Email this site to a contact

 

The 'Ministry of Love': first and foremost at the service of Mason-led organized crime...in tandem with the Ministry of (In)Justice, other ministries, the professions, etc.

Her Majesty's Home Office

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Her Majesty's Home Office remember that the ROOT CAUSE for the actions and lack of action of ALL the parties is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom ALL Her Majesty's Home Office parties joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

...to do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Secondly, because he is Jewish and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.

 

In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).

(United Nations Human Rights Chief, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, did not reply to my 24.07.16 letter in which I raised these issues) (My Diary 24 July 16).

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

2003

2009-10

2011

2014 - 2015

2016

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

 

The Home Office is, among other, responsible for the police e.g. police # 5.2 which includes extracts from legislation, and has the so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (staffed by police officers on secondment e.g. police # 5.4(2)) reporting to it e.g. police # 5.4.

My experience with the above (as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - CASE SUMMARY) reminds me of George Orwell's 1984, with its Ministry of Love, its Thought Police, and their use of Newspeak.

I made several attempts at getting help from the Home Secretary of the day:

All in vain - as - typically - none of them did anything to stop the police from subjecting me to the most appalling and atrocious treatment - that has been going on since 2002. In fact, they have been behind the treatment:

The name for all of this is: criminal psychological harassment - by the British state.

In fact, in relation to Theresa May (and of two Met Police Commissioners during the period in question) - the evidence demonstrates irrebutably that she endorsed the treatment, and hence the concurrent, blatant breaches / violations of my rights (My Diary # 6, links to sections)

(NB: The 'colour' of the administration of the time makes no difference: the first two were under Labour, the third one: a coalition between Conservative and LibDems).

My 'crime'? 'Daring' to stand-up against Establishment-led criminal activities - of which I am the victim.

Back to sections

 

(1)- 2003 - A typical 'Get lost!' from Her Majesty's John Prescott's Office - on behalf of HM's David Blunkett - and then continued to side with Andrew David Ladsky.

In Aug 03, I sent an identical letter to a dozen various media (e.g. 03.08.17 letter to the Guardian) in which I related the horrendous nightmare I was going through, including my experience with various government departments: the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, West London County Court, Kensington & Chelsea police.

In each instance, I copied various ministries, including Her Majesty's David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, as the Home Office is responsible for the police e.g. police # 5.2.

The Home Office's 27.08.03 'reply' stated that it had forwarded my letter to Her Majesty's John Prescott's Office

"for a suitable reply" - which - typically - was a 06.10.03 'Get lost!'

While my letter discussed my experience in relation to a housing matter, it also covered Kensington & Chelsea police very clearly refusing to address my 2002 complaint of harassment against Andrew David Ladsky (police - Overview) (as well as that of my fellow leaseholders: police # 4).

WHY was this ignored by the Home Office?

Had John Prescott issued directives to the Home Office on how the police should handle complaints by leaseholders against their sacrosanct landlord?

Did these directives include harassment and intimidation of 'troublesome' leaseholders who 'dare' to insist on exerting their so-called 'rights'?

(NB: John Prescott's Office, continued to side with Ladsky when I complained against the fact that the then London LVT had failed to perform its statutory duty (LVT # 4.2) - by NOT including a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" (LVT # 4).

In the 06.10.03 letter, Prescott's Office claimed: "unfortunately, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal is unable to re-open your case" = a typical 'Get lost!': LVT # 7).

Back to sections

 

(2)- 2009-10 - Her Majesty's Alan Johnson turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to my 'cries for help' - thereby siding with HM's Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police et.al. - and, by extension, with Andrew David Ladsky, as well as his gang of racketeers.

Her Majesty's Alan Johnson was the 6th or 7th successor to David Blankett (above). His predecessor was Jacqui Smith. (He was then replaced by Theresa May (below), following the setting-up of the coalition government, in May 2010).

Previous Home Secretaries had described the Home Office as "not fit for purpose" (John Reid); "dysfunctional" (Charles Clarke); (some of the reasons: My Diary summer 2006 and 20 Feb 07). It is still the case - for other reasons.

I first approached Alan Johnson, and Sir Paul Stephenson, then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, with a letter dated 28.11.09 (police # 5.2).

It was a 'cry for help', because of the highly contemptuous treatment I was subjected to by the police, following submitting a 28.05.09 Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (police # 5).

In my letter, I summarised my experience with the police, since my 1st contact in 2002 and, to prove that I was 'not making it up', supported it with 11 enclosures. They included my detailed response of 13.08.09 and 20.09.09 to the so-called "crime reports" held maliciously against me by the police - in which I detailed comprehensively the breaches of my statutory rights (snapshot under breach Data Protection Act 1998 ; my 17.10.11 Request for oral hearing).

I also referred to my human rights by capturing excerpts from the government website Equality and Human Rights Commission website (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain), which states/ed:

“Being treated fairly and with dignity… means that everybody should have access to public services…and the right to be treated fairly by those services.

This applies to all public services…

UK law includes a range of human rights which protect you from poor treatment and prejudice, and which require you to have equal and fair treatment from public authorities”

(However: see my above Note)

Hence, neither of them could be left in any doubt that the police had - and continued - to breach my statutory rights and, that concurrently, serious misconduct, had - and continued - to take place.

As I wrote under para.94 of my 19.07.11 Witness Statement to the Met Commissioner (in relation to my 19 Apr 11 Claim against him: QB # 4):

"I did this thinking: surely, the Head of the Metropolitan Police is going to take action when I tell him about my experience; surely he will see that my demands are legitimate; surely the Head of the umbrella organisation, the Home Office, will say: something has been going on there for a very long time; it must be addressed".

(NB: I know, how very, very naïve of me! My value system and theirs - are light years apart. Like a visitor to my website wrote, colloquially, (Comment # 40): "They don't give a crap".

In fact, the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime summed up very succinctly the Establishment's perception of 'the little people', in his reply to a taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15: "FUCK OFF AND DIE!" (source: The Guardian)).

My secondary objective in my above, 28 Nov 09 letter, was to show the massive disconnect (1) between my first-hand experience with the police, and what Johnson had recently said in the media (also captured on government websites) - following the tragic suicide of Mrs Fiona Pilkington and of her handicapped daughter - reported to have made a total of "33 desperate calls to the police" - and got no help (1):

  • (1) “Police officers must visit every victim of crime”
  • (2) The much trumpeted "relaunch" of the 'Policing Pledge(2)- which starts/ed with:

The police service in England and Wales will:

1. Work to keep you and your neighbourhoods safe from harm;

2. Always treat you fairly, with dignity and respect, ensuring that you have fair access to our services at all times” (3)

(1) - Sadly, but unsurprisingly - in spite of Alan Johnson's "insistence that [Mrs Pilkington's] case was 'exceptional'" - my conclusion proved to be correct e.g. the case of Mr David Askew, that was going on at the same time. After the "relaunch" of the 'Policing Pledge', Mr Askew continued to be ignored for another year, when it led to his death.

(2) - It was released at the same time that statistics showed that the police failed to investigate 1.5 million reported crimes in 2008 (police # 9.2).

It was part of the police 2009-12 Business Plan. My experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in Oct 10 led me to capture some extracts under the Summary of the entry. Just rhetoric!

(3) - Re. "being treated fairly and with dignity", this is a right under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998; as to not being discriminated against, it is covered by Article 14)

I concluded my above letter by asking for support in:

"taking immediate action in relation to K&C police, and ensure the implementation of my rights: pursuing Andrew Ladsky and parties he instructed for the offences they committed against me; ensuring that police records are amended to reflect my feedback, and my outstanding questions answered"

Having subsequently received a typical 20.11.09 'Get lost!' from Her Majesty's Steve McSorley, Head of 'Professional Standards', at Kensington police (police # 5.2)...

...- I sent another letter to Johnson and Stephenson, dated 02.12.09, headed "Head of Kensington police approves of illegal conduct by some of its officers" - in which I drew 21 conclusions from McSorley's letter (police # 5.2)

The 'reply' from the Home Office's Direct Communications Unit was a 23.12.09 letter (police # 5.2), stating:

“In writing to Sir Paul Stephenson you have taken the right course of action. It is the Chief Officer who is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Office.

The Home Officer and its Ministers are not able to act as an avenue of appeal, and have no power to influence or intervene in any investigations

= It amounted to another - typical - 'Get lost!' - and a continuation of the use of the "Administrative manipulation tactics" - Header # 2.

As I explain under police # 5.2 - by referring to legislation: the Home Secretary is responsible for ensuring that his / her departments perform - as per their legal remit - and as per his /her directions.

From Paul Stephenson's Office, it was a 03.12.09 letter that my “letters dated 28th November and 2nd December have “been forwarded to Inspector Campbell McKelvie, Directorate of Professional Standards Customer Service Team” (police # 5.3)

It was followed by a 08.12.09 letter from Hema Patel, Caseworker, Directorate of Professional Standards, Customer Service Team – posted 8 days later (police # 5.3). The enclosure was a one-page photocopy headed “What happens next?”, described in the letter as “an information leaflet explaining the various processes” - and asking me for a telephone number on which I could be contacted. I took delivery of the letter on the 24th, and replied on 28.12.09.

Then: total silence! (a tactic that is used as part of the criminal psychological harassment regime)...

...which prompted me to send this 02.02.10 letter to, Alan Johnson and Paul Stephenson (as well as to 'my' then MP Malcolm Rifkind, and Parliamentary Ombudsman) - headed "When am I due to killed?" (police # 5.3).

I justified the header by the fact that:

  • (1)- they had ALL gone into 'silent mode' or, as I wrote, "retreated to your communal bunker";

(NB: On 14 Jun 14, an implied death threat was 'delivered' to my apartment).

The 24.02.10 'reply' from the Home Office to my 02.02.10 letter was a - typical - 2nd 'Get lost!':

"As explained in previous correspondence [above, 23.12.09] the Home Secretary plays no part in the police complaints system. He can not comment or intervene in this matter for you. You have therefore done the right thing in complaining to Sir Paul Stephenson".

That from Stephenson was a letter dated 21.01.10, from Crispin Lee, Detective Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards - that was posted on 4 Feb 10 i.e. 2 weeks later - by 'the most amazing of coincidences', on the day that my 02.02.10 letter was delivered to Stephenson's Office (police # 5.3).

(NB: In the case of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in her subsequent communication, she did not refer to my letter: PHSO # 2.4)

For (outrageous) subsequent events, see the police page from this point (police # 5.3) onwards.

Contrast my experience with:

... - against the above claims made by Alan Johnson, his responsibilities - and my rights that are very glaringly breached / violated by the police under (among others) the Data Protection Act 1998 (snapshots) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (snapshots, from Article 2). (BUT, see my above Note).

WHY did Her Majesty's Alan Johnson, as Minister with responsibility for the police and the IPCC, take NO action?

WHY did he side with HM's Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police et.al., including Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Commissioner (My Diary # 6 - links to sections)...

...- and by extension with Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers?

(NB: Of course, it continued with Theresa May (below))

(NB: Johnson resigned in 2011, when he was in opposition e.g. The Daily Telegraph's article of 21 Jan 11 stated the reason as "Alan Johnson resignation: former bodyguard investigated over claims of affair with former shadow chancellor's wife". "Mr Johnson announced his resignation after less than four months in the job, saying he was finding it "difficult to cope" with his personal crisis" and that he had "endured a turbulent spell in the job, making a series of embarrassing gaffes and often struggling to master the basics of economic policy").

At the time, it was a continuation of my experience with other ministers e.g. Jack Straw, then (In)Justice Secretary of the day (MPs home) - as well as others, including the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

WHY?

Home - Overview: My card was marked from the time I 'dared' to challenge 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers over his fraudulent 2002 "service charge" demand and, concurrently his lapdogs and henchmen in the police, judiciary - et.al..

From 2011, a tyrant dedicated to the protection of 'certain criminals' took over.

Back to sections

 

(3)- 2011 - It is undeniable from events related to my 19 Apr 11 Claim that, like her predecessor, (as well as other ministers), Her Majesty's Theresa May - continued - to aid and abet organized crime and the concurrent criminal psychological harassment regime against me.

 

As explained briefly under Overview # 18, (and detailed under police # 5), I went through nearly one year of soul-destroying battles:

... - attempting to get them to implement my statutory rights in relation to the police's libellous, highly vicious and malicious so-called "crime reports" it is processing against me - and concurrent criminal charges (snapshot under breach Data Protection Act 1998).

Also, to release other data to me to which I am legally entitled.

Because the reports are so damaging to me, on 3 separate occasions, starting in Sep 09, and including in my above 28.11.09 letter to Johnson and Stephenson, I warned the police that if my demands were not met, I would issue proceedings.

Evidently, me, 'the Prole', was not perceived as being capable of doing this (police # 5.5)).

As they forced me to issue proceedings, I decided to also include the Home Office, for having its departments - since at least 2005 - placing me unlawfully - under permanent 'surveillance'...

...- more appropriately described as: PERSECUTING ME, including having ALL my means of communication interfered with (QB: # 6).

Of course, at the pre-action stage (QB # 2), they (typically) ALL continued to treat me like a piece of dirt, as well as attempted to stop me from proceeding.

In the case of Theresa May (QB # 2(3)):

in her 21.03.11 'response' to my 17.03.11 Pre-Action letter, there was the public sector's typical use of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' (header 2) - by claiming 'an understanding' that 'I had copied her for information'.

"Thank you for sending the Home Secretary a copy of your letter to Chief Superintendent Mark Heath of Kensington Police Force regarding your police complaint." (1)

"In writing to Kensington Police Force you have taken the right course of action. It is the Chief Officer who is responsible for the day-to-day operational management of the Force and not the Home Secretary" (2)

(1) - Contrast that with the content of my 17.03.11 letter - and the addresses (QB # 2) (= One of the typical "Administrative manipulation tactics" - header # 2)

(2) - Contrast that with:

  • (1) the content of my 17.03.11 letter;

(Ditto about the application of another typical "Administrative manipulation tactic" - header # 2).

 

I replied by letter of 29.03.11 that this was NOT the case.

In the process, I quoted extensively from my 17.03.11 letter, including from the legislation, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), (extracts under Definitions) that demonstrates - undeniably - the role of the Home Secretary in authorising surveillance.

It resulted in a 5-page letter that will have no doubt fed their sadistic needs, from seeing that they had made me waste my time, and money, doing that.

07.04.11 'response':

"Much of the covert activity you describe would require authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000 (RIPA) when used by public authorities such as the police or the Security Services.” (1)

"Anyone who believes that they have been the victim of unlawful covert surveillance, interception or any other investigatory power set out in RIPA can apply to a Tribunal to investigate their claim."

"The Tribunal is independent of Government, law enforcement or intelligence services" (2)

"You may want to approach the Tribunal to find out whether you have been subjected to any unlawful activity under RIPA, to put your mind at rest [3] or to consider whether something else could be the cause of what you are experiencing" (4)

(1) - It is followed by 8 lines of explanation on RIPA - which, in the light of my 07.03.11 and 29.03.11 letters, I viewed as condescending, as well as a means of filing-up the page, while not addressing my letter.

(= Continuation of using typical "Administrative manipulation tactics" - header # 2).

(2) - "The Tribunal is independent of Government, law enforcement or intelligence services"

Yeah! right! Yet another example of hoodwinking 'the Proles' (*) - see QB # 6(1) for the fact that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is another rubber-stamping office for the British state's abuse of power. (Human rights groups subsequently arrived at the same conclusion).

Come on! The British state giving its people 'an effective remedy' against its abuse of power? That would be the day! (There is no end as to what they expect 'the Proles' to swallow).

(*) Other examples: (1)- the claims that "the spy services are regulated and tightly controlled"; (2)- the claims that "leaseholders have rights".

(3) - "You may want to approach the Tribunal to find out whether you have been subjected to any unlawful activity under RIPA, to put your mind at rest"

= I am making it up! - including the glaringly obvious and blatant involvement of Home Office Departments (snapshots - Persecution # 2 and # 3).

They must have been laughing their head off when they wrote this. (= Continuation of using typical "Administrative manipulation tactics" - header # 2).

Attempting to push me towards the rubber-stamping tribunal does NOT give the Home Office departments and its current, as well as previous Heads, the right to ignore the rule of law (summary under Queen's Bench - Breaches of the law).

(4) - "The cause" are - since at least 2005 - successive Home Secretaries (# 4, below) (and Foreign Secretaries) complying with the diktats of corrupt elements in 'the Brotherhood' hell-bent on 'getting my scalp' - at any cost - for 'daring' to stand up to them.

The absolutely undeniable approval by Theresa May - et.al. was subsequently confirmed: My Diary # 6.

 

My 17.04.11 reply was that "the Tribunal does NOT offer me an effective remedy - because its role is limited to judicial review" (see QB # 6(1) for my analysis).

In fact, it would have been more accurate for me to state: because like ALL the other so-called 'regulatory mechanisms' - it is just a front (QB # 6(1)).

The 25.05.11 'reply' was essentially a repeat of ignoring my comments, by stating, in the last paragraph:

"Under s.67(2) of RIPA where the Tribunal hears proceedings by virtue of s.65(2), it will apply the same principles for making its determination in those proceedings as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review".

= Continuation of using typical "Administrative manipulation tactics" - header # 2).

 

I filed a 19.04.11 Claim against Her Majesty's Theresa May (detailed under section 3, paras 155-175 of my Claim), in the Queen's Bench Division...

...- because, as stated earlier, SHE (Intro, above) is ensuring that I am - unlawfully - under permanent 'surveillance' - more appropriately described as: persecuting ME, including having all my means of communication interfered with (QB: # 6).

In other words, actions amounting to criminal psychological harassment by the British state.

 

WHY? What have I done wrong? NOTHING! I repeat: NOTHING! (e.g. QB # 6(1) ; My Diary # 5) (Case summary ; Résumé de mon cas).

This is 'retribution' for my 'daring' to stand-up against organized crime by fighting for my so-called 'rights'.

That's what happens to you - "in Britain [, that] has a long and exemplary record on human rights".

= 'The island-Kingdom of make-believe' - in which 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime is very clearly perceived as 'the worst act of terrorism', 'a Prole', 'like me' can commit.

I give the above paragraphs in support of my above header. As to "other ministers" I cite, in particular, those for (In)Justice: Jack Straw and Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

 

My 19.07.11 Witness Statement (QB # 6(1)), in response to Her Majesty's Theresa May's 07.07.11 Application to have ALL my claims struck out (QB # 6(1)), contains numerous examples of the persecution and criminal psychological harassment.

Because the Application was, of course - granted - in a 09.08.11 Order 'by' Her Majesty's Master Eyre (my Comments are attached) (QB # 6(2)) - by endorsing the assertion that 'I should have approached the (highly secretive) Investigatory Powers Tribunal' (which, as mentioned earlier, most definitely does not offer me an effective remedy: QB: # 6(1))...

...- the criminal psychological harassment by the British state has, of course, continued ever since: snapshots:

In a 'last chance saloon' attempt, in my 22.08.11 letter enclosing payment of £5,000 (US$8,820) ...to the Home Office (Yes!) (following the above Order of 09.08.11), I repeated my position about the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (first stated in my 17.04.11 letter, in the context of the Pre-action stage: QB # 2(3)).

As in the case of the other 2 Defendants on my 19 Apr 11 Claim (*) - in this letter, I also took the opportunity to again, highlight the LIES, conniving and collusion that took place following filing my Claim.

(*) (1)- My 22.08.11 letter enclosing payment of £8,478 (US$14,949)...to the police (Yes!) following the pack of lies 09.08.11 Order (my Comments are attached) (QB # 4(6) (see also summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law);

(2)- my 13.09.11 letter enclosing payment of £3,703 (US$6,529)... to the IPCC (Yes!) following the 29.07.11 Order (my Comments are attached) (QB # 5(7) (Events discussed briefly under Overview # 18 ; summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law).

In the case of my 13.09.11 letter to the IPCC, I had, with my 13.09.11 letter to the Home Secretary, copied her on this letter - stating that she very clearly approved of the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Service and IPCC - as, in the context of my Claim, I had copied her on ALL the main documents. I concluded my letter with:

"Please, no reply, unless it is to inform me that you have taken action to remedy the outrageous breach[es] of my rights and injustice I have and continue to be subjected to by your departments".

I did not receive a reply.

I repeat that, considering:

...it is absolutely undeniable that - like her predecessor Alan Johnson (above), and predecessors - Her Majesty's Theresa May continued to actively endorse the criminal psychological harassment regime I have - and continue to be subjected to by the British state (Outcome - Overview # 19).

In my world, you have to be unbelievably sick to do that to somebody like me who has done NOTHING wrong.

Eat your heart out Kim Jong-un of North Korea!

 

Theresa May's hell-bent determination to assert her power at any cost is also found in a 13 July 16 article by Guardian journalist Aida Edemariam (post May becoming prime minister): “Theresa May is no liberal – and her rise to PM is no cause for celebration”:

As home secretary she has been zealous in her pursuit of the government’s harshest policies.”

Referring to immigration cases: “the Home Office using a sledgehammer to crack a sesame seed. No case, it seemed, was too small to prosecute, no judicial decision water-tight enough not to challenge, all the way to the highest courts in the country

“…the president of the upper tribunal noted that he had “the impression that the secretary of state [for the Home Office], as a matter of routine, applies for permission to appeal in every deportation appeal [resolved in favour of the appellant]

These applications, it seemed to him, were often generic, not engaging with specific cases but lodged simply to try to ensure that no appeal could ultimately be successful.”

Referring to a particular case: “Because the government kept refusing through higher and higher courts, the case eventually involved 18 barristers and cost well over £600,000”.

Ms Edemariam concludes with: "Not only is it a waste of court time, it is also wasteful of public resources at a time when that other set of the marginalised and vulnerable, the poor and the disabled, are being asked to bear the brunt of austerity measures."

Ms Edemariam also refers to the “Go home” vans Theresa May had circulating in London: “'Go home' billboard vans not a success, says Theresa May”, The Guardian, 22 Oct 13. (This will have certainly encouraged the increase in the “xenophobic abuse” following Brexit).

Back to sections

 

(3.1) Further proof of Theresa May's sickening moral depravation can be seen in her comments to Parliament; at the Tory 2014 conference; to the media v. my above experience with her:

 

 

(i) of 6 - Claim of "zero tolerance over police wrongdoing"

 

"She was absolutely clear that those who have broken the law should be pursued" (re. Hillsborough)

"There must be "zero tolerance" over police wrongdoing", and that "she would be "ruthless" in purging the Metropolitan Police of any misconduct" (re. smearing of victims of crime)

Back to sections

 

(ii) of 6 - Claim of "prosecution against organized crime"

 

"Home Office to unveil fresh powers to track down organised crime associates", The Guardian, 3 Jun 14

"Serious crime bill will create a new offence of 'participation in an organised crime group' [1], with penalty of up to five years in prison." "The home secretary, Theresa May, is to announce fresh powers to track down and jail hundreds of corrupt solicitors, accountants and other associates of organised crime gangs [2] for up to five years in legislation similar to a US-style anti-mafia law."

"The Home Office says the measure will also target the so-called 'Mr Bigs', who plan, co-ordinate and manage criminal networks but are careful not to get their hands dirty in order to avoid prosecution." (3)

"Home Office minister Karen Bradley, said: "Nobody is above the law. But for too long corrupt lawyers, accountants and other professionals have tried to evade justice by hiding behind a veneer of respectability." (4)

 

"Professionals who do legal work for gangsters face prosecution under new offence", Independent, 3 Jun 14

"They will no longer be able to claim ignorance of their clients’ activities as a defence against prosecution." (1)

"A new offence of “participation in an organised crime group” could cover people who write legal contracts for major criminals, rent them warehouse space or provide them with courier services." (5)

(1) & (2) - "participation in organised crime"; "claiming ignorance of clients' activities"

That's in part covered by the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of crime Act 2002. How many prosecutions have taken place under those Acts? My guess: Zero!

In support, I cite my case in the context of which I provided the police, and its overall head, the Home Secretary Teresa May with undeniable evidence of criminality against Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers e.g.

They ALL suffered from extreme blindness to the evidence, as well as from amnesia about the rule of law.

(3) - 'Mr Bigs'...are careful not to get their hands dirty in order to avoid prosecution" - And if they do, like the 'NOT Mr Big' Andrew Ladsky - they ensure they have the police, judiciary, Cabinet ministers, etc, in their pocket.

(4) - "hiding behind a veneer of respectability" - Like Ladsky, hiding behind the Jewish-Freemasons network more like.

(5) - "A new offence of “participation in an organised crime group - Then, looking at my case, Theresa May must be included as a collaborator in organized crime.

When will these "new offences" come into force? Sometime never - as in the case of e.g. s.152 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002?

Back to sections

 

(iii) of 6 - Claim of "being against abuse and psychological harm"

 

"Domestic abuse offence could cover emotional as well as physical harm", The Guardian, 20 Aug 14

"A new criminal offence of domestic abuse could be introduced to include emotional and psychological harm inflicted by a partner within a relationship."

The consultation document says that police fail to see abuse, particularly in its nonviolent form, as a serious crime,..." (1)

"Explicitly capturing this in legislation may also help victims identify the behaviour they are suffering as wrong [2] and encourage them to report it [3], and cause perpetrators to rethink their controlling behaviour." (4)

The then home secretary, Theresa May, said: "Tackling domestic abuse is one of this government's top priorities. The government is clear that abuse is not just physical [5]. Victims who are subjected to a living hell by their partners must have the confidence to come forward." (6)

"Meanwhile, I want perpetrators to be in no doubt that their cruel and controlling behaviour is criminal." (7)

"The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, welcomed the move but said the coalition had presided over a "backwards slide" in action against domestic violence and support for victims." (8)

 

"Police failures over domestic violence exposed in damning report", The Guardian, 27 Mar 14

"Theresa May will take charge of domestic abuse response after criticism from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary... which she described as "depressing reading"." (9)

"May said the report...exposed "significant failings, including a lack of visible police leadership and direction, poor victim care and deficiencies in the collection of important evidence" (10)

"The report said some officers showed a "considerable lack of empathy" in handling cases [11]recently in the West Midlands officers were overheard calling a victim a "fucking slag"". (12)

"The report said the targeting of perpetrators was "underdeveloped" in most forces." (13)

"In HMIC's analysis, the new inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, said: "Domestic abuse is not only about violence. It is about fear, control and secrecy. " [14]

"It is essential that the police make substantial reforms.... including [in] their understanding of the coercive and psychological nature of the crime... ." (15)

"Assistant chief constable Louisa Rolfe, the ACPO lead on domestic abuse, said: "Our challenge is not an easy one. We grapple with a staggering level of acceptance of domestic abuse in our communities and [16] a genuine reluctance from victims to come forward [17] in the face of a very traditional justice system that doesn't recognise the complex and very personal impact on those individuals who do come forward [18].

We are also trying to improve our response in a time of continuing budget cuts and austerity." (19)

(1) - re. HO # 3.1 - "police fail to see abuse, particularly in its nonviolent form, as a serious crime"

= A typical British cover-up! The claim of 'incompetence' is a typical "Administrative manipulation tactic" - Header # 2 - very heavily used in this country "in order to escape responsibility or accusations".

(I have never heard of a public sector report, on another part of the public sector, that tells it 'as is'. The one that appears to come closest so far is the 2014 report by Professor Alexis Jay on the Rotherham scandal). (The same applies to the private sector e.g. the Maxwellisation of reports).

Looking at my experience e.g.

...of course the police knows that it amount to "serious crime"......- and it only needs to look at existing legislation to know that e.g.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997;

Human Rights Act 1998 (BUT: see my above Note)

What's the next excuse?

(2) - re. HO # 3.1 - "Explicitly capturing this in legislation may also help victims identify the behaviour they are suffering as wrong"

I imagine that there are relatively few people who do not realise when they are being subjected to psychological harassment, especially to the point when it affects their wellbeing - hence, instances that would count as actual harassment and ought to be investigated by the police.

So: Is this "explicit capturing" required because the police is too stupid to figure it out?

Or, is it because if the complainant cannot quote chapter and verse of the legislation - the police can get away with doing nothing? (As my experience in e.g. Oct 10 demonstrates: even when you can do that: the police still does NOT act).

REALITY: in my case, in addition to the above, the following examples of "explicit legislation":

... - have or continue to be breached with impunity by the police and others in the state - including Theresa May - because ALL perceive themselves as being: above the law.

(3) - re. HO # 3.1 - "and encourage them to report it"... to then face a police, and subsequently Met Commissioner and Home Secretaries (Johnson, May) who - to protect the criminals - not only 'suddenly' suffer from extreme blindness to the evidence and amnesia about the rule of law...

...- they, with the judiciary, also fabricate 'evidence'? (Queen's Bench Division: Summary of events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me).

(4) - re. HO # 3.1 - "and cause perpetrators to rethink their controlling behaviour" - Like :

(5) - "May...The government is clear that abuse is not just physical"

It is "clear" alright - because "the government", including Theresa May, are experts at criminal psychological harassment! (Numerous other examples in addition to my case).

(6) - re. HO # 3.1 - "May...Victims who are subjected to a living hell...must have the confidence to come forward"- How about those who:

  • have repeatedly "come forward" with a massive amount of black-on-white evidence in support of their case of criminality against them: police, courts and tribunal;

Where do they go to "to come forward"?

There is absolutely nowhere.

(7) - re. HO # 3.1 - "May...I want perpetrators to be in no doubt that their cruel and controlling behaviour is criminal"

But - of course! - not when SHE (concurrently with Foreign Secretaries) does it - unlawfully - by repeatedly endorsing warrants to have me - the glaringly obvious innocent victim of crime - persecuted on an ongoing basis: 'surveillance' ; communications - thereby going well beyond what is permitted by law...

...- with the outcome of making my life "a living hell" - SINCE 2005 - facts I very clearly communicated to her in my 19 Apr 11 Claim against her (QB # 6) and in my 19 Jul 11 Witness Statement - while repeating endlessly that I have done NOTHING wrong.

(8) - re. HO # 3.1 - "The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, welcomed the move but said the coalition had presided over a "backwards slide" in action against domestic violence and support for victims."

(While I am definitely not coming to the defence of the Coalition) - Labour sure has 'a great track record' on "support to victims [in other areas]" e.g. Rotherham; Stafford hospital.

To which I add my case, which is the outcome of Labour, not only doing absolutely nothing to help me, but, like its successor, the Coalition, actively helping the criminals in inflicting the ongoing criminal psychological harassment, including physical harassment - on me, the glaringly obvious "victim" - e.g.

, etc., etc., etc (Persecution # 6 ; Persecution # (1)(4)).

WHY? Because both parties are NO different! As demonstrated by the evidence, they will persecute anybody who 'dares' challenge them for their so-called 'rights' / for what is right / who 'dares' challenge the criminals they protect - and will do it at any cost - because they perceive the 'little people' as non-entities who do not have the right to have rights.

The majority are amoral, driven solely by money and power. They consider themselves to be: above the law, and like to play 'les grands seigneurs', clocking up their stack of favours left right and centre to those most likely to remember them when they are no longer in power.

(9) - re. HO # 3.1 - "Theresa May will take charge of domestic abuse response after criticism from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary... which she described as "depressing reading""

The moral depravation of that woman is beyond words - as this is a woman who very clearly got her sadistic kicks from endorsing warrants after warrants to have me - the glaringly obvious innocent victim of crime - persecuted on an ongoing basis.

(10) - re. HO # 3.1 - "May said the report...exposed "significant failings, including a lack of visible police leadership and direction"

= Copying her example - as overall leader;

note also her sham comments captured in earlier media reports"poor victim care" = Ditto - by which she communicates that insignificant 'Proles' 'like me' can be trampled on at will.

"and deficiencies in the collection of important evidence" = Ditto, as she is (like the police: when it suits), equally blind to evidence put under her nose - including in a Witness Statement (QB # 6(1)).

(11) - re. HO # 3.1 - "The report said some officers showed a "considerable lack of empathy" in handling cases" - Following the example of the Secretary of state that oversees the police!

(12) - "West Midlands officers were overheard calling a victim a "fucking slag"

"Which is worse? Being called that, or being falsely accused by the police in so-called "crime reports" it has been unlawfully processing for many years - of:

"being a Nazi" ; "having committed [trumped-up] criminal offences ; "suffering from mental issues" ; "defaulting on contractual obligations"?

And, I am sure, far worse than that as, while the Kensington police mafia subsequently supplied me with a less redacted version of the "crime reports" in July 11 (QB # 4.3) (it then attempted to retrieve - because 'inconvenient': QB # 4.3)...

...- there is still a lot that is redacted - I am sure: in breach of my rights under the DPA.

(13) - re. HO # 3.1 - "The report said the targeting of perpetrators was "underdeveloped" in most forces." "Underdeveloped" - The euphemism for: they don't give a damn,...

...and because some are, as in my case, too busy operating as a fully integrated team with crooks. (Other examples: 4 articles on "The corruption of Britain")

(14) - re. HO # 3.1 - "Domestic abuse is not only about violence. It is about fear, control and secrecy."

So, like what Theresa May ordered to be done to me (and is probably still doing as Prime Minister)!

(15) - re. HO # 3.1 - "It is essential that the police make substantial reforms.... including [in] their understanding of the coercive and psychological nature of the crime."

As very amply demonstrated by my experience (police page; Persecution page), like Theresa May, the police has very comprehensive "understanding of the psychological nature of crime".

Probably went on public sector-funded courses on psychological harassment.

I found many of the tactics I have been at the receiving end in this island-Kingdom since 2002, explained on a Canadian website - and captured some of the main points.

(16) - re. HO # 3.1 - "Assistant chief constable Louisa Rolfe, the ACPO lead on domestic abuse, said:...We grapple with a staggering level of acceptance of domestic abuse in our communities..."

Excuse 1 of 4 - 'It's not the police's fault, but that of the communities'...while the public "grapples with a staggering level of acceptance" of police corruption among those with the authority to take action.

ACPO: Another double-faced one!

(17) - re. HO # 3.1 - "ACPO...genuine reluctance from victims to come forward"

Excuse 2 of 4: 'It's not the police's fault, it's the victims who don't report things to us'.

Surprise! Surprise! When the victims see how other victims are treated by the police, and others in the public sector e.g.

  • "the failure to treat as disability hate crime, the incidents reported 88 times by Mr David Askew, who had learning difficulties, and by his family. He collapsed and died in March 2010 soon after police received reports that youths had again been harassing him outside his home"
  • re. the Rotherham scandal: "the fathers who were arrested for trying to remove their daughters from the place where they were being abused" ; the treatment of those, including a Home Office researcher (!!), following reporting what was going on;

In my case:

...- BOTH of which were then followed by lies and cover-up by the police - including under 'statements of truth'...

...added to my battles with the police at several levels, and complaints against them to higher levels, and to the IPCC - following the police processing of false so-called "crime reports" against me (summaries- section 4). The outcome of taking it higher up: to a court? They ALL closed rank!

Like Michael Mansfield, QC said: "With the Met, if you are innocent you have everything to worry about".

(18) - re. HO # 3.1 - "ACPO ...in the face of a very traditional justice system that doesn't recognise the complex and very personal impact on those individuals who do come forward"

Excuse 3 of 4: 'It's not the police's fault; it's the fault of the courts - that don't know'

Like the police, judiciaries and court staff know exactly what psychological harassment does to innocent victims - because like the police, the Home Secretary et.al. in the public (and private) sector...

...- it is their main tool for crushing the litigants they have conspired to crush - e.g. in my case: Persecution: (1)(4)(3) ; (1)(4)(6) ; (1)(4)(8)...

...- in the process giving their tribe members, protégés / masters carte blanche to do exactly as they please (Persecution (1)(4)(15)).

(19) - re. HO # 3.1 - "ACPO ...We are also trying to improve our response in a time of continuing budget cuts and austerity"

Excuse 4 of 4 - 'It's not the police's fault; it's due to the cuts in our budget'. (It is evidently an ACPO's mantra e.g. Sir Hugh Orde, 4 Sep 14)

How about saving on the millions of £s used to persecute innocent people like me (# 4, below), and other whistleblowers who are doing the right thing - and instead go after the criminals - including those in the police?

Back to sections

 

(iv) of 6 - Theresa May's hypocritical comments and lies at the Sep 14 Conservative Party conference got me so incensed that I wrote her a 25 Nov 14 letter in which I contrasted her claims with my case. Ignoring my letter, the persecution has since continued.

Considering my experience (# 3 above, and my comments below, plus # 4 below), some of Theresa May's comments and claims at the Sep 14 Tory conference - extracted below - made my blood boil (like those of other politicians et.al. that are in the same class).

I was so incensed that I wrote her this 25.11.14 letter, in which I reported the horrendous persecution I am being subjected by the state - for no other reason than 'daring' to stand up to Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers' criminal activities.

I cc'd the letter to: (1)

(1)- David Cameron, then Prime Minister (2)

(2)- Nick Clegg, then Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats

(3)- Ed Miliband, then Leader of the Labour Party

(4)- Natalie Bennett, then Leader of the Green Party

(5)- Philip Hammond, then Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (3)

(6)- Chris Grayling, then Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice (his predecessors) (4)

(7)- Simon Hughes, then Minister for Justice and Civil Liberties

EACH of the then 10 members of Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee (5)

  • (9)- Ian Austin, Labour;
  • (10)- Nicola Blakwood, Conservative;
  • (11)- James Clappison, then Conservative MP;
  • (12)- Michael Ellis, Conservative;
  • (13)- Paul Flynn, Labour;
  • (14)- Lorraine Fulbrook, then Conservative MP;
  • (15)- Dr Julian Huppert, then LibDem MP;
  • (16)- Yasmin Qureshi, Labour;
  • (17)- David Winnick, Labour.

(18)- Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (his predecessor was Sir Paul Stephenson)

(19)- Boris Johnson, then Head of Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime

On 15 Dec, I followed this by sending May and those specified on this distribution list another copy of the letter to which, on the first page, I added the message:

"Dec 14 - TO Theresa May, and named individuals on the distribution list: In the light of your psyche:A 2nd copy to remind you of an excuse to have a joyful time over the festive season.

(Of course, YES, since first sending this letter, I have continued to be persecuted by the British state)" (6)

(NB: Hence, in total I sent 38 letters - each posted separately).

(1)- To minimise the possibility of my letter being intercepted by the police's mates in various departments, I first mailed it to those on the distribution list during the weekend of 22-23 Nov 14. To Theresa May, I sent it on 26 Nov, for 'delivery next day'.

(2)- Who went to Paris, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre - to? er..."support free speech" of course! (Great photo on Private Eye's front page of its issue # 1384, showing Cameron and other world leaders, with the speech bubble above stating: "Je suis charlatan!")

(3)- Note Hammond's outrageous claim, in a 10 Mar 15 speech, that "the British state respects Human Rights". (See my above Note)

(4)- While Chris Grayling is said to have introduced "greater protections for householders who defend themselves against intruders" (as reported e.g. in his Wikipedia profile (at 20/07/15)), he very excludes leaseholders being attacked in their home by criminal landlords. Perhaps, he was too busy with his properties to take action following my letter.

(5)- The task of the Committee, chaired by Keith Vaz, is defined as: "examining the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies".

(6)- Evidently determined to have the label of assassins attached to them - and proving for the nth time that the British state is controlled by Jewish organized crime (among other?)...

...the only 'response' to my above letter has been a continuation of the persecution by the state - in tandem with the Andrew David Ladsky mafia:

...demonstrating that Her Majesty's Theresa May, then Home Secretary, and HM's Philip Hammond, then Foreign Secretary, have continued to sign warrants upon warrants (surveillance ; communications)...

...- YES! Using anti-terrorism legislation (!!!) (*) - and going well beyond that...

...- to continue having me unlawfully hounded and persecuted.

Thereby, also continuing to demonstrate that Her Majesty's police and related services, and those among "[her] ministers" and within "[her] government" who endorse the conduct - would have no difficulty whatsoever securing gainful employment by the world's worst tyrannical regimes.

(*) It is typical of the British state to treat 'the little people' who 'dare' expose its wrongdoings - as terrorists e.g. Mr Osita Mba, an HMRC in-house lawyer.

In other words, this 'reply' from:

  • 5 Cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister;
  • the then Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, (and then Mayor of London) Boris Johnson.

In fact, as the epitome of the British Establishment, Johnson summed it very succinctly, on 18 Jun 15, in his reply to a taxi driver: “Fuck off and die!” (Source: The Guardian)

Hence: ALL of the 19 are / have communicated the very loud and very clear message that:

  • (A)- they absolutely approve of the conduct by the police i.e. that instead of fulfilling its remit of going after the criminals, the police is absolutely right to:

This provides yet more supporting evidence that this island-Kingdom has sold out to crime, and is consequently controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime.

To which I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Yep! That's the translation of "the British values" - often referred to by Theresa May (*), and many other politicians.

(*) Other quotes from Theresa May on "the British Values"

Will Her Majesty's Theresa May issue "extremism-disruption orders" against herself and HM's Philip Hammond for being key instigators of "hate" against me?

 

Extract from Theresa May's conference paper, placed on the Guardian website.

“…imagine…being stopped by the police, having done nothing wrong…even though the police need “reasonable grounds for suspicion” that you have broken the law.”

“Imagine… the indignity of this happening to you… [many] times. Imagine what it’s like to feel, deep down, that this is only happening because you are young, male and black.”

“…it’s simply not right that young men like Alexander, who have worked hard, respected the law, and done all the things expected of them…by society, should be treated this way”

“…we are allowing organised criminals to operate undisturbed. Crimes are going unpunished”

“Since 2010 I have prevented more foreign hate preachers coming to Britain… than any Home Secretary before me…I want to target extremists who…spread poisonous hatred.”

“…many dream of building a life here because we have a free society. We celebrate different ways of life, we value diversity, and we cherish our freedom to lead our lives as we choose."

“You have to respect British values and institutions. The rule of law. Democracy. Equality between citizens, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. Free speech

These are the values that make our country what it is. These are our values.”

“We know the overwhelming majority of British people want to be free. Free from danger. Free from fear. Free from prejudice. Free from discrimination…. Free to get on with their lives.”

“We must not become a society where these things are no longer possible.”

“We must face down extremism in all its forms.”

Back to sections

 

(v)- "Je suis Juif"

This Guardian 22 Jan 15 article shows Theresa May holding a placard, stating "Je suis Juif" (should be 'Juive') "during a Board of Deputies of British Jews event in London, on 18 Jan 15".

No wonder she ensures the unlimited protection of, and assistance to the Jewish Andrew David Ladsky gang.

Following her appointment as Prime Minister, the Jewish lobby fell over itself in its congratulations to its 'dear friend', who...

"has always shown an attentive ear to issues affecting the British Jewish community."

4 days earlier, The Guardian, 19 Jan 15, reported: "Theresa May pledges extra police patrols to counter antisemitism threat"

"She also vowed to bring in more measures to deal with hate crime" (1) "I know that many Jewish people in this country are feeling vulnerable and fearful..." (2)

"I want to say this: Jewish people have long been an important and integral part of this country, we cherish the contribution you make, not just in the past but today and every day.” (3)

(1)- "more measures to deal with hate crime"

Are these likely to apply to Jewish individuals such as e.g. Andrew David Ladsky who make false, highly vicious, hate accusations against non-Jews - for no other reason than their 'daring' to stand-up against their criminal activities?

Answer: NO - as she has yet to ensure this by using the already plentiful legislation...

...and Theresa May is, herself, a key instigator of hate against innocent people: my 25.11.14 letter to her, cc'd et.al - # 3.1(4), above.

Will Theresa May issue "extremism-disruption orders" against herself?

(2)- "Jewish people feel fearful and vulnerable"

The Jewish pressure groups, including its militia, the Community Support Trust, will have been delighted with that comment...further inducing their praise for Theresa May?

How about the ongoing victims of Jewish people, such as I (not to mention the example of others) who feel "vulnerable and fearful" (and many other adjectives) as a result of their actions?

What protection is Theresa May going to ensure I (and the others) get?

Answer: in my case: joining them in ensuring the ongoing persecution against me...

...while one of her departments, the police, also continues to process a pack of lies so-called "crime report" against me that describes Ladsky as 'the poor' "vulnerable victim who feels intimidated by [me]" (YEP!) (Evidently, "vulnerable" is one of the preferred descriptions).

What have the Jews got to be "fearful" of?

Losing their grip over this Kingdom (*) - as it is clear from (among other) my experience that they control the police and the Home Office, the courts, ministers and other members of Parliament, etc...

...right down to dictating how they must be described e.g. the (above) so-called "crime report"; the Israeli embassy complaints to The Guardian (below).

(See my conclusion that the Jews have created a state within the state- Advisors to Jefferson House-(B))

(*) In Feb 15 - they 'sort of' lost two of their tribe: Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw

(3)- "we cherish the contribution Jewish people make"

- WHO IS "WE"?

- WHAT "CONTRIBUTION"?

There is only one type of "contribution" that one of Her Majesty's ministers would "cherish": MONEY e.g.:

Perhaps Theresa May is also referring to her cosy little chats with "the Vampire Squid"?

Well, I am most definitely NOT part of the "we".

As a result of my experience with Jewish people since 2001 i.e. over the last 15 years (at 2016), my conclusion is that the only "contribution" they make is to themselves and to each other...

...- and concurrently - perceiving themselves as having some divine right to operate as supremacists and above the law of the land - 'rights' that are consistently confirmed to them by the British state...

- treat non-Jews as chattel there to be exploited, used and abused by them - at will, in the process, happily destroying their victims' life if they 'dare' stand up to them.

In addition to the extremely traumatic and barbaric treatment, Madame "Je suis Juif", Theresa May, ensured was dished out against me since she took office (overview in my (above) 24.11.14 letter to her) (and is probably continuing to do as Prime Minister):
  • (2)- made numerous false, highly vicious, malicious, defamatory communications about me to my then employer, KPMG - with the objective of getting me sacked (because: no income = an assumption of being less likely to be able to fight him); (he succeeded, as the horrendous treatment I was then subjected to led me to resign 10 months later);
  • (5)- (in addition to the below examples), Jewish Ladsky has (so far) also carried out / instigated numerous other forms of barbaric persecution against me e.g.
  • ...- ALL motivated by 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand up to him - 'Mr I Am So Important, So Superior to Anybody Else', Entitled to Get My Every Wish and Take Whatever I Want from Others', as well as expose his criminal activities;...
  • (6)- they sent me and my then employer, KPMG, threatening letters, in spite of knowing that they did not have a leg to stand on;
  • ...ALL with the objective of helping Ladsky obtain monies not due and payable, as well as dish out mental torture and punishment for 'my daring' to stand up to them.
  • (3)- when it came to my costs, over the following 6 months, they, of course, continued to lie;
  • ...- ALL with the objective of helping Ladsky obtain monies not due and payable, as well as dish out mental torture and punishment for 'my daring' to stand up to them.
  • ...ALL with the objective of helping Ladsky obtain monies not due and payable, as well as dish out mental torture and punishment for 'my daring' to stand up to them.
  • the list keeps on growing... as it 'blesses me' with yet more and more of its "contributions" (more examples, at Oct 16)...
  • ...ALL with the objective of helping Ladsky obtain monies not due and payable, as well as dish out mental torture and punishment for 'my daring' to stand up to them.
  • ....by producing repeatedly so-called "accounts", for an unnamed party, that are not compliant with my Lease (links to the sections) - implying that they are fraudulent...

Others have been sent to jail for doing similar things on a much smaller scale.

How come that the Ladsky gang, not only escapes prosecution, it is 'I' its victim, that ends up being persecuted by the British state?

If that is not blatant, absolutely undeniable evidence of Jewish organized crime controlling the British state - what is?

(It most definitely cannot be attributed to the relevant people not having knowledge of the facts).

  • - with the objective of helping him secure monies not due and payable and, in the process, (like all the others) ensured dishing out maximum criminal psychological harassment against me.
  • (11)- Jewish judiciaries who, over the years, have not only helped Ladsky and his gang in their fraudulent activities, they have also joined them in taking retaliatory actions against me for 'my daring' to stand up to all of them e.g.
  • - in the process turning a blind eye to gross misconduct, including breaches of statutes and / or Civil Procedure Rules.

(*) On 9 Apr 09, when I looked at Jack Straw's profile on Wikipedia, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Honourable, (when he was Lord Chancellor and Secretary of state for Justice), the first sentence stated that he "is of part-Jewish background". The page has now been removed.

That's my experience with Jews over the last 15 years (at 2016) - and of "the contribution they make"...

...I most definitely DO NOT "cherish"

No doubt, there are also other Jews among the so-called 'regulators' who wilfully dismissed my - legitimate - complaints against some of the above e.g.

I could cite others, not related to my case, such as e.g. Lord Neuberger, the Jewish President of the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, who gave 'a very unique' interpretation of a section of legislation when dealing with a claim from a Jewish landlord, Daejan Properties...

...- with the effect of removing a meagre certainty for leaseholders, and concurrently adding to landlords' opportunity to rip them off.

Private Eye, # 1355, 13-10 Dec 13, pg 13 - "Yitzhak Tshuva, owner of the Israeli Delek Group which won permission to build 78 luxury apartments...

...Delek should have paid £18.9m to Westminster council (*) for failing to include any affordable housing, but councillors accepted £8.8m – a figure suggested by, er, Delek."

(*) At the time, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was Eric Pickles (see Conservative Friends of Israel).

(NB: In the same ethnic group, but outside of the property sector, Goldman Sachs is another one reported to get away... with some multi-million £s jackpots: "sweetheart tax deal"; very lucrative government work")

'Perhaps' they ALL justify their conduct (1) under the banner of "Doing God's work"?

(P.S. No doubt the Jewish brigade that is constantly monitoring the publication sphere for anything it 'does not like' (2) = undermines the Jews' self-portrayal as "victims", will perceive the above as putting me firmly in its "anti-Semite" - "Nazi" category...

...- as already declared by 'the poor' Jewish Andrew David Ladsky, "the vulnerable victim who feels intimidated by [me]"...

...which, I contend, in 21st century Jewry-speak, means anybody 'like me' 'who dares' stand up to, and then expose its criminal activities as a result of its persisting with its barbaric attacks.

(1)- Which, for many of the above, translates into breaching at least 3 out of the 10 Commandments, or ‘fundamental laws of the Jews’, namely those which prohibit: theft, false testimony, and coveting others’ goods.

(2)- E.g. Experience of The Guardian, as well as UN.

Well, in my case, I repeat my comment that, more so than ever, my heart goes out to the Palestinian people.

Back to sections

 

(vi) of 6 - "Defending the culture of secrecy about surveillance" - leading me to comment on The Guardian website

"Theresa May defends secrecy over intelligence services", The Guardian, 16 Oct 14

"...Theresa May has insisted to the intelligence and security committee [1] that the doctrine of ‘neither confirm nor deny’ must remain in place." (2)

"She said the bulk collection of personal communications data was not in itself an invasion of privacy." (3)

"... May said the culture of secrecy had to remain..." (4)

"She did tell the committee that she spent “a significant part of her day” as home secretary dealing with intercept and surveillance warrants, and said she had rejected only “a very small number”. (5)

"She said she often questioned their need, but a rigorous process of checking by the Home Office and the agencies themselves went on before warrant requests reached her desk." (6)

(1) - "intelligence and security committee" - Then chaired by 'my' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is an expert at double-dealing.

(2) - "doctrine of ‘neither confirm nor deny’ must remain in place" - A policy that is (frequently?) abused by her et.al. in order to prevent disclosure of their criminal activities - and endorsed with a wink and a nod.

(3) - "bulk collection of personal communications data, not an invasion of privacy" - BUT - as in my case :

...ARE definite invasions of privacy - and definite breaches of the law - which you, Mrs May (and foreign secretaries) claim to abide by.

What / who gives you the right to breach the law?

(4) - "May said the culture of secrecy had to remain" - Of course, because, as I know from personal experience, a lot of the surveillance portrayed as being for the protection of the public is, in fact, aimed at protecting Establishment-run organized crime.

(5) - "she said she spent “a significant part of her day” dealing with intercept and surveillance warrants, and had rejected only “a very small number. My Comment to the Guardian newspaper was:

'And – based on my experience - could have added:

and these definitely exclude warrants to have innocent victims of ‘a certain type' of white collar criminals monitored, dogged, tracked, hounded, persecuted, etc. on an ongoing basis – thereby not only breaching the RIPA requirements for use – under e.g.:

Section 28 - Directed surveillance: “necessary, proportionate, preventing or detecting crime, etc..”

Section 5(3) – Grounds for interception: (as per above)

Note - Section 81(3) – Definition of serious crime ...

but, in fact, going well beyond what is permitted by law – by, through these activities, aiming to inflict criminal psychological harassment in order to crush the victims (*)

Just as well that Theresa May said at the recent Tory Conference that she was 'determined to act against hate-preaching individuals'.' [see, above]

(*) To which, on this website, I add: 'More specifically: "...kill em, zip up the bag, bring em to the morgue..."

(6) - "she often questioned their need, but a rigorous process of checking by the Home Office and the agencies themselves went on before warrant requests reached her desk"

= Further confirmation that, in my case, she is endorsing the ILLEGAL activities against me (# 4, below).

 

CONCLUSION: The comments from that morally depraved Theresa May are in the same class as those of William Hague, David Cameron and his predecessors; those of Sir Paul Stephenson, etc., etc., etc.

 

In its issue 1344, Private Eye asked - in relation to the fact that the Metropolitan Police Service prevented a police whistleblower from giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry:

"Can we expect similar expressions to horror [to those made re. the gagging of NHS whistleblowers] from Theresa May and Boris Johnson, to whom the Met is supposedly accountable?"

It's easy to guess the answer: NO!

In fact (making the perfect team with Theresa May), the only "expression" you'll get from Boris Johnson is that: "[he is] utterly fed up of reading attacks on police officers in London" (Telegraph, 27 Mar 14).

Consider Johnson's comment in the light of the examples of media reports on the police I captured on the media page.

And, to this, Johnson might also add: "Fuck off and die!" (His reply to a London taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15 - source: The Guardian).

No wonder the police behaves as it does! The Wild West environment - without a sheriff.

(NB: In a previous life, Theresa May headed some group for the 'protection of women / rights of women'. If she did then, the equivalent of what she has done for me: I feel sorry for the women concerned).

Back to sections

 

(4)- With the only possible objective of aiding and abetting organized crime: how many millions of £s of taxpayer money have Her Majesty's Home Secretaries, since 2005 - spent having me - the glaringly obvious victim of crime - unlawfully - hounded and persecuted - on a daily basis?

I ask the same question of Her Majesty's Foreign Secretaries.

As I state in my 19 Apr 11 Claim against the Home Secretary (QB # 6), it is my belief that, since at least 2005, the British state has had me - unlawfully - under permanent 'surveillance' - more appropriately described as: persecuting me, including having ALL my means of communication interfered with. (Brief details above, under # 3)

Yes!: issuing warrants against 'ME': surveillance ; communications - using anti-terrorism legislation (!!!) - and going well beyond that.

Since filing my Claim, more - irrebutable evidence - of this has been added (see snapshots - Persecution # 2 ; Persecution # 3).

Home Secretaries from 2005 and Term of office

  From To Party & Leader

Charles Clarke (above)

15 Dec 04

5 May 06

Labour - Tony Blair

John Reid (above)

5 May 06

27 Jun 07

Labour - Tony Blair

Jacqui Smith (above)

28 Jun 07

5 Jun 09

Labour - Gordon Brown

Alan Johnson (above)

5 Jun 09

11 May 10

Labour - Gordon Brown

Theresa May (above)

12 May 10

13 July 16

Coalition, then Conservative - David Cameron

Amber Rudd (below)

13 Jul 16

 

Incombent - Convervative, Theresa May

 

In its 10 Feb 15 article, "Julian Assange 24hr guard leaves London police with £10m bill" - The Guardian reported:

"...round-the-clock guard outside the Ecuadorian embassy preventing the escape of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange..."

"Figures obtained by LBC [radio] under the Freedom of Information Act showed the Metropolitan Police Service spent £9m on policing the building between 19 June 2012 and 31 October 2014"

The £9 million amounts to an average of £10,400 per day (based on 865 days).

I find that difficult to believe given that, based on what I see from passing by the embassy practically every day (morning and late evening, because it is next door to 'the concentration camp') there are only 1-2 cops standing there like vegetables. (Over a year ago, there might have been 3).

But, as suggested by the below article 2 years ago, the police has 'a certain way' of calculating costs.

In a 15 Feb 13 article, "Julian Assange police guard at Ecuadorian embassy nears £3m cost", the Independent reported:

"The Metropolitan police said that the estimated total cost of policing the Ecuadorian embassy between last June and the end of January is £2.9 million, of which £2.3 million is opportunity costs - police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties - and £0.6 million in overtime"

Considering the vast number of state resources used - since at least 2005 = over the last 10 years (at 2015) - for - unlawfully - dogging ME, tracking ME, hounding ME, persecuting ME and tormenting ME - on a daily basis...

  1. ...police, state goons and other state-paid informants and plants;
  2. helicopters and other planes;
  3. scooters and motorcycles;
  4. unmarked police cars;
  5. CCTV cameras';
  6. monitoring and interference with all my means of communication...
  7. ...- as well as overseas...

...added to other forms of criminal psychological harassment......and their role in issuing authorisations (e.g. para.155 of my 19.04.11 Claim):

...with the only possible objective of aiding and abetting organized crime:..

....how many millions of £s of taxpayers' money have Her Majesty's above Home Secretaries allowed to be spent doing this since 2005?

On 28th/29th Aug 14, on BBC Radio 4 World Tonight, I heard Lord Carlisle say that it requires 60 people to have somebody followed for 1 year.

What is the cost of doing that in relation to me since 2005... ...added to the cost of the helicopters - that can spend over 1.5 hour per day persecuting me (on 23 Feb 15) - the ongoing monitoring, as well as interference with ALL my means of communication?

Considering the above daily average of £10,400 claimed to have been spent in relation to Julian Assange - what the British state has spent persecuting me since 2005 must be in the tens of millions of £s.

Madame "Je suis Juif" and Amber Rudd:

Also, are there Mossad operatives within the Home Office? If so, how much have they so far cost the British taxpayers?

 

I ask the same question of Her Majesty's Foreign Secretaries (Persecution # 4.3).

(NB: As demonstrated by the case of other individuals, this island-Kingdom will happily spend millions of £s of taxpayers' money persecuting those who 'dare' to stand-up e.g. among the whistleblowers:

(1)- Dr Raj Mattu: some £6m; (2)- Sally Murrer, journalist: several million £s - as well as to buy their silence e.g. (3)- Gary Walker).

(See also above, # 3.1, for further evidence of Theresa May's sickening moral depravation)

As Harriet Sergeant, Guest Contributor, wrote in her 28 Feb 10 article in The Sunday Times, headed "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered in part by the death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events) (personally, I view it as mass-murder):

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish...

...Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care"

 

(5)- I look forward to HM's Theresa May and Philip Hammond spending at least 5 years in prison for endorsing warrants upon warrants (directed surveillance; communications)...

...to have me - the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - unlawfully - stalked, hounded and persecuted - on a daily basis.

 

"Stalkers to be banned from contacting victims online under plans to protect people targeted on the internet", Telegraph, 5 Dec 15

"Theresa May said that the nature of stalking can be delusional and obsessive with offenders going to extreme lengths to contact, follow and monitor their victims.” (1)

"Officials said it would also mean victims could be kept safe while police gather evidence ahead of any potential prosecution." (2)

"The government will be launching a new coercive or controlling behaviour offence, which comes into force on 29 December." (3)

"The offence will carry a maximum of five years' imprisonment, a fine, or both." (3)

'Stranger stalking' targeted in new protection plans", BBC, 5 Dec 15

"Theresa May said that those subject to the order might be required to undergo a mental health assessment..." (4)

(1)- Considering the endless warrants Theresa May signed from 2010 (*) , and subsequently also by Philip Hammond, to have me - the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - stalked, hounded and persecuted – on a daily basis: directed surveillance; communications...

...– they - and ALL of those who implement the warrants, often demonstrating the sadistic pleasure they derive from doing it (e.g. Her Majesty's British Transport Police) - redefine the concepts of "delusional and obsessive and going to extreme lengths"...

...thereby adding an entirely new dimension to the offence of 'stalking' under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:

(*) Her predecessors: since at least 2005 (above: Intro ; section # 3).

(2)- And if the perpetrator is the British state - entailing in particular the police and related services?

(3)- I look forward to Theresa May and Philip Hammond spending at least 5 years in prison for subjecting me to ongoing, horrendous persecution - together with:

This should stop others from abusing their power and thereby indulge in the same criminal activities.

Yeah! I can always dream!

"In Britain, that has a long and exemplary record on human rights" (see my above Note) - and 'in which the rule of law is paramount'...

...the law only applies to 'the little people' - 'not to them'. (As they are not held to account for their conduct, it allows them to breach it with impunity - in the process behaving like tyrants).

(4)- Considering what Her Majesty's Theresa May has ordered - and continues to order - to be carried out against me: (in my non-expert opinion) she is past being able to potentially benefit from medical treatment (like all the others who back her up).

 

(6)- Amber Rudd, the new Home Secretary who, in my case, has clearly taken over the baton from Theresa May.

Amber Russ is the new Home Secretary who replaced Theresa May, in July 16, when she became Prime Minister.

Having related her work experience, in its 1428, 30Sep-Oct 16 issue, Private Eye concluded:

Given that family history, it is perhaps not surprising that Amber Rudd saw her future at Westminster, rather than in the City...now, as home secretary, in charge of law and order.

It reports that “She effectively replaced her former stockbroker father Tony Rudd at the family corporate finance and investment company Lawstone once he was run out of the City by government inspectors who decreed that he was “totally unfit” to be a director of any company.”

In the 1990s she moved through property to mining: diamond mining in Siberia and Canada, and then dotcom companies.

She was the “chief executive of Investors Noticeboard, a financial website…, wound up in 2003 owing at least £178,000 to unsecured creditors”.

Travel Intelligence was another dotcom website flop.” “She resigned after eight years in 2007."

The heavily loss-making company was dissolved in 2012 after losing investors more than £4m.”

She also worked at JP Morgan.

In government, she has held the post of parliamentary private secretary to the then chancellor George Osborne. (His "vow to stamp out corporate tax avoidance"; his role in "The Vampire Squid" getting a £20m 'sweetheart' tax deal).

In Jun 15, she was appointed as secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

From Private Eye, 1396, 10-23 July 15 - One of her tasks in the department involved negotiating over the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear plant station in Somerset.

Her brother Roland Rudd’s PR firm, Finsbury,…represents a construction giant Kier which, in 2012, signed a £100m contract with EDF to help build Hinkley Point C.

In the 2013 list of ministers’ interests Rudd,…makes no reference to her brother or Finsbury. Many other ministers did list their siblings’ work."

The new register of MPs’ interests also has a new category of “family members engaged in lobbying” – but Rudd makes no mention of her brother or his firm either."

No doubt aiming to have the Jewish community also fall over itself to praise her – as done for her predecessor, Theresa May...

- one of her first tasks was to hand over £13.4m to the Jewish militia, the Community Security Trust.

Another of her task, which helps the Jewish racketeers who are constantly attacking me, was to take over the baton from Theresa May by endorsing warrants against me - as demonstrated by my experience with my post in Aug-Sep 16.

Thus, Amber Rudd is also adding to the millions of pounds of taxpayer money already spent to persecute me (# 5, above).

In Oct 16, she faced strong opposition when she announced the intention of cutting down on the number of “overseas students and work visas” (The Guardian, 4 Oct 16), "by forcing firms to reveal foreign staff numbers" (The Guardian, 9 Oct 16).

 

Her Majesty's Home Office's secretaries of State caused me to develop this website - and are causing me to continue maintaining it.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN   DOING.

C O M M E N T S

Back to top