“The volume of fraud impacting on the United Kingdom is growing in complexity and diversity. Those who commit fraud exploit and profit from misplaced trust and act to the detriment of the public through the serious harm they cause.” (UK College of Policing)
Dear Chief Constable Bailey
I write this open letter to share with you and the good people of Norfolk, my profound concern about the seemingly abysmal fraud detecting and deterring incompetence of some persons employed by Norfolk Police.
I preface my comments with the above quotation, taken from the College Of Policing website, to underscore the point that while I focus on a specific example of police incompetence based on my and one of my business clients’ personal experience, the consequences of this case for the Norfolk and wider UK public are much further reaching.
Indeed I know of a number of care providing business and voluntary (especially family) interests who have complained of similar difficulties.
Today I was visited by one of your officers who I informed of apparent Norfolk County Council complicity in what appears to be a race, religion and/or gender motivated criminal conspiracy that is endangering my psychological and economic wellbeing and that of one of my directly contracted Holistic Home Care and Hospitality clients.
I provided the officer with evidence of NCC’s apparently conspiratorial and fraudulent abuse of its position (as per the Fraud Act 2006) including,
1) NCC’s obstructive and possibly illegal use of Freedom of Information and associated legislation to withhold information from my client and I, and
2) the apparently coercive, manipulative influence it has exerted over my client and myself, aided and abetted at critical junctures by the questionable, possibly fraudulent conduct of some of my clients’ relatives, some of her other carers, the charity Equal Lives, and in one extraordinary instance, a female Norfolk Police employee.
Astoundingly, despite the provision of this evidence, your officer has said that as far as he is concerned there is no evidence of fraud in the situation I described to him.
He said he will refer the matter to his superiors but as far as he’s concerned I have no evidence of fraud, or even of the racial, gender or religious/ideological abuse I alleged.
Based on his overall confidently dismissive tone, I do not get the impression that he has fully taken on board everything that I told him so I am doubtful that his superiors will see past his subjectivity.
I am consequently now fearing even more than previously for my client’s and my psychological and economic wellbeing.
Moreover, I fear that this opportunity to robustly address the reputedly cynical, opportunistic and/or incompetent behaviour of some NCC employees will be missed.
From my perspective, this puts NCC’s more conscientious, hardworking, honest and authentically public-spirited employees at risk – which will in turn have the domino effect of eroding the already demoralized NCC’s capacity to provide quality care to Norfolk residents.
It will also encourage an attitude of cynicism and a sense of impunity among others outside Norfolk, including my client’s relatives, who do not reside in this county.
Please do not let this happen.
My client and I are at your mercy, CC Bailey.
I have sent copies of this open letter to politicians of the major parties, various news houses and other individuals and organizations who possibly could help.
But I am mindful that Mike Liggins of BBC Norfolk has dismissed me as a “crank” in the past.
And while the BBC Trust has given me cause to expect a reversal of the prejudice I have suffered at that state broadcaster’s hands, I am not taking anything for granted.
Also, late last year the Eastern Daily Press, which is running a campaign focusing on mental health informed me that it thinks that my story of the psycho-social challenges I experience simply by being part of Norfolk’s Black and Minority Ethnic community are “too personal” for its audience.
Moreover, as you will see below, my local MP Clive Lewis apparently thinks that I have the intelligence level of the kind of goat he once joked that he and Ed Miliband are not likely to be caught sexually assaulting.
So I really think that you may need to be my client’s and my “salvation” in this situation.
It is customary for some people to blame Conservative Party cuts for the police’s and other public servants’ failure to do their jobs with due care and attention.
Here is a case where the wholehearted and persistent efforts of a client who needs 24-hour care and her private contractor business partner to work collaboratively with NCC in a manner that would save it money have been dismissively spurned and contemptuously rejected.
What I find particularly astounding is that amid all their whinging about government cuts, NCC personnel are not seizing the opportunity to develop and duplicate the client-centred-funding care model I have introduced to them!
Or is NCC’s “seizure” of my Holistic Home Care and Hospitality model a subversive secret?
Before working with this client (I work with others), I approached NCC and sought their advice about a number of matters, including how much I might charge for my services.
I made it clear that I was as keen to be open, transparent and accountable in all my dealings with NCC as I am in my dealings with my client.
When it became apparent that the client was being put in an unnecessarily stressful and apparently exploitable situation by another carer, I turned again to the Council for help.
When my suspicions about that carer’s motives and competence were vindicated, after she apparently walked out on our client, I helped the Council redeem the precarious situation – and at considerable cost to my own health, at one time doing a few 24 hour shifts, because the client needs 24-hour care.
My reward for these exertions and sacrifices has been obstruction after obstruction by NCC Adult Social Services employees and other persons implicated here.
Even as these persons complained about the Council’s lack of funds to cover the cost of her care, they undermined and sabotaged my crowd-funding and other efforts to raise funds on the client’s behalf – efforts that I invited them to partner in.
It would appear that the Council, my client’s relatives, Equal Lives and other parties were more intent on crushing mine and my client’s faith in ourselves, in God and/or in humanity than anything else.
Actually, I have wondered if Norfolk’s reputed atheism, is to some degree responsible for the way NCC has dealt with my client and I.
And in a similar vein, I have noticed a schizophrenic, selective socialist aversion to private enterprise among some NCC staffers and some Norfolk NHS personnel.
I note the historic dominance of the Labour Party in Norfolk, and that political party’s Mitt Romney-recalling, political flip-flopping, Talibank thinking attitude to matters of faith and politics.
I particularly note the already cited, extraordinarily obscene and irreverent comment of my MP, Lewis, during the general election last year.
Sadly, I was subjected to a more subtle and subversive “obscenity” by a member of Mr Lewis’ staff when I visited his constituency office later last year.
He said Mr Lewis could not support my effort to have the Barbados government and its criminally conspiring international allies held to account for their violation of my human rights, especially those rights that pertain to my intellectual property, because it might cause a diplomatic incident.
Perhaps that Team Lewis staff member had heard of my deliberations with the London-based Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), the morally muddled (or at any rate slow-moving) Mick Thurley of the Roman Catholic Church or some other religious cleric, business person, public servant or other “minister” from whom I have so far only received excuses for inaction in this matter and decided to try to outdo their intelligence insulting claims.
At any rate the ethical confusion that seems to have overtaken the illegal drug-taking, long-time Labour member and ordained Methodist minister Paul Flowers, of Cooperative Bank scandal notoriety, seems to have infested that Lewis colleague’s intellect as well.
And when I reflect on what in retrospect looks like Mr Lewis’ opportunistic posing with religious clerics during the electoral canvassing period last year I am inclined to think the same of Mr Lewis.
It just goes to show that the claim to believe in God can be as hollow and fraudulent as many atheists’ claims to have a monopoly on sound moral reasoning.
CC Bailey, my ongoing research on the “suicide psyche” (with which you may or may not be aware) suggests that atheism, informed by an exaggerated, seemingly evangelical fundamentalist “stoicism” and secularism may well be a factor in the prevalence of suicide in Norfolk and elsewhere in the UK.
It seems to me that fatalism and fraud have become embedded in the minds of a significant segment of Norfolk residents.
If I might paraphrase the Christian apologist Malcolm Muggeridge, might it be the case that because some Norfolk police essentially believe in nothing (that is, in neither God nor other human beings) they will fall for anything?
I close with the following two paragraphs from the College of Policing document with which I opened.
They urge consistency in fraud investigation irrespective of ideological or any other persuasion:
“Fraud has been globalised and the reach of the fraudster has increased through the use of new technologies, enabling traditional crime to be committed in new ways through the use of computers, computer networks or other forms of information communications technology.
This advice is intended to support forces to provide a consistent response to investigating fraud.”
One might be forgiven for thinking that the only “diplomatic incident” Mr Lewis really fears is his own and/or other Norfolk and wider UK Labour Party members’ arrest and public disgrace.
First published on my Allvoices.com blog in 2013, the article below is the ideal follow-up to my recently published analysis of the speech Prime Minister Freundel Stuart delivered to launch celebrations of Barbados’ 50th anniversary of independence.
As I indicated in that article, whatever PM Stuart might think in his “heart-of-hearts” or say, as his conscience gives him leave, Barbados currently has a very thin veneer of democracy.
Our country’s democracy does not go very deep.
In fact, by my mustard-seed-science reckoning, Barbados’ democracy is probably about as deep, robust and thoroughgoing as global internet giant Google’s much mooted search engine independence and objectivity.
From my perspective, Mr Stuart and other Barbadian politicians, journalists, academics, priests and business people behave like military police, in much the same way Google’s search engine polices global commerce and democracy.
Retired Canadian diplomat Isaac Goodine who lived in Barbados for a number of years and was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by Barbadian and Jamaican academic, political and business elites can verify the relative partiality and consequent shallowness and impotence of Barbados’ democracy.
In an as yet unpublished booklet called “How Barbados Works”, Goodine has recorded the experience of how he and his wife were allegedly robbed of their retirement fund when they invested in a project called the Knowledge Development Institute (KDI).
Goodine was apparently deceived by Barbadian ‘business guru’ Basil Springer’s and other Bajan elites’ way with words and connections in the global knowledge industry.
Barbadians trade on their knowledge and academic achievements, which is a quite proper and legitimate basis of professional and other competence generally.
I am sure the current senior legal counsel and other executive leadership of the University of Illinois and Massachusetts-based Little South Church will agree.
But academic knowledge and achievement are a very unreliable measure of character, as I go to some lengths to explain in my essay “Informed Faith”.
Intellectual knowledge and related academic achievement are a very unreliable measure of personal integrity.
Take the Oxford educated Nobel Prize winning Trinidadian novelist VS Naipaul for example.
There is no questioning his purely literary prowess or pedigree.
But he’s a self-confessed “great prostitute man”, cheating on his deceased wife Pat serially.
He apparently also beat his long-time concubine Margaret Gooding on numerous occasions and bullied Pat and Margaret routinely, fatally undermining at least the former’s self-esteem.
And Naipaul has also prostituted the Brahmin faith, aided and abetted by the American fantasist Paul Theroux, a writer with whom he has had a fraught, long-running, on-again-off-again, love-hate literary partnership and rivalry.
And then there’s University of the West Indies Vice Chancellor Sir Hilary Beckles whose educational achievements are only surpassed, possibly, by his thinly polished, fundamentally self-serving Pan Africanist political intrigues and demagoguery.
And coincidentally, I understand that today at UWI’s Barbados-based Cave Hill Campus, professor Beckles will be delivering the opening address of the Inaugural Pan African Colloquium.
Beckles, Jamaican academic Horace Campbell, UWI Barbados campus’ principal Dr Eudene Barriteau and others will be gathering to discuss “Heroines and heroes of the back to Africa movements, Pan Africanism, African nationalism and global Africanism: Their philosophies, activities and legacies”
According to promotional material the Colloquium is intended to bring together scholars/researchers, activists and policy makers to “interrogate the philosophical, political, socio-cultural and economic thoughts and legacies” of their Africanist heroes and heroines.
Will they make time to “interrogate” how Beckles links to the British Labour and Tory parties, American Democratic and Republican party politicians and political activists, the CIA, MI6, Barbados’ CID and Jamaica’s judiciary may have conspired to have his son Rodney walk free after killing Jamaican Khalil Campbell?
I think such emancipated, unbiased, roundly and soundly independent “interrogation” is unlikely.
I could go on to list other political, race and religious racketeers – like the Nation of Islam’s Luis Farrakhan, Rev Franklin Graham, the late Holmes Williams of Barbados and Guyana’s Forbes Burnham – who are very knowledgeable and for various other reasons have excelled in their respective fields.
Goodine was apparently taken in by the business speculator (or should that be racketeer?) Springer’s PM Stuart-like eloquence and his connections in Barbados government offices and its business community.
And Springer, now based in Washington, in the USA, probably still trades on the fact that he is the son of late Barbados Governor General Sir Hugh Springer and the goodwill he enjoys among Trinidadian, Jamaican, Guyanese and other old and new moneyed Caribbean, British, Canadian, Brazilian, Indian, American and other elites.
And this is notwithstanding his connections to the scandalously, criminally mismanaged Colonial Life Insurance Company (CLICO), of which he was a one-time Director, I believe.
All these “beautiful people” are also tyrants and terrorists potentially!
And through their direct and indirect links to pornography peddling prince Donville Inniss, they are accessories to his sordid human rights violating activities – which, according to a number of sources that I am in touch with, are linked to the CIA’s and other shadowy international “security” briefs.
But these beauties enjoy a kind of iron-clad impunity by currying favour with media magnates like Rupert Murdoch and Barbadian puny press pontiffs Harold Hoyte and Anthony Bryan, apparently.
They are also aided and abetted by journalists and other writers like Theroux, who as Naipaul official biographer Patrick French demonstrates, has a PM Stuart-like “glib, greasy and slippery” grasp of reality.
And I have absolutely no doubt that most of these people mean well – at some level.
Like the Norfolk police officer in the video above, they probably are doing the best they can with whatever inherited or otherwise transmitted intelligence they have received.
Like my former friend and English-teacher-turned-economic-saboteur, Esther Phillips, they probably have not set out to perpetrate or encourage and thus become accessories to grievous intellectual property rights violations and related human rights abuses, but for various reasons get sucked-in to such criminal conspiracies.
Phillips’ case, possibly rooted in unresolved feelings of betrayal by and hostility toward her ex-husband and the vulnerabilities that emerged when he abandoned her and her then very young daughter, exposing them to Barbados’ predatory, opportunistic polity, is the subject of a forthcoming study.
Has she, like others, made deals with Donville-like devils, himself, like Naipaul, a self-contradicting victim of his own secular ‘scripture’ conceit (‘graphe’, the Greek word behind the English term ‘scripture, in the New Testament, simply means ‘written things’).
Many, like Beckles (and let me add Edward “Kamau” Brathwaite here) are socialist ‘sleep-walkers’ – like Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, who despite his best intentions seems set to do a ‘Byn Ladin-like 9/11 on his own much loved party.
Many are like some of Norfolk’s white female educators, women of extraordinary courage and compassion but whose grasp on reality, I have long noticed, may in certain circumstances, typically involving Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) males and, in related but differently configured contexts, BME females, be constrained by unconscious gender-sexual, racial and other creative connection seeking, justice motivated anomalies.
I’m currently researching a story in which such anomalies may have resulted in the death of a child in Norfolk.
But my investigation is being impeded by the possibly well-meaning but poorly informed intervention of some persons working for Norfolk Police.
As with Google’s Larry Page, Sergey Brin and that internet industry Goliath’s original financial backer Eric Schmidt (see below), their intelligence about my objectives and “ways and means” seems to be polluted or perverted by predominantly secular, short-sighted assessments of reality.
Like Amazon and Washington Post publishing potentate Jeff Bezos, and some of my former business associates in American academia, at the University of Illinois especially, they look down from their austere, intimidating destroyer-battleship like positions at me, in my colourful little Intelek Bajan fishing boat and assume I will be ‘dispatched’ easily.
And maybe the reprieve my associates and I have allowed Pulse Point-Allvoices’ Sloane Goane, Aki Hashmi and Amra Tareen has induced others to put their trust in Inniss-like, CIA or similarly buttressed impunity and security.
That’s the kind of error we make when we get preoccupied with the sizes of each other’s boats – and banks, as I expect Lloyds Bank’s Antonio Osorio may agree.
It’s not the sizes of the banks or boats or their transient human sheep-or-shepherd owners that matter most.
It’s their knowledge of and relationship to the one who owns and underpins every ocean of human endeavour: the one who sustains all who would walk on the sea.
Coupled with previous allegations of dodgy tax practices, the recent announcement that curious corporate model and maverick Google is “launching a venture to extend the human life span” allows an extraordinary comparison of the global media giant with Mother Gothel, the parasitic, pirate-parent villain in “Tangled”, Disney’s animated interpretation of the classic Brothers Grimm fairy tale, Rapunzel.
And this both blindingly brilliant and bewildering mirror imaging or matrix matching reaches super nova brightness when we consider that Google Inc. was born in 1998, “when Sun co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim wrote a check for $100,000 to that entity—which until then didn’t exist.”
What then, might we make of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin?
Should we think of them as modern Brothers Grimm, mixing light and darkness in seemingly spectacular, but at a profoundly sad level, predictable ways?
Are Brin and Page “angels of light” in a heroic, knowledge-sharing sense or would it be more accurate to apply this term to them in the “Princes of darkness”, demonic sense that we find in the Bible, at 2 Corinthians 11:14, which reads “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
Are Brin and Page leading double lives – one as heroic champions of free enterprise operating openly and transparently, in the full glare of the sun’s daylight, as it were: and another as nefarious nocturnal doers of questionable and maybe even criminal capitalist dark deeds?
Is the scandal of Google tax avoidance that came to the British public’s attention earlier this year merely the tip of an iceberg protruding from the Black Sea of rushed success?
Is it a symptom of Mitt Romney, wider US Republican and Democratic Party ideological rootlessness (approximating ruthlessness) and opportunism?
Is that Samuel P Huntingdon recalling scandal of pragmatism a proxy of the vacuous, vision-constrained and constricting values that underpin the trans-Atlantic slavery reparations bid now being spearheaded by some of my dimly lighted Barbadian and wider Caribbean compatriots and colleagues?
Having said the essentials of what I have to say about Africans’ complicity in that complex, “dark net” trade, I have sought to avoid revisiting that blight of Barbados’ bright black educational, political, religious and other luminaries.
But I cannot help but wonder if those Pan Africanist publishers and “Pietists” have considered how much of the reparations they are seeking will go toward those poor blacks not only forced to cross the Middle Passage but also forced through white men’s sperm and black women’s ovaries to “pass” for whites in colour-coded, constrained and constricting societies.
Those compelled by black penises’ and white vaginas’ glee, to “agree to disagree”, settling their differences amicably.
Oops! Have I let the cat out of the Red Plastic Bag?
Have I resurrected my paternal grandmother, Marion Campbell’s ghost and that of the right, white father my father Geoffrey Campbell never had?
Have I embarrassed Rihanna, that good gone bad diamond that Barbados Prime Minister David Thompson thought he had.
In whose soil the rapacious farmer Donville Inniss would sow his pirate planter’s seed.
I could not insult these untouchables. They are impervious to my poetry.
These ebony erections of Dionysus’ ecstasy only know Derek Walcott’s “White Egrets”, not the “White Regrets” of the dramatist Bob Marley, lamenting his own melanin deficiency.
These intoxicating theatrical twists transcend millennia, not mere centuries.
Have the Herbert Dyer-like high achieving, quietist choir masters – who sing from the same sad sheet, silencing dissenters, assassinating characters and otherwise violating principles of proper, prophetic speech – considered how their poisonous pigment-playing pedagogy is perverting the purity of babies?
Or are they, like that Lost Prophet, blind, blighted Ian Watkins and the Richard Dawkinesque daughters who cuddled him even as they poured icy water on their babies.
The black and white mothers who, insisting on fuelling their own heat, lay their neonates in the snow.
Like Mother Gothel, googol, upon googol, over and over it goes.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has demonstrated that Google’s answers can’t always be trusted.
On the crucial question of child safety, Google apparently reneged on its commitment to “Do no evil” – a strangely negative wording for Principals preoccupied with doing good.
Maybe Page, Brin and Eric Schmidt are trying to get the “best of both worlds”.
Maybe, they are proximate parallels of ice-bound Eric Snowden, espousing ethical, open enterprise, while dealing in their own Dark Net Dresden?
My father-poet, Edward “Kamau” Brathwaite might empathise.
He once said we all have our enigma.
His truth certainly lies.
And I’m sure my truth is perforated with paradoxes.
But I don’t believe that all truth is relative.
“Online information intermediaries such as Facebook and Google are slowly replacing traditional media channels, thereby partly becoming the gatekeepers of our society,” says Turkish technology academic Engin Bozdag, in his paper “Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization”, published online with Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht this year.
He says “To deal with the growing amount of information on the social web and the burden it brings on the average user, these gatekeepers recently started to introduce personalization features – algorithms that filter information per individual.”
His paper seeks to “show that these online services that filter information are not merely algorithms. Humans not only affect the design of the algorithms, they also can manually influence the filtering process even when the algorithm is operational.”
I believe that someone at or close to Pulse Point, and therefore with access to my business partner Allvoices may be doing a similar kind of “filtering” of my stories.
I suspect that person or persons may be sabotaging my work in that manner at the behest of some Barbadian, Caribbean, British, American, Canadian or other blood-sucking, youthful energy sapping Gothel who apparently thinks they have some proprietary right to my intellectual property.
I have a catalogue of evidence of such nefarious internet and mobile phone hacking and “filtering” activity that I have been reporting to England’s National Crime Agency and will be communicating to Pulse Point Principal Sloan Goane imminently.
I anticipate that Mr Goane and Pulse Point, which has a London office that I have visited, coincidentally, will be keen to cooperate with British authorities fully.
I note the apparent inability or unwillingness of Google to provide Allvoices writers like myself the analytics that would enable us to holistically measure the reach of our intellectual property work, not just the number of views or “hits” we’ve had daily – as important as that metric is, for those of us who desperately need every fraction of a penny we should rightly receive.
I note the unethical and possibly fraudulent, criminal coincidental and continual character of such a breach of Google’s much mooted knowledge-sharing purpose for being, and segments of Barbados’ government, media industry, religious community, education and corporate sector’s apparent determination to either make me unknown or cover me in infamy.
I marvel at how the unethical dark data mining and dastardly dirt dishing that persons involved with the Peoples Cathedral, where I once worshipped, Voices: Barbados Writers Collective, which I helped found, the Men’s Educational Support Association, of which I was the first Secretary, and other Barbados-based organizations and movements I have been associated with over the years, seems to have spread like an evil virus throughout the length and breadth of the international community – virtually.
I marvel at how the “failure” that Charmaine “Nailah Imojah” Gill, Peter “Adonijah” Alleyne, Anthony “Mighty Gabby” Carter and others in Barbados’ apparently determinedly self-destructive, Talibank Thinking “creative” community have assigned my and Intelek International’s name has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Like a self-constricted and constrained Google search, these online and real world assassins expose their self-harming circularity.
Like the late Prime Minister Thompson’s, the results of their restless searching are predictable, sadly: “Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).
Meanwhile, I continue to thrive by the grace of God, especially when I am most in need.
Like Peter Farnum, formerly of Youth With A Mission, and one of the many profoundly, authentic Christians of whose mentoring and “pastoring” I am a beneficiary, I am being nurtured in an ever deepening knowledge that God’s grace is sufficient for me.
So while you may occasionally find me whinging about how the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press, or some other political, religious, scientific, corporate or other “intermediary” has been side-lining or sabotaging me, you are equally likely to find me making lemonade of the lemons thrown at me.
Alternately, while I may occasionally be found bragging about the books I have written or published, the citation of my writing by Wikipedia, my British legal system circumventing “unmasking” of Ryan Giggs’ identity here on Allvoices, or the inclusion of my contribution to the Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions that was published recently, you are equally like to find me exalting the Most High in genuine humility.
It is the Father and Mother of Lights, who sustains my life – my Barbadian Light and Power – that I am preoccupied with mostly.
As I was saying to two friends in Norwich recently, like BBC’s Melvin Bragg, I too have a preoccupation with my greying mane. My midlife-crisis is already upon me.
And it may be the case that the blackening of my head by Barbados’ alleged pornography-peddling minister of Industry and International Trade Donville Inniss and other Barbadian political “blight lights” is now having the unintended, Bragg-like hair colouring effect of imbuing Intelek International’s work with a kind of longevity.
Still, should Google succeed in “solving death” or aging, as Time magazine reported they are minded to do recently, I don’t think I’ll be queuing for their or any similar scientific offer of eternity.
I am more or less content in my time and flesh – the three score and ten assigned most of humanity.
And besides, given my connection to the Most High through “the Way and the Truth and the Life”, aided by an empirically tested, historically grounded, continuously cutting-edge faith technology, I believe I enjoy the gift of eternal life already.
I believe we all do, essentially.
As C.S. Lewis writes in his atheistic, Aryan-supremacist-rebuking book Mere Christianity,
“There are no ordinary people…it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit.”
“He spoke from his heart…We were just discussing what a great speech it was.”
This is how the speech delivered by Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Stuart during the launch of celebrations to mark the country’s 50th anniversary of independence was described by Sandra Hinds, a member of his secretarial team.
I called the prime minister’s office on Thursday evening to request a copy of the speech as I prepared to respond to claims he made about the impartiality of Barbados’ judicial system and the soundness and sustainability of its democracy.
Needless to say, based on my own and others’ observation of the impunity that some Barbadians like Donville Inniss enjoy, I am not sure about the authenticity of Mr Stuart’s statements.
I imagine that many Barbadians who have seen how partial or paralytic our court system can be in its dealings with, for example, the CLICO monetary ‘abuses’ of Stuart’s predecessor the late PM David Thompson, would want to challenge those and other claims made by Stuart and echoed by most who spoke during that launch ceremony.
Sadly, Stuart and many other Barbadians seem to have difficulty facing their own and others failings.
They tend to excel in superficial, simplistic analysis of those failings or ‘sins’ and the long and short-term impacts they have had and can yet have on Barbados’ development.
Hence, the rather disappointing suggestion by PM Stuart that some people are demanding perfection of Barbadians while being poor models of perfection themselves.
Could he have framed that argument in more clichéd, thought-tiny language?
Could he not have come up with a more original and rigorous way of expressing that idea: a more robust scale or framework by which to assess and measure the expectations and standards by which Barbadians analyze our country’s progress since the relative independence achieved in 1966?
What is ‘great’, to quote Ms Hinds, about that defence by Stuart of Barbadians failings?
It doesn’t suggest a very deep reach into his heart by the PM.
It doesn’t suggest, for example, that Mr Stuart is familiar with the idea that “perfection” is more of a process than a point of personal or national development.
Might not Barbados’ High Commissioner to the UK, Reverend Guy Hewitt, or some other prominent Barbadian cleric have informed the PM that in the well known passage of scripture “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48) the Greek terms behind the English translation invoke pursuit of a goal, rather than its attainment?
Might not regional Anglican potentate Dr John Holder, himself a Barbadian, have previously informed PM Stuart of this more historically informed and accurate mode of biblical interpretation?
Or should we conclude that while Mr Stuart is a Queens Counsel (or QC, like Cherie Blair and therefore presumably a legal practitioner of some standing) he has never been exposed to that level of religious or spiritual teaching?
More worryingly still, might it be the case that having been exposed to such teaching PM Stuart has not retained the basics?
Might the soil of his heart have proven so shallow, hard or barren as to have squandered or rejected such small beginning, mustard seed sized educational investments?
Our Prime Minister is clearly familiar with the idea of receiving, retaining and rejecting biblical education approximating banking lessons.
Unless I am mistaken, he advised Barbadians to employ a three-fold framework of receiving, retaining and rejecting aspects of our national heritage as we contemplate our island state’s future prospects.
This clearly more studied, possibly pre-rehearsed proposal is something of an improvement over the simplistic “imperfect people asking us to be perfect” comment that preceded it.
But Stuart’s apparently glib, greasy and slippery grasp of what it means to pursue perfection does not inspire confidence in his ability to lead Barbadians in a truly rigorous, robust process of measuring moral development or progress.
On the contrary, what it suggests is a degree of moral myopia and bankruptcy.
It indicates ethical erosion and the anchorless historical drifting.
It evokes the dripping or spitting of essentially empty words from the mouth of one who, in ethical terms, is only superficially educated.
From my perspective, it puts PM Stuart’s speech, and the political mouthing of Opposition leader Mia Mottley and many of their DLP and BLP associates (including persons like University of the West Indies Vice Chancellor professor Sir Hilary Beckles, prominent poet Margaret Gill, politician David Comissiong, educator Esther Phillips, journalist David Ellis, Rev Sonia Hinds and others with whom I have had significant interactions, in a rather lamentable regional and international context.
Essentially, it lumps their words with Hilary Clinton’s extraordinary 2008 fantasist account of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire in 1995.
That military incident appears to have happened only in Ms Clinton’s head.
And few would vouch that as she uttered or berthed that item of artificial intelligence she spoke from her heart of hearts, her deepest, most holistically self-understood self in that instant.
Stuarts and other Barbadians apparent failure to understand that being perfect is at least as much about a course of travel as arrival at any destination lumps their and narrowly nationalistic, critical analysis dismissing defence of Barbados’ shortcomings with the mainstream media-puffed, much over-rated speech delivered last year by British Labour Party power-broker Hilary Benn in the English Parliament in defence of David Cameron’s proposal to intervene in Syria to bomb ISIS.
He may have been generously applauded by Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP and other Parliamentarians, but I can’t conceive of his father, anti-war icon Tony Benn being particularly proud of him in that moment.
At a substratal linguistic, and especially pragmatic and semantic level, Stuart’s speech recalls the African supremacist pro-reparations (for trans-Atlantic slavery) money mongering arguments of the UWI Vice Chancellor Beckles delivered at the United Nations New York headquarters, Chicago University and other unfortunate openings in recent times.
And the term ‘abomination of desolation’ comes to mind here, as the killing of Jamaican Khalil Campbell by Beckles’ son Rodney in 2007 is whispered in my conscience.
Sadly, such deeply deplorable, even sacrilegious abuses of public spaces by profane speech acts seem to have become all the rage since 9/11.
Among these metaphorical, ISIS approximating ‘public beheadings’ and other short-sighted, opportunistic obscenities, the crowning of Trinidad born and initially bred, Oxbridge and wider British elitism prejudice fed writer VS Naipaul with the Nobel Prize for literature in 2002 stands out poignantly.
Has human intelligence, measured in terms of morality, spirituality, scientific inquiry or any other rubric ever been more profanely prostituted than when it was associated with the dark, devious machinations that were conceived in Mr Naipaul’s head?
I do not wish to be unkind to the aged Mr Naipaul, Prime Minister Stuart or anyone else with whom I have taken issue in this essay on the measurement of human progress or perfection.
I’m simply saying that if Barbadians are to stand any chance of ever achieving the kind of global leadership that Mr Stuart and others may rightly desire for us, they and we will have to give up the cognitive and affective industry avoiding laziness that inclines us to complacently and glibly ‘measure ourselves by ourselves’, to paraphrase the apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 10:12).
Such simplistic, Adolf Hitler and Forbes Burnham recalling notions of independence and integrity lump Barbadians with the demagogue Donald Trump, the Talibank thinkers Mitt Romney and Luis Farrakhan, and a range of other Jamaican, Trinidadian, Guyanese, British, American, Canadian, Indian, Nigerian, Malaysian and other morally bankrupt political opportunists.
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-teaologyjustified 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 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,
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
My name is Junior Campbell and I am an England-based Barbadian holistic communications and education specialist, trading as Intelek International.
I came across your work on the Tradition.org website on Sunday, August 9th while researching the Our Lady of Fátima divine visitations and ‘apparitions’ that graced the lives and burdened the shoulders of three Portuguese children in 1916 and 1917.
By a process of divine providence, I have been prompted to ask you this question: if we operate on the assumption that “All truth is one” (even as “God is one”), as articulated by ancient Christian, Egyptian, Islamic, Jewish and other metaphysicians, may we reasonably expect to find some connection and possibly even a correlation between those visitations and apparitions that happened in Fátima, Portugal in 1916 and 1917, and the increased seismological activity around the Portuguese “passed-over” Caribbean island of Barbados?
I am convinced that we should do exactly that, and with some urgency.
I am convinced that by ‘mapping the coordinates’ of persons and events with marital, ancestral and other ties to both Barbados and Portugal, Christians and other “believer brides” around the world might discern what the Spirit of God is saying to us at this crucial, earth-core-uproar juncture in our history.
And that for Barbadians, who have recently been experiencing an alarming upsurge in earthquake activity, such discernment could be a matter of life and death.
One prominent individual with links to both Portugal and Barbados, whose coordinates I have been mapping is the British popular music and Christian symbol Sir Cliff Richard – who is also suspected of paedophilia, latterly.
I believe that Sir Cliff, who has been a British-Barbadian citizen officially for some time now, is a geopolitical and spiritual “bellwether” of sorts – or one might say bellewether, considering speculations around his sexual orientation.
Having an anchor in the Afro-Asiatic spiritual wellspring (he was born in India to British parents) as does rock band Queen front-man Freddie Mercury, another study in “Musical Mariology”, (that mercurial soul has ties to Tanzania and India), Sir Cliff’s intellectual property-pivoting toward the Americas’, and his links to United States evangelist Billy Graham particularly, locates him in a particularly precarious geopolitical zone – as do his links to former British PM Tony Blair and the Bush family.
My burden, as a Barbadian, is to relieve Barbados’ substratal tensions: to quieten the core discord and quarrels bequeathed us by our Amerindian, African, European and Asian (especially Indian, Chinese and Japanese) legacies.
As a Barbadian, I have a peculiar claim to the legacy of Errol Barrow, Barbados’ “Father of Independence” who preached a gospel of non-aligned movement: friend of all, satellite of none.
Where the Fátima apparitions centralized the Consecration of Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart therefore, my burden, received in a tantric state as a child, on my bed in St Hill’s Road, Barbados (during what secular physicians call an “epileptic fit”) is to call for the Consecration of all nations to the Immaculate Heart of Hearts in humanity, all around the world.
Bound to, and buoyed by this burden, I would reconcile Boudica to Ogotommeli: Odin to the Jinn; Jove to his vanishing twin Anansi
With metaphysician Celia Deane-Drummond perhaps, although the collaboration of Dr Peter Roberts, one of my Linguistics “father figures” may be presumed more likely, I would reconcile Yahweh to Allah and Brahman to Nyame.
I would work with you too, to relieve the tectonic pressures that push human ambition, like Mount Everest, to Nepalese futility.
But who can awaken a scribe like VS Naipaul from his fateful, fantasist sleep prematurely?
It appears that the ‘Metamorphosis of Narcissus’ must run its course: those Everest-like egos do their worst, until upon Tanzania’s Mount Meru, they are purged of petty epiphanies.
How shall we ascend the Hindu’s mythical Meru, if we treat that material mass of the African animists with antipathy?
“Love is an open circle” Khalil Gibran says. But some think commitment means others must be excluded.
I cannot make a Lucknow-like pact with you, at the expense of my commitment to William Minarik’s and other scientific seismological sensibilities.
Should I disregard or devalue a truth I see in Aboriginal totemic thought, the essential ore under their linguistic gloss, to give deference to your and other moderners’ Roman Catholic cosmology?
If I did that many of my Catholic neighbours in Norfolk would be ashamed of me.
I am grateful to you for a lot of the information you provide on the Tradition In Action website. And I share a number of your concerns about what modernist movements are costing Christianity.
However, I fear that contrary to your intention, you may be undermining Christ’s fundamental commandment that we should love one another – especially those of us who propose to teach.
In the epistle attributed to the biblical writer James we are warned, accordingly, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)
This is the burden – the tradition – of humility.
Dr Horvat, I am concerned that in your zeal to preserve what you believe to be the core principles of Roman Catholicism you are obscuring and undermining the very foot paths that Christ left us – as much when he walked on water as on Jerusalem’s dusty streets.
I believe that your attacks on Pope Francis and other “progressives”, as you call them, plays into the hands of those who would do the Holy Father and others who share his modernizing views harm to appease their own conceit.
I cannot imagine that you want to reinforce the violent and virulent anti-Christian opinions of the Islamic terrorist group ISIS.
I feel certain that you like I am appalled at the inhumane exploits of the Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorists.
Yet I detect in your prioritizing of Roman Catholic “tradition”, as you seem to understand it, a severity bordering on those two groups’ brutally reductionist interpretations of Sharia law.
In your deference to Roman primacy, I detect a Dylann Roof-recalling, opportunistically (consciously or unconsciously) critical, socially poisonous, self-destructive flaw.
In the gospel attributed to Jesus’ most kindred-spirited disciple, John we read, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34)
And again in the first epistle attributed to the beloved John, who lay his head on Jesus’ breast, we read, “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” ( 1 John 4:7)
Based on your view that Protestants are not Christians, for example, and your rejection of the “generosity of spirit” behind the Vatican II ecumenical innovations, you seem to be making light of those “love centralizing”, foundational passages of scripture.
You seem prepared to shed the blood of Christ all over, to establish a more firm foundation than that established by Nazarene.
In your keenest to erect an earthquake proof ideological cathedral, you seem prepared to reject the living cornerstone of the gospels.
What is the source of your extreme anxiety about modifications to the Latin mass (“modifications” might not be the right word here)?
Is there anything more substantial than perhaps the puritanical parenting of an ill-at-ease married couple and a morally repressive, regimental childhood behind your apparent propensity toward Taliban-thinking-approximate Roman literalism?
These are the kinds of questions a number of your views have raised, though again, I do share some of your concern about abortion and other issues around family life and biology minimizing gender theories.
As [link=https://korebelief.com/rocking-san-andreas-and-britains-magma-carta-hyperbole-semantics-seismology-and-psyche-part-1/]my Korebelief.com project indicates [/link], I share with you a concern about how the seminal, seismic ore at the core of the earth is accessed and conceived.
I share with you and other Roman Catholics a focus on family as an arguably [i]a priori[/i] source of all human ecology: the key to the sustainable socialization of the sons and daughters of the earth.
Concerning inner and outer traditions and tremors
But I have not always been so catholic or universalist in my thinking.
I have not always enjoyed and endured the bitter-sweet-fellowship burden that I now share with Roman Catholic friends and associates in my native Barbados, in Norfolk, England where I currently live and elsewhere.
Some details about the Barbados-based “seminal” sources of my seismology and semantics fusing science will therefore be helpful here.
By describing the kind of tectonic shift that brought me to what we might call my ‘Lady of Fátima interface’ last year, I hope to enrich your understanding of the geo-psychic, spiritual dynamics that the Bible speaks of in John 3:8, where we read “The wind bloweth where it listeth and though we hear the sound thereof we know not whither it cometh or whither it goeth”.
Fundamentally, through this series of open letters, I hope to help you, other Roman Catholics and indeed people of all secular and religious faiths everywhere deepen your understanding of what it is to “live and move and have our being” in God (Acts 17:28).
But details of how I was (and am) born again – and again, and again, and again…will have to wait until my next “love” letter, dearest Dr Horvat, when I shall offer a fuller documentation of my earthly and heavenly parentage.
“Monday’s do or die court case – expected to last for up to six months – will centre on the issue of whether Lloyd’s was deliberately fraudulent or simply full of failings.”
So reads a February 26, 2000 Guardian article about a crucial stage in the then long-running asbestos claims saga that brought the historic Lloyds of London insurance market to its knees from the mid 1980s to the dawn of the new millennium.
I discovered this article on July 29, less than 24 hours after I reported Lloyds Bank’s suspected fraudulent closure of my [b]Intelek International[/b] business account to England’s [b]Action Fraud[/b] police unit.
I made that report with a heavy heart, after weighing evidence of what might be Lloyds’ accident-prone incompetence against evidence implicating it as a deliberately devious accomplice in the Barbados government’s criminal conspiracy against me.
From my first reading of the Guardian article, the similarity of Lloyd’s insurance’s past and Lloyds Bank’s present precarious positions, both detrimental to the [i]uberrima fides[/i] or utmost good faith business basis on which these kindred corporate giant’s trade, was immediately apparent to me.
In fact, unknowingly echoing the Guardian’s questioning, tentative tone in a July 20 email to Lloyds Bank CEO Antonio Osorio I had written, “Lloyds’ persistently callous, intermittently incompetent conduct obliges me to consider that your venerable 250 year old bank has either entered some kind of racketeering pact with my Barbadian and other aggressors or is (sic) united with them in purpose by some kind of superficially ‘coincidental’ cosmological conspiracy.”
I persisted “How else might we explain the fact that, in the exercise of its perfectly legal and legitimate commercial discretion, Lloyds’ discharge of its fiduciary obligations to me has been virtually identical with that of my Barbadian governmental and other adversaries’?”
It makes clear my reluctance to think the worst of Lloyds, despite significant evidence suggesting that persons employed or associated with that bank have been treating Intelek with contempt since I first opened my business account with them on April 2, 2009.
And by the way, those familiar with my first “Malcolm In the Middle” article will appreciate how deeply April 2 resonates with me – and perhaps with matrix Dr Philomena Harris-Mohini, Barbados’ current ambassador to India and mother of prominent Barbadian insurance executive Peter Harris.
I have been engaging with Dr Harris-Mohini in a process of organic, prayerful, redemptive reflection and reconstruction, in which the “Malcolm In the Middle” article was the first Steppe.
My letter to Osorio also makes clear my desire to use the current impasse between Lloyds and Intelek as an opportunity for similar respectful engagement and mutual benefit.
Incidentally, I believe that kind of engagement depends significantly on the kind of forthright, honest and empathetic communication I expected but never received from my Lloyds business Relationship Manager, Daniel Brindley.
And I note that there was no transcript or other record of the one conversation I had with Mr Brindley during the three years that my Lloyds account existed, among the Data Access sourced information that Lloyds eventually surrendered to me, following an intervention by the Information Commissioner.
Against the backdrop of this and other betrayals by Lloyds of the fidentia it preaches but has so far failed to show Intelek, my letter invites Mr Osorio to collaborate with me on a “beauty from terror” rehabilitation or reconciliation of the Lloyds-Intelek relationship, essentially in line with the pattern of spiritual and material degeneration and renewal (believers’ “boom and bust”, basically) that my book The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled (TBBTR) explores in an ecclesiastical and wider religious historical-political context.
It is not only my articulation of this crisis-and-opportunity-managing principle in TBBTR that has excited the envy and ill-will of Barbadian, British, American, Canadian, Indian, African and other principle-plagiarizing business bullies, political opportunists, racial racketeers, religious rapists and theological thieves who oppose me.
It is also and more importantly my application of it in my dealings with Barbados-based religious power house Peoples Cathedral, the Surinder Kandola UK-based stake in American corporate Goliath Domino’s Pizza and other private and public sector individuals and bodies.
It is my bona fide banker-like faithfulness to, investment in and stewardship of this principle for which Barbados business minister Donville Inniss would take credit and usurp the good-will I am due by maliciously associating the Intelek brand with pornography.
And I note that Barbadian literary luminary Esther Philips (née Inniss), a former English teacher of mine, echoes Inniss, by apparently attempting to take credit for my literary-arts-boosting contribution to Barbados’ contemporary cultural renaissance, while debiting my account with “porn prince” MP Inniss-like obscenities.
I invite Mr Osorio to stand with me against theirs and others’ excesses.
Fundamentally, my letter to Mr Osorio demonstrates my keenness to find an essentially pro-creative, spiritual rather than judgemental, legalistic solution to my dispute with Lloyds, in line with the principle of respectful, open, honest engagement that Brindley, Inniss, Philips and others who are consciously or unconsciously conspiring with the Barbados government to deny me my human rights continue to deny me.
And I must note here my regret that assessment officer Juliana Huiza of the Financial Ombudsman’s Office does not so far seem to see the essential re-productive value in my pro-creative, holistic, business-relationship-roots affirming and mutual-benefit-route sustaining perspective.
Her assessment of my complaint currently consists of a rather literalistic, events-dissecting, gay-parenting-like separation of Lloyds legal obligations from any moral principle or social responsibility context.
I should also make it clear here, as I do in a recent article on the subject, that while I do not have an issue with gay people, gay marriage or gay parenting from an adult, informed choice perspective, I do believe that gay parenting presents unique challenges that “equal marriage” advocates seem recklessly keen to side-step.
Huiza’s assessment and pending decision not to uphold my complaint, as she has informed me via email, seems guided by a rather shallow, rash and rudely “romantic”, evangelical fundamentalism-approximating interpretation of Lloyd’s trust obligations to me and other clients.
It seems informed by the kind of critical thinking obstructing, easy believism that I deplore in my Informed Faith essay and commend Mr Osorio on his apparent keenness to avoid in my letter.
Before reading my letter to Mr Osorio though, some background into the Lloyd’s Insurance alleged fraud crisis that I’m comparing Lloyds Bank’s suspected defrauding of Intelek with will be helpful, if only to see what other legal, metaphorical and other analogies, echoes or parallels it might yield.
As Wikipedia records, in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s, Lloyd’s insurance went through “perhaps the most traumatic period in its history” as unexpectedly large legal awards in US courts for punitive damages led to large claims by insured persons, with some claims dating as far back as the 1940s.
Wikipedia calls asbestosis/mesothelioma claims under employers’ liability or workers’ compensation insurances “the classic example of long-tail insurance risks”.
I see a sort of parallel with the “tall-tale”, truth twisting, arrogance-anchored risk being taken by the principle-prostituting and “plagiarizing” Inniss and his political, religious, media, business and other allies who are apparently banking on lies, racial and religious prejudices, among other things, in [link=page::12hxnscn]their long-running campaign to undermine my bona fide banker-like believability[/link].
But unlike the Lloyd’s insurance case, the risk-taking, entrepreneurial excesses of the subprime mortgage lending crisis, the more recent still Libor rate-rigging spectacle and other banking scandals, Lloyds Bank’s fraudulent abuse of my trust – its woeful failure to deliver on the [i]utmost good faith[/i] that it promises myself and others – is largely going unreported by mainstream news houses.
Apart from my lone voice, more or less crying in the wilderness, there is a deafening silence around my struggle for justice.
And this is despite several efforts, including a recent press release, a visit to Broadcasting House in London, and other measures, to have the BBC, the Associated Press and other mainstream news media report on the Lloyds-Intelek predicament or any other aspect of my intellectual property and wider human rights abuse struggle.
So in addition to Lloyds’ asbestos-air-polluting-like, bad-faith-borne blocking of the mutually respectful and beneficial banking relationship that could have nurtured my entrepreneurial self-belief and enhanced Lloyds’ claims of supporting my and other small businesses’ aspirations, I have also been forced to contend with British, Barbadian and other media houses’ apparent determination to deny me the “oxygen of publicity”.
I therefore felt fully justified when I started tweeting #ICantBreathe, #ICantBank, likening my dilemma to that of the fatal victim of apparent New York police racial prejudice Eric Garner.
I also draw this breathing-banking analogy to Mr Osorio’s attention.
And my subsequent discovery on July 24 and tweeting, of a WeSwap.com currency trading ad depicting a policeman in a banking role has not only reinforced my sense of justification but also strengthened my faith in the God-ordained (or good-ordained, take your pick) timeliness of my one-man campaign to help Lloyds radically reform its operations, on one hand and rehabilitate Intelek-Barbados government relations on the other.
But then the occurrence of a number of earthquakes and aftershocks in Barbados on July 15 to which my letter also draws Mr Osorio’s attention, had already left me in no doubt that the Lord of the Cosmos (or the Cosmos, take your pick) was conspiring with and not against me.
Indeed, my fundamental conviction that God’s will is more crucial to Intelek’s success than Lloyds’ or any other bank’s or being’s “good will” has not been arrived at frivolously.
My faith is fed by more than 33 years of similar more or less miraculous, superficially mundane and metaphorically spectacular interventions.
And around this time last year I was “visited” by Our Lady of Fatima – an exquisite encounter bridging Mr Osorio’s Portugal and the Norfolk coast.
Awake or asleep, I am perpetually feasting on a heavenly feed of inspiration, as I intimated to journalist-academic John Naughton just yesterday (August 5), asking if he and his Cambridge University conspiracy theory studying colleagues have considered how theories of the “collective unconscious” might be relevant to their work.
The fact that I saw the WeSwap.com banker-broadcaster-copper (BBC?) ad on the London underground, that bit closer to the earth’s core, metropolitan reality was therefore just gravy on the particular meal to which I am currently being treated.
Incidentally, the “BBC” logo pictured behind Inniss in the screenshot featured here is not related to the broadcaster that shares that acronym – at least not directly.
It’s the logo of the [i]Barbados Bottling Company[/i], a division of Banks Holdings Limited (BHL), the island’ largest beverage conglomerate and a “discrete” heir to Barbados’ rum and alcoholism legacy.
Like the broadcasting BBC, the Bajan bottling company operates in a position of privilege and dominance, by virtue of BHL’s extraordinary historic links to the Caribbean’s and especially Guyana’s alcoholic beverage house and banking industry.
And BHL’s flagship product [b][i]Banks Beer[/i][/b] (still my favourite lager) might be compared to the BBC’s Radio 4 by those who, like the mystic in me, are at risk of being intoxicated by and addicted to shadowy “knowledge currencies”.
BBC information hag Melvyn Bragg comes to mind immediately.
And here’s an item of knowledge that might catch Messer’s Bragg, Osorio, Inniss and other knowledge bankers fancy: through its historical links and current partnership with Guyanese firm Banks DIH Limited, BHL has a proprietary interest in both the UK and US financial industries.
But readers should not expect to hear anything about the history of that rum related “idea” from Mr Bragg or anyone else at the BBC any time soon, however telling BHL’s direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious proprietary interest, through the Royal Bank of Scotland-related Citizens Bank Guyana Inc may be.
It is as telling, I suspect, as Barbados High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Guy Hewitt’s links to the Church of England.
Or his, Inniss’, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, historian Hilary Beckles and other Democratic Labour Party and Barbados Labour Party politicians’ links to England’s Tory and Labour parties, the British Royal Family, the London-based Socialist International, the Commonwealth Secretariat and other UK institutions.
But assuming nothing, as I do, and being particularly careful not to be a bigotry banking teller of tall tales about anyone’s ethnic origins, sexual orientation or intellectual pedigree – my regard for the eighteenth century mystic and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda, if nothing else, would not let me – I bank first and foremost on God, the Governor General, next to whose mystic movements RBS’ first Governor, Lord Archibald Campbell ‘sand his more militarily distinguished brother Field Marshall John Campbell’s exploits figure minimally.
Having witnessed firsthand the fraught, procreation-sidelining, gay-parenting approximating, plagiaristic, trust depleting deposits and withdrawals of the arts administrator and educator Philips, Nailah “Lie-e-lah” Imojah, Margaret Gill, Elizabeth Best and other Barbadian literary artists (that is, their efforts to establish careers on the basis of tall tale claims about ideas they and their religious, political, commercial, media and other allies conceived) how could I indulge in such high sounding, low-minded belief?
I would not assume that Lloyds is guilty of defaming and defrauding me simply because of its direct or indirect, historical or present links to Barbados’ or any other Caribbean country’s banking, alcoholic beverage or insurance industries.
I would need more than Daniel Brindley’s possible links to Unite or any other British trade union before I initiate civil proceedings against Lloyds, as a litigant in person potentially.
The Intelek vision is not and never has been short-sighted or short term.
The message of TBBTR, an extract of which was published by the University of Illinois, in the Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions (2013) is fundamentally about openness to knowledge, not fear-based assumptions.
By God’s grace and inspiration, I continue to bank, breathe and earn.
I thank God for the love, good-will and trust of my “ex-wife” (separated) Sharon, our children Lily and Luca, my brother Wayne and other family members.
I thank God for the good-will, prayers and well-wishes of members of Elim Pentecostal Church in Norwich, retired Canadian diplomat Isaac Goodine, academic-artiste Alicia Saldenha and other business associates, friends and acquaintances around the world.
With or without Lloyds’, Barbados PM Stuart’s, conspiracy-theory tracking journalist John Naughton’s, ambassadors’ Hewitt and Harris-Mohini or any other limited, human assistance, I continue to learn.
Since sending Lloyds CEO Antonio Osorio the letter below, I have also raised my concerns with England’s Action Fraud police unit.
While reluctant to pursue this legal course, I felt obliged to do so as Timothy Trood of Lloyds Customer Service Department seems intent on trivializing my concerns.
I’m hoping that the publication of this letter and related efforts will persuade Mr Trood and Mr Osorio to re-think the course on which they’ve embarked.
Dear Mr Osorio
I’m aware that you’re a busy man so I’ll be as brief as I can.
Some weeks ago I purchased an automotive side mirror from a Halfords outlet in Norwich, Norfolk, where I currently reside.
The young man who served me was so affable and keen to help that I didn’t mind too much when I subsequently discovered that he had got the product wrong, obliging me to return to the shop to replace it.
My graciousness or ‘generosity of spirit’ (as my Anglican friends might call it) probably also stemmed from the fact that I didn’t have to drive too far to get back to the store, when I discovered the error.
The main point I want to make though is that it does matter how you do things, especially if you don’t achieve the desired outcome.
I thought of that young man today as I prepared to write you about the closure of my Intelek International business account by Lloyds in 2012.
I’m not questioning Lloyd’s exercise of its commercial discretion. I get that.
I’m questioning the way the account was closed and all the other “insults” before and after that.
Consider the relative contempt shown me by your colleague and my “Relationship Manager”, Daniel Brindley (exercising his discretion?) before the account’s closure, and you will have an idea of the depth of my sense of grievance.
And this is apart from the question of Lloyds’ possible complicity in a campaign of character assassination and commercial sabotage that Barbados government officials, religious clerics, academics, entrepreneurs, trade unionists, journalists and others in Barbados, the Caribbean and wider afield have been waging against me directly (and indirectly, against my immediate and extended family, business associates and others in Barbados and the international community) for more than 25 years now.
As I said to your colleague Steven Mercy (or is it Murphy?) of Lloyds’ complaints department on Friday, July 17, I thought that Lloyds would be standing with me against those malicious, misguided opponents of my aspirations.
Instead, Lloyds’ persistently callous, intermittently incompetent conduct obliges me to consider that your venerable 250 year old bank has either entered some kind of racketeering pact with my Barbadian and other aggressors or is (sic) united with them in purpose by some kind of superficially “coincidental” cosmological conspiracy.
How else might we explain the fact that, in the exercise of its perfectly legal and legitimate commercial discretion, Lloyds’ discharge of its fiduciary obligations to me has been virtually identical with that of my Barbadian governmental and other adversaries?
And that was before I spoke to the intriguingly, and I believe providentially named, Mr Mercy.
That article therefore makes no reference to Lloyds’ deviation from what Mr Mercy said is its normal courtesy of consulting customers whose trust it has violated, about how it may make repair or remedy.
This deviation from Lloyds’ normal, established practice is just one reason why I believe I am justified in comparing the contempt for Intelek thus implied, to the contempt that successive Barbadian Prime Ministers (including Owen Arthur, David Thompson and the incumbent Freundel Stuart) and their British, American, Canadian, Jamaican, Indian and other political, religious, business and academic allies have shown and continue to show me.
Mr Osorio, I understand that you have some theological training. I shall assume that you undertook that training pursuant to an at least moderately aspirational piety.
In his foreword to my book, “The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled”, prominent Barbadian historian Trevor Marshall characterizes that text as a pursuit of the “quintessence of spirituality”.
Based on the implied essential compatibility of our pursuits and aspirations, therefore, Mr Osorio, I am hoping that you will partner with me to demonstrate that though some people may be motivated by malice and envy (like Joseph’s short-sighted brothers, of biblical record), the Living God, in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) can turn their division-breeding, intimidating, terrorizing (Talibank Thinking) behaviour into a conciliation catalysing thing of beauty.
As my July 14th article cited above makes clear, I believe this profoundly.
Time and again, in my own and others’ lives, I have seen God make miraculous advantage out of adversity.
So please urge your colleagues to desist from their opposition to my aspirations. Please urge them to release their oppressive choke-hold on what I and others who know me believe is my divinely ordained destiny.
Please collaborate with me to remove any cause for suspicion that the globally renowned Lloyds Bank brand is intentionally or unintentionally complicit in some Barbadian and other powerbrokers’ perverse policing and aggressive, unjust, Eric-Garner-approximate arresting of my Intelek aspirations and inspired advocacy.
Mr Osorio, I believe that God, in the exercise of the unique, divine discretion that we call grace, is presenting Lloyds and Intelek with a once in a millennium opportunity to demonstrate how mightily he can move to right the wrongs suffered by those who like I, in humble, childlike faith, are seeking his face daily.
Please exercise your discretion for, not against me.
Please side with me, and through me, with all the oppressed and marginalized who suffer similar abuse of their human rights and affronts to their unique, God breathed (inspired) intelligence and dignity.
Please help me break the racist New-York-police-recalling stranglehold that my Barbadian adversaries and their allies would have Lloyds tighten around my throat.
If the earthquakes that shook Barbados days ago are a guide to go by, your affirmation of my Intelek’s worth will not benefit my intellectual property only. I note that earthquakes in Barbados tend to be twinned by similar shakings here in England, recently.
Thus rooted in my belief in the interdependence of the material and spiritual world, my work to encourage a fairer, more ethical exercise of Lloyds’ and other banks in the UK, US, Barbados, India and elsewhere will go on, irrespective of Lloyds’ support for my efforts or not.
But I would rather that Lloyds and Intelek could establish some kind of principle centred, mutually affirming and beneficial synergy.
Isn’t that the purpose of banks of old? Isn’t that compatible with the fidenia that Lloyds and other banks would forge?
I therefore look forward to hearing from you at your soonest opportunity.
Update: Today, July 16th, two days after I published the article below, there have been 5 earthquakes in Barbados.
According to Barbadian historian Karl Watson (who I mentioned in the first article published on this website) the earthquakes occurred between 07:00 and 15:00 local time.
That’s 5 earthquakes in approximately 8 hours.
Please pray for Barbados.
Pray especially for Prime Minister Freundel Stuart that God will give him the humility and wisdom to cease and desist from the sinister silencing and suppression of truth that forces the Living God to make “rocks cry out” (Luke 19:29-40).
The Intelek bank account closure, which may be totally unrelated to the Caribbean-based criminal conspiracy, has been causing me deep and intensifying anxiety for a number of years and is now with the Financial Ombudsman.
But I am hopeful that a police investigation will soon follow and swiftly bring closure to the question of Lloyds’ “bankrolling” of the race-racketeering by Caribbean, British, American and other politicians that has plagued my work.
Resolution of that broader, more long-running human rights abusing, racial, religious and gender differences-exploiting issue dates back to my 1980s dispute with Barbadian political, religious and fundamentalist feminist power brokers.
It therefore predates the creation of the Intelek bank account with Lloyds and I am hopeful that Lloyds will partner with me in my long-running struggle for justice.
But I am only just beginning to understand the irregularity of a series of unexplained decisions the tax-payer-rescued Lloyds has taken to the detriment of Intelek’s business prospects.
These decisions suggest that strategically positioned Lloyds employees and/or affiliates are deliberately conspiring with Barbados business minister Donville Inniss and his international labour union, media, religious, business and other allies to destroy my Intelek business brand.
Still, not being the type to make reckless assumptions about the “average man on the street”, far less a global banking giant like Lloyds, one of Britain’s “Big Four” banks I have been reluctant to link that institution to the diabolical, deep-seated, long-running campaign of character assassination and other violations of my intellectual property and related rights that led me to file a human rights abuse petition against the Barbados government with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2012.
But the closure of my business account combined with
1) previous evasive and contemptuous behavior by my Lloyds business manager Daniel Brindley and other Lloyds executives
2) the suspicious disappearance of official documents related to the closure of my business account
3) other behavior which violates Lloyds’ own internally established administrative protocols and publicly stated principals and
4) evidence of Lloyds links to the international labour movement have forced me to consider the deeply disturbing possibility that Lloyds is directly or indirectly linked to Inniss and other persons who want Intelek discredited or destroyed.
In other words, I have been forced to consider this mindboggling possibility because Lloyds did not just close my Intelek account without properly notifying me. (One source with a rival bank has informed me that such discourteous divorcing of small business clients is worryingly widespread in the banking industry.)
Lloyds has apparently also sought to cover-up the irregular, suspicious Intelek account closure by first ignoring or “diverting” a request I submitted to it under the Data Protection Act 1998 about the account termination and then by refusing to honour a second DPA request I submitted last year.
Lloyds’ rejection of that second request, which I submitted on the advice of the Information Commissioner, came in a letter (pictured above) dated 28 November 2014 and signed by Joanne Blake, of its Data Subject Access Requests department.
The Lloyds letter affirms my right under the Data Protection Act 1998 to “all personal data held electronically and to data held manually that is in a ‘relevant filing system'”.
But it then says Lloyds is unable to supply me copies of any notes or paperwork it holds about the closure of my Intelek account because “this data is not classed as your personal data and therefore not covered by the rights of access under section 7 of the data protection act 1998.”
It took an intervention by the Information Commissioner, pointing out that “Intelek International” is my trading name, and not a distinct legal, impersonal entity to get Lloyds to recognize the legitimacy of my request.
Moreover, not content to violate my rights under England’s Data Protection laws, Mr Simmons or someone else at or affiliated with Lloyds felt obliged to pour salt into the widening wound Lloyds was inflicting on its fiduciary relationship with Intelek (and through Intelek with other tax payers and members of the British public) by withdrawing its banking facilities from me.
It is this seemingly arrogant, calculated, contemptuous and cynical adding of insult to injury that links Lloyds’ treatment to that of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association member Inniss and my other race-racketeering detractors in Barbados, the wider Caribbean and beyond.
I also sense traces of that callous, sinister sentiment in the silence of Karen McKenzie, Acting Head of Human Rights at the London-based Commonwealth Secretariat.
I turned to the Commonwealth Secretariat for help when my IACHR human rights abuse petition was derailed on a “technicality”.
Having initially shown an interest in addressing my human rights abuse complaint against the Barbados government, when I first approached her at least a year ago, Ms McKenzie has apparently been stonewalling me ever since.
Like Inniss and others, including my recently elected local Member of Parliament, Clive Lewis (possibly), Ms McKenzie seems to be pursuing a zero-sum, silent treatment policy, rather than engaging with me respectfully, mindful of what I and my Christian support network might call the interdependence of the greatest and the least in the Kingdom of God.
Like the recently installed, hubris flawed Vice Chancellor of the University of the West Indies Professor Sir Hilary Beckles and his race-racketeering, history hijacking fellow champions of trans-Atlantic slavery reparations (including the similarly tragically flawed current leader of America’s Nation of Islam, Luis Farrakhan and various Barbadian and other Caribbean extreme-left leaning Pan Africanist militants), Lloyds seems determined to undermine the value of my races-reconciling, conciliatory, peace-making work.
How else might one explain the supposed existence of a “peace-making” letter that Lloyds claims to have sent me on April 3rd?
I have not received that letter and first heard of it during a conversation with a Financial Ombudsman adjudicator on July 7.
According to the Ombudsman’s investigator, in that letter Lloyds is supposed to have offered me £100 as compensation for any inconvenience I suffered as a result of the closure of my Intelek business account.
I think this figure says a lot about the little that my former Lloyds business manager Mr Simmons and his colleagues think not only of my peace-making work, but ultimately of my overall worth, as a black businessman.
It seems that they are ignorant of or indifferent to the importance of the work I do to promote what I call the “continuum of character” in human endeavour across racial, gender, religious, political, media, business, education, health and other identity “codes” and distinctions.
The £100 offer gives the impression that Lloyds does not understand or appreciate the Christian-care-motivated, inspirational work I do, giving hope to people like idiosyncratic Parkinson’s disease sufferer Janice Gurney.
It suggests a failure by Lloyds to appreciate the risks that I face as a black man seeking to provide ethical entrepreneurial and wider leadership in the predominantly white, deeply race-divided (to the point, in some instances, of being unconsciously racist) Norfolk community.
The £100 suggests that Lloyds has no inkling of or could not care less about the snubs, stonewalling and other abuses I have suffered at the hands of BBC Norfolk, Norfolk Constabulary, the Future Foundation (which operates Future Radio) and business people like Anne Francis, of the feminist business support organization Prowess and Kevin Mackay, founder of Norfolk-based internet services provider Acehosts.co.uk.
It recalls the £1000 that I was offered by Surinder Kandola of DPGS Limited, trading as Domino’s Pizza, to sign a non-disclosure agreement after that company punished my Barack Obama-like, capitalist reformer’s hopeful audacity.
Incidentally, it also recalls a “going away” gift of $100 (Barbados currency) I received from my former English teacher Esther Philips, of Barbados Community College, in 2006, when I was moving to England with my wife and infant daughter (we now also have a son, born in 2009).
In retrospect, having only recently begun to understand the contempt that Ms Phillips apparently has for my simultaneously nationalistic and internationalist Barbadian linguistic and wider cultural advocacy, I now wonder if her gift was intended as some kind of “hush money”.
Lloyds “loan” of £100 (I’ll shortly have “repaid” that with interest many times over, thank to Lloyds £25 overdraft and other fees I pay dutifully) smacks of the short-sighted, ideologically inflexible, bigoted, fundamentalist Talibank Thinking that I attributed to Mr Obama’s 2012 presidential rival Mitt Romney, when he cast aspersions on the character of 47% of the American voting public, virtually.
Basically, it is the kind of subtly colour-coded insulting and mocking I would expect from the race-racketeering United Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage.
It seems spiritually akin to the crotch-grabbing presumption attributed to Labour Party ‘kingmaker’ Lord (John) Prescott by Linda McDougall, wife of Austin Mitchell, Prescott’s party colleague.
It smacks of the zero-sum, suicide-bomber-like reasoning that I denounce in my book “The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled and other products and services I offer as part of Intelek’s social cohesion building holistic communications and education consultancy.
I am hopeful that Lloyds Chairman Lord (Norman) Blackwell and CEO António Mota de Sousa Horta Osorio will think it prudent to look into my grievance personally.
I expect that Lord Blackwell, a former advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher will be keen to demonstrate that Lloyds’ claims about “Enabling businesses to create jobs and opportunity” and equal support for large and small companies is not hollow PR, essentially.
I expect the Tory party peer will want all Lloyds employees to demonstrate a genuine, rooted, and fruitful core belief that “businesses are the lifeblood of the UK, turning ideas into reality, which in turn creates jobs, investment, and a dynamic future” for this country.
I trust that he and the theologically insightful Horta-Osorio, a former lecturer (like the BCC Ms Phillips) at the Catholic University of Portugal, will agree with me that whether motivated by racial, religious, political or similar disputes I may have become involved in since moving to England in 2006, and whether linked or not to the Barbados-birthed campaign of character assassination I have been fighting since the 1980s, the closure of my business account and subsequent evasive and insulting behaviour of Lloyds strikes at the fidentia (Latin for ‘confidence’) that Lloyds seeks to inspire in its own operations and in the British economy.
I am a firm believer that every crisis presents an opportunity.
I believe this is an opportunity for Lloyds to demonstrate an ethical, entrepreneurial sensitivity, rather than revert to the xenophobic, dehumanization of black people that characterized Lloyd’s slave trade facilitating genesis and history.
My dispute with Lloyds certainly seems to have opened doors for the Financial Ombudsman adjudicator that will be taking over my case from the adjudicator I spoke to on July 7th.
I trust that the new adjudicator will find my former business account manager Mr Brindley more forthright and forthcoming than I had.
Mr Brindley and others at Lloyds seem convinced that self-destructive, twisted Talibank Thinking will enhance their credibility.
I and other believers are praying that Lord Blackwell, Mr Horta-Osario and others will work with me and my Christian support network to liberate Brindley and others from any educated presumption or prejudice that may dispose them to such delusions.
But again, I will not be making any rash judgments about possible Lloyds’ links, direct or indirect, to corrupt Caribbean and Commonwealth religious clerics, educators, trade unionists, parliamentarians or feminist political activists.
Indeed, if I put my long-running “rumble” in Barbados’ political jungle at the centre of my seismology and semantics conflating scheme of event analysis, that news item hardly moves the needle. It’s just a tremor.
I may be a poet, but I’m not unduly preoccupied with metaphors.
I am first and foremost a cosmologist in the metaphysical Christian tradition who seeks to engage with reality in a simple, straight-forward manner.
I am therefore more inclined to note events that Barbados’ Nation and Barbados Today newspapers, the BBC, CNN and other news houses are unlikely to report.