DAY 4163: THURSDAY OCTOBER 25TH 2012
It has been a funny old twenty four hours.
It is reasonable to conclude that a government would know it was acting beyond reckless by removing warmth and shelter that would place an immune system under such severe stress it could lead to anything, including death.
And so it is pretty ghastly that Boris, in having C.UK the private security firm filming his own very deliberate breaches of health and safety, does make it seem, from where we are standing, like he is filming a snuff movie.
Later Steve and I went to the High Court.
At a case management, of one of our civil claims, The Commissioner's brief, Mr F, was straight out of the starting blocks, spluttering on about my supposedly illegally recording court proceedings, which he was saying the Attorney General had told me to stop.
As I pointed out, there was an allegation, we had addressed and understood the Attorney General was investigating...something ?
The possibility of our campaign mounting a class action with members of our campaign joining all our various claims together to show what the government had done over the years to try to - remove - the campaign was mooted.
It seems that while - on the one hand - it is not difficult for the state to repeatedly cause damage, the state are not so enthusiastic for people to join what in the case of our campaign would be a very many proceedings.
Subject: Tucker -v- The Commissioner of Police Case Number HQ12XC1972
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:21:07 +0000
Case Management Conference – 24 October 2012 at 10.30am
Dear Master Kay QC,
I attach a draft order that I have prepared following the Case Management Conference this morning.
I look forward to receiving a sealed copy of the final order from the court in due course.
If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Partner Weightmans LLP DDI : 0151 242 7949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION Claim No HQ12XC1972 BETWEEN: Master Kay Q.C.
BARBARA TUCKER Claimant
THE COMMSSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS Defendant
UPON HEARING THE CLAIMANT IN PERSON AND SOLICITORS FOR THE DEFENDANT IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant is to serve any Reply to the Defence in this matter on the Defendant by 4pm on 2nd November 2012.
2. The Claimant is to give standard disclosure in accordance with CPR 31 by List on or before 4pm on Friday 9th November 2012.
3. Inspection of the Defendant’s documents will take place at the offices of the Defendant’s solicitors at a time to be arranged between the parties but by no later than 23rd November 2012.
4. The parties will serve on each other the witness statements of those witnesses of fact whom the wish to rely on at trial together with any Civil Evidence Act Notices if applicable by 4pm on Friday 21st December 2012.
5. The case be listed for a second Case Management Conference not before on 9th January 2013 not before 11am.
6. The costs of the Case Management Conference be costs in the case.
Dated 24 October 2012.
After we left E121 and Master Kay, Steve Jago and I went to Court Three in the Royal Courts of Justice, to hear a case succintly being put by a Mr Chamberlain in which he was saying, that government policy (in this case UK policy on drones)must comply with law, before Lord Justice Moses.
Government "policy" complying with...law !!
The government's weasel Mr James (first port of call for the state) Eadie QC came across dreadfully to any human being when he played the government stooge doing duck and dive anywhere to help the government avoid that thing called responsibility....towards safeguarding ...human..life.
It was truly disgusting to hear him talk about human life in terms such as what was considered murder in Country A was not necessarily considered murder by Country B and so on.
Mr Eadie QC had to concede however that N(either)C(onfirm)N(or)D(eny) could not be an absolute but had no idea when asked, where the bar on that one might lay.
What we watched only made us more certain how important it is that people can record and broadcast what is really said in courts along with the way it is said, so people have the opportunity to understand how the state really look upon the lives of others.
What was interesting is that Lord Justice Moses accepted that the war in Afghanistan was legal, whereas the truth is that it is a war of aggression and so it is not legal.
What follows from the fact that the war in Afghanistan is illegal is that of course - any - policy by the UK government to share intelligence for drones is then illegal.
Later, Neil and Steve swung by the Health and Safety Executive, before they went to Westminster Council.
Above is a record of the phonecall that Neil then had with Mr Pufulete of the WCC Legal Department.
Meanwhile later, back in Parliament Square, we saw one (remote controlled drone) flew over the cuckoos nest across the road, putting them all in a flap.
It seems Parliament has rather a different view of collateral damage, if they are going to be the ..."collateral damage".
The police rather lamely tried to say using the toy remote drone could be construed as a) terrorism b)health and safety !!
Imagine them mentioning health and safety !!!!
And then just after midnite Westminster Council came along saying "we come in peace" !!
Yeah right !
And returned most of the stuff they had purloined. Hmmm??
Clearly a tactical move.
From: babs tucker
Subject: FW: B Tucker adjournment notice 22 10 2012
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:35:32 +0100
am notifying as per letter dated october 2nd 2012, that am unable to attend west london today.
we note one summons relates to canopy, so must be thrown out because is clearly an umbrella.
my only suggestion is that wherever all is heard, umbrella & blankets should be joined with tent coz for example, police and westminster council are as public authorities working together.
it seems to me that all that is at issue is how it is in the public interest/lawful for public authorities to breach health and safety law to deny shelter?
does anyone have any authorities on that point ?
(we further note for example that westminster council have no problem with all the somewhat larger umbrellas surrounding restaurants, in leicester square)
we use the article in last fridays evening standard (who showed bias when they lied about my speaking to them and over the fact that is we who are arguing that public authorities are breaching health and safety) as further evidence of why we are entitled to make and broadcast, an accurate record of what are serious criminal proceedings that we say are politically motivated by business interests.
parliament square peace campaign
> To: babs tucker
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:31:17 +0100
> Subject: B Tucker adjournment notice 22 10 2012 >