Language limits “proroguing” my prosecution of a Fuerteventura pedophilia incident (Careful conversations)

Me and members of Spanish band Postcode

On the night of Friday, July 26 2019, two fourteen year old girls were sexually “assaulted” by an adult male as they sat chatting on a beach in
Caleta de Fuste, a resort town on Fuerteventura, one of Spain’s Canary Islands, located off northwestern Africa.

I use the word “assaulted” tentatively because while one of the girls, Shona Corbett was repeatedly touched on her shoulder, neither her nor her friend Lily Campbell (my daughter) suffered physical harm.

Their injury was mainly psychological, as they were made to fear for their safety. The incident may therefore satisfy the legal definition of assault, at least as far as the English legal system is concerned.

One online dictionary defines assault thus: “At Common Lawan intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

But the legal and language difference challenges are just the start of the communication and conceptual hurdles I am having to overcome in dealing with this matter.

The duty of responding to the assault as a parent intersects in complex ways with the burden of responding to assaults against my own person.

That duty is compounded by the burden of responding to Barclays Bank’s robotic, consciously or unconsciously racist, rapacious psychological offensive and other psychological assaults that I have suffered both before my visit to Fuerteventura and since my return to Brexiting Britain’s hostile environs.

Add to this complexity my mindfulness of my duty to prosecute the Fuerteventura incident as a matter of principle, for the protection of other children with whom that offender may come into contact, as I pointed out to Deborah Edginton, the Caleta De Fuste councilor for tourism, beaches, accessibility and citizen participation, and the weight of my intersecting ethical burdens become more apparent.

And yet amid the swarm of concurrent responsibilities, as I navigate the hurrying and harrying of this hurricane-like intersection of personal and social responsibilities I have access to the peace of the eye in the storm.

I have a sense of both the crisis and opportunity of this historical moment, as I recently indicated to a Norfolk and Suffolk Victim Support counselor who is helping me respond to the careless, and even reckless conversation behavior that I and others have been warning our contemporaries about for millennia.

I told her that while it is clear to me that some people in the UK seem keen to follow Israel’s and India’s examples in officially relegating some of their residents and/or citizens to a “sub-universal-human-rights” entitlement level, I will be honoring the commitment to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights for which Errol Walton Barrow, Barbados’ ‘Father of Independence’ fought in World War II.

University of Glasgow’s Sir Anton Muscatelli and University of the West Indies Sir Hilary Beckles

I am mindful of the violence being done to Barrow’s legacy, consciously or unconsciously, by the pedophile grooming approximating excesses of University of the West Indies Vice Chancellor Sir Hilary Beckles, demagogue-turned-diplomat David Comissiong, morally muddled educator Dr Sandra Richards’ and Garveyite apartheid approving academic theologian Dr Robert Beckford.

From my perspective, whatever legitimacy their and others’ rudimentary reparations advocacy and related African identity politicking may have achieved through the University of Glasgow’s embracing of their campaign does not detract from the great harm that hubris hardened advocacy has done.

I see very little ethical difference between that Spanish pedophile’s despicable sexual objectification of my daughter and her friend and the racial objectification that professor Beckles, Comissiong and others are subjecting present and past generations of Caribbean people to in pursuit of their “smash and grab” rape of Caribbean people’s reparations conversation.

And my use of words employed by England’s Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to describe the current British prime minister Boris Johnson’s audacious silencing of the British Parliament through prorogation is not accidental.

In September 2018 University of Glasgow historians professor Simon Newman and Dr Stephen Mullen published Slavery, Abolition and the University of Glasgow, a report which quantified financial gains of that university from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and recommended a programme of reparations.

Are they aware that the “Call and Response” exhibition which, according to its website “intends to continue the conversation by widening the range of responses to the archives, books and objects held in the University Library and The Hunterian” is in fact perpetuating the silencing of my and other critics of professor Beckles and other reparations hardliners voices?

The curators of the exhibition ask “What lessons can we learn from studying the cultural legacy of previous generations of University of Glasgow staff and students?”

Might they be willing to hear the lessons about racially motivated academic objectification and rape that I can share with them on the basis of the marginalization and mental anguish I have been subjected at the hands of Beckles and others who control UWI’s reparations research program?

Intriguingly, the assault on my daughter and her friend by the pedophile who, based on his appearance, I believe is in his late 50s or early 60s, occurred not long after the youthful Spanish band Postcode performed a song calling for better communication and understanding between their own and previous generations.

Might they be interested in the parallels I could show them between pro-slavery advocates’ discreditable, selective human rights arguments and conduct, Johnson’s coup like, predatory prorogation of Parliament and the legal and language challenges that have harried my pursuit of justice for Lily and her friend Shona so far?

Might University of Glasgow principal and Vice Chancellor professor Anton Muscatelli and others at that esteemed institution be remotely interested in engaging with alternative visions of reparatory justice, like the one I have been developing around the Gnubia Bank project.

Or might they consciously or unconsciously prefer to follow Barclays Bank, the pedophile “prorogating” Fuerteventura’s positive tourism prospects and others who perpetrate cruelty and degradation against vulnerable persons in defiance of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and similar, universally attested principles of care filled, careful conversation.

I note that the University of Glasgow was founded by papal bull in 1451. m

Might that university’s links to dead letter dicta of the Holy Roman Empire of old be playing some role today, as they apparently did in times past, when its profiting from the slave trade it objected to occured?

Might that university be interested in learning the lessons that I am arguably best positioned to teach them about principles of care filled, careful conversation, whether those principles exist in written (New Testament) or unwritten (New Covenant) form?

To be continued…

Is Barclays Bank bigotry poisoning the “oxygen of publicity”? (Technologies Of Trust #5)

I have two bank accounts with Barclays Bank. One is a business account and the other is a personal account.

But the conduct of some Barclays personnel has led me to consider closing both of those accounts.

Two of these Barclays employees have acted with such bewildering bigotry and extreme prejudice that they have compounded the sense of threat that I live with every day as a member of the Black Minority Ethnic (BME) community bracing for the belligerent, buccaneering British prime minister Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit.

The matter is currently with the Financial Ombudsman. Following is an extract of my complaint to that financial industry watchdog. I share these and other details of my Brexodus (Brexiting Britain) journey pursuant to my own cathartic writing and publishing processes and for the benefit of others in both the BME and wider, White British society who might find themselves in similar circumstances.

*************************************************************

Summary of my complaint

On July 5th 2019 I was bullied by a Barclays branch manager in Norfolk into accepting a dismissive, insulting monetary settlement for a complaint I had raised with that bank.

Having started out as a conciliatory conversation that made me feel heard and validated, my approximately 20 minute interaction with the Barclays Bank manager deteriorated into a deeply denigrating, intimidating experience.

The profound humiliation I felt at the time was reinforced by the presence of one of the branch manager’s subordinates, for whom the manager may have been “performing”, in a manner similar to the behavior of the disgraced former British soldier Andrew Blackman.

Mr Blackman, known as “Marine A” achieved notoriety when he summarily executed a wounded, defenseless enemy combatant in a grotesque show of “bravado” for two of his marine subordinates.

The manager’s excessively assertive, Marine-A-mimicking behavior unfolded when I requested some time to think, after she asked me to put a monetary figure on the inconvenience, anxiety and distress I had suffered because of some of her call center colleagues’ negligence.

Her colleagues had basically given me very bad advice leading to me not having card access to my bank account just as I was about to take my daughter on a four hour trip, to compete in a cheer leading competition.

I had already explained that I expected to be refueling my car at least once during the trip, so I would need card access to my money for that reason.

Dismissing my request for more time, the Norfolk branch manager refused me the opportunity to reflect on what I had gone through.

Asserting that Barclays has a standard quantum of compensation that they award in the circumstances, she left me with the impression that if I did not accept her offer, no compensation was available.

I therefore reluctantly accepted her offer on that basis.

However, as I reflected on her conduct over the next few days, I became increasingly dismayed at the way she had spoken to and treated me.

I felt prejudged and treated with disdain – like the vulnerable, wounded man that Blackman killed.

And if my comparison of the treatment I suffered with that of someone who was brutally killed seems extreme, think about what daily life can be like for a child victim of rape or a similarly “walking wounded” individual whose efforts to obtain justice are being persistently derailed and frustrated by people in positions of authority (police, politicians, journalists, religious clerics, for example).

I felt that despite asking me what I thought would be fair monetarily, the bank manager had assessed my worth and was determined to impose a settlement based on her own limited knowledge and value judgement.

I therefore raised the matter with Barclays via their Twitter customer service on Sunday, July 7th.

And as I informed the Financial Ombudsman earlier today, in my lay law opinion, the branch manager’s behavior may even amount to fraud by abuse of position or criminal negligence.

This opinion was strengthened by subsequent interaction with a Barclays level 2 complaint handler.

After explaining to that Barclays employee that if I had been allowed time to think, I probably would have sought to engage the bank in a mutually respectful and beneficial process, in line with the “Technologies Of Trust” project that I had already introduced to Barclays marketing department last year, that complaints handler accused me of trying to bribe the bank.

Could there have been a more poisonous, communication polluting characterization of my efforts to be conciliatory and constructive?

Is the concept of an articulate, intelligent and authentically generous spirited Black man so alien to Barclays?

Who is Barclays Bank confusing me with?

Is there some information in the data that Barclays holds about me that might justify that level 2 complaints handlers’ characterization of my “Technologies of Trust project as an exercise in bribery?

What could justify that characterization of a project I was hoping to collaborate with Barclays marketing department on as criminal enterprise, and me a fraud?

Why would Barclays pollute the the “oxygen of publicity” I sought to share with it?

To be continued…