SFH.net April 2013 Editorial
Strangers in the night inviting dances
Chuka Harrison Umunna M.P for Streatham, is the Shadow Business Secretary. He started out his professional life as a solicitor with City firms Herbert Smith and Rochman Landau. He is in his mid-thirties, dresses well and likes to be seen as a man about town. His desire for enjoying the good things in life resulted from his upbringing in a well-to-do family. In 2007 he articulated his opinion, succinctly, on the members-only private website ASmallWorld, regarding a particular aspect of London nightlife:
“Most of the West End haunts seem to be full of trash and C-list wannabes, while other places that should know better opt for the cheesy vibe.”
Chuka Umunna has to be saluted for his accuracy. These comments were made public in 2013, (no doubt to cause embarrassment to the ambitious politician). But it is not just in the West End that the trash congregate; it is everywhere in the Home Counties as well - and beyond. Take Essex for example. On weekends the town of Romford from 7.30pm onwards is a sight to behold. Getting off (no pun intended) at the railway station will be scores of girls dressed in pelmet skirts and 5 inch stilettos, barely able to walk and, more to the point, barely able to talk, i.e. hold a conversation of any depth, with the strangers they are going to mix with in the bars and clubs of South Street. They have little need to worry because they meet men (and women) of their own class, rather underclass: drinkers to excess with all the shallow Essex-speak that only they can appreciate. Further up the line one finds the town of Brentwood - the erstwhile home of empty-headed sexhibitionist show TOWIE (The Only Way is Essex) filmed until recently at the nightspot The Sugar Hut. But no longer. Mick Norcross, owner of the Sugar Hut, told the Brentwood Gazette in March 2013: “Local people have definitely avoided the venue since we’ve been on the TV because they don’t particularly want to meet those people who are travelling from all over the country.” Which is a typically British trait: only mix with people from your immediate locality and shun the outsider. Mr Norcross thinks that the constant arguments filmed on TOWIE are damaging the Sugar Hut brand so the venue will no longer be used for filming.
The local people attend, in particular, the five or so other bars in the immediate vicinity of the Sugar Hut. Still, the end of filming doesn’t stop the likes of Danny Dyer, actor, coming all the way from his Epping home to enjoy the vacuous ‘delights’ of the Sugar Hut. It still has a restaurant on the ground floor open till 9 pm which has been attended by the Sky News presenter Jeff Randall - who is a local. But inside the Sugar Hut on the first floor dance floor/bar area the lighting is so dim that people cannot see each other properly and the music is so loud that revellers cannot hear each other speak unless they shout at the top of their voices. Cheesy vibe times ten. The less noisy bars are overcrowded by far. Not conducive to easy human relations when love is on the agenda of many.
But, paradoxically, even if you are from the same town women are often reluctant to speak to strange men. They might as well be ships in the night. The average man will have to work extremely hard to strike up a friendship and eventually may succeed – but it can take several goes over many weeks - as to begin with, Essex girl can only express herself in monosyllabic tones. The Barbie doll clones are all too common a feature and rate themselves far too highly. But, for the determined go-getters amongst them who eventually tire of all the one-night stands and casual affairs (as seen on TV), they all have to take the plunge… for time runs out for them all and the best has to be made of what remains of their fertile or infertile (as the case may be) years.
In December 2011 the very popular Sugar Hut had more crime recorded in and around it than any other location in the borough. Police recorded 19 incidents. Alcohol fuels the violence. But the high streets of Brentwood and Romford and so many other towns in Britain will be mostly boarded up but for the alcohol- and food-related outlets. So the police and licencing authorities put up with the regular bouts of drunkenness and fighting. Even the Sugar Hut being burnt to the ground in September 2009 and having its insurance claim rejected did not stop it re-opening. It had too much cash behind it.
The quality of the attendees on the clubbing circuit, across the board, is poor indeed and Chuka is right to voice his misgivings about his home city’s nightlife. London has just too large an underclass. But equally, the sort of women he particularly likes are hard to find (he is not married) and even the thoroughly educated ones he and many others would like to meet on the social scene have their slutty downside too. As Catherine Ostler, former editor of Tatler magazine wrote in the Daily Mail on 19 April 2013 regarding Tatler’s recent three page spread entitled ‘Titler’, featuring 34 pictures of ‘the most magnificent, marvellous breasts in all society’: ‘There is nothing readers of the society magazine like better than seeing their contemporaries flashing the flesh – in print or in person. For Tatler’s core audience – the trust-funded, public-school- educated children of the upper crust – have been taking their tops off at parties and honking each other’s breasts since they were 14…. Look at the cast of Made in Chelsea, the reality TV programme about toffs living it up on the Chelsea borders. They might set up blogs or fashion businesses, but their main occupation is sex – not just having it, but discussing whom to have it with, who else is doing it with whom and behind whose back. Which they can do only because they are spoiled brats, or posing as such. Middle-class children working flat-out to climb the career ladder would be dull viewing indeed.’
What do we say should be done with the wayward lasses of England? Chukum all in the gutter until they mend their ways. Deny them the vote until they learn some manners; restrict their job opportunities so that they can build a home for their husbands and in so doing reduce the levels of unemployment among men. Close down all ladies boutiques/shoe shops and tanning salons and nail bars and hair salons and triple the price of beers and spirits and cigarettes. Confiscate the mobile phones of all women under the age of 25. Teach them not to speak unless spoken to. Ban all women’s magazines. Instead, open up centres in the newly vacant high street units for cookery and needlework and speech therapy and deportment. Build more women’s prisons. Immediately legislate against female students having a gap year and force them to join the police force for this period (earning no more than the minimum wage) to learn to serve others and rid themselves of their more obsessive qualities. Send schoolgirls on trips to the continent to see how real women behave. This diversity management should in the long run make for a better, happier society. We hope the late, supreme innovator, Margaret Thatcher, would have approved. She got things done. We need a real leader like her again to replace the spineless, anything goes, unprincipled mishmash we have now - and no doubt will continue to have for some time to come.
SFH.net March 2013 Editorial
There is a cure…
…for homosexuality - according to ex-homosexual Dr Michael Davidson, director of the Core Issues Trust whose High Court claim against Transport for London was ruled on in late March. In her judgement dated 22 March 2013 Mrs Justice Lang said that Core Issues Trust’s proposed advertisement on the side of London buses: ‘Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!’ “would cause grave offence to a significant section of the many inhabitants of London.” and therefore Transport for London were within their rights to refuse permission for the advertising campaign to go ahead. (This begs the question whether the advert could be displayed on buses in Bradford where grave offence by a significant section, one can safely say, would not be taken).
Significantly, former homosexuals have taken the lead in the fight to recognise homosexuality as an illness that can be cured. The Core Issues Trust are to be commended for their sterling efforts in this regard, with the very able help of barrister Paul Diamond. The Trust’s main purpose is, with the assistance of Christian scriptures, to help people turn away from the “brokenness” of homosexuality and engage in a “sexual re-orientation process”.
London mayor Boris Johnson is the chairman of Transport for London and he has been quoted in the Daily Mail Online as saying: “It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.” Boris Johnson seems to have forgotten that there was widespread acceptance in post-war Britain that homosexuality was an abnormality of mind. Indeed acts of homosexuality were punishable by imprisonment. Even today at football matches players and spectators are solidly anti-gay.
Mrs Justice Lang has recognised that Christianity and other religions live by a core principle “that homosexuality is contrary to God’s teachings.” She believes that anti-gay views can be expressed but “those who wish to promote an offensive or controversial message should be entitled to do so…in a way other than by advertising on buses in a major city. Posters, leaflets, articles, meetings and the internet all provide an alternative vehicle for expression of these views.” The judge went on to say that the Trust’s “advertisement is a confrontational assertion, not a reasoned, informed contribution to a debate.” So perhaps the answer for the Trust on this point is to put an asterisk on their advertisement with additional words in small print saying: ‘See Core Issues Trust website for a reasoned debate on the issue’. For it is impossible to print a reasoned debate on a subject such as the evil of homosexuality on the side of a bus. Besides which, for all mainstream Christians the mere existence of homosexuals and the promotion of gay rights by the likes of Boris Johnson is confrontational and offensive. Fitting, that on Sunday 24 March 2013 Boris Johnson was humiliated in a grilling as to his behaviour on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. The very aggressive BBC interviewer, Eddie Mair, ironically is a practising homosexual himself.
Simon Jenkins, the noted writer and critic put it all so well in his Evening Standard article of 26 March 2013, pointing out that Mrs Justice Lang “had led a sheltered life.” For Simon Jenkins’ views on the judicial cock-up see below:
Boris Johnson’s attitude to free speech ought to worry us more
London’s golden boy is soaring too near the sun. Boris Johnson has been flapping his Icarus wings on television these past two days in his frenetic bid for the Tory leadership.
But Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show and last night’s documentary ignored his achievements — or lack of them — as London Mayor, to portray him as a variously flawed celebrity, oozing ambition. As the cameras glared and the questions grew hot, we saw the wax melt and the feathers start to fall.
As they fell, I began to wonder whether any clear political ideology motivated England’s most famous “toff on the make”. What, for instance, motivated the curious court case that surfaced last week and seems certain to be revived on appeal.
On Thursday Johnson won a suit in the high court before Mrs Justice Lang in favour of his ban on a certain disagreeable bus advertisement.
Last May he emailed Transport for London to stop a so-called “gay cure” ad on a London bus. The word “stop” is, of course, moot. Johnson is a Berlusconi-style politician. He operates through intermediaries, suggestions, winks, nudges and meet-me-after-the-shows. No fingerprints are ever to be found.
In this case the gay rights group Stonewall had posted an ad on a bus side stating, “Some people are gay. Get over it!” This imitated a humanist poster that infuriated Christians over the existence of God.
Stonewall’s critics, Anglican-mainstream and a body called the Core Issues Trust, duly booked a riposting ad, stating oddly, “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!”
Grown-ups may regard all this Twitter-on-wheels as too childish for words. But money is money, free speech is supposedly free and includes the noble art of causing offence, sometimes “deep” and even widespread offence. TfL’s advertising scrutiny committee passed the ads for display. It took the understandable view that London is a big, tolerant city and its citizens can take a bit of rough with their smooth.
The second ad caused a furore. Written by an ex-gay, Mike Davidson, of the Core Issues Trust, it was regarded by gay activists as offensive.
When Johnson heard of it, with an election weeks away and the gay vote in the balance, he sent TfL an email, following which the ad was banned. Strongly denying any idea that he played any part in the decision, his office none the less refuses to release the email. We can only guess why. The trust, claiming to speak for “ex-gay people, and people who want to keep that option open”, went to court to have the bad reversed.
In rejecting the trust’s plea, the judge ruled that the ad would indeed “cause grave offence”. It would “increase the risk of prejudice and homophobic attacks”. She went further. She said the Mayor should have banned the original Stonewall ad, as well as the humanist ads questioning the existence of God. The former was “highly offensive to fundamentalist Christians and other religious groups whose religious belief is that homosexuality is contrary to God’s teachings”. The latter was “highly offensive to the religious beliefs of the significant section of the public who believe in God”. They were all “in the form of confrontational assertions which made no contribution to a reasoned debate”.
Clearly this judge had led a sheltered life. She regards “risk” of causing offence as identical to offence. So advertisers had better watch out. Just as judges are now dictating the ethics of the press, so they want to order the social duties of the advertising industry. Mrs Justice Lang doubted whether confrontational ads “did anything to ‘tackle prejudice’ or ‘promote understanding’ among homophobic people”.
She referred to European human rights law and declared that “reasoned debate” was “more deserving of protection under Article 10 than slogans and abusive messages”.
Needless to say, the Mayor vigorously denies his intervention over the ex-gay ad was anything to do with his electoral prospects. He was merely concerned about not causing offence, at least not to gays. It was not censorship, merely a desire for the reasoned, non-confrontational, slogan-free discourse so beloved of Mrs Justice Lang.
As always when the marching boots of power trample over the tender shoots of freedom, their wearers affirm the best of intentions.
Slogans, says Johnson and the judge, are bound to offend someone, so let us keep it simple and stop them. This is perilously close to removing “slogans and abusive messages” from any free speech protection.
To be fair, the judge sensed she was on uncertain ground and has allowed an appeal against Johnson’s decision. I hope it is a thundering reversal.
London’s public realm is offensive, and I hope it always is. Why should atheists not be permitted to reply to notices outside every church declaring Jesus Saves and Your Sins are Forgiven? Many people are offended by sexualised ads for underwear, by call-girl cards in phone boxes, by gambling ads on television and by Boris Johnson’s gun-toting London policemen. Have those offended no right to offend back?
Index on Censorship is rightly concerned “that controversial opinions can be removed from public discourse, narrowing what people can and cannot discuss as a society”. This particularly applies to censorship which, in Johnson’s case last May, appeared to be self-serving.
All in all it has been a grim month for freedom of expression in Britain. The risk-aversion that dominates “compliance” in the public realm now comes to limit free speech on the streets of London. Declare yourself “deeply upset” and the state will rush to your aid and silence the offender.
Many bus sides are offensive to some. Some are doubtless offensive to many. But a bus side is a bus side. It is not war. Get over it.
For the Approved judgement CLICK HERE
The case is going to the Court of Appeal. If the judges at the Court of Appeal want this appeal to end up with their own favoured outcome then they have a lifetime’s experience in their armoury. They can be like magicians. Given that gay marriage is a core issue with Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Ed Miliband which way do you think the appeal will go?
SFH.net February 2013 Editorial
Evgeny Lebedev – Russian owner of the Evening Standard and the Independent
Ever since he took over ownership of the Evening Standard and The Independent Evgeny Lebedev has been at pains to promote the ‘rights’ of homosexuals and particularly the ‘right’ to same sex marriage. He brings in all the old farts like Ivan Massow, Stephen Fry and Matthew Parris to pontificate on the fundamental human right to be queer.
Evgeny Lebedev is now even trying to hijack Islam with his poisonous misinformation on what constitutes ‘moderate and modern Islam’ as per his column in the Evening Standard of 22 February 2013:
Salute moderate Muslims
How utterly maddening that brave Muslim MPs like Sadiq Khan, Rushanara Ali, Shabana Mahmood and Anas Sarwar (all Labour) and Sajid Javid (Conservative) have received death threats or similar from irate Muslim constituents because they voted for gay marriage. An idiotic imam in Bradford appears to be behind some of the provocation.
Two tasks follow. First, those of us who believe same-sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexuals owe these pioneers a public high-five. Second, we need to think afresh about how to ensure the moderate and modern Islam they represent, rather than the medieval and misanthropic Islamism emanating from parts of Bradford, comes to the fore — not just in Britain but around the world. In the past few weeks, while mostly away from London, I’ve started a serious study of Islam and Islamism, as part of a project I’m building on the subject. These recent events give me succour.
Evgeny Lebedev is a Jew and the Old Testament states the following on homosexual practices:
Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
The Quran views homosexuality in similar terms:
Surah 8 (The Faculty of Discernment) verse 80-83 – “ And remember Lot, when he said unto his people: ‘Will you commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever done before you? Verily, with lust you approach men instead of women: nay, but you are people given to excesses!’ But his people’s only answer was this: ‘Expel them from your land! Verily, they are folk who make themselves out to be pure!’ Thereupon We saved him and his household – except his wife, who was among those that stayed behind – the while We rained a rain of destruction upon the others: and behold what happened in the end to those people lost in sin!”
Peter Tatchell, Britain’s foremost homosexual rights campaigner, described in 2003 as reported in the Independent newspaper, his least favourite book, The Bible thus: ‘It is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews.’
Gay journalist Matthew Parris wrote in The Times dated 9 August 2003 an article entitled ‘No, God would not have approved of gay bishops’, acknowledging that God condemned homosexuality.
So do not be fooled by Evgeny Lebedev’s seemingly plausible words. The Muslim MP’s who voted in favour of the gay marriage bill have indeed betrayed their religion. The reason they went against one of Islam’s core beliefs is because they felt obliged to suck up to their leader’s views. Sadiq Khan is a solicitor by profession and is proud to address the Muslim populace at places like the Excel Arena in London's Docklands championing the rights of Muslims. But Sadiq Khan was campaign manager for Ed Miliband’s bid for the leadership of the Labour Party. Ed Miliband is also a Jew but one who has also betrayed his religion: he is an atheist. Sadiq Khan has nothing much in common with Ed Miliband, but is willing to forego his core principles for the sake of power one day. Sadiq Khan is a hypocrite.
Christianity and Judaism, like Islam, will always be against homosexuality as Peter Tatchell correctly acknowledges.
Evgeny Lebedev is one of the new multi-millionaires along with his fellow Russians, the oligarchs such as Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich, Mikhael Khodorkovsky, Oleg Deripaska and Mikhael Cherney. All are Jews and all of them have taken the Russian state for a ride in the great utilities sell-off in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin has it in for them, save for the savviest of them all Roman Abramovich. The ordinary Russian people hate these obscenely rich opportunists with a passion.
SFH.net January 2013 Editorial
The Rt.Hon Sir Richard Buxton
What was once viewed as a sick perversion by the legislature – at a time when society knew right from wrong – is now seen as a quite normal activity. Enter the Rt. Hon Sir Richard Buxton, formerly Lord Justice of Appeal, Court of Appeal for England and Wales. On 9th March 2012 he wrote in the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics on the rights of the refugee homosexual, beginning with:
‘The right of lesbians and gay men to live freely, openly and on equal terms is a noble – indeed in the view of a liberal western society – an obvious and unavoidable aspiration’.
What an ignominious post-script to a legal career for a judge who was brought up in an age when buggery was a criminal offence. What does this say about a man who was born on 13th July 1938 and married aged 49 in 1987 to Mary Tyerman JP? Is this an admission of sorts or just political correctness on the part of this knight of the realm? But why bother at his stage in life to join this debate, unless he was trying to tell us something in particular?
Which brings us on to David Cameron - our going nowhere Prime Minister who wants to put the right to gay marriage on the statute books against the wishes of the traditional Christian folk of this country. His arse-licking is in evidence every time there is a victory for ‘common sense’. Take the British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, who took her case to wear her cross at work to the European Court of Human Rights – and won in a decision handed down earlier this month. On 15th January 2013 David Cameron tweeted that he was ‘delighted that the principles of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld – people shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs’. But Nadia Eweida’s branch of Christianity, that of the Coptic Church of Egypt complete with its own Pope, is fiercely opposed to homosexual practices.
At the same time, however, from the European Court at Strasbourg the judges did agree with the British courts and discriminate against Christian religious beliefs by firstly declaring that it was right to sack Lillian Ladele, a registrar with Islington Council, who had declined to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and secondly that it was right to sack Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, who refused to countenance giving sex advice to gay couples. We say to Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane don’t be too downcast for the Lord is with you and so are we.
Which brings us finally to the very correct and proper views of journalist Julie Burchill who on 13th January 2013 wrote a column in the Observer insulting transsexuals – freaks whose state of being Jesus Christ would not approve of, it can be safe to assume. But certainly a group whose ‘rights’ Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, calling Ms Burchill ‘a bigot’, is in full support of. Moreover Ms Featherstone called for Julie Burchill and the editor of the Observer to be sacked. What a pussy or should that be prick you are Ms Featherstone – go to Thailand and don’t come back.
The sewers flow not just under Parliament but through them. Guy Fawkes can you hear us?
SFH.net December 2012 Editorial
Happy Christmas to all our readers!
During the festive season many of us will be enjoying a portion of bangers with our Christmas turkey. The lads will also be well in the mood for giving their wives a portion of sausage with the same relish they did on their wedding night.
In this season of goodwill to all men (except to Romanian pimps, whores, drug dealers, beggars and pickpockets earning their living in Boris Johnson’s London) let us spare a thought for all those ‘men’ who exclude themselves from the delights of the opposite sex. Same-sex marriage in church followed by consummation of the union is playing on their minds at present. In some Western traditions a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated.
We understand therefore that the Matrimonial Causes (Consummation in Same-Sex Marriage) bill will be put before Parliament early next year. It is proposed that the men in a same-sex marriage will, in order to effect its consummation, each be required to fully penetrate the anus of the other and ejaculate within the confines of the rectal passage - with or without a condom. Any non-consummation will allow the marriage to be declared void on the successful application of the petitioning party on the same grounds as is currently allowed for normal couples under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The new legislation will contain an ‘advisory’ section relating to the transmission of HIV Aids, hepatitis, rupture of the anal canal and the dangers of infection from contact with faecal bacteria living in the back passage.
Fanny Craddock always recommended a good bit of stuffing at Christmas! God rest her soul.
SFH.net November 2012 Editorial
Sex on the Settee – the sexualisation of children
Melanie Phillips, the noted Daily Mail columnist, wrote on 22 October 2012:
“For while paedophilia has become a word that engenders not just social opprobrium but a degree of hysteria, at the same time Britain has, in effect, turned into a paedophile culture. It accepts — even expects — that the very young will be sexually active.
This is because sex has been redefined as a kind of recreational sport whose sole purpose is physical pleasure. The belief that if it is detached from the context of marriage and children it degrades the human spirit is dismissed as laughable or sinister.
Accordingly, sex education in schools promotes all kinds of sexual activity, even to primary school children. So no one listens to protests that such programmes rob young children of their childhood.
The law to protect under-age children has been all but eroded by such toleration of child sexual activity. Even some senior police officers are reluctant to enforce the age of consent, because they no longer see 14 or 15-year-olds as children needing protection.
Meanwhile, even much younger children are targeted by sexually explicit pop lyrics, magazine articles, cosmetics and tarty clothes. Treated as sexualised mini-adults, they behave accordingly.
Ten years ago, a BBC documentary showed how 11-year-old children were preoccupied by fancying each other, snogging their boy and girlfriends and taunting other children who were holding back.
And their parents were complicit in this, telling their children such behaviour was ‘cool’. Teachers were also going along with it, discussing who was ‘in love’ with whom in their class.
The belief that sex was inappropriate for young children had vanished. As one mother said to her young daughter, sex should start ‘when you think it’s right for you’.
As our society recoils in disgust from the accounts of how Jimmy Savile groomed children for sex, the horrible fact is that this society itself grooms children for that very same purpose.
So how can we explain the hysteria over paedophilia? My view is that inflating paedophiles into larger-than-life monsters deflects attention from child abuse dressed up as sexual liberation.
It is notable that hysteria over paedophilia is most pronounced in areas where the traditional family has been smashed, married fathers are rarer than hen’s teeth and women and children are abused physically and sexually by the procession through their houses of stepfathers, boyfriends and one-night stands.
People don’t want to accept that sexual permissiveness has eroded the basics of a civilised society.
So the fixation with paedophile bogeymen arises from a grossly displaced sense of personal responsibility.
But the belief that we can all make up the sexual rules as we go along has created a society which quite simply has stopped protecting children.
And that is surely the real lesson of the Jimmy Savile scandal.”
Thank you Melanie Phillips.
From Wikipedia take note of glamour model Linsey Dawn McKenzie starting her career at age 15:
“In early 1994, when McKenzie was 15, she sent sample glamour photographs to local modelling agencies. Soon invited for professional photoshoots, she began her career by doing clothed glamour and swimsuit work, intending to progress to topless modelling when she turned 16 later that year.
As McKenzie approached her 16th birthday, The Sunday Sport tabloid newspaper expressed an interest in turning her topless debut into a media event. Throughout June and July 1994, it published provocative pictures of McKenzie, touting her 34GG bra size and counting down the days until it could legally show her topless.
After she turned 16, McKenzie continued to model topless for The Daily Sport and The Sunday Sport. She also made Page Three girl appearances in tabloid newspapers The Sun and The Daily Star; posed topless in lads' mags such as Loaded; appeared fully nude in British softcore magazines such as Mayfair and Men Only; and performed in a variety of low-budget softcore videos.
On 29 July 1995, shortly before her 17th birthday, McKenzie did a topless streak at a televised England v. West Indies cricket match at Old Trafford. Wearing only a thong and a pair of trainers, she ran onto the field with the words "Only Teasing" written across her breasts.
After McKenzie turned 18 in 1996, she made her North American modelling debut in the breast fetishism magazine Score, which marked the occasion by making McKenzie the cover girl of its December 1996 "50th Anniversary" issue.
In the late 1990s, McKenzie was frequently featured on the adult-oriented channels L!VE TV and Television X. She continued to appear regularly in adult-oriented magazines, DVDs, Internet sites, and broadcast media until late 2004, when she took a break from modelling to have a child and undergo a breast reduction operation.
In 2000, McKenzie began appearing in hardcore pornography films. Most of her hardcore performances have been lesbian scenes with other large-breasted actresses, including Autumn-Jade, Susie Wilden, and Ines Cudna.
McKenzie has also featured in a small number of heterosexual hardcore films. These include Ultimate Linsey (2001), which features McKenzie with her first husband, Terry Canty, and Maximum Insertion (2004), which features her in a hardcore threesome scene with Czech pornographic actors Veronika Pagáčová and Robert Rosenberg. In 2009, after a five-year absence from hardcore pornography, she released a DVD entitled I'm Back, containing lesbian group sex scenes. She has since gone on to perform in several other hardcore lesbian features.”
Thank you Wikipedia.
The Sun newspaper is still playing a key role in the sexualisation of children through the glamourisation of naked women. Take its front page of 24 November 2012 featuring 34 year old pop singer Nicole Scherzinger (just her stage name) in her come-fuck-me pose:
She is the on-off girlfriend of Formula One racing driver Lewis Hamilton who at 27 is really a bit too young for her. He knows things are not quite right between them, hence his refusal to tie the knot with glamour freak Nicole. They are not, it seems, entirely suited. She is at an age where she wants children but Lewis is not in the mood. He just wants good sex with the glamour pussy cat doll. In the meantime no-abortions-Nicole is herself giving a helping hand, or should we say a hand job, as a paper prostitute to the wanking classes. But this is not the place to have a mass debate on the benefits of porn or the grooming of children by the mainstream press.
SFH.net October 2012 Editorial
Norway outdoes itself again: Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the European Union
On Friday 12 October 2012 the retired Norwegian politicians who belong to a five-man committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament and are responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize chose to give it to the EU. The committee gave as its reasons the EU’s role in preventing conflict in the continent for the past 60 years and for the “advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights”. A boost for the morale of the stronger nations in the EU at a time of great stress and economic misery for the weaker nations in the EU.
Norway is not a member of the EU of course, twice rejecting membership in referendums in 1972 and 1994. It has huge financial reserves from the sale of North Sea oil to sustain it for decades to come.
The leader article in the Daily Telegraph Comment section of Saturday 13 October 2012 stated at the beginning:
Peace is a prize, but it was not won by the EU
Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union prompts, above all, one question: is it too late for Alfred Nobel’s heirs to ask for their money back? With the commendation first of Al Gore, and then a neophyte Barack Obama, the prize committee was generally agreed to have made a colossal fool of itself. But yesterday’s announcement transcended the critics’ wildest dreams. To take this decision seriously would be to give the Nobel committee the status that, many would argue, it no longer deserves. Indeed, the greatest service it has done is not to diplomacy, but to comedy…
The arse licking Norwegian establishment, as it must by now be blindingly obvious, has mental health problems. At the same time as pretending it is the flag bearer for world justice and human rights, it continues to pretend that the mission of mass killer Anders Breivik was a one-off moment of madness, when in fact Breivik had huge support for his ideas in Norway.
Let us gently remind these Vikings of a few recent facts regarding the EU.
Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Foreign Minister of Norway and architect of the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan for the former Yugoslavia (and father of the current Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg), blamed the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars in 1991 on the recognition by the EU of Croatia. The new Germany were the first in the EU to recognise Croatia. But then the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan itself was an (only partially) abandoned cave-in to the monstrous aggression inflicted on the Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs and Croats.
Dutch UN peacekeepers – as pointed out by former Chancellor Norman Lamont on the BBC’s Newsnight programme on 12 October 2012 – stood aside when the Serbs, lead by Ratko Mladic, lead away and shot up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in the summer of 1995. The Dutch government later resigned after an internal inquiry found its peace keepers in neglect of their duty.
On the 19 September 1991, at a joint session of the Western European Union (a military forum) Douglas Hurd, British Foreign Secretary, rejected a proposal that a peace keeping force of between 20,000 - 50,000 men be sent to Bosnia. In 1994, when in Washington, Douglas Hurd pleaded with the Americans not to lift the arms embargo against the Muslims.
Margaret Thatcher said of the slaughter of the Bosnian Muslims: “I am ashamed of the European Community, for this is happening in the heart of Europe. It is within Europe’s sphere of influence. It should be within Europe’s sphere of conscience. There is no conscience”.
But hey, what do the Muslims matter to the Breivik boys on Norway’s ignoble Nobel Peace ‘in our time’ Prize committee?
SFH.net September 2012 Editorial
Lift off for Legal Services Ombudsman’s complaints data
Mid-September 2012 saw the launch of the Legal Service Ombudsman’s published complaints data service against named law firms. The data is sparse and the Law Society was not happy regarding the “partial and potentially misleading” statistics. It is true that the listed information as it stands is of little benefit to the consumer of legal services. After all, the examples listed include firms who have made run of the mill mistakes with token amounts of compensation awarded against them. There isn’t a legal practice in the UK which does not fall into this category from time to time. However, it is a start and in time to come progress, it is expected, will be made in refining and developing the complaints data.
Michael Cross blogs in the Law Society’s Gazette on 25 September 2012 that the time will soon come when “someone makes a business” out of complaints data on law firms. Paul Stock of Harold Stock and Co, Solicitors of Mossley, Thameside commented on the Gazette website as follows:
Submitted by Paul Stock on Tue, 25/09/2012 - 15:47.
On the point about someone making a business about it----readers may well recall the debacle over the website "Solicitors from Hell"---which ultimately was shut down and the guy behind it all was on receiving end of numerous actions for damages + injunctions for defamation----so the idea of someone trying to make a business out of complaints is already out there!!
Point taken thank you. The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) was reacting to Rick Kordowski’s very popular SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk website but the LeO's new service will never let itself have the pazazz that SFH had. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decisions printed every month in the Gazette do make excellent reading and should be made more widely accessible to the public. See the following link:
SFH.net August 2012 Editorial
Brentwood Solutions Limited
On 24 August 2012 Anders Behring Breivik was sentenced to 21 years in prison after being found sane (unanimously) by a panel of Norwegian judges at the Oslo Courthouse. Breivik ended the proceedings by apologising to militant nationalists in Europe for not having killed more people on his big day - 22 July 2011. The killings were necessary, he said, to prevent the “Islamisation” of Norway.
Presiding judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen, when reading out her judgement, made reference to Breivik’s manifesto ‘2083’ and his claim therein that after 2006 he laundered more than £450,000 through an offshore company in Antigua, called Brentwood Solutions Limited. This company has never in fact been registered in Antigua. It was a company that was registered in Gourock, Renfrewshire, Scotland but was dissolved on 3 February 2006. A company that had nothing whatsoever to do with Breivik.
Brentwood is a town in Essex, England. It also happens to be the place of residence where the founder in 2000 of the Norway Shockers website lives – a London solicitor, who in 2008 published a book called ‘Norway – A Triumph in Bigotry ~ Sex and Sin’ exposing rampant Islamophobia in mainstream Norway. Breivik’s lawyers have a copy of the book. It was published following extensive litigation in Norway involving the London solicitor. Litigation which brought the solicitor vast publicity in Norway for well over a decade. Publicity which Breivik could not have failed to notice. Facts which readers of this website will by now be very familiar with, particularly the proposition that Breivik himself may have sent the solicitor hate email. Interpol Oslo did not co-operate with Interpol London with regard to the vile Islamophobic hate email directed at the Briton from Norwegians. The offices of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Justice Minister Knut Storberget also refused to co-operate with the solicitor’s complaints.
In the months leading up to Breivik’s day of killing, the London solicitor was engaged in High Court litigation at the Royal Courts of Justice, London against the Ministry of Justice and the Police, Norway in connection with Islamophobic abuse. However, Mrs Justice Sharp, no doubt keen to protect the reputation of the Norwegian government blatantly ignored the Islamophobic nature of the case when setting aside the earlier judgement obtained by the claimant London solicitor. We can clearly see this by comparing the transcript of the hearing to set aside of 16 March 2011 with her judgement handed down on 29 July 2011 (both available on the net). We will never know how much work Mrs Justice Sharp did on her judgement between the killings in Norway on 22 July 2011 and her judgement of 29 July 2011. But her judgement looked hastily drawn up with errors of fact and major omissions.
It seems the Ministry of Justice and the Police, Norway deserved Breivik. Their offices were blown up by Breivik’s car bomb killing several of their employees on that fateful day in July 2011. The Olso offices of Verdens Gang newspaper, who wrote against the British solicitor in 1995 and 1998, were also destroyed by Breivik’s bomb. The editor of the Aftenposten newspaper, Hans Erik Matre, writing about the Briton in 2003, later contracted cancer and had to relinquish his post. Knut Storberget, Minister of Justice and the Police in Norway resigned last November in the aftermath of the atrocity. Norway’s Police Chief Oystein Maeland, head of the Police Directorate resigned on 16 August 2012 after an independent commission found that the police could have prevented all or part of Breivik’s bombing and shooting spree.
The lone and first voice of protest, who since 1995 was telling the Norwegians they had a serious attitude problem towards Islam, was our very own London solicitor; a Muslim, studiously ignored and reviled by the mainstream Norwegian press as a “madman”, “insane” and “obviously mentally unstable”. Wishful thinking by our Norwegian friends. Even Breivik himself was ruled as “sane”.
All the pretence of PR window dressing by the likes of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and former Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik about Norway’s (false) multicultural tolerance will not wash. Intense bigotry in Norway ruled the waves in the years leading up to Breivik’s punishment session. Whether it was retribution from God or the Devil or the neutral intervention of fate alone, we will never know - but in the end it all amounted to the same thing: the Norwegians had it coming to them and Breivik’s plan was carried off to perfection. A case of dead right and dead wrong.
It was not just Breivik; it was Norway itself which created the repugnant Islamophobic atmosphere that gave Breivik the space he needed. As the Guardian newspaper leader put it on Saturday 25 August 2012: “The ideas which created Breivik have yet to be confronted. That is as much a European as it is a Norwegian problem.” The Independent newspaper comment on the same day went further: “Once Europe was riddled with the poison of anti-Semitism; now there is a virtual pandemic of Islamophobia on the Continent….the hatred is deep, profound and alarming.”
Own up Norway: the above is a description of your country. Breivik was just a by-product.
SFH.net July 2012 Editorial
Kordowski's legacy put on hold
Legal Ombudsman delays complaints publication - Law Society Gazette; Thursday 05 July 2012 by John Hyde
Publication of complaints made to the Legal Ombudsman about solicitors has been deferred, the Gazette can reveal.
The ombudsman (LeO) had intended to collate all complaints from the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year to post firm-by-firm details online this month. But the LeO’s office this week confirmed the date will be put back while information is prepared for publication. ‘We’ve been refining the process for publishing this information as we want to make sure it’s fair and accurate and unfortunately it’s taking longer than we had originally anticipated’ a spokesman said.
He denied that the delay was because of complaints from solicitors.
The decision to publish details of complaints caused widespread disquiet when it was first announced last November. There is particular controversy over the ombudsman’s decision to publish, once a quarter, a table that summarises the number of complaints each law firm has been subject to, what the outcome was and the area of law in each case.
Where there is a pattern of complaints, or the board believes it is in the public interest to publish, details of the lawyer or firm can be released immediately, regardless of whether there has been a decision on the case.
Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that 120 of the 8,000 cases dealt with by the Legal Ombudsman have resulted in the threat of a judicial review - with just 19 going as far as being issued in court. Of the 19 that were issued in court, nine were from complainants and 10 were from lawyers who had been subjected to investigation.
The ombudsman agreed to reconsider its decision in one of those 19 cases; seven were not given permission to go beyond the preliminary stage; and the rest are still awaiting a decision.
‘This means that up to now we haven’t fought and lost a single judicial review case at trial, and have settled only one of the cases that were issued,’ said chief ombudsman Adam Sampson (pictured). ‘Of course, we need to maintain this level of consistency, but overall it must be comforting for customers to know our decision-making process is working.’
Law Society Gazette
SFH.net June 2012 Editorial
The Law Society hits a bum note – the law is an arse
The Law Society has declared its support for same-sex marriage so we are told by its mouthpiece the Gazette of 14 June 2012. Indeed, the Law Society and the Gazette are firmly hand in glove on this one, or rather cock in anus: the Gazette’s editorial applauds the idea of gay marriage, save that it thinks “religious groups” should not be forced to conduct such ceremonies on their own premises.
The message of the scriptures, whether it be from the Old Testament in the book of Leviticus or from Quranic injunctions is that homosexuality is an abomination. And it is a message addressed to all mankind.
In the 1960’s in Great Britain homosexuality, rightly, was a crime. And the police were active in rooting out the dirty little buggers. Older readers will remember the term “cottaging” - where men had anonymous sex with other men in public lavatories. Society overwhelmingly looked on homosexuality as an illness: this was a very normal attitude from a society that knew right from wrong. The gay lobby has now woven Sodom and Gomorrah into the very fabric of our culture. Those subtle fagg*ts worked their way into positions of influence within the British establishment and corrupted the decision makers.
The Law Society has a nerve to make such outrageous statements on behalf of its members without consulting them. We support the Church of England in its principled opposition to gay marriage. Gay marriage should not be legalised by Parliament. The Queen (no pun intended) will not be pleased in this her diamond jubilee year.
Confirmation that we got it right with a couple of letters the Gazette published in their 5th July 2012 issue.
Taking a view on gay marriage
Thursday 05 July 2012 by David Hadfield
I confess to having been taken aback that a committee of the Law Society has responded to the government’s consultation on ‘gay marriage’ at all, but the more so because its response is prefaced by a reference to the Society representing solicitors in England and Wales, thus giving the impression that this response is made on behalf of all solicitors. Leaving aside the issue of whether this is a matter that should concern committee members in anything other than their private capacities, how can it be proper to head the response in this way?
Neither I nor any other solicitor I have spoken to has been asked for an opinion on what is both a legal and (whether the committee likes it or not) a theological issue.
David Hadfield, Forest Row, East Sussex
Thursday 05 July 2012 by Robin Tilbrook
It was disappointing to read the statement by Law Society president John Wotton expressing, in thoroughly ‘right-on’ terms, the official Society line that it is supporting gay marriage.
It is obvious that the question of changing the law, on such an important social institution as marriage, is quintessentially a political issue on which lawyers, as citizens, quite properly will have a range of views. It follows that it is totally inappropriate for the Society to take a partisan political position on this question - or indeed on any question.
Robin Tilbrook, Tilbrook’s, Ongar
SFH.net May 2012 Editorial
It’s a human right to lampoon politicians online, judge rules
PEOPLE have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court ruled yesterday.
A judge concluded that politicians should have “thicker skins than others” while ruling on a case in which a councillor was accused of making inappropriate remarks about his colleagues.
Malcolm Calver, of Manorbier community council in Pembrokeshire, Wales, had been censured by a standards watchdog for “bitching” about his colleagues on the internet.
He had claimed that minutes of a meeting had “more holes than Swiss cheese”, accused a fellow councifior of “disgraceful manipulation of children” and questioned the expertise of another.
But the High Court said that although his words were “sarcastic and mocking”, he was entitled to complain about the way council meetings were run.
Mr Justice Beatson said Mr Calver’s right to freedom of expression meant the ruling by the Adjudication Panel for Wales that he had broken the code of conduct for local government should be quashed.
The judge said it was important to remember “the traditions of robust debate, which may include some degree of lampooning of those who place themselves in public office”.
“The fact that the panel took a narrower view of ‘political expression’ and did not refer to the need for politicians to have thicker skins than others limits the weight that can be given to its findings,” he said.The ruling may not bring peace to Manorbier, where Mr Calver was due to be returned unopposed as one of six councillors yesterday, but it is likely to be welcomed by those who use blogs, Twitter and Facebook to criticise politicians.
The case related to comments that Mr Calver wrote online in 2008 and 2009 about the standards of administration on the council, which governs the resort where Virginia Woolf and George Bernard Shaw used to stay.
All of its councillors had been returned unopposed because of a lack of candidates and officials described it “a failing council” and a “disaster zone”.
During an investigation into a dispute between Mr Calver and another councillor, the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales read his personal website, which included comments about the town hall and individuals within it. On Nov 5, 2010, Mr Calver was found by the standards committee of Pembrokeshire county council, of which he was also an elected member, to have breached the code that requires councillor to show respect and not bring their office into disrepute.
His comments included claims that the council “does not seem to understand the limits of its role”, and that it would “sail on” until the public realised how much of their money had been “wasted” and how much “dealing” had been carried out in secret.
Mr Calver also wrote that the council had “many skeletons in the cupboard” and that its “indulgence” in staffing had cost taxpayers more than £55,000, while the “absence of a competent clerk” had also lost it money. He said one councillor was elected only because “no ballot was had”, and warned that he would not be “browbeaten” by “anyone who wishes to inflict censorship”.
The councillor was ordered to attend a training session, and took his case to the High Court after his appeal to the Adjudication Panel for Wales was rejected. The panel said he could have resigned but chose instead to “bitch from the sidelines”.
By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor
The Daily Telegraph, 4th May 2012.
SFH.net April 2012 Editorial
Breivik's toxic legacy
Despite our hopes for unity, Norwegian attitudes to Islam and Islamophobia have hardened
The terror of Oslo and Utøya has given us Norwegians a shared trauma that will stay with us for ever. We are also bonded by our sympathy for the survivors, and the family and friends of the 77 people killed last July. In the aftermath of the attack we gathered in marches and public displays of sorrow.
But I fear this response differs little from how we would have reacted to a natural disaster or a fatal accident of the same dimensions. As the trial against self-confessed killer Anders Behring Breivik starts, Norwegian politics seems to be back to normal. Though Behring Breivik's deeds, trial and psyche totally dominate the national media, we seem to be shying away from the political matters close to the terrorist's heart.
This winter Norway signed an agreement to return young asylum seekers to Ethiopia. These children have lived all their lives in our country, they speak Norwegian and go to Norwegian schools. A coalition of organisations tried to stop this forced return to an unstable dictatorship, but the deportations seem likely to begin. The love that should be the answer to Behring Breivik's hatred has not extended to these children, nor to Palestinians, Kurds or other refugees.
In the same manner, the debate on Islam and Islamophobia has hardened rather than softened after 22/7. In the aftermath of the killings, some anti-Islamic organisations and websites showed remorse, but that phase passed, and now the venom is even stronger.
Those who insist that Islam poses a threat to Europeans and Norwegians, and claim the past 1,500 years is a story of a never-ending clash between a Christian civilisation and Islamic barbary, are just as insistent as before. Instead of opening a door to decent debate, the terror has cemented divisions. Both right-wing politicians, and anti-Islamic webpages sites like document.no has after some months of afterthought return to business as usual. Norwegian newspapers still have to shut down their web debates due to verbal abuse every time an article or comment on Islam or immigration is published.
Both these subjects go to the core of Behring Breivik's ideology. And even though many words have been used to declare how 22/7 has and will change Norway, it is still exactly the same people who oppose the inhumanity of our immigration policies, and the same rightwingers who criticise anything that looks like "giving in to Islam". Alongside this, the Islamophobes object to claims that they have something in common with Behring Breivik, and they are now fighting even harder to defend their paranoia.
After the attack, prime minister Stoltenberg stated that Norway's response would be more democracy and more openness. Politicians of all parties joined him in a declaration that the elections last September would be the nation's answer to the terror. People should turn up and vote to defend democracy. But the count showed no significant growth in turnout.
The debate and discourse on the terror of 22/7 is more and more focused on details: of the act itself, of the mistakes of the police and government and, most of all, of Behring Breivik's biography. We are looking so intensely into the eyes of the terrorist that we are becoming blind. We know all his guns, his suits and uniforms, his family and friends. He is becoming a celebrity, an icon of evil. But we close our eyes to the fact that Behring Breivik's worldview is shared by many all over Europe.
The collective disgust for his acts is not matched by the same unanimous disgust for his motives. On YouTube, underneath the BBC's September documentary on 22/7, you can read comments such as the following, by people who claim to be Norwegian: "This what happens when you destroy a once peaceful nation like Norway when you bring Muslims, Africans and 3rd world scum".
The Norwegian prime minister, and many with him, said we should not let the terrorist change us. We have succeeded to the extent that debating Behring Breivik's connection to contemporary political life has become taboo. I believe we should change after Utøya. We should reconsider the most serious question of them all: how do we deal with a future where people of different religions and cultures live side by side in Europe? And how do we deal with the ideology that tells us this is impossible? We need to poison the soil that Behring Breivik grew from.
This is what is at stake during Behring Breivik's trial: more than his punishment, it is how we will understand 22/7. What will our children read in their textbooks in 15 years' time? Will it be seen as the mad act of Behring Breivik alone, or as the product of a growing Islamophobia and political hatred? The conclusion will follow us for generations.
Written by: Aslak Sira Myhre who is the director of the House of Literature in Oslo.
Reproduced from The Guardian, 17 April 2012.
SFH.net March 2012 Editorial
British Exports for the Chop
Ian Birrell of the Daily Mail wrote on the 16th March 2012, when discussing “the stash of emails apparently sent by the Syrian President and his wife”, that 36 year old Asma Al Assad, British born wife of President Bashar Al Assad, “appears a callous fraud, shopping online for designer baubles while her fellow Syrians die in the most terrible circumstances. In this digital age, it is a new twist on an old story: the awful banality of evil”.
Asma Al Assad, of Syrian parentage, was brought up in Acton, West London. She graduated at King’s College, London and worked in the 1990’s as a banker for JP Morgan. She met Bashar Al Assad whilst he himself was training to be an eye surgeon in London. They married when she was 25 in time for Bashar Al Assad’s inauguration as President of Syria in 2000. Asma Al Assad knew full well of the cruel and repressive nature of the regime she was marrying into. President Hafez Al Assad, father of Bashar, ordered, in 1982, the massacre of an estimated 10,000 inhabitants of the town of Hama to quash an uprising organised by the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood who sought to harness the city’s conservative Sunni opposition to the Alawite regime.
The acquisition of a British education for Asma Al Assad and professional training for Bashar Al Assad in London obviously meant nothing for this couples value systems following their relocation to Syria. For him the attraction was power for powers’ sake and for her it was the prospect of association with power and the wealth that came with it. They didn’t even have shared religious values. She was a Sunni Muslim: he was an Alawite. Alawites believe women have no souls which is absolutely contrary to Islamic doctrine. The Alawite sect and Sunni Islam are diametrically opposed. (See below). The thought of being the wife of a president no doubt bedazzled the banker from Acton: “I have been granted Paradise in this life as well as the next!” she must have told herself.
Like all past and present wives of Middle Eastern dictators, Asma Al Assad used her time to engage in charitable work with her own foundations – the usual device of pretence for venerated first ladies in those parts. But she will now be acutely aware that others see her as wedded to evil and inextricably an active part of it. She will be praying that if things go belly-up for her husband she will be able to flee the country to live out her days enjoying the good life. The Syrian Supreme Council of the Revolution will try to prevent this and if they do will no doubt administer a fitting punishment to Syria’s first lady. Summary execution springs to mind.
Those lawyers in London who deal with the ruling elites of the Middle East know that there are many Asma Al Assads. These women know all the right things to say – they all profess an undying love for their religion but in practice their first love is the worship and acquisition of worldly goods. Just wonder in and out of Harrods in the summer months. These pretenders and their affiliates do not deserve their religion and in keeping with the wishes of the oppressed masses of the Middle East it is time they were taught a lasting lesson.
ALAWI. A religion, signifying the “followers of Ali”, professed by an ethnic group of the same name, the Alawis, found mainly in Syria, but also in Lebanon and parts of Turkey. The total Alawi population in Syria is approximately 6% of the national population. Over 75% of the population of Syria are Sunni Muslims. As a result of a series of coups d’etat in the 1960’s the Alawis came into control of the country and in 1971 Hafez Al Assad was installed as the head of state and government. The Alawis are often called Shi’ites but despite the reference to Ali in their preferred name today, their doctrines do not correspond in any way to Shi’ism as such. (They do, however, have a marked affinity and sympathy to Shi’tes). Hence the present day political and military support from Iran for the Assad regime. The Alawis have a collection of writings called ‘The Book of the Collection’ that constitute their ‘holy book’ and this contains, among other things, it is said, scraps of a corrupt version of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. The Alawis have absorbed elements from all the religions which have passed by them since Hellenistic times, including the Pagan and Christian Gnosticism of Roman Antiquity. Whilst maintaining their own beliefs, they have pretended to adhere to the dominant religion of the age in order to escape persecution, in the style of Shi’te defensive dissimulation.
Alawi religious practices are carried out in secret, in their own places of congregation, which are not open to outsiders. These practices involve progressive initiations in which the novice ascends by degrees into the inner knowledge of the sect; at the same time he may then be accepted into the ruling oligarchy of the community that is dominated by family clans.
The Alawis believe that women do not have souls which is absolutely contrary to Islamic doctrine. Like the Druse, the Alawis believe that their real number does not change, probably through re-incarnation, and that this is 112,000.
Observers have noted that Alawi religious practices do not include any of the rites of Islam, although, for public relations purposes, Alawi leaders have performed salat (Muslim canonical prayer) in the Grand Umayyad Mosque of Damascus with visiting dignitaries from the Islamic world, and have taken part in the pilgrimage to Mecca.
SFH.net February 2012 Editorial
The Bar Standards Board
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) was set up by the Bar Council to be the independent regulatory board for barristers in England and Wales. Once a complaint has been dealt with you are sent a User Satisfaction Survey Complainant Questionnaire.
However, do not be overly comforted by the ‘independent’ label the BSB gives itself.
The BSB will not necessarily send your complaint to the barrister concerned or demand that the barrister respond. It is arbitrary as to whether the BSB will force the issue. Especially if it is a delicate or particularly contentious matter. The members of the BSB do not disclose what qualifications they have for the job. They even take on people to handle the most complex cases who have just joined the organization. One has no idea as to a caseworker’s abilities.
Even solicitors who have complained about a barrister’s conduct to the BSB have come away with the feeling that there is at best a poor quality of staff at the BSB or at worst a secret decision making process. In short there is little transparency.
Sending out User Satisfaction Questionnaires is all too often a meaningless gesture. You will not be informed of the result of your submission if you are particularly dissatisfied. Team managers and/or the Vice-chairman at the BSB are prone to rubber stamp the decisions of the case worker without giving adequate/any reasons. All in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The BSB’s fallback positions are to tell you that you can seek judicial review of their decision (which can cost tens of thousands of pounds) or to “consider your options” (whatever that means).
Looking at pages 3 & 4 of the Questionnaire regarding Staff Performance and Transparency/Openness it matters not one jot if you tick the ‘Very poor’ boxes as you will never hear back from the BSB.
To show you where the BSB’s priorities lie take a look at page 6 of the Questionnaire entitled ‘About You’. Q20 asks ‘What is your gender?’ Male – Female – Prefer not to say.
Prefer not to say? Who the hell do the BSB think they are dealing with? Morons from outer space? What an insult to a complainant!
Q22 should not be asked at all. Why the intrusive cross-examination? And just what are the chances of the Questionnaire being tampered with after it reaches the BSB? Peoples lives may be ruined. Some heterosexuals will feel grossly insulted that they are even asked whether they are bisexual, gay, lesbian, or ‘other’. In the 1960’s it was a criminal offence to be a homosexual and many people today think it still should be. Q26 asks about a complainant’s religion. Many of the faiths listed are extremely condemnatory of homosexuality and asking an adherent of one these faiths questions on sexual orientation will be viewed as grossly offensive.
Perhaps the BSB are looking forward to the day when we have a Lord Chancellor who is an open transvestite, a Master of the Rolls who has had gender reassignment surgery (a chick with a dick) or a Lord Chief Justice who ‘prefers not to say’.
SFH.net January 2012 Editorial
Public Protest and the British Spring
On 18 January 2012 the High Court in London ordered anti-capitalist group Occupy London to pack their tents away from outside St Paul’s Cathedral and leave. Mr Justice Lindblom branded the camp a “public nuisance”. John Cooper QC, acting for the protesters, will seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and vowed to go to the European Court of European Rights if necessary to develop a new law “on public protest in the 21st Century”.
The confined protest outside St Paul’s was, in reality, never going to achieve anything tangible and the eviction ruling was bound to come eventually. As contributor R. Hampden-Grant succinctly put it in the letters section of the Evening Standard on 20 January 2012:
“Occupying indefinitely simply to assert the legitimacy of an indefinite occupation is puerile. The Occupy movement really did shift ideas and arguments into the public arena. Yet it appears to be becoming increasingly denuded of human and political capital. The Occupiers are obviously serious about bearing the burdens of political action. It’s time for them to start thinking strategically about new ways to disrupt the machine and make themselves heard all over again”.
It is almost a year now since the start of the Arab Spring. The lessons the passive, servile Egyptians quickly learnt from the example of their Tunisian brothers was that, as a first step to reform, mass protest in the streets was the key to everything. This action must be maintained until the objectives are realised. Our prayers are with the Syrian protesters in their magnificent, stand-alone efforts to rid themselves of the poison that is President Bashar Al Assad.
Occupy London, Occupy Wall Street are the right labels for these noble movements. But nothing will be achieved until sustained mass protest with steely determination is brought to bear. The offenders are the bankers; the target is the bankers and the solution lies with the government.
Make it a British Spring this spring shall we? Dream on. Britain is just an over-grown debating society – all mouth and no action.
SFH.net December 2011 Editorial
A Star is Porn at Christmas
Eating, drinking, smoking, swearing, puking, shagging . . . followed by a night out clubbing Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve and most nights in between. The only way is S-Sex.
And on a festive night out . . . All I care about is me nails, me hair, me lipstick, me tan and me tits as well as making sure geezers can see my nice tight arse through me pelmet skirt underneath which I’ve got me Ann Summers G-string. Gawd blimey I am freezing! But it’s the fashion innit and I wanna pull, pull, pull before midnight.
‘Ere mate, what you lookin’ at? You starin’ at my tits? You pervert! That’s harassment!
Harassment my arse, they’re hanging out all over the shop bitch! Anyway how much do you charge?
You calling me a slag?
Listen girl - you’re pissed, I’m pissed and we both know what we want so how about it round my place?
Is that your mate coming our way?
Yeah, she’s me best mate so leave her alone. She’s only 15. ‘Ere Trace, this bloke’s dissing me and I ain’t ‘avin it.
Actually Sharon I quite fancy him and he’s got real decent wheels outside.
‘As he now? Well I s'pose he ain’t so bad after all. Three’s company so they say. Where did you say you live mate?
SFH Editorial - November 2011
Charles Russell, Solicitors – old-established City of London Law firm.
The Norwegian Government in 2010 instructed Charles Russell, Solicitors, to protect its reputation for the acts of one Norwegian police officer – a woman by the name of Torill Sorte (featured in our August 2011 editorial). The Claimant in this 2011 High Court libel action was a London Solicitor who had written a book in 2008 called Norway – A Triumph in Bigotry. The Norwegian government did not take kindly to this book or its internet equivalent www.norwayuncovered.com. As events were to prove by the killings in Norway on 22 July 2011 by Muslim-hater Anders Behring Breivik the book and website turned out to be the writing on the wall for the deluded Norwegians.
The sexualised vitriol and blatant bigotry of the Norwegian press directed towards the Claimant in 19 articles over 12 years would never be tolerated in Britain. Charles Russell, Solicitors condoned it all. The principle source of information for the Norwegian press articles was a registered mental patient from Norway called Heidi Schøne. The Claimant is a Muslim with, moreover, a German mother: both huge negatives for the Norwegian psyche.
The Norwegian establishment’s speciality in times of trouble is the employment of the dirtiest of dirty tricks: psychological abuse as used to maximum effect on the so-called ‘German whore children’ after the War. This time their abuse was directed at the Claimant who ended up being accused by Torill Sorte on oath in 2002 in Court in Norway of being “put” in a mental hospital by, of all people, his mother. The Claimant retaliated by calling her ‘a liar, cheat and abuser’. In 2005 Torill Sorte responded by telling national tabloid Dagbladet that the Claimant had spent “two years in a psychiatric unit in the UK” and in another newspaper that in being called ‘a liar, cheat and abuser’ the Claimant was “clearly mentally unstable”. The Claimant has never been a patient in any mental hospital – his GP’s letter from 2003 to all parties confirmed that. Dagbladet also mentioned that the Claimant was a Muslim. There then followed the sickest emails imaginable to the Claimant from Norwegians such as: ‘Sick devil. Go f**k Allah the camel’ and ‘When you eat pigs do you lick the pig’s arsehole clean before digging in?’ Interpol intervened on behalf of the Claimant after the Essex Police Hate Crimes unit referred the matter to them. But Interpol Norway passed the buck to Norwegian police complaints investigator Johan Martin Wellhaven, who in 2007 without consulting Torill Sorte ruled that the allegation that the Claimant was “clearly mentally unstable” was “neither negligent nor defamatory” the proof for which lay in the Claimant’s website and ‘other facts’. When asked what on the website and which ‘other facts’ indicated that the Claimant was “clearly mentally unstable” Johan Martin Wellhaven had no comment to make. Johan Martin Wellhaven was appointed a local police chief in Vestoppland district in Norway on 16 September 2011.
James Quartermaine Solicitor at Charles Russell through the Norwegian government’s counsel David Hirst of 5 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, argued vigorously at the High Court last March that the libellous comment “clearly mentally unstable” was justified as per the finding of Johan Martin Wellhaven. The hate emails were read out in court before the Honourable Mrs Justice Sharp. However, in response to hearing this sexualised Norwegian filth the Honourable Mrs Justice Sharp, along with City Solicitor James Quartermaine and City barrister David Hirst as well as their client the Norwegian government expressed not one word of regret. The hate crime had been condoned by these honourable jurists.
Several Norwegian citizens supported the Claimants website, for example: CLICK HERE
One week before the judgment of the Honourable Mrs Justice Sharp the fickle hand of fate intervened in Norway’s idyllic isolation. On 22 July 2011 the virulent Islamophobe Anders Behring Breivik blew up central Oslo and then proceeded to shoot dead scores of Norwegian youths at a Labour Party summer camp. There was after all a big problem with Islamophobia in Norway. There were in fact many ‘little Breiviks’ in Norway as the Claimant’s 2008 book and website had claimed: it has been grudgingly acknowledged in Norway that Breivik's beliefs, if not actions, were shared by many Norwegians.
The Unholy Trinity of City Law firm, Counsel and High Court judge in condoning such repugnant Norwegian abuse have betrayed an innocent victim – the Claimant, London solicitor. An ill omen.
‘Here is wisdom
Let him that hath understanding
Count the number of the beast;
For it is the number of the man;
And his number is 666.’
Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, Verse 18
SFH Editorial - October 2011
Des Hudson - Chief Executive of The Law Society in the High Court
Judgment was handed down on Friday 21 October 2011 in the case of
Rick Kordowski v Desmond Hudson  EWHC 2667 (QB).
The judgment went against the claimant Rick Kordowski whose claim for slander in being called ‘a criminal’ by the Chief Executive of The Law Society, Desmond Hudson, was struck out.
Mr Justice Tugendhat made it clear that there was a conflict of evidence between Professor John Flood and Desmond Hudson as to exactly what was said when the pair were leaving the BBC after discussing the Solicitors From HELL website on the You and Yours Radio 4 programme on 21 July 2011.
Professor John Flood in his Witness Statement to the Court dated 13 September 2011 was quite sure exactly what Desmond Hudson told him:
“It was about 12.30 on 21st July. I and Des Hudson had finished our live on-air discussion about Rick Kordowski and his website “Solicitors from Hell” on the BBC Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’ programme. We were being led out of the BBC and as we were going through the doors at the BBC, Des Hudson said 'That man is a criminal,' referring to Rick Kordowski. To which I replied, ‘The police rejected that’. Des Hudson further said 'He should be closed down.' After that he went his way and I went mine”.
Desmond Hudson through his solicitors, on the other hand, said earlier on 8 September 2011:
"The words relied on were, not in fact, spoken by Mr Hudson. Professor Flood did not quote the exact words used or their context. The substance of the conversation was as follows. Professor Flood made the point that action against you would be seen as muzzling free speech. Mr Hudson replied that the Law Society's actions were focussed on an issue that had nothing to do with free speech, that is your methods of collecting payment to remove comment. He then said words to the following effect: "In my view this amounts to criminal behaviour which is why we have reported him to the police".
On 3 October 2011 Mr Hudson made his witness statement. It includes the following:
"Professor Flood suggested that our actions were likely to make Mr Kordowski a martyr and we would be seen as muzzling free speech. I replied that our actions were focussed on an issue that had nothing to do with free speech but rather his methods of collecting payment to remove comment. I believe that I said 'in my view this amounts to criminal behaviour which is why we have reported him to the police'. Professor Flood told me (and by this time I was almost at the main doors of the entrance hall to Broadcasting House) that the police would do nothing, and I remember speaking over my shoulder to him as I walked out of the room 'we'll see'. I did not say to Professor Flood 'that man is a criminal'. I would add that indeed it is my belief that the actions of Mr Kordowski are criminal in nature…."
From the evidence available it is quite clear that Professor John Flood remembers exactly what was said. It is equally clear that Desmond Hudson from his words: “I believe that I said…” does not clearly recall what he said. If he did say that Kordowski’s “methods of collecting payment to remove comment… amounts to criminal behaviour which is why we have reported him to the police” the fact is that the police have not charged Kordowski with any offence. This is water under the bridge and the real issue for The Law Society is to stop the public from posting comments about solicitors on Solicitors From HELL.
Further, in putting the alleged slander on his own website Kordowski did not intend to make light of the allegation which, for the record, certainly did upset and offend him. Kordowski just wanted the public to know what the Chief Executive of The Law Society had said about him.
SFH Editorial - September 2011
The road to Hell was paved with good intentions
A new legal year is upon us. The ‘long vacation’ is almost over and the courts will soon be back in full swing. The academic year has just started for students up and down the country - as has the binge drinking and sexual fulfilment. (More abortions on the quiet).
Nothing much will change however: does it ever in the present reality of amoral Britain? As one senior lawyer told us - the judges are prone to follow the age old unwritten convention of expediency and make decisions that often cannot be reconciled to the facts or, indeed, to justice.
Students, idealistic in their ambitions, are wasting their time studying useless degrees that will only guarantee them unemployment. Even law graduates are so many in number that only the Oxbridge set can be confident of gaining useful employment.
In the longer term the future belongs to the educated immigrant and their offspring: with fluency in two languages to call upon this asset will always tip the balance in their favour in the jobs market over the indigenous Englishman. Even if only for financial reasons the migrant worker has succeeded in the UK in professional football as well as in the lower occupations of the service industries. The social services will just have to cope with the ever increasing residue of the needy.
With the bankers being allowed to send the UK economy to Hell and back thanks to the laissez-faire approach of the executive, the decent working man and woman has only sleepless nights of worry to look forward to. Selfishness will be the abiding motivation in all economic effort. The days of love thy neighbour are in practice all but gone.
The prison system is at bursting point. All humans will boil to death given sustained hopelessness so if they are not to be given the release of the death penalty give the inmates hope. Allow them conjugal visits and better food and better accommodation.
SFH Editorial - August 2011
Torill Sorte – the Policewoman from Hell
In our May editorial (see below) we highlighted the spectacle of Islamophobic abuse that has been a consistent feature in Norwegian society for many years. Few people took us seriously. They do now. The 22nd July 2011 attack on his own people by a Christian Norwegian Muslim-hater, Anders Behring Breivik, was the sharpest tip of a hitherto very well hidden iceberg.
One has to wonder now whether this killer sent the British owner of NorwayUncovered.com one of the listed hate emails all of which landed on Justice Minister Knut Storberget’s desk in 2006. The catalyst for these vile hate emails was one, Torill Sorte, a police officer and employee of the Ministry of Justice and the Police, Norway. She told the national newspaper Dagbladet at Christmas 2005 that the owner of NorwayUncovered.com had been a patient in a mental hospital in the UK for two years. And the Dagbladet journalist, without contacting the Brit, coupled this by labelling our British friend the “half-Arab Muslim Briton” in banner front page headlines.
Torill Sorte’s mental hospital allegation was an outrageous lie motivated by spite after she was caught out and exposed for telling a not dissimilar whopper in 2002 on oath in court during a libel action brought by the Briton against a third party - registered mental patient Heidi Schøne. Torill Sorte knew full well that the Brit had never been a patient for two seconds in any psychiatric hospital anywhere having seen, in the Drammen City Court of Appeal in 2003, the Briton’s general medical practitioner’s letter categorically stating that he had never been a patient in any psychiatric unit. The hurt Briton responded by publicising on a grand scale in Norway the fact that Torill Sorte was an obvious liar which further motivated this bent copper in 2006 to label the Briton “clearly mentally unstable” in another newspaper in 2006. Torill Sorte belongs in prison for perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice. After making the front page of Dagbladet in 2005, which featured NorwayUncovered.com, the Brit got the most obscene Muslim-hating emails imaginable - CLICK HERE - which the Essex Hate Crimes unit at Harlow passed on to Interpol London who forwarded it to Interpol Oslo. It took a year for Interpol Oslo to respond only to say they will not be taking any action themselves. No apology or expression of regret came forth from Interpol Oslo. Dagbladet newspaper were not prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred. On the 12th July 2007 in a recorded telephone conversation with Dagbladet’s journalist Morten Øverbye, responsible for the 2005 story, he told the Brit this: “If she [Torill Sorte] says you have been in a mental hospital and you have not been in a mental hospital, then she’s lying… That’s a no-brainer.” No wonder Torill Sorte’s husband/partner has left her. After all, who wants to live with such a liar who is supposed to serve justice?
The Brit had his supporters too, for example one Norwegian lady who went to great lengths to investigate the matter herself - CLICK HERE.
Police officer Torill Sorte is a cancer at the heart of Norwegian civil society and her deceit has become the stuff of nightmares for the Norwegian government. To those reprobates who hitherto have accused the Brit of harassment of this corrupt police officer we say: “Get your heads examined!”
If Norway is to emerge from the darkness of its self-inflicted wounds it must purge itself of its xenophobic practices and innate bigotry. Sacking crooked police officer Torill Sorte would be a good start.
(1) Stephen Robins (2) Gabbitas Robins (a firm)
v Rick Kordowski
 EWHC 1912 (QB)
CLICK HERE to read the judgment handed down on 22 July 2011.
This judgment suggests that only the solicitor's client will be able to defend defamatory postings and the solicitor will be able to rely on having acted on the client's instructions.
The criticism of solicitors is widespread and impacts not only dissatisfied clients but third parties who feel they have been harmed by solicitors and that group appear to be unable to publish their complaints of the harm they have suffered.
The judge also suggested that if a solicitor makes a statement that turns out to be false it raised no inference that the solicitor had lied.
Rick Kordowski was ordered to pay costs sought by Gabbitas Robins totalling £17,189. The judge assessed the costs and reduced these by nearly 25% to £13,000, which goes to show that where solicitors seek to recover their legal costs the court will scrutinise and where appropriate reduce their bill.
The judgment and order is under appeal at a higher court.
SFH Editorial - July 2011
Many thanks to our supporters
On 14th July 2011 Rick Kordowski was in the High Court in London before Mr Justice Tugendhat against the firm of Gabbitas Robins Solicitors. Judgment was reserved on one aspect of the case relating to damages. We await with interest the full judgment.
For the first time in all his many hearings Rick Kordowski was legally represented by senior counsel Jonathan Crystal who has acted for the likes of Jenson Button, Brian Lara and Amir Khan. It is a mark of the significance of the issues involving freedom of speech on the Solicitors From HELL facility that caught the interest of Jonathan Crystal who is acting pro bono for Kordowski. Court 14 was full and as expected the Law Society were present - furiously typing every word uttered by Jonathan Crystal. The Law Society, of course, have promised major action against Kordowski to close down the Solicitors From HELL website. They will be up against the formidable talents of Jonathan Crystal should a claim materialise.
The Times newspaper were also at court represented by journalist James Dean (formerly of the Law Society Gazette) who wasted no time in publishing an article the same day subtitled: ‘The legal profession has been wrongfooted by Rick Kordowski’s website, which is a thorn in its side’. It would be fair to say that we have a supporter in the Times newspaper. Indeed, thus far, the Independent, the Guardian, the Evening Standard, the Law Society Gazette and the Lawyer have all given positive reviews on Kordowski’s raison d’être. More to the point the public have shown tremendous interest by reason of the vast number of complaints posted on Solicitors From HELL as well as ample commentary on internet blogs. A heartfelt thanks to you all for your support which is very much appreciated.
SFH Editorial - June 2011
The Soldier from Hell
The month of June 2011 saw the long awaited appearance of Serb killer General Ratko Mladic before The War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. Until his capture Mladic, still “the hero” for many Serbs , was obviously well protected by the Serbian authorities. This comes as no surprise. The fact is that the Serb nation is still infused with that pathological hatred for their Muslim neighbours which lies at the core of their psyche. As indeed is the Croat nation whose soldiers in the early 1990’s, under the leadership of Franjo Tudman, wholeheartedly butchered Bosniaks and raped their women en masse. The Catholic Croats and Christian Orthodox Serbs were allowed to get on with the ethnic cleansing by none other than spineless British Prime Minister John Major, Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd and Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, who thought the matter “too complex” to resolve. They should be joining Mladic (and Karadzic) at the Hague. Our own Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. is of a similarly condemnatory mind. President Bill Clinton stood aloof for over three years before coming to his senses and ordering military intervention against the Serbs in late 1995. Too late of course to stop the massacre at the ‘safe haven’ of Srebrenica of up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys. The abject role of the U.N and the British establishment at the time has conveniently been forgotten. We can remember again.
Determined efforts are presently being made by European leaders to get Serbia and Croatia (but not Bosnia) admitted to the E.U. But why should we accept all these hateful peoples into the ‘brotherhood’ of European nations? Those that did the killing in the former Yugoslavia are mostly free and regret nothing. Why should they be allowed to come and live in Britain - as many surely will? It is, of course, all in the interests of realpolitik: by submitting to the E.U’s regulatory demands the mindset behind the insane cruelty of the Serb and Croat actions will, over time, be purged. So the argument goes.
We leave you with a Biblical quote from the preface of the book Unfinest Hour by Dr Brendan Simms writing on the British role in Bosnia:
If you have shown yourself weak at a time of crisis, how limited is your strength!
Rescue those being dragged away to death, and save those being hauled off to execution.
If you say, ‘But this person I do not know’, God, who fixes a standard for the heart, will take note; he who watches you will know; he will repay everyone according to what he does.
Proverbs 24: 10-12
SFH Editorial - May 2011
City law firm defends Norwegian Government in abuse of Islam case
Anglo-Norwegian relations have recently taken a turn for the worse thanks to a High Court claim issued by a British claimant (against the Norwegian government) whose cause we have been championing for quite some time through the Norway Shockers website www.norwayuncovered.com. For legal reasons we cannot discuss the case but we can expose the sickening Norwegian bigotry that preceded the action which, thank God, our UK shores will not see as the norm here until the next Viking invasion. An outrage that not many Norwegians living in London will worry about as they celebrate their National Day on May 17th in Battersea Park and the Punch & Judy pub in Covent Garden.
The Norwegian press in their nineteen articles from 1995-2006 never named their British-born victim (save on one occasion) but referred to him by his nationality/antecedents (British/Arab/German) and more particularly by his religion (Islam). In 1995 one paper called him “the Muslim man” nineteen times associating him with all manner of sexual and psychiatric ‘misdemeanours’ (to put it politely) only to discover as a fact that the Norwegian source of their information was herself a mental patient who had had two abortions by the time she was 18 and twenty-one lovers by the age of 21, coupled with two suicide attempts. Her own psychiatrist came to court in Norway in 2002 and 2003 to say that she had been abused by almost her entire family – all solely on the girl’s own word – and had “an enduring personality disorder.” Our British victim sued in Norway and ended up as public enemy number one there for putting up one hell of a fight. But to no avail. The tricks of the Norwegian press and judiciary have to make their country one of the most two-faced nations of hypocrites of modern times. Some of their own citizens are as sickened as us by this case. Even INTERPOL London were brought in to help the hapless Brit when a repugnant religious hate campaign from Norway in 2005 was visited upon him, for example communications saying: ‘Go f**k Allah the Camel’ and ‘When you eat pigs do you lick the pig’s arsehole clean before digging in?’ and much worse (see for yourselves on the Norway Shockers website). INTERPOL Norway did not even say a simple sorry.
When the Norwegians are backed into a corner out comes their trump card – that of psychological abuse. The Brit found himself reading in the Norwegian press in 2005 that he had spent two years in a mental hospital in the UK – a total invention by…a Norwegian female police officer! She was not prosecuted for gross misconduct whilst in public office but was…promoted! Norway’s isolation and nationalistic ways make it a hard taskmaster. It has its funny side too. Not for nothing is Norway called the world leader in casual sex. But tell them some home truths and you will end up, possibly, being labelled as a mental patient or stalker or rapist. See also on the Norway Shockers website www.norwayuncovered.com what fate lay in store for the German ‘whore children’ in post-war Norway (who included Freda from pop sensations Abba).
Our Muslim Brit with an indigenous German mother is, with his double ‘impediment’ (in Norwegian eyes), ironically, the New Jew on the block – and is really suffering for it. There is no Arab spring in Scandinavia. The Norwegian government have enlisted the help of a top City of London law firm and a specialist London barrister to strenuously defend the claim. Limitless funds are available. Might is pitted against right.
SFH Editorial - April 2011
IN DEFENCE OF RICK KORDOWSKI
Rick Kordowski, the administrator of SolicitorsFromHELL.co.uk, is quite obviously a man in the spotlight. Nationwide publicity has put him on a collision course with the legal establishment. The Law Society have already tried, unsuccessfully, to involve the police on the grounds that Kordowski’s administration charges to allow a listing to be removed from his website are akin to ‘extortion’. Kordowski is a one man band and a lot of his time is taken up running Solicitors From HELL for which he should be entitled to earn a crust. Critics say he should charge nothing to allow a solicitor to come off his website. But even charities rely on donations to survive and solicitors who want their entry removed can regard themselves as making a small donation to the maintenance of Solicitors From HELL.
Moreover, Kordowski’s administration/monitoring complaints cost of £299 was, as a last resort, an escape route for solicitors listed on the site. It encourages them not to spend the £30,000 it frequently costs to pursue a libel claim against Kordowski, who is the publisher of, but not the source of, the criticism listed and to encourage solicitors to make amends with the complainant instead. But some solicitors would, perversely, rather stand on principle and spend an irrecoverable £30,000 on legal fees rather than make amends with the complainant. Under pressure this facility has now been withdrawn by Kordowski. So in future all claimants will be spending tens of thousands of pounds to bring the impecunious Kordowski to book. At all times it was Kordowski’s overriding ambition to force the listed solicitor to come to an amicable settlement with the complainant.
The judiciary has acknowledged that Solicitors From HELL is providing a public service. The press have given Solicitors From HELL its qualified support. The Law Society Gazette, the Independent and the Guardian have all made specific mention of Kordowski’s website address when writing a feature. Kordowski has not asked for or received one penny for being interviewed by the press.
Newspapers are always keen to expose bad practice in the legal profession. The Law Society let corrupt, dishonest and crooked solicitor Dixit Shah escape the country in 2000 after ignoring complaints from the public about suspected fraud. The Law Society claimed they were over extended and did not have enough staff to handle complaints. It took eleven more years to bring Dixit Shah to justice and put him behind bars – and that was all down to luck. Dixit Shah had spent all his estimated £7m loot on failed Bollywood projects and returned to the UK under a false name to re-commence his fraudulent activities. This time the police were waiting for him.
One solicitor who exposed bad practice on his website called legaljackass.co.uk was prosecuted by the Law Society in 2006 for bringing the profession into disrepute. Talk about a cover up! The Law Society lost the case as an independent adjudicator ruled in the solicitor’s favour saying that the solicitor had every right to voice his concerns and did not thereby bring the profession into disrepute. Solicitors From HELL is glad to feature the legaljackass.co.uk website as a link.
Patrick McCloy, solicitor from Gloucestershire, made the front page of the Sunday Express last month for his very worthy attempt to set up a scheme to prevent fraud on homeowners registered title deeds. A vitriolic response followed from the Law Society for Patrick McCloy’s ‘scaremongering’. We salute Patrick McCloy.
Let the establishment rule? No thanks – let others have a say as well.
Rick Kordowski’s website has improved immeasurably since it began in 2005. He recognised that he was being taken advantage of by unscrupulous abusers of his facility and now all contributors to a listing must give him their particulars first. One contributor even turned up at the Royal Courts of Justice in London last week to support Kordowski and appeared before the judge.
Most of the firms listed on Kordowski’s ever expanding website are small to medium sized firms. The bigger firms - from the City of London in particular - rarely feature on the website. Is this because they are perfect examples of probity and good practice? Er, maybe…but then again maybe not. City institutions, the banks, brought the UK to the brink of ruin in 2008 and City of London law firms act for all the big banks. These firms also act for the likes of Muammar Gaddafi and his delightful sons and Hosni Mubarak and his sons (Gamal, his heir apparent, worked for several years in London in the banking sector) and Bashar Al Assad Syria’s ruthless dictator, (formerly a Harley Street eye surgeon). London law firms act for the nouveau riche of the new Russia and the despots of black Africa. How strictly are the money laundering rules applied by the City law firms for these billionaires? Who promotes City of London law firms as centres of excellence? The Law Society.
Kordowski may have his faults and shortcomings but he gives many members of the public a chance to immediately relieve themselves of their utter frustration - which the public eagerly accept. Good therapy for all we say.