Gallowayist You Tube J

Bradford West’s Unsafe Election: “Gallowayist” Smears Naz Shah

It was announced today that the police are investigating the smear campaign against Naz Shah in Bradford.

Mr. Galloway has continued to smear the personal character of his Labour opponent, Naz Shah, during an election period, for the purposes of influencing an election – directly and on the record.

He stated of her falsely on Twitter:

GG evidence interesting link J

Indeed, the judges said no such thing, as my previous article explains. They said if her mother’s evidence, which they did not accept, was true, Ms. Shah must have been lying.

Mr. Galloway also falsely smeared Naz Shah’s character in yet more intemperate terms on his party website:

 “A jury in the original trial where her mother was convicted on four counts – fraud, soliciting murder, attempted murder and murder – not only unanimously decided her mother was guilty but concluded Naz Shah’s evidence was a tissue of lies, as did the appeal court,”

Lawyers have confirmed to me that juries do not rule on the credibility of witness evidence during criminal trials, nor did they in 1993, still less do they call it “a tissue of lies”; nor did the appeal court.

But Mr. Galloway does not stop at the merely demonstrably false accusation of fact, he goes all-in on Ms. Shah’s character:

Galloway continued: “I deeply regret that Labour has continued to drag this sordid tale and this disreputable candidate and her story across Bradford West voters. There is much more but I have no wish to delve further into the sewer.

Yes, that is correct, that is Mr. Galloway calling the life of Ms. Shah “sordid”, calling her “disreputable” and calling her life “a sewer.”

This next piece of evidence comes from Mr. Galloway’s YouTube channel via @Gallowayism, the uploader, of whom more shortly. It is a longer video of the start of the hustings. Galloway’s speech can be found by sliding the cursor to 12:51, if you have a strong stomach. Here is the relevant transcript:

Galloway: You were a big loser then, and the kind of way that you have embarked upon this campaign has already ensured you’re going to be a big loser again. You have only a passing acquaintance with the truth. You claimed, and gullible journalists believed you, that you were subject to a forced marriage at the age of 15. But you were not 15. You were sixteen and a half. I have your Nikkah [cheers] – I have your Nikkah in my pocket [more cheers as Mr. Galloway takes it out and waves it in the air] – in my pocket [cheers, hooting]. You told that story –

Moderator: Mr. Galloway – [she rebukes him then adds] can we now move on to issues please.

Galloway: You allowed – you allowed three personal attacks on me by my New Labour opponent.

Moderator: Mr. Galloway – I was going to come back to that

Galloway: I’m making –

Moderator: – Can I please ask the emotions to just come down for a while, and I think, Mr. Galloway will you continue please.

Galloway: I will continue. No-one will ever stop me from speaking. [cheers, hoots]. The issue is that my opponent is a liar. She lied about me, she lied about her age, she slandered this community for her own selfish ends. She played into every stereotype – every stereotype –

Moderator and Galloway argue about winding it up

Galloway: I have set politics alight in Bradford [continues to praise himself til end of speech].

In my previous article I suggested that Mr. Galloway had called Ms. Shah a racist on Twitter, and then second-hand by re-tweeting the comments of Respect Party Secretary Ron MacKay in Urban Echo: I did not then notice that he had done so directly at the hustings as well, leveling two character charges that not only did she lie about being raped but that she was being a racist for personal gain.

I gather from reports on the ground that the Respect campaigners are, at this point, getting little support on the street. Of course, under the law, since it is Ms. Shah’s personal character that has been falsely smeared in an election period, no result on May 7th is safe unless she is elected*, as any other candidate would have indirectly benefited from the malicious defamation of her character. There is a danger that if Mr. Galloway loses on the night, that the criminal offence committed by every member of Respect who has falsely smeared Ms. Shah during an election period will be forgotten.

Adrian Longthorn

It must not be. What is normally mere libel becomes an offence during an election period when done in order to influence an election. Justice for Naz Shah and the electorate in Bradford West has wider consequences for women and womens’ rights in a parliamentary democracy.

The Independent’s report on the police investigation, however, contains this manifestly wrong paragraph: I am amazed that they printed it.

The website being investigated by police is not connected with Mr Galloway or Respect, and a spokesman for Mr Galloway said he was unaware of its contents.

Yes indeed, the smear site is intimately connected with the Respect Party. Respect Party members have tweeted it out on the record, and from accounts that are officially connected to Respect, like his YouTube Channel operator @Gallowayism, as well as from sock puppets that are well known to Mr. Galloway and Respect.

Gallowayism smearGallowayism tweets smear site J

Part Two: The Connections Between George Galloway and the Smear Campaign

My prior article examined how many sock puppet twitter accounts that were RTing the smear blog were also being RTed and followed by Mr. Galloway. This is interesting as many with whom he interacts on Twitter find themselves blocked for even minor criticism. But Mr. Galloway was willing to follow accounts whom he could see were smearing Ms. Shah.

The most recent of these, still live as of this writing, is @Gallowayism. As you can see, his follow list includes smear accounts @Nshahbrad and @bradfordrising as well as smear account @kiranknite who is actually the smearing real person @JassiSinger, the creator of @kiranknite, along with anti-semites @GiladAtzmon and @TippleJack. At the very bottom of his follow list is Galloway, meaning this was his first follow, and the list includes Ron McKay, the Respect Party, and Galloway’s election agent @MrAshUK.

In this tweet @Gallowayism thanks @MrAshUK for supplying him with the raw video of the hustings.In this he aims to get the smear site better tweeted out. On April 13, he RTs the smear account @nshahbrad with a live link to the smear site. Here I include only a screenshot, as I do not include live links to that site in any of my articles. He directly tweets out the smear site himself four times.

Nshahbrad gallowayism J

The seemingly innocuous tweet to Ali Arshad, @MrAshUK, is important, as it is a record that he is working with the man behind this account –  who is openly smearing Ms. Shah. I am told that Mr. Arshad is Mr. Galloway’s legal election agent but I cannot verify this as yet. It is however clear that he is official Respect.

Mr Ash  and Gallowayism J

I checked with the @Gallowayism account as to who he was, but made a typo, addressing my query to another account suspended for smearing Ms. Shah, @Gallowayist – the @Gallowayism / @Gallowayist account nonetheless replied to me. At first he tried a deflection but then admitted he was @Gallowayist.
Gallowayism = Gallowayist Mat J

The question then is – why are all of Respect’s senior officers, including the candidate and his agent, following and interacting with a misogynist who endlessly RTs the smear site against Ms. Shah?

Here, @Muqadaam, who runs the @TeamGeorgeG, takes a tweet of mine about Galloway himself and calls for help from @Gallowayism clearly stating – Louise Mensch is harassing US (wherein he includes @Gallowayism). It should be clear enough then that @Gallowayism is part of Mr. Galloway’s and Respect’s team, and as he regularly tweets out the smear site, it is false on its face to say that Respect has nothing to do with the smear site.

Senior members of Respect are tweeting the smear site out on a regular basis, including today.

Harassing US muqadaam J

In my prior blog I connected the dots between the smear accounts that had been tweeting out the attack on Ms. Shah. I was able to show that one account was renamed again and again, and used, variously, @ClarenceBeaks_, @bolitics2000, @newsdesk01, @evilsockpuppet1, @strawnmankiller, and @bfdwest2015.

bolitics smear

Sources inside Respect (I have several at this point) suggested to me that I investigate whether this user was a business partner of Mr. Galloway’s (and I mean partner as in works closely with), Jay Stewart.

NS smear fav electorate J

The @strawmankiller account was RTed, with a link to the smear blog, by a now-deleted account @Knowledgeboy75, which was previously @KnowledgeboyJay.

Galloway knowledgeboyjay J

Mr. Stewart posted under his own name as @JayStewart75 (now deleted), with profile quote “In your face, fuller!“. He has locked, but not yet deleted, his movie account @newpoltergeist.

JayStewart75 1 JOrgan harbesting Jay Stewart 18 J

Meanwhile, @Gallowayist/ism helpfully links us to his YouTube channel, in which he helpfully gives his past YouTube names as MegaChairmanMao and GeorgeGallowayForPM. The latter has amongst its channels Red Molucca, (which as an aside gives hilarious extra evidence of Mr. Stewart’s sock puppet obsession, as I said to the Respect lawyer @ericcartmanfat, he has more socks than Dobby the House-Elf. Among its “liked” videos is “George Galloway and Anti-Semitism” uploaded by the convincing “John Smith”).

Red Mulucca Molucca Jay Stewart j

Red Molucca was mostly careful about who they were but not, alas, careful enough. At the bottom of the videos is a “podcast playlist”. Here is the unintentionally hilarious first episode – do slide the  to 40 seconds in and enjoy to 56 seconds in as Mr. Galloway lights his cigar and stares soulfully at the camera in black and white. Mr. Galloway attacks the “lamestream media” [sic] and states very clearly “This channel, this Red Molucca – is the only official George Galloway channel.” In addition to the funky black and white TV stylings, the podcast credits (at 54:33) give us the name “Produced by Jay Stewart, Edited by Jay Stewart.” It also thanks Dead House Productions. Dead House Productions is hoping to make “The Enfield Poltergeist”, hence Mr. Stewart’s surviving @NewPoltergeist twitter account.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Respect are officially working with the Twitter user @Gallowayism formerly @Gallowayist and that it tweets out the smear site and related smear accounts now, while they follow and watch. There is no doubt that Respect and Mr. Galloway himself have knowingly RTed sock puppet accounts from the same user, well-known to them – and no doubt in my mind that this person is at the very least, closely connected to Mr. Jay Stewart. I have more evidence even than I am posting in this blog and which I can only supply to the police. It is time however to look at the officially used and assisted @Gallowayism account and You Tube Channel and stop denying the smear website had “nothing to do with Respect.” Journalists might wish to ask Mr. Galloway, as I did before publishing this story, if he knew all along the identity of the @bfdwest2015 et al sock puppet, and if that person is connected to Jay Stewart, and knowingly RTed him even as he followed his account and saw him tweeting out the illegal smears against Naz Shah.

As Mr. Stewart himself so poignantly says at the end of his thrilling cigar-smoking podcast with Mr. Galloway –

In your face jay stewart

Yeah.

In your face, corperate media!!!

 

 

 

 

 

* I report the above as a journalist. As a citizen, I note that of course everybody in Bradford West should vote, as despite violations of electoral law that can be seen from space, nothing in life is certain. Vote George Grant for Bradford West!

Naz Shah Bradfordrising j

The Election In Bradford West Has Been Hopelessly Tainted

Gallowayism smears again j

I believe that the orchestrated campaign of smears on the character of Nas Shah, Labour candidate for Bradford West, mean that the election has been hopelessly tainted by George Galloway and the Respect Party. Should Mr. Galloway “win” on May 7th where the electorate has been so thoroughly compromised, I cannot see how an election court could allow that result to stand. In this blog I will lay out evidence of this orchestrated and long-running smear campaign.

The smears that have been taped at the Bradford West hustings – where no cameras were supposed to be allowed – have already caused the Labour party to tell Respect that they are making a complaint under the Act. However, their complaint thus far is limited to the smears on Ms. Shah at the hustings. However, Respect have so maligned the character of this rape victim, and for so long, that I believe that according to section 106 there is no way this election can be held in a free and impartial manner if Mr. Galloway is the candidate.

Before I found the video of the Bradford West hustings on the Twitter feed of the rabid anti-semite Amar Rafiq, a friend of Mr. Galloway’s – in which Galloway waved Naz Shah’s nikkah and called her a liar over the age at which she was raped, it had received precisely 11 views on YouTube. I am grateful to BBC Trending for crediting me for breaking the story – other papers did not do so. I am proud of my work as an investigative journalist on this matter in the public interest, and would appreciate it if fellow journalists using evidence provided here would credit it.

This blog is necessarily long as it involves production of a large amount of evidence. But I believe the misogynistic abuse of a woman standing for office, based on slurs around her private life and to influence an election, is wholly illegal, and that as a feminist, a journalist, and a citizen, it is my duty to investigate and expose it. I do not support Ms. Shah’s candidacy as a private person – I am a supporter of the Conservatives and I hope George Grant wins Bradford West. However, that is completely irrelevant. I believe election law has been broken to such an extent that no free and fair election can now take place on May 7th in the Bradford West Constituency.

The abuse of Ms. Shah’s character is exactly what section 106 of the Representation of the People Act is supposed to prevent.

In 2010, Phil Woolas won the seat of Saddleworth and Oldham. His victory was overturned because an election court found him to have smeared the character of his opponent.

In this instance, the smearing of Ms. Shah is done in the textbook way that a Judicial Review of the Saddleworth Case determined was necessary, under Section 106, to invalidate an election result. In particular:

  1. In our view, the starting point for the construction of s.106 must be the distinction which it is plain from the statutory language that Parliament intended to draw between statements as to the political conduct or character or position of a candidate and statements as to his personal character or conduct. It was as self evident in 1895 as it is today, given the practical experience of politics in a democracy, that unfounded allegations will be made about the political position of candidates in an election. The statutory language makes it clear that Parliament plainly did not intend the 1895 Act to apply to such statements; it trusted the good sense of the electorate to discount them. However statements as to the personal character of a candidate were seen to be quite different. The good sense of the electorate would be unable to discern whether such statements which might be highly damaging were untrue; a remedy under the ordinary law in the middle of an election would be difficult to obtain. Thus the distinction was drawn in the 1895 Act which is re-enacted in s.106 and which is reflected in the decisions to which we have referred a paragraph 87.ii).
  2. In our judgment, as Parliament clearly intended that such a distinction be made, a court has to make that distinction and decide whether the statement is one as to the personal character or conduct or a statement as to the political position or character of the candidate. It cannot be both.
  3. Statements about a candidate which relate, for example, to his family, religion, sexual conduct, business or finances are generally likely to relate to the personal character of a candidate.

You will note that the Judicial Review states that “a remedy…. in the middle of an election would be difficult to obtain.”

The Electoral Commission guidance on personal character smears, made in order to influence an election, is also clear:

1.49 It is an offence to make or publish a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate in order to affect the return of a candidate at an election.

At the Bradford West hustings, Mr. Galloway produced a document that he claimed was the Nikkah of Nas Shah. Ms. Shah was forced into marriage, and therefore raped, when she was a teenager. He later admitted sending a supporter to Pakistan to obtain this document. He also said she had ‘only a passing acquaintance with the truth’ because ‘you were not fifteen. You were sixteen and a half.’

His claim was that Ms. Shah was a liar and unfit to be an MP because she entered into her marriage at 16 and a half instead of at 15.

He later claimed that Ms. Shah’s marriage was not forced, as she says, because it was arranged by her parents. Forced marriages are, in almost every case, arranged by her parents.

News reports have, in my view regrettably, concentrated on the fact that Ms. Shah does have an earlier nikkah from the age of 15. This is not material to a slur on her character under section 106. Whether or not Ms. Shah was raped at 15 or 16 does not matter; the essence of her story is that she was forced into marriage. Her family removed her from school at the age of 12 years old.

Mr. Galloway stated the following things about Ms. Shah, at the election hustings and afterwards: that she is a liar; that she lied about her rape in order to win votes; and that she did so for a racist purpose, in order to ‘slander of her own community‘. He made the latter accusation, that Ms. Shah was being a racist, (the tweet linked to there shows men watching at the Bradford West hustings) and that she invented the story of her rape in order to smear Muslim men, several times on Twitter.

it wasn’t she wasn’t it is slander of her own family community and city. We won’t have it. Might have impressed you but none locally

and

Respect: we’ll allow no-one to slander people of Bradford West or peddle their racist stereotypes

Her squalid sorry life was put front and centre of her campaign by her not me. And people of Bradford West are sick of it.

Asked whether Galloway disputed Shah’s claim to have been forced into a violent marriage as a teenager – be that at 15 or 16 and a half – and was repeatedly raped in that marriage, McKay said: “In what sense was it a forced marriage? Her mother attended the marriage in 1990 as well as other family members and many witnesses did also, signing and giving fingerprints, so if it was forced presumably her mother and the others were part of that coercion?”

The government’s Forced Marriage Unit makes clear that parents are often the instigators of forced marriage, coercing their offspring to marry against their will.

McKay said that if Shah’s first husband had been violent to her, “then as a British citizen in Pakistan she could have jumped on a plane and left him behind, although I do appreciate that is often extremely difficult. If he was violent to her here – I’m not aware when they came back to Britain – then she could have gone to the police, social services, an imam or whatever. I am not aware, are you, of any such report by her to anyone, here or there?”

Ron McKay, the Respect Party spokesperson told Urban Echo, “Naz Shah has claimed in all the media she has trailed her story across – Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Mail and Guardian, and of course Urban Echo – that she was fifteen when she married. This narrative plays into the racist line of Pakistani men grooming/sexually abusing under-age girls.

“Recently when I pointed out to a Guardian reporter the true date of the marriage, based on Supreme Court evidence that her mother had gone to Pakistan in May 1990 for the wedding, Naz Shah’s response was to add a further lie, that her mother’s visit was for the wedding celebration – some 18 months at least after the alleged wedding! Naseem Shah has deliberately and cynically bent the truth in order to manipulate people’s emotions in an attempt to win personal support for her candidature. She is unfit to represent Labour or, heaven forfend, the people of Bradford West,” he concludes.

Note the reference to the Supreme Court and her mother’s case.
The Urban Echo piece, with its accusation that Naz Shah not only lied, but used the story of her rape for racist purposes  – two personal character slurs that Ron McKay stated should influence electors, during an election period – was also directly RTed by Mr. Galloway, and by his official “Team George Galloway”, when tweeted out by the personal account behind @TeamGeorgeG – it has thus been directly promoted by the candidate.
Urban echo RTed by George
All of that is on the record smears about the personal character of Nas Shah, promoted during an election period, by a candidate, and by his agent, in order to influence the election. It is more than enough to make any election result in Bradford West in which she is defeated, unsafe.
Having followed Mr. Galloway and Respect’s accounts on this matter for some time, incidentally, I have yet to discover even one tweet or attack on Naseem Shah from them that is policy based.
More than enough direct evidence appears of an attack on personal character to violate section 106 of the Representation of the People Act in the precise way the Judicial Review found should invalidate an election:
  1. Statements about a candidate which relate, for example, to his family, religion, sexual conduct, business or finances are generally likely to relate to the personal character of a candidate.
However, there is, unfortunately, more.
Part Two: Smear Accounts, blogs, and sock puppets
For weeks, a vicious, anonymous blog, tweeted and shared by several anonymous, pretending to be Naz Shah twitter accounts and fake Facebook accounts, has been circulated around Bradford West. It is incredibly vicious and it is libelous to the personal character of Naz Shah. It smears Ms. Shah’s mother, even her brother and sister. It calls her every name under the sun.
NS ss 1After the Labour party made a complaint under section 106, some sock puppets took their site links down, but others left them up. [EDIT – as I am composing this, all the links to the smear site with all the urls have been removed. As of last night, they were still live. Somebody removed the last of them just yesterday night. ] I should say that I have copies of the site in full, in screenshots, and copies of all known URLs for the website. Taking it down will be pointless. The site links back to this Urban Echo blog and quotes Mr. McKay:
NS ss 2 Ron McKay j
The link in the above screenshot led back to the Urban echo post.
Under the Urban echo blog story you find more Respect-supporting sock puppets directing you to the smear site:

P Simmons

11 days ago

I have been shocked at the untruths Labour’s Naz Shah, the Respect Party’s rival for the Bradford West seat, has been spreading in order to be selected for the constituency, gain publicity, attract sympathy from gullible people, and ultimately to try to win votes.
We all have a duty to spread the truth and not let crookedry infiltrate British politics. Please refer folk to this website on Naz Shah so they can find out what she really is all about! It exposes how she ended up getting selected when she polled by far the lowest number of votes in her local constituency’s Labour Party membership ballot.

 Reply

P Simmons

11 days ago

The link to the website is here: http://nazshah.eu.pn/ – a must read and highly shocking!

 Reply

P Simmons

11 days ago

Lies indeed as Urban Echo reports.
With the UK election campaigning period officially launching today, an exclusive exposé of the ‪Labour‬ Party’s candidate for Bradford West, ‪NazShah is being published‬. Researchers have spent weeks trawling through two decades of legal documents and interviewing Naz Shah’s family as well as grassroots Labour Party members in Bradford to reveal Naz Shah is a highly duplicitous character who has spun a fraudulent account of her life and her mother’s controversial past to a trusting media and Labour Party hierarchy.
Read the new, exclusive exposé – the first report ever to counter nearly 20 years of lies by ‪NazShahBfd‬ – here: http://NazShah.MediaNewsOnline.com
Spread the truth. Please refer people to the website!

 Reply

Update: In my haste to take screenshots of the links, and similarities, to and from the smear site and official Respect party sources, I missed the significance of the content of the above sock puppet’s comment. I draw Labour party lawyers to this now:
Researchers have spent weeks trawling through two decades of legal documents and interviewing Naz Shah’s family
Two decades of legal documents. The “legal documents” “court” line is taken up in the smear site BUT IT IS ALSO TAKEN UP BY MR. GALLOWAY AND RESPECT THEMSELVES.
Surely it beggars belief that these two things are a co-incidence. Again and again, “court documents” referred to in the smear site are referred to by officials of Respect. Mr. McKay says, on the record, in his interview with urban echo, that Respect attempted to “prove” a sixteen year old had given her consent to being trafficked abroad and forced into rape by looking at the testimony in the trial of her mother. That said testimony is referred to over and over in the smear blog. More importantly the sock puppet “P Simmons” says his smear site researchers have “spent weeks…. interviewing Naz Shah’s family”. On the record, Respect tell the Guardian and Helen Pidd that:
Asked where and how Galloway had obtained the nikah he waved around at the hustings, McKay said: “We were first given a copy of the nikah by a close family member in this country. We wanted to verify that it was authentic so we arranged for a person in Mirpur to obtain a copy directly from the registry office.
and
he said Respect was in contact with Shah’s first husband
Well then – Mr. McKay’s on the record comments have identical research claims to the P Simmons sock puppet underneath the Urban Echo blog (in which McKay first adduces the nikkah – you can see it on that blog) – and the P Simmons sock directs us to the smear site – which quotes Mr. McKay and directs the reader back to McKay’s interview in, er, the Urban Echo blog.
As Private Eye might say – could they possibly be related?
Update Ends – more Updated material below
These identical lines are taken up across the board by smearing sock puppets who RT the official respect accounts too. Language used in the smear blog is used to attack Ms Shah on Facebook and Twitter. For example Ms. Shah is said to have had a “chavvish obsession” with “washing her family’s dirty laundry from twenty years ago” and a big picture of the Jeremy Kyle show is used, with a gif:
Jeremy Kyle NS ss
This line about Jeremy Kyle is used by Respect supporters smearing her on Facebook, like one “Aky Ali”. The Facebook address on his profile uses the name Riaz Mahmood.
Aky Ali Jeremy Kyle NS
The Aky Ali account also makes the smear site references to her “murderer mother” as do the fake twitter accounts.
Aky Aki mother FB Naz Shah
Sometimes Respect party thug supporters like Amar Rafiq openly smear Ms. Shah under their own names: more often they use sock puppets. Here is the fake Facebook page created in her name. The contact details were a link to the smear site, now deleted; of course, I have screenshots. The fake “Jane White” also links to the smear site – the avatar is one of Ms. Shah’s face.
I hope the police will investigate very thoroughly, with a raid on computers, the explicit link to the court case described with lawyer-like referencing at the bottom of the smear site. Respect and George Galloway called – as a shoddy and obvious smokescreen – for Ms. Shah to prosecuted for perjury. The case of her poor mother is dissected all over the Naz Shah smear site in legal terms again and again. Look at the link “Jane White” makes in her post of four hours ago:

‪#‎NazShah‬ is extremely unwise to continually drag out her past, as she has been doing for well over a decade now. I confess it does help win over sensitive and gullible folk, as her story seems to be tragic. But politics should be contested on policies. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show.

Unfortunately Naz Shah has spent weeks relaying an inaccurate sob story to the press and barely touched up mentioning policies until recently.

The comprehensive report at http://nazshah.byethost10.com provides empirical evidence of her deceitfulness – including lying infront of the courts, a very serious offence as per today’s Respect Party announcement – and the best thing for Naz Shah to now do would be to give up on the campaign and, at the age of 42 try to be begin a respectful life.

Information about Naz Shah, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Bradford West
NAZSHAH.BYETHOST10.COM
The Respect Party announcement tweeted by Galloway is here.
Compare to the lawyerly nature of the smear site’s postings about Ms. Shah’s mother: there is more, these are just two excerpts.
NS ss mother court 1 NS ss mother court 2
Various smearing twitter accounts have tried to change their names. The @Bfdwest2015 smear site changed its name to “Strawmankiller.”
Beeks = Bfdwest2015
_MG_3144 (10 of 82)

Zero Hours? Zero Credibility

Labour are being so contemptuous with the voters in this campaign that it really is time to call them out.

‘Zero Hours’ is the new ‘Bankers’ Bonuses’. Say it loudly enough and often enough and maybe you will fool people into thinking this is real economic policy for a nation.

Labour chose to dedicate April Fools’ Day to this policy. Let’s look at what they take us for.

As {scroll to 7:59}, Andrew Neill reminded Lucy Powell on her car crash interview, zero hours contracts form a tiny part of the UK economy – a tiny part of the working population.

ON TV, Lucy was trying to get out of admitting that Labour would borrow much more to fund their huge spending programme.

So she said ‘We will increase the tax base by getting people into higher wage jobs.’

‘How,’ asked Neill, reasonably enough.

‘Zero hours zero hours zero hours’ Lucy bleated on. ‘Huge rise in zero hours and…’

‘There are only 700,000 people on zero hours contracts in Britain,’ said Andrew Neill. ‘Of those, a third are students and another third don’t want to work any more hours. So that leaves 233,000 people in a country of sixty-five million. How are you going to enlarge the tax base on that?’

This is the key point on zero hours contracts; they are essentially the bogeyman name for ‘casual labour.’ And 2/3 of the small amount of folk using them don’t want, or can’t, work regular hours – because they’re in college, or have another reason.

Leave aside that 68 Labour MPs, including Ed Miliband’s PPS, employ staff on zero hours or casual contracts. ( I paid my interns the London living wage and paid them a full day every day they worked. And I advertised the place openly).

Leave aside that Ed Miliband is the local MP for Doncaster, and his Labour-run local council, that reports to him as the party leader, is the BIGGEST user of zero hours contracts in the country – Doncaster has {edit – 2,750} people employed on zero hours contracts. What has Ed done to stop that?

Leave aside that forcing employers to offer a structured contract will simply mean fewer of these jobs, which 2/3 work perfectly happily in.

Here’s the key point. The numbers on zero hours contracts who might prefer like a regular contract – even if you put EVERY ONE of them into Miliband’s camp without asking them – are LESS THAN 250K people in a nation of 65,000,000 people.

Stop taking us for fools, Labour. Just stop it.

‘What else will you do to balance the books?’ Andrew Neil asked Lucy Powell.

‘Well, we’re going to cut ministerial pay,’ she said.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Give us costed policies that matter.

John_Bercow_full

John Bercow Can’t Avoid A Ballot

It should never have come to this – and the outcome is inevitable.

Momentary humiliation for the Government as they lose the Speaker vote – and indeed, it was a foolish piece of politics, because it was so unnecessary.

All that was required was for the PM to write to Bercow saying he had lost his confidence, and that, whether as PM or LOTO he would ask Conservative MP’s to shout “NO!” on Parliament’s return.

The sneaky vote was distasteful to many MPs.

That said, Labour cheers and Mr. Bercow’s silly “I’m not going anywhere” will, I fear, have finished him off.

The House rules are that a Speaker is normally acclaimed on any new Parliament, but it is open to the House to shout “NO!” and divide. If fifty or one hundred or two hundred Tories shout “NO!’ that is it – a ballot will happen, an election will take place, and it will be secret.

John Bercow’s best play was to have accepted the motion calmly and with grace. That would have shamed the government and neutrals would have voted for him. It is not very likely that neutrals will now vote for the man who is, sadly and self-evidently, the darling of the Labour party in the House.

Who will the SNP want? What if one of their own or a Plaid Cymru MP wants the chair? They would get broad support.

Speakers have been politicized of late. There is no doubt Bercow now faces a secret ballot on his return to Westminster, and neither he nor Labour can stop that. If a Speaker does not have the acceptance of BOTH SIDES of the House, he or she CANNOT survive.

I fear that John Bercow’s lasting legacy may be to abolish the position of Speaker. I can see a new Coalition govt legislating to make the Deputy Speakers of equal rank with a Speakers’ Office determining rules. One man, or one woman, has too much power over the business of Parliament. An overtly party political Speaker who one side is “For” and one side is “Against” has lost that battle.

The treatment of the Clerk of the House, Richard Rogers, will also not be forgotten.

John Bercow had many excellent qualities including Urgent Questions, backbench reforms, and others. His greatest strength was holding the government to account. With all his flaws I would still have voted for him if I had a vote. None of that matters now. His only hope of survival are written proposals to the Conservatives of how he will reform in the chair, as he literally cannot survive without the consent of both sides of the House. I hope for Parliament’s sake he does that, but I fear anger is just too high.

Today was “good political theatre” for the Labour party and John Bercow. Neither will enjoy the massed shout of “NO!” from one set of benches or the other, as soon as Parliament returns.

Secret ballot for Bercow? Yes there will be.

Cathy Newman

Cathy Newman vs Harvey Price: What Channel Four *Didn’t* Apologise For

Today Channel Four disgracefully apologized to Streatham Mosque for Cathy Newman’s correct reporting, proven on CCTV, that she was ushered out of a mosque she explained she had come to visit.

Newman received multiple death threats and organized hatred on Twitter from supporters of the mosque (though they are not to blame for that) calling her a “bitch” a “whore” a “ho” and saying “I hope you die” and “I hope you and your family are killed”.

Channel Four in no way defended their female journalist from these attacks but they did issue a fatuous apology for Newman’s wholly correct use of the word ‘usher’ meaning to show, guide, or point as well as to physically escort.

usher j

However, Channel Four’s willingness to overlook the vile threats given to its female anchor are wholly on a par for what they WON’T apologize for. David Abrahams refused to apologize for this “joke” about disabled Harvey Price by Frankie Boyle – even when OFCOM ruled against him. Not only that, Abrahams personally, himself, OKed the “joke” he refused to apologize for:

“I have a theory that Jordan married a cage fighter because she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her”.

So… debate over whether ‘usher’ means to show or point out = apology, demeaning an autistic and multiply disabled child with an incest “joke” for ratings = no apology.

Channel Four’s actions in the Newman matter are misogynist. They are a disgrace to broadcast journalism.

The reason I remember so clearly David Abrahams refusal to apologize to Harvey, even after the OFCOM ruling, is he refused to do so to me.

Channel Four is looking more and more like a space where it unsafe for women to work. The liberal veneer is instantly abandoned when it comes to the health, safety and journalistic integrity of women.

Read what was apparently much less bad than Newman’s grammatically correct use of “usher”:

Q69 Mrs Mensch: I have to say, Mr Abraham, I have been impressed by your evidence throughout the session. I was not aware of the specifics until I saw the evidence in front of me. The second joke, I do not know if I can repeat it. Can I repeat it in this context? Is it unparliamentary language?

Chair: I think most people are already aware of it.

David Abraham: I do not think there is any need to.

Mrs Mensch: I think there is, actually, because the second joke is, “I have a theory that Jordan married a cage fighter because she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her”

. This is a disabled little boy that we are talking about. I am bewildered that you can sit here and say that it is challenging political correctness and that you will not apologise to the little boy for having put him on a television programme in this context. Surely, no cultural remit could ever possibly justify such a joke. While Katie Price and her ex-husband may be absolutely fair game and I would be the first person to accept that, we are talking about a disabled child, and a joke about a disabled child raping his mother. Do you not wish to take this opportunity to apologise to the child, Mr Abraham?

David Abraham: As we have said, we absolutely regret the joke being distributed out of context and out of the-

Q70 Mrs Mensch: In what context, sir, could it possibly have been justified? What context would justify a joke about a little disabled boy “fucking his mother”? You say that it is out of context and that is the regrettable issue. I put it to you that there is no possible context that could ever have justified that joke and I would urge you-as I did with the BBC in the Fogel massacre-not just to reflexively defend, because you stick up for your channel, a clearly appalling decision. Will you not take this opportunity to apologise to the little boy?

David Abraham: As I say, we do regret and will learn from the experience of this satire being taken out of context.

Q71 Mrs Mensch: You are not answering my question, sir. What context would have justified it?

David Abraham: I am trying to argue in the context of the balance between delivering our remit and the context for this satire, which was against the context of Katie Price in her own television show in which her family was portrayed in certain ways that Frankie Boyle was seeking to satirise. I was convinced by the arguments of the commissioning team that the intention was to reflect on a media construct that had its own context, because there had been media discussions around Katie Price and how the family had been portrayed in the TV series that she appeared in over many years. There is no doubt about the fact that this was only ever intended to be humour in that context and satire in that context. I have made that very clear in my open letter to Katie Price.

Q72 Mrs Mensch: Your argument then is that in the context of satirising celebrity culture, had it been delivered within context, the joke would have been passable-a disabled little boy raping his mother. By name, he is named in this joke. He is named Harvey. A disabled boy raping his mother, you believe that context would have justified that joke then.

David Abraham: The evidence that was shared with me by the commissioning team went into a whole story in the media that had preceded and surrounded that joke, which I could certainly take you through after the session; I could share with you the context for it. The context was to satirise a certain story around Katie Price and her celebrity status and how the family had been debated in the media; the followers of Frank Boyle understood that context.

Mrs Mensch: I find that completely appalling.

Galvin Reardon

Updated: Did Police lie to Jasna Badzak’s lawyers?

Update Monday: I have added further evidence on the actions of a) the police officer who colluded with Gerard Batten MEP and threatened journalists, and on DC Galvin’s actions against Ms. Badzak and his statements to her lawyers in advance of her criminal trial. I can only suggest readers search for the word “Update”. It seems necessary to evidence at the point where it is referenced, rather than adding it separately.

This blog is a story of how two Met Police Officers conspired and colluded against a private citizen on behalf of a politician, Gerard Batten MEP,  falsely arresting her, falsely testifying against her, and framing her for a crime she did not commit.

It is a story of how they were assisted by another policeman who directly colluded with Mr. Batten to smear Jasna Badzak before her trial to journalists, and threaten them if they wrote negative stories on Batten; a fourth policeman corruptly claiming that they did not exist; and a fifth policeman who, I believe, falsely claimed that Officer 4 was uncontactable and could not be asked why he had lied about the existence of these first two officers.

Complaints of police corruption should, of course, normally be addressed through the proper police channels.

But I have hard evidence before me that complaints, repeatedly made through those proper channels, were corruptly dealt with (see the Met Officer in the Directorate of Professional Services lying about the policemen that were the subjects of so many complaints by saying they did not exist, so he would not take the complaint further). I have seen hard evidence that the IPCC referred the corruption case back to the same corrupt force that had lied to, forged evidence on, and threatened journalists over Ms. Badzak.

When the IPCC and the Met’s own DPS are refusing to investigate or actively lying (as I have proven the latter were), the only recourse to justice is the sunlight of public exposure. I put my faith in the public, and once I have blogged with redaction all the evidence I have, only then will I take it to the Met who conspired, and the IPCC who failed to investigate them – despite the clear evidence I put before you all, right now, in the open.

Jasna Badzak is a former member of UKIP.

She has a conviction for fraud (of a month’s salary and travel expenses) for the MEP for whom she used to work, Gerard Batten. She protests her innocence.  She had no prior criminal record, had a high-level security clearance and was of good character as determined in court.

So far, so clear.

Jasna Badzak is also, now, a cardiac patient.

She had her first cardiac arrest at the age of 39, due to stress from being pursued by corrupt officers of the Metropolitan Police force intervening improperly on behalf of an elected politician. She had no prior history of heart trouble of stress. She is now 41 years old and still a cardiac patient; the campaign by certain officers of the Met Police against her continues. I believe and hope that when charges of perverting the course of justice are eventually brought, that the CPS will add to them charges of Actual Bodily Harm – the police officers who did this to Jasna were well aware of her cardiac condition.

Mr. Lee Jasper has written a blog about Ms. Badzak’s various accusations against Batten and UKIP and how the police dealt with them. While I certainly cannot endorse all it contains (simply because I have no knowledge of various matters) Jasper is clear that he describes allegations, rather than facts. I read the blog carefully. It is more about alleged corruption in the Met than it is about Mr. Batten, whom it mentions in passing. Nowhere does the blog make threats towards Mr. Batten. Nowhere does it use racial or religious slurs against him. It is not in the league of actual online harassment against a politician such as that leveled against Stella Creasy MP or Luciana Berger MP.

I have obtained evidence of threats made by specific Metropolitan Police officers against other journalists – for clarity, not myself, Michael Crick, nor Lee Jasper (qua blogger), but two other separate journalists.

As I believe that a great abuse of power is being committed here, and that there is evidence of deeply troubling and improper collusion between some officers of the Metropolitan Police Force and politicians to act against a private citizen, I shall be submitting the evidence I hold to the following people and bodies:

The Home Affairs Select Committee

The IPCC

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe

and the Electoral Commission.

However, as the emails I have obtained appear to involve improper actions by police officers, there must be transparency. Complaining to police officers about police officers does not always, alas, produce the results one would wish.

Here is the exact content of the email sent to a journalist, by a Met Police officer. I am leaving out everything that could identify the parties involved. The email was sent to a journalist at a national publication.

Dear Sirs

It has been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police, that in recent days journalist [sic] from [publication – redacted] and [publication – redacted] have been provided material by an unknown source about the political affairs of Mr. Gerard Batten MEP. An ex-employee of Mr. Batten’s  has recently been charged with numerous dishonesty offences [sic] and is currently awaiting trial at Southwark Crwon Court [sic]. Part of the bail conditions for this ex-employee is not to contact directly or indirectly Mr. Batten. This condition is in place to prevent any further publication of articles which the Courts have deemed to be untruthful and concerning to Mr. Batten.

Any articles published which are linked to the subject may result in further arrests being made. I request that while these ongoing Court proceedings are underway that you thoroughly check the sources of the information, prior to contacting either Mr. Batten or going to press.

regards

[signature of the officer. The officer lists themselves as being a “Financial Investigator”]

Police officer threatens journalist

The journalist replies:

I spoke to Gerard Batten about his alleged links to far-right groups such as the English Defence League.

I fail to see how this is relevant to a serving Met officer investigating financial crime. Why have you chosen to intervene in this matter on Batten’s behalf, copying him into our exchange on his private email address?

Most people would interpret it as an attempt to warn me off writing about Batten. This, I believe, is a potential abuse of office.

I’d be grateful if you could respond to the following questions by 7pm tonight:

Who asked you to contact me? Was it Batten or somebody else in your unit/team who knows Batten?

What is your relationship to Batten?

Are you a member or supporter of UKIP?

Are you a member or supporter of [redacted] or any other [redacted] organisation?

Many thanks for your time and attention.

Best wishes,

[name]

Journalist challenges police offier

The reporter also emailed Mr. Batten.

….but I wanted to know why you asked [name of officer] at the Met Police to get in touch with me about something to do with a fraud case when I spoke to you [redacted] about something completely different, i.e. your relationship with Alan Lake and the EDL?

You’ll be familiar with this exchange as [name of officer] copied you in and stated my recent contact with you had been “brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police” – clearly by you or someone in your office – and then went on to allege that I had been “provided material by an unknown source” without any proof of this. [name of officer] – a financial investigator – said it was all to do with your “political affairs”. So what’s it got to do with him? He even suggested I could be arrested if I published an article about you.

I’d be grateful for your explanation as I have some concerns about such an intervention by the police on behalf of a politician.

Journalist challenges Batten

Now, not only did the police officer above copy in Gerard Batten MEP, on his private email address, to that officer’s threats to this journalist – but Gerard Batten MEP was also in direct contact with the same officer. This again is a typed out email from Mr. Batten to the officer threatening the journalist

Dear [Diminutive, familiar form of the first name of the officer, whose email to the journalist had used their formal first name],

Very sorry to bother you with this. Please see the exchange of messages below. I have only just been able to get into my office to email you, I didn’t have your email address to hand.

I got a text message from [name of journalist being threatened by the police officer] at about 9pm last night. I told him to email me any questions.

In my view he is just trying to draw me out, but we will find out tomorrow.

Regards,

Gerard.

Batten colludes with officer threats

Gerard Batten MEP then forwards on to the police officer the email of reply he sent to the journalist’s questions about his collusion with the police officer. As you will see, Mr. Batten refuses to answer the journalist’s questions about whether he, Batten, asked the officer to intervene with this journalist, threatening him on Batten’s behalf.

Dear [name of journalist],

I sent you an email last Friday with my comments. I have nothing further to add. If you have any questions regarding Mr.] [surname of officer]’s email, I can only suggest that you address them to him.

Regards

Gerard

You will note that an officer unconnected to the appropriate department appears to be taking unwarranted actions against Ms. Badzak, and in favour of Mr. Batten. The first officer, the one whose emails I posted above, is a Financial Investigator writing about “the political affairs of Mr. Gerard Batten MEP”.

UPDATE:  I have now been able to establish that the evidence against Jasna Badzak was so wafer-thin that she was re-bailed THIRTEEN TIMES before being charged. I have further established that the charging officer was THE VERY SAME OFFICER who had smeared her to the press before her trial, when she enjoyed the presumption of innocence, and colluded directly with Gerard Batten MEP – both this officer to Batten, and Batten to this officer – in threatening journalists and smearing Ms. Badzak to those same journalists. Below is the charging sheet. I have cut it off before the name of the charging officer can be read. It is the same officer. The top of the charge sheet is also missing as it gives Badzak’s address

Charge sheet

Lee Jasper’s blog is an extraordinary read. It is important to say that I have no idea what in it is truthful or not truthful, but there is one thing in his blog I do want to verify from evidence that I have in my own possession. Here I am quoting sections of his blog on the existence or otherwise (!) of two Metropolitan Police Officers. (I cannot verify that what he reports they did or didn’t do is accurate; he is reporting what Ms. Jadzak told him.)

All of her complaints were being handled by a Metropolitan Police Officer, one Detective Sargent Shaun Reardon. Despite repeated requests for updates on what was happening to her complaints she had no response from Reardon.

…..She reported this intimidation [LM- referred to earlier in LJ blog] to the Met and was surprised to find out that yet again these complaints were being refereed to a Detective Sargent Shaun Reardon, the very same officer who had failed to investigate her initial complaints of UKIP racism and EU fraud.

Worried about escalating violent intimidation and seeking to cope with her own failing health, Jasna then seeks a restraining order court injunction against Batten in Feb 2012.

Met officer supports UKIP. 

Here’s where the begins to get interesting, MPS Detective James Galvin turns up at court, embraces Gerard Batten proceeds to tell the court that the MPS has no record of any allegations against Batten nor were there any current, active police investigation into him. That was a lie and, as the MPS has now admitted Galvin, had no authority to represent the Met or attend court. Her case was eventually dismissed as a result.

I interrupt Lee Jasper’s blog at this point to introduce readers to what appears to be DS James Galvin. Sources say that this is James Galvin’s public Facebook profile

Galvin FB jpeg

This James Galvin has locked his Facebook profile so that his previous online comments and activism re UKIP cannot be seen. Unfortunately for him, he forgot to completely change his settings. The following are taken from “Photos James Galvin Likes” and “Pages James Galvin Likes.” And I have taken screenshots of a great, great many more. Enjoy – although I’m sure Jasna Badzak didn’t

GU 1jGalvin UKip 12jGU 5jGU 6jG U P 1jG U P 2j 

By Sunday, 9th November, DS Galvin had removed all the UKIP photos he liked and UKIP pages he liked from his Facebook, after I tweeted several examples. He had left up his pro-UKIP activism on “Posts James Galvin likes” and “Posts James Galvin has commented on.” DS Shaun Reardon had also deleted his LinkedIn profile. If indeed this is the same James Galvin, the conflict of interest with Galvin’s political activism online is obviously huge.

I have been able to verify, in a court statement provided in the civil case by DS James Galvin, that he intervened in a private citizen’s civil case on behalf of Gerard Batten MEP of UKIP.  I have this evidence in my possession.

Galvin civil statement

Furthermore, having intervened in a civil case on behalf of Gerard Batten MEP without any authorization to do so, James Galvin should not have been investigating Jasna Badzak for any alleged offence. He had a giant conflict of interest. Ms. Badzak filed a complaint against him as soon as he intervened in her civil case.

Update: I have now been able to verify that police documents exist, appearing to show that DC Galvin told Ms. Badzak’s lawyers saying he had NOT been a witness in the civil case.

Galvin civil

“Whilst investigating another matter a man called Goran from Hodge Jones and Allen who claimed to represent Ms. Badazk asked me if we were going to charge Ms Badzak, he also asked if I had given evidence in a civil matter. This took place in the custody suite of Charing Cross Police Station. When answerd [sic] that the CPS would be handed the file and I had not given evidence he said “He had concerns”. I invited him to make a formal allegations [sic] if he had concerns and upon showing him out of the Police station asked him to make his complaint to a senior officer via the station office if he had “Concerns”

Yet despite all these many, huge, irregular, politically motivated actions DC James Galvin took against Jasna Badzak, he was one-half of the investigating team and one-half of the arresting team.

My quotation from Lee Jasper’s blog resumes below

Gerard Batten, then formally wrote to the MPS on October 5th 2012 reporting his fraud allegations against Jasna. He actually wrote his allegation on UKIP letterhead, which must constitute and attempt to politically influence the investigation.  The Met having failed to investigate any of Jasna serious previous allegations, then acted immediately upon receipt of Battens complaints. .

Jasna was subsequently arrested on 29th November 2011, when surprise, surprise, Detectives Constable James Galvin and Detective Sargent Shaun Reardon both, attended her home. They wanted to arrest her there and then, but she Jasna was so ill, it was decided to take her to hospital instead.

The Met formally denies the existence of two serving police officers misleading the Prime Minister David Cameron. 

Subsequent to her eventual arrest and charging, Jasna wrote to the Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe asking, why her many complaints to the MPS had not been investigated? This she pointed out, was in total contrast to the Mets swift and immediate response to Battens complaint.

This lead to another key question, why had DC Galvin had turned up at the injunction hearing, defending Batten?

The answer, when it came, was as shocking as it was unexpected. The Mets Department of Professional Standards informed her that the Metropolitan Police Service employed no such named police officers. Shocked and alarmed she persisted and again she was told again that no such officers were employed by the Met.

She then wrote to the Independent Police Compliant Commission who after some time, wrote back, confirming, that after discussions with the Met, they too  confirmed that no such officers existed.

Jasna at this stage was completely frustrated and wrote to Mayor of London, Boris Johnson and Prime Minister David Cameron. Both men wrote to the Met and both were told, in writing, that no such officers worked for the Met.

The fact is the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the IPCC, were mislead and possibly willfully mislead, by the Met DPS about the existence of these two officers.

This begs they very important questions as to precise circumstances that led to two of the most senior Tory politicians in the land were provided with inaccurate and misleading information?

I can confirm in this blog that I have, in my possession, the following evidence:

1. A letter to Jasna Badzak from a third officer at the Met Police’s Directorate for Professional Standards saying that they could not investigate a complaint against officers Galvin and Reardon because they did not exist “the officers you have named as being officers of the MPS are not officers with the MPS. I have throughly interrogated all MPS systems and cannot find any trace of those officers.”

DPS lies on headed paper 2j

2. An email  to Jasna Badzak from the same officer dated 10 Jan, 2013, again repeating that these two officers, do not exist (following her astonished protests of disbelief, since these officers had actually shown up at her house and arrested her).

Jasna Galvin 2

3. Firm evidence that, in a phone call to Ms. Badzak, a fourth officer – this time of the rank of Inspector, I think it is important to state that – spoke to her about this matter and stated

Insp: “In 2012, I understand you attempted to make a complaint about officers Fleming, Galvin and Reardon… you made a complaint.” Ms. Badzak said she had made a complaint to the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister, who, she said, wrote to Bernard Hogan-Howe, who, she said, passed it further down. The Inspector replied “Yes”. “And I got the reply which I got which said that these police officers do not exist,” Ms. Badzak responded. “Yes,” the Inspector replied. “We made an error, and I apologize for that error.” Ms Badzak exclaimed “You made an error!” The Inspector replied “Yes. They do exist. It wasn’t correct what we told you.” Ms B: “So why did you tell me that, then?” Insp “The officer who made that decision, and told you, is on a career break, he’s not in the country, I can’t ask him why. But it may be that he misread our database. You know – sometimes people make human errors. But the bottom line is we made a mistake, I apologize, we made a mistake.

Again – Ms Badzak was arrested, November 4th, by a DS in the Major Crimes Unit, Westminster, for “harassment” of Gerard Batten, MEP, for RTing a blog in which these allegations are detailed.

UPDATE: THU Nov 6, 2 of 2: I have now seen evidence that Ms. Badzak’s conviction for fraud was based in large part on an “expert witness statement” provided by DS Shaun Reardon. This is the same DS Reardon to whom she had addressed all her initial complaints about UKIP racism and Mr. Batten, complaints which had not been acted upon. This is the same DS Reardon whom she complained about to the IPCC. When Ms. Badzak was reporting extensive physical harassment at her home by members of the EDL, as noted in Lee Jasper’s blog, she was amazed to find that her complaints about that were being directed to…. DS Shaun Reardon, whose inaction was the subject of her IPCC complaint. Again, nothing was done. 

It was Officer Galvin whom, it is alleged, showed up, unauthorized, to court to defend Mr. Batten in her attempt to secure a restraining order against Batten (I am trying to verify this part of the story).

But it was then DS Reardon and Officer Galvin together who showed up at Ms. Badzak’s house to arrest her for fraud. She complained about both of them – clearly there was at this point a colossal conflict of interest in having either officer, both with pre-existing complaints about them to the police, arrest or investigate Ms. Badzak for anything. And then she was told, the Mayor of London was told, and the Prime Minister was told, falsely, that neither officer existed, see above.

This morning I must update and report that I now have further evidence in my possession that Ms. Badzak’s conviction for fraud was based in large part on the “expert forensic witness” of DS Shaun Reardon who claimed that she forged a bank statement. I have a copy of DS Reardon’s “expert witness” statement to the court, testifying against Ms. Badzak This is the same Reardon who was the subject of her complaints and who was “disappeared” by the Directorate of Professional Standards at the Met in a letter, on headed official paper, in my possession. 

As far as I can tell the only evidence against Ms. Badzak for fraud was this “altered statement” alleged to exist by…. Detective Sgt. Shaun Reardon

More later. 

Personally, I believe in transparency. I am absolutely confident of my evidence and I present it here in order that there be as little cover-up going forwards as possible. I am prepared to make my evidence available to the IPCC and other sources.

One officer threatening a journalist

A second officer from the Directorate of Professional Standards denying the existence of Met Police Officers (twice, and in detail, and emphatically) that Ms. Badzak claims harassed her

A third officer of the rank of Inspector telling Ms Badzak that the officer who denied their existence was “on a career break” “out of the country” “I can’t ask him why” “It may be that he misread our database”

And a fourth and fifth officer, Detectives Galvin and Reardon, who had vast conflicts of interest that should have barred their testimony at any trial of Jasna Badzak.

Clearly, this matter goes beyond any kind of politics to the very deepest, darkest abuses of our capital’s major police force against a private citizen. I am not an investigative journalist (thankfully, Mr Crick does have those credentials) but I recognize shocking abuse when I see it, and I hope I have enough of a sense of duty not to remain silent when I am confronted with hard evidence of injustice being done.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Can Scotland Solve England’s EU Migrant Problem?

Picture this: the SNP sweeps Labour in the general election, leading to a hung parliament. Nicola Sturgeon offers David Cameron to vote through English votes for English laws in exchange for Devo-Max, or devolution max. In such an arrangement, the SNP would govern Scotland and Cameron, plus probably a reduced LibDem and other coalition partners, would govern the rest of the UK. No “coalition” between the SNP and the Tories would happen, or even be possible – because after that first legislation, Scots MPs couldn’t vote on English matters anyway.

In this scenario, the financial settlement for Scotland would be part of the initial haggling, and the SNP would set Scots income tax and spending policies.

Reserved UK matters would be defence and foreign affairs.

There is, however, still one fly in the ointment. Different Scottish and rUK attitudes to immigration.

Scotland still constitutes only (approx) 1/10 of the UK’s population. The nation needs bodies. They want immigrants. Also, the SNP fears Brexit. If the UK leaves the EU, the SNP could feel stymied in its ongoing wish for Scotland to break from the UK. They would wish to join the EU – and in the indyref, Spain and others made it clear that wasn’t happening.

But allow me to propose a unique solution – and suggest a shift of attitudes to my Conservative party’s opponents, the SNP. What if London listened to Edinburgh on EU immigration – and vice-versa? The English and Welsh want fewer immigrants, Scots want more. What if David Cameron, in agreement with Nicola Sturgeon, passed laws stating that until the EU referendum happened in 2017, all or most EU migrants – Sturgeon could specify the proportion she wanted – would be required to live in Scotland? That they could not access any government services, or benefits, including the NHS and schooling, unless they were living in Scotland. (I have edited the post to remove a suggestion to criminalize moving elsewhere – it wouldn’t be necessary. We could simply limit our benefits, which is in our control, to make it clear that EU migrants can access them only in Scotland).

That would drive a large section of population north to Scotland, would fulfill the SNP’s more population wish, would cease to overload housing waiting lists in England, and would satisfy English and Scottish voters without necessarily flouting the EU too much. Being able to decide where in the UK migrants live and work might be much more palatable to Angela Merkel etc than asking to decide how many EU migrants come to the country. Of course, in the post GE15 Devo-Max Scotland I envision, the type and amounts of benefits EU migrants settling in Scotland receive would be none of David Cameron’s business, but would be set by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Further, if Sturgeon wants the UK to stay in the EU, fixing the vexed question of EU migration in this way would be a huge boost to her cause. It would also help Scotland’s economy as Scotland is clearly under-populated, whereas SE England is overloaded. Conversely, assuming that even in my scenario, Sturgeon and the SNP would still be agitating for full and total independence, she should consider that Brexit now will help Scottish independence chances. While Spain and others with separatist regions don’t want Scotland leaving the UK as an EU member, and therefore will throw up barriers to Scottish entry, if the UK has already voted to come OUT, and snubbed Brussels, an independent Scotland is likely to be welcomed IN with garlands of flowers and blue-and-white balloons.

Cameron needs to have the SNP front and centre in his mind. If Johann Lamont tells us Labour puts Scotland last, the Tories can’t make the same mistake. Ruth Davidson will see a small Tory revival as the Unionist party in NO heartlands repped by SNP at Westminster. That revival will increase if Cameron is the anti-Miliband and treats Scotland and the Scots with “parity of esteem”, as sovereign partners in a devolved UK. NIMBYism usually plagues politics. But for once, “Not In My Back Yard” might not describe just the problem of excessive EU migration to the UK, but the solution to it.