We Are Now Back Up And Running At Anna Raccoon

Please redirect to www.annaraccoon.com

2.9% A Victory ?

I am utterly astounded by I Dave making this statement. This is an utter disaster, the very fact that the EU wanted a 6% expansion in its spending just shows how out of touch with econnomic reality the EU is and it should have been contemplating massive cuts not expansion.

In times past this country has always resisted expansionary powers seeking to politically dominate this country, here we have a Prime Minister actively diverting additional funds from this country to a supra national power and crowing how well he has done.

We know that I Dave has no time for libertarian or constitutional Government otherwise we would have less Government not more, and the people would have spoken in a referendum on Lisbon. He promised this and went back on his undertaking to the British People.

We have nothing less here than the naked excercise of a clique in power in both London and Brussels, if we had a constitution, I Dave would have acted against the Constitution that vests sole power in the British people.He is acting in the financial interests of a supra national power that does not have the active assent of the people.

Parking should be free

An open question to anyone about having to pay for parking on the road. Why do we have to a pay?

We already pay road tax for the upkeep of roads, even though only a small proportion of it is actually spent on the roads and other transport infrastructure. So why are drivers having to pay another "tax" on top for the privilege of parking on the road.

Paying for parking on private land (eg. NCP) or in public car parks is different. There the charges help to pay for the upkeep of the site and the wages of the parking attendants.

But paying to park on the road? It just does not make sense. The only reason it exists is so that a council can collect money. A tax in effect.

It can't be to dissuade people from parking otherwise it would be a fine. It can't be to ensure that drivers only park for as long as they need to and no longer. That would happen only if the person didn't need to use their car anymore. The whole point about parking on the road is that the person has come to carry out a time limited task of some sort - shopping, visiting the dentist, going to the bank, etc.

Does paying provide any benefit? Does it mean more people can park? Nope, there are only so many parking places. Does it allow the council to use the money to improve the local environment (better roads, better lighting, better signs, etc.)? Nope, it only goes to pay for parking attendants to go around slapping parking fines on drivers.

So why do we have to pay? Because the state tell us we have to pay and invents laws to fine us when we don't - that why. Can we get the state to change their mind? Nope, because democracy doesn't work. We don't vote for our elected officials on the basis of small issues such as this. We vote on tribal lines. So we are effectively stuck with this stupid situation until the revolution comes. Or until an elected official gets off their arse and realises that they should be doing stuff for their community, not for their own political ends.

Removing parking charges would be a huge benefit to local communities. It would increase the footfall in local markets/shops because people would not have to pay £1 minimum (for example) just to spend 5 mins popping into a shop. An increase in business' profits would mean that more businesses would be attracted to the area, meaning more employment, meaning more stuff to buy and generally making the area more attractive. So parking on the road should be free and parking in public car parks should be free for an initial short period (15 mins) of time.

Going off at a tangent, but that's one reason why supermarkets are so attractive - they have free parking. How many of you go to a supermarket to buy a few items rather than go to their local market to do the same? Think about why you do it. Do you do it because you can drive and park for free or because the prices are cheaper in the supermarket? Do you still do it when the market is closer?

In my local town, there are currently two supermarkets and a good local market. There are plans to open up two new supermarkets and obviously the traders in the local market are up in arms about it with petitions being filled in. The supermarkets counter by saying that customers can use their car parks for free and do some shopping in the supermarket and some shopping in the local market. A tacit acknowledgement that free parking is one of the main reasons why people use supermarkets. But how many customers will do some of their shopping in a supermarket and then pop to the butcher in the local market. None, because unless the butcher's prices were very low compared to the supermarket there would be no reason to do so. So the supermarket wins and the local shopkeepers have to go out of business. Some would say this is just standard market driven competition. But is the competition fair? I don't think so, and not just because of the supermarket's immense buying power. The supermarkets can control what parking charges are for their shoppers and they make it free to encourage more shoppers to visit. Local shop keepers and markets don't have the same control about the parking charges in their area so are at a disadvantage straight away.

So to reiterate, parking on the road should be free and parking in public car parks should be free for an initial short period (15 mins) of time.

An open letter to coalition politicans about DfID

Dear MP,

As a constituent of yours, I wonder if I could ask you for your opinions and those of your party about the Department for International Development.

DfID is one of the few departments that had its budget ring fenced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Could I ask why the department is considered to be so important that it should be handled in such a way?

Is there an international legal aspect that forces the government to carry on giving aid away, even to those countries that are obviously rich enough to help themselves? I'm thinking about India and China as two particular examples that have nuclear weapons and space programmes. As far as I can gather it's only promises not contracts and the UK could do with the money to help with its own problems.

Is there some moral aspect that makes the Conservatives believe it proper to carry on giving aid away, even to those countries who are corrupt or where there is no state to handle the aid and where the aid does not reach those in need. I'm thinking about Somalia as a specific example. My understanding from a Christian point of view is that it helps to take the timber for your own eye before helping someone with a splinter in theirs. The state of the UK is such that to be able to give aid in the future, we need to ensure that we can survive the short term.

Is there some moral aspect that means that giving aid such as economic development assistance and advocacy/lobbying/marketing/etc is equal in terms of priority to that of giving humanitarian aid in times of disasters? The DfID currently only gives around 10% of its aid as humanitarian aid, with the rest being money to support "worthy" but grandiose projects which provide questionable benefits to the people of such countries. Such big grandiose schemes usually have a very high administrative cost due mainly to corruption, bribes, high salaries, mismanagement, and such like.

A better way to raise poorer countries standards would be to trade with them in an open and free market. By paying for the goods they produce they can use the money to build their economy. Initially they would be on relatively low wages but as they traded and their products were bought by more and more consumers, the employee's wages would increase as more companies got in on the act and paid more to hire from the limited pool of skilled employees.Witness the wage increases that are going on in China.

Do the Conservatives believe that a department such as DfID where waste and mismanagement are endemic as deserving of a continuation of the budget in times when everyone else is cutting back. Examples of waste are that of the £1.2m given by DfID to the TUC, a wholly British organisation and £1/4m on taxis.

I put forward a proposal that DfID should be scrapped in its entirety. All money that would have gone to the DfID should be spread across all other departments to lessen the tax rises that are being implemented to cover the increasing[1] public spending requirements. An insurance fund of 25% of DfID's original budget should be setup in its place to pay for any humanitarian aid when international disasters occur.

Yours,

SBML

[Update: Third para from end updated with missing sentence]

Spending Review: Which plan did they use? - Plan 9 from outer space!

Those geniuses from our in-touch and financially astute coalition government and their brainy, experienced, selfless civil servants came up with a cunning plan for the 2010 Spending Review ™.

Just to remind those from another planet, the immediate problems our country faced as at the time of the Spending Review in October 2010 were:

• Huge existing debts
  
• The need to borrow huge amounts each year
  
• The need to print millions in monopoly money each year (they call it Quantitative Easing)
  
• A ruinous, huge annual public sector spending.
  
• Part of the public spending is down to the EU in terms of annual membership fees, lost business because of illogical EU rules, welfare payments being paid to the millions of immigrants the EU forces us to import.
  
• The majority of the recent extravagent increases were due to Gordon Brown's hard left policies of making more people dependent on the state and more government interference.
  

What was the Con Lib Dem solution? Guess which one of the following spending plans our enlightened masters chose:

Plan A - No cuts.

• Keep spending at the existing £696 billion per year.

Plan B - Small cuts of 2% per year.

• By 2014 we should be spending the same amount as 2008/09.

Plan C - Cuts of 5% per year.

• By 2014 we should be spending the same amount as 2007/08.

Plan 9 from Outer Space - NO CUTS, but INCREASE spending.

• Keep increasing the public sector spending EVERY year.
  
• Keep borrowing MORE money each year.
  
• Keep increasing the national debt each year.
  
• INCREASE foreign aid by billions. Throw these billions into the swiss bank accounts of foreign dictators. Throw this money to India so that she can continue her billion dollar space program. N.B. India has just bought a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier.
  
• INCREASE, by several billions, the throwing away of money on unproven "green" technologies which are not based on settled, empirical science. In any event, these projects will be completely useless against the global increases in CO2 from China, USA etc. By the way, CO2 is an essential plant food, it is not a poison!
  
• INCREASE by billions the membership fees we pay to the EU (which gives us nothing in net value).
  
• Continue the hard left policies of Gordon Brown with a few cosmetic tweaks on Housing Benefit.
  

[Hat tip to Richard North at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com]

Source Data
----------------------------------
Public Sector Spending

2004–05 Actual £492.377 billion
2005–06 Actual £524.006 billion
2006–07 Actual £550.046 billion
2007–08 Actual £582.534 billion
2008–09 Actual £629.844 billion
2009–10 Estimate as at Jul 2010 £669.260 billion

2010–11 Planned £696.800 billion

2011-12 Forecast £701.8 billion
2012-13 Forecast £713.0 billion
1013-14 Forecast £724.2 billion
2014-15 Forecast £739.8 billion

----------------------------------

Source documents

[1] Richard North's article on the Spending Review: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/for-avoidance-of-doubt.html

[2] H.M.Treasury's Spending Review document: http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf
(see "Total Managed Expediture" on pages 17 and 77

[3] H.M.Treasury's document on previous actual spending: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2010_complete.pdf
Page 30 Table 1.11

[4] Indian government document on aid received from G8 countries

Speaking Fabian Lesson # 32

' There Are A Suite Of Issues involved'

Type of person using this phrase

I am a very clever person who is now working for a Quango/Fake Charity/Eco-lobby, and I have now mastered the parallel language and buzzwords that mark me out as an 'insider' and politically sound.

Literal Translation

This is dreadfully important as far as my Quango/Fake Charity/Eco-Lobby is concerned, and therefore requires oodles of public money to keep myself in the luxury I have become accustomed to

See also special pleading

The Gap Between Theory And Reality

I have been to sunny Northampton today to attend to a number of family matters, but having spent five hours in the car, I have been able to listen to the roll out of the Entrepreneurs are going to save us spiel from Con Dem and the slathering we must all work for the state socialists/social democrats.



Nice try Dave but here is the problem, every one of the companies that your spokes person listed this morning as starting in the teeth of one of the last ten recessions was American.



Americans can go to the market and raise start up capital relatively easily, here in the UK it is beyond difficult, the 'Dragons Den' is good TV but not a reality show.



Start ups need backers who inject equity and take a risk, in the UK working capital has been raised by going to the banks, signing a personal guarantee against your assets and leaving your kids as hostages.



You are also required to act as an unofficial unpaid tax gatherer for the Inland Revenue, social worker for staff that it has been increasingly difficult to get rid of,  if they are incompetent or  have zero work ethic. As a Director /owner of the you are subject to the whims and vagaries of the the Companies Act, The Insolvency Act, The Health & Safety at Work Act, Money Laundering Legislation, you can also fall foul of the Department of Business,Innovation & Skills, whose collossal budget and overspending by Mandelson introduces further rafts of regulation, thats before we start bring the EU into the equation.



The average life of a limited company is two years, before that personal guarantee is called in and you are left broke never wanting to repeat the experiance.



As I was driving back, I got a call from a colleague in Northern Ireland, who told me that the Ulster Bank (part of the Nat West farcical Bank) owned by the taxpayer had just pulled the plug, despite having a full order book, it was in the 'Wrong sector'.



All of our cash Dave, has gone to prop up the zombie banks, don't rely on the entrepreneurs until you sort out getting Government of business' backs, and an equity market is flourishing again.

Attempted murder

Violetta Aylward was an agency nurse who turned off a patient's ventilator nearly killing him and leaving him brain damaged.

This is known to be true as the act was recorded by a video camera in the patient's bedroom. The camera was installed because the patient, Jamie Merrett, was concerned about the quality of care that he was receiving from the agency, Ambition 24hours, that was supplying nurses for him. It is not known if this was because of previous care by Violetta Aylward or other nurses supplied by Ambition 24hours.

Only days after the camera was installed, Violetta Aylward turned off his ventilator and then when she realised that mistake she had done tried desperately to switch it back on. She tried for over 20 minutes before paramedics who were called to the house took over and managed to switch the machine back on. However though it was in time to save his life, it wasn't in time to save his mind. Jamie is now brain damaged due to the actions of Violetta Aylward.

Nurse Violetta Aylward was suspended in Janurary 2009 when the incident happened. It is assumed that she is still suspended to this day (October 2010). Why she was not arrested on attempted murder charges is anyone's guess. The evidence is on the video. The fact that paramedics managed to save Jamie's life is beside the point. Violeta was the prime causes of the accident that led to Jamie being starved of oxygen for over 20 minutes. Were the police involved at any stage?

The family of Jamie Merrett still have not received a proper apology for the poor quality of care since the incident. They are now effectively forced to take legal action themselves since no one has admitted resposinbility or liability. The agency that employed her are not guilty of murder, but they are guilty of misadministration and lax procedural rules for not checking that the nurses they supplied had the requiste training. They aren't a small fly by night agency either. They are a massive national agency listed in the top 250 recruitment agencies by International Recruitment and have been around since 1996.

The NHS Wiltshite Primary Care Trust has said "We have put in place a series of actions to ensure that such an event will not occur again either for this patient or others." Why didn't they do this when Jamie wrote to them before the camera was installed about the lack of care. Why does it take a tragedy for an organisation to change or update their procedures. It shouldn't need this trigger. What it does show is that the organisation is not bothered about the care of it's patients. All they are bothered about is following their procedures and if anything happens to say "I just followed the rules". Just the same excuses brought forth by those involved in the "Baby P" scandal.

The Merritt family's case is highlighted in a BBC Inside Out West & Inside Out South programme.

Talkin' Bout My Generation

What an embarrassment my generation actually is. I've said before about how I was ashamed to be a part of this generation, due to the mini-riot over a Primark Sale, but now I feel it is time to completely divorce myself from this self centred, self deserving, materialistic bunch of pathetic, "apathetic socialists".

The reaction from my age group to the Spending Review has been really quite telling. There are millions dieing worldwide due to hunger and warfare, helped in many ways by our interventionist Government. There are hundreds of thousands of families facing a future of unemployment, within the private sector as well as the public, helped in many ways by our small business hating Government. There are just over 60 million people in this country watched and spied upon, thanks entirely by our liberty hating Government.

Where were you when all of these people were in trouble? Were you marching on the streets? Were you fighting for civil liberties? Were you protesting against the war? Were you campaigning for a fairer tax system and more freedom?

No.

Of course you weren't.

You were sitting indoors, in your warm double glazed house in suburbia. You didn't give one when it mattered. So why are you suddenly protesting? Campaigning? Fighting?

That's right...

You have been spurred into action because all of a sudden there is a chance you will have to pay a bit more to go to Uni. All of a sudden there is a chance you won't receive your nice £30 in the bank every week for the privilege of going to college for a few days a week.

Welcome to the real world. The world doesn't owe you anything. You're meant to prove yourself before you can start bleating on like a crazed lamb.

A crazed, bleating lamb is all you are. Nothing more.
The above image is to demonstrate what a lamb should look like- non crazed and not bleating.

Alex Ellis Roswell - LPUK Student

Blogger Of The Year

A polticians's definition of fair

There is this whole thing about fairness going on at the moment. Something to do with a spending review. George Osborne says that all his cuts are "fair" and reasonable.

However I bet some of you would be surprised that a politician's definition of fair and reasonable is a bit different to that of the dictionary.

In the case of Andew Mackay and Julie Mackay nee Kirkbride who used to be MPs until they got kicked out by their electors for their cheating and who have now been investigated, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards John Lyon said "that rather than both claiming near to the maximum of the accommodation allowance on separate properties, it would have been "reasonable" for them to have each claimed two-thirds of the full allowance on a shared second home." I would have thought a more reasonable arrangement would be to have them claiming one half of the full allowance each on the shared second home, but then I'm not an MP.

MPs can twist the truth and wriggle out of anything thrown at them. It must be one of steps that prospective parlimentary candidates have to go through to get selected it's so natural for them to do it. Witness Julie Kirkbride's statement of "I am delighted that the parliamentary standards commissioner has cleared my name and found me not guilty of abusing my expenses." But only because she was only investigated about an increase in mortgage for an extension on her house for her brother and not the claiming of a 2nd home allowance for one property whilst her husband did the same on their other property. In fact the commissioner said that "to claim on both properties was “clearly the wrong thing to do.” " so Julie Kirkbride is guilty too. Fact.

Freeman is Free

H/T Captain Ranty



The Police stopped an apparent Freeman who refused to give his name and address and whilst the full Majesty of the Law stood ready to prosecute him, the police then 'discovered' that he had been stopped on a private road and the case had to be withdrawn.



A case of technicality or this bloke is too tricky to deal with ?



Classic !

Milch Cow To The Masses

I have driven back from a meeting in Cheltenham and was listening to a programme on 'the middle classes', the kick off point for the piece was a definition of what it was to be middle class.

Somebody who had a whitecollar job, was paid monthly and had a mortgage ventured some 'bright' academic, somebody who was liberal, valued education wanted to take responsibility for their lives, lived green lives , ate cous cous ventured another.

I started thinking about my own definition.

That of Milch Cow

milch  (mɪltʃ)
— n
1.	( modifier ) (esp of cattle) yielding milk
2.	informal milch cow  a source of easy income, esp a person
[C13: from Old English -milce  (in compounds); related to Old English melcan  to milk]

The working classes (a diminishing resource in this day and age) know what they want, they want 'looking after' by the State, they don't want personal responsibility because they have rights and entitlements. If they cannot get a job it is up to the State to provide 'free' everything. They have the right to have kids, the right to not to acquire too many skills beyond that of the three 'R's. They have the Labour Party and the Trades Unions to keep them were they want to be dependent, poor and with limited horizons. The Middle Classes can pay.

The upper classes they also know what they want, they want to be ' in charge' by God's own ordnance. They will organise their financial affairs in the most 'tax efficient' way a la Millibands. Whilst they are 'in charge' they can screw up the economy, the banks, start wars, it matters not a jot, they have the Tory/Labour Party and besides the Middle Classes can pay.

Then there is the vast raft of the Middle classes, largely apolitical, subscribe to the 'mustn't grumble' political philosophy of the never getting angry. They get in debt through crushing mortgages and university fees, but never talk about it, because they are the only ones out of the whole of the middle classes that are struggling, WRONG they are the coping classes who have been shafted royally by the see-saw of successive Lab/Con Governments. They are the easy targets. Like the grey vote. They will not complain ever, even while they are having their financial teeth kicked in by Nu Labour/Cons/Social Democrats.

They cutely believe that they live in a free country despite all evidence to the contrary. They believe that British is best even though seventy five per cent of British manufacturing  is owned by foreigners and that the Queen is Head of State not the European Commission.

Their Political Party is the Militant Masochistic Tendency, you can beat them over and over again and they will gladly pay over and over again. The Middle Classes are dangerous because they are delusional, they believe everything they are told.

Is there the slightest chance that Jonty and Isabella might be getting the message, that no matter how broke they personally are, the State and the Banks are going to ask for even more money next year. At what stage do the Middle Classes say enough is enough, there has to be a better way.

Broth, and the art of Libertarianism

What happened to simple thrift?

I had only to look at the Sunday papers this morning to see the state of public finances; a monument to the philosophy of seeing how much you can spend rather than what you can achieve.

However, here at the Abbey, things have been a bit tight on the financial front too. This weekend I had a number of my fellows to feed, and I was wondering what to do on a limited budget. A turned to my friend Sister Eva Longoria for help and advice. Her answer was to create a simple broth. Here is the basic recipe for a family of four.

One stock cube (vegetable, or any which goes with the meat).

One cup of dried vegetable soup mix: it’s lentils, barley, split peas and stuff. You can get it at your local supermarket. A packet costs about £1 and it goes a very long way. DO PLEASE NOTE that you’re supposed to either soak it overnight or boil it well before use otherwise you may end poisoned. However, if you let your broth simmer for a good few hours then there shouldn’t be a problem. Don’t use more than one cup because it expands like mad.

A cheap unfashionable cut of meat from your local butcher – lamb is best. Much cheaper than the supermarket and almost always better quality and taste. A cut on the bone often makes it tastier.

Any handy old veg you have to hand, rough chopped up into small pieces. Plenty of onions are good. Potatoes add body. Not too much of any one vegetable because it tends to “take over” the dish.

Salt and pepper to taste.

That the basic but you can add whatever you want or have to hand to bulk it up; canned pulses, frozen peas, carrots – whatever you have.

Pop them all into a big casserole dish. Very soon you will find the pot is overflowing with good, healthy and cheap ingredients. You will probably find you are using stuff which you would otherwise end up throwing out.

Then you can add whatever you want to pep it up depending on your taste. Garlic is good. Even better than powder or paste, just strip out as many cloves as you want from the bulb, peel off the outer skin and bung then bung them in whole. They taste wonderful when roasted through and are very cleansing for the blood. Or add turmeric; another cleansing agent. Paprika gives a kick. You could slip in some curry powder and red peppers if you like.

Add water (of course) and leave it all to cook on a low heat for a long time; at least a full afternoon. That is the key. Let it simmer for a good few hours at least on a low heat (make sure it does boil dry – just keep it low). We are fortunate enough to have a big special pressure cooker that does the job very well.

Anyway, with the assistance of the Good Sister Eva, very soon a great vat of broth was prepared yesterday lunchtime for almost no money. It took almost no time to do either. It was then left to simmer away for an afternoon whilst we decamped to the rifle range, where I was spotting for Sister E who was trying out her new toy, a 0.5 in Barrett sniper rifle. I am sure that I speak for all at the Abbey when I say that Brian the gardener, who has served us so well for nearly forty years, will be sadly missed.
After a lovely afternoon in the autumn sun we retired to consume a huge amount of delicious, warming, and very cheap broth or stew (who cares what you call it) with bread and butter, all washed down with a very nice red. It was lovely.

Leftovers were “freshened up” today for lunch. You can also freeze them in a little Tupperware box for later in the week.

This got me thinking. Why stop there?

I remembered that I used to bake my own bread just using the ordinary mix from the supermarket. Not only was it delicious, especially when hot from the oven, but it was certainly good for me (let’s just say I had no problems staying regular). And more importantly, it was just great fun to do, and very satisfying. The smell was lovely. It was real life and real food.

The same with wine. We have got out of the habit (no pun intended) of making our own here, but I remember that some of my favourite ever was a raspberry wine made with the help of Sister E a few years ago, just using a simple kit. Again, it was fascinating and satisfying to do. Maybe we could do it again and go further, using the real ingredients? True my attempts of home brew beer were always horrid, but maybe I could lean to do it better?

And from these humble thoughts I extrapolated. Why isn’t thrift taught in schools? I don’t know what the position is in schools anymore, but what happened to home economics?

And how about this for a program.

Abandon the reliance on GCSE’s and A levels. No child should be allowed to leave school without somehow:

• Being literate and numerate
• Learning how to cook and learning what to cook
• Being informed that the first duty of the citizen is to be financially self reliant and not dependant on the state
• Being informed that happiness does not depend upon spending, credit and consumption, but on a proper understanding of the phrase “enough is enough.”

OK, I know it’s a bit Utopian, but you get the point. And then thinking about the shelves of my local supermarket, stacked high with “ready meals” and oven chips and pizza’s, being consumed by increasingly corpulent kids all craving their Ritalin fix, it did occur to me that this program might not find favour with the corporations and multinationals who provide and profit from so much of this c**p; or from the politicians and banks who would have us as work slaves, metaphorically chained to the oars of the economy, rowing endlessly and pointlessly on.

It’s amazing what a bowl of broth can do.

© Gildas the Monk

Liam Fox MP Calls Deputy Leader of the LPUK’s Case A Scandal

 

PRESS RELEASE



Liam Fox MP Calls Deputy Leader of the LPUK’s Case A Scandal



In the latest turn of events in Andrew Withers’ four year legal tussles with The Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, a District Judge in the Bristol Registry has ordered that he should list all of the companies and organisations that he is an executive member of so that it can be decided whether the Court whether he should be given permission to continue. Amongst the organisations specifically named is the Libertarian Party.


On the 22nd September 2010, the Information Commissioner ruled that when the Department was being run by Mandelson it withheld evidence that Andrew Withers wished to rely on in Court, and that they should release it ‘without further delay’. That ruling has so far been ignored by The Secretary of State’s officials. If the order is further ignored by this Friday, Andrew Withers will be seeking a Court Order to compel the Secretary Of State to comply with the ICO order under sec7 (9) Data Protection Act 1998.


Andrew Withers’ local MP is Dr Liam Fox and has been extremely supportive in a case that he has called in a personal telephone call a ‘scandal’, and found time in the midst of the strategic defence review to have personal meeting with Ed Davey MP the responsible Minister in the coalition Government on the 27th September 2010 to discuss the case. After which Ed Davey has ordered a review into the case by senior officials and a meeting has been suggested with senior officials to try to resolve the situation.


Andrew is currently writing a book about his experiences, and admits that new chapters are being added as one man’s fight against a politicised bureaucracy continues into a fifth year.


The story started in 2006 when a French company that Andrew was a gerant (director) of was illegally placed into liquidation by its French Director in contravention of the company statuts and on a perjured statement of affairs. The Court appointed Receiver was paid 8000€ to bury the company, and the French Director made off with the assets and finished goods . An investigating French barrister appointed by Andrew Withers visited the Receiver in Coutances and noted that there were no accounts, invoices or supporting documentation. The Barrister described the situation as the worst case of corporate fraud he had seen in over forty years of practice.


The unfortunate direct consequence of this fraud was that it brought down the British company down as well and it ceased trading in 2006 unfortunately four customers and a number of corporate creditors lost money.


The company was wound up in 2007, and Andrew presented himself to the Official Receiver with supporting documentation and statements from the French Investigating Barrister as to the veracity of the illegal winding up of the company by the French Director causing the failure of the company. He was complemented on the professionalism of the presentation of the narrative and whilst he could not promise that nothing more would be heard from the Insolvency Service, he was satisfied with the narrative.


In October 2007 , Andrew Withers became one of the five founding members of the Libertarian Party sickened by the growth of the security state established by Blair and continued by Brown and the fact that the State was out of control and the State was absorbing more and more taxpayers funds. Three days later the run on Northern Rock began.


From this point the story started to take a bizarre and disturbing twist.


* Despite the French fraud being reported to Avon and Somerset Police and the Insolvency Service which is part of the then Business,Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. A furious French Colleague contacted Andrew to report that the French Director had just been given an award presented by the British Ambassador to Paris and Lord Digby-Jones (GOAT)

* From redacted documents secured under the Freedom of Information Act, the French Director started lobbying to have Andrew Withers’ investigated in April 2008.


* In June 2008 he received a letter from the Insolvency Service in Plymouth to say he was under investigation under the terms of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, this despite them having no accounts because they could not access the electronic copies of the SAGE accounts.


* In November 2008 the Assistant Official Receiver confirmed in an email that in their view the French subsidiary was not part of their investigations as their advice was that it was not possible for French companies to have foreign shareholders !


* The conduct of the investigation was the source of endless abuse, the interviewer was balefully ignorant of commercial law, gave off the appearance of being a former policeman, told a number of direct lies and allowed Andrew Withers’ to look at a former employee’s personal bank statements and files in contravention of the Data Protection Act, then could offer no explanation what those statements and files were doing with the company documentation.


* The Company’s former accountants were threatened with investigation, to the extent that they took legal advice.


* Mandelson was appointed Secretary of State 3rd October 2008, it is his decision to seek disqualification orders against company directors. Liam Fox MP met Andrew Withers and was shown all of the documentation relating to the criminal fraud. Fox lobbied Mandelson and was rebuffed.


* Further evidence was supplied to the Secretary of State in July 2009, including witness statements and French Court documents to show the extent of the French Fraud and the effect it had had on the British Company. All of this evidence was rejected and returned to Andrew Withers unread.

* From redacted documents received by Andrew under FOI , the Official Receiver’s recommendation to move forward to Proceedings was rejected for lack of evidence in May 2009, saying it ‘required more work done on it’


* In August 2009 with days to spare before being statute barred, proceedings were authorised by Secretary of State Mandelson against Andrew Withers to be disbarred as a director for eight years. If Andrew was so minded to sign a confession and to say a false set of accounts prepared by the Secretary of State were true (that omitted the French subsidiary) , the ban would be reduced to seven years.


* Andrew Withers and his lawyers refused to sign, and tried to negotiate with the appointed lawyers to no avail to drop the case.

* When the evidence in the case was finally released to Andrew it soon became apparent that-


* The winding up order made against the company was made by somebody who was not a creditor. The Official Receiver knew this and sought to hide the supporting documentation and invoices that had been altered


* The French Director had supplied the Official Receiver with forged Delivery Notes, the Official Receiver made no attempt to verify them.


* The Official Receiver had made no attempt to contact the Court appointed Receiver in Coutances, but entered into very friendly correspondence with the French Director. The Official Receiver allowed the transfer of assets , goods and cash to the French Director’s company at nil value.


It costs not less than £50 000 to mount a defence in actions such as this, Andrew’s legal insurers refused to consider this was an action they would cover, it does not take long to burn through legal fees, and with money running short Andrew compromised and settled on a voluntary undertaking with the Secretary of State for five and a half years not to act as a company Director with an undertaking that a s17 hearing would be heard by the District Judge before the undertaking took affect on July 13th 2010. The Court Order of 22nd June confirms


That hearing never took place because the Secretary of State two days before the hearing in July had issued no instructions to counsel to attend and had broken the settlement by rushing into print and online trumpeting their success on the 1st July. The District Judge then signed an order to allow Andrew to continue to act as a Director in two designated companies, an order that was renewed on the 11th of October 2010 pending the outcome of the next full hearing.


Andrew Withers released the following personal Statement yesterday.


“ I first wish to repudiate the voluntary undertaking I signed on 22nd June 2010, the accounts so presented were false, the Official Receiver knew they were false, I knew they were false, they were based on perjury in both French and English Courts, based on forged documents supplied by the French Director who colluded with the Official Receiver to transfer assets at nil value. I simply signed to end the attrition of costs by an overbearing State and because of the effect this war of attrition has had on my family. That is the end of one battle, but I have not given up the fight in this war.



I am grateful for the support of my legal teams in both France and England, to Liam Fox MP and to the members of the NCC of the Libertarian Party who refused to accept my offered resignation last June as Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Party, and that despite the Court Order of the 11th October 2010 examining whether the poorly written, oppressive anti business CDDA 1986 can extend its authority over companies that are not registered in this country and to political parties and to charitable organisations, I will continue to seek the leadership of the Libertarian Party. Therefore it is only fair that all members are aware of this cloud that hangs over me before casting their vote.



I welcome the intervention of Ed Davey MP and look forward to the results of his review and for the opportunity of a meeting with senior officials to present the evidence that Dr Liam Fox has seen and quite rightly has called a scandal.



This will not however stop me seeking a Court order on the 25th October against the Secretary of State following the ruling of the Information Commissioner of the 22nd September. I will also be launching a civil action against the Secretary of State, Official Receiver and French Director, as both a creditor and shareholder of my former company for the wrongful transfer of assets , equipment and cash to the French Director at nil value.



I can however only express my displeasure at the lack of action by the Avon & Somerset Chief Constable in this case in relation to the Fraud and Theft that has occurred. The constant pleading of lack of resources has further undermined my confidence in Law enforcement .



I was a Classical Liberal before I help found the Party, my experiences of politicised public servants under the last administration have only confirmed that I must continue with that fight. I am confident the Parliament never intended the CDDA Act to be applied to foreign companies over which they have no jurisdiction , nor to political parties which is a breach of basic political Liberty, and I am confident that the Judge will come to the same conclusion “




ENDS

Did You Vote For 'Change' ? Political Crimes Still Get You the 'Sack'

Via Cranmer and Tom Paine this morning the inevitable story that Katherine Birbalsingh has been forced from her post for thought crime of actually doubting that the Fabian destruction of education is 'good' for children.

The Tories promised you change, but the dangerous politicised public servants and their weak bosses are still in post, fulminating against the inconvenience of the ballot box. There has been no change and they are being paid by you the tax payer.

As one of the few countries in the world that does not have a Constitution, Katherine is not afforded the right of free speech under the Constitution, and she could scamper off to Court to not only claim constructive dismissal and declare the action of the school unconstitutional.

Unless Cameron acts this morning to end this farce every teacher had better keep their political opinions to themselves.

Brown gone, Cameron arrives- The State still rules and the State is red in hue and claw.

The guilty pleasures of eco tourism

Tim Worstall spotted a new article by Jonathon Porritt. However something else in Jonathon's article grabbed my eye.

Somewhere between 35-50% of the Maldivian economy is dependent on tourism. Without it, his economy is stuffed. .... So the President thanked us for coming... He also thanked us, as a bunch of greenies, for bearing our carbon guilt with good grace, and hoped we would all offset the emissions caused...

So the Maldives depend on tourism. Tourism is by definition from the eco greenies a highly dangerous activity for the future of the world. They tell us not to fly to exotic locations for our holidays. Or else places like the Maldives will disappear under the sea. Tourism should be stopped because of all the flights people take for their holidays. So that means the end to the Maldives either way. Or does it?

Eco greenies are still keen on their "guilty pleasures" and so to stop feeling hypocritical they invented the carbon trading machine. A system which means that you pay for your pleasure by putting money towards some green scheme such as planting trees. Thank god! The Maldives have been saved. However it hasn't stopped them being hypocritical.

This carbon offsetting is a tax. So you either pay less for your holiday and don't go to the Maldives or you spend less in the Maldives. Either way the Maldives gets less money. So the Maldives lose out no matter what. For the Maldives read any other holiday destination.

PS. What Jonathon Porritt is doing in the Maldives when "his lot" is against the general unwashed from wasting CO2 is beyond me. Why not video conference like they always preach to the rest of us?

Is Paris Burning ?

Not without fuel it is not, France is one of the most beautiful, civilised and maddening countries in the world. The French are keen to have a 'manifestation' at the drop of the hat, and I say hurrah for that, at least they are not politically apathetic like the English. As long as they have enough baked beans and lager in the fridge and corrie is on the box, God is in his Heaven and the world is set right. However what are the French bringing the country to its knees for ? extending the retirement age to 62 from 60.



To be young and French is to be on the left, the heady days of soixante-huit when the students and workers nearly brought the French state to its knees are part of french culture and legend, Socialisme, Marxisme & Egalitie was the watchword, you could riot and still look tres chic.



But to demonstrate because you think that by the time you are sixty you are decrepit and incapable of work is a marxist nonsense. The reasons being given are that 'the old' are bed-blocking the jobs in the economy is jaw dropping. The young should be surging with energy to create new enterprises, instead the maximum hope is to fill dead mens shoes in the state/state monopoly companies and the dead hand of French bureaucracy.

Still Living In A Security State

I would commend anybody to read the excellent post by Tom Paine today on the continuing affront to civil liberties the use of house arrest by anonymous public servants who cannot find enough evidence to bring somebody before the Courts so they get them confined to their homes on the grounds of National Security.

Personally I find it a little frustrating that most people still believe that they believe that they live in a free and independent country despite all evidence to the contrary.

The Coalition Government have not removed the odious Nu Labour home arrest from our statute books, they still have not repealed the Act that allows American Courts to lift British Citizens from these shores without prima facie evidence being presented to the Courts, yet we cannot do the same to Americans.

The astounding case of Liverpool Foorball club is another case in point. RBS (us) own this football club, yet we are waiting on a Judge in Dallas, Texas to tell us what we are allowed to do with an asset indirectly owned by the Taxpayer.

If you give de facto recognition to a foreign court that is the end of being an independent nation, we have already made the EU a superior level Court.

All these things are possible because we have no Constitution that protects life, liberty and freedom of the individual above all else.

Look Out ! Behind You- There Is A Writ About

 
If the words published on-line are defamatory, the author and publisher can be sued as in other areas of the press. The defences of justification, fair comment, privilege can then be used. However, ISPs cannot be placed into the traditional roles of publisher and author. ISPs can defend a claim for libel in certain circumstances, namely it was not the author, editor or publisher; If reasonable care was taken and The ISP had no reason to believe that it caused the publication of the defamatory statement. An internet site may also be vulnerable to libel if if it knows about the defamatory statements but does not react quickly enough to remove them. A defamatory statement can appear on any internet terminal around the world, which means that litigation can be brought any country. 

Yesterday  there was a landmark case in which a solicitor won £17 500 in damages for hurt feelings and £28 500 legal costs against the Solicitors from Hell website because of the writings of a deranged cyberstalker in a comment section that the site owner did not remove or corroborate.

I suspect there will be quite a body of case law that will start to build up off the back of this and London being the libel capital of the world there will be quite a few more actions for hurt feelings started.


The Wild West of  the Internet will be policed and tamed by both Governments and Corporate Lawyers over the next twelve months. With work drying up in other profitable areas, you can be sure that American Corporates are typing affidavits as we speak. Unlike in the USA where there is a Constitutional Guarantee of Free Speech, we ain't got a Constitution that guarantees much other that Parliament is sovereign.

What if the Chilean miners had been trapped in ...

If the Chilean miners had been trapped in a British mine ...

• Rail trade union boss, Bob Crowe, would declare the rescue tunnel was part of the tube rail network and then call a strike to shutdown the rescue because of "safety ishoos" (and ask for more pay).
• Tony Blair would hog the television for days by making "They were the Peoples' Miners, who dug into our hearts .." speeches.
• Gordon Brown would blame Margaret Thatcher for the situation.
• No miners would be allowed out until an "X Factor" and "Britain's Got Talent" show had chosen which miner to rescue first.
• The miners would die anyway because a new Health and Safety directive would forbid any rescue worker from working near a disaster scene.
• Ten new QUANGOs would be created and would last for 10 years. They would be staffed by many incompetent civil servants, left-leaning academics and failed Labour politicians, on huge salaries and eye-watering, inflation-proof pensions. At the end of the 10 years, they would release 20 guideline documents, each at least 15,000 pages long.
  
  The document guidelines would ensure that:
  • The miners' human rights would not be breached.
  • The miners would have access to halal meat.
  • A diversity czar would be appointed to make sure the ethnic and other minorities are well represented in the cavern.
  • A global warming risk assessment is completed.
  • Lawyers and police are present to make sure the miners don't resort to Hate Speech.
  • Teams of care workers and psychiatrists are on hand in case the miners do resort to Hate Speech.
  • The miners must not be rescued because their CO2 would melt the glaciers.
  
  As a result, any miner who survived underground for those 10 years would be grateful to the nation for being a member of a diverse, halal-eating, green society.
• Any relative of the miners who approached the Prime Minister would be arrested, shot or beaten up by the police.
• Anyone who insisted on reading out a list of the miners' names, near Westminster and without a state permit would be arrested for breaching Britain's liberal anti-terrorist laws.

If the Chilean miners had been trapped in an EU controlled mine ...

• EU bureaucrats would prosecute the miners for spending more than eight hours on one shift.
• The EU would levy an emergency "miners' rescue" tax on all EU citizens until the miners were safe or for 100 years, whichever is the longest.
• The rescue would fail because all of the national leaders and EU bureaucrats would argue about which country sponsors the drill, which country sponsors the supplies, and so on.
• Actually, the EU rescue wouldn't even start because EU regulations state that the mining accident is not officially an accident because no EU flag was flying over the mine at the time. The marxist bureaucrat who designed that rule would later be found dead in the Chilean quarter of Brussels, with several pickaxes in his head.
• To prevent accidents like this happening again, the EU would make new directives that would force a new militarised EU police force to be deployed on all European streets. Any citizens stopped by these police who had no mining permits would be shot.
• All elections in Europe would be suspended until the EU-wide trauma caused by the mining accident had subsided to a safe democratic level (or 100 years, whichever is the longest).
• All EU bureaucrats would be granted a 200% pay rise because of the stress they endured.

If the Chilean miners had been trapped in an American mine ...

• They would name the operation "Shock and Ore", bomb the mountain until a crack appeared, pull out all of the miners' dead bodies, declare that they had succeeded in forcing democracy on them and send a bill for the bombs to the miners' widows.
• or ... American special services would be sent in, they would throw grenades into the miners' cavern and then claim Osama bin Laden had killed them with a suicide bomber.
• Wall Street bankers would create a complex hedge derivative trading instrument based on the favourite number of the first rescued miner's son and cause another mini recession.
• Obama would prevent any rescue until a new raft of legislation had been passed that required all rescuers and miners to invest in state healthcare and pay green taxes.
• Obama would make a presidential address on all TV stations describing how, if the miners are rescued, it would be entirely down to his tireless efforts and vision. However if any miners die, it would all be the fault of British Petroleum and the British Empire.
• Mysteriously, the miners find that the first person to appear in the cavern is an ambulance-chaser lawyer.

If the Chilean miners had been trapped in a North Korean mine ...

• The state media would report that Kim Jong-il's brave eldest son had single handedly rescued all of the miners ...
• ... using technology devised by his genius glorious leader of a father.
• Communications from dissidents in North Korea report that no miners survived and that thousands of peasants died trying to dig the miners out with medieval tools.

If the Chilean miners had been trapped in an Afghan mine ...

• The Taliban would suddenly appear in the cavern before anyone else.
• The Taliban would take everyone hostage, set up a heroine purification factory in the cavern, along with a terrorist training camp and an islamic school.

If the Chilean miners had been trapped in a Swiss mine ...

• It would have been over in 5 minutes because the Swiss would have built in clever rescue channels during the mining.
• All the miners would survive.
• Very few TV stations would report it because it happened so quickly and no one had ever been at risk.
• The mine would reopen the next day to resume full production.
• The miners happily go back to work the day after that.

A nest of what?

This blog is an open home for all the fans of Anna Raccoon, hopefully to allow the continuation of the spirit of her blog.

The Raccoon has gone, but long may her spirit live on!