An Alternative Christmas Message

Rather than share the customary wishes for the holiday, I thought I would print some verses from the bible: Woe to you who turn justice to vinegar and stomp righteousness into the mud. Do you realize where you are? You're in a cosmos star-flung with constellations by God, A world God wakes up each morning and puts to bed each night. God dips water from the ocean and gives the land a drink. God, God-revealed, does all this. And he can destroy it as easily as make it. He can turn this vast wonder into total waste. People hate this kind of talk. Raw truth is never popular. But here it is, bluntly spoken: Because you run roughshod over the poor and take the bread right out of their mouths, You're never going to move into the luxury homes you have built. You're never going to drink wine from the expensive vineyards you've planted. I know precisely the extent of your violations, the enormity of your sins. Appalling! You bully right-living people, taking bribes right and left and kicking the poor when they're down. Justice is a lost cause. Evil is epidemic. Decent people throw up their hands. Protest and rebuke are useless, a waste of breath. Seek good and not evil— and live! You talk about God, the God-of-the-Angel-Armies, being your best friend. Well, live like it, and maybe it will happen. Hate evil and love good, then work it out in the public square. Maybe God, the God-of-the-Angel-Armies, will notice your remnant and be gracious. Now again, my Master's Message, God, God-of-the-Angel-Armies: "Go out into the streets and lament loudly! Fill the malls and shops with cries of doom! Weep loudly, 'Not me! Not us, Not now!' Empty offices, stores, factories, workplaces. Enlist everyone in the general lament. I want to hear it loud and clear when I make my visit." God's Decree. Woe to all of you who want God's Judgment Day! Why would you want to see God, want him to come? When God comes, it will be bad news before it's good news, the worst of times, not the best of times. Here's what it's like: A man runs from a lion right into the jaws of a bear. A woman goes home after a hard day's work and is raped by a neighbor. At God's coming we face hard reality, not fantasy— a black cloud with no silver lining. "I can't stand your religious meetings. I'm fed up with your conferences and conventions. I want nothing to do with your religion projects, your pretentious slogans and goals. I'm sick of your fund-raising schemes, your public relations and image making. I've had all I can take of your noisy ego-music. When was the last time you sang to me? Do you know what I want? I want justice—oceans of it. I want fairness—rivers of it. That's what I want. That's all I want. Amos 5:7-24 The Message That's pretty much it from me for year. I'm off to Germany to be with my wife, who incidentally got her marriage visa from the embassy (another big joke I will share with you later).

Propaganda Still A Threat To The UK

"I thought it was only the mafia that referred to killing people as "accidents"..." Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one go... Met Chief's Terror Plot Warning I really am fed up with the kind bull that Sir Ian Blair spews. The latest article by the BBC says it all: "Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair claims the UK is facing an unparalleled and growing threat of a terrorist attack. However, he said there was "no specific intelligence" about an imminent attack but the threat was "ever present"." - BBC News (cont.) Is it just me that questions the logic of that statement? There is "no specific intelligence" but the threat is "ever present". Does this sound a little Orwellian to you? It should. Either there must be specific intelligence, or there is no threat, you can't just say that it's ever present. It's like saying there is a threat of a meteor crashing into earth- there are small bits of meteors crashing all the time. As for a large one, yes it could happen, but we don't go around warning each other everyday or living under the cloud of the threat. "Sir Ian also said he was "confident" of being cleared of misconduct over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. And he defended an anti-terror raid in Forest Gate, claiming the shooting of a man during the raid was an accident." (cont.) I thought it was only the mafia that referred to killing people as "accidents". As far as accidents go, I hope I don't end up a police "accident" as I'm running for the tube one day (yet another reason not to use the tube). I don't know about you but I am just not comfortable with that term "accident". It makes it sound like something less significant. Let's not forget, a man lost his life here, an innocent man who happened to be of the wrong skin tone. I'm sure if Mr De Menzes by some miracle had survived 6 shots fired into his forehead at point blank range, he would have a different take on the incident. The commissioner criticised the length of the inquiry, adding: "It's difficult to understand how an organisation can take 13 months to investigate what I did or did not say on one particular day." I must congratulate the commissioner on a clever and great example of deflecting responsibility. Why else would an organisation take 13 months to investigate what you said? There's a PR tactic that you may have heard of, it's call disinformation. The only reason there could be any difficulty in establishing facts is differing accounts. The delay, commissioner, is with you and the Met.

Immigration Again...

No sooner do I post our experience with these home-office trained, monkey half-wits does the inevitable happen: Police killer suspect fled Britain in a veil The irony here screams so loud I don't need to say anything, and can I just say I am not surprised at all! If you want to know what I'm talking about read An Immigration Problem Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

The World Explained Through Cows...

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, and you give one to your neighbour. COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk. FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk. NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you. BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, then throws the milk away... TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income. SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead. ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull. THE ANDERSEN MODEL: You have two cows. You shred them. A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows. A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'cowkimon' and market it world-wide. A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them. A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the real situation. AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them. A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad. IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No one believes you, so they bomb the shit out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.... WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive. AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems Pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

Honourable?

I have recently been profiled by The Pisstaker on his blog of the same name. So it's only fitting that I offer a reciprocal link to the article. While I'm very honoured and bemused at the description, cleverly written and quite funny, I do need to correct some factual errors: I did live in Warwickshire, but have recently moved to Ealing My wife is Canadian, and we met in Switzerland... long story, don't ask The wedding was in Maui, a slight distance from the Midlands Other than that, very fine and witty, thanks Ed!

When Did Democracy Become So Confusing?

I don't know about you but Gloucestershire Police's statement regarding their lost case over the 2003 anti-war protesters rights to demonstrate doesn't make me exactly comfortable. For 100's of years in the UK we have had a legal system that errs on the side of innocence- that is innocent until proven guilty. Unlike a system in say, Portugal, which is guilty until proven innocent. It is only now in the last few years that we have had a government which has confused those terms. Gloucestershire Police said it was "disappointed" with the decision, which it accepted, and added that officers acted in "good faith". It also expressed "regret" for any inconvenience and said it would now review its policies. "Policing in [such] scenarios is difficult and complex, with competing rights and responsibilities having to be assessed and acted upon in real time by operational commanders," said a spokesman. "Intelligence pointed to the potential for further disorder at the base and it was against this background that the decision was made to stop and turn back the three coaches travelling to RAF Fairford from London." - BBC News Not only have we now come to a point in history where the police have difficulty in determining what law to apply where when dealing with the public, we have a police force, when faced with that question, errs on the side of guilty. It is a good job the law lords overturned this decision. Perhaps the UK does have a faint hope after all, of not becoming a country where everyone is a potential criminal and public assembly and protest is looked upon as a crime against the state.

The Time I Found Free Wifi

Natural Cafe in Chiswick deserves an honourable mention. I'm here on Saturday afternoon making use of their free wifi connection. I'm not into organic food but they do offer muffins and lattes so it works for me. I just ordered an XL latte as I want to be here for a few hours, and they brought it out in a cup and saucer the size of a breakfast bowl.

The Pigeons!

What would Alfred Hitchcock make of this? Read all of the comments!

EVERYONE SHOULD DO THIS... RIGHT NOW!

If you own a UK bank account- even the BBC are publishing it: How to claim back penalty charges.

Cashing In On The Environment

The other night I watched an interview on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman interviewing Stephen Timms regarding Gordon Browns green tax. Paxman was arguing about the real costs of the tax, and how some complain it doesn't go far enough. It was discussed that the new 1.5p tax hike will make drivers drive 1 less mile per week. Is there anyone else who finds this assumption a bit off the mark? How are car drivers going to drive 1 less mile per week? How is this going to save the environment? Wait... do you hear that crunching cement sound? It's my flat uprooting and moving a quarter of a mile closer to work! He then went on to talk more officiospeak about how the tax reflects the cost to the environment when people use gas. I'm sorry but I don't get the connection between trees dying and the government getting extra tax? What are they going to do- give money to the trees? "Sorry trees, here's some cash compensation, by the way, we're going to keep flying and driving cars." Tax doesn't solve environmental issues- cheaper alternatives do! Gordon Browns new plan takes more money from the taxpayer, doesn't stop carbon emissions, but it does make him a little richer, and able to keep going on spending sprees. I have no fear in saying that I'm a car driver, an unrepentant car driver at that. As car-owners know, being a car owner makes you an enemy of the government and more recently an enemy of the environment. I have something to say to all those environMENTALISTS who are screaming for environMENTAL taxes. Gordon Brown has raised petrol by 1.5 p a litre. So what? I'll just recoup that by buying non-energy saving light bulbs. No amount of tax will make me stop using my car- the only difference is I would be forced to cut out other things, find a better paying job and so on- everyone else would be in the same situation, the economy would change on a massive scale. I have another secret to share with you. I hate driving, I especially hate driving in London. But its better than taking the tube: I am 6 miles from work, but to get there I would have to switch tubes 3 times. To take the tube daily, for which I would have to purchase 2 zones even though my home and work is in 1, it would cost me more than driving. Delays and repairs. London tube already struggles with its public transport as it is. What do you think would happen if every car driver in London decided to use public transport one day? Have you thought about that? Chaos- pure chaos. Do you really think that it's feasible? The country would grind to a stop. It's not that I don't want to be more friendlier to the environment. I would take public transport if it was feasible, but the government we have does not want to help the environment, it only wants to find lucrative schemes to cover its wasteful spending. I'm being honest with you. I lived in Switzerland, I didn't need a car there, in this country, I need a car. The government is just not prepared to invest in alternatives. Their only answer to any problem is to tax it. The bottom line is making me pay more tax takes away my ability to afford the environmental alternatives.

Mary Poppins and The Shining: Redux

Scary Mary. Makes you see it in a whole different light. via Gas House Mouse But if that's too much for you, check out the latest family movie: Shining.

In The Words of a Magistrate...

"Courts are not just there to punish - they are also there to protect the citizen from oppression. In this case they were not given the opportunity to do so." - Bystander, The Law West of Ealing Broadway This is what I have been trying to tell people all along.

An Immigration Problem Part 3: Invasion

"And what if a crime lord, paedophile or terrorist did try to get in to the country through Heathrow? Immigration wouldn't notice anyway- they would be too busy interrogating the MARRIED COUPLE in the corner trying to start their life together!" Read Part 1 Read Part 2 If you read the first 2 parts, by now you are aware of my ultimate disdain for immigration officials and their complete incompetence. So far I have only verbally assaulted the British kind, but the world over they seem to be an entirely different race or breed of humans- born without the essential neural transmitters needed to understand the most basic of social nuances. This is proved in the next example. 4 hours into our 'visit' with British immigration, an innocent Californian was sent over to the sin-bin. He was clearly confused, "I dunno man, I dunno why they need to interview me..." As we eavesdropped on his conversation with another poor woman stuck in Heathrow Hell, it soon became clear: "She asked me the purpose of my visit and all I said was, I dunno, just come to hang out and see your country..." That's right, that's the reason he was denied entry. Humourous as it is, it's also tragic. It's tragic that I believe a dog with a bag on it's head could to a better job than Heathrow Immigration. So what do we learn from this experience? Folks, if you really must come to this ugly country, whatever you do, don't tell them the truth, such as you want to learn new things, hang out, get married, enjoy life. It's not about the truth of your visit, it's a quiz. Basically the idea is to get the right answer- so here's the right answer: "Just visiting." That's all you need to say. They don't actually care if you have come to commit a crime, bomb a tube station, go into hiding. All they want to hear is "just visiting". The whole thing is a facade, a great big joke! The 7/7 bombers were BRITISH. Seriously, if an unknown mafia crime lord or potential terrorist were going to enter this country, don't you think that they would have all their papers, the right answers and background info ready. They would be the ones who had done all the research, everything in order so they got in without any problems? Even if there was a problem, they could simply wait for the next train through the Chunnel, and keep getting sent back, and keep trying till they eventually slipped through. And what if a crime lord, paedophile or terrorist did try to get in to the country through Heathrow? Immigration wouldn't notice anyway- they would be too busy interrogating the MARRIED COUPLE in the corner trying to start their life together! At least the Americans have got their priorities in order, but then, you have to question their logic. Anyone who has travelled to America in the last few years will know about the little green card that you must fill out pre-flight. A few security questions that go something like this: Do you intend to commit or aid an act of terrorism during the period of your stay in the United States? Do you intend to commit or aid a crime during the period of your stay in the United States? "Wait a second, oh yes, I was thinking of detonating a bomb and robbing an old lady whilst staying at the Carlton." Once again, a quiz, cleverly designed to catch out the most useless terrorist, or stupidest tourist, in the whole world. I'd like to know if anyone ever filled out a card and ticked "Yes". I heard this is for legal reasons- so they can prove you lied if you actually did get caught doing these acts. Yeah, all over America terrorists and criminals are walking away from court free, on a technicality that they admitted they were going to do it beforehand in a police questionnaire. Lawyer: "Sorry Judge, my client ticked the "Yes" box on the card!" Prosecution: "Damn, we just lost our case!" For those of you who have read through all 3 parts, and still want to visit this country. Check out the Virtual Tourist website, if I can't put you off, maybe they can.

Forewarned is Forearmed!

Check out TMF's Six Scams to Shun! Sorry guys but due to my reduced Internet Access it's just easier to post these links direct.

The Time I Won Against Parking Injustice

You win some, you lose some. Back in October I blogged about how time constraints forced me to give up and pay the £45 bribe parking fine the police were demanding. I paid as the date they were asking me to appear in court I was due to be on a beach somewhere in Maui. So you will either be pleased or outraged to know that 2 other outstanding Council Parking Fines (PCNs) were cancelled this month. I have had many hits for people googling "Parking Fine Template Letter" and "Get Off Parking Fine". Now, let me make it clear there is no such letter and there is no such loopholes in the law. There is however, The Law and the Constitutional Bill of Rights Act 1688 which states: "That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegal and void." This is a Constitutional Act, that means it cannot be overruled by a later by an 'ordinary' Act such as the Road Traffic Act 1991. Below is an edited version of the letter I wrote to Coventry City Council. The photos I included showed different angles of the road where the lines were almost entirely worn out. This is not a template letter, however, I hope you may find it useful in constructing your own defence. If you are going to defend against a parking ticket you may want to check out Pepipoo forums. Coventry City Council Parking Services Unit PO Box 3943 Coventry CV1 9AF Re: Penalty Charge Notices: 00XXXXXX / CV00XXXXXX Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to appeal against the Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), on the grounds that the offence did not occur. The enclosed images are taken of the road where I was parked on these occasions, on the corner of XXXXXX Road, outside of the residents bay, outside the [Landmark] and [Landmark]. Specifically, the restriction is not signed as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (the TSRGDs). References in this representation to Road Markings refer to that statutory instrument (2002/3113). Representations: 1) The signing/road marking is non-prescribed, as road markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “Schedule 6 Road Markings”. The road markings numbered 1017/1018.1 are continuous lines terminating with T-Bars. Particular attention is drawn to item 4, Permitted Variants: None. The road markings in the restricted area are not continuous, or visible and do not have the required T-Bar endings, therefore varying from the prescribed regulation. From the photographs, there are no single or double yellow lines apart from some double yellow lines leading from the edge of the entrance to the [Landmark] to the corner before the drain. A closer inspection reveals that there are indeed some light faded patches of yellow on the road where I was parked, directly outside of [Landmark]. Since the road markings are not in conformity with the regulations then there can have been no contravention. This is clear form the court decisions of MacLeod v Hamilton (1965) S.L.T 305 and the PATAS Adjudicator decision in Cooper v Richmond (as reported on 18/07/00). I also refer to legal authorities: MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305 If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed. Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145 Because by s.64 (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind. 2) Both of the PCNs issued fail to comply with Section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 by not including a date of issue. This renders them void and unenforceable. See MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05) Case Number BC188 NPAS the Adjudicator decided that to comply with Section 66(3) a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of issue even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. A real possibility of prejudice arises from potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day and 14 day periods for payment begin and end. Coventry City Councils PCNs do not have a date of issue (see enclosed). 3) Not withstanding the above, the appellant submits that Coventry City Council is attempting to extort money in an unlawful manner. Please find enclosed an extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void". This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be impliedly repealed. As stated in the 'Metric Martyrs' Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63): 62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…" I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689. Therefore, it would appear that Coventry City Council have no lawful authority to demand money for any alleged offence until or unless it has been dealt with by a Court of Law. Consequently, the forfeit that you have demanded of me is illegal and void. As I am sure you will understand, I cannot knowingly involve myself in an illegal act and accordingly decline payment of this fine. Yours faithfully, A Fear Registered Keeper XXXX XXX ENCLOSURES 1. Diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS 2. Extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 3. Extract of Metric Martyrs Judgment, Sections 62 and 63. 4. Photographs taken at time of alleged offence. I must warn you I am no lawyer and by taking any advice on this blog you are solely responsible for any consequences of actions based upon this information. That said, I wish you every success in sticking it to 'em.

An Immigration Problem - Part 2

"It's not Great Britain, it's a crappy little Island with a complex. People are not queueing up to come and claim your benefits, there exists people in the world who would rather avoid the UK altogether..." Read Part 1 "So, if we had said she was just visiting, there would be no problem and we could have got through?" I asked the pretty, young Asian immigration orificer who had been dealing with our case. "Yes... but now you can't and you have to leave the country. I'm really sorry, I can see you're a nice couple and this has been a mistake, but unfortunately now it's already been processed and your passport's been stamped". She had tried her best to help us but that was just the problem, she was a component of what I like to term the checkbox (or database) culture. Everything has to fit into a checkbox and be processed, there is no longer any room in the UK for discretion or prudence. Not only that, she was young, they were all young. As we are sitting there hour upon hour on these crappy seats waiting for them to 'process' our situation, I watched gangs of immigration orificials walking around on coffee breaks, talking and chatting, not one of them over 20 years old. They were all fresh out of college and brainwashed by New Labour protocol. It was a frightening picture, we are sitting there for hours while 5 of them stand around chatting about the weekend using chav language. These are the people supposed to be protecting the UK borders, the people making decisions over people lives. You would think a little sensitivity would be in order, but like I said, a slow day, a need to justify their jobs. Some of them occasionally looked over at us in a passing and even they seemed surprised at seeing 2 western, white (yes, I said WHITE), working/middle class harmless people were doing sitting in the sin-bin. Don't be deceived, they may talk officiospeak, but usually paranoid institutions are also racist - they talk the equality talk, but when it comes down to the bottom line - people - we all have tribal instincts, which seem to prominently feature specifically in organisations when dealing with foreign nationals. Don't believe me? Ask yourself a question: What nationality comes into your mind when I use the term "illegal immigrant"? Eastern European, such as Croatian? What about "immigrant"? Polish, Russian, South American? Why is it we don't think about Canadians, Americans, South Africans, Aussies, Kiwi's, Germans, French, Italian, Japanese and so on? In Part 1, I asked - What kind of government combines the prison service with immigration? Is it because the government is paranoid of foreigners, or are there more sinister reasons? Perhaps immigration provides a convenient avenue to blame a host of economic and social ills such as rise in house prices, rises in crime and terrorism to name a few. Passing it off as an immigration problem focuses the country on immigrants, and causes people to resent immigrants. Another thing, whilst sitting in immigration, detained for the heinous crime of marrying without UK Government approval, I wondered how many 'illegal' immigrants were entering the country through the channel tunnel during that 5 hours. Unfortunately, this government can't give us the figures, but the Daily Mail could probably tell you it's millions and millions, everywhere you look, evil married immigrants! I know what you're dying to say! But they have to check marriages because otherwise people would marry to get into this country. I'm going to answer this in Mrs Fears' words: "Why would anyone in the world want to come to this country?" That's right folks, the only reason my wife is coming here is that unfortunately her husband happens to be British. As far as people marrying to get into the country, seriously, how many people do you really, really think try to do that? Think about every person you know, friends, family, work colleagues. Is there any of them that would marry a foreigner they had never met? Remember, they all have girlfriends, boyfriends, parents, children, family, friends, jobs. Even if they were offered a large sum of money, how many do you think would really do it? Really risk their reputation, friendships, future happiness with a real partner or current partner? I would be surprised if you could come up with even one person. Maybe you can think of one person, but out of the hundreds of people you know, thousands maybe, is that really a huge percentage? People marrying to get into the country? Grow up, it's a myth. It happens, but not enough to make any impact at all. So Daily Mail readers, Xenophobes, Immigration Orificers, Politicians and people who don't travel, listen up! It's not Great Britain, it's a crappy little Island with a complex. People are not queueing up to come and claim your benefits, there exists people in the world who would rather avoid the UK altogether, yes it's true! There are more people here who would rather leave and live anywhere else! So now you're going to say: Well if you don't like it, why don't you leave? I will, if the government made it easier I would sooner, but unfortunately there are things I need to do before I do leave. But I promise you, in the next few years, I plan to leave this ugly Island! Final words. So even though my wife was denied access, she was allowed through anyway, so much for protecting the country from the marriage bomb. Even better was the 'escorted' deportation. We walked up to the check-in, surprised and confused the lady. Mrs Fear made a point of collecting her air-miles, and then we were free to wander around departures with no problems whatsoever. Only when Mrs fear got to the departure gate, that a flustered immigration orificer came out with her passport, handed it back and walked off. Again, no escort, no handcuffs, no checks. She walked through the gate and another immigration orificer, she handed him her passport. He then looked at her and stated "We were looking all over for you... Do you have your passport?" "Yes," she responded, "...you're holding it." "Where is it?" "You... are... holding... it" Are you scared, Xenophobe? Do you fear? These are the people guarding your borders. Part 3

An Immigration Problem - Part 1

"I'm sick of being in a country led by a fascist government that uses fear and headlines to control the populace. This country wreaks of institutional paranoia..." There is a real problem with immigration in this country, and I'm not talking about the intelligent people who want to come here to study or to work, I'm talking about the Immigration "Service" and the Home Office. I find it difficult to be a good citizen at the best of times, but I realise more and more how difficult this government make it to be proud of Not-So-Great Britain. I'm sick of being in a country led by a fascist government that uses fear and headlines to control the populace. This country wreaks of institutional paranoia, and none so much as Immigration. What kind of government combines the prison service with immigration anyway? If you belong to the class of Xenophobic British citizens, I am about to give you an insight into the people who are "guarding" our borders from terrorists threats such as marriage, education and culture. As some of you may know, my new wife was denied an entry into Not-So-Great Britain due to not having a marriage visa, despite being a Canadian citizen (read: Commonwealth) and her visit not being permanent as she had a return ticket for Germany where she is a resident and up till recently a job and apartment. Why didn't we have a marriage visa I hear you ask? Good question, well 2 things: 1. Have you ever tried to navigate the Home Office website for a simple marriage to a foreign national? It's filled with government sanctioned waffle officiospeak, which is basically using a lot of words to communicate something useless or unimportant, and doesn't mention much about the information you really need. 2. Before marrying, Mrs Fear had asked immigration officials at the airports on 2 separate occasions what the policy was, they both advised she could apply when she came back into the UK. See we decided to be honest when we got to the border, we decided to say we got married and will be applying for the visa. It was a simple misunderstanding, the immigration people who previously lied to advised us got it wrong. So we showed the return ticket to Germany, my wife's German work visa and explained this was only a visit. You would think that this would be sufficient for them to see the innocence of the situation and let us through. Not so, apparently the terrorists latest tactic is to get married, try to settle down and start a family. Are you listening you xenophobes, you fascists? Keep reading. It must have been a slow day in Immigration at Heathrow. They decided that the best way of handling the situation of a married person trying to enter the UK was to fingerprint, take mugshots and keep her passport... that's right- the crime - getting married! They then kept us for 5 hours. Every hour or so to ask 1 or 2 questions and then go away for another hour. Along with us there was an Indian woman with a little girl who must have been 8 years old, and a baby. They had already been there 6 hours, what was their crime? The lady had given birth abroad. Perhaps they needed to check the baby's fingerprints to make sure they didn't match any terrorist babies that are trying to get into the country, we don't know, all we do know is it was an appalling place to be kept- she was still there when we left 5 hours later. So they denied her entry and had issued an order to send my wife back to Vancouver. That's right, even though she had a ticket for Germany and would leave the country in 2 weeks time, they went ahead and purchased a £600-£1000 ticket to Vancouver instead (Tax payers of this Godforsaken little Island, take note!). But 'graciously' they extended the rejection, and gave us an opportunity to come back and change the order to go to Germany instead. It was joke, and the joke was this, go to the German embassy and get them to fax advising she could enter Germany (remember, Mrs Fear has a VISA for Germany and is a RESIDENT with job and accommodation), then they would change the order. All this because we were honest and unlike immigration officials -we didn't lie. That week was tough. The short end of the story is we drove around to embassies for 2 days, £30 spent on parking just for few hours here and there in central London. The German Embassy wouldn't fax, the Canadian Embassy were helpful with information but couldn't intervene. We had nothing left but our prayers, then midweek the next week we got a call from Immigration, they simply decided that they would send her to Germany instead. Either someone in Immigration grew a brain, or God was looking after us, I believe in God, but immigration officials using intellect? That is just too difficult for me to believe. So now that is why my wife is currently in Germany, waiting for a copy of our marriage certificate to come from Hawaii, so she can apply for a visa. Her passport is now marked on their systems and she won't be able to enter till she has the visa. Part 2 Part 3 Suffering from immigration problems can be a very stressful time. One way to help speed up the process is by hiring an immigration lawyer. The website Lawyers.com can help you find a great immigration lawyers as well as find bankruptcy attorneys, divorce lawyers, and personal injury lawyers just to name a few.

Banks Behaving Badly

I really want to go into topics like this in detail, alas, time is not on my side. So check this article instead and open your eyes to the everyday evils: Banks Behaving Badly Edited to include: What Financial Firms Think About You Your Credit Cards Need £1 Billion! Make no mistake, banks are profit-geared organisations. They look after your money, just like a crocodile would look after your livestock. Of course, in the western world we are now forced to hire crocodiles to run our farms, since it is very difficult to achieve anything without a bank account. We need a revolution, or politicians with balls. Anyway just be aware of who your dealing with- a bank managers priorities are in this order: 1. Christmas Bonus 2. Profit 3. Shareholders 4. Big money clients 5. Your savings account The old saying rings true, "A bank manager loans you an umbrella whilst the sun is shining, and takes it back when it starts raining."