Wednesday, 31 July 2013

The Artist Taxi Driver

In my usual odd way I was trying to think of a title for this blog but a straight up 'what it's about' title was the only thing possible.

Mark McGowan (The Artist Taxi Driver aka Chunky Mark) was born and bred in Peckham (Saaf London) and is a Performance Artist.  There was a theory in the Performance Art community in the 1970's that, in fact, Jesus was a Performance Artist.  I agree with that little gem.  I also feel that The Artist Taxi Driver is right up there with him.  Not the Jesus of the conventional hierarchical, authoritarian, Stockholm Syndrome, benign oppressor, Nazi sympathising, hypocritical, excessively abusive, organised religion Jesus - not that one - NO.  The Jesus that stood up against those perverted aberrations and called the Scribes and the Pharisees "sugar coated faecal matter" (in the language of his day of course - check out Mathew 23:27 if you wouldn't like to believe me).  The Jesus that cared about human values like love and compassion.  The thing about Performance Art is it not only removes the fourth wall but it removes the boundary between Art as a 'representation' of life and life itself.  So to be true to yourself and to perform your life with integrity IS art.  Life IS art and Art IS life.  The Artist Taxi Driver is genuine, compassionate, authentic and frighteningly REAL LIFE.

This is just an example of his work and it moved me to tears.

The funny thing is there is no amount of intellectual-babble changes a bully into a reasonable person.  There is NO question that the current policies of the UK Government are abusive, fascist, right wing, divisive, cruel, oppressive, unfair and unreasonable.  No amount of 'discussion' is going to change that.  In fact it has now got to the point that 'discussion' is part of their tactical armoury.  They carry on being bullies whilst the good people of this country are bogged down in 'intellectual discussions' about the injustice.  As if 'words' produce proof of injustice.

Nuf said.  The Artist Taxi driver has a number of points of contact:


You tube:


Web site:


Tuesday, 30 July 2013

And they want to stop abuse!

The trouble with this country is that it is paradoxical.  Ever since the Jimmy Savile scandal I have been bothered with the sentimental attitude towards abuse.  I just don't see how a country built on abuse can effectively STOP abuse let alone detect it.

Our educational system is fundamentally abusive.  If you have ever been to a college of further education there is a chance that you have actually seen a bit or real education.  Education is a sharing of information in a conducive environment.  Training, on the other hand, is getting people to perform certain tricks.  That is fine for its own purposes and some training is very useful and fun.  But school is not about education it is about training.  And it is about conditioning.  It is based on something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome.  The fundamentals of our education system are based in John Calvin's ideas of indoctrination way back in the 16th century in Geneva. (Interestingly the Online Etymology Dictionary says "Calvinism and chauvinism are, etymologically, twins.")  This was then taken up by King Frederick the Great in Prussia around the beginning of the 19th century and evolved into the same schools that produced Adolf Hitler's SS and the infamous Gestapo in the middle of the 20th century.  A very good system of indoctrination that trains people to conform to the will of the state.

This may seem a little extreme if you are of a mind set to interpret the "education" you have received as benign.  But you were never given any choice and your parents were 'forced' to hand you over to state controlled indoctrination under penalty of imprisonment.  The tragedy of this is that there is no law in the UK that says you have to send your children to school.  But the authorities, who's responsibility it is to inform you of your responsibilities actually go one stage further than to hide this knowledge from you - they actually lie about it.  Education authorities, welfare officers and councils regularly state that you must send your children to school.  If you don't, they say, you can be imprisoned.  These are not lies by the authority (according to the them) because they are not telling you that it IS the law, enforceable by imprisonment, they are simply telling you that you could be sent to jail.  What they pretend they mean is that if you actively obstruct your child's access to an education then you can be imprisoned.  That IS the law.  You are at liberty to educate your child at home and there is no prescribed definition of 'education'.  Quite literally if you teach your children how to mow the lawn, feed the chickens, cook and play chess that is perfectly legal.  But 'they' don't want you to know that.  So they lie.  And that is just an example of the abuse.

At school children are intimidated into conforming.  They are not respected and treated with dignity.  Well... only in so far as they conform.  I don't need to spend acres of web space to explain how this is exactly the problem with the Stockholm Syndrome.  Of course you get treated well when you do what they dictate.  And your self-subjugation causes a profound sense of injustice, humiliation and resentment inside your psyche.  So you will resent other's who do not conform.  So you become a 'better' student for policing your peers.  It taps into, and abuses, peer pressure.  So you get affirmation and validation only when you are like them.  Out of the sausage machine come a stream of lookalike sausages.  There are some that are a bit misshapen but then they are marginalised and given lowly jobs and meagre pay.  So they still get what they want and someone to collect the garbage into the bargain.

And, as a lot of people understand, if you threaten people, telling them what to do, you are really teaching them how to threaten people to achieve objectives.  We live in a fundamentally abusive culture.  When the governments of the USA the UK have the reactions they do to whistle-blowers like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden it is clear evidence that although they pay lip service to the ideals of truth and justice they will slaughter anyone who reveals the fact that they are lying and being insanely unjust.  So how exactly can the authorities 'see' abuse?  They can't.  What they see is conformity to their desired construct.  Authoritarians invariable assume the 'authority' to be benign.  Think about it!  How could they be authoritarians and NOT believe that to be true?  The only alternative is for them to realise they are, by their own definition, evil.  (Yes I am sure one can think of exceptions but I am talking about the main stream.)

The thing is a bit Freudian in that the authoritarians so believe they are right that it somehow excuses their methods of maintaining what they 'think' is good.  So if you catch them out their focus of attention is on the fact that you are seemingly disarming them of their power to be good.  So you are obviously 'wrong'.  You question the teacher about the legitimacy of their unjust treatment of you or their contradictory demands and you get told you are 'rude' or a 'trouble maker'.  It is very rare that a teacher agrees that they are wrong and even more rare that they change their behaviour.  Of course when you bring up everyone through abusive schooling it is no surprise that the society is fundamentally abusive.

It is too easy to see a poor young middle class girl who has been raped by a hairy, ugly, middle aged, middle eastern man as a tragic victim when put like that.  But try being the victim.  You are sidelined, ostracised, sad, depressed, criticised, dirty, reluctant and THEN the social services will say that your enforced sleeping with aberrant ne'er-do-wells for sweets and alcohol is a "lifestyle choice".  This is precisely what they said of girls in the Rochdale abuse scandal.  The thing is they simply cannot 'see' abuse when it is staring them in the face.

So what does the gentleman in the picture at the top of this post think of himself?

He is a fully grown man and he gives his time and his body to an authority who require him to subjugate his identity under a nice uniform.  Then they send him out to protect a megalomaniac business trying to rape and destroy the countryside for massive profits at the expense of the locals from some seriously concerned citizens.  One of whom is a female with red hair.  But he is quite willing to abusively wrestle her to the ground because he is a big strong man.  I think not.  He is fundamentally a sad coward with no self respect or integrity.  He is quite obviously being abusive.  There is no way he had to fight the woman to defend anything that was good from her destructive power.  What's more he was not fighting a battle he could in any way lose.  He was not risking anything of his own in the pursuit of justice.  No.  He was only risking his job and his money if he didn't do what his bosses require of him.  You know - it is really sad that so many jerks are willing to desecrate life itself in this way.  It is so easy to see what Jesus was objecting to.  Not much has changed in 2000 years.

I was brought up to respect the police.  I used to respect them.  Now - all I see is jumped up fascist pigs.  It took me long enough.

Squeak piggy squeak (or Bedroom Tax).

A judge called Laws (is this for real?) has ruled that the Bedroom Tax does not breach human rights.  I spent a lot of time growing up making excuses for people like that.  They will typically be all condescending and pout their lips and furrow their brow and consider the fine details and explain how because of this and that and section 2 a b c iii technically it is not a breach of human rights.  But it doesn't need someone to high-jack the meaning of human rights by attempting to define them in a set of words to ultimately define human rights.  The Bedroom Tax clearly breaches human rights.  If you fuck a pig I don't need a book to tell me whether that breaches the pig's animal rights.

Oh SORRY! - Is that language too strong for you?  Try living the life of a vulnerable person being kicked out of their home.  Fucking Pigs!  That is nothing compared to what this government is doing to hundreds of thousands of people in the UK every day.

Apparently the Department for Work and Pensions said the cuts were necessary but insisted it was still supporting the needy.  Well maybe they (the DWP) are (analogously) a pig who has been traumatised by being raped by an overpowering alien species.  Maybe they simply CAN'T think straight.  Maybe the trauma has caused them to go cross eyed (both metaphorically and literally) and they cannot see beyond their own personal, limited, immediate, self interest.  These welfare cuts and the Bedroom Tax are simply NOT necessary.  Of course one can find a subset of details to make a case to attempt to justify the idea behind the cuts but it is disturbingly and excessively myopic.

Just less than average intelligence is probably enough to understand that if you have 100 three bedroom houses and 100 two person families that it takes a vicious sadist to determine that it follows no one should be allowed to live in a house.  The idea that people should be provided with somewhere to live and that it should approximately fit their needs is a reasonable standpoint.  But taking the given situation and throwing people out of their homes they have lived in for years with no satisfactory solution is nothing short of Nazi tactics.

I am a little upset by the perceived necessity for disabled people to fight the government on the basis of their disablement.  It is sadly playing into the hands of the bullies.  Eventually the bullies will make the appearance of a compassionate compromise but they will have effectively got the support of the disabled people and all their sympathisers and a lot of fuzzy minded middle people to accept the abuse of everyone else.  Think - Stockholm Syndrome.  The bully is beating you over the head tearing your eyes out and twisting your arm.  You complain your arm is hurting and when they finally stop twisting your arm you thank them.  I mean the fucking pig comes back to mind.  "Squeak squeak!  You are pulling my hair!"  So the rapist stops pulling the hair.

Just stand back and look at this country.  There is no justification for stealing from the poor.  It is clearly contradictory to suggest things will be better if poor people become poorer.  We know it is the inhumane irresponsible criminal behaviour of the people with the most power and influence in this country who have caused the problem.  But because the richer people are deluded into thinking they need "the bankers" they literally let them get away with it arguing that if they pursue the bankers they will leave the country and then where would we be.  This is so clearly the product of bullies at school I don't know why more people can't see it.  This is cultural Stockholm Syndrome.  See it the way the bullies see it and they won't hurt you so much.

I can't let that pass!

BBC: Downing Street says 'go home' van ads are working

See also:
1. Toxic Drums: Government Hate Speech
2. Toxic Drums: Home Office in breach of Public Order Act

This is disgusting.  This is a prime example of the debased level of this British government.  This is a bunch of bullies who have got away with so much they are believing their own propaganda.  Much as the infamous "In order to save the village we had to destroy it" is probably a misquote the fact remains that people are doing it all the time.  It is an example of how people suggest they mean one thing whilst in fact they mean something else.

The fact that (blood on their hands) "Downing Street" dare say these intimidatory vans are "working" just goes to show how far beyond the pale they have drifted.  This is insane and yet they don't even notice how ridiculous and incriminating this is.

They 'think' (obviously I hesitate to use that word because clearly they don't 'think' like most people) they are saying that they have a legitimate method of reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the UK and they have enacted it and it is working because someone might have left.  But on so many levels they are lying.  I encounter too much of this junk.

To put it simply to 'Downing Street': IF it is working you are simply admitting that you are fascist bullies.

How utterly stupid can these bullies be?  Well the really really frightening thing is that they are laughing their socks off because they are right.  They know they are bullies.  They are bullying hundreds of thousands of people in the UK.  They are getting away with it.  They knowingly say such things as that the 'go home' van ads are working to taunt.  "Knowingly" because they are deliberately winding people up in the full knowledge of the double meaning in the statement.  They pretend they are suggesting there is some legitimacy in the act.  But really they know full well they are stirring up racial fear and hatred.  They know they are acting viciously and THAT is what is working.

These things are working but not the way you are meant to think they mean.  They are working for them!  They (the politicians) are supposed to be working for us and they are NOT.  So when they say it is working they are lying because they are not working for US - they are working for themselves against the people of Britain.

The lie is not "that the vans are working" but in the 'a priory' (the un-questioned and assumed) fact that they (the politicians) are working "for" the population as opposed to "against" them.  On the assumption that the politicians (Downing Street - that sinister den of iniquity) are working in the interest of the British people then the vans are clearly NOT working.


Why the hell am I spending time explaining - to who - the obvious bull-shit in what the politicians are saying?  I know I could go off and spend years studying philosophy and sociology and linguistics and politics and I could write long academic tomes about the complexities of psychology and how we communicate but other people have done it and it won't improve things.  In fact if I do I am conspiring with their device because I become silent in my studies and out of reach in the complexity of what I then write so they GET AWAY WITH IT.  Which is all they actually care about.  There is no point, when you are being raped, considering the socio-economic consequences of mini-skirts.  GET THE FUCK OFF!

These politicians are evil.  That is clear.  It needs no explanation.  What it needs is people to WAKE UP.  If they are not hitting you today who do you think they are going to hit when the disabled and the poor are all dead?  NO I AM NOT BEING EXTREME - They are terrorising you with terrorism.  GO LOOK AT THE FIGURES.  Terrorists are NOT the people doing YOU harm.  The government IS doing you HARM.


And to end this rant I accuse the BBC of peddling the governments faecal paradigms.

PS the government IS acting illegally whether or not the judicial system will deal with it - FACT!

Monday, 29 July 2013

Bogus Delusional Robo-Signing Algobots

"Welcome to the Keiser Report. I'm Max Keiser. Hey last week in anti-counterfeiting rage across the world Interpol arrested 6,000 people and seized 133 million worth of fake goods. Not one of those arrested however was a central banker who had conjured up fictional national wealth by fiddling of QE buttons on a quantitative keyboard. Nor were any of those arrested spoof trading high frequency algobots generating fake liquidity with a very real front running. No banker or broker trafficking in bogus derivatives backed by delusional collateral. No naked short selling silver manipulator and not a single robo-signing mortgage forger. Nor a fake libor rate giving banker was seized by Interpol. No. It appears Interpol made the world safe from 133 million in fake shampoo - But failed to spot the trillions in sham financial transactions destabilising global labour currency and bond and equity markets. Ha ha!"

How does this man do it? All that without a significant pause for breath. And when transcribed, as above, remarkably without a mistake. The man speaks so fast (for my ears anyway) that it is hard to believe that he has got everything right. What is also remarkable about this man is that he is astute and honest. I am not imposing some moral standard on him such that he is metaphorically obliged to maintain some visage of truthfulness beyond his persona. - No - I am referring to the consistency of the information and constructs he communicates. He is reliably consistent. This implies he is not struggling to maintain some independent version or model of the truth inside his cerebellum. Unlike politicians, bankers and sycophantic pseudo journalists Max Keiser is looking to reality as his framework of reference thereby being closer to the truth than most. It may explain his speed of delivery too.

He also makes sense! I so struggle to listen to many reporters, interviewers and general media commentators because they are communicating through socially constructed paradigms which are profoundly corrupt in themselves. As a result he is highly educational. I probably gain more knowledge and insight from this man in half an hour than I get from days of reading or listening to garbage and tripe in the main stream media on the subject. So I offer you this entertaining educational fast paced Keiser Report for your delectation and sublime erotic enjoyment. And in the Keiser's words: Ha ha.

Sunday, 28 July 2013

Home Office in breach of Public Order Act

'Vince' Cable (that sounds so East London mafioso)  is the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in the UK.  When it comes to the Home Office driving sinister propaganda posters around London you have to agree it fails on all three points.  It's not good for business (tarnishes Britain's image), it's not innovative (the Nazis did it first), and isn't particularly skilful (more of a blunt instrument really).

So Vince has decided to condemn the use of these travelling billposters saying they are "stupid and offensive".  We do run into a small problem here because I guess the Home Office will find that remark offensive.  But being offensive is not, as far as I am aware, illegal.  Well that needs qualifying given that Judge Pattinson recently found Bethan Tichborne guilty of a public order offence for telling David Cameron he had "blood on his hands".  The judge said that Bethan's comments could "hardly be more insulting to anyone, whether a politician or not."  Well that's odd;  But there's one charge against Vince - he's has insulted the Home Office.

But more significantly Vince Cable went on to say it was designed to "create a sense of fear".  This clearly proves that his friends over at the Home Office are displaying words in public which are "designed to create fear" on a racial basis and are therefore committing a crime under the Public Order Act 1986, Chapter 64, Part III.  Make no mistake it is inciting 'racial hatred' since the Act defines 'racial hatred' specifically as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to ... (amongst other things) ... citizenship."  (See more details on this under "Government Hate Speech")

The Home Office has apparently responded to complaints about the offensive tone of the posters by saying they are "just a pilot" as if that mitigates the crime.  If that were to get them off the hook then it follows anyone can incite racial hatred any time just so long as it is only a test.

Given that the said Act specifically states that individuals in an organisation are guilty of a Public Order Offence if they made decisions which caused the organisation to commit such an offence then there are heads that must roll (so to speak).

I wondered if the  Public Interest Lawyers (who so kindly assisted Cait Reilly) would be interested in this case?  So I contacted them via their contact page with the following message:

The Home Office have driven posters around London which are clearly offensive and in the words of Vince Cable designed to "create a sense of fear".  Since the Public Order Act specifies such behaviour as illegal if "racial hatred is likely to be stirred up" and defines 'racial hatred' to include groups "defined by citizenship" it seems the Home Office is in breach of that law.  They have suggested mitigation by saying the posters are "just a pilot" but I feel as "just a pilot" they need to be held responsible and charged for the offence.  Otherwise, as just a pilot, they will conclude they can get away with it.  Given how this government appears to be flouting the law in more and more devastating ways I am concerned that they are held accountable whenever possible.  Is this something you could pursue or could you suggest something I might do about it?

I will be interested in their response.

Saturday, 27 July 2013

Cameron wants the Tooth Fairy money



David Cameron is beyond the pale.  I found the picture above (on fookbase) and tried to discover if it were a complete spoof or if there had been a blunder, a mistake or was it real.  With my sleuth like investigative powers I began drilling that cyber mine that is the internet for binary data and discovered the only other source of the image.  It appeared on a web site called  POLITICAL SCRAPBOOK  on 6 October 2010 with an article entitled:


The Political Scrapbook appears to be a satirical spoof site.  It appears that the story was prompted by (and quotes from) an article on that dreadful website the 'Mail Online' entitled "David Cameron tells Britain: 'Your country needs you' (not least the little girl who sent him her £1 tooth fairy money to help clear the deficit)".  Of course what really happened was that David got a lot of kudos from publicising the fact that a sweet little girl sent him her Tooth Fairy money and, of course, oh how so 'OF COURSE', he sent it back.

And here lies the really dreadful evil.  Like a bestial bishop who sodomises little boys is going to pat them affectionately on the head in public, David Cameron knows too well that it is important to keep the victims ignorant of his real intentions. 

BUT:  David Cameron quite specifically DOES want your children's Tooth Fairy money.

 And I am NOT joking. 

Let me tell you a little story which is absolutely true.  I have a friend (that friend of a friend friend) who could be me but even if it were I wouldn't incriminate myself by admitting it. (How does one actually state that they are the person in question without making it legally evidence against them?) (Not that I want to Mr Judge Tugitoff please sir forgive me I'll go and iron my hands now.)  Oh shit I'll admit it - it happened to me!  And F*** the lot of them and their oppressive judgemental prying intimidatory illegitimate cruel inhumane sinister fascist ways.

It went like this:  I have a daughter and I am on benefits.  (I am more than happy to earn a living but as 2 million people understand  - if there is no work there is no work - why does one even have to say this?)  So there I am on benefits and I give a meagre sum to my daughter each week for pocket money.  I can't afford it but as some parents understand some of us really want our children to be okay even if we suffer for it.

I'll get off my bitter and twisted attic man's hate horse and start again.

We are in dire straits financially and I am a single parent of a single child.  So I give £3 a week pocket money to my daughter out of my 'benefit' money.  When she is forced through circumstances (basically getting older in an inhumane society) to claim sick benefit I mistakenly tell the truth to the phone application person.  To my UTTER DISBELIEF they deducted the £3 a week from her sick pay!  The way I got around it (and it took many months and four letters) was to explain to them that I had been mistaken and her pocket money had stopped prior to her 18th birthday.  Eventually they put the £3 a week back on and repaid the previously deducted money.

But consider this:  I had to LIE to them!  I had to tell them that she DIDN'T get £3 a week pocket money from my benefit.  THEY TAKE YOUR POCKET MONEY!  It seems to follow that if your child gets £1 from the Tooth Fairy you are legally obliged (under threat of imprisonment for fraud) to declare that to the DWP who WILL deduct it from any benefit.

It is so sad that they use moral value to oppress others whilst not applying them to themselves.


Jesus said "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." [Mathew 23:27 (1611 King James Bible)]

Modern parlance:


Twitching cadavers

The walking dead

Evil personified

Friday, 26 July 2013

Government Hate Speech

Is it possible the government is breaking its own laws?

What would you think if you encountered phrases like:


on travelling billboards in London?

What IS this?  Is this illegal hate speech?  I am not in favour of laws restricting peoples' free speech and I think the 'Hate Speech' laws in the UK give too much license to the oppressive authorities but the law IS the law.  Of course my comments are in quotes as examples of 'possible' hate speech.  It is clear that they are not expressions of my opinion.  They are also clearly not "intend[ed] thereby to stir up racial hatred" nor is it the case that "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."; The two clauses, either of which, constitute the definition of negative comments being classed "illegal".

But this is what the government are currently doing by driving giant billboards around London with seriously threatening messages towards immigrants like "GO HOME OR FACE ARREST".

Here are some references to authenticate this seemingly ludicrous claim:
London Evening Standard: Go home or face arrest: billboard crackdown on illegal immigration 
The Guardian: Adverts urging illegal immigrants to leave UK attacked by ex-minister 
Huffington Post: Illegal Immigrants Warned With 'Go Home Or Face Arrest' Adverts 
Russian Television (RT): ‘Go home or face arrest’: UK anti-illegal immigrant ads face stiff criticism 

The government will undoubtedly argue that it is 'illegal' immigrants they are targeting with their obscene adverts.  But, according to the  Public Order Act 1986, Chapter 64, Part III, it is clear that "racial hatred is likely to be stirred up" and they are therefore in breach of said act.  I could quote all the various parts of the law indicating unequivocally that the government is guilty of a breach of the Public Order Act and as such should be held accountable.  If any particular MP or other person thinks they are outside of the law because they are acting as part, or on behalf, of a Limited Company or a Government Department or any other corporate disguise they would be wrong.  According to the act's supplementary provisions Section 28, Part 1, "Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Part and it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

The intended interpretation of the motives for these travelling billboards is clearly that they wish to encourage illegal immigrants to leave the country.  But it is a pure fiction to imagine that messages like these will cause an illegal immigrant to suddenly realise that they should rush back to wherever they came from.  The obvious effect will be to drive them further underground.  But there is a more insidious and well understood consequence of this kind of bigotry and that is to stir up racial distrust and hatred.

Even David Coburn of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) had nothing but criticism saying: "We are utterly horrified This is like, I don't know, it's like the Nazis going around the Warsaw Ghetto with trucks - it's dreadful.  It's discriminatory, it's  unpleasant, it makes the country look extremely unpleasant indeed and not something that's at all British and something that I'm absolutely convinced the vast majority of the British public will not put up with.  It's not the fault of the immigrants, it's the fault of the government for letting them in.  The borders of Great Britain should be controlled by our parliament.  It should not be controlled by the European Union."

There is no real doubt that the intention is to cause division in communities.  The government is deliberately stirring up racial tension and hatred.  So although it is clear that they 'intend' to promote racial hatred they couldn't even get off the charge by pretending they didn't 'intend' such a thing because the law specifically requires everyone to have "regard to all the circumstances".  In case there is any doubt about the issue being racial the term "racial hatred" is defined in the act as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

So whereas my written words are representations of offensive remarks they are clearly NOT intended to cause racial hatred and as such are not illegal but the government's billboards ARE clearly intended to cause "racial hatred" as defined by the government and, as such, are overtly illegal.

What next?  Who will prosecute them?  By the very process of breaking the law they are not upholding it and there is a legal requirement of "Due Process" by them.  It follows that they are in breach of "Due Process" too.  If they are going to get away with this it is adding to the already prevalent precedent of impunity.  This Government IS clearly above the law.  It matters not what I say or what you think - they are getting away with breaking the laws of this land regularly.

The problem with this is that it IS the collapse of our society.  We are now on what might be an unstoppable decline into destruction.  Government ministers are regularly speaking deliberate lies, irrational nonsense and passing laws which are clearly inhumane but there is so much of it about there is probably no possibility of addressing it all.  They have gone too far by definition.

Now they can drive trucks around London whipping up social unrest and division.  They are even at liberty to break their own "Hate Speech" laws.

Friday, 19 July 2013

Doctors told not to support the sick.

I discovered this article on the BBC web site entitled
GPs in south east Wales told not to help benefit appeals

I propose another headline:
Limited Company with financial agenda found bullying GPs to commit corporate manslaughter.

Medical Committee found promoting abusive culture in NHS for financial gain.

This is how far the fascists have got to date!  The situation is getting worse by the hour.  It is like a grand plan crystallising in front of your very eyes.

It may seem incredible but a Medical Committee in Wales has recently instructed doctors not to provide "... letters of support or letters to confirm care needs." to Atos, the DWP, patients or any other enquiring body.

Unfortunately this is true.
I have done the research myself and am a little shocked.

An even more insidious comment in the letter from the medical committee states "GPs need to have a consistent approach to this issue and colleagues who do this work make it more difficult for others to resist"  If that isn't coercive bullying I don't know what is.

Here is the letter from Bro Taf LMC to their members:

It is clear just from the information available on the Bro Taf Local Medical Committee's web site that if patients die as a result of professional negligence that doctors are liable to charges of corporate manslaughter.  And yet Bro Taf Local Medical Committee have intimidated their member GPs to refuse to support appeals against the DWP decisions which are contrary to their professional decisions.

It follows that if a patient's only way to appeal against a decision to stop their sick pay or disability allowance is to provide more expert opinion and the doctors refuse to supply it that the doctor is complicit in any detrimental outcome.  Since we already know of over 10,000 additional deaths brought about by this new 'welfare' system it won't be long before there are charges of corporate manslaughter brought against doctors.  (Well except that it is only the poor being killed by this method and the legal aid has been stopped for cases like this.  Who could suggest this hasn't been thought through by someone behind these government policies?)

Sometimes when arguments are polarised it seems there are just two views and each 'side' presumably assumes themselves to be correct.  If it were as simple as doctors refusing to help sick people that would clearly be wrong.  Uncovering the real problem here has taken me too much time.

The real problem may be that people are not willing to stand up for what is right and to oppose what is wrong.

Of course there is the small matter of beliefs, feelings, opinions and so on but I deliberately left them out because they are superfluous distraction given that people often don't stand up for what is good whether it is their feeling, belief or opinion and the same applies to opposing what is wrong.  The point is that people fail to stand up for their views but rather cower under threat.  And a salient reminder of why people can fail to stand up is the case of Malala Yousafzai.  The threats are too real.

It seems the 'problem' in this case is a fairly easy one to grasp.  With the new (though rapidly evolving) changes in the rules, regulations and procedures of the welfare system more and more people are being declared 'fit for work' by the DWP (advised by Atos) and are having to appeal against the decision to stop their disability or sickness allowance.  In order to appeal they need to provide 'more' evidence of their condition.  The medical expert who has that information is obviously their doctor and so patients go to their doctor requesting letters and more information to support their appeal.  Doctors surgeries are becoming overloaded with this extra demand on their time and resources.  There is clearly a problem here.

The correct solution is to fix what is wrong.  What too often happens is people are tempted to botch a quick solution.  It seems the perceived 'quick solution' in this case is to stop supporting appeals.  But, unfortunately, this is supporting the erroneous decisions by Atos and the DWP.  This is why opinion or beliefs are superfluous because it is a matter of fact, logic and rationality at this point.  Conveniently there are facts to illustrate and support what I am proposing although they are not what 'make' this argument correct.  For example over 35% of appeals are successful, the proportion of sick or disabled people dying has risen tenfold since the introduction of these measures, the expressed intent is to 'help' the sick and disabled etc.

There are some fundamental flaws in the new 'system' that I am surprised ever got past whoever they got past.  For all the voices and opinions about what is going on with these 'welfare' reforms I don't think I have once encountered the view that we already pay highly trained doctors vast amounts of money to distinguish between 'sick' and 'fit'.  To override the experts by paying Atos to do a point score to determine whether the doctor is correct is ludicrous.  How has this ever been allowed to happen?

My brain does these interludes sometimes.

It seems ridiculous to me that all this money is being wasted on radically changing the welfare system with the intent of saving this near bankrupt nation some money.  For example Atos has over £3 billion worth of contracts with the DWP.  If you take a population (any size will do because we are talking proportions here)  if all of the population shares the resources, provided there are enough resources, everyone will be okay.  An okay population is the best chance of being creative and innovative in improving the living conditions for all.  There is no lack of wealth in this country it is just coagulating at the top leaving rafts of people at the bottom to get ill, starve and die.  So what is being achieved.  It looks to me as if more is being spent that is being saved.  Facts are far better than impressions or feelings although all have a part to play.  So here is a fact:  10,000 people died in the first 10 months of these DWP/Atos tests above and beyond the statistics for the previous year.  This is why people are calling for this government to be tried for corporate manslaughter.  But 10,000 people - gone.  I don't know the figures so please send them in if you know them - A disabled person must have £5,000 per annum to eat and keep warm and £5,000 per annum for a place to live.  I'm guessing but in round figures I think £10,000 is a ball park figure that a sick or disabled person requires.  I don't care if it is not accurate and I know it will vary a lot but bear with me.  So if, just IF, this government has caused 10,000 deaths in the first year (10 months/year whose counting)  they have slashed £100,000,000 off the welfare bill.  That is £100 million.  But it gets better.  They are all dead, gone, no more, vanished!  That is £1 billion saved over the next 10 years.  If you compile this and assume an average stay on disability is 10 years it accrues to £10 billion saved per year after you get to your tenth year.  And that is an accrued £55 billion actually saved in the first 10 years.  Now I can see why they are doing it.  And we are only at the beginning of the plan.  Knowing politics I am confident I am not the first to have worked this out.

Sorry about that aside - It just worried me.

Back to the case in point.  The solution to this problem is not to compound the problem by not supporting appeals but to stop the clearly erroneous behaviour that is giving rise to this demand.  So the doctors have to confront the government.  Interestingly they have made significant objections to these welfare reforms but to fail themselves and their patients by colluding with the DWP now is cowering in the face of threat.  This is why it is not a matter of different opinions or beliefs.  The doctors views have been made clear repeatedly.

So what of the Bro Taf LMC

On their website Bro Taf LMC Ltd say...
Bro Taf Local Medical Committee Ltd is the statutory representative organisation for GPs in Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan, Rhondda Cynon Taff and Merthyr Tydfil.

The reference to "statutory" means it is a legal requirement and as such they have legal responsibilities including appropriate policies regarding health and safety.  If they advise doctors to behave in a way that endangers someone's life and that 'someone' dies then they are liable to a charge of Corporate Manslaughter (as explained in THEIR OWN advice to their members in a document entitled "Focus on… the Corporate Manslaughter Act"

There is a document produced and supplied by the DWP to Bro Taf LMC which they have duly made available to their members entitled "Employment and Support Allowance Medical Reports: A Guide to Completion" (I have to point out that on the front cover in the bottom right it says "Employment and Support Allowance: Working for a better life" and in the current climate it begs the question "For whom?")

Here are a few  excerpts from the document:

Wherever possible, information collection is kept to a minimum but at times professional reports to substantiate claims are needed.  This information is invaluable to ensure your patients get their entitlement with the minimum of disruption.

So they acknowledge the information is invaluable.  This is important because if the patient is wrongly assessed they must (and currently do) have a right to appeal.

1.1.3 Will the information be used?
Absolutely. Departmental decision makers are required to consider all the available evidence before deciding on benefit entitlement.

So if something was not understood and needs more explanation by a qualified doctor why would anyone want to stop the patient asking for clarification to be provided to the DWP (via Atos - that Information Technology conglomerate masquerading as a "Healthcare" company)

1.1.5 Further information
If you consider that your patient may have a potentially terminal illness you should complete a DS1500 to help us ensure that your patient receives the benefits they are entitled to.

But, given the torrent of rules, regulations, guidelines and advice,  if the doctor didn't fill out a DS1500 form because they believed the 'evidence' was conclusive why would anyone want to STOP the patient requesting this.

3.1 Contractual obligations
3.1.1 General Practitioners
There is a contractual obligation for any GP who has issued a Med3 (certificate of incapacity for work) to provide medical reports in relation to Employment and Support Allowance. This should be done free of charge as covered by the contractual arrangements between GPs and the relevant Primary Care Trust.

Well this is a little insane (and just part of the completely insane whole).  The Doctors are the highly trained and qualified expert professionals designated by statute to issue Med3 certificates (Note: A Med3 is SPECIFICALLY a certificate of incapacity for work) (Med3's have been superseded but the same must be true of the replacements).  Having established the BMA, this 'Medical Profession' with many years of experience in maintaining the standards and integrity of Doctors, how can it possibly make any sense to employ a hastily thrown together department in an IT company with a trade name "Atos Healthcare" as a facade to take a brief summary from the Doctor in order to either agree or disagree with the Doctor's decision (evidenced in their professionally issued Med3 certificate)?  And this is demanded free of charge whilst they complain about the cost of an appeal!  How can a less qualified individual (and we know from much other evidence how disgraceful the training is for Atos) possibly override a fully qualified and monitored professional with guidance that the Doctor should NOT back up their professional opinion.  I will add here that later in the document the doctor is explicitly advised against giving his opinion.  There lies a philosophical issue but I will simply assert that this document changes the meaning of words to suit its own purposes.

3.2 Information provision
3.2.1 Consent
Consent has already been provided by your patient and checked before any request for a medical report is issued. Therefore, it is not necessary for you to discuss with your patient before releasing clinical information and you don’t have to show them the report before sending. This is enshrined in the GMS Contract Regulations 2004 (Appendix A).

I include the above simply because it sent a shiver down my spine (metaphorically).  It is the attitude (and yes, it was they who emboldened the 'not') - and the 'guidance' got worse from here on.  One can detect the attitude of the writer just by what they chose to include, what they chose to omit and what is highlighted.

I can't do this.  I am browsing the web site and far too much of what I read is contentious, dangerous, presumptuous, cruel, ignorant authoritarian or downright stupid.

The next document I wanted to check up was the "Statement of Fitness for Work: A guide for General Practitioners and other doctors".  This is regarding the change from what was called a 'sick note' to the renamed 'fit note'.  It is a grubby piece of literature indulging in an excess of doublespeak.

It was page 5 where I gave up.
It says:
Why change? Improving your patients’ health through work Evidence shows that work has therapeutic value and is generally good for physical and mental health. The longer a patient is off work, the lower their chances of getting back to work. There is strong evidence that long periods out of work are associated with poor mental and physical health, increased use of health services and poverty.

What I find so disturbing about that is that it is true.  Coming from a benign institution it would makes a lot of sense.  But people and doctors already know this so: A/ why is the point being made and B/ where is the other part of the equation?  It is, in fact, the omission of the other part that is so sinister.  There are NOT ENOUGH jobs to go round!  So YES - this is WHY there is such a burden on the welfare system.  These sorts of comments are about the importance of having work available for people.  It is as cruel and insane as the Nazis putting ARBEIT MACHT FREI on the concentration camps.  But I guess the simple minded authors of the document hadn't done their history homework - or had they?

Well of course they had!  This is not a couple of people just writing something to fill up a document.  This has the entire weight of the government and all its recourses behind it.  Historically we always find out that more was planned than was evident at the time.  Well here and now with the internet there is no excuse to pretend we couldn't work it out.

And finally there is the contentious letter from Bro Taf LMC Ltd to their members.  If this link mysteriously disappears do let me know and I will provide the original document because I have kept a copy available 'just in case'.

The letter contains a preamble and a sample letter that they suggest doctors copy and simply hand over in the case of a request for supporting facts or opinions.  The draught letter supplied explicitly asserts that doctors should not be asked for "... letters of support or letters to confirm care needs." whilst asserting that they will no longer provide such things.

But I found a statement in the preamble to be very disturbing too because it employs an underhand bullying technique: a veiled threat of ostracism, which is coercive, subversive and abusive.  In the preamble the Bro Taf LMC Ltd say (in reference to writing appeal letters):

"GPs need to have a consistent approach to this issue and colleagues who do this work make it more difficult for others to resist ."

That has shocked me to the core.  It is overt bullying and it is EXACTLY the problem with the ABUSIVE CULTURE in the NHS.  Ironically it is a Limited Company with its own financial agenda that is bullying the GPs.

Are the GPs so submissive that they cower to threats like this?  Do they have any sense of personal responsibility?  This letter alone would convince me as a doctor to deal with every appeal letter request.

Thursday, 18 July 2013

Too many ideas to handle.

It's those inside out people again.
Then there's the pointers to pointers for accessing information.  It's a conceptual thing.
If you could zoom out from time like you can zoom out in space what would it look like?
They are building the railways and the gas chambers in cyberspace.
As with Damien Hirst's "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" it is similarly true that "Arguing from within a double bind is self destructive".
And there is the possibility of being somewhere in time where you don't exist in space.
There is the issue of the DWP only paying your subsistence (they call it a benefit) if you agree to give them authority to withdraw funds from your account.
Try being cooperative in a bartering culture.
There are level crossings and railway gates which symbolise human brainlessness.

I am seriously disturbed by the culture in Britain.  It is not unique to Britain and in part it can be seen throughout human history and across the globe.  But it is not always there and it can appear in different dilutions in different times and places.  I am talking about the cruel oppressive culture.  People talk about slavery, wage slaves, abuse, oppression, power, control, subservience as if these things are aspects like leaves and bark on a tree.  You could think of 'green' and 'tall' as other kinds of 'aspects'.  There is also the case of illness being physical or psychological.  What is interesting is that these differentiations of qualities or aspects can too easily lead to thinking of them as separate entities.  But they are aspects, inherent in the whole.  Like time and space they do not exist in any way separately.  It took Albert Einstein to make some coherent sense of what otherwise looks like a piece of magic.  There is no such thing as time if there is no 'space'.  And what is space if there is no 'time' for it to 'be'.  Space-time is a more coherent perception of the reality in which we live.

The issue here is that human behaviour, and particularly I am talking about the rampant control culture that is escalating in Britain, is multifaceted and there has to be some holistic comprehension of the state of affairs for there to be any reasonable chance of getting out of this alive.  I am talking dramatically and literally on many levels including personally (or for any individual person) and collectively (for Britain, every other country and culture and humanity and even life itself).  Just as a thought for those sceptics who argue that pursuing research in science just for the sake of it is fruitless let me draw your attention to the (getting well worn) fact that satellite navigation doesn't work without General Relativity.  There is a lovely small article on Physics Central entitled "Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life" about this issue which is worth a read if you like that kind of thing.

Cultures have collapsed before and there are many theories which say something about the whys and wherefores of their demise but clearly there is no comprehensive satisfactory understanding otherwise we would not be doing it so consistently over and over again.  But I do have some theories which also have something to say about it.  It is the Inside-Outness that occurs.  In some sense it starts with Inside-Out people.  Inside-Out people as I describe them are people who build a map of the world in their head and then think the map is the real world.  We all build a map of sorts in our heads.  What happens is stuff happens and it affects us.  The effects cascades through our physical being causing changes in the balance of all our molecules ranging from muscles and hormones to blood and neurological connections.

The bit I am concerned with is the brain.  The behaviour of the brain, and therefore its actual physical form, changes.  Psychiatrists refer to neural pathways which are sets of connections that allow electrical impulses to flow through a particular route in the brain.  This arrangement of the brain reflects the experience of the person in the world.  Analogously we build a map.  Obviously the world we think we see is our map and so long as our interactions with the real world 'work' everything is fine.  When something doesn't work as expected this is the point at which we can 'learn' something new.  We can adjust our map based on our experience to more accurately fit the real world.  But Inside-Out people do it the other way round.  I am talking, at this point, mostly about their response to other people although it is a general theory.

It seems that as people get older they become less versatile.  It varies enormously in different people but we are at our most sensitive to learning when we are younger.  If people experience trauma which they cannot handle it affects their versatility and ability to learn.  Also if people are oppressed they are conditioned to repress certain emotional responses thereby limiting their ability to learn along that pathway.  Oppression is a form of applied trauma.  First the trauma is set up and then it is constantly threatened to control the individual.  Often parents are unaware that their disapproval of behaviour is a threat to not support the child and, of course, the child is dependent upon the parent for its survival.  Unbeknownst to most parents they are quite capable (even if inadvertently) of threatening the child's life.  But the child is unlikely to react as if it has been threatened it just learns how to behave in order to survive.  But that behaviour is likely to be compulsive and transparent to the child as they grow into adulthood.  The reason I mention all of this is because it seems the 'best fit' cause for the prevalence of Inside-Outness.

So, for Inside-Out people, if something doesn't work it is the world that is wrong not their map.  A simple example is, say, a Doctor sticking a needle into a child's arm.  When the child says "Ow" an Inside-Out Doctor's response is "It doesn't hurt".  Another classic "This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you.Inside-Outness appears very judgemental because it doesn't understand why the other person may be behaving the way they are.  The Freudian Oedipus complex is a bit Inside-Outish too because the focus of attention is on what is in the way of the goal as opposed to the goal.  In other words aspects of the real world need destroying in order make the external world fit the internal map.  They are trying to 'fix' the wrong thing.  Inside-Outness appears to be caused in part by an inability to deal with the real world.  It is caused when the individual feels threatened.  Due to the consequences of the socio-economic climate a large proportion of people in Britain feel threatened.  They are acting more and more Inside-Out.  The people at the top are coming up with totally Inside-Out solutions like taking money from the poor to protect the rich.

Then there is the theory of the benign oppressor and the closely related Stockholm syndrome.  The reason I mention these here alongside Inside-Outness is because they are all aspects of the rather perverse way that culturally we perceive the world.  These traits seem to cause certain aberrant thinking and actions.  Some years ago the government (of the UK) changed a small piece of legislation regarding the Children Services (a part of the Social Services - it is horribly complicated and they don't even quite understand who they are or even what they are called - but then obfuscation is desirable since they steal and abuse children - that is a matter of record and much as they apologise and even retire somebody when they get caught they still do it - and yes I have got a thing about them but not for here - check out the Children Services Abuse section if it interests you).  The law had been that the Children Services could not interview a child alone without the parent's permission.  They changed the law such that they had the power to take a child away from the parents against their wishes and interview the child.  Here is the problem: If the parents are abusive the child needs the opportunity to talk freely.  To talk freely requires that the interviewers are benign.  If the Children Services are in any way prejudiced or have some agenda of their own and the parents are benign and have the child's interests at heart then the danger becomes clear that the malevolent party now has the legal right to remove the child from the benign parents.  There are solutions to this but that is for another discussion.  The important issue is that the new law is clearly unsatisfactory and prone to, even encourages, abuse.  The reason it appears to be a good idea to the legislators is because they believe themselves to be above reproach and view the population as having bad elements that need weeding out.

If people fear the ruler they need to see the world through the oppressors eyes.  They take on the world view of the oppressor and have to interpret their experience through that paradigm in order to guarantee their safety.  They become Inside-Out by proxy.  (This neatly includes the reference to pointers to pointers at the beginning of this post.)

And then there is the issue of the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions - used to be the Department for Health and Social Security (DHSS) - funny that - and nobody notices the profound renaming of this department from our "Oh so benign" government 'oppressors'.) only paying people's subsistence (they call it a "benefit") if they agree to give them authority to withdraw funds from your account.  It was clear, as with the Children Services example above, that there is a fundamental philosophical flaw in this new rule.  Of course if you start with the premise that the authority is benign and the population contains bad eggs then it makes sense.  When unscrupulous individuals defraud the system the authority simply removes the "stolen" funds back from the person's bank account.  And, of course, with the horrible views of the likes of the Baroness Neville Jones, that the government will never do anything bad - it might make the occasional mistake, but not intentionally - there is no problem.  Except there is a problem.  It is clear that the government must respect the rights of the individual and if the transaction is fraudulent they must go through the proper channels, as any individual or business would have to, to get the law to redress the fraud.  That is how it works but the government have ridden rough shod over the rule of law.  This seems to be done largely on the basis of the ignorance of the population.  There is a most horrible assumption by the people of this country that the "authority" has the right to invent the law BECAUSE it is the government.  That constraint on the people claiming their insurance - their social insurance - the tax taken by the government for that purpose - is wrong, disgusting and worst of all it is very frightening.

One might worry that they will start stealing people's money.  But as the Right f'ing Baroness would say "Of course they wouldn't do that."  Well watch this - They have now introduced a new layer of complexity whereby the disability allowance can be stopped.  The claimant can appeal and this can be a lengthy process.  Enquiries were made about this and the official line was that you can claim Job Seekers Allowance in the interim.  Then when your appeal is successful they can claim your JSA was fraudulent because you were clearly NOT fit for work.  You might want to appeal against this but they will have the money out of your account anyway.  I could get very angry about this but I will leave it as an observation of the criminality of their thinking let alone their actions.  They are culling the population and it is working!

So now that we have WikiLeaks' Julian Assange trapped illegitimately in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because of the Americans belligerent and ruthless illegal pursuit of him ... and we have Edward Snowden trapped in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport because of the American's belligerent and ruthless illegal pursuit of him ... and we have Barrett Brown, a journalist, imprisoned in the USA without bail, facing over 100 years of potential jail time, much of it for posting an http link to a public forum ... and we have Aaron Swartz, the founder of Demand Progress which launched the campaign against the Internet censorship bills (SOPA/PIPA), who was found mysteriously dead in January 2013 after facing 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines ... and the list goes on.

We have the corrupt cookie laws which make the users responsible for the abuse of data instead of holding the owners of the web sites responsible for their own behaviour.  We have the NSA/GCHQ/PRISM scandal which is just the tip of the iceberg.  Given the governments' propensity for breaking the law and demanding information from mega internet moguls like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Microsoft and more it wouldn't even be necessary for them to be trawling the internet for their own illegitimate data but they are doing.  They are doing so with the same back to front logic as the DWP and the Children Services insofar as they say they are only interested in tracking terrorists.  But does no one see that if they have all the data and they happen to see you as a thorn in their side they have the wherewithal to search the data for anything they could construe as illegal?  And none of us are perfect.

But, of course, as per usual, there is something worse.  I have often wondered how the Germans actually built the industrial scale extermination machine of the Holocaust.  Didn't anybody realise what was going on?  Were they all stupid?  Were they burying their heads in the sand?  Didn't they see the dedicated railways being built?  Didn't they wonder what the giant ovens were for?  Well I happen to think that it would be nice if more people took personal responsibility for their lives (gratuitous remark coming up - instead of abdicating responsibility to some fictional delusion of a benign oppressor called God) and "Just said NO" to the authoritarian bigots but there is another factor contributing to their 'ignorance'.  Retrospectively we have the whole picture (NO - correction - the bigger picture) but at the time they probably didn't envisage what was to come.  Some did - they knew what they were doing - but most people were suffering the Stockholm syndrome of believing that escaping the Third Reich's terrors was equal to the Third Reich being 'good' to them and so they kind of trusted them.  After all you don't expect the people you talk to or see in suits in responsible positions, the people psychologically who fit into your 'parent', 'guardian' or 'teacher' paradigm to be inhuman.  Please go back and take a good look at the current political leaders - they are more like the Third Reich than you would like to think.  And why then can we not see the final solution being built on the internet.  Why are so many people so blind they cannot see that they are walking into the abattoir of the internet.  They are handing over all their rights, their bank accounts, their freedom to the megalomaniacs running the country and the electronic neural network.


I missed out the bit about the level crossings. - How stupid to change a failsafe design for a fail-prone alternative.  Gates, as illustrated in the picture, are closed to either the road or the railway or both but never to neither.  It is so simple really, but someone had to design barriers that go up and down instead. - WHY?

There was also the question "If you could zoom out from time like you can zoom out in space what would it look like?" but I will have to think on that one because it is just a question.  You may want to boggle your mind on it for a while.

And there was the Damien Hirst thing but I will have to leave that for another blog.

Love to all the good people (I know there aren't many of you but hey) and good night.

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Sue Marsh and the storm in my tea cup of life.

Now I am writing part blog after part blog.

Part of the problem is that the situation is unfolding at an ever increasing rate in front of my conceptual cortex.  For 10 years now my daughter and I have been sliding down the slippery slope into the rabbit hole.  It all started in a sleepy Oxfordshire village one afternoon when a man came knocking on the door to serve me with a court summons.  It was a bolt out of the blue and it was the beginning of something I still don't really understand.  In summary the wife had gone bonkers.  Sometimes when I tell people this, especially if they are bitter and twisted divorced men, they pour out there anger and resentment against women and ex-wives within a veil of sympathy.  But I am not concerned with the insanity of the ex-wife except insofar as it was the first vibration of what has unbelievably turned into a resonating cacophony of cultural insanity that is devouring our very being.

Year after year I have struggled to try to get back on my feet.  I have worked virtually every hour available and supported my daughter with every fibre of my existence.  But that was not enough.  Bit by bit, as the years crashed across our bows, we have taken on more water than we could bail and the ship of our lives has got lower in the water, more engulfed in the rising swell, slowed to an ineffective pace and begun to break apart with every new wave wrought against us.  It has been an unbelievable relentless decline.

So we are now housed in someone else's attic with no work and none available on enough money to buy food and little else.  There are no savings, no pension, no assets, no reserve.  And the aging owner of the house is not likely to last a year.  Then we are at the mercy of the storm and cast adrift without even a life boat or a piece of drift wood to cling to.

I sit at this computer browsing the internet and want to confront the savage assault that is being enacted on the more unfortunate population of this 'green and pleasant land'.  I see the wars abroad, the revolutions, the millions of people dying every day across the world and the stark reality as I see it is the inhumanity of ... humanity.  There is enough food to feed the world twice over.  There is enough energy for all.  There is more than enough work to do.  There is far more land mass than 7 billion people need to live on.  There is vastly more printed money than the world population could reasonably use.  And yet the majority of potentially majestic and magical humans are experiencing a life of pain and depravation that they would too often rather not have.

And then there is the latest assault in Britain on the British people.  The politicians have grasped all the money the bankers haven't stolen and the compulsion to get more is now driving them literally to take money from people who have none.  They put the young into hock with an education because there are no jobs and they withhold rent payments from people who cannot pay so that the forces of commerce drive the landlords to evict the tenants even when the landlords are the councils providing the rent.  Then they are going to have to demolish the houses because they cannot afford to keep them with no tenants.  To top it all they pay billions of pounds to a foreign IT company called Atos to set up a gate keeping charade to withhold subsistence from the population with no jobs and, of course, the sick.  The language is declining into feral, scroungers and vermin.  Many have seen the similarity with the breakdown of civilisation in Germany in the 1930's and there is more and more evidence of the insanity cascading across the internet.

The cruelty, the inhumanity, the ruthlessness, the vindictiveness are growing like genetically modified malicious mutant Triffids devouring any goodness or hope on this broken planet.  And the politicians blame the poor.

Then I came across Sue Marsh and a particular blog entitled "So How Am I?" where she briefly explains her current condition and what she refers to as "spoons" (which I believe comes from Christine Miserandino's spoon theory).  Sue has Crohn's Disease and Christine has Lupus.  I don't have any identifiable 'condition' but I knew exactly what she was talking about.  Fortunately I don't suffer the same severity but it so well describes how I struggle through each day.  And it turns out that in spite of Sue's profound difficulties she was one of the main contributors to the Spartacus Report.

I am clearly new to all of this because thousands of people have been shouting about the "welfare reforms" for years.  I am a perfect example of how, when it doesn't affect you directly, you just don't know about it.

I have to go to bed.


Tuesday, 16 July 2013



AtoS, as the logo is written, is a non-name really and I refer you to Wikipedia for details if you wish to know more.  But many people ask "What does ATOS stand for?" and knowing something about what is going on

Auschwitz Terminal Outsourced Sorting

simply springs to mind.

I am not entirely sure what is going on here.  When I was at primary school (way back in the 1960's) it seemed straight forward when someone was being kind and when someone was being unkind.  It has never been difficult for me to know the difference between simple kindness and simple unkindness.  There are lots of things that don't so easily fit into those categories but nice and horrid were poles apart.

Years ago, in the 1970's I 'signed on' what was then called the Dole and went to the equivalent of the Job Centre.  Back then the government department was called the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS).  Funny how it has changed its name to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and it seems to have lost the Social Security bit for real.  I recall we used to have a card called a UB40 which stood for Unemployment Benefit Form 40.  You may have heard of the reggae band from Birmingham called UB40 which formed in 1978 and named after the little card.

The people in the Dole office (or the SS as we sometimes called it) were like the kids at school.  Some folk were kind and some were unkind.  But for me, much as socio-politically times were similarly difficult, it seemed that generally the people were real people with the occasional not so nice git (to put it colloquially).  So, although the circumstances were not good the people were quite often quite nice and helpful.  And it didn't affect me too badly because I was fit and strong so I could easily take on most unqualified jobs.

I went off to get educated and still don't know if that was a mistake for me.  I had a brief spell unemployed in the early 1980's and things seemed to have changed dramatically.  The general attitude of the people in the DHSS was judgemental and negative.  There was an air of disdain in their demeanour.  I knew someone who worked in the department and they told me that the staff were trained to treat people badly.  In fact it went deeper than that; they used techniques like making the floor higher on their side of the counter than on the claimants side.  The counter was at a height suitable for them thereby making the claimant feel small and inferior.  They actually employed psychological techniques to make this a negative experience for the unemployed.

My unemployment didn't last long and I spent many years fully occupied and working and other stuff like getting married and having a child.  Then, due mainly to unkindness, my situation was catastrophically wrecked as was that of my daughter's too.  We are now a single parent/single child family.  For many years I have been totally beside myself with dismay at the institutionalised cruelty that we have experienced.  Major issues like cruel teachers, vicious education authorities, vindictive nurses in the NHS and ruthless abusive Children Services employees.

I am now watching, at close quarters, the behaviour of the political elite and the cascading abuse bleeding throughout this culture.  I have no doubt that experts are involved in designing and manipulating the socio-political landscape.  I think one would have to be slightly insane to think that somehow the people in positions of power today were more naive or less capable than the equivalent folk in the 1960' and 70's.  Or even than the folk back in the 1930' and 40's.  So now I ask you to take a look at how much behind the scenes planning went into the socio-political landscape in the 1930's and 40's by both the Germans and the British (let alone the Americans et al.).  When one reads historical accounts of what was going on behind the scenes it is hard to imagine how calculating and, indeed, ruthless some people were.  As Franklin D Roosevelt famously commented "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

One could write endless weighty tomes dissecting and describing multiple dimensions of cultural manipulation, collective psychology and political machinations and there is possibly some benefit in that but ... ... It can also come back to that simple environment of the primary school playground;  Some people are being kind and some are being unkind.  It is clear to me that, like the money, the unkindness is accumulating in heaving excess at the top of the cesspit of British society.

Atos:  We have a respected and regulated profession of Doctors authorised to use their expertise to issue official sick notes where required.  To use a foreign private  IT company to arbitrarily override the British Medical Profession and to segregate the sick into those who can be put to work and those too sick to work is inhumane and disgusting.  It is just a more sophisticated way of sorting people than they used for the gas chambers in Auschwitz.  But then you would expect them to be more sophisticated if they are going to try it again in the 21st century.

Here is an excerpt from DW's web site.  They are the German equivalent of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and say of themselves that they "represent[s] Germany in the international media landscape."  They have a page entitled "Germany marks the liberation of Auschwitz"

What had happened in Auschwitz was not immediately public. It was in mid-April 1945 when the survivors recounted their ordeals to the German service of the BBC. Anita Lasker, a young cellist, was one of them.

"A doctor and a commanding officer stood waiting upon the arrival of the transporters on the ramp and everyone was sorted before our very eyes," she remembered. "That meant, people were asked their age and about the state of their health."

Many unsuspecting new arrivals revealed certain ailments, in effect signing their own death warrants. "Children and the elderly were disregarded above all. Right left, right left. Right is to life. Left is to the chimney," one eyewitness said.

They didn't think it could happen then and we don't think it can happen now.


Auschwitz Terminal Outsourced Sorting

I refer you to a small entry in Wikipedia concerning a brief history of Atos Healthcare and I offer just a small sample here for your delectation:

In June 2012 British Medical Association doctors voted that the Work Capability Assessment should be ended ‘with immediate effect.

Grant Shapps MP claimed that 878,300 benefit claimants dropped their claims rather than be assessed by Atos

In 2011/12 Atos was paid £112,400,000 (that's £112.4 million) to carry out 738,000 assessments. 38% of appeals were successful which cost the government £500,000,000 (that's £500 million) to fund the appeals.

Atos has been criticized in the media, in Parliament, by the Church, by the medical profession, and by protest groups regarding its disability programs.

Government statistics reveal that between January 2010 and January 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of ending their claim.

Government statistics also revealed that 1300 people died shortly after being declared fit for work by Atos.

In January 2012, there was a scandal when it was disclosed that Atos had found a man in a coma to be 'fit for work'.

Atos assessors have found patients with brain damage, terminal cancer, severe multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease to be fit for work.

On 24 April 2013 a woman who was a double heart and lung transplant patient died in her hospital bed only days after she was told, after assessment by Atos, that her allowance was being stopped and that she was fit for work.

In 2013 an FOI request revealed that from 1 Jan 2012 at least 92 Atos doctors have been found guilty of misconduct.

28 of the 140 medical assessment centres (that's 20%) do not provide wheelchair access and many are based on the second or third floor of buildings.

And it gets worse!  Can you believe it?  It actually gets worse!

It appears I am not the first person to see the similarities between Auschwitz and Atos.  Just do a search on Google images for "Atos logo" and it transpires lots of people are comparing the Nazi health checks and Atos health checks.  I have included some of the logos on this page as historical social documentation of the mood of the British people in 2013.  You can see more on The Great Atos Rebrand – Update Of course I have to add here that I DO NOT CONDONE THESE IMAGES - and of course if I added "*innocent face*" some stuck up Judge Tugitoff could interpret what I have said to mean that "Atos is a paedophile ring" but I would have to take exception to the judge's interpretation because it means nothing of the sort.  I couldn't claim that Atos is a paedophile ring because I have no information to suggest that.

That would be like Iain Duncan Smith claiming "that 8,000 people had found jobs because of the benefit cap".  Oops!  He did.  And when John Humphrys challenged him on the Today programme saying “Your statement is unsupported by the official statistics published by your own department.” His response was “Yes but by the way, you can’t disprove what I said either."  So following Iain Duncan Smith's logic I could do exactly as Iain Duncan Smith has done and say that  "You can't prove that Atos is not a paedophile ring."  Of course logically that is true but it is no argument to suggest they are which is what Iain Duncan Smith was trying to suggest.  No - I'm not saying that Iain Duncan Smith was suggesting Atos is a paedophile ring, just that it would be the same logic.  What I am doing, of course, is proving how ridiculous and unacceptable Iain Duncan Smith's remarks really are.

So it seems people can say what they want if they are the bullies with money but other people are not even allowed their own opinions even if they are correct.  So, given that some people are expressing negative views about Atos (and with substantial reason if the facts are to be believed), Atos simply overrides the law and gets a website,, shut down without any enquiry, warning, court order or anything legal.  They just bullied the ISP to shut down the web site.  Check out the article "Atos complaint suspends carerwatch website" by Nick Sommerlad on the Mirror's blog site or "ATOS SHRUGGED" on SchNEWS.

So although the web site is back up, and credit to whoever achieved that, it remains the case that dissent is not so welcome in this country when you are a near monopoly foreign company taking billions of pounds from the British tax payers.

And to be absolutely clear here it is my opinion and my perception that Atos is engaged in something so sinister that history will pretentiously regard it as a crime against humanity.  Why do I say 'pretentiously'?  Because (as well explained by Sigmund Freud) it seems we are quite happy to project our evil ways onto other people or other times and so we see the Nazis as evil whilst interpreting similar behaviour in our time as perfectly morally acceptable.

Well goodness gracious me!  I was looking up Arbeit Macht Frei to explain briefly the meaning and relevance of the 'Atos Macht Frei' logo when I happened across an article on the Guardian's Greenslade Blog entitled "Daily Mail deletes 'Arbeit Macht Frei' advice to unemployed graduates".  If you don't know the appalling history of this phrase then go read the article and then read up on 'Arbeit Macht Frei' on wikipedia.

Oh dear - I will have to stop this and go to bed but just before I go I encountered


And a couple of articles:
Time to Rise up and Defend
Germany Calling - Aktion Arbeitsscheu Reich
Even the Dying Will Work
ATOS Register of Shame
ATOS Suicide Attempt

If this was a movie I'd be scared.  But this is real life.