Email this site to a contact
Another one in the 'Andrew David Ladsky et.al. camp' - which includes colluding with the Parliamentary Ombudsman - to avoid dealing with my complaint against tribunal, courts and their 'complaints departments'
|You are here > MPs - Others > Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Sir malcolm rifkind, M.P. - 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').
(NOTE, above, browser set-up)
Under section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the ISC is tasked with:
"examining the policy, administration and expenditures of the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)"
(See NOTES, at the end of this page)
(B)- Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind resigned in Feb 15 following being caught in an undercover sting operation...
...leaving him nonetheless on course for a peerage.
Channel 4 –Dispatches – Politicians for hire – Sir Malcolm Rifkind
In Jan-Feb 15, in a sting operation by Channel 4 Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph (*), undercover journalists pretending to represent a fictitious Chinese company, filmed Sir Malcolm Rifkind saying:
"he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world because of his status.";
"he would submit questions to ministers on behalf of a paying client without revealing their identity."
"he usually charges “somewhere in the region of £5,000 to £8,000” for half a day’s work" (1)
“I am self-employed – so nobody pays me a salary . I have to earn my income”
"I have a lot of time, I read and walk a lot" (3)
"Straw and Rifkind suspended over 'cash for access' claims", Channel 4, Feb 15
(NB: In relation to my case, when Jack Straw was the 'Justice' minister, he also failed to perform his duty - see the entry, in My Diary 2009).
In an interview with Channel 4, Rifkind said:
"You suggest that I showed myself as 'willing to act as an MP for hire'. That is untrue."
"There was no suggestion that I was being approached as an MP... Their approach to me was because of my previous experience as a minister ... Ambassadors tend to respond not because I am a current MP but because I was foreign secretary 
"The most I could do would be to inquire from them information...which was already in the public domain." (5)
"Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind face 'cash for access' allegations", The Guardian, 22 Feb 15
"Sir Malcolm Rifkind sealed fate shortly after cash-for-access allegations made", The Guardian, 24 Feb 15
"Asked by the BBC if he thought the allegations had any bearing on his role as security committee chairman, Rifkind said: “None whatsoever.”"
"I don’t think I did anything wrong. I may have made errors of judgment but then we all make errors of judgment. We are all human beings in that sense.” (6)
"He declined to apologise for his behaviour, said he was “absolutely livid” with Channel 4 , played down the suspension of the Tory whip and added: “My conscience is entirely clear.” (8)
"Rifkind said he had the right to supplement his MP's salary of £67,000 because he wanted to "have the standard of living that my professional background would normally entitle me to have" (9)
"He announced that he would not contest the election  and he would stand down as chairman of parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC)"
"...there was little political support for Rifkind, who is seen as a loner who spends little time in the Commons chamber after he makes high profile speeches or in the Commons tea room" (11)
(*) For other sting operations / exposures, see My Diary 2009: Peers for cash ; MPs for cash ; Ministers, MPs, MEPs
(1)- "he usually charges “somewhere in the region of £5,000 to £8,000” for half a day’s work"
Depending on who it is, or have his fees gone down? e.g. the below extracts from Private Eye indicate that "he charged LGT £15,000 for four hours' work"
(2)- “I am self-employed – so nobody pays me a salary"
How about the taxpayers from whom he took a £67,000 yearly salary + expenses, etc...
...who will also then pay him a, no doubt, very sizeable pension?
'An unknown benefactor giving him pocket money'? This is absolutely outrageous.
One thing Rifkind sure did not forget was to protect the members of his tribe and its cronies and hangers-on.
(4)- "they approached me because I was a foreign minister"
Of what value is this given that it was 20 years ago (above)?
(5)- If "the information is already in the public domain" - WHY would a company pay to get it?
(6)- "error of judgment" - The gall of these people! They are worms who will wriggle, twist and turn instead of having the guts to admit what they have done e.g. below, # 4, his lies in his 17.06.09 'reply' to me.
They repulse me.
(9)- "he had the right to supplement his MP's salary of £67,000"
Nobody forced him to take the job. If it did not fulfill his sense of 'entitlement': why did he?
(10)- Rifkind said "he would not contest the election" - Oh dear! His 'brothers' in the local police, judiciary and council are losing an ally.
No doubt, only a temporary setback as, while 'the little people' in the borough would most definitely benefit from 'a Ferguson clear-out' among these parties,...
...his replacement will be another one in the same mould, with a unique interpretation of his/her role as an MP (e.g. his predecessors: Michael Howard and Michael Portillo).
Following my writing this, the borough was split between:
- Chelsea and Fulham, held by Greg Hands, Conservative, and
(11)- "Rifkind, seen as a loner who spends little time in the Commons chamber after he makes high profile speeches"
In my 19.10.09 letter to Rifkind, under # 5, below, I quoted the 2007 and 2008 comments (subsequently removed from the site ' They work for you') from one of my fellow constituents:
“…Rifkind has never represented my constituency for anything since I have been watching him.
He is a deadbeat useless blood-sucker who is usurping his position as MP”. “I am not sure who Malcolm Rifkind speaks for…and I don’t believe he represents me or any of my countrymen… he’s rarely spoken about Kensington & Chelsea affairs…”.
And followed this by stating:
“I share this constituent’s view about your not representing Kensington & Chelsea. In fact, judging from your occasional comment in the House of Commons, and press articles, your main interest appears to be foreign policy – in spite of the fact that you last held a role in this area in the mid 90s."
Note also below, in the entry under 'Other media', in 2010, a LibDem candidate questioning Rifkind's commitment to the constituency.
Private Eye, 1402 – 2-15 Oct 15, pg 12
"Happy days are here again for Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind [who] are back on course for peerages thanks to Jack’s oldest friend in the Commons, MP Sir Kevin Barron, Chairman of the standards and privileges committee, aka the double standards committee.
Barron and Kathryn Hudson, parliamentary commissioner, who has not upheld any complaint against an MP since she began her job in 2013, have produced a report absolving both, Straw and Rifkind.
By happy coincidence, Rifkind sat on the interviewing panel that offered Ms. Hudson her £120,000 do-nothing-job."
The Eye had fun with this: same issue, pages 25 and 29.
(C) - Official role of a Member of Parliament (MP)
The Factsheet M1 – 2008 ' You and your MP', on the Parliament's website (www.parliament.uk) (at 16 Mar 09), states, among other:
“If your problem is a matter for which Parliament or central government is responsible…then you should contact your Member of Parliament...
How does your MP deal with your problems?
…there is a number of methods available to try to resolve the matter:
- A letter from your MP to the relevant department or official will often provide a solution
- Your MP may decide to take matters a stage further by writing to the Ministry involved
- Your MP may make an appointment to see the Minister personally
…not all problems have an easy solution. The Minister may not be able to give the answer you wanted to hear, but if the decision has been made in the right way, there may be little that can be done…
...If some essential procedure has been missed out i.e. if there has been maladministration, your MP may be able to take your case to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (also called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration).
The Ombudsman is sometimes able to resolve such cases where there has been administrative incompetence but can only be approached via your MP, you cannot approach the Ombudsman directly.
All of the methods discussed so far allow problems to be kept confidential...
...If you are not satisfied with the treatment received: 1. make a complaint to the local party association / write to the party’s headquarters...
While I most definitely had cause to contact Sir Malcolm Rifkind and ask for his help in my 07.03.09 'cry for help' (# 1 below) (Case summary ; Résumé de mon cas)...
- my experience with his predecessor, Michael Portillo (who, on 3 occasions, told me to, in effect: 'Get lost!') (= a typical outcome), had led me to conclude that it would be yet, another waste of time.
However, considering the public outrage following exposure by the media of the conduct of some peers and MPs, I thought that, second time round, I 'might' get a better response i.e. that Rifkind might actually perform his role as described above. In my dreams!
'Perhaps' Rifkind could not deal with my 'cry for help', because he was 'too busy' with an international tour of talks (Notes, below), and / or talking to British ambassadors across the world to find information on behalf of fee-paying companies (above)?
It is abundantly clear from my experience (and, it would appear, that of some fellow constituents) - that Rifkind's claim:
IN FACT, not only has Rifkind, as discussed on this page, colluded against me
(see e.g. # 2, below, my 24.03.09 letter to Rifkind ; # 5, below, re. my 19.10.09 letter to him, etc.!) - in the light of his (then) profile and role:
- (3)- THE FACT that this is taking place with the absolutely undeniable approval of: the Met Commissioners of the day ; the Home Secretaries of the day ; the Foreign Secretaries of the day - and endorsed by some of the judiciaries (My Diary # 6)...
...I cannot help feeling that HM's Sir Malcolm Rifkind is, in some way, also party to the 'retribution' and criminal psychological harassment I have - and continue and be subjected to.
No wonder the 'law enforcers' in his patch (while he has been the local MP):
- behave as they do!...
...and leads them (like Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers) to laugh their head off at me.
I sent this 07.03.09 'cry for help' to Rifkind - stating my objectives as:
"As my MP, I would like to meet with you to discuss how you will help me – a law-abiding, British taxpayer (who has so far paid an estimated £500,000 in tax in this country):
1. Get the police and the Court Service perform as per their mandate, ensuring that the perpetrators of criminal acts against me are brought to justice as, to date, by aiding and abetting their c. £500,000 fraud –and concurrent fear tactics - both have demonstrated that they perceive themselves to be at their service, at the exclusion of mine.
2. Get redress for the horrendous and very traumatic treatment, as well as financial loss I have suffered at the hands of West London County Court over a period of three years (20 months + 16 months).
3. Get redress from Kensington & Chelsea police for treating me as though I am a criminal, instead of what I am: the victim of crime - and, in the process, using intimidation and harassment tactics, as well as making racist, xenophobic comments against me.
4. Determine why I am under surveillance by the police – and put an end to it. (*)
5. Get redress from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) for the traumatic treatment and financial loss it has caused me to suffer by failing to perform its remit.
My overall objective is to be reinstated to the position I was in when I received the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand in July 2002, and ‘dared’ to ask - what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question to ask: “What are you going to spend my £14,400 on?” - and leave this country, as it is no longer the country I decided to make my home and committed to by taking the British nationality".
(*) At the time, I did not know that Rifkind was Chair of the Intelligence and Security Service Intelligence Committee (above). I contend that his failure to help me adds further to the damning evidence against him on this page.
For this purpose, I related my experience in some detail since 2002, in particular with West London Country Court in 2002-04 (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me ; further detail under Lord Falconer),...
... and in 2007-08 (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me),...
... as well as with Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police...
... - ALL located in my borough i.e. in Rifkind's then constituency.
I also related events with the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - a key party in my horrendous, and extremely traumatic experience.
In reply to Rifkind's 11.03.09 letter (above), in my 24.03.09 letter, I wrote:
“Considering (1) the content of my letter; (2) the fact that you state in your opening paragraph that you have “carefully read” my “detailed letter”; (3) the role of an MP vis-à-vis his Constituents - I find your comments extremely shocking”.
I emphasised that the nature of my complaint most definitely met the criteria for asking Rifkind's assistance, by:
quoting from the House of Commons Factsheet M1 - 2008 'You and your MP'
providing the dictionary definition of 'maladministration': “Manage or administer badly or dishonestly”
quoting from the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHSO) Annual report 2007-08;
(1)- the booklets: the General Principles ; the Principles of: 'Good Administration', 'Complaint handling' and 'Remedy';
(2)- the fact that, as detailed in the 2007-08 report, the PHSO dealt with, among others: "152 complaints against HM Court Service; 100 complaints against the Tribunals service; 25 complaints against the Ministry of Justice" (more detail under PHSO # 1).
I then stated:
"I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would agree with me that what I related in my letter to you of 7 March 2009, demonstrates, at the overall level, serious breach of mandate and concurrent gross breach of trust by “central government departments”, and at the lower level, a catalogue of, at best, very serious “maladministration”...
... – justifying your referring the detail of my case in relation to the tribunal and the courts to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for the purpose of redress – as well as for ensuring that appropriate action is taken against the various individuals to prevent them from inflicting the same treatment on others.
In relation to ensuring that, when dealing with my case, the Court Service and the police perform as per their stated mandate – to raise this with the respective ministers, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, MP, Justice Secretary and the Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith, Home Office Minister [NB: Should have said; 'Secretary of State'].
And, in the case of obtaining redress from the police, to also raise this with Mrs Smith – as my experience with the Police Complaints Authority makes it abundantly clear that, currently, I do not stand a chance"
(NB: Needless to say that I was proven right! In addition to the police's Directorate of 'Professional Standards', see a summary of the links under My Dairy # 6 - that also include Queen's Bench judiciaries). (And of course: ditto re. the Ministry of (In)Justice, etc, etc.
You name it: it's always the same outcome: 'Get lost!'. The only time they - sort of - acknowledge me is to get tax from me to pay for their salary, expenses, pension pot, etc.).
I followed this by providing more detail than in my 07.03.09 letter (resulting in a 30-page letter) stating: "Hence, this letter can be passed on ‘as is’ to the relevant parties"
In the conclusions I asked:
"What gives Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides the right to control the authorities by getting them to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities?
As a British taxpayer (who has so far paid c. £500,000 in tax in this country) - and victim of their criminal actions – I have the right to know"
(In light of Rifkind's (then) role as an 'MP'), I also highlighted, among others:
"The Government has set up a helpline to help people report loan sharks who swindle them out of several hundred Pounds (e.g. Guardian article of 3 Mar 09 "Loan shark helpline targets illegal lenders") – and the police and the courts take action against the perpetrators.
By contrast, it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to a landlord and his aides who swindle people to the tune of c. £500,000 – thereby helping them do it. (And I know of many other leaseholders in other blocks who have a similar story to tell). Why the two-tier system?"
(NB: Since then, there has been the case of individuals doing far less than what the Ladsky mafia has done - and continues to do - ending up with prison sentences of up to 32 months - Advisors # 11)
The 'You and your MP' factsheet states that correspondence from a constituent to his / her MP is "confidential".
As I relate in the postscript to my 24.03.09 letter, on 12th March - which was 48 hours after my 07.03.09 letter was delivered to Rifkind's (then) Constituency Office - to make sure I heard him, Andrew Ladsky stood outside my windows expressing disbelief to somebody at the fact that I had contacted Rifkind.
I wrote that I assumed the source to be one of the parties covered in my letter Rifkind was likely to have approached, and that it certainly provides additional weight to my conclusion of collusion with Ladsky.
In the light of subsequent events, I have changed my mind, and explain what took place with: 'the wonders of the 'Brotherhood'.
I assume that Ladsky's intention was to further reinforce 'the message' that he is so well connected, and hence protected (e.g. comment from DC Adams, Kensington police on 27 Mar 02 "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky"), that no matter who I approach - no action will ever be taken against him.
It has certainly proved to be the case: his getting all manner of support from the British state (including in the implementation of the criminal psychological harassment regime against me), as well as protection = evidently controlling everybody -including Her Majesty The Queen.
In the postscript to my 24.03.09 letter, I also reported:
"For several days afterwards I was subjected to further persecution: no hot water, added to having no heating from the day after the electricity was cut-off in my flat on 8 March 2009.
On 16 March 2009, I saw Mr Ladsky by the entrance to the block (talking to a woman with a pram) and called him “a criminal” and “a thief” who “stole c. £500,000 from the leaseholders to build a penthouse flat and add three other flats to the block”.
His usual reply was “You are mad”.
Mine, that he was the one who is “clinically unwell” (his comment about me in his 26 March 2007 letter to KPMG). He told me to “Go f*** yourself”. I returned the ‘compliment’"
The following day i.e. 13 Mar 09, at 00h25 a.m. a man urinated in the area in front of my windows. (Detail in My Diary 15 Jun 09)
(The next 'event', 3 months later, was a Death threat on 15 Jun 09:
"Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live"
= That's what happens to you in this 'island-Kingdom of Make Believe' if you 'dare' bother your 'MP' with an 'inconvenient' complaint)
(NB: Another death threat, this time, implied, was added on 14 Jun 14).
The 23.04.09 'reply' from Rifkind to my (above) 24.03.09 letter was a continuation of what amounted to: ‘Get lost! I am not going to help you put my friends / tribe members in the dock’ - as he wrote:
“Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in the decisions that have been taken by courts of law". (1)
"If a member of the public feels they have been wrongly treated, then they have the right to appeal to a higher level of court and that is something you must discuss with your legal advisers." (2)
If you feel you have already done that, or are unable to do so [!!! (2)], then I am afraid there is no further action that can be taken”
"[I had] repeated [my] concerns in [my] 24 March letter” (3)
(1) = Deliberately failing to note the content of my complaint = the 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (header 2).
(2) 'Get legal advice' = back again to Rifkind using one of the British Establishment's favourite 'Get lost!' tactic (other examples) - while hoping that 'the Proles' do not have the money to do this.
(3) I highlighted this in my 19.10.09 letter to him, stating: "Yes, because you forced me to do this by being deliberately blinkered and continuing to push me away. (In the process, you cost me many more hours of my time, as well as other costs)"
I replied on 08.05.09 “Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?”
“You state in your letter “Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in the decisions that have been taken by courts of law”. I am not expecting you to do this. If some items of my complaint are viewed as such (I would like the Parliamentary Ombudsman to make this decision), the majority most definitely come under maladministration”.
Drawing from my 24.03.09 letter, I then quoted numerous examples.
As I wrote in my 19.10.09 letter:
"Evidently, you – and clearly: ‘et.al.’ - did not like my reply as, one month later, ‘you’ still had not responded".
The lack of response led me to send a 08.06.09 chaser letter headed “Why the silence?” - asking Rifkind to respond to my (above) 08.05.09 letter.
Also of note: in his 23.04.09 letter (referred to above), Rifkind wrote:
“if you have not made any complaint directly to the police or the IPCC, then I would be happy to forward the papers on your behalf”
As Rifkind maintained his silence since my above 08.05.09 letter - in spite of my (above) chaser letter of 08.06.09 (another typical psychological harassment tactic) - I opted to contact the Parliamentary Ombudsman, by sending this 15.06.09 letter (PHSO # 2.1)...
...- using as my header, a quote from his Party Leader, David Cameron: “I, “the Powerless”, am opting “To take the power from the powerful” (*) …and stating:
“I am going over the head of my Tory MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, as he has evidently decided that you should not consider my complaint against the Court Service and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal”.
(*) On 26 May 09, in the televised part of one of his speeches, David Cameron, then Tory Leader (in Opposition), said: “Voters are furious… Attitudes have to change big time. Politicians have to change”
“There needs to be a massive redistribution of power – from the powerful to the powerless" (NB: A precursor to his 'pull the wool over of the eyes' of 'the Proles' speeches).
By letter of 15.06.09, I copied Rifkind on my above letter to the Ombudsman, stating, among other:
"You appear to be in the habit of blocking the 'little people' from getting redress from Government departments e.g. from The Sunday Times, 31 May 2009 ["MI6 tempts rebel ex-spy back home"] “In 1995…when Malcolm Rifkind was then Foreign Secretary, [he] ruled that [Richard Tomlinson’s] case (who had been “sacked by MI6 without explanation”) could not be heard at an industrial tribunal. Tomlinson was stung by the apparent injustice”
Also by letter of 15.06.09, I copied David Cameron, asking him to liaise with Rifkind to ensure the necessary steps were taken to refer my complaint.
With my 15.06.09 letter, I copied the PHSO on both letters.
The 17.06.09 'reply' from Rifkind's Office to my above letters was:
"Sir Rifkind has not refused to take your issue to the Parliamentary Ombudsman because he believed you had already done so." [Unbelievable!]
In your letter of 7th March you quoted your dissatisfaction of endless battles with the "regulators, watchdogs/ombudsmen, other government departments".
"If you have not pursued this matter with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and still wish to do so, I enclose the relevant form..." [Unbelievable!]
Contrast this 'reply' against:
- (1)- my 08.05.09 letter (above): “Why are you refusing to refer my complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?”;
- (2)- the fact that, 5 weeks later, in spite of a chaser letter of 08.06.09 (above), after 4 weeks of waiting - I had not received a reply;
- (3)- as I pointed out when I phoned Rifkind's Office (following a message being left on my mobile on 17 May):
- (iv)- have I ever contacted him? No!
This 'reply' from Rifkind is typical of the English Establishment: using lies as part of its 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2) = in my world: extremely repulsive.
As I wrote in my 19.10.09 letter to Rifkind:
"As to ‘your’ shameless excuse: it is fascinating to note that, when I inform you, my MP, that my complaints against various parties – including against some: in your patch, under your watch - have resulted in my having to engage in endless battles with regulators, watchdogs/ombudsmen and other government departments – all with the outcome that amounts to a ‘get lost’ – it is of no interest to you. How do you explain that?"
... - led me to immediately note the last sentence in Rifkind's letter of 17.06.09:
"The Ombudsman will also need confirmation that you have followed the appropriate formal complaints procedures"
- and conclude that an attempt would be made by the PHSO to use this as an excuse to reject my complaint. No points for guessing that I proven right!
Subsequent events led me to, among others, ask him why he was colluding against me, and turning a blind eye to the evidence - as well as contact his Party Leader, David Cameron - leading to, of course: another 'Get lost!'.
...he replied on 03.07.09:
"I will of course forward this to Ms Abrahams as soon as I have it to hand"
On Monday 13 July 09, I hand-delivered to:
(1)- Rifkind's (then) Office at the House of Commons:
- (3)- a 390-page bundle of 164 supporting documents - with a 4-page index;
(2)- The PHSO: a 13.07.09 letter informing the Ombudsman of the delivery of my complaint and bundle to Rifkind - and enclosing a copy of my reply to Q5 "What are you complaining about?" stating: "in case Sir Rifkind wishes to keep the copy I am supplying him with".
(See from PHSO # 2.3 for subsequent events in relation to my complaint which, typically, continued in the same vein - and, equally typically, resulted - one year later, in a 'Get lost!' - by changing tack).
I wrote other letters to Rifkind - no doubt, satisfying further his et.al. in 'the Brotherhood' sadistic needs.
As discussed under PHSO # 2.4, (and already referred to above: 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th) - I sent Rifkind a 19.10.09 letter - headed:
"Considering that you are my Member of Parliament: why are you colluding with the parties from which I have and continue to suffer wrongdoings - and by extension with Andrew Ladsky et.al.?"
In support of my header, I summarised my experience with Rifkind since my original letter of 07.03.09; gave examples of what other MPs had / were doing for their constituents, and stated:
“and I look at your claim under //accessible.malcolmrifkind.org.uk “I am the Member of Parliament for Kensington & Chelsea…I… will do all I can to help you as a constituent with any problem”… (*)
...and I ask myself: Why, in the face of ‘my mountain’ of ‘black on white’ evidence of unbelievable injustice, of being subjected to the most horrendous, vicious, perverse, barbaric treatment
– a very significant part of which is attributable to three government departments located in your constituency: West London County Court, Kensington & Chelsea police (and Kensington & Chelsea housing),
departments that have the mandate to protect me and help me get justice and redress from my attackers – not collude with them – you are not assisting me?”
(*) A pledge Rifkind had made in his 5 Mar 05 pre-election letter. (See Michael Howard)
I followed this by:
”In fact, as evidenced by events since my 7 March 2009 letter, not only are you not coming to my assistance, you are actually acting against me. Why? Very tellingly, you have not even offered to meet with me.
(NB: I started my (above) 07.03.09 letter to Rifkind with: "As my MP, I would like to meet with you to discuss how you can help me...").
"The whole world can see from the ‘black on white’ evidence that I am the innocent victim of crime. How come you can’t see that or, more appropriately: why are you turning a blind eye to it?
Why are you, by implication, endorsing my being punished and persecuted [mental torture] for ‘daring’ to challenge a crook and his aides unlawfully deciding that I (and my fellow leaseholders) should pay for the construction of a penthouse flat and addition of three other flats to Jefferson House, as well as related costs [Evidence of theft] – so that this vermin [*] could realise a multi-million Pound jackpot?
(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)
Why are you opting to assist the insane, highly vicious vendetta against me?
I have done NOTHING wrong. I AM THE VICTIM, NOT the criminal. Your ‘friends and protégé’ don’t like having a mirror held to their face – because it reflects their incompetence, maladministration, malpractice, collusion, deceit, corruption and fraud. Whose fault is it?... “
I followed this by repeating what I wrote in my previous letters to Rifkind, demonstrating amply that I am the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime who, among others, in Dec 03, had attempted to put an end to this horrendous, life-destroying nightmare by accepting - and paying an "offer", I did NOT legally owe (Overview # 3).
I then stated:
“In May 2007, one of my fellow constituents wrote on the site www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/malcolm_rifkind/kensington_and_chelsea#numbers:
“…Rifkind has never represented my constituency for anything since I have been watching him.
He is a deadbeat useless blood-sucker who is usurping his position as MP”, while in March 2008, he wrote “I am not sure who Malcolm Rifkind speaks for…and I don’t believe he represents me or any of my countrymen… he’s rarely spoken about Kensington & Chelsea affairs…”.
(NB: Surprise, surprise: these remarks were subsequently removed from the site).
And followed this by:
“I share this constituent’s view about your not representing Kensington & Chelsea. In fact, judging from your occasional comment in the House of Commons, and press articles, your main interest appears to be foreign policy – in spite of the fact that you last held a role in this area in the mid 90s.
As to your interest in particular constituents, any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity would, I am sure, agree with me that, based on my experience with you: it is highly biased and prejudiced.
On pages 4 and 5 of my 27 August 2009 reply to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and page 20 of my 20 September 2009 response to the Police Public Access Office, I listed several factors in support of my conclusion as to why I have and continue to suffer prejudice and bias from, among others, public sector departments in your constituency. I hold the view that they equally apply in your case”.
The 23.10.09 'reply' from Rifkind's (then) Office was:
“I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 19th October addressed to Sir Malcolm.
Your case is now with the Ombudsman and we will have to await her decision.
I had copied David Cameron on my (above) 19.10.09 letter - and received this 26.10.09 reply:
"... as you may be aware, there is a convention in the House of Commons which prevents Members of Parliament from acting on behalf of other MPs' constituents.
As a result, I am afraid David Cameron is unable to intervene personally on your behalf"
Note what Parliament states in its Factsheet M1 – 2008 ' You and your MP' (above, in the introduction):
"...If you are not satisfied with treatment received: 1. make a complaint to the local party association / write to the party’s headquarters..."
= Another blatant 'Get lost!' - and example of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2).
I headed my 07.11.09 letter to Rifkind with: “Since when has Andrew Ladsky been ‘ruler of Kensington & Chelsea?” stating:
“Considering what I wrote in my letter (let alone in my previous correspondence), I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person with integrity looking at the evidence would understand why it leads me to the conclusion that, like the local police, council and court, you appear to also answer to Andrew Ladsky. I wonder why.
When was he elected ‘Ruler of Kensington & Chelsea’? By whom?
When and how was he - and concurrently his aides that he “instructed” and continues to “instruct” - given the right to operate above the laws of the land e.g.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Theft Act 1968 / Theft Amendment Act 1996 ; Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ; Courts and Legal Services Act ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994, [See extracts from the Acts] etc…
…as well as the Civil Procedure Rules e.g. repeated contempt of court [NB: WLCC in 2002-04 and in 2007-08] and tribunal, incl. false statements of truth, false claims in expert witness reports, etc.– and hence, given the right to – repeatedly - treat Her Majesty’s Court Service with absolute, utter contempt?
As a member of Her Majesty’s Parliament, and a ‘Sir’ [NB: I forgot to say ‘and a Queen’s Counsel’], how do you explain that, in your constituency of Kensington & Chelsea – under your watch - Andrew Ladsky and his aides are allowed to use Her Majesty’s public sector departments for their fraudulent aims – and thereby treat these departments with absolute, utter contempt?
Is Ladsky more important than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second? Should I therefore bin my Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty?
In the conclusions to my first letter to you of 7 March 2009 I asked “What gives Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides the right to control the authorities by getting them to deny me my rights - thereby helping them with their fraudulent activities?
As a British taxpayer (who has so far paid c. £500,000 in tax in this country) - and victim of their criminal actions – I have the right to know.
To be the victim of crime is one thing. (There are criminals everywhere). But to be victimized and persecuted by State departments with the mandate to ensure my rights for justice, redress and protection (which, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to expect), and see these departments side against me with the perpetrators - is absolutely outrageous”
"...If only I could have received a tenth of the support and devotion Andrew Ladsky and his aides have – and continue - to receive from ‘the system’.
"Evidently, in spite of the endless number of lifelines I have thrown in an attempt to resolve my situation – instead of meeting my objectives - the course is set on fighting me until I have somehow been annihilated – in the process continuing to waste a vast amount of taxpayer money.
(How much taxpayer money has so far been wasted to scheme me against me (incl. with non-public sector parties), planning and implementing the highly vicious, perverse vendetta against me, developing and coordinating the replies to my correspondence, monitoring me, etc.? It must be an astronomical amount)”
In the concluding paragraph of my letter I wrote:
“As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation?...”
The 10.11.09 'reply' from Rifkind's (then) Office was:
“I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm.
(1 of 4) - Under fire by the Lib Dems
In 2009, I was a member of the Liberal Democrats.
In Nov-Dec 09, in the local LibDems' newsletter, the then Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Kensington quoted Rifkind:
“It is vital that the link between people and their representatives be straightened and restored”,
“Perhaps Sir Malcolm would care to use his next column to elaborate on quite how he does that in Kensington & Chelsea?
No-one I have spoken to can tell me. There is a tradition in the UK of holding advice surgeries so that local people can ask for help. Sir Malcolm’s website has no surgery times”.
(NB: The newsletter reported the outcome of one my fellow constituents attempting to set a meeting with Rifkind, and apparently, getting: “an automated message response “Thank you for contacting me””)
(2 of 4)- Rifkind turning a blind eye to the illegal spying activities of GCHQ...et.al?
(3 of 4)- Rifkind - et.al. - cover up of the British state's outrageous part in renditions
At least three rendition cases have been reported on by the media - relating to:
- Mr Binyam Mohamed;
- Abdel Hakim Belhaj;
- Sarni al Saadi
Following the Dec 14 publication of the US Senate's report on Rendition, the media reported some of Her Majesty's Sir Malcolm Rifkind's claims which, if the subject matter was not so horrific, would be risible - and also include some other notable quotes from politicians e.g.
"UK torture inquiry could summon Blair and Straw", (1) The Guardian, 14 Dec 14
"Sir Malcolm Rifkind...said...he would investigate “without fear or favour”  regardless of whether it might embarrass the security services, ministers or Whitehall." (3)
"Critics fear that the ISC is compromised by the facts that it is largely composed of establishment figures, that its meetings are mainly conducted in secret and that its reports are subject to redactions by the government... " (4)
"Alan Johnson, the Labour former home secretary , said he had found “no evidence of British agents being involved” in torture or rendition during his time in government..."
"David Cameron has said the UK has dealt with the issue of complicity in torture and the problems date back more than a decade  to the period just after 9/11 during Blair’s second term as prime minister."
"Rendition inquiry finds questions about UK involvement remain unanswered", The Guardian, 19 Dec 14
"When David Cameron announced the establishment of the inquiry, a few weeks after the coalition government was formed, he told MPs: "I do not think for a moment that we should believe that the ISC should be doing this piece of work.
For public confidence, and for independence from parliament, party and government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry." (7)
"Today, however, the ISC chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, insists that such criticisms are outdated, and that his committee now had the powers, the staff and the will to conduct thorough and effective investigations." (8)
"The committee is already undertaking wide-ranging inquiries into mass surveillance, as well as its annual reports into the UK's intelligence community." (9)
Other article: "Come clean on British links to CIA torture, MPs tell US Senate", The Guardian, 14 Dec 14 - that reports that:
"...confirmation that references to Britain’s intelligence agencies were deleted at their request from the document, and that UK government representatives had 24 meetings with members of the US committee responsible for the findings."
(1)- "Tony Blair and Jack Straw" - Predictably, they (as well as Mark Allen) escaped facing charges - see below # 3(A).
(2) - "he would investigate “without fear or favour” - The name used by the police for its masonic lodge.
(3) - "regardless of whether it might embarrass the security services, ministers or Whitehall"
Really? So, based on my experience with him (e.g. # 1 and # 5, above): was it only the police and the judiciary that Rifkind was 'concerned' to "embarrass"?
Er...actually, no: when he was Foreign Secretary, he was also evidently 'concerned' about "embarrassing"... yep! MI6, "the security services"!...
leading me to state in my 15.06.09 letter to him: "You appear to be in the habit of blocking the 'little people' from getting redress from Government departments" (# 4, above)
Oh! And it continued! See below # 3(A).
(4) - "Critics fear that the ISC is compromised by the facts that it is largely composed of establishment figures,..."
I do not know about the membership of the Committee. However, for me, as a result of my experience with Rifkind: it is "compromised" by his presence.
(5) - "Alan Johnson...had found “no evidence of British agents being involved” in torture or rendition during his time in government..."
Of course, he would say that, as Labour was in government at the time = the typical closing of ranks. Subsequently proven by the others that he lied: see below # 3(A).
Further, as I report under his entry (Home Office # 2), based on my experience, like ALL the others in 'the Brotherhood', Johnson suffers from extreme blindness to the evidence and amnesia about the rule of law.
(6) - David Cameron said the UK has dealt with the issue of complicity in torture and the problems date back more than a decade"
No, it had not "dealt with the issue" - see below # 3(A).
'That was in the past!' A favourite excuse from the then PM Cameron (and many others) who, in 2014, also classified events up to 2013 re. the Rotherham scandal as "past failures".
I am surprised the other old favourite: "Lessons have been / must be learnt" has not been included. It will come!
(7) - "David Cameron..."I do not think...we should believe that the ISC should be doing this piece of work...it is right to have a judge-led inquiry."
I originally wrote: Well done Guardian! Let's see what happens...although, looking at previous judge-led enquiries..
By 2016, a typical cover up exercise came to light 'courtesy' of the Crown Prosecution Service - see below # 3(A).
(8) - "Sir Malcolm Rifkind, insists that such criticisms are outdated,... has the will to conduct thorough and effective investigations."
I repeat my Comments from # 1 to # 3, above.
(9) - "The committee is already undertaking wide-ranging inquiries into mass surveillance, as well as its annual reports into the UK's intelligence community."
In the light of what I reported in my 07.03.09 'cry for help' to Rifkind (# 1, above) - and his 'response', as detailed on this page = another guaranteed whitewash.
"Torture casts a ghastly shadow over our country’s reputation", The Telegraph, 11 Apr 12
“Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States,...
there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop.”
"Tony Blair insisted that Britain had never engaged in rendition."
"....we now learned that none other than Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, wrote to Tony Blair to protest these abductions and chucked several MI6 staff out of Thames House."
"The government will not release her letter. Responding to a question in parliament last week, Theresa May [then home secretary] simply refused to comment."
"Ml6 gets off scot-free over rendition of suspected Islamists to Libya", The Guardian, 9 June 16
"Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sarni al-Saadi were enemies of Muammar Gaddafi delivered to Tripoli, courtesy of Ml6 and the CIA, in 2004 when Tony Blair's government was cuddling up to the Libyan dictator."
"Clear evidence of British involvement in the rendition of Belhaj, Saadi and their families to Tripoli's jails...was spelled out in a letter from Sir Mark Allen, then head of Ml6 counter-terrorism operations, to Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's intelligence chief, written in March 2004."
"In it, Allen trumpeted Ml6's role in the operation. The letter was found among documents in Moussa's office destroyed by Nato bombs."
"After the Allen letter came to light, Blair said he had "no recollection at all" of the Libyan rendition."
"After the Allen letter emerged, Straw said: "No foreign secretary can know all the details of what its intelligence agencies are doing at any one time."
"CPS says there is insufficient evidence to charge Sir Mark Allen over 2004 abduction of former dissidents and families", The Guardian, 9 Jun 16.
"The CPS had confirmed that it did not believe there were grounds for launching legal action against “the suspect” described only as a public official" (1)
"Sue Hemming, the head of the CPS’s special crime and counter-terrorism division, said: “Following a thorough investigation, the CPS has decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence..." (2)
"There had been speculation that the former foreign secretary Jack Straw could face charges. That prospect now seems to have disappeared." (3)
From "Libya renditions should put UK spies firmly under the spotlight", The Guardian, 21 jun 16 - An article by Cori Crider who "heads the abuses-in-counterterrorism team at Reprieve..."
"...the Crown Prosecution Service said that a 28,000-page dossier from the police is “insufficient evidence” to charge the British official most involved – MI6’s former director of counterterrorism, Sir Mark Allen."
"While my clients were being tortured in Libya, Allen [now Sir Mark Allen!] moved from MI6 to oil firm BP, which went on to win lucrative contracts after Tony Blair’s deal in the desert with Gaddafi."
"Rendition victims challenge decision not to prosecute MI6 officer", The Guardian, 11 Sep 16
"Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Fatima Bouchar seek review of CPS finding that there is insufficient evidence to charge Mark Allen"
"[Their] lawyers...denounced the CPS' decision as "see no evil, hear no evil"..."
(1)- Refers to 'Sir' Mark Allen = wiping his name out of the National Archives
(2)- Unbelievable...but to be expected from the Crown Prosecution Service: focus on protecting the members of its tribe.
(3)- Surprise, surprise that Jack Straw escapes charges.
(4 of 4)- Rifkind cashing in on the conference circuit
Private Eye, # 1346, 9-22 Aug 13 (pg 10)
"Senior Tory MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chair of the Commons intelligence committee and a leading member of his party's "one nation" wing, has earned £15,000 from a Liechtenstein bank deeply involved in a massive tax evasion scandal"
"In the latest register of MPs' interests, Sir Malcolm Rifkind reveals he was paid the money for four hours' work speaking at a private Alternative Investment Conference in Lucerne, Switzerland, organized by LGT Bank..."
"In 2008 Germany's equivalent of MI6, the BND, paid a former LGT Bank employee Euros 4m for a CD containing details of the bank's clients...[which] enabled German customs to "persuade" some of those named to pay at least Euros 50m they had kept back in illegal tax evasions."
"As a US senate committee put it, LGT helped foster a "culture of secrecy and deception" in Liechtenstein.
That Sir Malcolm, a prominent "wet" Tory, is happy to take cash from such a bank suggests that Conservative claims to be "tough" on the financial sector may just be for show."
Back to top