of remote contact over a long period of time with people who groomed him into these attacks. He had very few direct meetings with actual people. But what is clear that if you now go and meet someone over a few days in a strange location you really do not know who you are dealing with. Anybody can pretend to be somebody or dress up an appear in a certain manner to dupe you into thinking that you are on the same wavelength.

Lets face it a lot of extremist ideologies have a lot  in common. It is not impossible for an al-Qaede operative to get a Christian radical thinker into carrying out a terrorist act against his own race by twisting his mind long enough.

Breivik was even given uniforms with lapels on and medals. Anybody from any group could have dressed up to pretend to him that they are the Knights Templar. I would urge anybody not to belief others they only meet occasionally, who they are. Unless you know somebody from a real live situation do not belief them please.

A lot of grooming goes on over the Internet, where for example sexual predators pretend to be children and coax kids to meet them but in that instance it would be hard to pretend to be a child when they meet but in the situation around ideological things, that go on in the mind of a person,it would be very hard to distinguish one person from another.

Many ideologies can be carried by any person and often enough today not all blonde and blue eyed persons are Arians any longer, not all who have brown eyes an black hair are Muslims.

If Breivik really wanted to do himself and the people he loves so much a favour, he would describe in detail who the people he met are and what they look like to the littlest detail he can remember. But the fact that he refuses to do that leaves it open to the interpretation that he is not really interested in protecting the Christian culture as he says but that he is merely interested in killing as many as possible with any excuse. That makes him a mere mass murderer who dresses up his actions under some far fetched ideology.

He is very cold and calculating and understands perfectly well what he was doing and even how he manipulated his own emotions to be fit for the task he set himself or allowed others to set for himself. But if he really wanted to protect Christian culture he would have asked each and every person he shot or killed whether they are a Christian or not and he did not do so. That fact alone leads me to belief that he is merely pretending and lying.

Breivik trial has started

I see from the BBC website that the Breivik trial is the most watched item there. The mood in the court room is grim in that the present persons have to listen to gruesome accounts of killings of mostly innocent young people, whereby the mostly relates here to the age of victims and not to their status of innocent because clearly all victims were innocent.

Whilst the BBC broadcast most of the proceedings they refuse to show a highly emotional film that made Breivik cry whilst commentators lament about the 2 different opinions,is Breivik  sane or is he insane. I think the matter of sanity is relative to the singularity of the attack. He acted seemingly alone, with his organisation denying that they even exist. But that is a phenomena that Jesus said to his apostles that they will deny him. Though I think that this only proves that in worldly laws those wanting to exist in peace will always deny that they could be compliant to any criminal entity.

I think no Christian will identify with Breivik in any way whatsoever though plenty can identify with some political fears.

Both the methods though that Breivik used and his apparent melancholic psychology point in my view to manic depression, clinical depression and or some degree of Autism in that he is emotionally detached from his environment but only reacts to his own emotions. Often violent men are highly melancholic and either turn the violence against others or against themselves. There is a likelihood that Breivik may turn suicidal during the trial, when he will realise that he bangs his head against the biggest wall he ever encountered and that nobody could possibly show any sympathies for him.

He shows a similar psychology to the Baader-Meinhof terrorists but they worked in groups whilst Breivik worked seemingly alone but he has also this cadre thinking that might work on a piece of paper but not in t he real world.

The Norwegian officials say the trials will be a healing process for the victims and all others who suffer from the knowledge that this happened. Though that they did not show his film will simply lead to lots of people getting it and watching it anyway in their own rooms, and that will give them better cause to sympathise with his emotions than it would if it was part of an official screening within the context of the court proceedings.

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.

The age of the new fascism

What I really again wanted to say is how disappointed I am with the news reporting and also with the news reporting on the BBC website in that it is not inventive analytical enough. Politics evolve and repression can take various shapes and forms and what websites like the BBC again and again put into our heads is that repression and fascism has to do with direct annihilation and putting to death of people by governments like during Hitler times or Pol Pot for example.

Yet what we see today is a new type of fascism, a fascism by stealth.

What we see is that the new Conservatives try to get rid of our economy altogether by slowly throttling it. They mask it all up saying they need to clear our debts. But, as I already hinted in my last post, our economy is based on the creation of debt and if enough debt has been created in the form of orders to industry for example, when consumers borrow to order goods, they then need to be made and people get employed to make those goods.

When the Conservatives now say they want to get rid of debt, they simply throttle the whole economy because nothing will move forward. This then leads to a situation whereby the people who are living within a society slowly but surely are starting to turn against each other and one sees an increase in murders and crime. People become more disillusioned and turn onto open revolt, as we have seen it during the riots and as we now see it happening in Syria.

Here in the UK we managed to stop the riots but in Syria they are not so lucky.

But what I find most interesting is that Cameron now seeks to introduce an economic model that seem s to match the one Hans-Martin Schleyer tried to introduce into Germany in the late 70s, just before he gotten himself kidnapped and killed. The Germans then blamed everything on the Baader-Meinhof group and that is also very simplistic of them to do so. Luckily for the local situations, the Muslims here in the UK exercise a lot of restraint and stop themselves from falling into the chief-suspect category for anything that goes wrong.

It had been said that during the beginning of the Hitler era, he staged self-made terror events, to propel himself into power and I think that the whole Baader-Meinhof phenomenon was abused in Germany to drive through changes and to blame all sorts of crime onto this illusive Baader-Meinhof group, who were said to work for the Communists. But that doesn’t make much sense in many respects. Because what Schleyer tried to achieve was in fact a turning away from classic Capitalism into Socialist Cooperative movements, which would have complemented the East German Communist regime beautifully. Now why would a Communist state finance terrorist to kill somebody who wanted to promote Socialism in a Capitalist state?  I belief that the East German files that were “found” where plainly planted to disorienting us. It was so very convenient for the German government that a lot of those Baader-Meinhof terrorists gotten killed or supposedly killed themselves in prison and that no proper witness statements from them came ever into being.

I think in Germany a lot of crime was blatantly blamed onto Baader-Meinhof when in fact it could have been some coup from some other direction. It was more than obvious that the Germans still tried to promote the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon as recently as 5 years ago by entering a film about them to win an Oscar. Der Spiegel offered me thousands to get the copyright on an article, using my name to falsify history and I refused it. It is more than suspicious that a large magazine knowingly wants to print falsities and pay people to put their names to the falsities.

Today the government does have a problem, they have no terrorist movement in the UK to blame crimes on, thanks to the good restraint of our Muslim citizens, there is hardly any terrorist activity going on at the moment, that the government could blame crime on.

This government simply slowly wants to throttle us, they try it with the Greeks and that is the tactic to simply starve people out of live slowly but surely. There is little sense in currently used tactics other than making people’s life a misery, needlessly I need to say. There is no proper purpose in the current government tactics, they do not even want to promote green living and environmental health, they simply just try to starve us out of our existence.

We must repel this new trend to rob us of our livelihoods, to rob us of our right to celebrate God. I think the denial of God and fascism always goes hand in hand no matter what face this fascism shows, whether they openly kill people or slowly throttle them or whether they make them turn onto each other, they always deny God and that is truly the work of the devil. You could ask the question is secularism equal to Satanism and that is an interesting question instead. But the fact is that this government wants to stop families from having children and that is a crime on humanity.

We keep on lamenting how bad things are in China, we complain about the Human Rights abuses, that priest are not allowed to preach, that people are forced to kill babies because of the one child policy, yet we do exactly the same here in the UK, we just don’t see it because it is right in front of our own door.

The Guardian supports Human Rights abuse

By allowing Simon Singh to publish his ill-conceived article about me the Guardian newspaper supports a violation of my Human Rights. Quite astonishing from a paper that prides itself to support those who need it most, the underprivileged, the under classes and generally those who suffer.

I have written to The Guardian about the Simon Singh article as evidenced here but had no reply. Of course the Singh’s are currently enjoying a renaissance and very popular at the High Court but in the bit of the article where Simon Singh writes about me he forgets to mention  the latest victory for Osler was obtained in breach of my Human Rights and it is factually incorrect. Of course the only involvement I had with a Singh was a Mr Justice Rabinder Singh QC, who refused my application for Judicial Review over my inability to get any type of legal help in this country. I was also refused an application for an adjournment when papers were served onto me the weekend before the hearing, which was on a Monday morning, by the Legal Services Commission and I was told during the hearing that I should have read papers over the weekend. It was also ignored that I was in a weaker position against the Legal Services Commission having been unable to obtain any legal assistance.

In the meantime I had an e-mail from Mr Dougans who said that any lawyer had the right to give pro bono help as long as it is ethically sound. I have had forms for transfer to pro bono services that require a recommendation by a registered lawyer and without that pro bono firms would not accept a transfer. But the e-mail from Mr Dougans implies that my case or that I am not ethically acceptable. That is not very nice at all and I think he should not have made such a remark.

I have been refused help by Human Rights organisations, Citizens Advice Bureaus and Pro Bono Lawyers like Law Works years ago, yet Law works proudly helped David Osler. David Osler of course is already in a privileged position, he owns his home, has a well-paid job and lots of support from his left-wing friends and other Labour Party members, whilst I have lost my business and am just a single women without political back-up or help of any kind. I am also severely short sighted and have little money left now. David Osler was represented in that hearing that Simon Singh so proudly proclaims in the Guardian website by three lawyers, Robert Dougans, Jack of Kent and a QC would you believe, whilst I had no representation at all.

When I compiled case law yesterday I came across this judgement from Mr Justice Eady in the case of Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston Mr Justice Eady, who also presided over the Kaschke v Osler hearing found in paragraphs 21 – 23 of that Prince Radu judgment that the court has to observe the Equality of Arms principle and yet despite me not having any legal representation, Justice Eady did not allow me permission to appeal, he did however stay costs until my application for permission to appeal is decided. The Guardian did not pick up on that point, that I had no legal representation when Simon Singh boasts that his lawyer helped Osler win. It is incorrect that the case was dismissed quickly because it had been in the court for over 2 years and was sent for trial 3 times. But I am under the impression that the article of Simon Singh is a bit of an advertisement for Robert Dougans. So is the Guardian being used now to praise the Singhs and the Dougans?

The Guardian doesn’t even pick up on that point and allows Singh to indulge in his self-serving article. On Sunday I had been pestered by Robert Dougans all Sunday long, he sent me e-mails from 10 am in the morning till after 10pm at night, just to say in the very last e-mail that he is going to apply to have my case against Hilton to be thrown out. I was actually sitting  in church listening to the very good sermons Wendy Foote delivered on that day, when my phone started bleeping with Robert Dougans first e-mail of the day. Why take all Sunday long to work up to that simple fact, could he not write a short e-mail on a Monday morning to say that to me?  I think the style of  that man is very hard to cope with for somebody who  has no legal representation. I think in any case that Gray is obsessed with me.

It has been recognised that the use of legal doctrine can be an abuse of process itself. Because a judge would first identify their chosen and desired outcome, then manipulate the available legal materials to support that desired conclusion. Of course the UK and increasingly also the EU are desperate to escape liability over not giving legal assistance to cut costs. So the desired outcome is to declare that the case is without merit and be declared an abuse of process and whitewash the fact that no lawyer was given. This view is supported by the very respected Northwestern University School of Law, authors Emerson H. Tiller and Frank B Cross Volume 100, No 1.

but what cannot be ignored in the matter is the financial status of the parties, that it seems that the court prefers to give justice in the favour of those who have gotten the most money, very questionable attitude in the face of the principle that we are all the same under the law.

Well the state of Human Rights in the UK is generally very poor. May I just remind the world of the case of a young learning disabled man who was systematically tortured to death with knowledge of the police who refused to help him because he did not know that the police were the only people that a could help him.

I think I am being systematically tortured via the legal process. I simply asked for some respect, I want the right not to be associated with the Baader-Meinhof group and that gives people here in the UK the right to systematically and constantly insult me. I had sexual harassment on the Guido Fawkes blog, Mr Gray constantly accused me of being severely mentally ill. Indeed he constantly sent me e-mails accusing me of mental illness, till late into the night. He is a Labour Party councillor and housing officer. Yet even if I was mentally ill, is that a way to treat a mentally ill person? Please note that I am not mentally ill, that is official. I had personal insults thrown at me by David Osler and now have to spent extended hours each day in my room to prepare bundles for the many hearings the court has set up for me and indeed I am forced to go through because of ECHR rules, which say that I have to take the case as far as possible through the UK courts before I can complain to the ECHR about the disgusting treatment I am getting from the UK justice system.

I am personally not suspicious but have now had the Singh trilogy. Firstly Jag Singh he is the technical mind behind, a colleague of Alex Hilton. Then there is Rabinder Singh QC who refused my application for Judicial review over legal aid for civil litigation. After that came Simon Singh who recommended Robert Dougans to David Osler and is also part of the left-wing spectrum in general. There we have all the Singhs in one basket.

the plot thickens

Britain has lost momentum, that is my personal view and why has it lost momentum, I think it is because Britain has lost honesty. I came to that conclusion during my court cases where I can observe that written evidences are not taken into account and that always the same judge finds a reason to dismiss my cases, and incidentally it is that same judge that doesn’t take the official written evidence into account.

It is the same judge that dismissed my case against Der Spiegel saying there was no publication and it is the same judge that ruled on the Der Spiegel publication during the Osler case, despite having ruled only 1 year earlier that the UK court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is the same judge that ruled in favour of a supporter of Anarchism, Socialism and Communism and it is the same judge that dismissed my case against Osler. Osler works for Lloyds List. Lloyds List have a business interest in Der Spiegel and actually tried to take over part of the company.

Now one reason why I am poor is because I have always been honest and honesty itself doesn’t make anybody rich these days. Yet honesty should be the driving force in Justice and especially in British justice as Britain always wants to be seen as the saviour of the world the Defender of Freedom and Truth. This is now why I am getting stuck into this to disclose to the world that so far the justice that was delivered in my case was not based on the truth but on fancy thinking delivered by that judge again.

Mr Simon Singh has even written an article in The Guardian proclaiming that my case against Osler was thrown out of court very quickly when in fact it was in court since May 2008 and has been recommended for trial by Master Rose and by Justice Eady twice and Justice Eady suddenly changed his mind when Mr Robert Dougans came onto the scene. What I find so absolutely of magnifying importance is, that Justice Eady just believes Mr Osler’s assertions, delivered by Robert Dougans, in disregard and absence of any written proof. There is no investigation into my claims that confidential evidence, that had only been disclosed to lawyers became available on the Internet and was linked to by Osler, the court refuses to investigate this so far.

Now I hate dishonesty, in fact it is proven that I once started to write a book on the Truth. It is still visible on the Wayback machine. I am not even particularly concerned about political orientation of the matter, I am just concerned because the simple truth is being ignored by the court and the case is being steered into one particular direction, namely being dismissed because I think there is something the English want to cover up, why else would such a doctored judgment as the one in Kaschke v Osler be delivered by one of the highest judges in the land. Of course now Mr Dougans has said he will be making an application to have me declared a vexatious litigant, that will bar me from making any further applications to the court.

Why is it that the English have something to hide in the matter?  My evidence is plain to see, there are letters written by the German Attorney General that explain the situation as it is, that an investigation was carried out into one individual, this person (1) I do not know and it is also clear that I was arrested in the centre of Cologne, whilst entering the flat of person (2).  I do not know whether person (1) knows person (2). The arrest warrant is concerned with the property of the person(1)  the investigation was all about. That property is I believe about 100 miles away from Cologne. None of these very important facts were actually mentioned in Justice Eady’s judgment.

There was no mention of Baader-Meinhof, there was no mention of Rote Hilfe in that arrest warrant of 1975, there was merely a generic use of the then Criminal Justice Act, with a potential possibility of terrorist implications. This is compatible to the use of today’s terrorist legislation whereby people are investigated under the Terrorism Act and  it is misused plenty of times. Osler then writes an article assuming a Baader-Meinhof connection, so did his mates Gray and Hilton.

But if we compare that to today’s events, when for example Damian Green’s offices were searched using Anti-Terror legislation, nobody thought of making a connection to Al Qaeda but in my case Osler sees fit to make a connection to Baader-Meinhof. The court accepted Dougan’s submission that in Germany an automatic association to Baader-Meinhof had to be made. Well, if that’s the case an automatic association between Green and Al Qaeda has to be made, according to that logic that Justice Eady has accepted. I believe that no automatic association to any terrorist group should be made by the press unless the charges of the police say so and I think Damian Green will strongly agree with me on that. I am fighting to get it through the court that no connection to a particular terrorist group can be made by the press just because antiterrorism legislation is used against people.

In my case I have no idea who the individual (1)  is, I do not know his political beliefs, I have never met my former boyfriend (2) again, who was arrested with me. I do not know what the outcome of the proceedings against those other 2 individuals (1+2) was but I am certain that neither of them was ever mentioned on any website that is available on the Internet today in connection with Baader-Meinhof. I personally never communicated in any way whatsoever with anybody of the Baader-Meinhof group or any known associates of that group.

For me it is now completely unexplained why the court, here Justice Eady falls over themselves to protect Osler. What is it about Osler that makes the court ignore all available evidence that proves me right? Why is the Dougans now so keen to get me barred from bringing any further legal action? What do the English have to hide?

Apparently other judges in the High Court namely Justice Stadlen, Justice Openshaw, Justice McDuff, Master Rose, have refused to throw the case out and recommended it for trial. It is only Justice Eady so far who is very keen to see the case thrown out and he protects a known supporter of Anarchist, Socialists and Communists in the process.

I think my best option is to put this to the world to judge for themselves because as things go on, I do not think I get any fair treatment in the court as soon as the case comes before Justice Eady. It is more than suspicious that always the same judge rules on the matter, it has never been allowed to come before a jury. I think it will do the United Kingdom harm if unsound judgments and dishonesty can creep into the English justice system and nothing annoys me more than dishonesty. That is why I have decided to dedicate my time to fight this case head on and if necessary unveil corruption, racism, sexism, if that is the case.

I was in the belief that a court would examine evidences to find the truth but instead the court ignores official written evidences and dismisses cases.

What is so really interesting is the fact that Der Spiegel was desperate to show me in an article about the Baader-Meinhof Group, that they made the association. Why is it that an English court defends that publication so much. It has to be said that Der Spiegel is originally an English publisher who settled into Germany and was then taken over by a German Rudolf Augstein and the Springer Verlag.  That then makes me think, why do the British want to drive Baader-Meinhof in the press forward, what is the British interest in Baader-Meinhof? Obviously the court strongly supports Osler’s Baader-Meinhof associations and the way he discusses it on his blog. Is there any interest of the British security services in it, that Osler gets those public discussions on terrorism going on his blog?  Is Osler’s blog a honey trap for left-wing radicals? It could well be because otherwise the courts were not so keen to defend the man. That would also be a good reason for them to ask the court to bar me from bringing any actions. The plot thickens. There could be even more sinister reasons of an interest the British may have or have had in the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, but I suppose we’ll never find out about that.

Well, I have no choice but to defend my reputation and ultimately my finances as I do not work for the police or the security services and never did. I am almost blind and suffered from a debilitating crippling conditions from age 7 and therefore could never have participated in anything military in any case. And as we all know people with very bad eyesight are barred from police services everywhere. I spent the best of 8 years having hospital treatment (till aged 16) and never even heard of anything left-wing radical in those days in Germany. It is also possible that the whole incident is an attempt by Gray, Hilton and Osler to simply take the mickey out of a single woman who suffers from a certain amount of disabiliy. and that has now turned into a public spectacle.

What is however apparent that I had been interrogated by e-mail about whom I knew in Germany and what I did so that information was collected by the court and now I am being disposed of as I have not gotten any interesting information for them. I think it is as basic as that. But I am not a floorcloth to be used and then thrown away. I will stick up for myself and if it takes me years to do so.

The diss-integration of the British left

Whilst the ‘New’ Labour Party power struggle is going on between 2 brothers, well you could say the Brothers Grimm, no, its actually the brothers Miliband now,  the Socialist dream of New Labour got buried. Having lost grassroots support and understanding a long time ago, Labour now tries to stay in tune with the Internationale of Communist states. Whilst in government it tried to build an economic alliance with China and other up-and-coming world powers to build the partnership of international working classes, just to realise that they are a downward spiral.  The international dream of equal rights of all workers fell apart when the economy just didn’t want to play ball. Cups of tea became too expensive, and the wages of those wanting out of slavery unaffordable.

Here in Britain Margaret Thatcher allowed the hardline Socialists a way out of their misery when even they were coaxed into becoming leaseholder and purchased their council flats. The roots to the working classes were nurtured by local  heroes that spoke the lefties language and provided sanctuary from the stressful capitalist environment and loss of pride. Harriet Harman as always acts as the big godmother and sticking glue of the disintegrating organisation, keeping it all together with motherly care, but not taking the pride of leadership away from younger and aspiring candidates like the Miliband brothers.

Having a personal interest in social behaviour and disintegration of social groups, I notice that the traditional Labour left has taken a great knock back from their affiliation of traditional awkward resilience to capitalist guidelines. Yet the dangling price of homeownership in front of the Labour voting council tenant  made them saddle for a new horse, the settled left-wing Labour movement, the home owners gallery of protesters, and all they want is the living wage to allow them a near middle class existence to go with that pride of the newly created homeowner. A fine mess Maggie gotten us in there, when it was not enough to stop the strikes, they now want more money to stay in the job to pay off the mortgages.

Yet the Labour dream is kept alive by old timers such as Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn and the younger ones like John McDonnell. His book “Another World is possible”, is one of the smallest socialist handbooks, but probably handy like the little red book of the Maoists. Mr McDonnell says however he won’t have enough support to make the grade, showing that the old-fashioned Labour Pride is crumbling in real life politics. There will be no long march anywhere as it’s all about keeping the job to pay the mortgage. British Capitalists always loved their British working class. It’s now no longer being against something but becoming what they were once against but Ed Miliband noticed that the dream of New Labour is over. Labour failed to take over Britain but managed to reduce the power of hereditary peers, which is a small revolutionary step into their dream of becoming the real owners of Britain.

The equality dream is kept alive in a strong workforce at British Airways who battle with the unions in the High Court to prevent further strikes. It has become a matter of national functionality, a make or break dispute that drove BA to merge with the Spanish air service Iberia whilst UK inflation hits highest rate since 1 1/2 years over rising food prices because the UK has lost the ability to sustain themselves with food production.  

It is against this background that Left-wing Labour bloggers enjoy a renaissance of the Socialist dream, people like John Gray, Dave Osler and others, squelch the thirst of genuine revolutionary thinking of those that try to escape the daily rut. After all, that Marxist seminar must be able to fruit in some common good. Left-wing ideology is big business from seminars to book sales and all sorts of paraphernalia. Was it any wonder that Osler wanted to keep the radical leftists happy when he accused me of former Baader-Meinhof connections and found himself accused of libel.

But then when the fire got too hot, he engaged himself a right-wing lawyer to save his bacon. His solicitor was hailed by all his lefty friends and one can see the band of heroes huddling together outside of London’s High Court after the ruling. Some look even halfway dressed whilst other still sport the anarchistic hippy look.  Osler sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his freedom and the saving of his negative equity home in North London. Dougans a right-wing Conservative Party member, part of the Conservative group that wanted to win the Poplar and Limehouse seat from Jim Fitzpatrick gave Labour member Osler free of charge help to dream his left-wing dream that little bit longer. In exchange for Osler agreeing that his case be argued on the basis of the Jameel legal principle, that allows better free speech for all sorts of people that want to drive forward certain ideologies on  British cyber space.

What an ideal marriage, the right-wing Conservative Party member from the Isle of Dogs, in marriage with the left-wing Labour Party party member getting together in order to win some votes for his Conservative aims as well as making a name for himself for a ready group of new customers, what better way than create himself some new ideological allegiance. Yet Osler has not made any comment about this on his left-wing blog on which he advertises anarchist organisations and generally praises anything violent and wanting to undermine the state.

It reminds me a bit of the German History, the struggle of the German left under Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht who fell victim to the Social Democrats, Dave Osler is certainly no Karl Liebknecht and is happy with his adulterated Democratic lifestyle. It is a question in how far the far left of British politics now disintegrates into the Social Democratic trot similar to that, which  established itself after the German revolution in 1918, when the far left wanted more than the middle of the road and socialists could practically promise. Miliband has already conceded that New Labour is dead and the last unionist uprisings should soon be quelled by a little more high court action. Yet in Germany the rule of law got lost when the Nazis took over, the only tendency I can see towards a loss of law here in Britain is a tendency to replace jury trials with one-judge rule.

There is no British left, left to mourn, we certainly won’t see a fascist uprising like the Germans did in the 1920s  because we all are in the habits of cashing our weekly benefits, wages and live a live of the daily routine that gives little rise to an uprising, apart from some people’s fantasies that are still inspired from the occasional radical talk and the dream of an amalgamation of international revolution and the taking over of the world’s riches.  Each socialist today is just happy to own a small part of it, even if it’s with a negative mortgage.

There is now very little distinction in British politics with the Liberals and Conservatives building a government to rule for another 5 years. I wonder whether it is worth it at all to even get interested because our daily lives can be administered by any party really, anybody at all who is middle of the road and wanting to keep the economy going. Having put our monarch on a slow burner, all we really are concerned about are threats of natural catastrophe and disgruntled Muslims that want to destroy our blissful unity of all sorts of political streams into one big happy family.

Comparing Western Civilisation with the Roman Empire shall become my next little project to work on, to see if our aim to rule the world will have a similar fate to the Romans that fell in the end to the Barbarians that beleaguered Rome to finally take it over or better how we can avoid that happening to us.  I wonder whether the loss of internal opposition, like the fall of the British left is a good or a bad sign, lets read some more.

Mix’n match ideology

Relief Der Tod des Demonstranten (The Death of the Demonstrator) by Alfred Hrdlicka; Location: Deutsche Oper Berlin, forecourt
Relief Der Tod des Demonstranten (The Death of the Demonstrator) by Alfred Hrdlicka; Location: Deutsche Oper Berlin, forecourt

This latest controversy over the Iranian elections, reminds me of the Benno Ohnesorg conflict that happened in Germany on 2 June 1967. It was then that the aforesaid student was killed during a visit from the Shah of Persia, former name of Iran.

Today in Iran demonstrator bemoan the Pro-Islamic government and in the days of the Shah, I believe he was pro-American. So What did the German students demonstrate against in 1967?

I do not know a lot about that time, though having grown up in those days, I was not involved in any way in any of those protests nor did I know what it was all about, but having grown up in Germany a few names always stick in the back of ones mind.

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and his wife, Empress Farah

What interests me about that is the ideological muddle that seems to exist. According to my memory when the Shah of Persia came to visit, the protesters were restrained by the Schah’ security guards who slashed into the demonstrators using wooden batons. Now I am wondering why would German students protest about a visit of a pro-American leader of the then Persian people when today the western world cries out for a pro-American leader of Iran to come back into government? Looking at the picture of the Shah, today we would be glad to have an Iranian leader looking like that, as he looks not alien to western civilisation at all and allowed his wife the latest fashion.

Upon reading firstly about the killer of Benno Ohnesorg it already confuses me that the police officer who shot him was supposed to be a secret agent of the East German secret police commonly known as the Stasi. Why would a Communist want to kill a demonstrator that protests against a pro-American politician? Doesn’t make sense to me. But I shall take a moment and read up on this further.

As far as I can see the Shah extended suffrage to women, I think that is great, but was then overthrown by the Ayatollah who established a republic. Then the Americans interfered in the political composure of the country just to regret that now, most likely in my view.

I still struggle to see the point of West German students demonstrating against the Shah of Persia?

This Der Spiegel article about it all shows however that my theory that Socialism and Fascism are closely related fits perfectly. People thought the shooting had right-wing motives but in fact the motives were left-wing.

I am not really interested in discussing the short term goals or reasons because it does not make much sense to me, its rather more an overflowing of emotions on all sides involved in this sad mess.

I am having a little problem finding out why the demonstration took place in the first instance, what was the reason for the students, protesting? I shall try and find out about this because I cannot find any reason myself. So far when I search I get plenty of links to the police man who shot Ohnesorg but little on the demonstration itself.

All I get when I read headlines of search results is that students protested against the visit of the Shah of Persia and get the impression they protested about his status as a monarch. I think however that this monarch was more progressive than today’s ruler the Ayatollah is and was the lesser problem as we see today.

The demonstration itself in my view was without any proper merit and goes against what I consider as reasonable.  However the shooting of Ohnesorg helped to catapult the left-wing movement in Germany forward as a result and I think that Kurras might have used the opportunity to achieve exactly that, which I can see as the only benefit for his East German employers.

Using people (in this case Benno Ohnesorg) as pawns to get to power, to achieve a goal is my biggest qualm with Communist and Socialist movements. I oppose them.

It was not in the interest of the German people to shoot the student and Germany was left to feel the brunt of this action. Well Germany that got rid of its own Monarchy and the Kaiser, still reeled from the result of that, the Hitler era resulted in this political change and caused the turbulent time that followed on.

Today Germany’s quest to conquer the world manifests itself in the European Union and the economic approach to world domination. Germany’s reliable partner here in the UK’s for this quest is the Labour Party that strives very pungently to remove as much power as possible from he UK monarch and the House of Lords to coincide with the Federalist, republican ideology that is so fashionable right now.

Terrorist suspects won in the House of Lords


Visualisation of the various routes through a portion of the Internet

Visualisation of the various routes through a portion of the Internet

Seems that if you are a suspect under the Terrorism Act you have it easier to get a judgement in your favour than if you are libelled as one by publishers.
The House of Lords condemned the use of secret evidence to impose control orders and house arrest.

The Law however is not in my favour. Having been accused of terrorist offences by Der Spiegel since 1975, for which they did not apologise, I have had today been refused permission to appeal because Lord Justice Hooper says I have to proof publication.

In the original proceedings Master Rose allowed the claim to go forward and then Mr Justice Eady refused permission to proceed and granted the publisher’s application to refuse jurisdiction and today Lord Justice Hooper agreed with Mr Justice Eady by saying I must proof publication and it would not be publication if I proof that the publication was sold to acquaintances or friends of mine.
I applied for disclosure, and it has been refused.
This means in consequence that any publisher can now distribute libellous material via subscription and keep all data confidential onto whom this material has been sold or who downloaded it.

In fact now people can read libellous material and it is impossible to proof it because under the Data Protection Act this data is confidential.

I shall take this to the ECHR because firstly the hearing against Der Spiegel was unfair as I had no lawyer and on the point of law, in English law it must be proved in trial about publication and because the publisher does not have to disclose onto whom they published, we have a grey area whereby widespread publication can take place via subscription and no one can proof that unless readers come forward and say, yes I read that about you and give witness to the fact.
Der Spiegel Corporate charges high subscription fees and only business, police, libraries, universities and other official bodies can afford this but the publisher is not required to disclose through which channels they distribute a publication.

I think that is unacceptable and allows the distribution of material that can be used for black lists etc.

So if you are a terrorist suspect the law is very sympathetic but if publishers write you are a terrorist when you are not, they can get away with it if it is done in a manner that is not on an open platform and even if it is the threshold of proof is unbearable ont he complainant.

This also implies that publishers have no duty of care unless you can proof that they published something about you to other persons, other than those who are known to you and that is practically impossible.

In my case the evidence Der Spiegel produced in relation to readers was unreliable and that was acceptable for the court.

I wasn’t even allowed to read through my skeleton arguments, the judge said, now is not the time to read a skeleton argument.

I prepared applications, was encouraged by the court to supply skeleton arguments, yet the Lord Justice Hooper did not allow me to read them. I was startled by this approach and could not catch my composure and the Law Lord did not give me any time to do so. He did not adjourn the hearing for which I was half hour late because of the strike of the Underground workers.
In my bundle I had proof beyond reasonable doubt that Der Spiegel has a distribution network that spans

  1. hard copy publication
  2. licensing to New York Times for international copyright
  3. All other copyright for all articles published
  4. Distribution via Spiegel Corporate and Biblio
  5. Distribution via Spodats for articles older than 3 years
  6. Distribution via other electronic methods

Yet Lord Justice Hooper says that is not proof of publication.

Lord Justice Hooper wants the impossible. I think that is going beyond the possible and the Lord didn’t even want to listen to what I had to say but has written publishers a blank cheque that they can publish anything beyond the paper copy anywhere knowing that no other than the publisher themselves can ever have access to the exact publications figures.

In the case of download, publishers do not have to capture the IP number to provide proper proof of the jurisdiction a computer is in. They do not have to capture data according to the EC regulation in a secure manner and can provide data that can be tampered with. In my case they have provided data for publication on Spiegel Online only but not Spiegel Corporate, Biblico, Spodats, New York Times, other electronic sales and copyrights.

In the UK today you are better off being a terrorism suspect for the police than being  libelled as terrorist in a publication. However I shall try to bring that case to the European Court of Human Rights, for various reasons.

  1. I was at all times refused any legal assistance
  2. I could not even get a pro bono or human rights lawyer
  3. I had in the hearing against Der Spiegel been served with papers the day before the hearing
  4. Der Spiegel was represented by 1 QC and two solicitors
  5. They did not even file a proper Acknowledgement of service. Filing a part 8 one on a part 7 claim and then changed it without permisson to a part 7 one and that was out of time.
  6. And of course matters like privacy, Freedom of speech, Article 6

Anybody with any offers of help is welcome to please contact me.

See also Magazine v Website and Caught in the Act

What is apparent that it is confusing in the UK that real terrorist suspects can have all sorts of personal freedoms as this web page reports from theHouse of Lords whilst imaginary ones, created by publishers are pronounced suspects without any legal foundation and this information is fed to the general public.

See also this link I found on 9 July 2009 “The British Media is failing the public“.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,048 hits
%d bloggers like this: