Archive for July, 2008


July 10, 2008

Yes, It’s Britain I’m talking about as
Moronic Social Services Tear Cancer boy away from Distraught Mother

I have just heard of a story from a very reliable source. I know this story is completely true; but if I say too much about, if I give any details which can identify anyone involved, I will be sent to jail for exposing the criminal secrecy of the Family Courts.

But if ever a case needs to be exposed (and it can’t be because the State says anyone exposing it will be imprisoned) this is one terrible injustice, artificially constructed by ignorant, nasty, people.

In a nutshell, a small boy of about seven years old is taken to hospital with vaguely flue like symptoms by his Mother. He is diagnosed with Leukeamia – a form of deadly cancer.

Of course any Mother in this situation is likely to become fairly agitated. In this hospital, staff, notably one Doctor B…., reported the mother to social services simply because they found the mother difficult to deal with and took against her ‘attitude’ to their sloppiness.

Astoundingly dimwitted, ill educated and incompetent social services staff then constructed a completely imaginary case the mother was not able to properly look after her son.

The basis of this seems to be this mother’s ‘attitide’ to hospital staff and social services. So social services forced the woman to undergo a psychiatric report which said that as the mother was contemptuous of people in authority, she must have a personality disorder and this would make her unfit to look after her own child.

Now, co-incidentally, I once had a similar experience of social services threatening to take my child away from me and have it adopted ‘if I didn’t co-operate’ with them. This was said to me by the Director of Children’s Services in front of my solicitor. This is no figment of my imagination, therefore.

I too was forced to undergo a psychiatric examination where the report announced that as I was such an individualistic person with a disregard of those in authority ( presumably social services) I too had a ‘borderline personality disorder’ which might make me unreliable in looking after my own child.

I was sufficiently articulate to fight these nasty minded people at their own game in court. I won, but it was always touch and go as to whether the bastards were going to rip my child from both his parents and condemn him to a life in abusive foster homes.

He had already been placed in foster care illegally by social services – without any justification at all, and against the order of a court that the child be looked after by me – and had been thoroughly physically abused. He was beaten black and blue by the foster parents poking him with a stick. Although this happened just before his third birthday, my child still remembers it years later.

So social services recommend to the (secret) family court that this Cancer boy be looked after by his criminally inclined Father with a history of violence and abuse and with the Mother only being allowed to see her son infrequently for just over an hour under the ever watchful and controlling eye of social services in one of their bleak ‘contact centres’.

Meanwhile, the boy angrily tells social services he doesn’t want to live with his father and sadly says “where’s my Mummy …. I want to go home to my Mummy” to hospital staff who refuse to allow his Mother to see him while he is still in hospital.

We know for certain the whole case was based on fantasy, as a psychiatrist examining the mother as part of the social services fabricated case reported to the family court that, if the mother had not taken her boy to hospital to be diagnosed and treated for his deadly disease in the first place, no accusations of possible future bad parenting would ever have been brought against her as it was clear she had always previously looked after her son very well before he came to the hospital.

It was only social services fantasizing about the mother possiibly not being able to properly look after her child at some vaguely undefined point in the future that mysteriously gave rise to the evil minded family court, knowing they were completely unaccountablt to anyone owing to complete secrecy, forcing the boy to live with a father he feared and disliked.

Meanwhile, the boy pines for his Mother, and his Mother has been driven to distraction by having her son torn from the family home by small minded, ignorant State employees without the slightest justification.



July 1, 2008



Last night  (24th June) at  about 9 p.m. I visited the Horsham branch of Sainsbury’s to try and speak with Chris LaForte who had telephoned me to deal with my previous complaint concerning an incident on Sunday May 11th 2008.


All my previous efforts to telephone the store had failed because the telephone was never answered – day after day. Yesterday I spoke to Mat Rownsly at your Head Office on extension 54356 about this. He had told me the store would telephone me yesterday, which it didn’t. Hence my personal visit in order to progress this complaint issue.


Imagine my astonishment  when the Horsham store exhibited yet another example of how to alienate customers and behave seriously badly. This is what happened.


I went to the customer service desk, where I politely enquired if Chris LaForte was in. When I was informed he was on annual leave, I commenced explaining why it was I needed to speak to him in the hope someone else could address this matter.


In the course of that explanation I mentioned it referred to my complaint about a previous incident at the store where  had been erroneously ‘ banned’. I said to the member of staff I was speaking to, that as I thought she had been present at that previous incident, she would probably remember it. For some curious reason I do not understand she denied being there and said she had no knowledge of me being ‘banned’.


Informing her that I would then wait until Chris LaForte was back at work, I went off to buy just one item, some cream. 

As I was peering at the cream shelf, a man dressed in a Sainsburys uniform sidled up to me and said “I’m going to have to ask you to leave the store immediately’.


When I attempted to talk to him in a perfectly normal manner he behaved in a similar manner to the previous Store manager – Matt Engell. 


He refused to talk to me, he was aggressive and confrontational and behaved in a manner which would wind any person up and instantly make them feel completely abused and very, very angry. 

Every time I opened my mouth to say anything at all, the Store manager  behaved as though I was assaulting him or otherwise being violent or abusive. He was incredibly confrontational, in other words, and quite determined not to engage in conversation of any kind. This kind of behaviour can only be considered thoroughly abusive and an intentional effort to generate conflict. It was stunningly ignorant behaviour.


I imagined Sainsbury’s would be training staff on how to avoid and defuse conflict rather than gratuitously generating  it out of thin air.


Actually, I was being exceptionally civilised, calm and polite in every sense – and not yet angry, but trying very hard not to become so. And as I saw how he was behaving in a ludicrous manner which would guarantee to be extremely offensive towards anyone, I stopped myself being wound up and sucked into his ridiculous mindset of violent anger and confrontation towards me. It took a great effort on my part to avoid this store manager achieving his obvious intention of being offensive, winding a perfectly civilised person up without good reason, and generally attempting to cause a major confrontation.


In his defence, I have to say it subsequently became obvious that  his behaviour is entirely a product of both his training and the apparently aggressive ethos among staff at that particular Sainsbury’s store.


Remaining very calm and speaking quietly, I had to repeat myself many times  to ask him if I could speak to him, as he was deliberately preventing any conversation taking place by simply continuing endlessly to angrily  tell me to leave the store, and continually talking over me and telling me he would not speak to me and asking me to be quiet and not to speak to him.


Eventually, when he saw I was going to continue to be calm and polite, he deigned to reluctantly allow a conversation to take place. I asked him what on earth he was on about asking me to leave the store without any explanation and without allowing any normal conversation to take place.


He then told me the customer service woman had spoken to him over the internal communications system.  He informed me I had just told her about my spurious banning and the complaint I had made to Head Office etc which is why I had come to the store to speak with Chris LaForte.


That is why he had come over to me to tell me to leave – on the instructions of this service counter woman who had told me she knew nothing about me being banned when I had asked her, and had only been told about the matter by myself a few moments earlier.


This duty store manager then told me he had been present at the previous event concerning Mr Engell, and because he had been told by the unbelievable security woman who caused the problem in the first place that I was ‘violent’, he had assumed  I was going to be violent when he spoke to me and asked me to leave the store.


As the situation at that moment began to calm down as, with great difficulty, I persuaded him to allow me to speak to him as you might normally expect, he then sheepishly apologized to me for being so confrontational and clearly indicated he was acting on the basis of instructions relating entirely to the previous incident and the erroneous idea that I was somehow a ‘troublemaker’ of some kind. 


He then explained that now, as  we were having a polite and civil conversation ( which he said he ‘had not expected’) he no longer felt it necessary to be confrontational in the manner I have previously described. 

It then became utterly clear to me that I might equally be speaking to Mr Engell who had behaved in an identical manner the previous occasion. Then,  on the instructions of the slightly lunatic security woman who had shrieked at me that I was (previously) banned and had pressed a panic button.


The point here is that both Mr Engell and this second store manger (a Mr Serotas, I think) both behaved towards me as though they automatically assumed and expected me to be violent and abusive when in fact I had never been so on either of the two occasions.


In fact, both these store managers were effectively acting on the instructions of the security woman who had accused me of being banned and pressed a panic button.


At the time of the first incident, when I was trying, but failing, to speak to Mr Engell ( he was refusing to allow me to say anything at all to him and was just repeating his instruction to me to ’get out of the store because I was banned’). The lunatic security woman had shouted at me and Mr Engells she had banned me ‘for being rude to her’.


I distinctly recall the security woman aggressively shouting at me the precise words – the very first words she uttered – “you’ve been banned from the store, I think, haven’t you ?”


Bearing in mind that some huge percentage, 60%, I think, of communication is non verbal, I can tell you this woman’s non verbal communication to me with this hesitant question was exhibiting her extreme uncertainty as to who I was, or whether she recognised me or, indeed, whether I was actually banned. 


She was clearly asking me for corroboration of the information that I had been banned, because she was not at that time in possession of it. She actually clearly indicated she had absolutely no idea of whether I had been banned and was expressing obvious doubt in her mind as to whether it was merely a figment of her imagination or not.


It is not entirely clear to me what she is talking about and it seems monstrous to me that your customers can be treated in this disgraceful manner by some demented security woman with a personal grudge of some kind.


That all the Sainsbury’s staff fall into line behind one demented woman with some personal grudge about ‘me being rude to her’, and fantasizing that I had been banned from the store,  is quite beyond my comprehension.


That the Customer Service  woman sees fit to inform the store manager of her conversation with me in order for him to throw me out on the second occasion, essentially on my own say so, because I had mentioned the banned word to her, is utterly unbelievable.


I had, in fact, been shopping in the store after the first incident several times, as the Sainsbury’s head office Mr Rownsley had told me quite clearly there was no record of me being banned anyway. It was clearly confirmed by Mr Rownsley that it was a complete fairy-tale, as I already knew.


The fact is, I am a normal civilised , sixty year old, well educated ‘middle class type’ person who frequently goes to your store with his nine year old son to shop for domestic items – not to engage in abusive incidents. And I certainly do not go there to be abused by manic security shrews obsessed with their inflated egos and Television Cop and car chase films.


In the course of my conversation with Mr Serotas on that second occasion, he also told me he thought I had pushed my shopping trolley at Mr Engell on the occasion of the first incident, leaving my shopping in the trolley, and that ‘I had stormed out of the supermarket’. 


I was completely astonished when I heard this because I have never done anything of the kind or engaged in any form of physical aggression at Sainsburys – ever.


What precisely happened is that while I was  being thoroughly abused by Mr Engells, and reduced to a state of extreme shock and sheer humiliation by all this extraordinary behaviour, I picked up my one carrier bag containing just £5 worth of purchases, and walked to my car with it, rather than take an entire trolley with just one small bag in it.


I did, indeed, leave the trolley where it was as I was in no state to be concerned about finding a home for it as Mr Engells and the security guard were shoving me around and ‘elbowing’ me out of the store. It was quite clear I had no option to park this trolley anywhere under such circumstances.


It is quite ludicrous of the second store manager, Mr Serotas, to  describe this as me ‘abandoning my shopping and pushing the trolley at Mr Engells, which is precisely what Mr Serotas did say to me. This is pure fiction.


All this seems to indicate quite unequivocally that your staff at the Horsham store are unpleasant and aggressive and contrive to conjure up incidents of confrontation where none exist in the first place. I am really shocked at this experience. 


As I have seen other members of the public  being treated with unmitigated aggression by security and car park staff in particular, I know my experience is not an isolated event, but just one of many others concerning other people.


On one famous occasion I was in my car in a long queue of cars unable to get out of the car park because the car parking staff refused to raise the barrier to a woman who was refusing to pay £10 as she had bought less than £10 worth of goods. 


So while the parking staff were obtuse and bullying, deliberately humiliating this woman,  every other customer trying to get home  was kept prisoner for a long time. 

This is disgusting.





July 1, 2008




When, many years ago, my Father was a Councillor in this town and as Chairman of the Council was intimately involved in trying to prevent Sainsburys’ and other megalomaniac big businesses from wrecking the then pretty country market town with massively destructive ‘redevelopment’, he would have had absolutely no idea how nasty these big businesses like Sainsbury’s would become.

Since I knew the town as a boy, the Sun Life Insurance company and Sainsbury’s have  together been instrumental in conniving to persuade the Town Council to raze down vast amounts of the then attractive centre of the town and browbeat the Local Council into agreeing to close off most roads into the centre of town and build an ugly motorway-like ‘inner ring road ‘bypass’ around the centre of sleepy little town, preventing any normal access to it.


Both  these business organisations built monumental and modernistic ugly buildings over the centuries old town centre roads, killing of the historic town at a stroke. No doubt Sainsbury’ and Sun Life persuaded the Council it would be a good thing as they would be bringing lots of local jobs into the town.


But it has had  the effect of preventing any of the local residents from getting at the town centre to do any shopping and empty shops now  lie abandoned and boarded up forlornly as a result. 


Shops and other traders still struggling to make ends meet as the Council extorts gigantic parking charges, hugely exceeding the costs of paying an average monthly mortgage for a house, never mind a bloody car parking space, can only watch grimly as turnover falls and they go out of business one by one.


Fewer and fewer residents bother to overcome the sheer trauma and hassle of being milked by unreasonable parking charges and endless threats of £90 parking tickets followed by bailiffs at the door adding hundred and hundreds of pounds to just one parking ticket, then threatening householders with the legalised theft of their house contents if they don’t pay up immediately.


Pedestrians are artfully provided with their own obstacle course to get into the town centre too. Nearly the entire local population has to brave an artificially contrived and utterly inappropriate and unnecessary urban motorway, carefully conceived by dimwitted ‘planners’ to make getting into the town centre on foot as unpleasant as possible for virtually everyone.


Hence, the town is dying on its feet; a slow strangulation that has already turned a really busy, attractive mediaeval market town into a nasty little empty urban desert in the middle of of what used to be some of the most stunningly beautiful landscape in the World.

It is now a noisy sprawl of ring roads and Orwellian building development designed to look as revolting as possible.


But Sun Life has fallen on hard times as more and more people realised the life insurer plundered their pockets and business has slumped. So the predatory business has now gone, having done its job of sucking the life out of the two like the parasite it is.


Sainsbury’s too is no longer in the centre of town, bringing the extra shoppers and vibrancy it had solemnly promised all those years ago. 


It’s old low rise utilitarian shed like architecture is now a shoddy enclosed shopping centre, identical to any down at heel shopping mall anywhere. Completely without character and wildy unpleasant to visit, most shops offering standardised high street cloned tat.


Sainsbury’s supermarket itself, even more sophisticated in manipulating and dictating to local town councils all over the country, has purloined most of the one time garden of a fantastically elegant classic manor house in the one small remaining bit of the original town by the ancient Church that still remains. 

The Manor House is no longer fantastically elegant as it was bought by the RSPCA for it’s headquarters, and then sold at a massive profit to developers who built bits on everywhere and turned it into a warren of poky little ‘town houses’ and awkward apartments in the once elegant original building.


The town is is now ugly and bereft of the soul it had. The centuries of hustle and bustle of a busy English country market town have gone. The old coaching inn, once the focal point,  is boarded up and decaying listlessly. In the evenings and on the weekends, the town is dead and empty, except for a few loitering youths, often mindlessly drunk.


It is not the pleasant, friendly place it once was. Instead it is a place to hurry away from before a black cloud of depression descends about what modern life is like .


July 1, 2008

Or how Blair and Brown destroy Britain



A tetchy day today. The nine year old Ninja Wrecker decided to get up early. He told me later in the day it was because the motorbike  the next door neighbour mistakes for his own masculinity was standing around idling with it’s throaty roar at the crack of dawn.

A common occurrence as the inadequate idiot with the bike likes the whole neighbourhood to notice how masculine he must be making such a pathetically irritating noise. Sometimes the bike is grumbling on and off at intervals all day. What a moron !

The nine year old Ninja  turned the central heating on (it’s mid-summer) and the ancient piping is so noisy it hisses and grumbles  loudly until you wake up in exasperation. So I did. It was really annoying as I had only gone to bed at 2.30 a.m. owing to my desperate need to blot my brain out by watching mindless television.

It’s virtually the only escape I ever get from the Ninja, watching TV in the middle of the night while the little blighter is in bed and isn’t constantly wittering at me. More effective than Prozac, my mind gradually sinks into a semi-conscious state where I am entirely unsure of what I am actually watching. It could be anything really.

Then the Postwoman knocks on the door with a recorded delivery letter. It’s always irritating to be summoned to open the front door in your dressing gown, announcing to all the neighbours how decadent you are being in your dressing gown so late in the morning with the boy lurking behind you in his pyjamas. “what an idle pair of slobs’, they will be thinking self righteously.


Then, to really irritate me, the Postwoman spent ages and ages fumbling with letters while I just stood there like an embarrassed lemon. Eventually she plucked one from a bundle and thrust it angrily into my face, holding it strangely between her thumb and forefinger at the very edge of one corner, saying  sharply ‘Is this you ?’, as she wobbled it backwards and forwards, making it impossible to read.


Without my glasses I couldn’t see anything except a blur. So I reached out to take  the envelope from her so I could hold it still enough to read. Then  I would be able to see the address.

That’s when this politically correct twit really wound me up by snatching the envelope back from me as I tried to take it and a brief tussle ensued. Fortunately, I won the tussle and was able to read my name on the envelope. Slightly embarrassed at the fight over the envelope I muttered weakly that I was as blind as a bat and couldn’t see a thing without my glasses. – a statement of the obvious.

After I had signed for it, and she had gone, it dawned on me the reason for her possessiveness over the envelope was the indoctrination every government employee gets about dealing with any member of the public.

All public employees these days seem to be brainwashed by their masters  – the Government – to become naturally aggressive and inhuman. It never used to be like that.


They are all trained to believe everyone they deal with is completely dishonest, almost certainly inclined towards criminality at every opportunity, and with latent violence lurking it must always be potentially dangerous dealing with anyone. Just like all Government emplyees are really !


I suppose that is the natural result when you have an evil, self serving, corrupt Government that sets about systematically taking away everyone’s freedom and milks them dry right left and centre with fraudulent scams to steal as much money as possible. 


After all, as the Government knows it is grasping, dictatorial, controlling, and just plain dishonest in every way as it goes about blatantly stealing our freedom and our money, I suppose it must assume the rest of us are as criminally dishonest and nasty as they are.


Therefore the Postwoman is trained to assume that householders might snatch letters not belonging to them, presumably so they can disappear inside their houses to frantically rip them open in search of valuables. 

A fairly crackpot assumption on the part of the Postwoman and the people who no doubt specially train Postmen and women to hang on the letters like grim death as a cunning population of householders take every opportunity of snatching them from all the Postmen.


But that’s how they behave, so they assume everyone else behaves as badly as they do. After all they are all agents of the Government, and that’s how the whole Government behaves; totally dishonestly !

This atmosphere of paranoid distrust you now find absolutely everywhere is spread throughout every part of our society as a result of the poisonous Government we have had for the last decade.


It has employed a huge army of civil service bureaucrats to carry out a manifestly crazy and dishonest campaign of systematic persecution on the entire population of the country.


It is positively Orwellian. What this Government has done to this  Country is breathtakingly nasty.

Why have we allowed it to happen ? We used to pride ourselves in our civilised way of life. We were the envy of the World for our integrity and gentle ways. 

Now we have seen that we too can be prey to the evils of dictatorship and corruption along the lines of Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe etc. Blair and Brown and their cronies have just been less extreme and a little more weasily.

But in the end they are all exactly the same.


July 1, 2008

Why is the Internet so unbelievably and unnecessarily aggravating – not to mention monumentally time wasting ?


I find using computers and the internet extraordinary; everything seems to be made deliberately difficult.

It seems finding out how to blog is rather like trying to unlock a combination lock with guesswork. Everything is guesswork to a greater or lesser degree. So, although it is intrinsically simple, it is made immensely complicated – and therefore horribly time consuming.

The reality is an experienced person could stand over the shoulder of a new beginner and say “do this, this and this because……”

It would take a very short time – an hour or two at most – to learn how to do all the relevant things, instead of spending half a lifetime trying to guess.

This tutorial could be converted into a written form which could be quite brief. It would be a godsend to people ! I have yet to see anything remotely like it.

That is why I have only the foggiest idea of how to get the readers in to my blog.

I have absorbed (over a vast period of time on the internet) the fact that:

a)  You have to post frequently
b)  link to other sites/blogs

Posting frequently I can understand. Linking, no. First of all what exactly is linking ? Is it the contents of your blogroll – the thing of adding other blogs to your sidebar ? If so there is a bit of a limit to how many you can add. Also it is rather random – just hoping that particular blog will be interested in you. It may or may not be.

Or does linking really mean picking on every available word in your blog text and turning it into a highlighted hyperlink to some random site ? If so, I cannot understand the validity of that.

When I first came across this as a reader, I thought the fact a word in the text you were reading was highlighted as a hyperlink meant it had some particular relevance to what I was reading.

I became increasingly irritated as these links led me randomly around the internet to read things that simply held no interest and unfocussed my mind until it became a bit like fermenting porridge and about as useful. The time wasting has been of epic proportions. I have had enough of it. life’s too short to waste on computer nerdiness.

The other thing I fail to understand is how blogs which are unremarkable have attracted large numbers of readers and in some cases have over-excited book publishers into wanting to publish books ?

I still remain mystified ?