Subject: 2013: Annus Horriiblis for State Agents
From: Veronica
Date: 27/12/13 2:46 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

What have we learned this year?

“Court Security Officers” (courtesy Michael Doherty)

Well … we’ve learned that so-called “Court Security Officers” are quite probably not.

Not DESIGNATED Court Security Officers.

Which means that, if they TOUCH you … when you don’t want them to … they are committing Assault.  If they make you in any way afraid (for your safety), then they are committing Common Assault.

UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN ‘DESIGNATED’.

And the only ‘office’ that can do that designation … is the Lord Chancellor’s Office.

What has been happening is that HMCTS, have been accepting requests for ‘authorisation’, and sending back HMCTS Badges to Mitie (etc.). This (we are reasonably certain) does NOT constitute ‘designation by the Lord Chancellor’.

It has been confirmed, in FoI requests, that ‘designation by the Lord Chancellor’ (which relies on proofs of strict training) will result in a LETTER OF DESIGNATION … not a poxy fucking ‘badge’.

It has also been confirmed that HMCTS have ‘no record’ of any (what they call) ‘designations’ between 2005 (when the legal came into force) and 2009. The vast majority of these so-called “Court Security Officers” were created in that period.

(Since 2009, apparently 750 have been ‘designated’ for Mitie … none for G4S, Securicor, etc. But what that ‘designation’ actually comprises … we still don’t really know.  It might just mean that HMCTS decided to ‘keep records of the badges they issue’, in 2010).

So … if you get any shit from one of these ‘Court Security Officers’, ask them if they have a “Letter of Designation”. This will be a letter, from the Lord Chancellor’s Office, with THEIR NAME on it … and should (therefore) be IN THEIR POSSESSION (OK … at home … but IN THEIR POSSESSION!).

So: “BEFORE YOU APPROACH ME … do you possess a Letter of Designation … issued by the Lord Chancellor? Such as to enable you to act under Section 53 of the Courts Act” … would be a very good question to ask.

Leon’s Law (courtesy Michael Doherty)

Leon Briggs died within 20 minutes of State Mercenary ‘custody’ on November 4th, in Luton.

In January, the State Mercenaries are being issued with Body-Worn Cameras.

They want to ‘use their discretion’ as to when these cameras are to be switched on.

They say “They are concerned about ‘privacy’ issues” … but they are not in anyway concerned about the massive CCTV Coverage that goes on everywhere … so exactly who’s privacy concerns them?

And, furthermore, is ‘privacy’  actually a euphemism for ‘getting away with thuggery’?

Well … crocodile tears aside … it seems that there is a considerable backing, amongst Councils, Members of Parliament, etc (i.e. NON-Policymen), to implement  Leon’s Law, which says:

1 . THE BODY-WORN CAMERA WILL BE SWITCHED ON FOR -ALL- INTERACTIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC … AND …

2. THAT ANYONE  WHO WANTS A COPY OF THEIR RECORDING … CAN HAVE A COPY UNDER A SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST … AND …

3.  THAT EVERYONE WILL BE OFFERED THE ABOVE AUTOMATICALLY AS THEY LEAVE THE STATE MERCENARIES’ HIDEOUTS … AND …

4.  THAT THIS AUTOMATIC OFFER WILL EXTEND TO ALL CCTV THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE … ESPECIALLY THE CCTV WITHIN THE STATE MERCENARIES’ HIDEOUTS.

Oh dear … I can see the implementation of Leon’s Law being a bit of a downer for certain State Mercenaries, since it might prevent an awful lot of ‘making it all up as we go along’.

Expect a lot of these cameras to "Not be working at the exact time when they are needed".

(Could the next logical step be “Video Recordings in Star Chambers” … one wonders? Gosh … that would be a downer as well … for everyone except the General Public … who  … until now … have had to put up with the charades that take place in these Chambers!)

Indemnity Insurance (courtesy of Guy Taylor)

Since November last, Liars … I mean Lawyers … have had to make their own arrangements to be covered by Indemnity Insurance. So much so, that many ‘firms’ have ‘gone under’ (being unable to ‘practice’).

Added to that the rules – regarding ‘circumstances’ and ‘complaints’ – and also the fact that they are bound to reveal who they hold Indemnity Insurance with – have been seriously prodded and poked by Guy & Linda.

The result has been quite startling, to the point where everyone is encouraged to “Ask for Indemnity Insurance details” at the first interaction with members of the Legal so-called Profession.

Vxxx