ATOS DWP appeal :: How to Appeal

The sequel to an earlier article ATOS DWP appeal :: How it works, this article suggests ways of appealing against ATOS and DWP decisions that disabled people do not have limited capability for work. A final article describes the appeal hearing.

Citizens Advice Bureaus, Welfare Rights Officers, Legal Advice Centres are all overwhelmed by the demand for their services. It is very unlikely that anybody is able to help you. You have to do it yourself with the help of a few friends, family or colleagues. This is where being a member of some group helps.

There are now many resources on the web e.g. this one. If you’re not able to use the web yourself, ask somebody who can. For previous decisions just enter the reference into a search engine.

Once you’re told that you’ve been found to have failed the Work Capabilities Assessment you have a month to appeal. The article linked above gives good advice on a general request for appeal. Also ask for reasons for the decision if they have not been sent with the decision.

When the bundle (the Decision Maker’s response) arrives you need to go through it carefully. It’s detective work piecing together the arguments employed.

I personally find that missing documents are very revealing – it’s worth being suspicious of the Decision Maker instead of assuming that they’re absent accidentally. In my friend’s bundle two documents are missing: the notification of the decision with reasons attached and a simple sick note by my clients GP that accompanied her request for appeal.

There are many errors in the missing notification letter e.g. stating that you need to score 15 points and therefore providing misleading legal advice on the issue of exceptional circumstances. However, I think that the real issue is that there is a list of descriptors – admittedly with inaccurate, summarised descriptors – which is both helpful to the claimant and highlights quite clearly one descriptor which should have but has not even been considered.

The missing simple sick note is missing because it’s medical evidence from a qualified, experienced GP that is familiar with my client’s condition that has a named medical diagnosis. The Decision Maker is supposed to consider all evidence. To include this document would highlight the fact that the Decision Maker has totally disregarded my client’s GP’s medical evidence without providing any justification or reasoning.

My client has been awarded 6 points for having to raise from being seated because of significant discomfort or fatigue after 15 minutes. The Decision Maker agrees with Atos Health Care Professional that my client can sit for between 30 and 60 minutes without having to move because of significant discomfort or fatigue despite having to move after 15 minutes! This is what you’re up against.

That should be 9 points not 6.

Looking at the HCP’s descriptions of my clients abilities we notice that she should have been – but has not been – awarded 6 points for failing to raise either arm above head height.

Then there’s 9 points for failing to climb two steps with the help of a handrail. Hold on, it says my client can climb two steps where there are two handrails. How many steps or stairs do you see with two handrails? The descriptor’s definition is a handrail, that’s one handrail not two. They have these definitions to be precise.

The score so far looks like 9 + 6 + 9 = 24. That’s 9 more than the 15 needed and this is on Atos’s medical report as it stands. I wonder why the Decision Maker didn’t notice this – he is trained, professional and experienced after all. Perhaps he just didn’t notice by accident again?

What really pisses my client off is that she’s been awarded nothing for mobility (moving with or without a manual wheelchair or other aid on a level surface). The Decision Maker has decided that she can repeatedly walk 200 metres without stopping because of significant discomfort or fatigue). The distances vary: less than 50 metres, 50 to a 100 metres and 100 to 200 metres. Over 200 metres repeatedly is nothing. This is the same descriptor as the steps so the 9 for the steps would go if she was awarded 9 or above.

My client’s problem is that she completed the ESA50 very poorly with many “It varies” and incomplete lengthy answers to questions. For the walking she’s said it varies but then failed to say why she had to stop to rest. The Decision Maker should have asked for clarification but for some unknown reason decided instead that she had absolutely no problem repeatedly walking over 200 metres. The reasons for this? She drives a manual car and shops at a supermarket!

So at the appeal we have to point out that my client’s right hand side is her weak side, the side that she really has trouble with and manual cars have clutches and gearboxes on their left hand sides. We will also be pointing out that it’s a very small supermarket involving about 100 metres walking accompanied by a friend who does the reaching and emptying of the shopping trolley at the checkout, the packing of bags, loading and unloading of car, etc and that it doesn’t really indicate that you can walk 200 metres without stopping because of significant discomfort or fatigue because when you go shopping you are continually stopping. This is not rocket science is it?

As I mentioned earlier the Decision Maker has not considered my client’s GP’s evidence preferring BS like this instead. I also said that my client had answered the ESA50 badly with many “it varies”. Look at what my client’s GP says: “VERY VARIABLE SYMPTOMS, SOMETIMES COMPLETELY IMMOBILIZED” and “SEVERE BACK PAIN ON BAD DAYS IMMOBILISED”. There is more but I don’t expect any real problems at appeal.

 

 

Continue ReadingATOS DWP appeal :: How to Appeal

Comments are welcome

Comment spam filtering seems to be working. Comments are now far more likely to be noticed and published providing they pass the spam filters. There was such a deluge of spam comments that it wasn’t read.

There is a comments policy. It is roughly no commercial endorsements and promotion except for ethical enterprises, no bots and some relevance. Commentators are not expected to agree and I have allowed the one dissenting comment that I’ve received.

Continue ReadingComments are welcome

ATOS DWP appeal :: How it works

This article describes how the Atos Work Capabilities Assessment (WCA) and associated appeal system works and how the system is unfair and biased. A further article will look at how to appeal against a decision and use the appeal that I am doing soon as an example. A final article describes the appeal hearing.

Firstly, you have to realise that there is nothing fair, balanced or just about Atos assessments and appeals. They are about attacking the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves people in society – the sick and disabled. They are not about ensuring that only ‘real’ disabled people who deserve it get benefit – they are all about denying benefit to those that deserve those benefits and are very seriously ill.

Larry, was found fit for work after an Atos assessment. After a long career in work, he had developed a serious lung condition, his weight had dropped from 10 to seven stone and he had trouble walking and breathing. In order to qualify for employment and support allowance (ESA), the new sickness benefit worth £95 a week, he needed 15 points in the test; he was given zero. He was dismayed to note a number of significant inaccuracies in the Atos report, and decided to appeal, but died from lung problems, before the appeal was heard. One of the last things he said to his wife before doctors put him on a ventilator was: “It’s a good job I’m fit for work.”

Last year the Guardian reported on the case of Ruth Anim, who was told after an Atos assessment that she was capable of finding work in the near future, despite the fact she needed constant one-to-one care, had no concept of danger and attended life skills classes to learn practical things like how to make a sandwich or a cup of tea. She was also described in the Atos report as a “male client”. Atos apologised for “any discrepancy in our report and any distress this may have caused”.

source

How it works

Disability benefits claimants are regularly reviewed and are therefore repeatedly subjected to Atos assessments and subsequent appeals – even in cases where their medical condition is very unlikely to improve. Vast sums of money are wasted on this unnecessary harassment of vulnerable and disabled people. Clearly, people with serious conditions which are not going to improve do not need to be repeatedly assessed every year or so.

The procedure starts with a questionnaire about medical conditions and activities of ‘daily living’. The claimant has a month to return the completed questionnaire.

The questionnaire is mostly ignored and an appointment is made for an assessment by Atos within a further month or so.

Atos conducts the Work Capabilities Assessment. It is mostly a question and answer affair with the Health Care Professional (HCP) inputting answers into a computer. There are a few physical examinations of the stand up, lift your arm above your head, touch your toes type. The HCP is often foreign and hard to understand. Foreign doctors and nurses who are not qualified to practice in UK are acceptable as HCPs.

The Work Capabilities Assessment consists of categories of activities for which points are awarded. For example there is not being able to stand or sit still for so long because of pain or discomfort. Less than 30 minutes is 9 points, less than 60 minutes is 6 points. Another example is walking within a reasonable time with the assistance of aids or a manual wheelchair. Less than 50 metres is 15 points, less than a hundred metres is 9 points, less than 200 metres is 6 points. 15 points are needed to be awarded – or continue to receive – a disbility benefit.

How can the Atos HCP decide that you’re able to walk over 200 metres without stopping due to pain or discomfort within a reasonable time? They ask you ridiculous, ‘opaque’ questions and draw ridiculous conclusions. How did you get to the test centre? You drove? Then you can walk over 200 metres without stopping due to pain or discomfort within a reasonable time. What’s your favourite television programme? Eastenders, eh? Watching Eastenders means that you can sit for 30 minutes and can even concentrate! or focus your attention! for 30 minutes. How many people just have the television on in the background?

The Decision Maker is advised of Atos’s conclusions and usually stops or refuses benefit.

The claimant has within a month to appeal. Asking for a statement of reasons for the decision extends the time to appeal to a month from receiving the statement of reasons. [28/07/13 1.40pm Looks like this has changed & you have to appeal within a month of the decision. Check for yourself.]

The claimant must appeal within a month. The claimant can ask for a paper appeal or an appeal in person.

The appeal is delayed for many months. A month or two before the appeal date the appeal ‘bundle’ of papers will be sent to the appellant. This is the Decision Maker’s legal argument and all relevant papers on which the decision was based.

The appeal is heard. Appeals are nowadays heard by a tribunal which is part of the Court Service. The tribunal is supposed to be independent and impartial and follow the rules of natural justice (procedural fairness). The Decision Maker’s position is argued by a practising solicitor or lawyer. [30/07/13 10.10pm This appears to have changed now. Often there is no Presenting Officer present. The Presenting Officer nowadays seems to be a different Decision Maker to the one that made the decision.] The claimant has the opportunity to argue against the Decision Maker’s case.

I haven’t been to an appeal for over a decade and the system has changed since. The Appeal Tribunal may tell you their decision on the day or make you wait. I have been to one appeal with such good legal argument that it was unchallenged. You need to argue law and on the basis of previous decisions.

If you win at appeal you look forward to doing it all again soon.

How it’s unfair

I’ve got a few ideas about how it’s unfair and biased against the claimant. No doubt I am also missing many.

It’s unfair because it’s intended to be unfair. The Decision Maker and the Atos Health Care Professional are not about being fair. Their whole purpose is to refuse benefits. They might pretend to be fair but they’re not.

Everybody involved except the claimant is trained, professional and experienced. There is nobody to assist or represent the claimant while he or she may be very ill and unable to prepare his or her own case.

The case is decided on the basis of law while this is not even made clear to the claimant. While claimants are advised to seek assistance from Citizens Advice Bureaus, Law Centres or Welfare Rights Advisors there is actually no help available. A claimant will be very lucky to even have the near useless help of a law student.

The Decision Maker can prefer Atos’s Health Care Professional’s opinion over that of the claimant’s GP. How on earth can that be fair?

[28/07/13 3am

The strange conclusions drawn from ‘opaque’ questions seem very unfair.

[28/07/13 12.30pm

There is a problem with the ‘opaque’ questions since they are taken to mean something other than what they actually mean i.e. they are interpreted in a certain way like a topic-specific discourse, a subset of language, a mini-language if you like (I’ll probably return to improve this when I have the correct term or phrase). Tribunal participants other than the claimant will be familiar with these alternate meaning while e.g. “can sow and knit” may be taken by the claimant only to mean that he or she can sow and knit.]

In the appeal I’m looking at both the Decision Maker and Atos’s HCP have avoided assessment of one descriptor completely. This is because my client didn’t complete the questionnaire very well. It is quite clear that this descriptor applies but it’s raised as an answer to a different question. It’s also blatantly clear in the request for appeal.]

If you have an appeal

Essential resources are the Welfare Benefit Handbook, the Decision Makers Guide and previous decisions. Use the web.

May be revised

 

I can do that. Gizza. Gizza.

Continue ReadingATOS DWP appeal :: How it works

Coming soon: ATOS DWP appeal

Yes, I will soon be doing an appeal. I haven’t done one for years or to be more accurate a decade. I find it very strangely different now. I used to go to appeal with the whole day allocated to the appeal. This one’s scheduled to start at 3.30 p.m. That’s crap, it’ll take me an hour or so to even get warmed up…

I will be representing a friend who is disabled at an appeal soon.

I intend to publish some before the appeal. It will be along the lines of how to do an appeal …

 

Continue ReadingComing soon: ATOS DWP appeal

Cameron’s war on the internet

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced steps to further censor the web – amoung other things – in a speech on Monday 22nd, July. The speech confuses and conflates many issues and appears intended to appeal to sexual prudes and religious bigots. Cameron’s proposals are half-baked and show a fundamental ignorance of internet technology. It’s all a bit disappointing and surprising because you’d expect his speech writers and researchers to do a better job – he is UK Prime Minister after all. It’s almost as if these researchers and writers don’t have any experience of porn but that can’t be right.

Many issues are confused and conflated: pornography, pornography depicting rape, child pornography, child abuse, childhood ‘innocence’. The speech even starts confused intended to appeal to prudes and bigots that believe any expression of sexuality is as bad as biting apples: “I want to talk about the internet the impact it is having on the innocence of our children how online pornography is corroding childhood and how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.”

It’s confused, isn’t it? By innocence he means ignorance as if ignorance should be encouraged and lauded. How is online pornography corroding childhood more than any other pornography? Children do not have access to online pornography. Adolescents probably doo but not children. And so what? Is it that much worse than war films or everyday violent television, television where people are getting shot, murdered and maimed?

“… in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.” If they’re in the darkest corners of the internet they’re not any danger to your children. Cameron is trying his hardest to scare you. Is this taking over now that terrorism BS is discredited and wearing thin?

“I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scare-monger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come.

This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.”

I think that’s exactly why Cameron is making this speech: to moralise and scare-monger. Protect our children and their ignorance innocence. Oh please stop it.

“The internet is not just where we buy, sell and socialise it is where crimes happen and where people can get hurt and it is where children and young people learn about the world, each other, and themselves.”

It is where SOME crimes happen. People can get hurt? Well not physically. Where children and young people learn about the world, each other, and themselves? Oh don’t be so stupid. The internet is only a small part of childrens’ world. They go to school because they’re children. They interact with other children. They watch telly. They are members of families. The internet is only one part of their lives.

“The fact is that the growth of the internet as an unregulated space has thrown up two major challenges when it comes to protecting our children.”

Here it comes …

“The first challenge is criminal: and that is the proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet.
The second challenge is cultural: the fact that many children are viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age and that the nature of that pornography is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.

Let me be clear.

These challenges are very distinct and very different.

In one we’re talking about illegal material the other legal material that is being viewed by those who are underage.

But both these challenges have something in common.

They are about how our collective lack of action on the internet has led to harmful – and in some cases truly dreadful – consequences for children.

Of course, a free and open internet is vital.

But in no other market – and with no other industry – do we have such an extraordinarily light touch when it comes to protecting our children.”

Cameron says that these two issues are distinct and different … but I’ll conflate them anyway.

The ‘proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet’ is a myth. Cameron is quite simply making it up. The Internet Watch Foundation collates sites containing child abuse, tells ISP and the ISPs block them. That’s happening now. It’s difficult to find child abuse imagery, you have to make deliberate efforts.

Are many children viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age? Is that pornography so extreme, that it is distorting their view of sex and relationships?

They’re unlikely to be that young. I would expect that they would certainly be in their teens and post-puberty to have an interest in it. Is pornography that extreme? It is certainly posed and acted but then the BS they see on telly will also distort their view of sex and relationships. It’s dead easy to distort childrens’ view of sex and relationships come to think of it. They will have one main, overwhelming model for a start: their very own parents.

Cameron’s on a roll now, there’s no stopping him. “My argument is that the internet is not a side-line to ‘real life’ or an escape from ‘real life’; it is real life.

It has an impact: on the children who view things that harm them on the vile images of abuse that pollute minds and cause crime on the very values that underpin our society.”

The very values that underpin our society. That will be page 3 then, that’s no problem. Somehow objectifying women is not distorting childrens’ view of sex and relationship? Oh that will be because it’s owned by Murdoch.

I’m getting tired of this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying sex and the sooner young people become aware of their own complex being, the better it is all round. To Cameron there is only one type of porn: evil, and I’m surprised he’s such a prude but then he’s probably not. [26/07/13 On reflection, I think that he probably is. He’s certainly no John Major, eh? Gizza. Gizza.)

25/07/13 Addendum

There is child pornography on the net but you have to look for it and will not stumble across it accidentally. There is some confusion amoung commentators on Cameron’s speech who should know better. Paedophile imagery is on hidden services, part of encrypted, anonymity networks. I would be surprised to find any on peer-to-peer (p2p) networks.

I would much prefer that Cameron and the government pursued real paedophiles abusing real children. I have stumbled across a real paedophile and have a pretty good idea who they are and why they are not pursued.

Cameron’s speech supports the why we must all be spied on agenda of covert spying agencies. If we are spied on as much as has recently become apparent, shouldn’t far more paedophiles be in  prison?

25/07/13 Addendum 2

“And today I can announce that from next year, we will also link up existing fragmented databases across all the police forces to produce a single secure database of illegal images of children which will help police in different parts of the country work together more effectively to close the net on paedophiles.

It will also enable the industry to use the digital hash tags from the database to
pro-actively scan for, block and take down these images wherever they occur.”

That will be incredibly easy – trivial – to avoid.

Cameron continues his speech talking about default-on ‘filters’ and outlawing extreme pornography. Filters are going to further censor the internet. The internet is already hugely censored in e.g. libraries and workplaces, through Microsoft produced censorship software. Some forms of extreme pornography is already illegal.

“Once CEOP becomes a part of the National Crime Agency, that will further increase their ability to investigate behind pay walls to shine a light on the hidden internet and to drive prosecutions of those who are found to use it.”

This is a clear mistake. There is nothing illegal about using the so-called “hidden internet” and no possible prosecutions per se. I’m running a hidden internet server FFS. This speech is a mess. I’m looking for work.

Continue ReadingCameron’s war on the internet

This is how it’s going to be …

Actually, it’s going to be announced tomorrow that

Well look at that … this is now … I honestly hope that I have woken so many people from their beds …

You’re my number one too …

Hey number one can’t be anyone but the new Prince tonight, can they?

Prince’s night tonight, eh?

Is weird no? That he was called Prince && then he was called the artist formerly known as Prince?

radio’s back now

what’s that about then? could it be excessive authoritarianism (Fascism) in real time?

Cor bloody hell, can’t let you listen to that!!!

Justin would be a good name (or 3321)

Thunder & lightning now (was lightening all those yers ago)

 

Continue ReadingThis is how it’s going to be …

I don’t want to do this any more

First revision 13 july 2013

I don’t want to do this any more. I would much prefer to be sailing. I’d like to buy a small boat but then I’d need to be working and earning. I’d like a regular boyfriend. I’d like to drink less and make fewer rather embarrassing remarks.

I don’t want to do this any more. I want to be working and earning so that I can buy a small boat and go sailing. The trouble is that I can’t be working and earning because these bastards get in the way all the time.

I could be working and earning or just working on earning to start with if it wasn’t for these bastards. I’ve got some skill and knowledge with puters – it’s just problem-solving, analysis, understanding systems. I think that I’ve demonstrated that I’m able and bright enough to do that. I am. I have the ability to be a sys admin, network admin, programmer, etc. These bastards will never let me do that.

I know a good crowd who run a social enterprise. Basically it means that they make very little money but at least they are doing some good and improving themselves. I could hang round with them and do some work if it wasn’t for those bastards. Those bastards that interfere all the time spying and prying and breaking networks and things. I’ve tried, I can’t work at the social enterprise that I know.

Looks like I can’t have a boat because of the bastards. [24/07/13 edit: Then earn money doing some different work.]

I don’t want to do this any more. It started years ago around 98 or 99. I was one of the early bloggers. Reality cracking, rejecting the bullshit that they feed us every day, they take us for fools. That’s asking for it.

Ian Blair is quite a pathetic figure really. He’s achieved very little apart from covering up for murder and a big pension. Corrupt and promoted far above his intellect and abilities for political reasons. New Labour to the last he even blamed Boris when he cut the deal with Jacquie. He’s just a useless bastard really, a parasitic tic with the sadim touch.

It is worth looking at Ian Blair’s tenure as boss of the Metropolitan police. You’ll see that he did a lot of politicking and very little policing. There’s a lot of very thinly disguised bullshit going on, a definite agenda other than policing being followed. He was Tony Blair’s butler. I’ve lately been having this image of the two Blairs being cheeks of the same arse sharing a mouth. Ugh.

I don’t really want to do this any more because – contrary to some speculation in the past – I have achieved what I set out to achieve. I have cracked reality. I have reached an understanding of what it’s all about. It’s about a lot of things and about the interactions of a lot of things. I’m not likely to be able to explain even if you were accepting and attentive which is unlikely but perhaps I should try explaining some main points.

The concept of parallax. [Thanks Parallax:)

Things look different according to where you’re looking from.

So, being a suspected terrorist of the self-exploding type I can reason that there are no real terrorists. Since I know for a fact that I am not a terrorist but instead labelled as a terrorist I can reasonably conclude that there are many more similar to me. I am in fact aware that there are many others similar to me. For example, in UK whole political groups of non-terrorists have been labelled terrorists.

What’s going on here then? Are there terrorists or not?

There are certainly terrorists.

There is the odd one or two obviously insane terrorists like the failed shoe bomber. This is interesting because labelling people as terrorists as the authorities do is likely to lead to self-fulfilling prophesies in some cases. It is also likely that that is the intention since there is a definite dearth of terrorist terrorists.

Then there are people who hack people to death on crowded streets in daylight. They’re not terrorists. They’re racially-motivated murderers. Incidentally, it’s interesting to see how the press and media were manipulated in such cases.

Then there are the real terrorists. The SAS got caught with bombs in Basra. Terrorists. We know that they’re terrorists because they had bombs, were disguised, didn’t have a reasonable explanation and were broken out of jail by the UK army.

Then there is the modus operandi of the terrorists. They arrange a security drill to make sure they’re all in place to control the act and the press and media. Then they blame Islam and Muslims, even sometimes making false claims on websites. Sometimes they even sneakily change laws just to make sure they will never be held to account for their terrorism. The timing is also often very convenient or accords to some higher (Non-Muslim) reason.

Then there are terrorist acts which are known as military operations like killing hundreds of thousands on innocent Iraqis or war crimes using banned chemical weapons like white phosphorous. Oh FM don’t mention that, that was the Israelis. Somehow these incidents are not recognised as terrorism.

I’ve got it. Terrorists are the people that the Fascist scum criminals in power are opposed to. So political activists and opponents to scum politicians are terrorists except of course that they’re not: they’re political activists and opponents of scum politicians. You get people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden labelled as terrorists except of course that they’re not. They’re not even traitors – they’re serving their people and opposing scum politicians / real terrorists.

So why does Islam and Muslims get blamed so much?

Islam and Muslims are a hindrance to Capitalism. Capitalism needs to make more profit and expand into Muslim countries. How can Capitalism do that if these people look after each other and indulge in charitable giving and the like? Capitalism needs to burn that oil.

Is that about it?

That’s about it except about scum politicians. Tony Blair and his bunch of shits weren’t socialists. Nick Clegg and his bunch of shits are not liberals. They’re all Neo-Liberal Neo-Conservatives who have hijacked their respective parties. The UK ‘Liberal Democrats’ are doing some awfully illiberal things because Clegg and his crew are huge Tory bastards pretending to be liberals.

I feel a bit better now. I suppose that I have to do it. Nobody else will.

 

13/07/13 7.50am typos corrected

19/07/13 11am added links

 

Continue ReadingI don’t want to do this any more

Ian Blair :: PRELUDE

Ian Blair
Ian Blair

Looking at Ian Blair as boss of the Metropolitan Police provides a very informative alternative narrative on events of the Tony Blair years.

Tony Blair was and is in every way a fraudulent man presenting an image that was very far from reality. He was definitely never a socialist or democrat and should never have been leader of the Labour party. He never had an understanding of democracy and I suspect that he never actually had a democratic mandate.

Never had a democratic mandate? How can I claim that? In the same way that Dubya Bush never had a democratic mandate. His first election was stolen and subsequent elections were shall we say managed. It’s not democracy to be elected on the basis of mass deception. In Blair’s case it would entail [edit: would have entailed] huge electoral fraud at his first election to get the numbers.

It is in this context that Ian Blair should be regarded as the servant to his master Tony Blair – a fraudulent actor serving a fraudulent actor (serving a fraudulent actor).

We have confirmation that Ian Blair is a fraudulent actor through his account of the Balcombe Street siege. We also have an account by Peter Power of “based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning” 7 July 2005 tube and bus [or Pa(h) ‘transportation system’ if you want to be deep about it) explosions infamy. Peter Power claims that his former colleague Ian Blair was willing to engage in mass deception about a suspected terrorist incident:

The present deputy-commissioner of the Met Police, Ian Blair, was already on scene as a detective inspector.

We knew each other very well and he turned to me and said, “Peter, I think we’ve had a bomb explosion here.”

I asked him why and he said, “At least one of the casualties has metal deep inside him… but we’re not going to go public on it.”

There is a further wider issue in considering Ian Blair in the Tony Blair era. Tony Blair was a dictatorial leader unencumbered by his cabinet. In his huge – and often demonstrated – sycophancy for Tony Blair Ian Blair provided the police element of the Fascist state. It is very fortunate that both of them have passed. Perhaps ‘we’ should be particularly grateful to those that participated in their departure.

All articles in this Ian Blair series are subject to revision.

9/7/13 9.30am

I have done some research on Ian Blair but don’t have it all: no doubt I will realise more in the course of this series. I’ll be looking at Ian Blair’s tenure as  boss of the Metropolitan Police chronologically. It will therefore include attacks on the Libertines, comments on Cocaine made very early on in his tenure, the London explosions, the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, Forest Gate, etc. Remember that it provides an alternative narrative.

Continue ReadingIan Blair :: PRELUDE