BBC calling ME a “crank”?! (part 1 – What about Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Jeremy Corbyn!?)

Following a recent Data Protection Act request I submitted to the BBC, I now have conclusive proof that influential employees of that government-run institution have a grossly inaccurate, deeply reprehensible, profoundly prejudiced and perilously self-destructive view of me.

Among a small packet of documents that I received from the BBC’s Information Policy and Compliance unit this past Monday(September 22), there is a record of BBC Norfolk reporter Mike Liggins labelling me “a crank” as he corresponds with colleagues.

Moreover, when the IP&C documentation I received is added to 1) information in my own records, 2) information I should have received from the BBC’s IP&C department but which was not included among the documents they sent me, and 3) evidence I possess of Lord Speaker Baroness D’Souza-like, democracy defeating behaviour by Liggins, former BBC Norfolk political reporter Clive Lewis (now my local MP), Wendy Witham and Gary Standley of BBC Voices, and other BBC Norfolk employees, it provides compelling, prima facie evidence of what might clinically be called a Jimmy-Savile-Shielding-Schizophrenic-Syndrome (JS4) perverting the BBC’s public service ideals.

It suggests that the greatest threat to the BBC and other media houses that promote and safeguard Britain’s democratic ideals is not being posed by David Cameron’s capitalism crazed Tories on one hand or left leaning liberal Labour Party fundamentalist socialist “cranks” like Jeremy Corbyn or Lewis on the other, but rather by the “joint Gerrymandering hands” of consciously and unconsciously corrupt, opportunistic elements in those and other political parties and power structures.

Shockingly, it points to a secret marriage of British and Barbadian silent media assassins as they corporately copulate to produce social outcomes in line with their popular democracy subverting, Bohemian Grove recalling corrupt “carnal knowledge” consuming ideologies and priorities.

I believe that at the root of Liggins’ “crank call” is the conscious or unconscious coupling or convergence of perverse purposes propelled by misinformed and morally confused persons who, like Savile, Rupert Murdoch, Barbadian publisher-spy Harold Hoyte, journalists Julian Rogers, Julius Gittens, and Karen Martindale, and educators Sir Hilary Beckles, Sir Frank Alleyne, Esther Phillips and Wendell Callender sometimes (some with predictable frequency) behave like bin-lorry-Bin-Ladin news drivers: falling asleep at the wheel.

These and other intentional and unintentional terrorist-like “sleepers” in the United kingdom, Barbados, the United States and elsewhere are not only undermining their own, my and others’ capacity to make positive contributions to society: like fabled “German engineering” gone wrong, as in the unfolding Volkswagen data distortion saga, they are undermining the BBC’s and all other public service media houses’ capacity to “inform, educate and entertain”, a function established by Lord Reith as the media’s fundamental public duty and highest call.

 

Behind the story

In an email dated November 20, 2013, Liggins wrote “I have been in contact with Junior Campbell. To cut a long story short (!) he appears to be a crank.”

Liggins apparently made this derogatory, dismissive comment in an effort to justify his decision earlier that year not to do a story about my efforts to expose the highly questionable employment and other corporate practices of millionaire businessman Surinder Kandola, the England-based Domino’s Pizza super-franchisee who trades as DPGS Limited.

Months before, during a chance encounter in Norwich on the morning of June 21, 2013, I had briefly alerted Liggins to the story.

Providentially, I have had separate, chance face-to-face encounters with both Mr Liggins and Mr Kandola in the past month.

The Kandola encounter, on Thursday, September 24, was within the past 48 hours.

 

That first, fateful Liggins “collision”

As I recall, Liggins and my paths crossed while he was covering a horrendous looking road traffic accident on Ber Street.

I was attending a hearing at the Employment Tribunal’s office on the same street, where I was challenging Kandola’s entitlement to fire me for my efforts to improve some employee working conditions and the overall corrupt corporate culture of his company.

Introducing myself to Liggins, I gave him one or two A4 size documents bearing lists of telephone numbers, addresses and other personal information of Domino’s Pizza customers.

These lists of customer contact details were among hundreds I had retrieved from the bins outside Domino’s store in the Prince of Wales area, after demoralized staffers had disposed of them recklessly and, I thought, possibly illegally.

I may also have given Liggins one of my business cards, so that he could contact me when he started working on the story.

But Liggins not only refused to do a story initially, he also proceeded to avoid and snub me by not responding to various requests I made for him to contact me.

It was only after I filed an official complaint with the BBC, more than four months after I had met Mr Liggins on Ber Street that he was prompted to call me – addressing me as “Mr Campbell”, I believe.

The term “crank” was not used by either of us during his call.

This crucial point of Liggins’ patent initial refusal to do the story – underscored by the fact that he threw away the customer information I had given him, as he concedes in a September 1, 2015 email – is obscured by the information I received from the BBC this week.

The information the binning Liggins supplied to the BBC’s PC&I department therefore appears to be a screen of smoke.

It appears to be a further demonstration of Liggins’ unwillingness or inability to engage with me frankly and fairly.

I am seeking the guidance of the Information Commissioner about the process by which Mr Liggins and the BBC may be persuaded to desist from their firefly, faint-light-like folly and give me and others who depend on their information services honest, well lit fire.

 

Combined with the Intelek record I have of my interaction with Mr Liggins, the documentation I received from the BBC’s IP&C people suggests that he had no reason to call me a crank initially – if at all.

The evidence suggests that he came up with the pejorative, credibility questioning crank claim to retroactively justify the extreme prejudice with which he had treated me at first.

The crank comment is to that extent consistent with the stubborn resistance Mr Liggins demonstrated when, having been forced by my complaint to contact me, he then proceeded to manufacture obstacles that appear calculated to delay or completely remove the prospect of him ever having to report my story and thereby amplify my voice.

In an email to me, dated November 18, 2013 Liggins cited the fact that I had lost the case against Domino’s as a difficulty preventing the BBC from moving forward with my story and suggested that I get two or three other Domino’s employees to take the matter forward.

Claiming that my naming of one other Domino’s driver, Michael Smythe, was not enough to merit a BBC investigation, he wrote “I’d need more than one name (two or three at least), a list of the grievances and some evidence to prove the fact. Otherwise, I’m sorry to say I don’t think I can help.”

The smugness of this essential-issues-minimizing strategy is actually reminiscent of tactics employed by Barbadian Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, his business minister Donville Inniss and other Barbadian politicians, journalists, academics, artists, religious clerics and business people.

Like Bin Liggins, they have been going to extreme lengths to either misrepresent or suppress the good I have done and continue to do as a workers rights and wider human rights activist.

By various information distorting and talent trashing means, they have been blocking and suppressing public knowledge of my Pan Humanist activist achievements and simultaneously downplaying the price I have had to pay for that activism –a price imposed on me because my activism has been essentially independent of corporate capitalist, trade unionist or political party patronage and protection.

So when the talent trashing “terrorist” Liggins refers to this publicity blocking, silencing tactic obliquely, saying “I haven’t ruled out doing a story, but have tried to set the bar high,” he is evidently attempting to deceive his BBC Complaints department colleagues, me and the tax-paying public at large.

The impression Liggins is seeking to create is that of a journalist acting objectively and responsibly when in fact he has already prejudged and discredited me for some undeclared reason.

 

Kandola’s big let-off (or Brotherhood of the goat”)

Moreover, in addition to being a rather dismissive, disrespectful assessment of my workers rights advocacy, capitalism reform advocacy and wider human rights activism and bona fides, Mr Liggins’ characterization of me as “a crank” does nothing to explain why he and everyone else at the BBC failed to seize the opportunity to investigate a powerful businessman whose seemingly unethical practices they had reported on before.

The fact is, the BBC, the Mirror and possibly other news houses had apparently shone a light on Mr Kandola’s dark deeds from as far back as 2007.

So if my losing the ET case or other questions about my credibility were making story-binning-Liggins and possibly his editor Tim Clayton and BBC legal counsel hesitant about investigating my story, why not side-step or minimize the so-called “crank” (me) and do a follow-up to their and the Mirror’s previous reports?

Actually, while already being alert to the possibility that I was being blacklisted by some UK and other international media houses, I felt the BBC would be keen to revisit the abuse of immigrant workers and other themes that had figured prominently in their previous Kandola-Domino’s Pizza report.

They could even have approached the issue as a public health policy and political party funding story, as a September 9, 2012 Daily Mirror story had done.

A more creative, less cranky BBC journalist might even have seen the opportunity to compare Kandola’s and Domino’s fast food corruption with the superficiality of Murdoch-empire news production and consumption, the challenges such intellectual obesity hazarding, cholesterol-rich news coverage and analysis poses for any society’s democratic function.

Instead they focused on silencing this “crank”, limiting my contribution to and participation in public dialogue.

Like the Barbados government-run Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation, the Nation and Barbados Today newspapers and even CNN (thanks partly to Fareed Zakaria) and Thomson-Reuters, Liggins and the BBC refused to give the oxygen of publicity and citizen engagement to the sensible, sensitive and skilful treatment I bring to complex race, gender, religious and other human rights advocacy.

Who else in the UK or elsewhere could have addressed the tragically compromised, defective moral compass of Abraham Eshetu with the empathy that I have?

Who else could put Raj Kandola’s corporate crusade in its proper nihilistic, self-destructive, Talibank-thinking Asian-British cultural context?

Could VS Naipaul critique Kandola’s and other Asian-British business mogul’s tight-fisted-teaology justified business culture as critically yet compassionately as I?

Could any other writer anywhere analyse my local MP Clive Lewis’ political past, assess his political present and predict his political future – and that of the ideological crank Jeremy Corbyn he pushed to succeed Ed Miliband – with my penetrative vision and resonant, rigorously reasoning voice?

Could anyone else compare and calibrate the time-and-space transcending coordinates of the Lewis-Miliband “brotherhood of the goat” with the Afro-Asian Trinidadian “brotherhood of the boat” as I am doing at this very moment?

I think not.

Liggins and others at the BBC may be convinced that the Norfolk and wider British public will thank them for suppressing this crank’s curiously cogent, coherent and consistent speaking-truth-to-power talent.

I ‘m not so sure.

 

To be continued…

 

References

http://www.wikinut.com/domino-s-pizza-diet-deleting-memory/w_pmcfp6/3i4ocqs8/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6923024.stm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/deep-scam-pizza-493788

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200465/Education-Secretary-Gove-accused-conflict-school-meals-party-accepts-50-000-Dominos-Pizza.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOh4fsIaTH8

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3060707?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

Baroness D’Souza’s “democracy” (part 1 – Delay or Deception?)

 

Would you like to contact Baroness D'Souza?
Would you like to contact Baroness D’Souza?

 

I first knew of the existence of Baroness D’Souza, Speaker of the House of Lords when she appeared on a special “Democracy Day” edition of Woman’s Hour, broadcasted on BBC 4 on January 20 this year.

 

Listening to the program, I was prompted to contact the Tony Blair appointed, seemingly independent-thinking peer on the basis of her background as a human rights activist and her work in the field of development, noted by herself and the program host Jane Garvey.

 

On January 29 I sent the Lord speaker an email inquiring what support she or other peers may be able to offer me in my struggle against a long-running campaign of character assassination, economic sabotage and related human rights abuses by the Barbados government.

 

However, up to the time of publishing this article, I have had no response from Baroness D’Souza.

 

Despite the House of Lord’s reputation as a relatively undemocratic, establishment-interests-serving institution, I find the Lord Speaker’s silence profoundly puzzling and perplexing.

 

The reasons for my perplexity include,

 

  1. the House of Lord’s role in facilitating legal challenges to conservative conventions (for example, “airing” arguments in support of legalizing gay marriage and assisted dying
  2.  the relative independence of Baroness D’Souza, a former cross-bench peer – rather like the relative independence of Barbadian economist Sir Frank Alleyne and Queen’s Counsel Ezra Alleyne, and
  3.  Baroness D’Souza’s human rights activism and development work, which may well have involved work with Barbadians (like Sir Frank) and other Caribbean citizens and therefore making my dilemma one with which she might have some familiarity

 

To the best of my recollection, when Baroness D’Souza came to my attention almost 8 months ago, the fact that she was a top-billed guest on the feminist-flag-flying Woman’s Hour seemed to me to be of little consequence.

 

Indeed I have only the vaguest “memory” of the “possibility” of even noticing that detail.

 

After all, this was a Democracy Day special edition.

It did not occur to me that Baroness D’Souza’s human rights work might be concerned with defending and championing the rights of female humans only or primarily.

 

However, eight months of silence by this eloquent Lord Speaker office holder have forced me to consider this possibility – and others.

 

Eight months of silence by her House of Lords office, broken only yesterday (August 17) when I called and spoke to someone on her staff named “Ed”, has forced me to consider the possibility that my access to Baroness D’Souza – as a United Kingdom tax payer and human being – may have been blocked by her or someone intent on ensuring that the Barbados government’s relative stranglehold on my liberty and suppression of my voice continues.

 

Having done a bit of research into Frances Gertrude Claire D’Souza’s background, I also consider that she is a very busy person.

 

But do any of her House of Lords’, university lecturing, parenting (and grand-parenting) or other roles individually or collectively justify her eight months’ silence, virtually ignoring my appeal for assistance.

 

Could she or a member of her staff have not at least dropped me a note, saying she was inundated with work and perhaps referred me to another public servant.

 

Just yesterday, again on Woman’s Hour, providentially, I heard Baroness D’Souza’s peer Michelle Mone OBE speaking about how much work the House of Lords does.

 

But from where I stand, that’s at least as much of a reason to collaborate with me and others “outside the system”, relatively speaking, as any reason that may be offered to ignore, snub or otherwise exclude us.

 

I was actually looking forward to working with the Lord Speaker to amplify her and others views and voices in relation to a number of matters other than my complaint against the Barbados government.

 

I may not have the resources of the BBC, but I am known to have achieved significant social change simply by advocating the need for it by word-of-mouth.

 

Among other things, the inclusion of an extract from my book The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled in the Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions (2013, University of Illinois) attests to this fact.

 

And I was particularly hoping to work with Baroness D’Souza to challenge simplistic, antagonistic ideas about science and religion and showing where these two fields actually complement each other when they overlap.

 

And since learning of Baroness D’Souza’s intriguing marital track record, just yesterday, I thought that she and I might together “air” some ideas about the complexity of legal marriage arrangements.

 

It seems to me that engaging with a member of the public like me and others whom she and others in Parliament are sworn to serve could only add to Baroness D’Souza’s and other Lords and MPs democracy advancing ambitions.

 

I’m actually planning to give Jeffrey Donaldson MP a call, to see how I can contribute to that Democratic Ulster Unionist member’s democracy promoting ambitions.

 

Just today I heard him on Radio 4 extolling the virtues of peaceful, parliament employing programs of change, rather than violence promoting revolutionary ones.

 

Now, unless I have misunderstood what the “assisted dying” debate is about, I am going to assume that Baroness D’Souza is not one of those who are apparently intent on seeing me slit my wrist or otherwise giving up on life because of politically motivated chicanery and wider social marginalization.

 

I am going to assume that the Lord Speaker does not share Barbadians Esther Phillips’, Margaret Gill’s, Hamilton Lashley’s or others’ self-evident, silence-employing ambition to have my name removed from any public or private record that recognizes my significant achievements.

 

Until I have conclusive evidence otherwise, I am going to assume that the Lord Speaker’s denunciation of the scandalous conduct of her recently disgraced colleague Lord Sewell was not a hypocritical deception.

Ed said that he or someone else in the Lord Speaker’s office will be getting in touch with me if Baroness D’Souza is unable to do so herself.

I hope this happens soon.

As I am sure Baroness D’Souza knows, justice denied is the same as justice delayed.

 

To be continued…

 

 

 

References

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069xcyn

 

 

‘Bin lorry Bin Ladin’ Harry Clarke’s, Barbados PM Freundel Stuart’s and “psychic” Camila Batmanghelidjh’s buses

 

Esther Phillips of the BCC - and the BBC too, apparently.
Esther Phillips of the BCC – and the BBC too, apparently. She taught under Mr Sealy but may have missed his “omnibus” talk.

Introduction

I first heard of the Latin origins of the English word “bus” during a genteel morning assembly scolding by Graydon Sealy, the now long-retired first principal of the former Garrison Secondary School.

One morning, sometime between my 1976 to 1982 education at that institution, the erudite Mr Sealy told myself and other students of that school, now named in his honour, that bus is derived from the Latin “omnibus”, which means “for all”.

Buses are there for the service of all members of the public, he said, not just for students travelling to and from their homes.

I remembered Mr Sealy’s words on Sunday, August 23 while reflecting on the anti-bus (antisocial) behaviour of Harry Clarke, who was unconscious behind the wheel of the bin lorry that tragically killed six people and wounded 14 others in Glasgow last December.

In the article “Consciously coupling Jeremy Corbyn and Glasgow’s bin-lorry ‘Bin-Ladin’, Harry Clarke”, published two days earlier, I had “coupled” the careening career driver Clarke’s seemingly extreme, self-serving behaviour –as reported in coverage of the related fatal accident inquiry – with that of the front-runner and main conversation-driver in the ongoing Labour Party leadership derby – the notoriously inflexible, cerebral-cholesterol-capped socialist ideologue Corbyn.

Mr Sealy’s words thus rose like a buried beacon from my subconscious to illuminate the analytical path I had first embarked on when I started comparing Clarke to Osama Bin Ladin (on Twitter) on August 20.

One day before my Wikinut article drawing attention to the “unconscious coupling” of Clarke and Corbyn was published, I had started coupling the antisocial courtroom behaviour of Glasgow “sleeper” Clarke with the selective socialism of Al Queda mastermind Bin Ladin and the sleeper-cell-camouflaged terrorists who carried out the horrific 9/11 attacks.

I was therefore well on my way to widening that analytical matrix – both in line with the socialist theories of “collectivism” promoted by Karl Marx and ideas of the “collective unconscious” advanced by Karl Jung – when Mr Sealy’s words emerged from my latent linguistic substrata with providential resonance.

Maintaining that language and ideological label penetrating thought trajectory, it was therefore just a matter of time before I started mapping Clarke’s, Corbin’s and other socialists’ coordinates onto the paradoxical plotting of Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Stuart and Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh, a British media creation much like America’s Randolph Hearst-puffed Billy Graham, arguably.

(Despite the profound empathy I feel for blacked-out-blue-labour former Prime Minister Tony Blair, I may also add him and his “second breath” John Prescott and other socialist belief abusers to the mix eventually.)

It was only a matter of time before I put them and others “in the driver’s seat” notionally, on December 22 last year, the day that Clarke’s 9/11-like carnage unfolded amid Glaswegians’ Christmas festivities.

It was also only a matter of time before I myself became alert and awake to the extent to which Clarke’s behaviour is potentially representative of the nucleic analysis I invoked literally and figuratively in my poem Communion, written in 1982 – the year I graduated from the Graydon Sealy Secondary School, providentially.

The poem is included in my first collection “Standing”, which was heartily approved by my then former English teacher Esther Philips.

She taught at the Garrison (as it was usually called) under Mr Sealy and until recently, I thought she shared his “for all” philosophy.

About few months ago, for reasons not yet clear to me, Philips, a long valued friend and critic, informed me that she was no longer my friend.

 

Keeping the faith

In Communion I describe my faith-filled consciousness as an “intercourse with the nucleus of reality”.

Employing the term “nucleus” as it is used generally, I now understand how I have almost inevitably come to couple Clarke with all humanity.

That is, how I would see the validity of also putting the narcissistic Reverend Holmes Williams, writers VS Naipaul, Nailah (Lie-e-lah) Imojah, Margaret Gill and Philips, clerics Pope Francis, Noel Titus and Franklin Graham, US President Barack Obama, the ancient, “generative” Genghis Khan and even unborn babies in blacked-out Clarke’s place, behind the wheel, in line with my evolving “we-is-we”, and “wheel and come again” technologies.

Thinking or “visioning”spherically, rather than on a one-dimensional plain, I am also mindful, of course, of the relevance here of Christian and other soteriologies or salvation theories.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, in particular, comes into Sealy-like-sonorant relief boldly.

And my invoking of Mr Sealy’s name to create the foregoing gong-like auditory image is without regard for that educator’s probable Protestant Christian faith or his possible PM Stuart-led Democratic Labour Party allegiances.

Neither are necessary for the essential point I am making about how words like “socialist”, “capitalist”, “dictator”, “democrat”, “feminist”, “republican”, “monarchist”, “bus”, “bed”, “awake”, “asleep”, “terrorist”, “patriot”, “infidel” and so on, may lull us into a form of sleep or stupour, just as easily as they may keep us awake and thinking on our feet.

My essential point is about the coitus approximating creativity by which we keep things real.

It is about avoiding what I sometimes call the obesity of English, a consequence of, among other things, that language’s imperialist legacy.

Which brings me to how my forensic foraging into socialist jargon and the socialist psyche took a distinctly legal turn, thanks to the input of fellow “Wikinutter” John Welford, a Leicestershire-based career librarian with “degrees in English/Philosophy and Librarianship”.

Welford is the only person who up to the writing of this article, had commented on my coupling of Clarke and Corbin.

A sometimes Labour Party supporter, he sought to defend Clarke’s courtroom silence and other perversely “law-abiding”, behind-legal-loopholes-hiding behaviour, writing “The reason why Clarke is not apologising in court is that legal proceedings against him have been set in motion, and whatever his personal feelings he is bound by what his lawyers have told him in terms of not compromising his position now in the light of future legal action.”

I rejected this defence, focusing rightly, I believe, on Clarke’s moral responsibility, as opposed to his legal rights. I wrote: “Harry Clarke has the choice of following or ‘over-ruling’ whatever legal advice he’s receiving. There must come a time when we all confront our own folly and fallibility.” I continued “Clarke seems to have spent his adult life (at least) denying his own humanity and accountability to other human beings. He’s a sad indictment on his generation.”

However, it was when Welford persisted with his legalistic focus, stressing a right of defendants under Scotland’s legal system “not to make admissions in advance of their appearance in court” that I was obliged to invoke the age-old, oft-quoted aphorism “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done” bringing it into broad, possibly unfamiliar (to Clarke) socialist relief.
I wrote “Legal systems are only as sound as their capacities to serve the sustainable, principled aspirations and objectives of the societies that construct them.” I continued “Beyond the law is the truth, the essential components of which are clear, in this instance: six people have died (and many others injured) due to Clarke’s ‘malfeasance’. Justice is not being done or being seen to be done by Clarke’s legalistic delaying of his being held to account. In short, he and his lawyers are obscenely delaying a just resolution of this matter.”

Consistent with my socialist nucleic analysis, I should also note the conscious or unconscious “complicity” of other sleepy socialists at First Bus, Glasgow County Council, the DVLA, the trade unions UNISON and/or the GMB (possibly) and elsewhere, whose “camaraderie” with Clarke led to him being behind the wheel of that bin lorry last December. (Calls by this writer to Glasgow Council have identified these two trade unions as the main possibilities. But I have not been able to establish whether Clarke was a member of either one.)

I am also inclined to assign Sheriff John Beckett QC and Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland a share in the Glasgow bin lorry crash saga’s collective culpability.

Actually, as my article “Prince Andrew scandal, ‘Shebola’ nurse critical, ship off Scotland sinks – is Scotland jinxed?” indicates, I have deep concerns about Scotland’s moral viability.

I believe the crisis in policing there is particularly indicative of what I would call its Barbados-twinning, Scotland-District-susceptibility-to-erosion mimicking vulnerability.

Noted for its superstratally sterling contribution to British cultural-political progress particularly, I think the many spectacular catastrophes that have visited it within recent years are symbolic, numinous (Jung) pointers to its underlying, Lloyds Bank-like fallibility.

 

 

Readers familiar with my ongoing dispute with that venerable institution over its very questionable closure of my Intelek International business account in 2012 should know what I mean.

My article Lloyds Bank: “deliberately fraudulent or simply full of failings”? sets out a case at the interface of conscious and unconscious error elaborately.

In it I address questions of human agency, culpability and mens rea (guilty conscience) in legal and broader social contexts.

I have also called for a less anti-social use of Lloyd’s discretionary powers in an online petition and private correspondence to Antonio Osorio, the bank’s chief executive.

Similarly, while seeking to “lawyer up”, by taking my human rights abuse petition against the Stuart-led Barbados government to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, for example, I have also sought to appeal to Stuart’s and other Barbadian power-brokers’ consciences publicly and privately, via the mediation of the Queen and the British High Commissioner to Barbados, Victoria Dean.

Without prejudice to the Barbados government, Lloyds Bank and Scotland’s or any other legal system, I think it is safe to say that the capacity of law makers, legal lenders and legal institutions to pervert the purpose of the law and the course of justice is well established.

And this is perhaps more true of ecclesiastical law, than it is of any other legal system.

As I am at pains to point out in my book The Bible: beauty and Terror Reconciled and elsewhere “the letter killeth” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Obedience to the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law is in fact a well known idiomatic antithesis.

And I have no doubt that Mr Osorio’s legal advisers, like Barbados PM Stuart, a lawyer by profession, are aware of such legal miscarriages.

Such miscarriages of purpose and meaning blight all routes of communication that bus-like human language services.

They entail a blinding or blackingout of our collective consciousness relative to principles of equity and fairness that are intuitively agreed.

It is inspired drivers-interpreters like Graydon Sealy, who not only “speak a word in season”, but whose words resonate long after, who ensure the unity of word and spirit: they ensure the authentic integration of ends and means.

Their consciousness and vigilance are alluded to where the Bible speaks of such oracles capacity to bring old and new together presently – a point which The Message version of the Bible makes succinctly: “He said, ‘Then you see how every student well-trained in God’s kingdom is like the owner of a general store who can put his hands on anything you need, old or new, exactly when you need it.’”(Matthew 13:52).

Without such conscious and conscientious drivers-interpreters of everyday, ordinary and technical legal and other specialist language, the word “omnibus”, like Latin, the language that spawned it, is a “dead letter”, virtually.

Omnibus, a core-cog in the linguistic “bus” wheel, is thereby robbed of its generative or “procreative”, depths sounding efficiency.

The superstratal physical “thinning” of the word “bus” therefore also entails a substratal, semantic fattening or thickening of it simultaneously.

Anti-bus behaviour may be construed as excessive, fatty, cholesterol-clogged, sleepy-psychological behaviour, essentially.

It clogs our communicative, creative arteries.

Alternately, we might compare Clarke’s, Corbin’s, Lloyds Bank’s and others’ inflexible, discretion diminishing behaviour to that of a flat tyre or otherwise deflated or disfigured wheel.

Alternately, we may say that without a driver like Mr Sealy behind the wheel or at the helm of a political party or machinery of state, words, the vehicle of meaning, become anti-bus, divisive, potentially destructive automobiles.

Without a Sealy-like focus on social inclusion, still-born semantic separations, like Corbyn’s simplistic proposal to introduce women-only train carriages emerge inevitably.

As one Norfolk woman asked me, ”What happens to couples who are travelling together?”

Apparently Corbyn, like his Labour comrade and political advisor Clive Lewis, did not think that one through very carefully.

But those who remember Norfolk MP Lewis’ electioneering gaffe about the circumstances in which he and then Labour leader Ed Miliband may be found on either end of a goat might say that with such coital conceptualisations, these men’s understandings of women clearly beggar belief.

Corbyn’s choice not to attend his mother’s funeral and his decision to divorce his second wife over public perceptions of his political “purity” are put in perspective simultaneously.

A more properly penetrative reader of the Mona Lisa smile or the Girl With A Pearl Earring’s slightly parted lips, would recognize that whether women and men sit together or apart on a train (or bus) is secondary.

As another, younger Norfolk woman I asked about this matter said, the primary concern should be to address the root or core-cog causes of violence against women in society.

A more radical, realist, sustainable socialist approach recognizes that among other unintended consequences, rather than protecting women, that kind of isolation could make the targeting of them by predators, more easy.

And I must note here that those predators may be both males and females, as pointed out by Barbadian psychologist and cleric Marcus Lashley.

He made this point indirectly while discussing power relations in homosexual relationships during a panel discussion held on the island in February 2011.

According to a report by my former Caribbean News Agency (CANA) colleague Trevor Yearwood, Lashley said there’s a lot of domestic violence in Barbados’ gay and lesbian communities and attributed this to the inequality of the parties in those relationships.

“There is always a significant power differential and it is how that power differential is manifested that is of tremendous significance. There’s also a lot of violence because it is a close-knit community. It is, in essence, a minority community and therefore there is tremendous possession, tremendous jealousy, tremendous fear and that motivates a lot of the actions,” he said.

Fundamentalist, ideologically inflexible trade unionist and other socialist ideologues have difficulties grasping these subtle, “bus-within-a-bus” or “wheel-within-a-wheel” gender realities.

Like the poisonous Pan Africanist pedagogy of Barbadian Rastafarian Ras Jahaziel (a mouthpiece of politico-educational demagogue Sir Hilary Beckles and selective socialist politicians David Comissiong and Robert “Bobby” Clarke, possibly) they are prone to opportunistic generalizing and stereotyping, whether doing so unconsciously or unconsciously.

A one-sided, calorie-rich, African history caricaturing film attributed to Jahaziel, entitled “The Holy Scriptures of Reparations” that has come to my attention only today (September 4) makes my point spectacularly.

To be continued…