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.

Duggan conclusion misrepresented

Today a jury decided that Duggan was killed lawfully by police. I listened to the original BBC broadcast. It appears that the jury had to decide how the nearby gun, wrapped in a sock came to be over a fence and the jury decided that Duggan had thrown that gun away prior to the police having stopped the car.

However AlJazeera now reports that the jury decided that Duggan did not have a gun. I think that the finding of the jury did not conclude that Duggan didn’t have a gun but that the gun found nearby was thrown before the police stopped.

That does not mean that Duggan could not have had another gun in the car. It would be important to know how the actual stopping procedure went and if he was asked to surrender prior to being shot or how he behaved and what actually happened. We get so many bits and pieces from the press its not conclusive for me as reader.

In the meantime Sir Hogan-Howe has promised that weapons police officers will wear cameras in future to learn from this event.

Safety is still in the eyes of the beholder. An officer just has to feel that his life is threatened to be able to aim a gun. All a camera has to proof that the subject made a movement that could be interpreted as preparing to shoot at the officer. I don’t think that in the Duggan case a camera would have made any difference.

In this BBC article on 12/1/14 it says now the jury said Duggan wasn’t holding a gun when shot by police.

Dylan’s opinion no, no, no

Not even Bob Dylan is safe on making opinionated remark. How silly things have become is clear in the fact that France now has served Dylan with a notice of intend to examine a complaint. Story here.

“Blacks know that some whites didn’t want to give up slavery – that if they had their way, they would still be under the yoke, and they can’t pretend they don’t know that.

“If you got a slave master or [Ku Klux] Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood.”

When Dylan was asked about US history, he stated some comparisons, remarking about old, new or repeating conflicts. It has to be categorically said, that he did not remark about any conflicts that had not already existed.

Perhaps people would have loved to see it if Dylan would have given a type of stereotype and childish answer like, I wish all people could become friends and that there be no war in the world; in the good old Woodstock fashion.

It seems clear that opinions are simply not appreciated anywhere these days. That is opinion that comes freely, in a spontaneous fashion. Most other opinion, is the paid for type, the strongly rehearsed fiction or fact that tells us what we can think or say.

In this instance also Dylan compared well known groups of people he compared Klan with blacks, Jews with Nazis. In those samples he stated that the victims can sense the perpetrator of injustice, like blacks can sense the Klan or Jews and sense the Nazis but in the case of the Croats he didn’t say Croats can sense the Serbs, he said the Serbs can sense the Croats and since the Serbs killed the Croats there was an ill-feeling about the remark of Dylan.

I personally think there is no point in having an opinion, unless one gets paid for having one, then there is already a much bigger power game in play. I simply do not express any opinion at the moment, therefore my own blog is concealed. There is no point in saying what you think. They tell you what to think in the FREE Evening Standard and on the BBC news.

There is also no point in voting unless one is directly personally involved in politics or gains financially in terms of business contracts after a party has come into power. It is quite obvious that many people have given up voting altogether as the participation has become minimal. Politics have become a game of chess.

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.

Important curb on Human Rights

That you are now getting your Jobseekers Benefit suspended, for further investigations, if you do any type of unpaid, voluntary work in your spare time, is an important breach into the Right to a Private and Family Life.

Especially Neighbourhood Watch is an organisation that forms from residents within a local area who simply want to protect themselves from crime and help the vulnerable neighbours.

That people are now not allowed to go to meetings with local friends and that such activity infringes a right to Jobseekers Allowance is an unlawful breach of an Important Human Right.

Unfortunately I have no energy, money, nor do I get any legal assistance to fight them. But if anybody is interested looking into this it would be good.

At the moment I am scared to go to meetings with neighbours because the DWP is investigating my activities and I have made a claim for Jobseekers Allowance on 15 April 2013 and that is now frozen till 18 June 2013, so that an investigation into the way I spend my time can be carried out.

I apply for about 3 jobs per day, have been to a job interview when asked to, so the DWP cannot accuse me of not following the rules on Unemployment benefit, but regardless they breach all rules just to get permission to snoop into people’s private lives that way.

Previously the DWP only suspended your benefits if you did unpaid voluntary work and refused the work through the Work Program, but I have not even been put on the work program and they already suspend my benefits for going to meetings with neighbours in my spare time for the purpose to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour in my area. Neighbourhood Watch works closely with the local police but DWP doesn’t like this.

My whole family now gets terrorised by the DWP, family members get called to their office and threatened with legal action for no reason. Other family members get DWP letters on their birthdays to announce benefit changes. It is quite obvious that we are being stalked by DWP.  Important decisions always fall on birthday dates of family members.

I have not been accused of any law breaches at all, but simply the fact that I am unemployed gives the government the right to suspend my benefits if I go out of my house and do other things than shopping or looking for work.

The treatment we get is worst than being given a curfew or restricted rights via a court order. The DWP just takes over our whole lives.

What also gives them the right to investigate every corner of your life is the fact that you give a data sharing consent as Neighbourhood Watch coordinator. Therefore I withdrew all data sharing consent I gave to Met Police because the combination of Met Police data sharing consent and DWP investigations just about ruins people’s lives.

I hae also been informed by the Chair of the London Association that Human Rights Laws do not apply to Volunteers. So another reason not to volunteer.

Parliamentary democracy is failing

It should be better if people could vote on policies rather than on political parties. We have been told by a high court judgement that we can only expect partisan content in election leaflets but no more.

Once a political party is in office, they can practically let loose and make our lives a misery.

Political parties seem to abuse the political agenda to punish people for not having voted for them in the past, especially when they weren’t in office for a long time.

Within any 5 year period, governments can uproot communities and plunge businesses into insolvency and disrupt our lives considerably. We have no means to challenge this other than the courts, who can decide against the policies on the basis of current laws.

Of course the laws are very easily interpreted in favour of political parties who often invented them with long-term plans in mind.

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!!!

Philpott makes benefit changes look good?

Just watched this TV documentary about this most sad and extremely tragic case of the death of six children in a house fire that was apparently started deliberately according to the latest media reports and that 3 people including the children’s mother are up for sentencing for only manslaughter today. I say only because if one looks at the financial implications one must wonder whether manslaughter was in fact enough to charge them with.

Learning that Mr Philpott gotten all the money from benefits for the kids and his partners straight into his account, he must have gotten loads of money for up to 2 women and 11 children. That was a source of income for the man who allowed his best friend to share his women.

With the new benefits restrictions coming into force, a bigger house would not have solved Mr Philpott’s problems it would have increased them because less benefits and more rent would not be profitable at all. For somebody who is so financially suave, starting a fire for a bigger house, does not make sense when it is quite obviously clear that less money is going to come in.

Remember all those TV shows about his lack of living space were made prior to benefit changes in regards to maximum benefits a family can get.

I think manslaughter is too lenient!!!!

But still I think the utmost consideration when looking at benefits is the quality of life it brings for families and responsible parents would always try to make the best out of what they got. I cannot comment on the quality of life for the Philpott children, what they did as extra-curricular activities if any.

But for parents who want well for their children, the withdrawal of benefits can mean no ability to pay for out-of-school clubs for example. But then the Philpott case looks as if the reduction of benefits was justified because people can just produce children as their sole source of income.

Remember, always put your kids first. Children are not a commodity.

Bedroom hardship

I am very certain, that as soon as people get hit with their new rent demands, many will want to move to smaller accommodation. Yet they’ll find that the market is saturated and nothing is available. Even those who try their hardest to find a smaller flat will have to pay the bedroom tax without it being a fault of their own that they now cannot get a smaller place to live in.

In the privately rented sector, people will need to pay a deposit. I have not seen it advertised anywhere that people actually will get help with this. Therefore I do agree, that this Bedroom Tax, as Labour calls it is unfair to people. It will be unfair to landlords, who will find themselves facing large arrears and negative bank balances.

The government simply argues that they cannot afford to pay housing benefit for spare bedrooms and need to get the housing market moving and people into work.

It’s the ‘sink or swim’ approach and many will sink rather than swim. Tenants will see their housing benefit or universal benefit paid directly to them and if they have such hardship that they can hardly cope with the £500 cap per week, they will rather spend the money on food than on rent.

Many people will get eviction notices and register as homeless with councils and even then councils will find it difficult to secure enough small bedroom accommodation to give all homeless the size of flat they deserve under the new regulations.

That bedroom tax is going to cause a lot of problems but unfortunately people will have to put up with it unless a court decides it is unreasonable and perhaps it could breach Human Rights.  Else people have to wait until after the next elections and most likely that will see a Labour government who will need some time to change housing rules. But by then, and the government knows this most people will already have been evicted from their current flats.

So all rules governing tenancy security will be thrown overboard by the Bedroom Tax. It doesn’t matter how secure your tenancy is, if you can’t pay the rent, you still are going to get evicted.

This seems a contractual oddity because there is no clause in the secure tenancy agreements that the rules on size of property could be changed during the course of the contract.

But I also vividly remember how Labour Party members, when Labour was still in government, who screamed about under-occupation and it were Labour members who called for urgent changes to current housing laws, so who are they to complain now?

The dialectic of law and politics

I suppose I have to read up on that because the latest development in the Home Office makes me cringe with desire to learn about the subjects. Theresa May wants judges not to interfere with decisions made in parliament.

The lady makes a very good trilogy of thought stating that: “It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual’s right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals,” she said.

There I would say ad hoc that a society should want to protect itself against any type of criminal and that it may be sensible to not let foreign criminals in when we already have local ones.

Yet laws are there as an overriding objective so to speak, that forces parliaments to couch legislation within the laws already present. Thought it must be very difficult to stream politics in a variation direction from existing laws.

Having looked at the budget proposals of the EU it seems that the smallest proportion of money has actually been put aside for the legal process, which probably explains why the European Court of Human Rights refuses 85% of applications on grounds of admissibility. Only the most prominent cases get heard generally. The question is whether there is even the capacity in the courts to rule on all legal questions effectively. The current Human Rights laws are determined by EU laws but the current budget shows that out of 960 Billion Euros, only about 9 billion go to court expenses. See page 6 of this document for individual breakdown till 2020.

I think the European Court would be more effective if they tried more individual cases to give better guidance to countries in how they apply laws in their regions. Yet UK courts have a duty to refer cases to the ECHR if they are not sure how to apply legislation and that is why an Appellant can then appeal decisions instead of making  comments in the political arena.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,254 hits