Rooks -v- crooks

Who says MI5 couldn’t use a trained rook or crow to harass a target?

There’s a great deal more to Philip Kerr’s harassment claim against MI5 than just the trained rook or crow.  Every single harassing course of conduct alleged has included incidents that others besides Mr Kerr himself have witnessed.  These include more familiar methods of harassment, such as sleep deprivation and “theatre”.

MI5 attempted to get Mr Kerr’s case struck out without a public hearing in open court.  They have failed.  There will be a hearing.  Watch this space for news of the first hearing date, when this is announced.  Come and watch British justice at work at the Royal Courts of Justice on the day.  Invite the press along.

See also


Filed under Law, Targeted

Covert Harassment Conference 2014

The Covert Harassment Conference 2014, the first such, is to be held in Brussels, on Thursday 20th November 2014.

I plan to attend this one day event, God willing.  I have been asked to make a short presentation myself.  There are some fairly well-known other people speaking.  Please visit the conference website for details.  I don’t think that it will all be just speeches and presentations from dawn to dusk.  It is billed as a conference.

If enough people want to come with me, I hope to drive my minibus over to Brussels the afternoon before (Wednesday 19th), and back the morning or afternoon after (Friday 21st).  Anybody who wants a lift from London in my minibus, or from places to the west of London that are en route from Cornwall, please email me.

The conference website is

There is a hotel nearby that is cheaper than the one in which the conference is being held.

Nearer to the time, I hope also to arrange a meeting in London, either on Tuesday 18th, or on Saturday 22nd. Which do you think would be better?


Filed under Targeted

Nice curry, shame about the hate

David Cameron debunked

Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam then?  Is that Cameron’s latest thesis?  The clue isn’t in the name after all then?

Thank you, Mr Cameron, for educating the rest of us so well, provided, that is, we believe uncritically in the mere assertions of your democratically elected self (if that’s not overstating your coalition government’s mandate).

Cameron’s might seem like a pretty plausible stance, at first glance, to many a citizen.  Why, the speaker’s own “Parliamentary Conservative Party”, the bunch of legislators who (for example) are even willing meekly to advance the “smash the family” social engineering of their own Marxist Feminist infiltrators whenever Mr Cameron’s whips order them to do so, aren’t actually conservatives themselves nowadays, are they?  Not in deed as in profession.

What then could be more reasonable than that hypocrisy just like his own is what now fuels mayhem in Iraq and Syria?  Something as unconnected with what Islam really is, as he is with what conservatism really is?

But, hang on a minute, before swallowing, hook, line and sinker, what Cameron seems to be saying, to you. (It isn’t easy to work out what he is actually saying, objectively, to anybody who is listening, as he makes the noises that he thinks of as the right noises for him to be making now, with so many votes at stake.) Let us please think awhile, for a change.

I shall now use straw man rhetoric.  I use it not to prove a thought bite point of mine, though.  (Not that anybody is ever likely in the near future to challenge Mr Cameron to prove any such point that he makes, assuming he makes a point that we can all understand alike, and assuming that he is in the business of making proper points in the first place, rather than mere noises.)

I propose now to paraphrase some of the words of the real Mr Cameron, into the fictitious words of my “straw man” Cameron.   I do this merely in order to help me to make my point, to you, dear reader.  This small leeway for valid “straw man” rhetoric, rather than straw man argument, is surely allowed.  Once you have got my point, with the help of my Straw Cameron’s paraphrased speech, you are perfectly entitled to ask me to prove my point, although I am equally entitled not to be bothered to do that, because you could easily just read the Koran for yourself.

Isn’t Straw Cameron merely saying this? :-

Just as the (Parliamentary) Conservatives in the UK by-and-large aren’t really conservatives at all nowadays, likewise (“trust me on this, I’m a Prime Minister”) Islamist Extremists, far from being extremely Islamic as you’d naturally expect from the nomenclature, are, in fact, hardly Islamic people at all, perhaps not even true Moslems at all, not even moderately so.

My straw Cameron is here borrowing, and applying to Islam, on which he makes pretensions to having such expertise, a distinction of protestant theology said to have eternal consequences.  That is, the distinction between, on the one hand, “true believers” – born-again saints if you like – real Christians – people who are thought to be “saved” and who are collectively referred to as “the church invisible” – and, on the other hand, “hypocrites” and “temporary believers” (as I seem to remember that the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 refer to them) sojourning within what protestants used to call “the church visible”.

Isn’t what Straw Cameron is really saying also this, on the other hand? :-

That it’s really that nice Turkish chap at the kebab shop, or Bengali waiter at the “Indian” restaurant, who, for all we know, wouldn’t hurt a fly, eats pork chops served to him at table if it would offend a tactless English host not to (or because he just likes pork) who is the true Moslem? The so-called Moslem who drinks lager (but only socially, and very occasionally, of course, because Allah is merciful)?  The Moslem who quite possibly hasn’t visited a mosque or spoken to an imam in five years?  The nominal Moslem, like the seven Bosnian refugees who drank lager (at least, the adults did) and ate bacon butties, to whom I offered shelter in my house in Guildford over twenty years ago, when a local church was bringing Moslems over from war-torn Bosnia to the UK as refugees, by the bus-load?  The “moderate” Moslem next door who is not at risk of ever planting a bomb himself, or chopping off some other poor frightened chap’s head, possibly because he keeps his only copy of the Koran (and that hardly ever used) in a box in his attic?

If Islam is “the religion of peace”, Straw Cameron continues, then might not this peace-loving nice-guy stereotype be the “true” Moslem that Mr Cameron so enthusiastically envisages, even though Mr Cameron is at other times as cynical about truth as was Pontius “What is truth?” Pilate himself?  How convenient would that be!

Mr Cameron, I suspect, doesn’t relate well to any brand of what he’d call “fundamentalism”.  God knows he has gone out of his way to ensure that many Christian fundamentalists will never again vote Tory. Cameron is best known in the circles in which I move for betraying conservative fundamentals.  He is a kinder and wiser person, in some respects, than he would be, if he had insisted upon believing in, and acting upon, the literal truth of the whole counsel of the scriptures of Conservatism published in the last Tory manifesto.  I grant him that compliment.  But he has also done great harm which surely nobody in their right mind would ever have elected him to do, because he has disdained belief in the literal truth of his own manifesto, the scriptures of modern British Conservatism.

Straw Cameron’s argument is that Islamic Extremists aren’t even moderately Islamic, as he understands what it is to be Islamic; whilst Islamic Moderates, his sort of people, or at least people he can put up with, are extremely akin to his preferred mental picture of what it is to be Islamic in the first place.  N’est-ce pas?

Not approving of any sort of fundamentalism helps Mr Cameron to overcome the cognitive dissonance, whereby obeying the Islamic scriptures, specifically the Koran, interpreted literally, by becoming a terrorist (say), isn’t at all what he means by “Islamic”, whereas humbly serving drunk English lager louts bacon burgers in a take-away, never reading the Koran, and certainly never becoming a terrorist, is extremely Islamic to Mr Cameron’s imaginative and wishful way of thinking.

Islamic Moderates are thus extremely Islamic according to Mr Cameron, whilst Islamic Extremists aren’t even moderately Islamic.

Islam is what it is.  No matter how many millions believe what they hear from Mr Cameron, their mistaken belief cannot miraculously make a lie true. Wishing, and therefore declaring in a political speech what one hopes will turn out to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, that war-mongering Islam has really been a religion of peace all along, an unjustly misunderstood calming influence on the world stage for the past dozen centuries, isn’t going to fool the people.

David Cameron mocks the phrase “a clash of civilisations”, in a speech in which he describes exactly that!

I enjoyed making my point so much, I have no time left to prove it.  Anybody know whether it is true?  Would the real Islam please stand up?


Filed under Islam, Political, Satire and humour

Human rights and harassment

The Tories are now threatening to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).  If the Tories carry out their threat, it will no longer be possible to sue a public authority directly for infringing one’s Convention rights.  How shall those of us whose rights public authorities infringe obtain a remedy, if the HRA is repealed?

I believe I have had a partial answer to that question for about a year now.  I hope that there is a test case soon, that will establish whether I am right about this.

It so happens that about a year ago, I began to consider alternative ways of defending one’s rights against public authorities, without using the HRA s7(1)(a).  The impetus for this research on my part was my thinking about the hypothetical case of somebody who might one day be tempted to consider suing one of the intelligence services under the HRA.  It is possible to do this in theory. However, because of a provision of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), in practice, any case brought against an intelligence service under the HRA s7(1)(a), is not heard in open court, under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), but secretly, in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), under very different rules indeed.

In such a case, the IPT can only do one of two things:

(1) tell the claimant that his human rights have indeed been infringed, but not tell him how, when or why, nor put a stop to the infringements

(2) tell the claimant that his human rights have not been infringed, but not tell him either whether this is (a) because what he apprehends has been done to him has not been done after all, or (b) because this or that was done to him exactly as he apprehends (or something different), but all of it was lawful, being proportionate to a legitimate aim, or whatever other excuse there might be.

Up until the date on which civil servant Dr Elizabeth Fitton-Higgins at the Covert Surveillance Policy Team, within the Intelligence and Security Liaison Unit at the Home Office wrote back to me giving me the figures, the breakdown between outcome (1) and outcome (2) in the IPT was:

  • Outcome (1) – claimant wins – 0% of cases heard
  • Outcome (2) – defendant wins – 100% of cases heard

This depressing statistic made it potentially desirable to dream up a way, God willing, for somebody to sue an intelligence service, in open court, under the CPR.  (One never knows when somebody one might meet in everyday life might need to do something like this.)

To cut a long story short, I believe that I discovered last year that the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) would often be a suitable tool, for doing the job of protecting one’s rights against a public authority.  It is a tool that anybody could try to use even now, even against an intelligence service, if they did not fancy their (slim) chances with the tame and secretive IPT.  Provided, that is, the infringement of their rights (of the HRA rights the Tories plan to confiscate, that is) consisted of a course of conduct that amounted to harassment.  The PHA will presumably remain a tool that will still be able to be used against other public authorities, even if a future Tory government plunges British jurisprudence into utter turmoil, by repealing the HRA.

Another thing that is good about the PHA, apart from getting harassment claims against intelligence services into open court, is that the limitation period is six years (or maybe longer if the harassment has been continuous across the limitation threshold).  That’s a lot longer than the 12 month limitation period of the HRA s7(1)(a).

If the Tories, having read this little blog post, also repeal the PHA along with the HRA, or amend RIPA to route PHA claims against intelligence services to the IPT the way that HRA s7(1)(a) claims are routed to the IPT now, I suppose you will have to blame me for this, for having discovered the loophole in RIPA, and having mentioned it publicly, here, today.

I have a similar project on the go, by the way, this time to find a way of challenging child safeguarding social workers, without having to use other secret courts that are not much better than the IPT, the family courts.  I think I have made a discovery here that will be even more important, and a great blessing for children who have one parent whom they never see (for example).  I’ll leave it until another day to tell you about that though.


Filed under Human Rights, Law, Targeted

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

John Allman:

The post by Mallory Millet (sister of the notorious Kate Millet) almost took my breath away, when I first read it, some weeks ago. It makes for gripping reading.

Originally posted on The Libertarian Alliance Blog:

Note: “Julie near Chicago” originally posted the link to this article in a comment under the article “5 reasons why Christians should not obtain a state marriage license”. Promoted to front page. This article exposes the fundamentally religious nature of the struggle we libertarians are facing. We ignore it at our peril. It also makes clear that we will never win without convincing more women. M.n.

View original 201 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Human Rights, Political, Pro-life, Reblogged, Righteousness

Brainwashing boys: Feminist doctrine for the early years – by Karen Woodall

I would like to recommend this new post by Karen Woodall.boy-rolling-eyes








Filed under Feminism, Human Rights, Political, Reblogged

Redefining the United Kingdom


Not content with redefining marriage, as if this wasn’t presumptuous enough, the powers-that-be have now painted themselves into a corner, in which they may end up having to redefine the United Kingdom.  And this, to my horror, less than a year after I acquired the domain JohnAllman.UK for this blog.  And they will have to re-define the UK in such a way that an independent Scotland can remain in the UK, and hence in the EU, and in such a way that the British Commonwealth, like too many children nowadays, can have (so-to-speak) two mothers (i.e. mother countries).

IdeaWhen did the United Kingdom come into existence?  Was it in 1603, when James VI of Scotland started to wear a second crown on his one head?  Or was it in 1707, when the Scots and Westminster parliaments both voted to merge?

If the former, cannot Scots independence be viewed merely as redefining the UK to be the nation it was from 1603 to 1707?

I have not heard anybody comment upon the significance of a “yes” vote in the Scots referendum upon the Privy Council, for that matter.  Nor whether there will be two Royal Prerogatives in future.  And so on.

It is surely inconceivable that the monarch, to whom the armed forces swear allegiance, should have to risk the conflict of interests that allowing Scotland and the rest of us to have different foreign and defence policies might lead to, potentially finding ourselves on opposite sides in a future war.  We would not surely want the supreme commander of two armies, the constitutional monarch, on the advice of different ministers, to have to order two of her armies to fight one another.

(Before you say it, yes, I do realise that we are already at this risk in theory, in that we could get into a squabble with Canada.)

What we are going to need is a sort of meta-parliament of the UK, that decides those few policies, and enacts those few acts, that, subsidiarity notwithstanding, simply have to be decided at UK level, rather than in Scotland, England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland, or England-and-Wales-and-Northern-Ireland.

One cheap, fair and rational solution (which I remember thinking of when I was ten years old, in one of those “Why don’t they?” daydreams that children have) has surely always been to have only one parliamentary election.  (You may say I was a dreamer, but I wasn’t the only one.)

The Scots parliament thus becomes defined as the subset of MPs elected to Scottish seats of the UK Parliament, the English parliament becomes defined as the subset of MPs elected to English seats, the Welsh parliament becomes the subset of MPs elected to Welsh seats and the Northern Ireland parliament becomes the subset of MPs elected to Northern Irish seats.  There would also be a virtual parliament of Great Britain, all the MPs except those from Northern Ireland, an England-and-Wales parliament, and, theoretically, a Northern UK parliament, consisting of Scots and Northern Irish MPs, plus every other combination.

Presenting the same solution viewed from the opposite perspective, instead of defining (say) the Scots parliament as a subset of the UK parliament, the UK parliament could be defined as a union (in the sense of the word within the “set theory” of mathematics, sometimes called a “superset” by non-mathematicians) of the English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots parliaments, but with each MP casting a block vote equal to the population of his constituency in his one-of-four homeland, rather than a single vote.  Whichever of the four countries one lived in, one would only need to vote for a single MP, in that country’s own local parliament.  Synods (so-to-speak) of all or some or the four parliaments could meet at Westminster, sitting as the UK parliament, or as (say) the Great Britain parliament, etc.

Thus the unity of the UK would be maintained, in the eyes of (say) the EU (and the domain registrars who have me down as now owning a dot UK domain).  The four sub-nations of the greater nation would be being treated absolutely equally.  A great deal of money would be saved.  Exemplary subsidiarity would be achieved.

Little that affected (say) only Wales or Scotland would ever again need to be decided partly by English MPs, but the little that did still need to be decided at UK level could continue to be decided at UK level.

The EU would not be able to insist that Scotland applied for EU membership.  We could continue to have one currency. The banks with their headquarters in Scotland would not feel the need to evacuate to London in a panic.  Englishmen would not need work permits to work in a Scotland that had left the EU, and Scots would not need to be placed in no better a position than (say) Nigerians, if they wanted to work in Wales, or Germany for that matter.

By some combination of (1) allowing MPs to appoint proxies with (so-to-speak) power of attorney to speak for them and to vote for them in divisions, during proceedings in Cardiff, Edinburgh or at Stormont that they could not attend because of commitments in Westminster, or vice versa, and (2) glorified remote conferencing technology that the likes of British Telecom, Google and Microsoft would love to tender to provide, this is all a great deal more achievable (and cheaper than anything more complicated, that increases, or misses the opportunity to reduce, the population size of the political class) than it would have been in 1603, or 1707.

With a little ingenuity, a similar approach could be used with the non-elected House of Lords, to keep all of the various parliaments bi-cameral.

As usual, I dare say that there is something wrong with how I am thinking.  I need my commenters to tell me what is wrong with how I am thinking though.

Leave a comment

Filed under General chit-chat, Law, Political, Satire and humour


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 217 other followers