Nikki Haley’s resignation and Donville Inniss’ Domino’s Pizza-proximate play (Cosmic Cricket – part 4)

V S Naipaul’s nihilism and other “African” identity crises

I am trying to wrap my tiny brain around the idea that Nikki Haly’s recent resignation from the post of United States Ambassador to the United Nations might be linked to Campbell vs DPGS Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza, the unfair dismissal case I am currently pursuing as a litigant in person against that global pizza delivery giant.

Readers may recall that in a recent article, I linked this case to Haly’s former boss, the “big brain” brandishing US president Donald Trump, through his links to Domino’s Pizza, through his unsuccessful 2012 US presidential nominee predecessor Mitt Romney.

Romney is a founder of Bain Capital, which own Domino’s.

Nonetheless, lacking president Trump’s hubris or hutzpa, for better or worst, but at any rate gratefully, I find the prospect of such a link mind blowing!

It fills me with a sense of awe for what the God I serve, the True and Living God, could do with flawed mortals like me!

Could Haly’s sharing of a Sikh background with DPGS Ltd principal Surinderjit Singh Kandola be as consequential for my past and future “relationship” with Domino’s and other American, British and Caribbean political, religious, educational, media, trade union and other interests as I am inclined to think?

The thought scandalizes my mind, as the the Calvinist theologian JI Packer, author of the exquisitely balanced booklet Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (1961 by Inter-Varsity Fellowship) might say.

I certainly can understand why some of my colleagues at the London-based Swedenborg Society might have difficulty tracking the logic of the links I am making.

As the back-page blurb of my book, The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciled indicates, I believe that I have been a catalyst of extraordinary world events in the political and religious sphere, both consciously and unconsciously


Nikki Haley official photo,(Wikipedia),
Nikki Haley official photo,(Wikipedia),


But the idea that my highlighting of an arguably tenuous, indirect link between president Trump and Kandola on October 7 might have prompted the Sikhism seasoned Haly to resign her post two days later leaves me rather flabbergasted.

And this is despite my own deeply held belief in the idea that each of us has the capacity to engage intimately with “ultimate source” and therefore each be at the center of the universe in some way.

Like Haly’s sister, the author Simran Singh, I believe “there’s only one of us here: and it’s you” (and me) as she poignantly shares in this Tedx speech.

I certainly believe that the “awesome God” I serve (as per the video I have posted above, deliberately choosing to give it prominence over Singh’s) is present in her beautiful, brown, bright spark of divinely ignited humanity and in her sister Nikki’s.

However, not being raised a Sikh, as those two Indian-descended siblings were, and instead being seasoned in a distinctively discriminating, damaged-Domino’s-delivery approximating, Creole Caribbean mediated Judeo-Christian theology, I have deep reservations about apparent cognitive “overthrows” and “misfields” in their collective and respective ideologies.

For example, I would not equate “God” with the perpetrator of a school shooting as Singh does in her Tedx narrative.

I would probably be more circumspect in my thinking and speaking about the matter of “evil”.

I believe the “awesome God” I serve is evident in the deviant Donville Inniss, the Barbadian politician arrested in the US for laundering bribes he is believed to have received from a Bermuda owned, Barbados-based insurance company.

I see the “divine spark” in the “big brain”, vagina grabbing Trump and the notorious ideological flip-flopper Romney.

I see His, or Her, hand in former US president Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, a “big brain” flaw on his otherwise, mostly admirable gay rights advocacy.

But I will have to come back to this article later. I am need elsewhere, rather urgently.

In the mean time readers can track the trajectory of my logic by reading the open letter I wrote to the then British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2013.

On November 21, 2013 I published the following letter requesting his help in my fight against cynically secretive, character assassinating elements in the then Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Stuart’s government.

My second letter to the British leader, it was prompted by my at that time recent discovery of evidence implicating the prominent Barbados Member of Parliament Innis in a deeply cynical, destructive attempt to link Intelek International, my holistic communications and education consultancy, to the pornography industry.

In August  this year, Inniss was arrested and charged in the United States with “laundering bribes he received from a Bermuda-owned, Barbados-based insurance company”, according to the Barbadian media, quoting several reputable US news sources.

The corrupt cricketing of Inniss’ innings therefore seems to have attracted it’s just cosmic, karmic recompense.


Barbados Porn Prince Donville Inniss’ dirty mine? (Talibank thinking # 18)

Deconstructing Donville’s alleged deviance

Dear Prime Minister Cameron

I am using this opportunity to personally inform you of an extraordinary development in my on-going crusade to get justice for human rights abuses I have been suffering at the hands of the Barbados government.

As you may already be aware, last year I filed a petition with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights against some of the island’s political and other elites, led by current Prime Minister Freundel Stuart.

On Saturday November 16th I discovered evidence implicating Barbados’ Minister of Industry and International Business Donville Innis in the long-running campaign of character assassination and related intellectual property abuses that have led me to file that IACHR petition.

I discovered that, a pornographic website that has been linked to Mr Innis by Barbadian journalistic sources, is also linked to, a pirate-like “proxy” of my own website,

Mr Innis, a graduate of Harrison College, which roughly equates to the prestigious, character refining educational offering of Eton College, in this country, is therefore implicated in doubly-dirty data mining, for disgracefully purveying pictorial carnal knowledge and perverting another’s intellectual property.

In fact, as demonstrated in a video I have posted on my Facebook profile, is basically being used as a “portal” to The link is therefore implying that my website, – and hence, my organization, Intelek International, is involved in the pornography business.

You will find further details about this possibly game-changing development in my fight for justice in an article I published on Sunday, November 17th (see references below).

The article provides what is possibly the clearest evidence so far that Prime Minister Stuart and previous occupants of Barbados’ Illaro Court – the equivalent of the United States’ White House and England’s No 10 Downing Street – have been knowingly or unknowingly presiding over a malicious, sinister campaign to obstruct, pervert and possibly even destroy my holistic communications and education work by tarnishing my public identity.

For years I have known that Mr Stuart’s Democratic Labour Party colleague Margaret Gill, her University of the West Indies (Cave Hill Campus) colleague professor Sir Hillary Beckles and similar Harrison College, Combemere and other supposedly “better-school-educated” Barbadian academic, political, religious, media and other elites do not wish to see me succeed, for one reason or another.

For at least 20 years, I have had to contend with the indirect aggression, secret sabotaging ruses and open hostility of Barbadian and other Caribbean journalists, politicians, religious clerics and others who have been offended in one way or another by my open criticism of religious, political, corporate and other failings and foibles or anomalies that undermine democracy and wholesome morality in Barbadian and other Caribbean societies.

(And the fact that and are both registered to addresses in Jamaica is very significant in light of long-standing and current Barbados-Jamaica business and political relations.)

But only now, Mr Prime Minister, as I contemplate the implications of Mr Inniss’ connection with – as alleged by the anonymously published Barbados Free Press blog and not denied by Mr Inniss, significantly – do I have a sense of how far (north?) those who fear or hate me may have gone to sabotage my and Intelek’s prosperity.

And as I write these words I feel a profound concern for my twin brother Wayne and other members of my family in Barbados and those in England with me.

I am concerned at what lengths Mr Inniss or whoever is behind the link might go just to protect their public identities – even as he or they seek to destroy mine.

And for this reason Mr Cameron, I am asking for your office’s assistance, and that of Home Secretary Theresa MayJustice Secretary Chris GraylingForeign Minister William Hague, Viscount Younger of Leckie (who has responsibility for the Intellectual Property Office and preventing and reducing anti-competitive activities) and that of every other public servant and government department that can assist me in my fight against the enemies of truth and decency.

Given the apparent involvement of the Nation newspaper, the government-owned Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation and other Barbadian, UK, American and other national and global media interests in deliberately or inadvertently facilitating the extraordinary “conspiracy of silence” that has been a critical component of the personal and commercial identity “rape” I have suffered and am still being subjected to daily, I believe that contributions by the Rt Hon Maria Miller MP and Ed Vaizey MP of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport will be key to the outcomes of my fight for justice.

In a manner similar to how your Parliamentary colleague and my “twin brother” Andrew Mitchell’s recording and reporting of what he said in a meeting with representatives of the Police Federation is enabling him to salvage his good name from an apparent campaign of character assassination, I am looking to recordings and reporting by persons, organizations and processes in the Barbados, regional (especially Jamaican, St Lucian, St Vincent, Trinidadian and Guyanese) and international media (especially in the UK and US) for evidence of the Barbados government’s conspiracy to misrepresent, abuse and possibly destroy Intelek.

Just Monday, your fellow Tory Party member, Parliamentary colleague and advisor on child sexualisation and commercialization Claire Perry, said in an interview on BBC Radio 4, that there are digital traces, however faint, that can be used to track down those who trade and traffic in child pornography.

I believe Ms Miller and Mr Davey have key roles to play in ensuring that I can access similar digital and other traces and evidence that have been left in cyberspace and other spaces where misguided and/or malicious paedophile-like politicians, academics, journalists and priests have been busying themselves in bids to either misrepresent my work or consign me to anonymity.

I now have a “dialogue” of sorts going with the BBC, involving its Norfolk-based reporter Mike Liggins, and I am looking forward to whatever documentary evidence that organization may offer of contact between journalists and others in Barbados and England that may explain some of the difficulties I have had getting news houses in both countries publishing or even acknowledging information I have been sending them.

I believe those links may have been facilitated by an “unholy alliance” of trade union organizations, political parties and corporate interests in both countries.

And I feel certain that this is not the kind of “multi-sector collaboration” that former Barbados Prime Minister, Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford (possibly Barbados’ most beleaguered leader ever) and other architects of the island’s “tripartite agreement” tradition envisaged, incidentally.

I filed a complaint with the BBC Trust about its contribution to this apparent “embargo” against news from or about me recently.

And I working with other UK residents and citizens on a strategy to improve those who may feel beleaguered within or by the BBC.

I am also seeking the assistance of the US government, especially its Trade Department and American private sector interests – like Sloan Goane of the digital publisher Pulse Point, with which I already work relatively closely.

On Tuesday I published an open letter asking for Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s help exposing those behind breaches in my email security.

And I am waiting on a written record I have requested from Vodafone before I decide whether or not they have taken a complaint I raised about my mobile phone being hacked seriously.

I also hope to enlist the help of Andrew Walton and Samuel Wormleighton of England-based citizen journalist blog

Basically, I am stepping up all my efforts to protect the security and integrity of my internet use and presence.

Discovery of the apparent Labour Party link has prompted me to consolidate what I have been investing in my Intelek Domino Effect Associates (IDEAs) project.

And the IDEAs focus underscores the important point that I am not seeking your, your Ministers’ and others help for my own sake only, Mr Cameron.

I am acting on behalf of all Barbadians who suffer similar misrepresentation, character assassination and porn-industry-proximate degradation due to the unethical, morally bankrupt behaviour of Barbadian elites.

I note that the island’s current moral crisis has been exemplified most shockingly by revelations of financial infelicities and obscenities that emerged following the tragic demise of Prime Minister David Thompson, PM Stuart’s immediate predecessor and his and MP Inniss’ Democratic Labour Party (DLP) colleague.

I am asking for the sake of Barbadians whose African, European, Asian and other heritages are being “trafficked and traded”: whose collective and individual identities are being “raped and raided” by race-baiting, cynical, ideological pimps; persons pledging public service but who seem driven mainly by regard for their own appetites, ambitions and whims.

You know the kind of pornographic “public service” prostituting behaviour I mean, Mr Cameron.

It is the kind of behaviour that has greatly undermined the UK’s democracy: the kind of behaviour that BBC personality Russell Brand recently blamed for many English people’s apparent belief that voting to elect any Parliamentary representative here is an exercise in futility.

Such is the wider cynicism and disengagement that the impunity of a narrow, cynical, self-serving elite can breed in Barbadian, British, American, Canadian, Russian, Syrian, Chinese or any other society.

And I hasten to note, Mr Cameron, that I am merely citing and not endorsing Mr Brand’s view uncritically.

From my vantage point, Mr Brand’s cynical abandonment of the electoral process could be just as reprehensible as the perversion of that process by politicians, corporate interests, trade unionists, religious institutions and other groups or institutions that become entrenched, morally obese and not fit to function in a healthy democracy.

And I note the truly sad coincidence of former Cooperative Bank Chairman Paul Flowers’ drug and pornography use being exposed, even as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is proven to be a “King without clothes” – which shares reverse racial elements with the wig and dress wearing, attempted justice evading behaviour of deposed Jamaican drug king pin, Christopher “Dudus” Coke.

These and similar obscene “exposure performing” point to the current media crisis and opportunity of Western democracy: the chance to radically replace the cheap tricks that religious, political, media, education and other leaders have been turning, with radical engagements with reality.

And it is for the health of Barbadian and English democratic engagement that I beg your assistance primarily.

In my open letter to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and elsewhere, I have argued that there is a special bond between these two island states that transcend temporal and spatial boundaries.

Anything that you can do to help this Barbadian fight corruption in Barbadian society will redound to the benefit not only of all Barbadians, but also to the benefit of English society.

It will benefit people like Dr Rachel Turner and others who were raped in Barbados, robbed there or otherwise fell victim to the unscrupulous political, corporate, academic, religious and other parasites who seem intent on maintaining a “controlling interest” in the island’s beauty and bounty at any price.

Please help me expose and hold to account those pirate-like political and other plunderers who despoil the deeply rich, diamond-like, human capital treasures that all Barbadians, English people, Canadians and other honest, hard-working “ordinary” people everywhere represent.

Help me expose the political cynics and other pimps who traffic and prostitute our jewels for their personal enrichment.

Help me expose the small-minded, dirty-dealing Talibank thinkers of Barbados because they and others like them prey on vulnerable people wherever they find them.

For the sake of both our countries, Prime Minister, I beg you, please help me fight the “big-eyed”, small minded bullies that undermine both our countries’ demography.


Barbados Health Minister silent on US global child porn arrests

The story the Barbados news media won’t touch



Graham Norton’s money-muddled morality

Graham Norton
Graham Norton

According to an October 8 Telegraph article, prominent BBC presenter Graham Norton has labelled the decision to reveal how much he and other talent at the tax payer funded corporation are paid “pathetic”.
According to the article, published under an anonymous “Telegraph Reporters” by-line, “Norton said the disclosures were not in the public interest and had done little more than provoke ‘gossip’ about what people earn.”
The muti-award winning actor-presenter Norton is apparently unaware of or indifferent to the concern of this writer and others that he and other media stars’ influence on society can not only be excessive, but potentially poisonous, contributing to the mental health crisis that permeates British society.
This concern, raised by men, women, black and white, gay and straight, university students, academics, religious clerics, politicians, trade unionists, business people, bankers, parents and other persons of virtually every thinkable label and category stems from the relative omnipotence and omnipresence of the media, through 24-hour news cycles and social media penetration into personal spaces that traditional media had previously not reached, at least, not in ways that Google Analytics and other algorithmic measurements allow us to quantify and, significantly, monetize currently.
On June 6 this year, I raised the issue of “on-air” (including internet, newspaper and other print) media penetration and pollution at a meeting of the National Union Of Journalists Black Members body.
I told chairman Marc Wadsworth and others of my concerns that journalists and other media personalities are consciously or unconsciously contributing to a cloud of confusion that parallels the “air pollution” that the environmental activist legal firm Client Earth has sued the British government for, successfully.
I also raised the issue at the Digital Innovation In Mental Health conference convened by neuroscientist Becky Inkster, July 17th – 18th, 2018.
So as far as I and some other persons are concerned, the publication of Norton’s and other BBC staffers’ arguably excessive and possibly socio-economically corrosive salaries has not “done little more than provoke ‘gossip’ about what people earn”.


From my perspective, it has reinforced my and others’ belief that the internal bullying by some BBC prima dona personnel of their more vulnerable colleagues and other symptoms of morally muddled thinking and bankruptcy at the this tax payer funded corporation suggest that the lessons that should have been learned from the Jimmy Saville scandal are yet to be learned by Norton and others, at the expense of British democracy.
And I note Norton’s rise to fame through comic portrayals of Mother Teresa and other religious personalities.
The openly gay presenter, who has arguably built his career on sustained, unsubtle parodying of and attacks on conservative religious and secular notions of morality is apparently oblivious to the concern that I and other Judeo-Christian religious reformers and some less “sensational” gay people have that the generosity of spirit that makes us keen to defend the rights of gay people like him, Sir Elton John, Sandi Toksvig, Stephen Fry, Lord Alli and others is being taken advantage of and abused by them, consciously or unconsciously.

While some of us may empathize and be amused by Norton’s humorous description of himself on the Channel 4 website as a “shiny Irish poof”, we are nonetheless uncomfortable with the self-indulgent assertion on the BBC website that “his exceedingly camp style gives him the licence to be exceedingly rude without being offensive”.
It seems to me that this assessment smacks of the kind of flawed thinking that induced many of the sexual predator Saville’s colleagues to make excuses for and rationalize what they called his “eccentricities”.


Becky Anderson
Becky Anderson



Norton apparently thinks the insistence by the former Culture Secretary John Whitingdale and other MPs that the BBC publish the salaries of everyone earning £150,000 or more was unjustified because some information about his and other employees salaries was already in the public domain.

According to the Telegraph he said “The public transparency was already there. They’d already published what proportion of the licence fee is paid to on-screen talent. Now, that’s the bit that people should be interested in.”

But it seems to me that the extent of media psycho-social penetration into British citizens’ and residents’ affairs, aided by their political, religious, business and social media allies, at least, warrants maximum transparency on Norton’s and other “stars” part, correspondingly.

I do not just want to know how much CNN’s Becky Anderson gets paid: I want to know who she is sleeping with, especially if that is information she seems to be guarding jealously.

I do not just want to know what percentage of the mainstream media is gay: I want to know the extent to which their sexual orientation is influencing BBC programming and policy.

Has anyone developed an algorithm to measure the social impact of Norton’s “over the top” brand of gay humor on the perception of gay people generally?
Might there be a danger that he and other “cult icons” are exerting an overblown (“overthrown”, as in cricket), caricature cultivating rather than character building influence on gay people in the UK and other countries, especially Commonwealth countries like my native Barbados?
Might there be a danger that Toksvig and other prominent lesbian women are propagating fascist, fundamentalist feminist narratives and modelling misandry motivated, bigoted behaviors that are comparable to the narratives and behavior of blinkered, Bible, Koran or Torah thumping personalities?
Today, World Mental Health Day, is a good day to reflect on these and other questions that have implications for how we view all media stars’ entitlement to their often lavish salaries.


It seems to me that the technological-ethical “overthrows” and “misfields” of the supposedly secular BBC can be spiritually comparable to and just as psycho-socially divisive and damaging as the dogma driven media excesses of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and similar Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and other religious entities.
I trust that the members of Parliament sitting on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee are alert to these matters and their implications for UK citizens and residents’ mental health and the soundness, or not, of this country’s democracy.



Blasey Ford’s ‘one beer’, fog of fear and crystal clear memory – Cosmic Cricket – part 3

My Domino’s Pizza parallel court testimony

I get it.

I understand why Christine Blasey Ford may have difficulty remembering other details but be crystal clear that she only drank one beer the night she alleges she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, United States president Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

London EAT email
London EAT email

Over the past 30 years or so, I have cultivated a habit of only having one alcoholic drink, usually beer, when I go partying, so I can assert that fact about my partying with Blasey-Ford-approximating certainty.

However, other details of my partying over the last 30 days, let alone the last 30 years, remain foggy.
Ask me which night I last saw my Nigerian “friend” Akin out partying in Norwich and I would struggle to tell you precisely.

I can assert that I have seen him out in the past two weeks.

But I could not even say whether it was a Friday or Saturday night, specifically.

The same is true for information about the circumstances under which I failed to meet a deadline for filing papers that were crucial to a legal claim that I had been pursuing against Domino’s Pizza in 2013.

Last July, thanks to the UK Supreme Court decision in UNISON v Lord Chancellor, that legal battle has now been resurrected.

Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that my struggle for justice against the Goliath businessman Surinder Kandola, principal of DPGS Ltd, the UK’s biggest Domino’s Pizza franchisee, was unlawfully derailed, or “crucified” (as I would say in keeping with the Christological focus of my cricketing cosmology) by a law that required me to pay questionably instituted court fees.

The judges ruled that “fees for employment tribunals are unlawful because they impede access to justice, and defy the rule of law”.

They ruled that by instituting the fee-mandating law the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Gideon Oliver Osborne had exceeded the powers of his office, acting ultra vires.

The 2013 Order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) striking out my appeal against the decision by Employment Judge Robin Postle in my claim of unfair dismissal by Domino’s Pizza was therefore voided.

I was informed of this and invited to resurrect my appeal against judge Postle’s decision in an email from the London EAT dated 13 October 2017.

However, having decided to do so, I was then informed (or reminded; I am not sure, frankly) that I had not filed the documentation needed for my appeal on time.

And as the Skeletal Argument that I filed with the EAT on Friday, 5 October indicates, the main obstacle to the success of my claim against DPGS Ltd/Domino’s Pizza at this stage, may be my flawed memory.

But I am hoping that in an upcoming EAT hearing later this month the court will look beyond my failing memory and other pertinent proofs of my human fallibility at the overriding public interests in my claim: interests that I assert, as humbly as matter-of-factly, are attested to by the coincidences and “cross fertilizations” between Blasey Ford’s and my crises and opportunities.

These start with the “one beer” parallel and extend to the links between Domino’s Pizza and 2012 US presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
Readers may recall that his meeting with president Donald Trump in 2016 attracted substantial media scrutiny.

The links between the Mormon Romney, the US and UK Supreme Courts and former Chancellor Osborne, may seem vague or tenuous to some but they are crystal clear to me.

My Skeletal Argument

This case is about recognizing the limitations of the letter of the law. It’s about recognizing and grasping opportunities to make the law more responsive to the variable, needs of justice: the variable needs of justice rooted in the fleshy, fallible fact based variability of the human condition.
It is about making the law’s responsiveness or lack of reponsiveness to the imperatives of change and difference: making the law responsive to the requirements of realism, even as it maintains the immutable, “indifferent”, ideally unchanging character of the ideal that we call justice.
And if I correctly understand Niall Boyce, the founding editor of the Lancet Psychiatry, there has never been a greater psycho-social need for the law to be responsive to human variability because of the totalitarian, group knowledge aggregating, individual identity undermining tendencies of the technological environment in which we now find ourselves.
If I understand Boyce correctly, he believes that this technological totalitarianism stems particularly from Amazon’s, Facebook’s, Google’s, Twitter’s and other tech giants’ domination of the knowledge industry.
This case is about how other kinds of giants, and in this case, the global fast food giant Domino’s Pizza, can be complicit, consciously or unconsciously, in the totalitarian, group knowledge aggregating, individual identity undermining tendencies of the technological environment of contemporary living.
The principle questions before us, at this juncture, are:
1. whether or not the reasons for my failure to file my appeal by 16:00 on September 30, 2013 amount to “a good excuse”, as per the reasons tendered by the Registrar for her rejection of my request for an extension of the 42 day period I was given to file that appeal (page 20 of the bundle I filed for this hearing)
2. whether or not this is “a rare and exceptional case in which the strict laws on time limits should be relaxed”, again as the registrar has helpfully outlined in her reasons.

Like the Registrar, I am relying on the words and discirnible intention of Lord Justice Sedley in Jurkowska v HLMAD Ltd (2008) EWCA , where he opined that “anyone who is caught out by the 42-day time limit has, barring something quite exceptional, only himself or hersef to blame for leaving it so late to institute their appeal”.
Unlike the Registrar, I am contending that the standard of “something quite exceptional” applies in this case.
That something quite exceptional is, at least partly, the mental funk and psychological miasma in which I found myself, not just for the duration of the 42-day period in which I was required to file an appeal, but for much of the time since I was dismissed by DPGS Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza.
I am contending that especially on June 21, 2013, when Employment Judge Postle dismissed my unfair dismissal claim, I was subjected to a severe, cynical psychological onslaught.
I am contending that consciously or uncosciously, Employment Judge Postle perpetrated an eggregious act of indirect aggression against me that approximates the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, on a micro level, individual scale.
I am saying that given the perpetration of such indirect violence, continued and sustained by BBC reporter Mike Liggins and other individuals and organizations I have previously referenced elsewhere (pages 21 to 24 of the bundle I have submitted) and to which I would add Lloyds Bank, if I have previously neglected to list that fine institution, some observers might think the fact that I managed to file an appeal at all in 2013 is something of a miracle!
I for one, think that the fact that I remain of a sound mind despite all that I have suffered at the hands of Domino’s Pizza, Employment Judge Postle, the BBC and other entities is “quite exceptional”.
I think that contrary to the Registrar, the average, reasonable person, observing the specifics of this “David vs Goliath” battle, cannot help but conclude that it constitutes a “rare and exceptional case” in which the strict laws on time limits should be relaxed, at least for its public interest implications.
Those implications have as much to do with DPGS Domino’s Pizza’s links to the UEA, Michael Gove MP, Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and the current US president Donald Trump, as anything else.
As I indicated in one online campaign I started since my dismissal from Dominos Pizza, this case is about the identity and integrity of the Goliath “Raj Kandola” (as DPGS principal Surinder Kandola calls himself in at least one item of correspondence I received during the grossly flawed disciplinary process to which I was subjected by him, Vinod Veerajaksha and other DPGS Ltd personnel.
According to my research, Turner v East Midlands Trains Limited Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1470 has established that it is possible to fairly dismiss an employee for misconduct without direct evidence of his or her wrongdoing.
My question is, assuming that the “overriding objective” of the Practice Direction (Employment Appel Tribunal – Procedure) 2013, regarding “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”, is being followed in this instance, how much and/or what kind of circumstantial evidence will it take for the Registrar and the Employment Appeals Tribunal to be convinced that this case is on some levels, in some sense, like none other they have encountered before, or are likely to encounter again?
What will it take to make this court see that we may all be in the presence and process of creating a legal precedent?

To be continued….