Email this site to a contact

 

My conclusion/ translation: "your letter has been binned"

Her Majesty's Prime Minister Office - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

(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 Prime Ministers remember that the ROOT CAUSE for their lack of action 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 Her Majesty's Prime Ministers 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)

 

Introduction

I approached Her Majesty's then Prime Minister for help, on 2 occasions:

  • The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, in 2003;
  • The Rt. Hon Gordon Brown, in 2010.

While the former's Office sent me the equivalent of 'your letter has been filed in the round filing cabinet on the floor' i.e. the dustbin, Gordon Brown did not even acknowledge my letter. Hence: it was immediately thrown in the bin.

Back to list

 

(1)- The 2003 'response' from the Office of Tony Blair, then Her Majesty's Prime Minister, was the equivalent of the typical: 'your letter had been binned'.

 

In August 2003, I sent an identical letter to a dozen various media (e.g. The Guardian), in which I related the horrendous nightmare I was going through, including my experiences with various government departments. (Case summary)

In each instance, I copied various ministries, including Tony Blair, then Prime Minister.

The 21.08.03 'reply' from the Office of the Prime Minister was

"The contents of your letter have been carefully noted" .

= "your letter has been binned"

Back to list

 

(2)- In 2010, Her Majesty's then Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown did not even bother to reply to my letter.

 

I copied Her Majesty's Gordon Brown on my 02.02.10 letter, headed, "When am I due to be killed" to:

I justified the header by the fact that:

(NB: Another one, this time, implied, was added on 14 Jun 14).

As explained in the letter, for the benefit of those copied, I included fairly comprehensive detail of my experience with the courts, the police, etc., since 2002 - following receiving a fraudulent 'service charge' demand (Home-Page-Overview ; Case summary).

I explained in my 02.02.10 covering letter to Gordon Brown that I was prompted to write to him...

...following his comments, reported in The Sunday Telegraph article of 24 Jan 10, "Brown: courts must support victims of crime" (following the case of Mr Munir Hussain who was originally given a 30-month prison sentence for attacking a burglar who terrorised him and his family):

“I strongly support the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their properties...

As a country, all our instincts and sympathies rightly lie with law-abiding citizens.

Society sides with the victims of crime, so too should the system.

And I am determined that it will”

I followed this by stating:

"My experience of the last eight years, which started with a fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand of £14,400 for my leasehold, basement, studio flat, overwhelmingly demonstrates that, in spite of my being the innocent victim of crime, and a law-abiding, honest, decent, taxpaying British National – ‘the system’ has, and continues to be most definitely against me"

I concluded with:

"Prime Minister: will you show your “determination” in my case for ‘the system’ to – finally – treat me as per my statutory rights?"

Three months later: no reply.

The silence could not be due to Gordon Brown being 'that busy', as, w/c 15 Mar 10, he found the time to phone David Beckham to wish him well.

(Over the previous 12 months, or so, he also found the time to phone a winner on the TV show, 'X Factor', as well as somebody on another TV show, 'Big Brother', reported to have suffered racist comments. (I don't watch these programmes). Maybe I should have gone on a TV programme to get Gordon Brown's attention.

In addition to the above Telegraph article, consider other claims made by Gordon Brown:

At the 2007 Labour Party Conference:

"I have strongly held moral principles of right and wrong. This is my moral compass. This is who I am" (1)

In a speech at the NATO conference in Strasbourg, on 4 Apr 09:

"There is no intention to infringe the rights of women in Afghanistan." (2)

On the 31 May 09, BBC1 Andrew Marr Show, that:

"[he found] the revelations about the MPs conduct offensive to my Presbyterian upbringing." (3)

"Brown tries to win back voters with 'fair play' pledges", Daily Mail, 31 Jul 09:

"Gordon Brown hopes to win back the vote of Middle Britain by appealing to their sense of fair play and core values... Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said last night: "The core values of Middle Britain are rooted in what this country is best known for around the world: our dogged sense of fair play." (4)

"Brown: I will end 'take it or leave it' public services", Guardian, 12 Apr 10:

"The days of take it or leave it public services are over... The days of just minimum standards are over. The days of the impersonal are finished.

It has to be personal, accountable and tailored to your needs, and a mechanism to trigger change if the service does not meet your needs" (5)

On the 18 Apr 10, BBC1 Andrew Marr Show, in relation to Goldman Sachs:

"I am shocked at this moral bankruptcy" (6)

3 May 10, in a speech shown on TV:

"Vote Labour for a fairer Britain where people are treated with dignity..." (7)

In 2006, in relation to Jim Wallis' book 'God's Politics', Gordon Brown is reported to have said / written (?) that the book "challenges us to create a society that both addresses injustice and stresses personal responsibility".

(1)- See My Diary 1 Mar 08

(2)- By contrast - in this country, under his leadership - my 'rights', as a woman who is the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime (Case summary) - are "infringed" with impunity by the British state.

(3)- See My Diary Feb 09, for some examples of how it translated in practice.

(4)- Yes, many of the 'little people' in this country have a sense of "fair play" - but, as evidenced by my experience and that of others (e.g. Media page ; Whistleblowers ; Comments), the country is controlled by individuals who do not even understand the meaning of these words.

As The Daily Mail columnist, Mr Littlejohn, rightly concluded in his 10 July 09 Daily Mail column "Labour has created a self-serving tyranny of lying and concealment, where duplicity is rewarded...".

As can be seen from e.g. the Media page, the gagging of whistleblowers, etc. - nothing changed under its successor: the Conservative-LibDem Coalition.

(5) Contrast with my experience - at the time - with the police and the IPCC: police # 5.3 , # 5.4.

These claims are in the same vein as those of his successor, David Cameron, who would have us believe that his Government followed Winston Churchill's ethos that "the State operates as the servant, not the master, of its people" (Under the section, I challenge the claim, by citing my experience).

(6)- See My Diary Feb 09, for some examples of Gordon Brown's very elastic 'morality'.

(7)- In the same vein as the claims by his successor, David Cameron, in Jan 12.

 

The conclusions from the lack of response to my 02.02.10 letter - are that Gordon Brown:

•  Did not believe that 'I', "a law-abiding", taxpaying, British National, have "the right" to defend myself against criminals.

•  Endorsed the extremely traumatic, horrendous treatment I have and continue to be subjected to by the state since 2002 (hence, the major part (so far), under New Labour)...

... - including being denied - repeatedly - access to justice, redress and protection by the Ministries under his then leadership (Case summary).

(NB: Shortly afterwards I received a 'Get Lost!' reply to my Subject Access Request from: the Ministry of '(In)Justice' ; the Home Office - in addition to other forms criminal psychological harassment)

•  His above claims were, like those of his predecessor, Tony Blair, and successor, David Cameron - clearly made by a delusional, mythomaniac. (Do they actually believe what they say?)

= Sham, upon sham, upon sham.

 

(NB: Gordon Brown also continued to break New Labour's promise in its "1997 election manifesto": "An End to Feudalism" - by rejecting the 2007-08 "Petition to abolish leasehold")

Back to list

 

(3)- As to The Rt. Hon. David Cameron: I saved myself from getting another 'Get Lost!' from him.

As summarised in My Diary 25 Jan 12, in 2009, I asked David Cameron for help, when he was in Opposition.

Predictably - and in spite of his 'position' at the time - the 'response' amounted to a 'Get Lost!'.

Hence: there was no point my wasting my time and money contacting him again.

A conclusion that was reinforced further from hearing / reading his lies - and unbelievable arrogance and hypocrisy e.g. in 2016.

(NB: I copied him on my 25.11.14 letter to Theresa May, then Home Secretary (HO # 3.1(4)) - but, as I stressed at the end of my letter:

"I am not expecting a response from you – nor from those listed below – unless it is about finally ensuring that I get justice, redress and compensation for the extremely traumatic, life-destroying treatment I am being subjected to since 2002."

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' has been a continuation of the persecution by the state - in tandem with the Andrew David Ladsky mafia:

Consider David Cameron's claims about human rights and corruption: extracts in the preface of the page summarising my complaints.

He resigned at the end of Jun 16 following the Brexit vote - or, as we say in French: 'Il a filé à l'anglaise'.

Back to list

 

(4)- In July 16, voted in by just over 100 party members, Theresa May, moved from Home Secretary to Prime Minister

Following David Cameron’s resignation, Theresa May became Prime Minister on 13 July 16.

‘Very conveniently’, her then, only ‘challenger’ Andrea Leadsom, resigned minutes before May made her campaign speech – leaving her as the default PM, voted in by just over 100 party members.

(At the general local elections she was elected MP with less than 1% of the votes). Ain’t ‘democracy’ great!

At least, the Jewish lobby is over the moon about her appointment, falling over itself in its congratulations to its 'dear friend', who...

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

 

"Called to ordure - What a carnival of untruths the Tory leadership speeches were", Private Eye, 1422, 8-21 July 16

"Theresa May, having hidden in terror for most of the referendum campaign, claimed she was “tough.""

"If May’s launch was the slickest, that may be because she had been planning it for some time."

"During the referendum campaign she and her minions arguably spent more time plotting than they did promoting the UK’s membership of the EU."

"When May claimed “I don’t gossip about people over lunch”, lobby hacks joked: “No – she gets others to do that for her”."

"Nick Timothy and another former May adviser, Fiona Cunnimgham, were for years the most scurrilous lunchers at Westminster."

"And only days before the referendum, May spent hours lunching Fleet Street hacks."

Because of my horrendous experience with her as then home secretary, I was as incensed with her July 16 speech, as I was with the one she gave at the 2014 party conference.

It had led me to send her a 24 Nov 14 letter highlighting her hypocrisy which, of course, neither her, nor the 19 parties (each, twice) copied on it acknowledged.

The parts of her July 16 speech that incensed me (reported in e.g. The Guardian, 13 July 16, “Theresa May's speech: what she said and what she meant”):

“… a country that works for everyone

The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours."

"We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.”

When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you."

"When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.”

Like The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins wrote in his column on 5 Oct 16, headed “Theresa May has the party's adoration for now. That won't last

"May's constant reference to "everyone ... ordinary people ... working people ... working-class people" bordered on a speechwriter’s tic."

Aida Edemariam of The Guardian, headed her 13 July 16 article, “Theresa May is no liberal – and her rise to PM is no cause for celebration(1) Among other, Ms Edemariam states:

As home secretary she has been zealous in her pursuit of the government’s harshest policies. Why should her premiership be any different?(2)

She refers 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.” (3)

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(4)

Ms Edemariam also refers to the “Go home” vans Theresa May had circulating in London (5)

(1)- I agree with her!

(2)- And she wasted no time continuing to show her true colours e.g.

the government's plan "to force the terminally ill, or with the most severe lifetime conditions, to take part in some "mandatory" activity" - or face losing some of their benefits.

Added to the duplicity about the appointment of the chair for the 'equality watchdog'.

(3)- Under Theresa May, I have been at the receiving end of the Home Office's perverse applications.

(4)- Theresa May also cost me A LOT of money.

(5)- This will have certainly encouraged “xenophobic abuse”.

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top