I may not have been in Britain long enough to have known the antecedents Mr Vince Cable, but I am certain that his disgraceful comment to an undercover reporter that he has declared a war on Rupert Murdoch empire is as foolish and disgracefully incompetent as it is politically embarrassing. Since last night, I have been wondering how a man at the peak of wisdom age and yet so devoid of wisdom could have risen so highly in British political leadership. If indeed it is not some early signs of mental deterioration, one wonders what level of role merit really plays in ascending to political power positions in Britain. How do people get to the parliament of Great Britain, by merit or by birth or privilege or by connection?
It may sound crazy to most people, but I am not aware that any man or woman that speaks the level of wisdom Mr Cable spoke on Rupert Murdoch (a man who has committed no known crime) will hardly ever rise to be a Senior member of the Federal Executive Council of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Nigeria certainly is by all standards a backward and retarding country with open and unpretentious ethnic bigots in power positions, but we have never heard a Minister say ( even if he is actually doing it) something like, “I am going to use my power to frustrate the economy of Igbos”.
Mr Cable’s comment about resigning to bring down the coalition if pushed too far may be explained as a political tactic, but there can be no acceptable basis for his outburst on Rupert Murdoch. All that can be said on the basis that he is an adult of sound mind is that it was probably an overflow of long suppressed bigotry or just a calculated unintelligent outburst miscalculated as a popularity enhancing point. In the characteristically unintelligent Liberal Democrats worldview, he may have thought that people would like him more if he stops "that Murdoch business monster", but like his equally incompetent and desperate boss Nick Clegg (who foolishly thought that declaring he does not believe in God would make him the next Prime Minister, he got it very, very wrong.
In any case, it was most unwise for a person of his calibre to have made such comment to anyone not a cabinet colleague or closely associated and trusted person.
I am sure that even in Nigeria that it is very rare to find a minster that would make such a foolish comment to a person that was foreseeably a journalist or at least a kiss and tell even though in Nigeria what the media say does not really matter.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Monday, 20 December 2010
This Italy is Very Much Like Ali-Igbo!
This is my third visit to Gemona Del Friuli, the Northern Italian village of our in-laws and I can nolonger suppress my thoughts about how similar we are as a people yet so backward in comparison with the progress of our in-laws.
I see in Gemona civilised version of Ali-Izhi (Izhiland or Izzi Land)imagininging how my homeland could be only if we could pursue the goal of societal development beyond individual survival!
I see in Gemona civilised version of Ali-Izhi (Izhiland or Izzi Land)imagininging how my homeland could be only if we could pursue the goal of societal development beyond individual survival!
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Who Brought This Woman Here?
I am watching Question Time now and have seen something that is really worth noting here. A female MP panellist called Nadine Dorries is the worst I have so far seen in Britain.
Unless, I have caught her on her worst day, I find it shocking that a woman so hollow, so shallow in reasoning and so representative of mediocrity is representing a community of highly intelligent people in England of all places.
This Woman’s contribution in the debate on the issue of University Tuition fees was most cringe-worthy and absolutely disgraceful!
She simply could not answer questions asked and went on rambling like an incompetent woman that got her position through an unholy means. She was transfixed with trying to invent a new defence for tuition fees that she simply scored zero in listening test.
I will be surprised if the mainstream media does not pick up MP Dorries’ shambolic performance tonight on the Question Time.
Perhaps, the climax of MP Dorries’ demonstration of mediocrity was when she claimed that most (or did she say all) people in her constituency are complaining about their taxes being used to subsidise university tuition fees when actually they have never benefited from University education. She was basically arguing that one reason for the hike was because those who have not ( and may never) benefit from University education are paying taxes to sustain universities. She foolishly could not notice the conspicuous mass cringing around her, from the floor and of course from across the country and continued to hammer that disgraceful point.
It would be a big shame if no media picks up this woman’s show of shame and ultimate embarrassment of the Conservative Party.
Lest I be accused of sexism, Ms Dorries was not the only personification of British mediocrity on the panel. Mr Danny Alexander was not much better. He was another shameful show of nastiness. John Sargent was spot on when he described him as pathetic!
I must confess that my views about these two have not been shaped by their nasty stand on the tuition fees debate, but purely on their performance. If they had been able to debate to the standard expected of their level, I would not have found anything noteworthy. My views have absolutely nothing to do with their support for the hike in tuition fees.
Unless, I have caught her on her worst day, I find it shocking that a woman so hollow, so shallow in reasoning and so representative of mediocrity is representing a community of highly intelligent people in England of all places.
This Woman’s contribution in the debate on the issue of University Tuition fees was most cringe-worthy and absolutely disgraceful!
She simply could not answer questions asked and went on rambling like an incompetent woman that got her position through an unholy means. She was transfixed with trying to invent a new defence for tuition fees that she simply scored zero in listening test.
I will be surprised if the mainstream media does not pick up MP Dorries’ shambolic performance tonight on the Question Time.
Perhaps, the climax of MP Dorries’ demonstration of mediocrity was when she claimed that most (or did she say all) people in her constituency are complaining about their taxes being used to subsidise university tuition fees when actually they have never benefited from University education. She was basically arguing that one reason for the hike was because those who have not ( and may never) benefit from University education are paying taxes to sustain universities. She foolishly could not notice the conspicuous mass cringing around her, from the floor and of course from across the country and continued to hammer that disgraceful point.
It would be a big shame if no media picks up this woman’s show of shame and ultimate embarrassment of the Conservative Party.
Lest I be accused of sexism, Ms Dorries was not the only personification of British mediocrity on the panel. Mr Danny Alexander was not much better. He was another shameful show of nastiness. John Sargent was spot on when he described him as pathetic!
I must confess that my views about these two have not been shaped by their nasty stand on the tuition fees debate, but purely on their performance. If they had been able to debate to the standard expected of their level, I would not have found anything noteworthy. My views have absolutely nothing to do with their support for the hike in tuition fees.
Friday, 5 November 2010
China 'urges Britain to boycott Nobel ceremony' - Yahoo! News UK
China 'urges Britain to boycott Nobel ceremony' - Yahoo! News UK
My View
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
How would British leaders and all of us as a people like to see China attend a Bin Laden’s Islamic defenders award ceremony in Afghanistan or Iran?
I fear that the contemporary Western leaders’ incompetence and idiocy would lead the world to another major global conflict.
Continually trying to deride China even now that show has proven to be unstoppable; to me is a show of tactlessness and incompetence probably based on a primitive notion of White superiority!
Western media and governments have no moral or legal rights whatsoever to teach China how to govern its own people. If there is any basis for the West or the White World to dictate the principles and practices of human rights for the rest of the world, the question then is what exactly has the West done in practical terms to protect the human rights of the most oppressed?
Africa has at least since around 1885 Berlin conference been largely under firm control or strong influence of the Western powers. How far has the West protected the human rights of the most vulnerable Africans since the past 50 years? How much did Britain and America protect Biafrans between 1967 and 1970; Black Africans of Sudan, people of DRC and generally the impoverished and abused people of all countries in Black Africa(excluding Zimbabwe which has always respected human rights more than Nigeria) where human rights are seen as luxury . It is on record that the West especially Britain, unfortunately, through our self destructive media organisations have always only seen human rights abuses in Black Africa only where a British person feels injured.
I do not agree that Black Africans and the Caribbeans should be blaming our White masters for our own failures as it contradicts any belief in equality of all humans to do so. However, if our White masters in the Western powers must arrogate themselves the divine responsibility for all humans on the planet, then they should be much quicker at protecting the rights those under their noses (e.g. Black Africans and the Caribbeans) than those very far away from their control (e.g. China and North Korea).
In any case, for those who are blinded by some fake human rights noise (especially some fanatical White Supremacists who hide under liberalism e.g. people in Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and dubious White Journalists who habitually fight selective fights), Western media publicity /criticisms of suspected human rights abuses in Countries like China, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Iran etc) have always rather than ameliorate, worsened the state of human rights in those societies. It is therefore very hard to see how Western fake obsession with human rights for others has ever really helped the supposed victims of human rights abuses. How has Western noise about human rights really helped Aung San Suu Kyi? If she had not been seen by the majority of Burmese elites as a Western puppet, would she not have been a free woman leading her country today? What benefit either to the people of Burma or Suu Kyi herself has western interference in the internal affairs of Burma been?
As an enlightened Black African, I make these comments with grave concern because I know the importance (to my vulnerable people) of the West remaining in good control and able to moderate the affairs of the world. I know that the rise of China, India and others would naturally leave Black Africa vulnerable to further slavery and colonialism, but I will never advocate for the fall of China for every nation is entitled to pursue development. In fact, pursuing development is pursuing own survival and as such impeding or interfering with Chinese development in any way (by unreasonably criticising her or by honouring her traitor) should be seen as an act of provocation by all sensible Chinese. Yes, I have never lost grip of the fact that when China and India reach their destinations, my people would suffer, but I will never ask others remain as backward and exploitable as Black Africa as it does not make the world a better place. All I ask for is that the West should be wiser by appreciating the fact that times have changed and is continually changing fast.
The West should be working towards maintaining its position as the conscience of the world rather than foolishly (through its media especially British media) trying to give other peoples of the world ideas or strong reasons to question Western divinity and or moral grounds or suitability as a Judge or master or police over others. The brazen practice of disparate measures for assessing human rights violation (according to Western economic interests rather than any objective parameters) as was all seen in the case of Zimbabwe against other Black Africa countries where no White man’s interest or right was infringed and remains in the case of North Korea and Burma etc will only lead to the demystification of West and possibly fall of Western leadership of the world.
The key to continued Western leadership of the world lies in genuine belief and practice of democracy and human rights principles within as well as equitable treatment and assessment of world affairs or internal affairs of others.
My View
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
How would British leaders and all of us as a people like to see China attend a Bin Laden’s Islamic defenders award ceremony in Afghanistan or Iran?
I fear that the contemporary Western leaders’ incompetence and idiocy would lead the world to another major global conflict.
Continually trying to deride China even now that show has proven to be unstoppable; to me is a show of tactlessness and incompetence probably based on a primitive notion of White superiority!
Western media and governments have no moral or legal rights whatsoever to teach China how to govern its own people. If there is any basis for the West or the White World to dictate the principles and practices of human rights for the rest of the world, the question then is what exactly has the West done in practical terms to protect the human rights of the most oppressed?
Africa has at least since around 1885 Berlin conference been largely under firm control or strong influence of the Western powers. How far has the West protected the human rights of the most vulnerable Africans since the past 50 years? How much did Britain and America protect Biafrans between 1967 and 1970; Black Africans of Sudan, people of DRC and generally the impoverished and abused people of all countries in Black Africa(excluding Zimbabwe which has always respected human rights more than Nigeria) where human rights are seen as luxury . It is on record that the West especially Britain, unfortunately, through our self destructive media organisations have always only seen human rights abuses in Black Africa only where a British person feels injured.
I do not agree that Black Africans and the Caribbeans should be blaming our White masters for our own failures as it contradicts any belief in equality of all humans to do so. However, if our White masters in the Western powers must arrogate themselves the divine responsibility for all humans on the planet, then they should be much quicker at protecting the rights those under their noses (e.g. Black Africans and the Caribbeans) than those very far away from their control (e.g. China and North Korea).
In any case, for those who are blinded by some fake human rights noise (especially some fanatical White Supremacists who hide under liberalism e.g. people in Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and dubious White Journalists who habitually fight selective fights), Western media publicity /criticisms of suspected human rights abuses in Countries like China, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Iran etc) have always rather than ameliorate, worsened the state of human rights in those societies. It is therefore very hard to see how Western fake obsession with human rights for others has ever really helped the supposed victims of human rights abuses. How has Western noise about human rights really helped Aung San Suu Kyi? If she had not been seen by the majority of Burmese elites as a Western puppet, would she not have been a free woman leading her country today? What benefit either to the people of Burma or Suu Kyi herself has western interference in the internal affairs of Burma been?
As an enlightened Black African, I make these comments with grave concern because I know the importance (to my vulnerable people) of the West remaining in good control and able to moderate the affairs of the world. I know that the rise of China, India and others would naturally leave Black Africa vulnerable to further slavery and colonialism, but I will never advocate for the fall of China for every nation is entitled to pursue development. In fact, pursuing development is pursuing own survival and as such impeding or interfering with Chinese development in any way (by unreasonably criticising her or by honouring her traitor) should be seen as an act of provocation by all sensible Chinese. Yes, I have never lost grip of the fact that when China and India reach their destinations, my people would suffer, but I will never ask others remain as backward and exploitable as Black Africa as it does not make the world a better place. All I ask for is that the West should be wiser by appreciating the fact that times have changed and is continually changing fast.
The West should be working towards maintaining its position as the conscience of the world rather than foolishly (through its media especially British media) trying to give other peoples of the world ideas or strong reasons to question Western divinity and or moral grounds or suitability as a Judge or master or police over others. The brazen practice of disparate measures for assessing human rights violation (according to Western economic interests rather than any objective parameters) as was all seen in the case of Zimbabwe against other Black Africa countries where no White man’s interest or right was infringed and remains in the case of North Korea and Burma etc will only lead to the demystification of West and possibly fall of Western leadership of the world.
The key to continued Western leadership of the world lies in genuine belief and practice of democracy and human rights principles within as well as equitable treatment and assessment of world affairs or internal affairs of others.
Monday, 1 November 2010
On the Education Secretary, Michael Gove's plan to let top schools expand
What really do English people understand as equality?
I voted the Conservatives hoping that the so-called nasty Party is now dominated by sensible young men determined to repair the country after 13 years of Labour disaster.
I hoped that in the “New Conservatives”, I would see more competent young men and Women determined to do things differently.
Disappointedly, what I have seen so far is the same bunch of "out of touch" privileged adolescents jumping around in service of the media instead of the people.
What does Britain stand to gain by entrenching segregation among schools and the culture of desperate scrambles for so-called best or better schools? Why does it seem harder for Britain to maintain the same high standard in all school rather continually encouraging discrimination and unhealthy competition for so-called best schools?
The duty of the government should be to set the same standard for all schools and pay special attention to those schools not performing as they should (not the other way) with the view of bringing them up to the acceptable standards!
Is it correct to say that Britain is a fundamentally unequal society and that our leaders are determined to maintain the class divides?
Would it not have been more intelligent for a government of "reformers" populated by supposedly intelligent privileged kids from the same select schools to be striving to promote equal opportunities in the sense of encouraging (even pretentiously) a new Britain where any person that works hard irrespective of socio-economic background should be able to achieve her/his ambition?
See public approval of my comment on the following link: http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:yahoo_uk_irel306:1c166215a0e81b2fe5bcbf453727d538/Gove-plan-to-let-top-schools-expand
I voted the Conservatives hoping that the so-called nasty Party is now dominated by sensible young men determined to repair the country after 13 years of Labour disaster.
I hoped that in the “New Conservatives”, I would see more competent young men and Women determined to do things differently.
Disappointedly, what I have seen so far is the same bunch of "out of touch" privileged adolescents jumping around in service of the media instead of the people.
What does Britain stand to gain by entrenching segregation among schools and the culture of desperate scrambles for so-called best or better schools? Why does it seem harder for Britain to maintain the same high standard in all school rather continually encouraging discrimination and unhealthy competition for so-called best schools?
The duty of the government should be to set the same standard for all schools and pay special attention to those schools not performing as they should (not the other way) with the view of bringing them up to the acceptable standards!
Is it correct to say that Britain is a fundamentally unequal society and that our leaders are determined to maintain the class divides?
Would it not have been more intelligent for a government of "reformers" populated by supposedly intelligent privileged kids from the same select schools to be striving to promote equal opportunities in the sense of encouraging (even pretentiously) a new Britain where any person that works hard irrespective of socio-economic background should be able to achieve her/his ambition?
See public approval of my comment on the following link: http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:yahoo_uk_irel306:1c166215a0e81b2fe5bcbf453727d538/Gove-plan-to-let-top-schools-expand
Monday, 18 October 2010
My Children will One day ask your Children about what you are doing to me today!
Who knows whether Employment Judge Pearl would twist my statement to him today against me in the most sinister way – for example alleging that I threatened him after all it would sound plausible to accuse a Black man of acting aggressively or otherwise threatening. Anyway, I can no longer be too shocked by anything in Britain because I have already experienced dozens of things that no sane minded person even in Osama Bin laden neighbourhood would believe could happen in Britain. I have experienced dozens of atrocities (in the hands of Judges in Britain), which I find difficult to tell people in Nigeria because nobody would believe me.
Today in particular Employment Judge Pearl once again made me feel ashamed of being a lawyer.
I had predicted what happened today in my letter to the Attorney General on 27 September 2010 which I also copied Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). I thought that crying out about an impending abominable act would forestall it, but I was very wrong. The aspect of my letter to the Attorney General for England & Wales that dealt with what happened today is copied below. Please read to understand the issues:
“Impending Judicial farce in my second claim against Badenoch & Clark (a recruitment agency) and Others: This is a case that gives further credence to a suspicion of something really mysterious happening in the Employment Tribunal system.
B&C’s lawyers, Sheridans, incompetently and or negligently failed to respond within 28 days which elapsed at 23:59hrs on 30 December 2009. Instead of filing its response immediately it realised its failure, Sheridans wrote the Tribunal asking for my claim to be struck out for being an abuse of process. This was a laughable application because B&C had no grounds, to make any such application, even if the application had any merit whatsoever.
Helpfully, Employment Judge Pearl reminded the respondent’s Sheridans, as I had done that it had no basis for making any such application when it had not even responded. B&C then forwarded its response on 12 March 2010, more than 2 months out of time and Employment Judge Pearl rightly in line with the rules, rejected the response and ruled that B&C will not take active proceedings in the proceedings – meaning that I had effectively won my case against B&C.
B&C had 14 days to apply for a review if it did not like the decision and 42 days from 26 March when the decision was sent to the parties, to appeal in the EAT.
The time for appealing to the EAT elapsed on 7 May 2010 at 4.00pm, but B&C had done neither review application nor filed a Notice of Appeal.
On or around 27 May, 2010 during the part-hearing in my first claim against B&C and Others, EJ Wolffenden suggested that a CMD which had been scheduled for my claim against the Second Respondent in this claim was meant for discussing “…the First Respondent’s failure to respond”. This was never stated in the Notice of CMD that I received. In any case, B&C had indicated it was not opposing the decision of the ET and it is impossible to discuss such a matter in a CMD as failure to respond within the time limit could only be addressed by way of a review hearing if the Respondent applies for a review (B&C had not applied for any review). It was further baffling, how or where EJ Wolffenden got what she said from?
I promptly reminded the EJ that B& C had neither applied for review nor filed a Notice of Appeal.
However, on 1 July 2010, B&C applied for a review claiming that it had changed its mind against not challenging the ET’s decision to debar it from taking active part in the proceedings.
My concern here is that the ET is probably scheming to find a way of accepting B&C’s Response even though it would plainly constitute an abuse of process. Besides, even the response of B&C and disclosures it made lately show that it has no valid defence to my claim, in any case ( e.g. the CVs it purports to have forwarded do not meet the very criteria it claim that I did not meet to be forwarded). There are clear indications here that some Employment Judges are determined to ensure that I must never be successful in any claim”
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Employment had no legal or moral basis at all for allowing B&C’s late response today, not just because there is no judicial precedence , but most importantly because it is an unmitigated abuse of process. B&C’s Counsel apparently searched all law libraries in England and Wales and could not find a case where a Defendant or Respondent who was debarred from taking active part in a proceeding or had the alternative, a Default judgment against it because it was out of time, indicated it was not going to challenge the Court’s decision (missed the deadline for applying for review by 2 Months and missed deadline for appealing by more than a Month), but after 2 Months changed its mind, asked the Court to allow it to defend the claim and the Court agreed.
Some experienced may rightly imagine that the Respondent may have had a highly meritorious defence. Interestingly, there is nothing of that sort. In fact, the response of B&C to my claim is purely scandalous if not simply idiotic because it appears obvious that while desperately scouting for CVs that would dwarf mine and present its defence as strong; it foolishly forgot what it had stated in the past in respect of some of the jobs. For example, in the case of Freedom of Information (FOI) Lawyer it claimed in its response to my claim that I was not put forward for that job because I did not possess any experience. It produced an old version of my CV which did not show that I had any FOI experience. When I showed Counsel for B7C some correspondence back in September 2009 which showed that B&C confirmed to me in writing that it was going to put my CV forward for that role, the story, he changed the story to say that I was actually put forward for that role but that its clients did not accept my CV.
In the case of Part Time Employment Lawyer, I had received an email on October 8 2009 from one Paul Gledhill of B&C who stated that the reason he was not putting my CV forward to its client was because there were many high quality applications for the role and that they were only allowed to submit just 3 candidates. He equally indicated that all the candidates submitted were practicing Barristers and Solicitors.
Interestingly, in its response to my claim B&C maintained that it was highly competitive but forgetting what Mr Gledhill had initially represented claimed that it forwarded the two best CVs. Even more interesting is the fact that none of the two CVs showed any evidence of any practicing Barrister or solicitor. In fact one of the candidates actually possessed no legal qualifications at all.
Perhaps, the most incontestable evidence in my favour was the series of emails where the former lawyer of B&C named Ms Rabi who incompetently and or ignorantly, repeatedly wrote me very harsh emails stating that B&C would no longer act for me, falsely accusing me of being rude, and aggressive towards B&C’s staff. This was a prima facie evidence of Victimisation handed to me on the platter of gold as the false accusation only came about after I had brought a claim against B&C and most importantly, there is no single evidence that any staff of B&C that handled any of the jobs I applied for ever complained about me.
Despite my past experiences of judicial farce from Employment Judge Pearl and others I mounted my best advocacy against determination to allow B&C ‘s response by drawing his attention to apparent weakness in B&C’s response and equally highlighting several act of fraudulent conducts and misrepresentation by B&C including the fraudulent application it made on 4 January 2010.
I believed that Employment Judge would not be so conscience ridden to allow B&C’s application, but he proved me very wrong again. I even reminded him that in March 2009, he refused to exercise discretion in a discrimination claim which was only a few minutes out of time, but he feigned ignorance of it. I then reminded him of a sound judgment he passed in the case of Ahmed v Amnesty International which he excitedly recalled, but refused to be as astute in my own case.
I only hope Mr Pearl would seriously think of my last words to him since he apparently wrote them down. I told him what came to my mind “If you have children, please note that one day my children will ask your children about what you are doing to me today” I reminded him that my children are British and would almost certainly grow up one day and ask his children about what he is doing to me.
For my readers, I am not really desperate for your sympathy or didactic sayings and advice. I am only desperate for community leaders, religious leaders and the general public of Britain to hear my story and to rise and stop what is happening to me from happening again to any other person in Britain. I am not going to stop fighting because I have a stake in this country as my children are born here and could suffer the same ugly fate tomorrow if not challenged today. I am desperate to tell my story because I want to ensure that the accurate account of my life in Britain is maintained and that those who are hiding under the global acclaim of the English legal system to fraudulently destroy the life of an innocent man have the opportunity of proving to the world that I am actually a mad man. I am writing my story and will continue doing so as I fight on because if anything happens to me tomorrow, the same mainstream English media that “blacked me out” in my claim against the Bar Council and would not follow my story because I am not a celebrity or for some other unknown reasons, would concoct a false story about me. Further, my experiences so far confirm to me that it may be possible to hang a crime on me in order to jail me or even for a corrupt police man to be used to shoot me and brand me a terrorist caught in the act. I have therefore decided that my only choice while I am still alive is to fight the fight that has befallen me at all cost.
The only possible explanation I can deduce, why every judge in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal seem to have sworn an oat to defeat any claim I may bring is because I had the guts to challenge the Bar Council of England and Wales’s obnoxious policy which makes it impossible for about 70 % of those who pass their bar exams and called to bar each year to be able to practice as barristers. In fact, since the policy came into place in 2003, it has been far more difficult than it was in the 1980s for Blacks and some other minority groups to be able to obtain practicing certificates as barristers. I believed (perhaps, foolishly) that I was in a free and democratic country where you can complain or challenge something you believe to be wrong. I am now paying a heavy price. Perhaps, I should have been wiser not to have challenged them, but I spent over £15,000 pounds to train as a Barrister and I come from the part of the world where it is an abomination to stop a man from legitimately earning a living. I cannot get a befitting legal job in any public sector organisation and or through the recruitment agencies which they often use as conduits for discrimination and if I complain of discrimination the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal judges would fight my claim even more ferociously than those I complain against. I am being put in a situation where I am bound to bring complaints in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunals where Judges are waiting happily to frustrate my complaints at all cost.
My promise is that I will never give up as I know that my children and other people's children would suffer similar fate. I promise to fight on even at the risk of losing my life or at least inconveniencing my family. I have committed no offence and cannot accept to be treated like a subhuman in a country that holds itself out to the world as a beacon of freedom, fairness and equality.
I will keep readers updated with my story as it unfolds.
John Iteshi
Barrister (Non-Practicing)
18 October 2010
Today in particular Employment Judge Pearl once again made me feel ashamed of being a lawyer.
I had predicted what happened today in my letter to the Attorney General on 27 September 2010 which I also copied Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). I thought that crying out about an impending abominable act would forestall it, but I was very wrong. The aspect of my letter to the Attorney General for England & Wales that dealt with what happened today is copied below. Please read to understand the issues:
“Impending Judicial farce in my second claim against Badenoch & Clark (a recruitment agency) and Others: This is a case that gives further credence to a suspicion of something really mysterious happening in the Employment Tribunal system.
B&C’s lawyers, Sheridans, incompetently and or negligently failed to respond within 28 days which elapsed at 23:59hrs on 30 December 2009. Instead of filing its response immediately it realised its failure, Sheridans wrote the Tribunal asking for my claim to be struck out for being an abuse of process. This was a laughable application because B&C had no grounds, to make any such application, even if the application had any merit whatsoever.
Helpfully, Employment Judge Pearl reminded the respondent’s Sheridans, as I had done that it had no basis for making any such application when it had not even responded. B&C then forwarded its response on 12 March 2010, more than 2 months out of time and Employment Judge Pearl rightly in line with the rules, rejected the response and ruled that B&C will not take active proceedings in the proceedings – meaning that I had effectively won my case against B&C.
B&C had 14 days to apply for a review if it did not like the decision and 42 days from 26 March when the decision was sent to the parties, to appeal in the EAT.
The time for appealing to the EAT elapsed on 7 May 2010 at 4.00pm, but B&C had done neither review application nor filed a Notice of Appeal.
On or around 27 May, 2010 during the part-hearing in my first claim against B&C and Others, EJ Wolffenden suggested that a CMD which had been scheduled for my claim against the Second Respondent in this claim was meant for discussing “…the First Respondent’s failure to respond”. This was never stated in the Notice of CMD that I received. In any case, B&C had indicated it was not opposing the decision of the ET and it is impossible to discuss such a matter in a CMD as failure to respond within the time limit could only be addressed by way of a review hearing if the Respondent applies for a review (B&C had not applied for any review). It was further baffling, how or where EJ Wolffenden got what she said from?
I promptly reminded the EJ that B& C had neither applied for review nor filed a Notice of Appeal.
However, on 1 July 2010, B&C applied for a review claiming that it had changed its mind against not challenging the ET’s decision to debar it from taking active part in the proceedings.
My concern here is that the ET is probably scheming to find a way of accepting B&C’s Response even though it would plainly constitute an abuse of process. Besides, even the response of B&C and disclosures it made lately show that it has no valid defence to my claim, in any case ( e.g. the CVs it purports to have forwarded do not meet the very criteria it claim that I did not meet to be forwarded). There are clear indications here that some Employment Judges are determined to ensure that I must never be successful in any claim”
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Employment had no legal or moral basis at all for allowing B&C’s late response today, not just because there is no judicial precedence , but most importantly because it is an unmitigated abuse of process. B&C’s Counsel apparently searched all law libraries in England and Wales and could not find a case where a Defendant or Respondent who was debarred from taking active part in a proceeding or had the alternative, a Default judgment against it because it was out of time, indicated it was not going to challenge the Court’s decision (missed the deadline for applying for review by 2 Months and missed deadline for appealing by more than a Month), but after 2 Months changed its mind, asked the Court to allow it to defend the claim and the Court agreed.
Some experienced may rightly imagine that the Respondent may have had a highly meritorious defence. Interestingly, there is nothing of that sort. In fact, the response of B&C to my claim is purely scandalous if not simply idiotic because it appears obvious that while desperately scouting for CVs that would dwarf mine and present its defence as strong; it foolishly forgot what it had stated in the past in respect of some of the jobs. For example, in the case of Freedom of Information (FOI) Lawyer it claimed in its response to my claim that I was not put forward for that job because I did not possess any experience. It produced an old version of my CV which did not show that I had any FOI experience. When I showed Counsel for B7C some correspondence back in September 2009 which showed that B&C confirmed to me in writing that it was going to put my CV forward for that role, the story, he changed the story to say that I was actually put forward for that role but that its clients did not accept my CV.
In the case of Part Time Employment Lawyer, I had received an email on October 8 2009 from one Paul Gledhill of B&C who stated that the reason he was not putting my CV forward to its client was because there were many high quality applications for the role and that they were only allowed to submit just 3 candidates. He equally indicated that all the candidates submitted were practicing Barristers and Solicitors.
Interestingly, in its response to my claim B&C maintained that it was highly competitive but forgetting what Mr Gledhill had initially represented claimed that it forwarded the two best CVs. Even more interesting is the fact that none of the two CVs showed any evidence of any practicing Barrister or solicitor. In fact one of the candidates actually possessed no legal qualifications at all.
Perhaps, the most incontestable evidence in my favour was the series of emails where the former lawyer of B&C named Ms Rabi who incompetently and or ignorantly, repeatedly wrote me very harsh emails stating that B&C would no longer act for me, falsely accusing me of being rude, and aggressive towards B&C’s staff. This was a prima facie evidence of Victimisation handed to me on the platter of gold as the false accusation only came about after I had brought a claim against B&C and most importantly, there is no single evidence that any staff of B&C that handled any of the jobs I applied for ever complained about me.
Despite my past experiences of judicial farce from Employment Judge Pearl and others I mounted my best advocacy against determination to allow B&C ‘s response by drawing his attention to apparent weakness in B&C’s response and equally highlighting several act of fraudulent conducts and misrepresentation by B&C including the fraudulent application it made on 4 January 2010.
I believed that Employment Judge would not be so conscience ridden to allow B&C’s application, but he proved me very wrong again. I even reminded him that in March 2009, he refused to exercise discretion in a discrimination claim which was only a few minutes out of time, but he feigned ignorance of it. I then reminded him of a sound judgment he passed in the case of Ahmed v Amnesty International which he excitedly recalled, but refused to be as astute in my own case.
I only hope Mr Pearl would seriously think of my last words to him since he apparently wrote them down. I told him what came to my mind “If you have children, please note that one day my children will ask your children about what you are doing to me today” I reminded him that my children are British and would almost certainly grow up one day and ask his children about what he is doing to me.
For my readers, I am not really desperate for your sympathy or didactic sayings and advice. I am only desperate for community leaders, religious leaders and the general public of Britain to hear my story and to rise and stop what is happening to me from happening again to any other person in Britain. I am not going to stop fighting because I have a stake in this country as my children are born here and could suffer the same ugly fate tomorrow if not challenged today. I am desperate to tell my story because I want to ensure that the accurate account of my life in Britain is maintained and that those who are hiding under the global acclaim of the English legal system to fraudulently destroy the life of an innocent man have the opportunity of proving to the world that I am actually a mad man. I am writing my story and will continue doing so as I fight on because if anything happens to me tomorrow, the same mainstream English media that “blacked me out” in my claim against the Bar Council and would not follow my story because I am not a celebrity or for some other unknown reasons, would concoct a false story about me. Further, my experiences so far confirm to me that it may be possible to hang a crime on me in order to jail me or even for a corrupt police man to be used to shoot me and brand me a terrorist caught in the act. I have therefore decided that my only choice while I am still alive is to fight the fight that has befallen me at all cost.
The only possible explanation I can deduce, why every judge in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal seem to have sworn an oat to defeat any claim I may bring is because I had the guts to challenge the Bar Council of England and Wales’s obnoxious policy which makes it impossible for about 70 % of those who pass their bar exams and called to bar each year to be able to practice as barristers. In fact, since the policy came into place in 2003, it has been far more difficult than it was in the 1980s for Blacks and some other minority groups to be able to obtain practicing certificates as barristers. I believed (perhaps, foolishly) that I was in a free and democratic country where you can complain or challenge something you believe to be wrong. I am now paying a heavy price. Perhaps, I should have been wiser not to have challenged them, but I spent over £15,000 pounds to train as a Barrister and I come from the part of the world where it is an abomination to stop a man from legitimately earning a living. I cannot get a befitting legal job in any public sector organisation and or through the recruitment agencies which they often use as conduits for discrimination and if I complain of discrimination the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal judges would fight my claim even more ferociously than those I complain against. I am being put in a situation where I am bound to bring complaints in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunals where Judges are waiting happily to frustrate my complaints at all cost.
My promise is that I will never give up as I know that my children and other people's children would suffer similar fate. I promise to fight on even at the risk of losing my life or at least inconveniencing my family. I have committed no offence and cannot accept to be treated like a subhuman in a country that holds itself out to the world as a beacon of freedom, fairness and equality.
I will keep readers updated with my story as it unfolds.
John Iteshi
Barrister (Non-Practicing)
18 October 2010
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Ed Miliband
I must say that I have been since the inception of the Labour Leadership campaigns, disgusted with the manner the media (acting in the interest of the political establishment) brainwashed and imposed either Ed or David Milliband on the public.
The people never stood any chance of electing a labour leader whose name is not a Miliband. Diane Abott despite being far more recognisable and far more experienced was never given any publicity and was in fact only propped up by one of the Milibands.
My disgust actually turned to more fascination than anger (about British politics) after it took one of the Milibands to get Diane on the ballot. I became fascinated about how British politics works ( in gangs just like Nigeria or indeed based on individual convictions).
How did the Miliband brothers become heavyweights in the Parliament over Diane (an old soldier) and numerous others?
Now that a Miliband has won, but not the Miliband favoured by the media and the strongest gang in the parliament, I have no choice but to watch like everyone else. I am however happy not just that the better looking Miliband won, but that the main favourite did not win. It is interesting when both the media and political establishments are unable to have their way exactly. Much more interesting is what could happen before or in the next election.
I predict that Ed will either not last till next elections or will lose because he is not fully accepted!
It is up to the Unions to rally round their man and refuse to be pushed, but it is also up to the new leader and the unions to appeal to Middle England as it is called, in order to have any chance of smelling 10 Downing Street!
The people never stood any chance of electing a labour leader whose name is not a Miliband. Diane Abott despite being far more recognisable and far more experienced was never given any publicity and was in fact only propped up by one of the Milibands.
My disgust actually turned to more fascination than anger (about British politics) after it took one of the Milibands to get Diane on the ballot. I became fascinated about how British politics works ( in gangs just like Nigeria or indeed based on individual convictions).
How did the Miliband brothers become heavyweights in the Parliament over Diane (an old soldier) and numerous others?
Now that a Miliband has won, but not the Miliband favoured by the media and the strongest gang in the parliament, I have no choice but to watch like everyone else. I am however happy not just that the better looking Miliband won, but that the main favourite did not win. It is interesting when both the media and political establishments are unable to have their way exactly. Much more interesting is what could happen before or in the next election.
I predict that Ed will either not last till next elections or will lose because he is not fully accepted!
It is up to the Unions to rally round their man and refuse to be pushed, but it is also up to the new leader and the unions to appeal to Middle England as it is called, in order to have any chance of smelling 10 Downing Street!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)