Wednesday, 6 April 2016

THE EXTRAORDINARY VICTIMISATION OF IAN PUDDICK

While searching YouTube for a World In Action programme that the police had tried to have banned concerning corruption within Scotland Yard, by chance I stumbled on an entirely different story, though it too involved significant police wrongdoing. The video I found was a presentation given to an audience at the 2015 conference of The British Constitutional Group by Ian Puddick, a law abiding citizen, who was a former management consultant but is now a director of a successful plumbing company. If you have ever watched the BBC Rogue Traders, you may have seen Ian advising the show's presenter on the poor workmanship carried out by a shoddy plumber being exposed on the programme. But the story Ian relates has no connection to his profession; instead he tells how his life was deliberately thrown into complete and utter turmoil by members of the City of London Police that acted without accountability to satisfy the whims of a powerful global corporation that decided to stage a vendetta against him simply because it could. This is a story of evil over good, which demonstrates how the power held by global enterprises can be used to exert their considerable influence over authority in ways that can pervert the laws of the land.  

After watching the video I contacted Ian Puddick and have discussed his case at some length with him via emails. From what he has told me I am convinced that the treatment and intrusion into his life was a merciless and most shocking and malicious attack on his civil rights that, in a society that claims to be civilised, should never be allowed to happen. It occurred because powerful executives wanted to silence him, though the danger is that anyone could fall victim to this kind of treatment if a large corporate organisation decides you are a source of nuisance or inconvenience and may constitute a threat to their reputation. What made Ian's case even more shocking was the extraordinary lengths that officers from the City of London Police were willing to go to in order to fabricate a case against him. 

It all began as Ian relaxed in his garden at the end of May 2009 when he was alerted to a text message that came up on his wife's mobile phone. Innocently, he picked up the phone and read the message. To his horror he discovered his wife was having an affair with a married man. The sender of the text was Leena Puddick's boss, Timothy Haynes, a director of the world's largest reinsurance brokers, Guy Carpenter, who she had known since 1997. After confronting his wife, she admitted to the affair that had originated before she married Ian but had been ongoing for 10-years. She told him that she ended the relationship when she married Ian but Haynes refused to accept it was over. Leena continued working as Haynes's secretary but claimed he had started to pressurise her, sending 30 to 40 texts a day, that at times included explicit photographs, in an effort to force her into reinstating the affair. Eventually she gave in and the liaison was reignited at the firm's Christmas party in 2002. After that, Haynes and Mrs Puddick began spending time together outside of work at restaurants, in hotel rooms and at what she later described to one newspaper as, "wonderful places around the country". Ian also found out that the affair was being financed by Haynes using company expenses, a fact that was later determined by expenses receipts fraudulently connected to client activities and supported by a statement Leena Puddick provided to a Guy Carpenter disciplinary tribunal. 

After deciding their marriage was worth saving, Ian called Haynes and confronted him and by politely asking him to move Mrs Puddick from working with him. According to Ian, Haynes became abusive but and told him to mind his own businesses before slamming down the phone. The following day Ian called Nick Frankland, the CEO of Guy Carpenter and repeated his request to have his wife transferred away from working with Haynes. In an emotional state, Ian embarked on a course of action devised to embarrass Haynes by exposing his extra marital activities. He went to Sussex where he surprised Mrs Haynes at home and told her of the affair shared by their respective spouses. Following this, Ian's company received a series of phone messages over the next five days from a female caller who asked him to call Mrs Haynes, but the number the caller left was Timothy Haynes's mobile number. Ian said that he knew the messages were not from Mrs Haynes as she is German and speaks with a strong accent. This meant someone was trying to set him up and he realised, that had he returned the calls, he would have left himself open to all kinds of accusations. Subsequently, he found out that the caller was Hazel Sibbald, an underwriter and friend of both Leena Puddick and Haynes who it seems was returning a favour after Haynes was said to have helped her get a better settlement in her divorce. In view of the dirty tricks being played against him, Ian angrily informed some of Haynes's clients by telling them that he was "a person of no integrity". He later admitted this was wrong, but it was a case of his emotions getting the better of him at a very difficult time. Without realising, his actions were about to unleash a powerful string of events that would not remain a personal grievance between Ian and his wife's lover, but would turn extremely frightening and land him in court accused of various criminal activities, that incredulously included allegations of possessing and dealing cocaine. 

Friday, 4 September 2015

WAS CAMERON RIGHT TO CAPITULATE ON THE MIGRANT SITUATION?

In the light of the serious migrant problems at Calais, Budapest and elsewhere across Europe, the UK government has been exposed to considerable criticism from some other EU countries and the Labour and SNP opposition parties for failing to do enough. The crisis has reached a critical stage and with millions of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees (call them what you will!) attempting to get into Europe, the infrastructure and social framework of our country, and others, is being considerably threatened. At the time of writing, Cameron has not stated the numbers of Syrians that will be permitted to enter the UK, but estimates range between 4,000 and 10,000. But surely, this will just be just the start and once these have been granted permission to come, there will be hundreds of thousands following on behind all intent on reaching the UK or other sympathetic EU nations. By agreeing to admit Syrians currently residing in the camps around that country will not solve the plights of other migrants that threaten the Channel Tunnel and port of Calais almost nightly. How will they react to the the 'rescue' of several thousand others that our government proposes to select from their homeland. These, of course, have not made the arduous and dangerous journeys from the Middle East and Africa at the mercy of murderous traffickers? Britain is certainly sending out a message by accepting a new wave of migrants ... but is it the correct one? I think not!

The concerns of a large number of UK inhabitants, and no doubt shared by similar numbers of German citizens and in other EU nations, is whether or not the arrival of so many young and fit Syrians presents a security problem. After all, we do not know the backgrounds or political leanings of these people, nor do we know whether any of them (or indeed how many) are ISIL members intent on infiltrating our countries to render death and mayhem. We are righ to be concerned but can the government offer the asurance that we will be safe? We simply don't know! 

Similarly, with Cameron's well-intended back-track of policy this morning, there has been no mention of whom will provide housing for several thousand new arrivals, or where they will go or who will pay for their keep. With local authorities being forced to cut their budgets to the limits, where will this money come from?  People are also concerned about an already overstretched NHS that is near breaking point and how this will ever be able to cope with an influx of more people demanding medical facilities. Patients that have already spent considerable periods of time waiting for essential surgical treatment will be wondering whether this is going to extend their waiting times for vital operations.

These are all very genuine concerns that need to be addressed, but at the moment there are no indications that anyone is willing to answer. 

An article relating to the current migrant issues and the very tragic drowning of a three-year-old migrant boy, written by RICHARD LITTLEJOHN has appeared in the Daily Mail.

I believe this is worth reading. 

This child's death was tragic but it was not our fault 

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

WHAT 'WHIGS' & 'TORIES' STOOD FOR IN THE 17th CENTURY - IS THERE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE TODAY?

I though this article published in the 'Chronicle of Britain and Ireland' is interesting.

England 1679
"New names for old faces can now be heard mentioned in the houses of parliament with the advent of tags for adherents of different political philosophies.'Whigs' and 'Tories' - both terms of abuse - denote government supporters and opponents. Broadly, the Whigs form the court party; they back the established church and the monarchy, and their instincts are conservative. The Tories are broadly anti-government and support the Roman Catholic Duke of York

The word 'Tory' was originally used to describe a particular unpleasant type of Irish robber. A 'Whig', on the other hand, is a Scottish outlaw, covenanter and sanctimonious prig.

Political commentators go further. "A 'Tory' is a creature with a large forehead, prodigious mouth and no brains," says one pamphleteer. A 'Whig' "has principles like chaos" and "prays for the kind with more reservations than the honest man" says another.

The 'Whigs' were a major political party from 1679-1832 that held liberal principles and favoured reforms and later became the Liberal Party. In later use the term was used to refer to conservative members of the Liberal party.

The article therefore seems quite apt when considering our political parties today. It might also be considered appropriate for Labour MP Dennis Skinner to refer to the Tories in a statement he uttered in Parliament by saying - "50% of those on the benches opposite are criminals". After the Speaker had asked him to withdraw his remark, the quick-witted Member for Bolsover responded: "50% of those on the benches opposite aren't criminals".

Saturday, 5 January 2013

BEWARE OF ESTIMATED EON ENERGY BILLS THAT HAVE ARRIVED JUST PRIOR TO PRICE RISES

I have just received my energy bill from EON (both gas and electricity) that has strangely arrived 3-WEEKS EARLY.

The bill's early arrival and the fact that it has been estimated I think is very significant.

With EON price rises of around 9% due to be implemented this month (on 18th January?) it seems to me that EON, in their wisdom, are at least trying to pull a fast one or they could even be committing a deliberate act of fraud or deception.

My reasoning is this:

1) Many customers will probably be delighted to find that their bills are lower than they anticipated. Some people may not even realise it is an estimated bill and will take it as accurate and pay it.

2) With many people finding they are short of money after Christmas, they could realise the bill is lower than it should be, and pay it now thinking that they will be saving money.

3) Those that pay it could be in for a major shock when they receive their next bill because the difference in energy units used will be corrected - presumably by their meters being read between now and the raising of the next bill ... but    THE DIFFERENCE WILL. PRESUMABLY, BE CHARGED AT THE NEW, INCREASED RATES, when they certainly shouldn't be.

If you are a subscriber to EON .. then you should take the precaution of taking a meter reading yourself - or of you are unable to reach your meter - call EON and insist that they send a meter reader out to do this for you ...and then ... insist on a revised bill.

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

WHAT IS THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY?WE ARE NOT AS DEMOCRATIC AS YOU MIGHT THINK.

A COLLEAGUE attempted to use the HM Government petitions facility that is supposed to allow the public to petition the Government over issues that displease them and that affect all of us in some way. It is meant to provide the means to influence changes to anything we do not agree or find distasteful over the way our country is run. 
Surely, I would have thought this would be a logical and appropriate way to lobby the Government to let them know that we, the public, are largely not happy by the imprisonment of a long serving member of the SAS, Sgt DANNY NIGHTINGALE? 

But we thought wrong. Having approached the Government agency via the correct and appropriate channels ... this is their response. 

THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF A COP OUT THAT EFFECTIVELY STIFLES PUBLICPROTECTS OF THIS KIND.

Your e-petition "Release Sgt Danny Nightingale" hasn't been accepted.

E-petitions will not be accepted if they:

• contain information which may be protected by an injunction or court order

• contain material that is potentially confidential, commercially sensitive or which may cause personal distress or loss

• include the names of individuals if they have been accused of a crime or information that may identify them

• include the names of individual officials who work for public bodies, unless they are part of the senior management of those organisations

• include the names of family members of elected representatives, eg MPs, or officials who work for public bodies

If you'd like to submit a new e-petition, please read the site's terms and conditions which explain the rules in detail.
Thanks,
HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Sunday, 16 September 2012

A WARNING TO DRIVERS

This is another of these concerning emails I have received that apparently has been publihsed by the Metropolitan Police. It should be taken seriously.

While driving on a rural end of the roadway on Thursday morning, I saw an infant car seat on the side of the road with a blanket draped over it. For whatever reason, I did not stop, even though I had all kinds of thoughts running through my head. But when I got to my destination, I called the Police and they were going to check it out. But, this is what the Police advised even before they went out there to check.

"There are several things to be aware of. Gangs and thieves are now plotting different ways to get a person (mostly women) to stop their vehicle and get out of the car".

"There is a gang initiation reported by the local Police where gangs are placing a car seat by the road, with a fake baby in it, waiting for a woman, of course, to stop and check on the abandoned baby. Note that the location of this car seat is usually beside a wooded or grassy (field) area and the person -- woman -- will be dragged into the woods, beaten, raped and usually left for dead. If it's a man, they're usually beaten and robbed and maybe left for dead, too".

DO NOT STOP FOR ANY REASON. DIAL 9-9-9 AND REPORT WHAT YOU SAW BUT DON'T EVEN SLOW DOWN.

IF YOU ARE DRIVING AT NIGHT AND EGGS ARE THROWN AT YOUR WINDSCREEN, DO NOT STOP TO CHECK THE CAR, DO NOT OPERATE THE WIPER AND DO NOT SPRAY ANY WATER BECAUSE EGGS MIXED WITH WATER BECOME MILKY AND BLOCK YOUR VISION UP TO 92.5% AND YOU ARE THEN FORCED TO STOP BESIDE THE ROAD AND BECOME A VICTIM OF THESE CRIMINALS.

THIS IS A NEW TECHNIQUE USED BY GANGS, SO PLEASE INFORM YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THESE ARE DESPERATE TIMES AND THESE ARE UNSAVOURY INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL TAKE DESPERATE MEASURES TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.

This is a new tactic being used. Please be safe.

Sunday, 19 August 2012

THE BANKS CONTINUE TO RUN ROUGH-SHOD OVER CUSTOMERS RECLAIMING PPI

To say that I am sick and tired of the attitude of banks, particularly over their appalling treatment of customers trying to reclaim wrongly sold PPI, would be a gross understatement. 

I speak from experience but I know tens of thousands of others are probably being subjected to a similar lack of respect. In my case, the finger is being firmly pointed at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).  

When they opened a branch in my neck of the woods many years ago I was one of the first to open an account with them. Compared to my experiences with Barclays, the RBS were like a breath of fresh air, and they continued to be until this whole issue of irregularities occurred over the selling of PPI. Until then, my experiences with RBS had been extremely good. I found the staff to be friendly, knowledgeable and efficient. I had no complaints. And then, under the leadership of Fred Goodwin things started to go wrong ... very wrong. Staff came and went and the levels of service fell. I hardly ever visited the bank without a member of staff trying to sell me a new 'product'. When I extended my meagre business overdraft at my manager's suggestion to something more substantial I was informed that PPI was a compulsory part of the agreement. I didn't argue; after all I trusted and got on exceptionally well with the business advisor assigned to my account. Little did I know then that  when I later needed to claim on the payment protection insurance, I was promptly told by RBS that as a self-employed person I did not qualify. Up until then, with the bank never being in any doubt about my self-employed status, they had continued taking hundreds of pounds from me in premium payments over a period of several years.

When the miss-selling of PPI made the headlines I realised that I was entitled to a refund, now amounting to several thousands of pounds. At the start of this year I instigated a claim and by the start of May I received an offer as a 'goodwill gesture'. I completed the documentation accepting the offer and posted the form back to RBS same day. Even though I was angered by their reference to a legitimate refund of money I was entitled to get back being referred to as a 'goodwill gesture' I was, at that time, prepared to ignore it. When the refund hadn't arrived a month or so later I phoned the RBS helpline and was told very quickly by some disinterested individual in the Manchester call centre that my acceptance documents had been lost in the post. There was not even a hint of 'may have' been lost in the post but a definitive pronouncement that appeared to be uttered as a well-rehearsed line he had used a thousand times before to other hapless victims.