Your efforts to post messages on this website are in vain, including twats trying to advertise Travel Deals and Replica Pens or promote smutty porn sites and the like. Dorks.

Do yourselves a favour and find something constructive to do.

Oh and do not try pingbacks – they will be denied too. And all you nice smammers who try to woo Wilt into thinking you are a fan of the website – you are wasting your time, especially with your incompetent English. Idiots.

Wilt

Fucking unbelievable – what is wrong with these people? See the BBC article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12555903

Wilt Portfolio

And the Guido article here: http://order-order.com/2011/02/23/chaytor-launches-appeal/

These people should remember how angry the public were and still are about the MP expenses saga. They are total twats.

And then there is Jim Devine made a bankrupt http://order-order.com/2011/02/23/devine-retribution-ii/

He is still to be sentenced after he has been found guilty of fraud, along with Lord Taylor of Warwick – it’s strange how so many frauds hail from that part of the world!

Wilt

Wilt Portfolio

This is a long article – but read on, as it is worthwhile we humbly submit. Above all it gives a two finger salute to those who attempt to curtail freedom of speech.

It has been a little while since we turned our attention to the subject of Calleja, that Elizabeth of Leamington Spa. After her arrest last year for suspected harassment Wilt et al reflected on her character.

Wilt Portfolio

She remains a regular visitor to Regulator Watch via her T-Mobile Android driven and Safari web browser on the tiny screen of her mobile phone – she appears to believe her activity by such media is undetectable or not permanently recorded both on her device and by the Regulator Watch “sniffer” programme to monitor access to the website. No such luck Elizabeth – your every click is recorded, by us and T-Mobile.

Whereas Elizabeth was not ultimately charged with any offence and released from bail, the arrest, we think, had a definite impact on her activity – Wilt has received reports that (due to bail conditions) she did not access the websites of those companies who brought the police complaint against her, for the full period of her three month bail. She has on a couple of occasion’s accessed one company (complainant) website post release from bail.

Probably for the second time ever, Calleja was on the back foot – it was she who was under scrutiny and despite her efforts to achieve the same it was not those who she complained about but in fact her who was arrested. The police were in fact rather annoyed that this “crying wolf” Calleja was an utter menace and distraction from the real and vital crimes that police forces try to address daily. This is not a dissimilar position adopted by the former CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) who, were to their credit, the first to take on the task of dismantling the Calleja/Plaskitt mythology of “victimisation.”

Plaskitt is the former Labour MP for Warwick & Leamington Spa. You can find details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Plaskitt or upcoming http://www.jamesplaskitt.com/ – the latter is reserved and we can only assume the twat has something in mind. Perhaps photographs of dunes!?

James Plaskitt - Wikepedia

Police “forces” is used in the plural because it was not just West Mercia Police but also several other police forces that were in receipt of complaints – Calleja will and has made multiple complaints on the same “stale” issues to numerous agencies.

The list of agencies Calleja has complained to is far too numerous to mention (they run into the dozens) in her near 11 year campaign to, what she/Plaskitt term as an effort to clear her name, to attack the character of others – the classic “attack is the best defence” approach which she and idiot Plaskitt (now ex-MP) undertook in a rather underhand way.

Wilt Portfolio

Quite a number of agencies were initially taken in by this nun with a switchblade and took up her cause in the mistaken belief that Calleja, aided and abetted by former MP Plaskitt, was a victim of the big bad system. These were her high points. Some of it was captured in the CSCI Internal Review Report here: http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/11/csci-internal-review-report/ and thereafter her demise was assured. Well done CSCI.

Come the general election in 2010 (when Plaskitt lost his Parliamentary seat) Calleja was on her own, most agencies had realised she was simply “vexatious“(including even the GSCC) and her reputation with the said dozens of agencies was in disarray.

After her arrest in 2010 she focused her switchblade, very nun like, on Regulator Watch which has, among other matters, reported the alternative and more truthful story of Calleja – she had begun the process by reporting her (false) woes to the press herself, aided and abetted by former MP Plaskitt in both the House of Commons and the press. She made herself public, her cause public and seriously discredited others very publicly – is it therefore a surprise that others defend themselves publicly via Regulator Watch?

Plaskitt it appears, as some describe him, been a “poodle” or “lap dog” of the woman, forever doing her bidding.  Calleja, otherwise known as Mrs Fax (given the volumes of data sent by fax to numerous bodies), became more and more isolated and considered by many agencies as suffering some kind of illness.

Why otherwise would she harass so many over so many years? Munchausen’s Syndrome was once proposed and remains a significant contender but Wilt et al have another theory, too.

The demise of Plaskitt (who lost his Parliamentary seat) was a significant loss to Calleja – the “poodle” no longer had a voice, safe within the protected confines of the lower House. He also needed to take a low profile due to his dodgy MP’s expenses, especially his £400 per month (no questions asked) food bill, among other claims on expenses. If only Wilt (and most of the world) had £400 per month for food, without receipts – world hunger would be solved, surely?

There is a considerable body of belief that Calleja “is just simply evil” – she was fully aware of the damage she did to the reputations of others and the distress that caused, but that explanation does not exclude the impressions of others who state that “Munchausen’s Syndrome” or indeed simple “Narcissism” also play a part in the makeup of this complex woman – this is the consequence of having psychiatrists, psychologists and religious people on the board of Regulator Watch.

Wikipedia

See an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder – if reading these you are looking into a mirror, do not blame Wilt, especially if your name is Elisabeth.

Being a pure “evil” person argument is a strong contender – Calleja was intent upon doing the maximum harm to her victims. This does not of course exclude simple mental health problems. “I want this agency de-registered” (or words to that effect) or this and that person de-registered from the GSCC suggests a vengeful and disproportionate attitude especially when it carries on a decade after her perceived abuse of her by others – abuse which all evidence indicates never really took place, although she did as a foster parent suffer some mild maladministration by a local authority (Northamptonshire – see the CSCI Internal Review Report).

Such efforts at revenge never stopped her after it was conclusively determined that the CSCI/GSCC/Police/Information Commissioner could find no grounded cause of complaint – she simply regarded those agencies as complicit in her “paranoid” view that there was a conspiracy, and thus she was even more embolden.

Wilt Portfolio

“Paranoid” is one thing, “Munchausen’s Syndrome” is another – that remains a virtual certainty. However how about Calleja being a Narcissist? Well, the combined thoughts of the experts seem to agree at least on this description of the nun with a switchblade – a term coined to describe Julie Andrews of The Sound of Music acting fame who was, it is suggested, “a bit of a bully.”

This assessed Narcissist – Elizabeth – fits every description of that mirror admiring Greek mythological figure. Indeed she would surpass the fame of that classical body that ultimately became a disgrace both in life and death. She does live in infamy and a warning to mankind in terms of “selfishness”, but Calleja will leave no legacy, other than the compensations awarded to her victims. And those compensations were rather generous!

Wilt

Wilt Portfolio

In this article in Community Care http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/02/02/116208/gscc-committed-to-improving-profession-in-final-year.htm the CEO of the GSCC is “committed to improving the profession” in its final year of existence as a regulator.

It’s a crying shame they were not committed to the same in the previous 7 years in its abysmal mismanagement of regulating social care.

Wilt Portfolio

Penny Thompson is quoted as saying:

“There will be no let-up in the focus on quality and fairness.” AND

“We are continuing to learn from what we do and improve the quality of our assessments and investigations.”

In fact, they never learn judging by the findings of the Second Tier Care Standards Tribunal who have criticised them over and over again on unfairness, disproportionate actions/decisions and sometimes downright skulduggery in the dealings with registrants and prospective registrants. And that includes very recent criticisms.

What planet does this Penny Thompson live on?

Wilt

The General Social Care Council seems to have a twin sister the “under review” Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

From Wilt Portfolio

The ISA http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/ is one of those Quangos currently under review and its remit and scope caused massive a massive outcry of protest and derision after it emerged that every man, woman and their respective dogs and cats would be forced to register (with attendant fee) or otherwise be criminalised.

This included moms and dads who shared the role of the school run! It was shown to be utterly daft and, more importantly, unworkable.

There was a programme set in place to gradually register certain groups (e.g. those already with a CRB check in place) before ever more widely registering virtually everyone who have contact with children (other than their own) and vulnerable adults. That programme was stopped by the present Government whist the ISA was put under review.

It was intended that the ISA would replace the current Protection of Children Act (POCA) list, List 99 (teachers barred) and the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) lists. Murderer Ian Huntley although having been investigated numerous times by police for sexual offences did not appear on any list and the police, famously, relied on the defence that the Data Protection Act prevented action to alert relevant authorities – the response was a not unreasonable public outcry.

The idea for the ISA followed the recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry looking into the events of the Soham murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders) by Ian Huntley.

Recently the Telegraph has revealed in this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8290307/Thousands-could-sue-Government-over-unlawful-child-protection-sackings.html that the ISA is proving to be a complete jerk when it comes to day to day “common sense” decisions – by giving automatic bans from working with children or adults for the most minor of indiscretions, and importantly not giving those people a right to give their side of the story.

The Telegraph gives some interesting examples of simply stupid bureaucratic examples of over and mismanagement by unaccountable quangoland pissheads.

The newspaper article focuses on several cases where people have accepted Police Cautions (i.e. considered minor indiscretions) as distinct from more grevious convictions handed down by a court, such as:

“Yet another mother was cautioned for child neglect after leaving her three children in the care of a seemingly responsible neighbour, a grandmother, while she took a relative to the airport. The neighbour left the children on their own for a while and the mother was barred from taking up a place on a nursing course.”

What a fucking mess. And it could lead to £millions being awarded in compensation to people for loss of earnings – because some twat at the ISA decided to ban various mums and dads from pursuing careers involving either children or vulnerable adults.

What complete fucking Dorks!

Here is another example:

“Another of the nurses, “Mrs W”, was barred for 10 years in June after accepting a caution for leaving her 11-year-old son at home on his own when she went shopping.

Her case was referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council which found that she had no case to answer. But Mrs W was unable to work as an agency nurse and, as a single parent responsible for her son, struggled financially. She was removed from the auto-bar list in August 2010, only after the RCN took up her case.”

From Archives

Obviously those at the GSCC and ISA were conceived of the of same stupid fucking mother and father in Whitehall, under the guidance of the Labour Government.

Jesus, what have we created in the aim of public protection? This quango together with its twin (the GSCC) needs burning at the stake. What is wrong with these people – are they not human?

Wilt

Given the pending demise of the GSCC you would be right to be curious as to why, at some unknown expense, they have undertaken a major makeover of their website here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/page/1/Home.html and especially so when there are major budget cuts – it does look better however.

And furthermore the GSCC seem to be wasting our good tax money in making utterly irrational decisions regarding registrants only to have them, very embarrassingly, overturned by the Care Standards Tribunal. There have been several examples again in recent months but take a look at this one, concerning children’s guardian and expert witness Jaswinder Singh Bains. Community Care gave a reasonably good account here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/01/13/116097/gscc-may-have-breached-social-workers-human-rights.htm in an article titled “GSCC may have breached social worker’s human rights.”

“May have” as a term is a bit of a misnomer – this guy had his rights completely overlooked. The competence of these people beggars belief. Whereas the Community Care article gives a flavour, you really should read the CST full finding here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1131

Here are some choice remarks from this excellent tribunal.

“We have asked ourselves whether the Appellant followed a proper process in dealing with his application to renew his registration or whether it was flawed as the Appellant suggested.   Mr Bains applied in the normal way following preliminary enquiries as to what was expected of him and he ticked the relevant boxes.   We believe that, in the absence of any issues arising in the 3 years since his initial registration, he had an entirely reasonable and legitimate expectation that his application would be dealt with in the normal way.”

That much is clear then……………

“In these circumstances, we find it difficult to understand why the Respondent did not draw the conclusion that its inability to produce any evidence to counter these assertions inevitably meant it would be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain its argument against renewal of his registration.   It seems to have relied instead upon the inexorability of its own processes.”

Ooooops, things are beginning to fall apart for the respondent case (the GSCC).

“The 2010 Notice of Decision makes it clear that the Registration Committee looked solely at the client letter as evidence of the Appellant’s compliance with the original condition.   This demonstrated the Committee had no understanding that the original condition encompassed an oral explanation, despite the fact that this was information in the possession of the Respondent’s officers.   There is no evidence that the Respondent’s officers told the Committee there had been any discussion about the condition at the time it was imposed and therefore the ‘policy’ was not simply the letter alone.”

Sorry Guv, we overlooked this vital evidence…………..

The term “Dork” is coming to mind. The other term is “utter fucking pillocks.”

“We have concluded that the 2010 Registration Committee was not party to all the relevant facts on which to base a reasoned and reasonable decision.   Therefore we can only conclude that their decision was fundamentally flawed.”

Wilt being a bit thick wonders what is meant by “fundamentally” and “flawed?” Can anyone advise?

“We are troubled by the length of time taken by the Respondent to arrive at a decision in this case.   Mr Bains’ application was dated 3 August 2009 and it took the Respondent until February 2010 to make any progress.   It was still asking him for more information at this point despite its earlier apology for the error in telling him he could not work.   Thereafter it was obliged to issue a further apology for saying it had not got information the Appellant had clearly already sent.   It is undoubtedly true that the Respondent had considerable problems in the initial stages of implementing its new regulatory functions in 2006 that resulted in delay and frustration, which was experienced by Mr Bains at first hand in his initial application – and he was not the only one.   But this is no excuse for the apparently chaotic, inaccurate and slow process followed by the Respondent in 2009.”

The trouble with the CST is they use big words like “no excuse”, “chaotic” and “inaccurate.” Do these mean they do not have a first fucking clue? Mmmmm, Wilt must go back to school.

The following quote has other big words like “abdication of responsibility” and human rights:

“Furthermore, this process appears to have been flawed.   The Respondent said it had no option but to recommend refusal because Mr Bains was guilty of non-compliance and had not responded to their requests for information.   On the basis of that initial error, it continued to pursue a path to refusal and to pass the decision to the Committee with that recommendation.   If it is true that the Respondent has, or had, a policy to refer applications to the Committee with an automatic recommendation for refusal, it would seem a strange practice for a regulatory body to follow.   Such a procedure might appear to amount to an abdication of responsibility and in circumstances where the Committee does not know it has insufficient evidence and does not fully record the evidence it does receive, that lays the Respondent open to the argument that there is potentially a breach of Article 6.”

Fucking mind boggling only this complicated stuff, but I think it means that the GSCC are total morons, both Committee and especially its staff. Mind you Wilt is a simple minded soul despite his Oxbridge education and could be wrong.

Anyway, there is more to come:

“It is arguable that perhaps since 2003 and certainly since 2005, the Appellant has experienced several years of somewhat tortuous processes that have proved beyond his ability to control or to influence despite his best efforts.   Both CAFCASS and the Respondent have placed him under considerable pressure, firstly in respect of criminal allegations that proved to be false and thereafter by CAFCASS’ pursuit of allegations about his working practices, which became the basis for his suitability to be registered as a social worker.   The Respondent, prompted by CAFCASS, then decided to address any lingering doubts by negotiating the terms of a condition on his registration.  On the face of it, unusual though it was, and still is, to require an individual social worker to produce and maintain a confidentiality policy, it ought to have been a relatively straightforward step.   Instead, it resulted 3 years later in a prolonged process of investigation by the Respondent characterised by inadequate record keeping, failures in communication, a lack of knowledge and understanding by its officers and a decision taken by a Committee based on that flawed approach.”

I must apply for a job with the GSCC – it sounds like a good place to work. You can be as stupid as you like, waste time and other people’s money and take the piss out of both the law and the public. And, get paid for it and earn a pension – fucking brilliant. My dearly departed father would be proud of me if he were still alive.

But there are even better things:

“A regulatory body must take a proper evidence based approach to its functions and its decision-making, ensuring that the reasons for the decisions it reaches are entirely transparent.   It also needs to take particular care to exercise its functions in a proportionate, fair and independent manner given the power it has been given to control professional status.   It needs to demonstrate that it has not been unduly swayed by the views or approach of another public body with different functions.   It is a matter of public record that, as an organisation responsible for providing services to the public and to the courts on behalf of children CAFCASS has experienced a number of crises, including a prolonged period of dispute with its self employed Guardians and a failure to command the full respect it might normally be entitled to expect.   This increases the necessity for the Respondent to avoid giving the impression of exacerbating a situation that, in reality, turns out not to have been what it appeared to be at the outset.”

Well, if working at the GSCC does not work out, I suppose Wilt could join CAFCASS – it sounds like an equally fun place to work (sic). The options appear very encouraging – a friend of Wilt has told him about another good place to work, called Ofsted.

However, there is yet more:

“It seems to us appropriate to conclude in these circumstances that none of the Respondent’s processes in this case appeared to be characterised by the necessary fairness or transparency or compliance with natural justice or with Article 6.”

These CST people really are killjoys – their observations imply that those nice people at the GSCC have to do a proper days work and be reasonable in return for their critical role and responsibilities and for their salary/pension. Now how unreasonable is that? And, they want them to be transparent too. What do they want – blood?

“We are very concerned about the Respondent’s belated attempt to produce this further evidence.   This was a matter for the separate Conduct Rules process and once the Respondent closed the file on it, it ceased to be relevant to this appeal or a matter to be pursued against the Appellant.  It was quite properly not put before the Registration Committee, but that did not prevent the Respondent trying to include it in the evidence for this appeal.   Even if that had been an appropriate step to take, the material included a newspaper report of the criminal proceedings in 2005 that gave a wholly misleading impression of the trial and of the Appellant’s conduct.

We received no explanation for its inclusion in the bundle of evidence for this appeal and we were most concerned about the implications of so doing.   It was incomplete and gave a partialised view that was entirely incorrect given the facts.   It is extremely important that those preparing these appeals take the utmost care not to include “evidence” that may ultimately leave the impression that an attempt is being made to sway the tribunal.   In the absence of any explanation, we are at a loss to understand why this material ever appeared and we are unable to find a logical and proportionate reason for so doing.”

Do the above quotes mean the GSCC were being a bit difficult because they realised they had been complete and utter fucking Dorks? Surely not!

Ahem:

“We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that there are no grounds for believing Mr Bains is not suitable to be a social worker and therefore to refuse to renew his registration.   There is every reason to believe that he should be restored to the register without delay given the contents of the glowing testimonials he provided.   We are satisfied that the Appellant has demonstrated all that is required for him to continue to be registered as a social worker and we order accordingly.”

Do these people not learn? “Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest” comes to mind as a swinging knightly sword cuts off the head of these fools.

Prince Wilt (of the blogosphere – social care)

I must say I am rather bemused by all this, and a little sad for Hague and Ffion – was there really a need for this?

See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11156963

Even here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/william-hague-denies-gay-rumours

And here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/william-hague/7975823/William-Hagues-special-advisor-resigns-over-untrue-allegations.html

Plus of course: http://order-order.com/2010/09/01/myers-quits/

All this is very silly and sad.

Who gives a shit if he is gay or not, which he probably is not – of course the real story is about appointments of advisers on the payroll who might have been appointed as a gay lover. Again, we suspect not.

Apparently, and Guido (http://order-order.com/) has been reporting it for days, there have been rumours circulating the internet that Hague and Myers have something unsavoury in their relations. Now this kind of scandal mongering is without any real merit and probably comes down to the likes of the News of the World or its readers, or possibly the Sun -otherwise the tabloid gutter press.

Now I know Wilt et al go on about Elizabeth Calleja, but at least their observations are based on recorded facts, evidenced documents (more yet to come) and opinions of reasonable thinking persons. This kind of smearing is however unforgivable.

How comes Myers resigns and Calleja remains a foster parent – I am fucking bemused and her solicitors will really need to explain this to Salty Dog.

Fucking incredible.

Wilt

No sooner than Wilt gets home and the not very nice people at Simons Muirehead and Burton are threatening Regulator Watch again, on behalf of Elizabeth Calleja.

Salty Dog, extremely well versed in law, having responded to the said solicitors, they remain dissatisfied and demanded, today, again, not via Salty Dog or Pixelmakers but via its hosts, to remove Regulator Watch from the face of the earth, or if not any reference to Elizabeth Calleja.

These bully boy tactics from the Soho gang at Frith Street however failed, initially.

So, what exactly is all this about, you might think – well let me tell you the story.

You see, there is this woman Elizabeth Calleja – she lives in Leamington Spa. She is a foster parent, under arrest and on conditional bail, for alleged stalking and harassment – yes I died say a foster parent. The kind that is meant to look after vulnerable children apparently full time.

Anyway, she and her former MP (James Plaskitt) have a problem. It’s called truth – or at least truth unless they approve of it.  Have you ever read 1984, the novel? Scary stuff, we think.

Elizabeth has pursued a complaint with any authorities/quango you care to mention for eight years – the original complaint may have some merit but eight years later and having been dismissed, officially and unofficially, by any agency or quango you care to mention, she has turned to using the press to pursue her complaints – however even they are seriously questioning the veracity of her arguments.

She has pursued relentlessly several parties since 2002 on a dead issue – an issue so dead as to have run out of date for cremation.

Yet Mrs Calleja carries on attempting, sometime successfully until people realise otherwise, to portray herself as a victim of maladministration, administrative victimisation/abuse, and innocence of the most (angelic) high nature. Regrettably, rather than simply portraying herself as a (could be) innocent foster carer (which actually involves a lot of work) she instead decides, even eight years later, to attempt to drag down others in her wake so as to make herself, somehow, look ‘good’ and pristine.

Goodness, no, Elizabeth is not an evil bastard, eight years later and with a vengeance so deep rooted as to know no bounds. No indeed! Perhaps someone else can explain it.

Anyway, a group of people, some much detested by Elizabeth as simple complaint fodder for her own ends, decide enough is enough and thus by almost by group osmosis create Regulator Watch – a light in the darkness. Here, truth (at least a better and more official version, sometimes very uncomfortable) and simple things like facts can be permitted to emerge. Gawd forbid, the press never permitted that in the case of Calleja, failing more often than not to consult with those Calleja gladly named and shamed.

Not, we emphasise, that Regulator Watch is specifically concerned with the woman – I think the solicitors will not challenge the fact that she is a woman? They do challenge anything that Regulator Watch might say about Calleja, and strangely, Plaskitt – very bizarre as he is not a litigant. Perhaps he is a silent litigant?

Therefore, Calleja attempts again to have anything which she does not agree with expunged from the record in 1984 fashion. In this case her solicitors simply want the whole of Regulator Watch taken offline, permanently.

They succeeded initially, then Regulator Watch was restored but they are now further threatening Webfusion (the hosts) and the designers of Regulator Watch – not that either have any responsibility.

Webusion have taken the sensible position (tot that Wilt agrees with them) of a company and decided again to take down Regulator Watch – Wilt et al have however decided to move to another host, and if necessary keep moving the Blog from host to host until Calleja gives up.

We will not be dictated to about facts and opinions on a broad range of issues, including Calleja. Pixelmakers have been excused, purely to protect their interests. However if you need a great designer, look no further, and Webfusion are excused too – they are however guilty of taking the line of least resistance in an increasingly litigious world.

Of course Calleja will never directly challenge Wilt – the threats of litigation are based on far too shaky grounds. She knows that evidence, and in particular a jury in either civil or legal proceedings, would laugh her out of Court – with considerable costs.

Besides, several police forces have told Calleja there is no case for complaint, as have from their respective positions (scope of responsibility) the Information Commissioner (ICO), GSCC (in respect of the alleged author – Wilt), Ofsted and the former relevant ministers in the various House of Commons debates. So where is the alleged guilt or the remit of any institution to impose the will of Mrs Calleja?

Nowhere to be seen, it appears. Fortunately neither Blair nor Brown were quite able to create the quango ‘The World According to Calleja’ or as otherwise known as ‘TWAC.’

It is unlikely to be created, we suspect.

In the last century we saw the likes of Stalin, Hitler (and cohorts) and some others who simply had a certain agenda and as part of their efforts to control the world insisted upon a certain perverse propaganda. Anyone who disagreed with the conventional thinking and view were simply disposed of either to Siberia or somewhere like Auschwitz – there was no freedom of speech or opinion that was allowed without approval. Is that what Calleja or her supporters want?

Her efforts in the new millennium to ‘cleanse the records’ and limit free speech and opinion has worrying reminisces to an earlier world order in certain parts of the planet.

It is a very slippery slope when you take that route, especially in Leamington Spa.

However much Wilt instructs solicitors and advocates and enjoys their company both professionally and privately, they are sometimes a despicable profession by promoting the defence of total twats or advocating actions which challenge common sense or established conventions. And why do they act as such – you ever met a poor solicitor or advocate?

Wilt is advised that there are some poor solicitors – so no offence to them. There are also some who work hard for little reward to promote the rights of those least able to defend themselves – excluded from that is Calleja. She is, she claims of course, to be a lawyer herself.

So, there are poor solicitors (a minority), some dedicated (irrespective of personal gain) and there are false lawyers. It just goes to show what a broad range of people attempt to exercise the law.

It’s an expensive business, although we recommend Salty Dog who has reasonable rates.

We will be online………

Wilt et al

Again thanks to Guido, this is an absolute classic: http://order-order.com/2010/08/02/monday-morning-cartoon-5/

The woman, Jacqui Smith, does not have the first fucking clue. I cannot believe this woman has the lack of understanding why she is hated by the public (especially in her former constituency) at large and the audacity to put herself forward as a deputy/vice-chairman of the BBC – is she fucking stupid? Obviously she is!

What a total twat.

Wilt

Wilt rather likes this article by Guido: http://order-order.com/2010/08/02/27006/

As well as first testing out the ‘suggested’ legislation first on MPs (and Lords) it could also be then rolled out in test form to lawyers, judges, GPs/doctors, footballers, rugby players, some foster carers, social workers and especially journalists and police officers, with a smattering of teachers & nurses.

We suspect the suggested legislation might not get past the first phase of the MPs or Lords.

Where do these Dorks come from? Well, done Guido http://order-order.com/

Cheers, (hic)

Wilt