Britain’s Pro- fraud Laws of Britain and Impact on fraud cases

by Farzana Haque

It is hard to understand how the following laws ever came to be approved by Parliament,.. perhaps the laws escaped the scrutiny of Parliament because the

job was given to a few people instead.  The rules listed below have defaced the face of justice and has most certainly given a big boost to corruption and judicial fraud and enabled targeted discrimination.  Unscrupulous decisions of judges are stopped from review by the following rules:

1) Judges no longer have to explain their orders and judgments, this means that transparency and accountability has been removed. So if we ask them about an irregular element of their decision, we no longer get an answer.

2) Discretionary powers have become extensive. Discretion secretly enables discrimination.  Discretion means that an intermediary has been wedged between the law and the citizen, so that the citizen has to plead according to the human intercessor’s personal gratification rules rather than the law.

3) They have made appeals harder; they have added subjective and authoritarian steps, like permission to appeal (even in small claims court), and removed independent review of the appeal by giving the offending judge the power to decide the permission knowing that it is unnatural for an offending judge to give permission. Permission to appeal step takes away power from the citizen and the applicability of law over to the human intercessor so that the human decides by way of subjectivity and their personal whims rather than by rights or law.

4) Previously, the Defendants were not part of appeals, now they are, the purpose is to allow them to cause physical disruption, reduced speaking times for Claimants and additional cost to victims for trying to appeal. 

5)  Costs are not recoverable in small claims court (but the small claims band limit has been increased to £10,000, so it is not so small and therefore it covers a larger range of the population).  This rule is very “pro-fraud” because it means that the victim bears extra legal expense and trouble to bring uncooperative fraudsters to court but as the fraudster only incurs the cost of the original debt, they are able to come to defend just for fun, to cause costs without incurring any cost themselves as revenge to victims, however it takes a fraudulent judiciary to allow their frivolous and vexatious defence with the intention of not allowing cost relief to the victims. 

6) On 14Jan2013, BBC Parliament channel showed the debate over reforms to the “Crime and Courts Bill”.  On this debate there was a mention about unifying the courts but no one gave an explanation about it and I was confused at first since it would be impractical to merge all court buildings into one building, so then it must have meant “Unified Judiciary”.  A Unified Judiciary concept will totally wipe out independent review concept.  Unified Judiciary means that a judge is no longer free to have a different observation on the evidence of a case or conclude with a different opinion, as they must be seen “Unified”.  So this rule will further suppress freedom of thought and expression, thereby strengthen and disguise any unscrupulous judicial ruling, rather than bring it to accountability.  

(7) The idea that a case does not have to be heard at all is an extension of discretionary powers and its aim is to avoid evidence. The consequence is obvious, it leaves the victims’ harm done to become worsened or remain ongoing.  This concept has had a profound effect on the general integrity of the characters running the justice system as they no longer feel an obligation to do justice.

(8)  Unscrupulous judges can thus avoid evidence by cherry picking or select snippets of information and partial sentences out of context to suit their preferred outcome. 

(9)  Likewise, the use of the term, “No Prospect of Success” is often fraudulently used to prevent appeals or to avoid transparency behind an order or judgment where the evidence is not liked.  “No Prospect of Success” is a forecast that someone else will agree with their outcome, but how can an independent reviewer know what to agree with if the reasons/evidence and/or risk analysis is not supplied with it?  Its false use have increased the predictability for fraudulent Defendants that appeals can be stopped this way. 

10)   All regulatory bodies in Britain (who give the impression that they are watchdogs working for the public) have been de-activated or neutered so that remedial action is not taken and accountability is removed.  The 3 methods by which the inactivity is ensured is:

(1) by preventing them from checking the evidence of individual cases

or by,

(2) imposing a ban on freedom of speech by asking the regulators not to express an opinion or by,

(3) making it a law that they should “not interfere with the judicial process”.

What these rules do in effect is prevent the number of witnesses and expert witnesses being available, and to prevent relevant experts/authorities from being able to understand how the judge ought to have ruled.  This in turn increases the scope for judges to unlawfully alter/manipulate or falsify the evidence in a victim’s case in accordance with their personal interests, whims and wishes, more easily.

11.  a)  Another more direct restriction and an obvious measure of protection for judges from being confronted with judicial fraud evidence is how they have stopped solicitors and barristers from uttering the word, “fraud”.  Such a rule would not have been needed if it was not a frequent problem. This rule stops identification of the problem being addressed by a legal person. This enables the activity to exist but prevents the investigation of it because making a finding of fraud cannot be expressed.    

11 b)  And just so to ensure an additional obstacle is put on judicial fraud recognition, the solicitor or barrister is also not allowed to make any suggestions that there might be a [Judge to Defendant] relationship even though the evidence exists and is obvious.

11c)  On a similar note, rules have been brought out to not allow court tapes to be shared with the public/applicant whilst preventing applicants from bringing their own tape recorders. The offending judge is then given the step of accessing and authorizing the tapes for transcription.  In other words the opportunity to check the tapes and edit them before releasing them to transcription companies for transcripts

has been allowed.

Impact :

The impact is that there is regular misuse of these laws due to lack of transparency and accountability, it can best be seen from how individual cases are treated, that’s why regulatory bodies have been prevented from studying individual cases, so that the evidence would not be so easily leaked.  I have many cases to reveal these behaviours, one such example is that a false defence statement which misleads a judiciary is supposed be a crime (or contempt of court) under CPR rule (Civil Rules of Procedure) PD32 sec 28 (1) which we are allowed to report to the Attorney General

if we have the evidence.  But when I did send my evidence to the Attorney General’s Office (dealt with by the secretary general MP Oliver Heald), he refused to apply the law to my case (ie take action against the Defendant) even though he agreed that his office is right place to deal with contempt of court cases).  So here is an example of a senior judicial role failing to uphold Rule of Law and quite distinctly discriminated me. The effect of this decision is that it opens up the floodgates for all fraudsters to submit false defence statements with the expectation that their false statements can win as the judiciary and any regulatory mechanism fails to take action against them. 

Judicial Fraud : How to recognize Defendant- Judge covert relationships

by Farzana Haque

Except for one of my cases which took place before year 2001, all other cases which took place after year 2003 revealed evidences of Defendant to Judge relationships. 

Guilty Defendants have only 2 ways to illegally defend an indefensible situation/case, the first is to find a way of avoiding a trial hearing from the outset (because they know the victim has evidence against them) and the other way is to make a judge avoid assessing/acknowledging the victim’s hard evidence even within a trial hearing.  But neither method is possible to achieve without the intervention/help of a judge who has to be willing to be faulty to carry out the illegal procedures or requirements of the Defendants..which is to cheat in any way possible to get out of the liability.  In other words, a judge has to be willing to refuse to do his fundamental role/job which is to study the evidence in order ascertain the facts and confirm those facts in his judgment so that the right law can be applied.  Instead what they have been doing is to falsify, manipulate or re-invent/re-interpret/distort evidence so that a false story in favour of the Defendant can be recorded in the legal books of case history, thus defame/libel the victim and load on false charges and costs onto the victim.  A false defense is a crime under CPR rule PD32 sec28 (1), so the judges who deliberately avoided checking out the defences in my cases are all complicit in this crime.  This is why it is so important to take an army of witnesses into what has become kangaroo courts.

There is one behaviour that is guaranteed to happen which is that if and when a judge does accept a corruption contract with a Defendant they will have to ensure that Defendant’s wishes are met a 100%, otherwise the Defendant will expose them for their involvement.  Likewise, judges who make secret deals with other justice sectors eg the police to do something corrupt for them (conspire) or to prevent solicitors from appealing against them, they will need to offer additional secret protection to these individuals for obeying their ill-intended plans. So once again, we can see the strength of their own protection from exposure will score as strongly as their protection of the Defendant, so the victim’s chance of a recovery is almost a 100% doomed.  So it should be of no surprise that evil laws have been brought out to protect judges from being exposed or accountable for their “judicial fraud”.  Please check out my article titled, “The Pro-Fraud” Laws of Britain”.

Here are some signs/symptoms of the existence of Defendant-Judge relationships:

a)     They show no signs of fear of being brought to court, yet they fear

 and respond to the threat of being exposed to the media.  In  

 other words, they feel they have more control over courts than over

 the media.  - Ref my case against a training company called   

 Tigrent for misrepresentation (which has not yet come to court but they

 have been avoiding all the pre-action protocol procedures) inspite of three

 of my solicitors writing to them about it.

b)    When they do not feel any fear at presenting a “Bare Denial” defence statement, in other words, they have already discussed their defence with an internal court judge who has already given them the approval to proceed with it.  A “bare denial” defence is an unacceptable defence according to CPR rule 1.6 because it means the Defendant did not have any evidence to oppose the Claimant’s allegations except to deny it eg to say, “No I didn’t do it”.  Eg in my case against the solicitor firm [MTG solicitors] it is evidenced by how they claimed to have “Prospects of Success” for their “bare denial” defence, which a judge should have found unacceptable especially from solicitors, yet Asst DJ Walders at Uxbridge County Court supported it

in breach of the law.  This is both a corruption of the law and evidence of

the existence of their relationship out of courtroom.

c)     Evidence of how Defendants know in advance the contents of court order information long before the orders are released to either parties.  Example can be found in my Freedman -Peri case (Fake Freeholder fraud case) about how they submitted their 2^nd defence on time long before they received the order as the court letter of 30Jan2012 sent to them was returned and they informed us that the Defendants had not received the order because they were not in. 

d)    When court hearings and applications go missing because they are not suitable for the Defendant, eg in my Freedman -Peri case.

The Defendants wanted to avoid cost hearings in order to avoid giving financial affordability information and any scope to be cross-examined, so they managed to dodge these every time over a 2 year period which is not possible without specific judges instructions to ensure it.   

    

e)     When certain admin staff are seen to issue written decisions without giving a judge’s name (because it is a dodgy decision) ; or when they redirect our paperwork /applications to certain judges only; or are found reacting aggressively to our wanting to hand over evidence because they had been (forwarned in advance) or instructed not to accept such evidence from us.  The Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHO) received details of such admin involvement in these ways as part of my complaints but they refused to investigate. When there are changes of staff after the case starts it usually means that the Defendant’s network of people have taken over to ensure the journey goes according to their plans. This sort of manoeuvre would not be possible without the secret intervention by key legal/political high ups.

f)      When Defendants’ instructions are responded to by the court in minutes or days but Claimant’s instructions or applications take months or not dealt with at all.  Freedman –Peri case. Revealed in my bundle (A) for Case management detail trends, and decisions.

g)     When the judges don’t mind the racist comments of a white person attacking the Defendant (allegedly acting as my agent in a race discrimination case who was actually hired by the Defendant to behave so) but rather to want to severely punish my criticisms on their procedural unfairness and detection of court malpractice or irregularity.   Ref- my employment case events as described in the judgment on that case, but the proofs against it are in my silver binded bundle dated 14July2007 pages....which of course the public do not get to see, they only see the judgment.

h)    When they the judges can boldly claim to be biased and not fear

repercussions, it means that they have already received authorisation from higher levels for their judicial fraud plans (due to the Defendant’s solicitors contacting power houses of the legal world in advance).  Ref my employment case when the judge who struck out the case had quoted such statements during the cost hearing that followed the strikeout hearing. 

i)       Or how the Defendant applies for a time extension to submit their amended defence yet it turns out that they added nothing more to their defence of a bare denial.  Doing a bare denial takes minutes so the time extension was not really about producing a bare denial but rather that they needed time to find a judge who was willing to do as they wanted.  Ref my case against the Police no:  9CL08481 which in the end I was forced to pull out due to threats of them charging me with false costs through potentially fraudulent judges. 

j)       Or when our special delivery postage proofs are altered to suit the Defendant’s requirements.  It means that the Defendants have managed to establish a network of control over the court to be able to achieve such results as it takes a designated admin staff to alter “received” dates for them. For example it had happened in my Police case, when they needed their late time extension application to overrule my application for judgment which had reached the court before their docs..

k)    And of course when judges get to block our appeals, are able to do so, by making sure that admin staff forward all appeal applications to their chosen specific judges as this procedure ensures that the appeals reach only the person who has been instructed to turn it down.  The more the irregularity we report, the more they turn down the appeal, which ensures that their fraud decisions cannot be exposed and can continue to be forced on us. 

l)       When offices such as the Attorney General feel no obligation to do their job according to the law they have written; when they feel they have the freedom to discriminate and not explain their actions; when they have the power to take action against frivolous and vexatious defences yet do not do so; but are yet prepared to condemn/punish strictly the frivolous and vexatious Litigant, has surely been pro-fraud and practices inequality that breaches EU law.

Thoughts on the Syria conflict

by Callum Higgins

Thoughts from the point of view of a 16 year old

The Syria situation is one that is both complex and hard to research, as no one seems to know anything substantial – and by no one, I mean anyone other than the Higher Power Executives of the Western world. This is an article based on deduction and logic. This is not an article in support of any particular side and isn’t actually very focused on the Syria situation, although it uses it as a contemporary example to illustrate certain points.

 Vladmir Putin’s plan to take Syria’s chemical weapons has been accepted by Syria – a problem sorted, right? Why would Assad refuse to comment on whether he even HAS chemical weapons, then agree to give them over to Putin? Is this an international agenda to protect various interests of various different elites in various parts of the world? This plan benefits all involved, especially the highest powers in the world – the US, for example. Obama definitely benefits from Putin’s plan – otherwise it’d seem to the world that he’d suffered a massive political defeat with even Britain deciding to take no action and Congress looking sceptical. Putin’s plan means Obama can save face and brush the fact that the US lacked international support – and the support of the UN – in his plans for military intervention in Syria under the rug. It’s interesting to point out the hypocrisy of Obama’s, some might say, ‘war-mongering’ techniques. Obama keeps mentioning the ‘international laws’ that all countries are supposed to abide by, and yet he’s breaking one himself – the UN bans the ‘threat or use of force’ and yet Obama is still threatening use of force. If what we’re told in school is to be believed, two wrongs don’t make a right, Mr Obama.

                In September 2013, Putin proposed a plan to neutrally and peacefully take Assad’s chemical weapons after the world leader meeting at which Syria was not even on the agenda, but was inevitably talked about. If a subject which is not officially on the agenda can be discussed, who knows what has been said or agreed behind those closed doors over the years? How has it come to be that people who claim to be so accountable to and representative of the public suddenly become so unaccountable in many ways? Wouldn’t an above-the-board, above-the-belt, by-the-books leadership team let everyone know what was really going on? A straight live audio feed from the room would have been nice – no time for that little bit of editing that we’re so good at doing now-a-days to misframe the real issues. Society has been arranged by the people who run it in the way it is today with the assurance we only ever really see the outcomes and never the real agendas or interests between international allies that these outcomes protect or serve. What other reason is there for Putin’s surprisingly fierce upholding of his view against intervention in Syria, given that Assad had been accused of using chemical weapons against his own people, other than to protect interests? But then, why would he go against a country that Russia had been so closely allied with for many years? Take into consideration that Israel, which is in the region of Syria and has close links with America, has praised the treaty – describing it as a ‘breakthrough’ – has refused to acknowledge its own chemical weapon possession. If it’s such a good idea for Syria to give up their weapons, why wouldn’t Israel follow suit to encourage the entire world to drop their chemical weapons as all these world leaders seem to want? I think it’s because everyone wants change but no one wants to make changes to themselves – ‘I’m fine, it’s those other people that need changing’… It’s perhaps too philosophical for such a slippery and bloody subject such as politics to say that they should look at themselves before trying to change others, but we are humans, and it always seems to be someone else’s problem.

 To me, it all seems to be an international, cross-continental and massively propagandized playground fight between 2 of the biggest kids in the school – the US and Russia. According to this metaphor, Syria is a smaller friend of Russia who may have been doing some bad things recently. As a 16 year old, I have heard for most of my life the ‘lessons’, doctrines and ideologies rammed into kids’ heads from the time they start school until they enter the big wide world and find it’s… nothing like they thought. We are told to do the right thing, and stand up and speak out if we see other people doing things wrong – an ‘upstander-bystander’ type principal. So, if Syria and Russia are great friends, why doesn’t Russia speak out against Syria’s bad actions? It just seems that the public is being told, taught and trained to act in one way – perhaps in order to create a whistle-blowing society that lightens the load on law enforcement – while world leaders act in the opposite way. Perverting the course of justice is punishable, at maximum, by a life sentence and is defined as an act in ‘which someone prevents justice from being served on himself or on another party’. This is the rule that applies to the public. Isn’t Assad’s refusal to answer on whether he possesses chemical weapons preventing justice from ‘being served on himself or on another party’? That’s just one example of the double edged sword that is world leadership and the double standard which exists within the world. This system, as I understand it, works on a ‘reverse meritocratic’ basis – in other words, the worse stuff you do, the worse you get punished. Saying this, it just seems to me that the public are given one liberty-reducing rule book whilst if you just happen to run a country, it’s  ‘here you go – the same rule book with a few blank spaces left to suit your needs’, have a nice day, Sir’.

                On September 10, 2013, Obama gave a speech full of all the usual American idioms and ideology that’s usually found in President’s speeches – ‘My fellow Americans’ and all that meaningless and fake camaraderie-talk. Obama, in highly dramatic words and in a highly dramatic speech style – the usual even tone from Obama (perhaps so he’s seen as the world’s voice of reason, I don’t know), as well as various stops, pauses and ellipses at the dramatic points of his propagandized and unevidenced claims. There’s no doubt Obama is a great orator, but then again, so was Hitler. Obama accused Assad of gassing ‘over 1000 people, including 100s of children’ without conclusive evidence from the UN chemical weapons inspectors before going on to use not-so-covert shock tactics – describing the images, that most had already seen, in great detail with a disapproving expression across his face - in order to scare his compliant and unthinking nation of people, and indeed the compliant and unthinking people of the world…and he wonders why some say he’s war mongering. In fact, in July, the Office of Foreign Assets Control authorised the channelling of financial support for the Free Syrian Army through the Syrian Support Group – doesn’t it seem like he’s fuelling the war in order to have an excuse to intervene? More on covert operations and coups d’états later. Late social critic and stand-up comedian, George Carlin, commented on America’s lack of skills by pointing out that America ‘can’t build a decent car’ and ‘can’t make a TV set or a VCR worth a fuck’ among other things before coming to the punch line – ‘But we can bomb the shit out of your country, alright’. George puts it perfectly in this section from his 1992 stand-up DVD, ‘Jammin’ in New York’, and has pointed out that America is only 200 years old and has already had 10 major wars – an average of a major war every 20 years. He then goes on to compare America with Nazi Germany by saying, ‘Can you remember any white people we’ve ever bombed? The Germans, those are the only ones and that’s only ‘cuz they were try’na cut in on our action! They wanted to dominate the world, bullshit – that’s our fucking job!’ Maybe it seems that I digress from my point, but it’s just interesting to watch shows from over 20 years ago and we seem to have come so far as a world society… and yet, the same things are still happening today! How far have we really come when Carlin can point out in ‘92, and not for the first time, that America have a habit of getting themselves into wars and the same quotes still be relevant to today’s situations? It would seem that humans ‘like to think we've evolved and advanced because we can build a computer, fly an airplane, travel underwater, we can write a sonnet, paint a painting, compose an opera. But you know something? We're barely out of the jungle on this planet. Barely out of the fucking jungle. What we are, is semi-civilized beasts, with baseball caps and automatic weapons.’ – this passage is a quote from Carlin’s 2005 ‘Life is Worth Losing’ stand-up show, almost 15 years after ‘Jammin’ in New York’ and still saying the same things!

                So anyway, George Carlin, in my opinion, has it down to a tee there with his analyses of past America which are, on the whole, still applicable today. Obama described how America had been the ‘anchor of global security’ for almost 7 decades, a conspicuous and highly subjective statement to make to such a wide range of people. How much trust can we put in the statement when almost every few years, the US is involved with the regime change of some less developed country with outcomes that ‘coincidentally’ benefit themselves, such as the Iranian coup of 1953.

                During the Cold war, America had been involved in 21 coups d’états – both successful and unsuccessful. Since the end of the cold war, they have been involved in 8 coups d’états including the current Syrian crisis – some of which are still happening. I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like a country which has been the ‘anchor of global security’ as Obama put it. I don’t understand how he can outright lie to the world in saying this, when any member of the public can go on the internet or go to a library and find out that America – and especially the CIA – has been involved with many regime changes abroad which did not threaten their national security. For example, 1983 – the Grenada coup had US support under Reagan who’s administration had over 250 members that had quit, been arrested, been fired, convicted or were otherwise under investigation. In fact, the Attorney General was under investigation by 4 different bodies and he was the nation’s leading law enforcement officer! Another example, 1973 – the US played a major role in overthrowing the parliamentary democracy of Chile and imposing a military dictatorship after Nixon launched economic warfare and once ordered the relevant people to, ‘Make the economy scream’. People in Latin America actually call the coup ‘the first 9/11’. Yet another example, 1963 – the South Vietnam coup, backed by the US, which was surrounded with mystery and controversy after their target was executed in convoy and the offending officers tried to cover it up as a suicide despite there being multiple gunshot and stab wounds on the body. Are they to be fully trusted after such dishonesty has been shown in the past? Now, another ‘incident’ America played a little part in – the 1953 Iran coup. In 1953, the US and the UK, we are not excluded from all of this by the way, overthrew the parliamentary system of Iran and wanted to impose a ‘puppet regime’ on the country. . Iran naturally wanted to get rid of the British political influence and put an end to exploitation by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which is now one of our main suppliers of oil – BP. In 1951, 2 years before the coup, negotiations between AIOC and the Iranian government failed and the oil industry was nationalized with the industry being transferred from private to state ownership or control. Do you think AIOC would have liked this? Probably not – they would have lost millions, maybe more, from the move. So what did they do about it? On British initiative, the CIA overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddegh which meant that although the oil industry was still formally nationalized, a few different oil companies were allowed to operate and make money there under a standard of 50/50 profit-sharing deal. The whole process left the British a major share in what had been their ‘single most valuable foreign asset’. Now, back to the present day – or recent past if you want to be picky – in August 2013, the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and high ranking army officials as well as pro-coup propaganda. Also, it has emerged that AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials and ‘nobody seems to notice… nobody seems to care’ (another Carlin quote if you were wondering).

So you see that my point is, money and national interests – economic, political or other – can come before what might be best for certain countries and is an amplified version of the very human trait of self-preservation and the evil ‘twin’ of that trait – self-interest. Democracy and fairness will always be overturned by the want – the need – for money and power over others. But maybe that knowledge of self-worth, self-interest and greed is what makes us human and what has led the human race to ultimately, as Louis CK put it, ‘get out of the food chain’. People forget that these are human traits, they affect most of humanity, including politicians. These people also blame politicians for being as they are but don’t understand that these politicians come from the same societies as they do - although no doubt from a higher class. The difference is that these politicians just happen to have enormous and devastating amounts of power in their hands. Anyone familiar with even more George Carlin quotes or shows may see the start of one of his arguments, but I won’t go into it more than to say; these are the reasons society will never change, never improve and never succeed – humans look for ideals when we are ourselves massively flawed in our nature.

‘It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.’ – George Carlin, Life is Worth Losing, 2005

RIP Tony Benn - thoughts by Bristol's Respect Leader Neil Maggs

Very sad news on the passing of Tony Benn. Having just lost Bob Crow RIP, its been a bad week for those that support the trades union movement.

I first met Tony Benn in the 1970's when I was a boy living in the Hengrove area of Bristol. He was our MP in Bristol South East then, but I was at school and too young to vote.

The last time I spoke to Tony was in Tolpuddle, Dorset, about 18 months ago. The annual festival there remembers the farm workers that first stood up for workers rights in the 1830's.  The festival is The Tolpuddle Martyrs festival, and Tony Benn was always a strident supporter of the Tolpuddle festival.

Tony was a great orator at such events. I remember him a few years ago saying "I'm 84 years old now but still campaigning. If I had known that being 84 was this much fun I would have done it years ago".

He went on: "I had a letter from someone in Bristol. It read that he'd seen they had put a vehicle on planet Mars. He asked me that if we can get a vehicle onto planet Mars, is there any chance of a decent bus service around Bristol?".

Tony always supported workers rights and fought for jobs. That is Tony Benn's legacy. To fight for jobs, especially for our youngsters, and to fight for a society based on fairness and equal opportunities for all.

Rest in Peace, Tony. The world has lost a great man.


Neil Maggs
Bristol Respect

The Middle East

by Ali Kassim

David Miliband’s recent commentary on Syria as the International Rescue Committee’s President and Chief executive in which he stated:  ‘Syria may be lost, but we must stand by its victims’ is nothing but a despicable, audacious and cheap attempt by him to make a travesty of the Syrian issue.

He further adds: ‘The great powers won't halt the war, but they can help those affected’. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the aforementioned statements are akin to rubbing salt on one’s wounds and is an insincere, deplorable and insulting attempt to give legal amnesty to the perpetrators and supporters of the Middle East destruction.

Does it not occur to Mr Miliband that the above statements are similar to saying ‘it’s okay, I will destroy and burn down your house, steal your wealth, kill your family, but in return will provide charitable handouts to the wounded remaining members of your family in the aftermath’. What is one compelled to think after such statements?

Are the so- called ‘global powers’ beyond reach or culpability? What is the UN and other ‘peace loving’ countries doing to stop these atrocities committed (funnily enough only in those countries where a majority of its population are Muslims and who have a wealth of treasure to offer as booty).

Whilst I concede, David does go on to try and find a solution to ‘saving the nation’, his approach is weak, hypocritical, high handed and absurd. In this context, it was a great victory for the entire Labour Party and the British nation that he did not succeed in Labour’s leadership contest.  Such irresponsible statements only carry the potential for fuelling inter-faith and multi-cultural hatred.

Is Immigration a Good Thing?

by Maria Mouzouropoulos (13 years old)

As many of you are aware of the current dispute about the UK's immigration policies, I analysed and researched some statistics, to see what migrants really contribute to our society. This graph above shows the net number of immigrants who come to the UK, after a handful leave and others maintain their new lifestyle.The graph suggests that the numbers have fluctuated throughout the past several years, but the general trend of non-British citizens is increasing. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, most of them come for work. Before I explain further, the party UKIP want to limit immigration, and leave the European union, but is this the best option for our economy?

 The national institution of economic research study showed that 13 percent of our society today have come here as immigrants, and only 1 percent of those immigrants are reliant on benefits. Although that 1 percent is around 63,000- who are presumably unemployed; they too are just as likely to be asylum seekers or incapable of finding work. Yes, they may be claiming benefits but to what extend can we say no, no more benefits for you?  I suspect a lot of these immigrants didn't choose to be ending up claiming benefits, but just imagine if we said no to every immigrant who was relying on them. Consider The asylum seekers, those who were once living in poverty, finally having the opportunity to hope for a new life here in the UK, or people who can't work because they didn't have an education as an adolescent. Consequently, they will be homeless, starving and as a result the UK reputation will plummet and reach its terminal velocity.

Still not convinced about letting immigrants claim our benefits? Let me question this; would you rather have homeless, beggars, even children on the streets of London, or alternately some hopeful immigrants, relying on the benefits to help them find work, that create our economy for more than just the British citizens. Imagine how awful our reputation would look if we didn't have a variety of different cultures in our economy; this is a huge chunk that would be illuminated if you vote UKIP.

So now we've established that if we didn't allow immigrants to claim benefits, there would be thousands more beggars than we've ever recorded, and that if we didn't allow anyone access to live in the UK, there would be no cultures and no variety of different people in our society. I have also heard a series of times that they would take our jobs, but what in the right mind gives you this conclusion, when a BBC news investigation was carried out to prove that vast quantities of these harmless immigrants charge far less for jobs, and do more of the occupations that no British citizen is willing to do. Not to mention, a lot of these immigrants return home once they've earned a substantial amount to convert into their countries currency, which would be far more to support themselves and their families than what they would earn in their country,too.

So, if you want an even bigger deficit of jobs,a unsubstantial, limited, British society with no different cultures or nationalities-which are said to be a huge aspect of bringing our economy together, then vote UKIP!

 If not, then you should think about voting for Respect!

Drug addiction in society and the role of stakeholders

By Ali Kassim

In today’s tough economic climate where austerity is paramount and where budgets for various public services are constantly being scrutinized in a bid to maximise their effectiveness, it is also imperative for government departments to adopt a concerted and holistic approach in tackling any issues at hand.

Apropos of drug addiction and associated crime in society, the government needs to look at the root causes of the aforementioned, examine if current interventions are effective and if not, devise policy to revamp existing systems.

A one size fits all policy cannot fix the complex problem of drug addiction and associated crime. When people are sent to prison, some inmates do well with the structure afforded there; however, others do not do as well as anticipated upon release into the community and their offending continues. This means there is a cycle of some people keep going in and out of prison via the same judicial system. This then begs the question, are our laws effective?

The courts need to properly consider offending history and the commitment of a person to recovery before sentences are awarded. If the case is that the judge believes that a person would do better by treatment in the community, then a stricter and more regimented approach needs to be deployed to ensure appropriate interventions are given and utilised in the community in tandem with the regular substitute prescription drugs to empower people to get off their illicit drug use.

All tools to re-integrate people into the mainstream should be employed with no room for complacency. Their progress should be monitored strictly and without fear of being labelled as ‘heavy handed’. This is because such interventions are needed at times, of course, depending on individual cases and associated criminal activities.

If the aforementioned does not work, then there should be no cowing down to pressure from quarters that are not in favour of over subscribing prisons, but effectiveness of a modality should be looked at when it comes to rehabilitation. Having said that, prisons should be more recovery focussed too and a lot more needs to be done than just prescribing.

If drug addiction is to be tackled, the government needs to look at the police budget, time, and associated costs of the court systems as well as other government expenditure when tackling these issues. It might be an idea to take decisions on rehabilitation after considering holistic total costs to individuals and society rather than isolated government department budgets when taking decisions on expenditure.

Understanding the dynamics of Pakistan

by Ali Kassim

The UK prides itself on having a principled foreign policy that respects nations and their sovereignty and commits itself to not allowing the soil of this country to be used to wreak havoc overseas or colluding with any other person or country in meting out the same.

Then why is it that the previous Labour government as well as our incumbent Tory government is supporting or at least remaining silent over the issue of drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan. These attacks are killing innocent women and children and destroying the lives of a hundreds of thousands of human beings.

This brutal mass murder committed by the United States is against the UN ruling over respecting countries’ sovereignty and by the act of remaining silent and not supporting the moderate peace loving Muslims’ who oppose terrorist attacks and who are in favour of a composite dialogue to forge inter-faith harmony, the UK is playing into the hands of the extremist vested interests whose agenda is not Islam or anything but mere terrorism.

It is the need of the hour to revisit our foreign policy and not be swayed by selective media coverage of the minority fringes who are committing acts of violence in the name of Islam.

Hailing from Pakistan, I can safely assert, that 95 % of Pakistanis are peace loving, support the premise of live and let live and are peace loving moderate Muslims. In fact, they, more than anyone else, despise the so called ‘righteous’ who commit these acts of violence in the name of Islam, as this causes a dis-service to our peaceful religion in which we cannot even take our own life (commit suicide), let alone murder someone else.

Pakistan is a complex foreign policy landscape which carefully needs to be managed, namely by firstly promoting the UK as being the true friend of Pakistan, understanding the dilemmas the Pakistanis’ are facing not only when it comes to tackling insurgency and militants, but also the corrupt rulers who are destroying the country by only self serving. Assistance in educational development, Economic cooperation and high level diplomatic visits are needed from the UK to Pakistan to show the public the true friendship both countries enjoy. Hearts need to be won by taking a principled stance and rather than supporting a few select corrupt governments, who do not define ‘friendship’, the focus needs to shift to the country and its public.

The UK should also keep in mind that America has used and abused Pakistan many times and it should not follow suit by blindly supporting imperialism.

Judicial Fraud : How to recognize Defendant- Judge covert relationships

Judicial Fraud : How to recognize Defendant- Judge covert relationships Evidence:

by Farzana Haque

Except for one of my case which took place before year 2001, all other cases which took place after year 2003 revealed evidences of Defendant to Judge relationships. 

Guilty Defendants have only 2 ways to illegally defend an indefensible situation/case, the first is to find a way of avoiding a trial hearing from the outset (because they know the victim has evidence against them) and the other way is to make a judge avoid assessing/acknowledging the victim’s hard evidence even within a trial hearing.  But neither method is possible to achieve without the intervention/help of a judge who has to be willing to be faulty to carry out the illegal procedures or requirements of the Defendants..which is to cheat in any way possible to get out of the liability.  In other words, a judge has to be willing to refuse to do his fundamental role/job which is to study the evidence in order ascertain the facts and confirm those facts in his judgment so that the right law can be applied.  Instead what they have been doing is to falsify, manipulate or re-invent/re-interpret/distort evidence so that a false story in favour of the Defendant can be recorded in the legal books of case history, thus defame/libel the victim and load on false charges and costs onto the victim.  A false defense is a crime under CPR rule PD32 sec28 (1), so the judges who deliberately avoided checking out the defences in my cases are all complicit in this crime.  This is why it is so important to take an army of witnesses into what has become kangaroo courts.

There is one behaviour that is guaranteed to happen which is that if and when a judge does accept a corruption contract with a Defendant they will have to ensure that Defendant’s wishes are met a 100%, otherwise the Defendant will expose them for their involvement.  Likewise, judges who make secret deals with other justice sectors eg the police to do something corrupt for them (conspire) or to prevent solicitors from appealing against them, they will need to offer additional secret protection to these individuals for obeying their ill-intended plans. So once again, we can see the strength of their own protection from exposure will score as strongly as their protection of the Defendant, so the victim’s chance of a recovery is almost a 100% doomed.  So it should be of no surprise that evil laws have been brought out to protect judges from being exposed or accountable for their “judicial fraud”.  Please check out my article titled, “The Pro-Fraud” Laws of Britain”.

Here are some signs/symptoms of the existence of Defendant-Judge relationships:

a)     They show no signs of fear of being brought to court, yet they fear

 and respond to the threat of being exposed to the media.  In  

 other words, they feel they have more control over courts than over

 the media.  - Ref my case against a training company called   

 Tigrent for misrepresentation (which has not yet come to court but they

 have been avoiding all the pre-action protocol procedures) inspite of three

 of my solicitors writing to them about it.

b)    When they do not feel any fear at presenting a “Bare Denial” defence statement, in other words, they have already discussed their defence with an internal court judge who has already given them the approval to proceed with it.  A “bare denial” defence is an unacceptable defence according to CPR rule 1.6 because it means the Defendant did not have any evidence to oppose the Claimant’s allegations except to deny it eg to say, “No I didn’t do it”.  Eg in my case against the solicitor firm [MTG solicitors] it is evidenced by how they claimed to have “Prospects of Success” for their “bare denial” defence, which a judge should have found unacceptable especially from solicitors, yet Asst DJ Walders at Uxbridge County Court supported it

in breach of the law.  This is both a corruption of the law and evidence of

the existence of their relationship out of courtroom.

c)     Evidence of how Defendants know in advance the contents of court order information long before the orders are released to either parties.  Example can be found in my Freedman -Peri case (Fake Freeholder fraud case) about how they submitted their 2^nd defence on time long before they received the order as the court letter of 30Jan2012 sent to them was returned and they informed us that the Defendants had not received the order because they were not in. 

d)    When court hearings and applications go missing because they are not suitable for the Defendant, eg in my Freedman -Peri case.

The Defendants wanted to avoid cost hearings in order to avoid giving financial affordability information and any scope to be cross-examined, so they managed to dodge these every time over a 2 year period which is not possible without specific judges instructions to ensure it.   

    

e)     When certain admin staff are seen to issue written decisions without giving a judge’s name (because it is a dodgy decision) ; or when they redirect our paperwork /applications to certain judges only; or are found reacting aggressively to our wanting to hand over evidence because they had been (forwarned in advance) or instructed not to accept such evidence from us.  The Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHO) received details of such admin involvement in these ways as part of my complaints but they refused to investigate. When there are changes of staff after the case starts it usually means that the Defendant’s network of people have taken over to ensure the journey goes according to their plans. This sort of manoeuvre would not be possible without the secret intervention by key legal/political high ups.

f)      When Defendants’ instructions are responded to by the court in minutes or days but Claimant’s instructions or applications take months or not dealt with at all.  Freedman –Peri case. Revealed in my bundle (A) for Case management detail trends, and decisions.

g)     When the judges don’t mind the racist comments of a white person attacking the Defendant (allegedly acting as my agent in a race discrimination case who was actually hired by the Defendant to behave so) but rather to want to severely punish my criticisms on their procedural unfairness and detection of court malpractice or irregularity.   Ref- my employment case events as described in the judgment on that case, but the proofs against it are in my silver binded bundle dated 14July2007 pages....which of course the public do not get to see, they only see the judgment.

h)    When they the judges can boldly claim to be biased and not fear

repercussions, it means that they have already received authorisation from higher levels for their judicial fraud plans (due to the Defendant’s solicitors contacting power houses of the legal world in advance).  Ref my employment case when the judge who struck out the case had quoted such statements during the cost hearing that followed the strikeout hearing. 

i)       Or how the Defendant applies for a time extension to submit their amended defence yet it turns out that they added nothing more to their defence of a bare denial.  Doing a bare denial takes minutes so the time extension was not really about producing a bare denial but rather that they needed time to find a judge who was willing to do as they wanted.  Ref my case against the Police no:  9CL08481 which in the end I was forced to pull out due to threats of them charging me with false costs through potentially fraudulent judges. 

j)       Or when our special delivery postage proofs are altered to suit the Defendant’s requirements.  It means that the Defendants have managed to establish a network of control over the court to be able to achieve such results as it takes a designated admin staff to alter “received” dates for them. For example it had happened in my Police case, when they needed their late time extension application to overrule my application for judgment which had reached the court before their docs..

k)    And of course when judges get to block our appeals, are able to do so, by making sure that admin staff forward all appeal applications to their chosen specific judges as this procedure ensures that the appeals reach only the person who has been instructed to turn it down.  The more the irregularity we report, the more they turn down the appeal, which ensures that their fraud decisions cannot be exposed and can continue to be forced on us. 

l)       When offices such as the Attorney General feel no obligation to do their job according to the law they have written; when they feel they have the freedom to discriminate and not explain their actions; when they have the power to take action against frivolous and vexatious defences yet do not do so; but are yet prepared to condemn/punish strictly the frivolous and vexatious Litigant, has surely been pro-fraud and practices inequality that breaches EU law.

Thoughts on the Syria conflict

by Callum Higgins

Thoughts from the point of view of a 16 year old

The Syria situation is one that is both complex and hard to research, as no one seems to know anything substantial – and by no one, I mean anyone other than the Higher Power Executives of the Western world. This is an article based on deduction and logic. This is not an article in support of any particular side and isn’t actually very focused on the Syria situation, although it uses it as a contemporary example to illustrate certain points.

 Vladmir Putin’s plan to take Syria’s chemical weapons has been accepted by Syria – a problem sorted, right? Why would Assad refuse to comment on whether he even HAS chemical weapons, then agree to give them over to Putin? Is this an international agenda to protect various interests of various different elites in various parts of the world? This plan benefits all involved, especially the highest powers in the world – the US, for example. Obama definitely benefits from Putin’s plan – otherwise it’d seem to the world that he’d suffered a massive political defeat with even Britain deciding to take no action and Congress looking sceptical. Putin’s plan means Obama can save face and brush the fact that the US lacked international support – and the support of the UN – in his plans for military intervention in Syria under the rug. It’s interesting to point out the hypocrisy of Obama’s, some might say, ‘war-mongering’ techniques. Obama keeps mentioning the ‘international laws’ that all countries are supposed to abide by, and yet he’s breaking one himself – the UN bans the ‘threat or use of force’ and yet Obama is still threatening use of force. If what we’re told in school is to be believed, two wrongs don’t make a right, Mr Obama.

                In September 2013, Putin proposed a plan to neutrally and peacefully take Assad’s chemical weapons after the world leader meeting at which Syria was not even on the agenda, but was inevitably talked about. If a subject which is not officially on the agenda can be discussed, who knows what has been said or agreed behind those closed doors over the years? How has it come to be that people who claim to be so accountable to and representative of the public suddenly become so unaccountable in many ways? Wouldn’t an above-the-board, above-the-belt, by-the-books leadership team let everyone know what was really going on? A straight live audio feed from the room would have been nice – no time for that little bit of editing that we’re so good at doing now-a-days to misframe the real issues. Society has been arranged by the people who run it in the way it is today with the assurance we only ever really see the outcomes and never the real agendas or interests between international allies that these outcomes protect or serve. What other reason is there for Putin’s surprisingly fierce upholding of his view against intervention in Syria, given that Assad had been accused of using chemical weapons against his own people, other than to protect interests? But then, why would he go against a country that Russia had been so closely allied with for many years? Take into consideration that Israel, which is in the region of Syria and has close links with America, has praised the treaty – describing it as a ‘breakthrough’ – has refused to acknowledge its own chemical weapon possession. If it’s such a good idea for Syria to give up their weapons, why wouldn’t Israel follow suit to encourage the entire world to drop their chemical weapons as all these world leaders seem to want? I think it’s because everyone wants change but no one wants to make changes to themselves – ‘I’m fine, it’s those other people that need changing’… It’s perhaps too philosophical for such a slippery and bloody subject such as politics to say that they should look at themselves before trying to change others, but we are humans, and it always seems to be someone else’s problem.

 To me, it all seems to be an international, cross-continental and massively propagandized playground fight between 2 of the biggest kids in the school – the US and Russia. According to this metaphor, Syria is a smaller friend of Russia who may have been doing some bad things recently. As a 16 year old, I have heard for most of my life the ‘lessons’, doctrines and ideologies rammed into kids’ heads from the time they start school until they enter the big wide world and find it’s… nothing like they thought. We are told to do the right thing, and stand up and speak out if we see other people doing things wrong – an ‘upstander-bystander’ type principal. So, if Syria and Russia are great friends, why doesn’t Russia speak out against Syria’s bad actions? It just seems that the public is being told, taught and trained to act in one way – perhaps in order to create a whistle-blowing society that lightens the load on law enforcement – while world leaders act in the opposite way. Perverting the course of justice is punishable, at maximum, by a life sentence and is defined as an act in ‘which someone prevents justice from being served on himself or on another party’. This is the rule that applies to the public. Isn’t Assad’s refusal to answer on whether he possesses chemical weapons preventing justice from ‘being served on himself or on another party’? That’s just one example of the double edged sword that is world leadership and the double standard which exists within the world. This system, as I understand it, works on a ‘reverse meritocratic’ basis – in other words, the worse stuff you do, the worse you get punished. Saying this, it just seems to me that the public are given one liberty-reducing rule book whilst if you just happen to run a country, it’s  ‘here you go – the same rule book with a few blank spaces left to suit your needs’, have a nice day, Sir’.

                On September 10, 2013, Obama gave a speech full of all the usual American idioms and ideology that’s usually found in President’s speeches – ‘My fellow Americans’ and all that meaningless and fake camaraderie-talk. Obama, in highly dramatic words and in a highly dramatic speech style – the usual even tone from Obama (perhaps so he’s seen as the world’s voice of reason, I don’t know), as well as various stops, pauses and ellipses at the dramatic points of his propagandized and unevidenced claims. There’s no doubt Obama is a great orator, but then again, so was Hitler. Obama accused Assad of gassing ‘over 1000 people, including 100s of children’ without conclusive evidence from the UN chemical weapons inspectors before going on to use not-so-covert shock tactics – describing the images, that most had already seen, in great detail with a disapproving expression across his face - in order to scare his compliant and unthinking nation of people, and indeed the compliant and unthinking people of the world…and he wonders why some say he’s war mongering. In fact, in July, the Office of Foreign Assets Control authorised the channelling of financial support for the Free Syrian Army through the Syrian Support Group – doesn’t it seem like he’s fuelling the war in order to have an excuse to intervene? More on covert operations and coups d’états later. Late social critic and stand-up comedian, George Carlin, commented on America’s lack of skills by pointing out that America ‘can’t build a decent car’ and ‘can’t make a TV set or a VCR worth a fuck’ among other things before coming to the punch line – ‘But we can bomb the shit out of your country, alright’. George puts it perfectly in this section from his 1992 stand-up DVD, ‘Jammin’ in New York’, and has pointed out that America is only 200 years old and has already had 10 major wars – an average of a major war every 20 years. He then goes on to compare America with Nazi Germany by saying, ‘Can you remember any white people we’ve ever bombed? The Germans, those are the only ones and that’s only ‘cuz they were try’na cut in on our action! They wanted to dominate the world, bullshit – that’s our fucking job!’ Maybe it seems that I digress from my point, but it’s just interesting to watch shows from over 20 years ago and we seem to have come so far as a world society… and yet, the same things are still happening today! How far have we really come when Carlin can point out in ‘92, and not for the first time, that America have a habit of getting themselves into wars and the same quotes still be relevant to today’s situations? It would seem that humans ‘like to think we've evolved and advanced because we can build a computer, fly an airplane, travel underwater, we can write a sonnet, paint a painting, compose an opera. But you know something? We're barely out of the jungle on this planet. Barely out of the fucking jungle. What we are, is semi-civilized beasts, with baseball caps and automatic weapons.’ – this passage is a quote from Carlin’s 2005 ‘Life is Worth Losing’ stand-up show, almost 15 years after ‘Jammin’ in New York’ and still saying the same things!

                So anyway, George Carlin, in my opinion, has it down to a tee there with his analyses of past America which are, on the whole, still applicable today. Obama described how America had been the ‘anchor of global security’ for almost 7 decades, a conspicuous and highly subjective statement to make to such a wide range of people. How much trust can we put in the statement when almost every few years, the US is involved with the regime change of some less developed country with outcomes that ‘coincidentally’ benefit themselves, such as the Iranian coup of 1953.

                During the Cold war, America had been involved in 21 coups d’états – both successful and unsuccessful. Since the end of the cold war, they have been involved in 8 coups d’états including the current Syrian crisis – some of which are still happening. I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like a country which has been the ‘anchor of global security’ as Obama put it. I don’t understand how he can outright lie to the world in saying this, when any member of the public can go on the internet or go to a library and find out that America – and especially the CIA – has been involved with many regime changes abroad which did not threaten their national security. For example, 1983 – the Grenada coup had US support under Reagan who’s administration had over 250 members that had quit, been arrested, been fired, convicted or were otherwise under investigation. In fact, the Attorney General was under investigation by 4 different bodies and he was the nation’s leading law enforcement officer! Another example, 1973 – the US played a major role in overthrowing the parliamentary democracy of Chile and imposing a military dictatorship after Nixon launched economic warfare and once ordered the relevant people to, ‘Make the economy scream’. People in Latin America actually call the coup ‘the first 9/11’. Yet another example, 1963 – the South Vietnam coup, backed by the US, which was surrounded with mystery and controversy after their target was executed in convoy and the offending officers tried to cover it up as a suicide despite there being multiple gunshot and stab wounds on the body. Are they to be fully trusted after such dishonesty has been shown in the past? Now, another ‘incident’ America played a little part in – the 1953 Iran coup. In 1953, the US and the UK, we are not excluded from all of this by the way, overthrew the parliamentary system of Iran and wanted to impose a ‘puppet regime’ on the country. . Iran naturally wanted to get rid of the British political influence and put an end to exploitation by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which is now one of our main suppliers of oil – BP. In 1951, 2 years before the coup, negotiations between AIOC and the Iranian government failed and the oil industry was nationalized with the industry being transferred from private to state ownership or control. Do you think AIOC would have liked this? Probably not – they would have lost millions, maybe more, from the move. So what did they do about it? On British initiative, the CIA overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddegh which meant that although the oil industry was still formally nationalized, a few different oil companies were allowed to operate and make money there under a standard of 50/50 profit-sharing deal. The whole process left the British a major share in what had been their ‘single most valuable foreign asset’. Now, back to the present day – or recent past if you want to be picky – in August 2013, the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and high ranking army officials as well as pro-coup propaganda. Also, it has emerged that AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials and ‘nobody seems to notice… nobody seems to care’ (another Carlin quote if you were wondering).

So you see that my point is, money and national interests – economic, political or other – can come before what might be best for certain countries and is an amplified version of the very human trait of self-preservation and the evil ‘twin’ of that trait – self-interest. Democracy and fairness will always be overturned by the want – the need – for money and power over others. But maybe that knowledge of self-worth, self-interest and greed is what makes us human and what has led the human race to ultimately, as Louis CK put it, ‘get out of the food chain’. People forget that these are human traits, they affect most of humanity, including politicians. These people also blame politicians for being as they are but don’t understand that these politicians come from the same societies as they do - although no doubt from a higher class. The difference is that these politicians just happen to have enormous and devastating amounts of power in their hands. Anyone familiar with even more George Carlin quotes or shows may see the start of one of his arguments, but I won’t go into it more than to say; these are the reasons society will never change, never improve and never succeed – humans look for ideals when we are ourselves massively flawed in our nature.

‘It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.’ – George Carlin, Life is Worth Losing, 2005