THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

Alive in London outside the Houses of Parliament demonstrators were gathering against Donald Trump being given a state visit to the United Kingdom. Yet, it appears, that there were a number of people throughout the country that had the belief that people had nothing better to do with their time, and that they should get over themselves, and that fools rush in.

It looks like he’s coming whether we disagree or not. Nevertheless, it appears that some people want to tackle the issue, even if they have to challenge the government and rally, and those objectors can stir up a commotion, but it does not indicate they will get what they want, in fact, they most probably will not.

Numerous people are stating that we should be opposing something worthy because the appearance of Donald Trump will come to pass. Whether it will be a significant visit will only be told in time. I do think it will be a rather intoxicating stay and highly ineffective.

Just how will his administration influence the United Kingdom?

His mother was born in Scotland and he’s a self-confessed Anglophile. However, will a man whose main confrontation with British politicians has been to label former Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond mad in a fight over his golf courses be great news or a tragedy for Britain?

With investigation from the UK think-tank Policy Exchange, here are four ways he’s expected to have a tremendous influence:

 

Brexit and the EU. Time was Donald Trump was blithely ignorant of the most important transformation in British politics, or at least its sobriquet. In a conversation with Michael Wolff for The Hollywood Reporter last year, Donald Trump was confused.

Michael Wolff: “And Brexit? Your position?”

Donald Trump: “Huh?”

Michael Wolff: “Brexit.”

Donald Trump: “Hmm.”

However, promptly enough, following the seismic UK vote, Trump had chosen the sobriquet as his own:

They will soon be calling me MR. BREXIT.

However, when he was President-Elect he celebrated Britain as smart for opting out of the European Union, a coalition that he sees as being on the verge of destruction. Donald Trump stated that he thought others would leave. Furthermore, he considered keeping it together is not going to be as easy as a lot of people believe.

And the reason? Look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Fundamentally a channel for Germany. That’s why he imagined the United Kingdom was so clever in getting out.

The UK Government could hugely profit from the support that the Trump administration will yield to Brexit. The new President’s view changes the former US situation in Europe. This was generally to help European political unification and to assume that Britain should be involved, not least to support to defend US State Department policy goals in Europe.

Part of the UK’s mission post-Brexit will be to show that the United Kingdom is not escaping into a less liberal road to economics and trade.

A vital part of the UK Government critique of EU strategy, even whilst it was an active member of the EU, was the EU’s deficit of interest for a more liberal international multilateral trade management and the barrier posed by the subsidised and protectionist Common Agricultural Policy approach to agriculture and its comparatively high common external tariff.

As trading associates, the bond within the United Kingdom and the United States are important.

The latest Office for National Statistics report reveals the United States is the United Kingdom’s biggest trading associate and second-largest import associate.

By exporting about £30 billion worth of goods and services to the United States each year, comparable to what we sell to Germany and much more than what is sent to China, it’s self-evident that the United States is important.

Furthermore, the initial indications, for the United Kingdom, are positive. Donald Trump’s initial post-election discussion with the UK media established much of what we were given to understand, Donald Trump appears keen to do a deal with the United Kingdom.

Questioned whether he would push forward with a trade deal with the United Kingdom that would come into force following Brexit, Donald Trump announced, certainly, quite soon.

That he’s a great fan of the United Kingdom, and that both are going to strive really arduously to get it done swiftly and done correctly, which is great for both sides. Although it might be too quick to pop the champagne stoppers. After all, this was the guy who swept to power on the back of the pledge to make America great again and whose trade policy is clearly America first.

Donald Trump is a highly prosperous guy and really convincing. He has had a huge influence over the American people, he must have, they voted for him, even though they are complaining about him now he’s got in. Maybe they never believed that he would, but then the American’s like to live the fairytale life, so now Donald Trump is going to be a legend since they made him so.

He’s going to be a trademark of their existence, whether they like it or not, and sometimes you should be cautious what you wish for because even though you may be awarded that wish, it’s not always so pleasant on the other side of the spectrum.

Donald Trump, still, might shock us all, and eventually make America and the United Kingdom great, but somehow I doubt it. He will surrender office by that time because he would have brought it to its knees.

He might be a clever entrepreneur, but he’s not a warrior, and when the going gets tough he will willingly surrender his ownership of President of the United States and hand it over to somebody who is better equipped to the do the job.

Sometimes there are just too many cooks and not enough chefs. It only takes just one person to see the evil in this world, just one person to turn it around. Not for money, not for fame, but solely because they want a better place to live in.

Here out on the streets, everything is plausible. The streets might not be tiled with gold, but you can accomplish your goals if you want to, and it’s the force and energy that transport us there. We observe people out on the streets, either working to make a living or simply seeking to rub a few pennies together to get their next hot drink.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few out there, that are out there to be noticed, not only to support themselves so that they can live, just so that they can be discovered, and there is perfection out there, and to most of us, we simply wonder past since our day is so hectic, we don’t see something great when we see it, but one person did.

This young lady was singing her heart out, her voice was her trademark, and all she desired was for people to notice her, and how good her voice was. She writes her own songs and then she harmonizes, and what a sound, you could have simply stood there for hours listening to the intensity in her voice.

Loads of people simply strolled past her, ignoring her as they had many more important things to do with their time, but there was one person standing there with his phone, listening to her, listening to her in wonder.

He walked out from where he was standing, and wandered up to this beautiful young female, praising her on her song, and how great she was, and she was such a down to earth woman, she simply wanted no more than to be noticed in what she was doing.

That man was Seal, he had been recording her and putting her voice on Facebook, which when I sat and viewed it, I was spurred by what she was doing. You don’t always see perfection out on the streets, however, when you do, it is something, it’s not anything.

Seal chattered with this young woman, regarding her music, her motivations and what she wanted to do with her future, they then both harmonized together. People crowded round to listen to them sing in harmony, indifferent, but collectively it was true poetry.

Like this young lady, Seal himself understands what it’s like to strive as a performing singer, to have a sketchy future, and to know that you have to seize the moment and capture the day when the opportunity happens and to never give up.

I am certain that one day we will be listening to this lady on the radio, and while some might never know her fight to get that far, we need to understand that with endurance everyone can do what they want in their lives.

 

Donald Trumps’s state appointment to the United Kingdom is anticipated to be presented in Parliament following senior Conservatives assembled more than 1.5 million people demanding for it to be banned. Appeal requests for the visit, which is scheduled to take place in the summertime, to be abandoned because of the risk it will upset the Queen.

 

Nonetheless, a Downing Street source has told the BBC that cutting the trip would be populist gesture and undo everything achieved by Theresa May throughout her tour to the United States last week. MPs will examine if US President Trump should be given a UK state appointment on Feb 20.

The internet address quickly broke the 100,000 signatures needed to be considered for a discussion in Parliament, with at one period more than a thousand people signing each minute. Senior Conservatives joined Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, in asking for the visit to be delayed while Mr. Trump’s contentious immigration embargo is in place.

 

Nevertheless, Downing Street sources established that Mrs. May will not be rescinding her invite to President Trump since it remains substantially in the national interest. State visits are intended for both the host, and the head of state who is being received, to honor and entrench the bonds and assigned importance amid their individual nations.

A state appointment from the current president of the United States could not perhaps happen in the best customs of the enterprise whilst a fierce and alienating policy which prejudges upon citizens of the host country is in place.

On Friday 27 January, President Trump endorsed an executive order provisionally blocking travel for immigrants from seven terror prone Muslim-majority nations.

The mandate forces a 90-day prohibition on travelers from

Syria
Iran
Sudan
Libya
Somalia
Yemen
Iraq

Also, it excludes the US refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely suspends reception of refugees from Syria.

The embargo does not apply to some visa types, and to religious minorities escaping religious oppression from those nations, for instance, Christians. Syria is the just one of these nations respectively identified in Mr. Trump’s order. The others stem from a 2015 Obama-era law cataloging nations of interest for terrorism to be banned from the US’s Visa Waiver Program.

 

Mr. Corbyn announced Mr. Trump’s state appointment should be called off until he removes the 90-day prohibition on immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen entering the United States. Is it actually appropriate to defend somebody who has used this terrible misogynistic language during the election campaign, great assaults on Muslims, and then, of course, this crazy notion of building a wall separating themselves and their adjacent neighbor?

We should make it pretty clear we are very disconcerted about it, and it would be entirely wrong for him to be coming here whilst that situation is going on. He should be confronted on this. However, it is possible there will be an urgent proposal in the House of Commons on Monday to address the travel embargo.

Demonstrators are preparing to oppose the policy outside Downing Street and across the land on Monday evening. Theresa May would be placing the Queen in an untenable situation of greeting a man who is banning British subjects solely on grounds of their faith.

Politicians have now started preparations for a visit intended to reinvigorate the transatlantic special relationship. Talks are underway regarding the president playing a round of golf on the private nine-hole course at Balmoral whilst the Queen looks on.

 

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are further set to be involved as the Royal family rolls out the red carpet for the US President and his First Lady. Mr. Trump’s team desire to formulate a photo event to rival the legendary pictures of President Ronald Reagan horse riding with the Queen at Windsor Castle when he toured in 1982.

 

Additional plans incorporate a private stint of the Churchill War Rooms from Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, and banquet at Blenheim Palace, where Sir Winston was born. If the Queen were to allow it, would make a rift in etiquette since the Queen traditionally goes on vacation to her Scottish castle in August.

The “optics” of President Trump’s appointment are very bad and there should be a joint decision to postpone the appointment. US leaders should help the United Kingdom to strive and uncover a basis for why this appointment should not go forward in the short term.

Parliament has previously argued on Mr. Trump once after he first conveyed the plan of blocking Muslims from America. He was portrayed as a buffoon, demagogue, and wazzock in the discussion a year ago following a related appeal was signed by more than half a million people.

Buckingham Palace declined to discuss it.

 

The White House has hit back after a judge briefly barred Donald Trump’s contentious immigration prohibition, initially characterizing the decision as outrageous before dropping the word from a later statement.

 

The Justice Department announced it would request for an emergency stay to honor Donald Trump’s executive order to prevent people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from accessing the United States after District Judge James Robart ordered there was a strong possibility that a legal provocation on the embargo would succeed.

 

Judge Robart declared an interim restraining order on a national footing at a hearing in Seattle and ordered against government lawyers who declared states did not have the position to question Mr. Trump’s order.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are supposed to have told airlines they are permitted to board passengers who had been banned from accessing the country, with the Justice Department not registering an action directly.

 

Gulf carrier Qatar Airways announced this morning that it would bring passengers from the seven Muslim-majority nations and all refugees who had been forbidden under the direction. In his judgment, Judge Robart announced that federal defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from” enforcing the executive order.

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer issued a comment following the decision stating the government will file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. Shortly after, an updated announcement was issued that eliminated the word outrageous.

The president’s mandate is designed to defend the country and he has the legal power and duty to defend the American people. Mr. Trump’s order bans travel for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and to exclude the US refugee program globally.

Washington and Minnesota were the first two states to prosecute over the order and the travel embargo would significantly harm residents and decrees prejudice. Judge Robart’s ruling, active immediately, puts a pause to President Trump’s undemocratic and criminal administrative mandate.

The law is a compelling thing, it has the capacity to hold everyone answerable to it, and that includes the President of the United States.

The Trump presidency has defended its operations on national security terrains, however, antagonists have labeled the mandate as undemocratic as they think it scapegoats people based on their religious convictions.

There seems to be an awful volume of proof to confirm Mr. Trump’s administrative mandate was aimed at the doctrine of Islam. Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he described the litany of harms suffered by Washington state’s universities and further examined the administration’s use of Sept. 11, 2001, assaults on the United States as a reason for the prohibition.

The Judge asked the federal government lawyer, Michelle Bennett if there had been any terrorist assaults by people from the seven counties listed in Mr. Trump’s order following 9/11. Ms. Bennet stated she did not know.

The answer is none. Trump is here contending they have to defend from these people from these nations, and there’s no support for that. For President Trump’s order to be approved, it had to be based on fact, as opposed to fantasy.

In Dubai, Tariq Laham, 32, and his wife to be Natalia had abandoned arrangements to visit the United States following their July wedding in Poland, where Natalia is from. Mr. Laham said the couple would not change their decision.

A State Department official, articulating on the situation of anonymity since the topic is under litigation, and they are acting closely with the Department of Homeland Security and their legal teams to ascertain how this affects their operations.

They will announce any developments concerning travelers to the United States as quickly as that data is accessible. The order had canceled up to 60,000 visas. That number differs to a statement from a Justice Department lawyer who during a court hearing in Virginia announced 100,000 visas had been denied.

The ruling in Washington state came at the end of a day of intense legal action throughout the nation over the immigration prohibition. In Boston, US District Judge Nathan Gorton displayed uncertainty throughout verbal discussions regarding a civil rights group’s claim that Mr. Trump’s order represented religious hatred, before refusing to lengthen the restraining order.

US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of all persons who has been denied entry to or removed from the United States. The state of Hawaii on Friday too registered an action claiming that the mandate is undemocratic and urged the court to prevent the order across the nation.

This is Trump’s first slap down as President and I believe he’s beginning to understand those checks and perspectives which are sanctified in the American constitution were put there to prevent madmen like Trump transforming America into a tyranny and stopping any one person doing as they like.

It will be really entertaining going forth to see how he dispenses with those checks and balances. Let’s pray that this might be the inauguration of numerous court actions to block him carrying out some of the more radical policies he wants to introduce.

Knowing Trump’s foolish nature, I imagine two situations, he either quits since he can’t get his own way or he gets impeached, either of those outcomes would be better than him serving a full term.

The people with white coats are needed in the White House to put this stupid lunatic in some protective custody. His odd and obscure manner indicates a complete obsessive mindset and his actions are causing the deaths of children being limited access to important operations whilst promoting hatred and destruction such as the current carnage in Quebec.

Every day this crazy narcissistic idiot desperate to remain in the headlines makes some unusual decision or some impulse, some interim executive order. He is clearly certifiably deranged and must be dismissed from office immediately before he sends America into a nuclear conflict which his advisors want.

A week on from the Trump travel embargo, the stupidity of the Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States is getting more transparent. When the White House announced the new President’s travel prohibition last weekend, it seemed to block nearly all nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen from traveling to America.

The only people permitted would be those with a green card allowing them to permanent residency in the United States, or one of five specific permits for official groups such as the United Nations. All regular visitants to the United States from one of those nations, whether on vacation, seeing friends and family, or on business, it appeared, was forbidden. Horribly hardline, but at least apparent.

As airlines fought to make sense of the order, myriads of prospective travelers have been turned away from airports across the globe since they were considered as unfit to travel. Some airlines switched their crew programs to bypass, for instance, an Iranian pilot or Somalian cabin-crew member being appointed to a New York-bound aircraft.

Forty-eight hours later, though, it turned out that the controls would hit only a tiny number of people.

Late on Sunday night, the Foreign Office explained that the prohibition involved simply to people who, in effect, failed two inspections. They carried a passport from one of the seven countries on Donald Trump’s list and were further boarding a flight from one of those seven countries to the United States.

If they are flying to the United States from any place other than one of those countries, for example, the United Kingdom, the executive order does not apply to them and they will encounter no further inspections despite their origin or their place of birth.

Some media distorted that the travel embargo was just for direct flights from those seven nations to America. It took about five minutes’ work with the OAG Pocket Flight Guide to Europe, Middle East, and Africa to establish that the grand total of flights from Tehran, Baghdad, Tripoli, et cetera to the United States was naught.

Consequently, it must refer just to travelers on connecting flights making airside transfers to America. Anybody who went through passport control between flights at Heathrow, Paris, Frankfurt, et cetera would reset the clock by going landside. They would be boarding from a service from the United Kingdom, France or Germany, preferably than one of the seven benighted nations.

Clearly, everybody in that situation would simply retreat from the transit lounge and come back in, then, however, it’s not as simple as that. Even for airside transit at Heathrow, for instance, not all nationalities are similar.

There are 57 types of passports, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and incorporating every seven designated countries, whose nationals need a visa just to switch planes at a UK airport. The single exemption is if they have an important visa from a different land, such as a United States green card, a standard American visa for business or tourism is inadequate.

Given that there’s so much red tape involved when all you want to do is waste a few of hours sipping coffee or buying goods in the transit area, don’t even ask about the difficulties of landside transit. Fortunately, there are lots of other opportunities. Sudanese people, for instance, can make their way across the border to Eritrea, get a visa on entry, and then check in at Asmara airport for a flight to Cairo, Dubai or Istanbul to a broad spectrum of US destinations. Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans and the rest can get comparable workarounds.

The Trump travel embargo may be proving as deceptive as many other presidential promises, but there are lots more countries where the restrictions are present. Even in Europe, you can be turned away from Serbia if you have a Republic of Kosovo admission mark in your passport.

Numerous nations that are largely Muslim, such as Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, do not endorse anybody whose passport shows they have visited Israel. Israeli border workers are happy not to mark your passport, although if you are crossing by land from Jordan or Egypt then the departure stamp will give you away.

Frequent travelers to the area avoid these constraints by having two passports and then trying to remember to give the right one. However, if you happen to have been born in Israel, despite your origin, the Foreign Office advises you may not be welcome in Saudi Arabia.

India has firm requirements for foreigners of Pakistan and Bangladeshi origins as well as nationals of those nations. They endure a delay of at least seven weeks to get a visa.

Maybe Donald Trump should have thought about such hardline tactics first. His incompetent effort to look bad has proved feeble.

Following his calamitous defeat for the mission in Yemen, when he went against the military recommendations, Trump is petrified of reprisal. He could be criticized for putting the US lives in danger by his actions. Only now he has a judge to condemn if there are any attacks.

He seemingly knew it was illegal, however, he was depending on the judiciary to come forth so they can be his victims, and he will say that he tried to protect the United States but the sinful left-wingers stopped him. That they should allow him to amend the constitution or they are all going to die. By the way, do you know how many people have perished on American soil owing to terrorists from these 7 countries? None.

Here is somebody calling up about their council tax, which everybody has to do in England, or do they? Here is just one council tax worker who frankly got his just desserts.

This person decided to ring up about his council tax, and he challenges the person about what the policy is if he doesn’t want to pay his council tax. The person on the other end of the phone, we will call him MR BLUE, and the man asking the questions MR CUE, so there are no misunderstandings later on.

Mr. Blue said that Mr. Cue could set up payments by installments, however.

Mr. Cue wants to know what the choices are if he doesn’t want to pay it.

Mr. Blue is a little unsure at this duration, and Mr. Blue said that its the law and that you actually have to pay your council tax.

Then Mr. Blue stated if you have a home you have to pay council tax and that’s the law, so Mr. Cue questions what law is that?

And Mr. Blue tells him it’s: The local Government finance Act, which is an order of parliament.

Nevertheless, orders of parliament require the approval of the government to get the full control of the authority. And at that duration, Mr. Blue on the other end of the telephone was getting very disoriented and had no idea what Mr. Cue was talking about.

And that’s how we interpret the law. Though many of us don’t understand it at all, and consequently just pay their council tax like good loyal subjects.

Mr. Blue stated that everybody in the land has to pay council tax if they have a home that they either own or rent. However what Mr. Cue is stating is that if he lives in a road of say 20 neighbours, if 19 of his neighbours decided to do something, that doesn’t suggest that he has to lawfully pay that money, and the perception is that everyone else does it, therefore simply tags along and do it as well.

 

Mr. Blue, then states again that everyone is legally required to pay council tax, and Mr. Blue continued responding with “legally” when Mr. Cue stated his confusion was that he focuses on lawful, legal is what’s written by people on paper, lawful is what’s relevant at the end of the day.

Mr. Blue stated that’s what the law for the Government Finance Act brought out in 1992 to substitute the poll tax that everyone had to pay.

Mr. Cue questioned who the money goes to, and Mr. Blue stated that it goes to the council.

Mr. Cue asked if that’s a corporation or does it go to the country since the countries a council and Mr. Blue stated that it goes to the council.

Mr. Cue stated, is he right in thinking that if he doesn’t pay this council tax would that legally be a civil argument?

Mr. Blue stated that if he didn’t pay the council tax they would legally be forced to go through recovery methods, then they would have to get a summons and a liability order attached to the account, and then they would be capable of taking money from people’s wages if they were working and if they weren’t working, they would do an attachment of benefit.

 

Mr. Cue then asks that if people don’t pay they can get an attachment of earnings and an attachment from benefits.

Mr. Blue stated that they do that all the time.

Mr. Cue stated, what if he doesn’t use bank accounts and he only deals with cash in hand and doesn’t claim benefits what would be the procedure for scapegoating him since those other arrangements he speaks about sound a little dishonest, so it seems that it’s fortuitous that he doesn’t use banks.

Mr. Blue stated that they would go to his company to take an attachment of earnings.

 

Mr. Cue responded what if he’s self-employed, then they would be coming to him at the end of the day. He stated he was frustrated since if he didn’t have a bank account that they could steal money out of and he didn’t have a manager that they could tell a lie to get his earnings, what would be the method be to get his money, if they finished up in a civil debate and he was refusing to pay council tax?

Mr. Blue stated that if they couldn’t take his money by those means, they would have no choice but to go to a bailiff firm.

Mr Cue stated, how can they do that since a bailiff is a third party and without evidence of claim the bailiff doesn’t have a leg to stand on and he would have to enroll into a contract with a bailiff and that’s legal that’s not lawful, that’s legal and he would never enroll into a contract with a bailiff.

Mr. Blue stated that he wouldn’t have to enroll into a contract with a bailiff, they are committed under the local government to obtain the account for council tax.

Mr. Blue stated that he’s had a couple of run-ins with bailiffs and what occurred originally, the police were summoned, so his first interests were from difficulties in the past, and he questioned why the police had been summoned to assist a civil debate and the police responded that there may well be a violation of the peace.

He stated there’s no violation of the peace, officer.

He stated, these are the encounters he’s had and as far as he is concerned, he’s been confronted with bailiffs at his door demanding that he owes money. He stated that before he gives this money he wants proof of claim which, he said that they’ve tried waving a warrant about in front of the police which wasn’t endorsed and set in print by a magistrate, and they were saying to the police that they could come into my home, yet when that police rang their police sergeant he stated that the warrant wasn’t authentic and that they did need proof of claim and the bailiffs got sent on their way.

Hence that said, my thought now is, if I go down the identical path and don’t pay my council tax with other means, that’s a civil debt and when the bailiffs come if they haven’t got proof of claim, then I don’t owe them any money.

Mr. Blue responded that they would send them the proof that the money was owing.

Mr. Cue stated, but you’re a private company and the council is primarily going to another company stating he owes us money.

 

For him to owe anybody money I have to enter into a contract, and I haven’t entered into a contract to do with council tax, therefore, I’m not responsible for it.

Mr. Blue stated that you don’t have to enter into a contract. Mr. Cue stated that you do since that’s what a contract is and that the other man
Mr. Blue is addressing legal and he’s speaking lawful and this is where he’s getting confused and he doesn’t know what’s going on.

He questioned if he could clarify something else, that he had been informed that bailiffs can order admission into your home over council tax but that’s unlikely since it’s a civil debt, and no bailiff has got the ability to come into anyone’s house.

If somebody opens the door and the bailiff gets his foot in the door and puts them in a situation where there would be a violation of the peace, he would personally launch the bailiff out the door since they’re in his home, however, you have informed me that these bailiffs would be able to win admission over council tax and he knows they couldn’t since you can’t force it over a civil debt, you can only force over criminal, this is a civil debt so how can bailiffs have the grounds to come in?

Mr. Blue said that the best thing is to be sensible and pay the council tax, and Mr. Cue is stating he doesn’t want to pay his council tax and he knows that it’s a civil matter, so what he’s asking Mr. Blue is, what is the course of action, and you’re telling me that you’ll get a warrant and I’m telling you that Warrant will be void and he won’t let the bailiffs near his home.

 

Each warrant has to be approved and issued by a magistrate, that’s the law of the land, everybody knows that even the regional police since even the local constabulary are defending people against bailiffs when they’ve had difficulties like this.

Mr. Blue recommended that he write into the council and Mr. Cue stated he doesn’t have to write into anyone since he’s not the one demanding something, this is a private company demanding that he owes them money.

This is a little like the television license people and you don’t have to pay your license but they tell you that’s a law. Mr. Blue stated you have to pay your TV licence, Mr. Cue replied no you don’t, that’s a private company, if you watch live TV you have to pay TV licence because that’s the element of the thing, however, he doesn’t watch live TV so, he doesn’t have to pay for a licence, and he continued, to be fair the BBC, I’ve got my own feelings about live TV, but that’s not up to me to be addressing that with you since clearly you’re there telling me about council tax.

Mr. Blue stated you pay the BBC to view TV, Mr. Cue stated you pay BBC and the BBC aid pedophilia, they’re a private company. He said it’s like him establishing a corporation and then posting everybody a letter in the land, declaring bladdy bladdy bladdy blah.

I don’t want the service and that’s what I tell the TV man when he comes to my door, when it comes to a private company, I don’t want your service, therefore it’s the same kind of thing, it’s a civil matter, the police can’t get involved except if there’s a violation of the peace.

There’s not going to be any violation of the peace since he’s a lawful man, therefore he’s very bewildered and clearly, your my local council, my local authority and I genuinely want guidance and I just want to know what you’re going to do since like I stated I’m a lawful man.

Mr. Blue stated that he had just discussed the methods that they go through, and that he didn’t know what else to tell him.

Mr. Cue stated but it’s a deception to inform me that you can win admission to my home when you couldn’t and it’s a civil debt.

Again Mr. Blue told him to simply pay his council tax, however, Mr. Cue stated he’s not giving him an option, you’re telling me I have to pay council tax and I’m telling you I don’t.

Mr. Blue stated that they have to pay for the maintenance of the area. Mr. Cue announced that there are five separate areas in this land, and what they’re doing with council tax, they utilize the surplus council tax and discursively invest into arms companies, so it isn’t usually used for the maintenance, the bins go out every two weeks, there are craters in the paths, the NHS is falling apart so people can privatize it, so, he don’t know how you can tell me that any local council tax is used for infrastructure since all the infrastructure is falling apart.

They’ve not even got benefits for people on welfare.

Mr. Blue stated that if he’s got concerns about that, he recommended that he go see his local counselor about it since that’s what its there for.

 

Mr. Cue said he’s decided to go in and see his district councillor because he will be talking about Magna Carta Article 61 and its citation in 2001 by the Barons committee, that’s very significant, that’s primarily telling you that all legislation is invalid and the courts have no authority anymore, and that’s been out since 2001 and he just wants to know where the council stand on all this?

 

Since he’s actually signed up for that and signed an Oath of Allegiance to the Baron 6 months ago and as far as he knows, he’s void from all legislation, therefore how does the council stand in relation to Article 61 Magna Carta?

Mr. Blue stated he didn’t know anything about that.

Mr. Cue stated Magna Carta Article 61 is a really serious thing. The Baron requested the Queen in 2001 and they required explanations as to why Britain was entered into the EU.

The Queen never gave the Baron’s address, therefore the country is in a position of lawful revolt, therefore he’s really questioning where the council stood with this.

Mr. Blue stated he couldn’t affirm about if the country was in a position of lawful resistance and Mr. Cue stated that he was telling him that the EU was the brainchild of the Nazis and since they were losing the war, they said we will get through it with politics, and that’s in black and white.

He stated were a sovereign nation and we shouldn’t even have endorsed into the EU, should we? We’ve got a sovereign.

Mr. Blue replied, well Mr. Heath done that.

Mr. Cue announced, well that’s what I mean, it’s treason, this is the influence of Article 61 Magna Carta. Mr. Blue stated he knew nothing about Magna Carta.

So, Mr. Cue said no fine or bill should be taxed upon a Judge (that was the 1689 bill of right, therefore how can a Judge possibly intervene in a civil matter which they won’t that is why a Judge never approves the warrant, that’s why when these stupid bailiffs come, but at this point, Mr. Blue recommends that he writes a letter, therefore Mr. Cue announced, should he write a letter informing them that he’s not going to pay council tax, then he can give his reasons why he won’t pay the council tax and hopefully he will get a letter back from the council.

Mr. Blue replies that if he writes to the council then the council’s solicitors can deal with it.

Mr. Blue said then the council’s solicitors can address his concerns and then respond.

Mr. Cue stated that we exist in the times of deception and untruth.

He said that he’s sent his Oath of Allegiance to the Baron and it primarily presently states that his job as an Englishman is to shame the regime and to not pay any illegal taxes and he’s got that in black and white.

He stated that he’s got his proof that he sent to the Baron and the Baron is a lot powerful than the council, therefore, my allegiance is with the Baron.

Mr. Blue questions who the Baron is, and Mr. Cue said that he can’t actually recollect his name, that he corresponded with three and the first two Barons didn’t respond to him, so he had to go online and what it was, you had to write to certain Barons that petitioned the Queen, but he believed that you could write to any Baron to Pledge your Allegiance, and it’s really complex but when you get into it, its very refreshing but essentially it’s to protect our nation and to protect our liberty, since were all sovereign at the end of the day, and were all being dictated to by Nazis, by paedophiles by charlatans by Zionists and it’s not on, and he wants his nation back to how it used to be, and it’s a travesty the way things are.

The way to do it is to quit paying your council tax since that’s the only way we can upset the regime in a lawful way since he has to remain lawful, he can’t do anything that’s unlawful, he can’t create harm or distress.

Acts, statutes and regulation legal frameworks are not Laws in themselves, there is not a law in this land that says any man or woman has to pay council tax, so if there is anybody out there who knows otherwise, please supply your evidence if I’m mistaken. Acts, Statutory legislation, and regulations can only be given the authority of law upon the approval of the governed.

Statutory instruments are utilized to create a revenue stream for the charge of liability if the person (title) is represented by the human (man or woman) therefore giving joinder by signature to the title and address the paperwork is addressed too, this is how legal consent is obtained.

A company (local tax office) cannot contract with a human as the status is considered unequal and the contract is, therefore, void in Law.

This is an excellent illustration of the law of the sea being forced on dry land, nothing more, nothing less. If there is no contract then there cannot be a liability to pay as no contract has been breached, no loss has been documented or verified and any company cannot lawfully defraud money from a human (only the title that is represented by a man or woman ie… (MR JOE BLOGS in black capital letters) and if does so can be contested in a court of law under full commercial liability and if a judge attempts to deceive by attempting to obtain joinder in court without this evidence they too can be forced to a court of law under perjury if they have not sworn an oath to her majesty The Queen II as the magistrate would not be acting under common law jurisdiction and therefore has no recourse in a court of law.

One of the more significant areas to where the join takes place is when you voluntarily send your eligibility to vote using their paperwork with your title printed onto it, really dishonest. Furthermore, if the council tax is lawful then where are your oaths of office and seals of office to issue summonses? Plus, when was it ever approved by the Government?

I intimate the setting of commercial Charges on all public slaves under punishment of perjury for telling fibs. The taxpayer does not pay for that, they do, reflect it right back at them and see how they appreciate being made insolvent and losing their own homes and property.

The Council tax is legal by consent only but never Lawful and there is a difference and they know it. We should never let the powers that be to defeat the Law of England we are not owned by Rome. Magna Carta is alive and well.

Cestui Que Vie Trusts were set up by Vatican beginning in 1300’s however, Magna Carta predates that effort at treason and tyranny upon the Free men and women of England. We are not vessels and chattel we are Sovereign creatures, reclaim your power and be free.

Under the common law, we do not pay any tax without consent, it is a donation. Challenge your rights peoples and quit funding corruption.

The Supreme Court is anchored to govern on whether disabled passengers are rightfully allowed to have preference use of wheelchair areas on buses. The problem was precipitated by wheelchair user Doug Paulley who tried to embark a bus but was left at a stop because a lady with a sleeping child in a pushchair declined to move out of the selected region.

The bus, run by FirstGroup, had a symbol that stated: “Please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”, however, the female challenged the buggy would not collapse and declined to move when directed by the bus operator.

FirstGroup has a strategy of requesting but not requiring non-disabled patrons to leave the area if required by a wheelchair user. A judge at Leeds Crown Court decreed their policy broke the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments and granted Mr. Paulley £5,000.

I am wondering if this could actually be made an Original Precedent, whereby the situation is unlike any other, and has never been in litigation, and could then be made into law. There should be specific laws and statutes when it comes to wheelchair users, while some people are in the opinion that just because you’re in a wheelchair you should have no individual freedoms.

It’s crazy the think that simply since one is in a wheelchair, he should not have any rights like somebody that is capable of walking. I admit that some people can be a little odd at times, however, they are not dumb enough to not understand that if one is in a wheelchair, or supporting themselves with a walking cane, that they do not require a space on the bus.

Intellectually, are people that ignorant, or do I have to really break it down for them? It’s not a jail sentence to have to stand on the bus or put your pram down for somebody less capable, as long as there is an extra empty place on the bus for the mother to sit down with her infant.

My mother is an amputee and lost her leg last year. She is a 79-year-old woman who feels the chill when she is out in her wheelchair with my son, who takes care of her. They utilize the bus service regularly since my son does not drive, therefore, bus transportation is a fundamental way of life for them both to get out and about.

Nobody comprehends what goes on in the world of another person, or how much they endure as a result of losing a limb, or being crippled and in a wheelchair for a long range of many things. People go about their daily life, not even appreciating what is going on with people in society, they simply believe that because it’s not befalling them, it’s not happening at all.

Granted, it’s a genuine burden to have to get your baby out of its buggy and close it down for somebody in a wheelchair. I understand the ambivalence, I was previously a parent to youthful kids in buggies, and in those days, there were no handicapped places on the bus, or areas where you could put your buggy, you had no option but to collapse the buggy and put it down.

We all exist in a society where we take so much for granted, God forbid we should have another war, nobody would have the foggiest what to do. These days, most kids don’t even know how to make a meal since it’s all so simple, you just pop it in the microwave, and hey presto it’s prepared for you – how difficult was that?

Well then, how difficult is it for somebody to get up from their seat, and donate it to somebody who is in a wheelchair, actually, not that troublesome at all. However, we have grown slothful over the years, and its simply such a burden to get up from one’s seat because there is somebody less able, and in your head, you’re telling yourself, it’s all right, they are sitting down, they can wait for the following bus.

However, the next bus comes along, and they can’t get on that either, and all the while they are freezing cold, and you’re on a nice toasty bus since you were too idle to put the pram down and assemble your baby on your legs.

Nevertheless, the decision was overthrown by the appeal court who declared the policy did not strike an equilibrium within the requirements of wheelchair users and other travelers who might be vulnerable.

It could further point to an escalation in disputes and delayed journeys.
Mr. Paulley brought the matter to the Supreme Court, who will make a judgment on Wednesday. We require and solicit a fair decision on what bus companies have to do to make it possible that wheelchair users will be able to travel.

We further must change in society so that people with pushchairs understand they have to move out of these spaces for wheelchairs so that situations become less of a crunch point and confrontational. FirstGroup stated there was no criminal distinction fronting Mr. Paulley.

He claimed travelers expected to move out of selected areas, or even removed, was not a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.

It is hoped the Supreme Court ruling will bring transparency for all bus users. Companies designated available places on buses following a supported campaign by disabled people. Now, they are often a lifeline into work and society.

Most people don’t understand just how hard it is for disabled people to get about, to get to the stores, or to visit friends, and it would be nice to see transport companies looking for ways to make it accessible for all of their patrons to use their services.

The court stated the company should examine additional measures to urge non-wheelchair users to move, without making it a statutory obligation to move them. It ordered that FirstGroup’s method of asking a driver to just ask a non-wheelchair user to leave the area without taking any additional measures was unjustified.

Nevertheless, the decision fell short of making it a statutory obligation for bus companies to force non-wheelchair travelers to move from the area. Embracing the decision, the company announced bus drivers would not have to remove customers from buses, which it stated was a key issue for them.

The firm announced it was pleased the Supreme Court decided it did not discriminate against Mr. Paulley. This is a significant milestone. There should be clarity, good practice and the powers of transport providers to ensure this decision becomes a reality.

The decision falls short of finding that those bus companies can eliminate non-wheelchair users from the bus, however, makes it plain they must do more than just demand they depart from the wheelchair area.

Where a driver decides a refusal to remove is extreme, he or she should examine some additional measures to coerce the non-wheelchair user to leave the area.

These might involve re-wording the solicitation as a requirement, or even a denial to drive on for numerous minutes with a view to coercing or shaming the resistant non-wheelchair user to move. This puts a lot of burden on the driver.

There are further important implications for all service providers with wheelchair areas or amenities, supermarket car parks, disabled toilets on trains etc. Businesses will have to make certain their policies go far enough to bypass substantial disadvantage to wheelchair users, and that workers are correctly equipped to implement them.

It’s been astonishing the volume of help Mr. Paulley has had from disabled people, companies, lawyers, family, allies. This is positively going to make a significant difference to disabled people’s travel. However, the problem would invariably require a matter of judgment from drivers.

There’s always got to be some judgment and there will always be some rare situations where somebody can’t be required to leave the area.
However, what this ruling indicates is the driver has to make their own judgment as to if the person is being biased in declining to leave, and if they are, he or she has to tell them that they are expected to move, and if needed, decline to drive the bus until they move.

Therefore, that appears quite clear. Nevertheless, Mr. Paulley’s lawyer told that the decision had fallen short. The decision should have gone further, as there’s no power as things currently stand to force somebody off a bus. Therefore, it goes as far as that, but not that far yet.

Mr. Paulley won an initial lawsuit on FirstGroup in 2013, after he claimed its method of requesting, not requiring able-bodied travelers to move was unlawful disability discrimination. Nevertheless, FirstGroup triumphantly appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2014, following which Mr. Paulley took his petition to the Supreme Court.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which helped Mr. Paulley at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, described the latest ruling in the case as a victory for disabled people’s rights. The whole purpose of the argument was to attempt to get more transparency on how far bus drivers are meant to go in terms of asking people to move out of the area. It is not certain if this decision has given that transparency.

It requires some kind of transparency. Mr. Paulley has done an incredible task of drawing this problem to light and to the mainstream media’s consideration, but at the end of it, there’s no recognition.

It’s sort of back to square one.

Assuming the woman on the bus was fit, strong and well, this parent is thoroughly disagreeable, she should have packed the pushchair up and carried her child. Oh, the disabled can’t actually pack up their wheelchairs.

Readers, please don’t start moaning at me about the possible prejudice upon the mother, it’s pure etiquette, supporting those out who require more help than you. Furthermore, also those with children have the preference of seats and you’d believe if the bus was jammed, somebody would give up their chair so she could take a seat.

The debate that somebody was there first, so they shouldn’t have to pack up their pushchair decreases the reason of right that has effectively mashed up our culture.

It should also be noted that nothing in the decision puts any burden on travelers to abide by the demands or terms by bus drivers or disabled passengers to move or get off the bus. All it means is that bus drivers will have to make two endeavors at urging somebody to give up a spot rather than one endeavor.

The Supreme Court makes the case that bus companies cannot be expected to employ force by putting existing patrons off the bus if they decline to give way to a wheelchair. It further makes the case that the police will not be interested, as a non-compliant traveler is not performing any crime.

It is, of course, subject to bus companies to sell tickets on terms that ask you not to occupy the wheelchair bay when it is needed by a wheelchair user, much as their regular terms probably eliminate your freedom to travel on the outside of the bus, or in the engine bay, and it appears like they may well be asked to do so.

I live in the outskirts outside of London, and here in the outskirts people are really hesitant to move for a wheelchair user, and frequently the bus driver will not let my mother on the bus since there are no places, however, my son has stated that there have been places, but the person in the disabled bay does not want to leave, therefore, the bus driver just won’t let my mother on – now I would call that prejudice.

London is a huge place, and there are numerous people racing about here and there, not giving another thought to another person. I am also a wheelchair user, and I embarked on a bus in London with my son traveling to Enfield.

We got approximately 5 stops down the road, and some unfortunate girl on the bus who was coming home from school had a seizure on the bus. The paramedics were summoned for the young girl, and the bus driver asked if we wanted to board the bus behind, so we got off.

It was crowded since everyone was getting off the bus that we had been on, therefore we didn’t believe we would get on the bus behind us. As the doors cracked open, there was a woman on the bus with a baby in a buggy, so I said to my son, we would have to wait for the following one. The woman put her hand up and stated that it was not a problem, that she would get off the bus and wait for the following one.

My son was completely astonished, there are some genuine people out there that will give up their seat for somebody else in a wheelchair, it’s really a matter of being affable to your fellow bystander. If a mother with a pushchair could have gathered up a buggy and moved to make room for a wheelchair, then she should be compelled to do so. It’s simply good manners.

On the other hand, if the bus was so crowded that she could not have departed the area without getting off the bus, why should she, as a passenger who has paid for her fair, should she be forced to leave? She may have been on the way to catch a train or go to an urgent appointment too.

Lots of able-bodied people are denied admission on buses because they are full and may miss a train as a result. But then clearly the general practice should be to leave lots of time for your journey?

Donald Trump finds himself at odds with the CIA over the Russia hack story, and people are freaking out over it. However, is Donald wrong not to have confidence in the CIA, well the accounts are spotty, to say the least?

The CIA are alleging that the DNC hack did so much harm to the Hillary Clinton campaign from individuals with links to the Russian government. Of course, Donald Trump has stated that he doesn’t accept the report, which has led to a number of wild allegations that its unreasonable for the president-elect to question the reliability of the CIA.

The principal contention coming from intellectuals and government leaders is that the president has to believe the intelligence that comes from the CIA. Plus the reality that our current president-elect doesn’t trust the intelligence and that it’s dangerous for America.

This is unusual and ridiculous for a president-elect to state. Number one arguing what the CIA are telling to their principal customer, the president-elect. However, is it so unreasonable to question the reliability of the CIA?

It’s worth recognising that the CIA is a secret society, virtually unaccountable to the American people, that has tortured people illegally, has spent decades threatening governments throughout the globe, all the whilst misleading the American people whilst spying on their own Congress.

Like that moment in 2011 when John Brennan a long time CIA operative who now operates the agency, responded to a question about CIA drone strikes. Almost for the past year, there hasn’t been a single collateral death.

Well, that’s flat out crazy. Just a few months previous, the CIA drone strike eliminated 50 people in Pakistan. The strike reportedly hit a tribal gathering of dignitaries that were there to determine a mining debate.

However, possibly the most shameless deceptions the CIA has used in the past few years have been linked to the agency’s practice of torture. The CIA essentially lied each single step of the way. Most of this was revealed when the Senate eventually published its torture report back in 2014.

The basic, most notable claim was on the successfulness of the intelligence gained during torture. For years, the CIA claimed that torture or ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ as they like to call it, led to strong, actionable information that prevented terrorist activity.

This claim turned out to be untrue. The story proved, that, in fact, torture produced no valuable information.

They were further deceiving the people on the sort of torture they were doing. For ages, it was thought that the extremely harsh method was waterboarding.

For those that don’t know what waterboarding is. Waterboarding is a method of water cruelty in which water is discharged over a piece of fabric enveloping the face and respiratory passages of an immobilised captive, causing the person to endure the feeling of suffocating.

However, it turns out they were further doing stuff like forced rectal feeding, standing on injured limbs, and threatening to rape the detainee’s mother. However, it doesn’t end there.

Whilst the Senate was preparing the torture report, the CIA was actually trailing on the Senate. Of course, at first, the CIA stated that the CIA was in no way spying on the SSCI or the Senate.

Before declaring that they did it and then atoning for it. I suppose it’s never too late now to say sorry.

So, the CIA first began torturing people in secret. Then they acknowledged they were, but they lied about the successfulness of that torture.

They further lied about the sort of torture they were doing. Furthermore, then they spied on the people who were investigating them for it.

Plus, this is only from the past 15 years ago or so. However, the CIA has been misleading to the American people for decades.

To choose just one instance out of several, the once director of the CIA, Richard Helms was convicted of misleading Congress on the agency’s part in the 1973 military overthrow in Chile, which overthrew the democratically elected President Salvador Allende and established the lengthy dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

Then there was the incident in 1982 when Congress established a statute that prevented the Reagan administration from toppling the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Notwithstanding the reality that Congress, the true image of the American people, directed the government not to defeat the Sandinistas, the CIA, sustained clandestine actions upon them for years.

The entire situation blew up in the Iran-contra embarrassment of 1986. Therefore, it does appear possible that some parts of the Russian state were connected in DNC hacks, though we’ve observed rather little in the way of real, solid proof.

Although, we unquestionably shouldn’t be taking the CIA’s statement at face value, since if the CIA wore pants, those pants would be on fire.

The crisis-hit NHS is in a crisis, it has been predicted, and the Labour leader will sound alarm bells for the health service when he approaches the Fabian Society in London. It arises after it was highlighted the impasse of tiny Jack Harwood, 22 months, who had to remain five hours in A&E with speculated meningitis.

When questioned if the NHS was in crisis, Prime Minister Theresa May said that she understood and it has been recognized that the NHS is under stress.

However, it’s not just under pressure, it’s under stress, anxiety, and concern, and not only that, it’s under assault. People fear that one day there will be no NHS, and it frightens them because we are under invasion as ultimately what will occur is that our government will respond, great, if you don’t like the way that its run, then we will change it over to privatisation, which is basically what they are starting to do presently.

They just require one thing to ensure the opportunity, and if we make too many ripples, then they have us in their grasp. Therefore, put up with it or else! Many will pout, and say, no they would never actually do that, but they will, and gradually and inevitably they are, directly under our very nose.

Anyways, who wants an NHS? For those that can manage with private health care, they’re okay, they don’t have to fret, however, for those that rely on the NHS, it’s really significant. Not only that, the NHS is an establishment that’s been about for a really long time. It might be a tad antiquated, but at least it’s there, even if we do whine and moan about it.

Although that’s the point, we shouldn’t have to moan and groan about it, if only the government put more cash into it, rather than depreciating the funds they put back into it since cutting funds kills men, women, and children daily.

You have to understand what’s going on with the NHS and to do that, you have to be one of those people who have to lie in A&E for hours on end before getting seen by a real doctor, and many are simply novices on A&E doing their internship, and sometimes it can be very hit and miss, you really have to be there to understand what’s going on.

On how countless hours these poor doctors and nurses have to operate, and when operating these multiple hours, then that’s when blunders are made. To serve this many sufferers coming into A&E, you have to extend your workforce, however, when there are no funds being given for such an extensive service, healing the sick, people that are ill, the weak of our community, that’s when you get a tang in your mouth since there are no rules of etiquette anymore.

We should be questioning Theresa May over the mess in the NHS and social care, the myriads of people waiting more than four hours at A&E and the million aging people not getting the social care they require, and the young people with mental health difficulties who don’t get the assistance and attention they require.

I speak about the National Health Service as it’s in a crisis zone. Furthermore, the people who operate Britain have been taking our country for a ride and have geared the system for themselves. Last year’s global political earthquake didn’t just come out of the blue, and there are many of us who have sensed the earthquakes increasing for years.

They’ve sutured our political system to shield the powerful, and they’ve put our nation in danger by taking us into destructive international hostilities, and they’ve rigged the economics and business practices to fill the pockets of their supporters.

They’ve cut taxes on the wealthiest, £70 billion from now till 2022, and lower pay and necessary assistance for the rest, and they’ve sold off our country’s assets and handed over public services to be drained by tax dodgers.

They’ve accumulated deficit whilst neglecting to reinvest in the jobs and industries of the tomorrow, and the truth is the system just doesn’t work for the large majority of people.

Former BHS workers and trade union delegates were to descend on the quarters of Sir Philip Green’s retail industry in an effort to push him to fulfill the £571 million shortfalls in the deflated department store chain’s pension scheme.

More than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for the billionaire financier to meet his commitment to sort the scheme. The petition was to be given to Green’s Arcadia business on Wednesday by John Hannett, the general secretary of the shopworkers’ trade union Usdaw.

Green agreed to dispense with the difficulties confronting the pension scheme when he arrived before MPs in June. Nevertheless, he has declined to agree on a deal with the Pensions Regulator, which has presently started legal actions upon Green and Dominic Chappell, the previous proprietors of BHS.

Hannett told Green required to elevate more than £250 million into the scheme, which has more than 20,000 members, calling any less derisory. The priority is to see Sir Phillip do the appropriate thing and deliver on his word to sort the pension fund. If he desires to retrieve any reputational trustworthiness he must not argue his way out of his duties, he must make a complete offering and do it immediately. That is the least he can do for past staff, several of who gave their whole working career at BHS.

The petition was to be presented to Arcadia, which manages Topshop, Dorothy Perkins, and Miss Selfridge. This man’s selfishness is incredible. BHS collapsed in April leading to the decline of 11,000 positions and to the £571 million pension shortfall. A governmental inquiry into the death of the retailer discovered that BHS had been orderly robbed under Green and Chappell.

Green managed the company for 15 years until he sold it to Chappell, a three-time bankrupt, for £1 in March 2015. Green, his family, and additional BHS stockholders received at least £580 million from the retailer, whilst Chappell’s firm Retail Acquisitions was given a suspected £17 million.

However, whilst magnate Sir Philip continues at the centre of the BHS pensions hurricane, his wife has been busy developing a £10.6 million home fit for a Green. Lady Tina Green, 67, has been placing the finishing touches on a six-bedroom home in one of London’s most fashionable localities.

The home, filed to an offshore firm connected to Lady Green, has a rooftop bar, super-sized basement and glass roof. Supposedly the home will be available by March. It comes as former workers of BHS, which Sir Philip sold for £1 a year before its collapse, waits for news of the firm’s £570 million pensions crisis.

A source familiar to the Greens reported that Sir Philip and Lady Tina’s daughter Chloe, who turns 26 in March, could make the four-storey holding her London residence. It’s like a mansion and is being done out to an unbelievable standard, no cost forgiven. Lady Tina has been in command of doing up the home and has attended it to keep a tight eye on its development.

The idea is for it to be given to Chloe as her first proper home of her own, therefore Lady Tina wants to make certain all is perfect. Topshop debutante Chloe was given the keys to a flat near to the mansion on her 21st birthday. Her mum was then pictured at the new apartment in November. Developers have since been restoring it.

The home has servants areas in the basement. Architect designs presented to the district council in June reveal it presently has a lift and two dressing rooms.

In November 2014, the home was sold to Daniel Pittack, a close friend of the Greens, for more than £10million.

In 2015, ownership was shifted to British Virgin Islands-based Mottistone Holdings Ltd for about £100,000 more. A second address for the firm, in Monaco, was further then the recorded office for Lady Tina’s Green & Mingarelli Design.

Sir Philip declared the property project had noth­ing to do with him. When questioned if Chloe would live there, he replied that’s not true, and at this point, that is not established.

Labour’s Frank Field, chairman of the Work and Pensions Select committee, stigmatized the home “BHS Pensions House”.

This is completely offensive, the man has no remorse.

Giving his daughter a £10 million home as her first real home when most people are fighting to retain a roof over their heads, he is the most uncaring monstrosity of a man. Consequently selfish Green is at it again, and this bit of garbage is nevertheless being defended by his friends and chosen ones.

No matter what anyone says, he will never give any money back, nor lose his knighthood. There will be plenty of discussion and ridicule, however, it will all evaporate and be quickly overlooked. This guy should be ignored by everybody that ever knows him, to humiliate him into doing the correct thing.

The guy has no guilt and it really reveals the hatred he has for the people he previously employed. This has occurred previously with others and will occur again, and people like him constantly stash millions away for their future. Only he won’t lose any sleep since he will have made certain that not even the government can get his money.

Victoria Beckham is set to get an OBE in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list. The ex-Spice Girls vocalist applied fashion creator, remembered as Posh Spice, is supposed to be expecting an Order of the British Empire honour for assistance to fashion and charity work in this year’s schedule, which has not yet been published by Buckingham Palace.

The honour is estimated to come 13 years following her ex-Manchester United legend hubby David, 41, took his OBE for services to football. Victoria made her première with a tiny collection at New York Fashion Week in 2008.

Furthermore, mother of four, who spurted to fame with the Spice Girls in the 90s, has gone on to enjoy the tremendous victory as a fashion creator with A-lister devotees comprising Gwyneth Paltrow, Claire Danes and her friend Eva Longoria.

Her charity work is also said to have put her on the desirable schedule. Victoria, a goodwill representative for the Joint United Nations Programme UNAIDS, has fought tirelessly to raise recognition of concerns such as HIV and AIDS.

The fashion symbol, who has sons Brooklyn, 17, Romeo, 14, and Cruz, 11 and a five-year-old daughter Harper, was by David’s side when he collected his OBE at Buckingham Palace in 2003.

One does question despite everything how popular she would have really have turned out to be had she not wedded David Beckham. The union was the classic combination, and even though she had capital in her own right at the time, I’m convinced his money did not hinder her interest.

Furthermore, soon to show how far she has come, she is soon being awarded an OBE for services rendered. Well, who gave her all the pies, she must have imagined she was dreaming when she set her visions on old Davey boy.

She might be a goodwill representative for the Joint United Nations Programme UNAIDS but it’s easy to be so charitable when you have millions, the honour arrangement is an utter farce. One of the requirements of receiving this honour is secrecy. You are not supposed to tell people until it’s approved.

However, she would have understood that but is far too arrogant to understand manners or honour. One must feel sad for her. It must be a trick, they should be giving the OBE to that fellow from Salford, the taxi operator who did charity work for children in Syria, and gave his life for it.

He must be worthy of something, and his family too. Really, services to fashion, what will they consider next. She’s a millionaire, she can afford to be a charity worker, her hubby got an OBE for playing football, the Queen must like football, it surely can’t be the outfits that Victoria makes, well she don’t really make them, some unfortunate person makes them, probably for barely any money.

And Victoria’s PR crew revealed she is using the identical seamstresses, pattern cutters, and fabric makers as 45-year-old Mouret who designed the Galaxy dress, the hourglass silhouette that harkens back to the glamour of 1940s Hollywood.

What about the every day, unacknowledged heroes who fight in the war, where is their OBE, where is their honour for supporting a war effort that has nothing to do with them.

I bet she’s licking her lips and rubbing her hands together for the big day, but any self-respecting receiver of this so-called honour for this fashion symbol with her millions should promptly send it back.

Prince Harry still fights with his feelings almost 20 years following the loss of his mother, Princess Diana. In a new documentary, Prince Harry in Africa, the young prince opens up about his emotions regarding losing his mother when he was only 12. Princess Diana passed away in a car crash in 1997.

Prince Harry never actually dealt with what had really transpired, so there was a lot of buried feeling and he still doesn’t even want to imagine it. Prince Harry presently serves with several charities, including the mental health charity Heads Together and Sentebale, whose purpose is to stop and destigmatize HIV/AIDS.

When she was alive, Prince Diana served with comparable charities, so his time with Sentebale is even more unique to Prince Harry. He’s got a year off, so wants to do something very productive with his life, he wants to do something that makes his mother proud.

In the last year, Prince Harry took two HIV tests to better bring awareness to getting tested and held a charity performance with Coldplay at the 2016 International AIDS Conference. Princess Diana was a famously enthusiastic advocate of those battling the disease early on in the epidemic despite public concern and misunderstanding.

Most memorably, she embraced and clasped hands with victims without using gloves, becoming the leading royal to do so.

Circumstances have shifted for the prince, and he presently reveals he feels excited, fired up and fortunate enough to be in a situation to make a difference. The development came in two stages. The prince has previously credited his military training for giving him self-confidence, as well as his charity work in Africa.

Throughout the interview, the 32-year-old prince jokingly referred to himself as a ginger white prince, revealing that he wasn’t certain what to do when he originally arrived in Africa. Numerous years later, the prince continues to have a love interest with the region and even believes he can pass this admiration to his forthcoming children one day.

For Harry, he has this appreciation of Africa, and it will never die, and he hopes it will carry on with his children as well. This time last year the prince further talked about his mother’s passing indicating he was left with a cavernous void that could never be filled.

Talking about ultimately obtaining peace with the tragedy, Prince Harry stated he was constantly encouraged by Princess Diana’s determination to make a difference with her charity efforts. The fifth in line to the throne stated that he used to hide his head in the sand and let everything around him kind of tear him to bits.

He was fighting the system, and he didn’t want to be this person. His mother died when he was very, very young and he didn’t want to be in this position. Harry established the charity with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho’s royal family, who he met on his gap year, in memory of both their mothers.

To some degree, there is a lot of unfinished business, unfinished work his mother never finished. The prince stated it’s okay to suffer, but as long as you talk about it. It is not a weakness. Weakness is having a problem and not recognizing it and not solving that problem.

Prince Harry said, that a lot of people think if you’ve got a job, if you’ve got financial security, if you’ve got a family, you’ve got a house, all that sort of stuff, everyone seems to think that is all you need and you are absolutely fine to deal with stuff.

Prince Harry made his comments about his mother’s death as he talked, saying, that he really regretted not ever talking about it.

His mother was taken from him when he was really young, and at an extremely young age, so, of course, he was going to suffer, and it doesn’t matter who you are, what background you’re from, what job you do or how much money you have in the bank, you will still suffer.

Thirty-five years ago this week, London was en fete, and the rest of the United Kingdom and much of the world came to a standstill as Lady Diana Spencer promised to love, honor, but not obey, Prince Charles.

I had just moved into a new house with my parents, as I sat in front of our television set to observe the wedding like a total loon, I was 18 years old, and all I could remember was how beautiful Princess Diana looked in that beautiful dress that she was wearing, it was the fairytale wedding, and every girl my age watching it stared in wonder, and questioned if she would ever get a fairytale wedding just like Diana!

Her promises, like her wedding dress, her hair, and even her honesty, were under worldwide investigation. No surprise she fluffed her lines and messed up the Prince’s names, calling him Philip Charles instead of Charles Philip.

In hindsight, the mix-up seems another indication for a doomed marriage, along with the Prince of Wales’s famous whatever in love means to comment on the day of their engagement. This year, as in years past, there has been nothing to celebrate the date, July 29, but then, there has been precious little attention, anyway, of the contribution Diana made to the Royal Family and to the life of the country.

The race to remember her in the aftermath of her passing at the age of 36 in a Paris car crash, she would be 55 now, is but a remote thought. Only the very faithful of the Princess’s followers know of the Diana memorial walk, a seven-mile trail through four of London’s parks, marked with 90 plaques in the ground, or of the Diana memorial playground with its wooden pirate ship in Kensington Gardens.

There is further, of course, the memorial fountain, ridiculed by some as a glorified trench, in Hyde Park, where visitors cool their feet on hot summer days. This erasing of Diana by a vindictive Establishment has been a compelling narrative, supported in part by the near secrecy of the royals.

However, this week, Prince Harry, who collectively with his brother William have been the finest and most obvious monuments to the dead Princess, showing that the years of censorship are at an end.
But while his efforts were being praised as examples of Harry’s important qualities in championing forbidden subjects, and of his alteration from Prince of Knaves to Prince of Hearts, it was his thoughts on his mother that were being spoken about in Buckingham Palace hallways this week.

Long-time subjects were left in awe about the importance of the comments and why, nearly 19 years after Diana was killed in that high-speed car mishap, Harry should presently felt the time was right to open up about her.

Some, maybe cynically, were proposing that he may have a guilt complex over the manner of Diana’s airbrushing from royal history. He can scarcely be held responsible for that, though, over the years, her two sons decided to do little in the way of public displays towards her memory.

In 2000, he and William refused to attend the opening of the Diana playground, so near to their old home at Kensington Palace. Furthermore, until a decision was taken over the so-called fountain or water feature, they took a limited interest in the deliberation over a fitting permanent memorial.

This, of course, should not be defined as a disinclination to mourn their mother, they missed her despairingly, but rather a decision to keep their pain and their loss private. Nevertheless, there was one other over-riding constituent, a fear of agitating their father, and Camilla.

For a long time, they worried, and those around them worried, too, that everything they said about their mother could be misconstrued as somehow being critical of the Prince of Wales. The entire Diana subject was difficult, and their delicacy about saying anything was obvious.

They were frequently unsettled when their mother’s name cropped up, particularly when books about her came out, but there was this hesitation to say or do much.

Prince Harry would pitch a tantrum if anyone alluded to his mother’s name. At school, they could control it up to a point by limiting access to television, and, of course, at home with Charles at Highgrove, there were never any papers around.

Some propose that this outrage was because he felt something so private and personal as the death of his mother had been seized by the rest of the nation. Harry had a lot of emotional luggage and he was extremely delicate. In that way, he is very like Diana.

Furthermore, from time to time, he would speak about his mother, although cautiously. As early as 2002, when he was 18, he stated he wanted to do anything that evoked memories of her charity events, which, 14 years on, he has essentially done.

Remembering his night-time visits with William and the Princess to homeless projects and to visit sick children in the hospital, he stated clearly that he thought he had a lot of his mother in him. Just once has he actually abandoned caution, and that was in 2007 when he and William marked ten years following Diana’s death with a pop performance at Wembley and a memorial ceremony at the Guards Chapel at Wellington Barracks in Central London.

The performance was held on what would have been her 46th birthday, the service on the anniversary of her passing. Harry gave a touching eulogy.

He said William and himself could divide life into two parts. There were those years when they were granted with the real presence beside them of both their mother and father. Furthermore, there were the ten years following their mother’s death.

When she was living they simply took for granted her unique love of life, laughter, fun, and folly. She was their protector, friend, and guide. She was, quite honestly the best mother in the world. Although the ceremony left some questioning why an event to praise and commemorate Diana’s life left an acid punch of score-settling.

Suspicions began when many of the people familiar to the Princess were omitted from the guest menu, which, until a last-minute choice not to attend, included the Duchess of Cornwall.

At the time it was announced those not requested, who numbered Paul Burrell the Princess’s former butler, her minder Ken Wharfe and her private secretary Patrick Jephson, had been excluded because they had penned books and disclosed secrets.

The public notes that the Royal family like to be like hermits, and of course, their private time has nothing to do with us, but, are we not entitled to know the facts, acknowledging that they are our Sovereignty. Still, it’s not right to take pleasure of a situation, however, what we do know is that there is a lot of caper that goes on behind the ramparts of the palace, nobody is that squeaky clean.

Even ten years on, such an analysis appears improbable when those concerned revealed no confidences at all whilst the Princess was living. The boys were supposed to have designed the twin functions down to the last detail, and palace workers told the only other occasion on which they had been quite so involved was when it came to deciding which Army regiment to join.

However, since then, they have said little, though William’s determination to give his wife Kate his mother’s engagement ring and to include Diana as one of their daughter Charlotte’s names are expressive tokens of her. So what has precipitated Harry’s admission? According to one figure who knows him well, the Prince, who left the Army after ten years last June, has come to understand his destiny.

He understands that with his military career finished, the only thing left for him is what his mother did, charitable events.

As to why he should be bringing up his mother’s name, I presume it is because he has a bit of a guilt complex about how she has been remembered. He has nothing to be guilty about because we all mourn in various ways.

When my father died, I was so involved planning things that I never had an opportunity to mourn, but after I used to perch myself on the toilet and think about him and weep. That does not mean I was guilty of something, I just wanted to mourn in my own way, and apparently the toilet did it for me since it was a chance to get away from my family and simply remember my father.

Some might consider this a little odd, but hello I’m not flawless, I’m a human being, and so is Harry. Just because he is a Royal does not make him perfect, it makes him an individual in every way. Sometimes we must get some perspective in our lives, to do that, sometimes we must be distant from the people that love us, to think privately and to do this, sometimes we must be alone.

Harry appears to have done this and come out the other side, grasping precisely what he needs to do, and this is deserving. I can’t envision what it is like to lose a mother, I know what its like to lose a father, and that’s bad enough, but to lose a mother at such an untimely age, must not only be terrifying but must further mess a little with your head.

Not that I am assuming that Harry is nuts or anything like that, of course, he’s not, but there must have been times when he imagined he was losing his mind. He knows what he needs to do now, he knows what he’s got to do.

He can’t live in his mother’s footprints but he most certainly will because he will feel the necessity to carry on what she can’t. Like his mother, he has a sensitive mind, is tactile, too, and, like her, relates comfortably with people.

He is not scared to reveal his kindness. Reflecting a light onto neglected children throughout the globe appears a really straightforward thing for him to do. Finding a spouse to experience these globetrotting goals, however, is another matter.

With two serious courtships behind him, to Zimbabwean farmer’s daughter Chelsy Davy and to actress Cressida Bonas, Harry is no nearer to settling down. I’m certain he will find somebody eventually, that’s if the Royal family don’t find somebody for him, but love is no chortling thing, and when it arrives it will happen, there is no hurry, he wants to achieve his goals and dreams in his own time, and not everyone else’s.

In two months, he will be 32, the same age his father was when he married 20-year-old Diana Spencer. However, Charles has been cautious not to intervene in his son’s relations as he is very conscious of the influence he himself came under to wed Lady Diana.

This is one thing about Charles that I admire, at least he is a great father to his sons, and that is an excellent thing in my book. He has the experience not to get involved, and he has the ability to be there for his sons if they so need an ear, and that he does have!

I know that planned weddings are still in continuation, however, even though I do not favor them, I have come to realize that a lot of them work, but on the other side of the coin, many don’t work, and we are no longer in the dark ages, we should be allowed to decide on our own life partner.

Since that is precisely what it is, for life, not just for several minutes, they have to live with that person for the rest of their life, and if one is not satisfied with what has been decided for them, that can be like a prison decree.

Unlike William, whose fate is decided, Harry’s is not, and this is why he is taking the role in guaranteeing that after all these years his mother is ultimately suitably identified.

By the time of the 20th anniversary of her passing in August 2017, he wants a new memorial in place. What he has in mind is something permanent and notably distinctive from any present monument, and expected to be in London.

At the same time, some of the Princess’s familiar friends have similarly been looking at ways to mark next year’s date. They have been exploring the possibility of supporting backing for a life-size sculpture of Diana or a simple image of her head to be located in London.

It’s high time that Princess Diana got some recognition, after all, she was a notable figurehead in our society at the time, whilst she was living, and she did a number of excellent things, and whether the Royal family accept that or not, that is reality, and the public would not have it any other way.

With the passage of time, these supporters think the £3.5 million fountain has declined to attract the character of Diana.

 

They will, nevertheless, support anything Harry, and William, want to do, confident that Britain will ultimately have a suitable tribute to the Princess of Wales, a son’s recognition.