Friday, August 19, 2016

The Greater London Authority (GLA): The extent of the malicious intent of St Mungo's GLA Clearing House to do us harm. We now have to deal with Osborne Clarke LLP (WITH UPDATE ON ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ATTACKS ON OUR WEBSITE TO DATE)

County Court at Central London, Royal Courts of Justice

Paragraphs 38-39 of Declan's next updated complaint to the United Nations re St Mungo's, commissioned by the Greater London Authority (GLA) to operate its Clearing House service for homeless people

38. At the jurisdictional hearing on 3 February 2016, District Judge Silverman rebuked counsel acting for the GLA for saying that the Applicant had refused support, clarifying that there is a distinction to be made between refusing support and not accepting coercive support. He spoke in summation of the "home" the Applicant and his wife have made for themselves with their own money, how impressed he was with the Applicant's behaviour in court, and the commitment he received from the said counsel to arrange round table talks. The Applicant met with St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair on 25 February 2016, with the manager of St Mungo's GLA Clearing House in attendance. A subsequent series of emails culminated in a Support Agreement between the Applicant and St Mungo's GLA Clearing House dated 15 April 2016, wherein it is agreed that support provided by St Mungo's GLA Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) would be voluntary and "any notes recorded from our meetings will be action notes, these will be brief notes recording any actions agreed by all parties in the meetings". The Applicant and his wife were subsequently provided by Family Mosaic with a renewed (like for like) two year tenancy that started on 16 May 2016, with their support being provided by St Mungo's GLA TST.

39. From the outset of the Applicant and his wife's renewed tenancy, St Mungo's GLA TST has failed to honour the Support Agreement of 15 April 2016 between the Applicant and St Mungo's GLA Clearing House. From a first meeting with the Applicant and his wife on 22 April 2016, internal information between St Mungo's TST and the GLA relating to contract providers and staffing restructure - with which neither the Applicant nor his wife could have possibly agreed or disagreed - was vaguely recorded as "explained briefly the St Mungo's TST model", and then was subsequently inadequately rectified to read: "Introduced myself ********* [text removed on the request of Mr Heavey]." From a second meeting with the Applicant on 27 May 2016, personal data which is fabricated, falsified and non-specific was recorded as an action note; it reads: "Signposted to another service." This false data is concerning because unchallenged the Applicant and his wife could be evicted from their home for non-compliance with a supposedly agreed action (albeit unspecified) between both parties. It followed that after an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) request addressed to Mr Sinclair went unanswered, the Applicant was left with no option but to file a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the Central London County Court; it was issued by the Court on 19 July 2016. The Applicant argues in relation to the false data from the second meeting that the fact that it is non-specific renders incredulous any claim that it was not fabricated and falsified. He further argues that the fact that St Mungo's would allow this case to go to a hearing without deleting legally inaccurate data that was not agreed upon - and in the case of the second meeting, data which is both nonsensical (vague to the point of having almost any kind of interpretation) and incredulous - is in of itself revealing of malicious intent to do harm.

We are still waiting for the Greater London Authority (GLA)-commissioned St Mungo's to file a defence with the Central London County Court in relation to Declan's claim against the homeless charity for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. They have employed an expensive firm of solicitors, Osborne Clarke LLP, to try to defend inaccurate, false and fabricated data; rather than agree to mediation to resolve this case outside court (see my blog post, Heavey v St Mungo's: Filed at Central London County Court on 4 July 2016). In other words, we are now being threatened with bankruptcy as well as eviction, which only serves to send our claim for damages for distress through the roof. We are only sorry we limited our claim to no more than £1,000. If only we had known the extent of the malicious intent to do us harm. Not even mediation should have been required to simply delete legally inaccurate data, some of which was created out of thin air (see paragraph 39 above).

When it comes to costs, has St Mungo's factored in the possibility of having to pay for counsel too? There is nothing about this case that we are not prepared to appeal to a higher court, including costs. In fact, it is the cleanest-cut case we have ever been involved in. And if St Mungo's think they are paying to renegotiate a support agreement that they have repeatedly failed to honour, they have already pumped charitable money into a lost cause. We spent two years fighting for the agreement for voluntary support (as opposed to coercive support) we have got with St Mungo's GLA Clearing House, and we will not renegotiate one word of it. Further, this case is not about provisions of a support agreement that were only recently agreed upon, but about specific data as it stands in all its incredulity. We look forward to Osborne Clarke, or counsel, explaining to the court why St Mungo's paid for an expensive firm of solicitors (and counsel?) rather than agree to mediation, or simply just delete legally inaccurate data that was not agreed upon. I seriously doubt they've got charitable money to burn.

Click to enlarge

In an unprecedented attack on our Church and State website, the plugin I have for all our category pages to show Facebook likes/shares was attacked last night and all the FB likes/shares have been reduced to zero. We have had many outrageous attacks on this blog and our website, but this latest attack on the latter may very well register in Declan's next updated complaint to the UN; there will be so many different attacks to choose from for the top two or three. Only this time last month this entire N4CM blog was decimated following a blog I posted about Newham Council titled "Is it the intention of Newham Council to undermine our local councillor's support for Declan's complaint against Active Newham for unfair treatment?".

Click to enlarge

Some of the figures that are hit are quite spectacular. This is what the Facebook likes/shares look like inside our articles (in this instance showing 317,000 FB likes/shares):

Click to enlarge

And I'm still updating my previous blog post with data relating to non-access to our website; the most recent last night at 11.14pm (ie, the 15th such attack since 1 August).

UPDATE 25 August 2016: Many of our Church and State category pages are miraculously back to normal; but we are discovering that many are not, and are still showing zeros. There are so many category pages that there is no way to know the full extent of this attack as it stands one week on.

Click to enlarge



Paragraph 12 of Declan's previous updated complaint to the United Nations re the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

12. It is important to underscore that the discriminatory surveillance suffered by the Applicant and his wife is not an isolated event. Rather, it is emblematic of a larger pattern of surveillance by law enforcement officials in the UK that has been well-documented by international and domestic human rights bodies. For example, GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) specialises in the "4 D's": deny, disrupt, degrade, deceive. It has been branded by the press as the spy agency's "deception unit". Though its existence was secret until 2014, JTRIG has developed a distinctive profile in the public understanding, after documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the unit had engaged in "dirty tricks" like deploying sexual "honey traps" designed to discredit targets, launching denial-of-service attacks to shut down Internet chat rooms, pushing veiled propaganda onto social networks and generally warping discourse online. Previous reporting on GCHQ established its focus on what it regards as political radicalism. Beyond JTRIG's targeting of Anonymous, other parts of GCHQ targeted political activists and groups deemed to be "radical", even monitoring human rights NGOs. Simon Davies, president of the London-based Privacy International, asks: "If spying on human rights NGOs isn't off limits for GCHQ, then what is?"

Related blog post 25 March 2016: Threat to life: Updated complaint to the United Nations

Click to enlarge

Citizenfour Official Trailer 1 (2014) - Edward Snowden Documentary HD


How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

'Let me recommend an important web site Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' - Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

About Church and State

Letter from our Chairman

Donations are our only source of income to keep our Church and State website going, so even a small amount will make a big difference! An overview of the e-books we have published so far is available at Church and State Press here. All proceeds from these four e-books go to Network for Church Monitoring with the authors' permission.

Purchase straight from Amazon's Kindle Store:

From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013 for $4.67

The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy for $6.64

American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security for $4.99

The Pope and the New Apocalypse: The Holy War Against Family Planning for $2.99