Council tax scam

Council Tax is a property-based charge with one bill for each household set by the various councils to help pay for local services such as refuse collection etc. A tax which not too many of us have an issue. And yet there was that little investigation by TheBigRetort?

Councils can be rather vague regarding the "discounts" and "exemptions" that are available to the homeowner. In fact, when it comes to working out how much council tax is due some offer a 25% discount, providing there is only one occupant. Paradoxically, if the same property is empty then the discount is reduced by 10% only - leaving the council to claim a whopping 90% tax....but on an empty property.

The discount is offered on a 'furnished dwelling not used as a sole or main residence’ - a second home for example - and is curiously 'lower' when a property is empty. Why we haven't a clue... and TheBigRetort would have liked to have posed that question to that august body known as London Councils, previously known as the ALG. Unfortunately as the only representative for the thirty-two London authorities it does not - we were informed, on more than one occasion - 'speak to freelancers'. And so we, alongside council tax payers and buy-to-let landlords in particular, must remain forever in the dark - which is just the way 'they' like it. In this post, TheBigRetort lifts the lid on the council tax scam that may be costing property owners millions. But first, a little bit of taxing history....

Council Tax and the Landlord

The Local Government Act 2003 gave local councils 'discretion' in the level of discounts offered to council tax payers, enabling them to reduce the discounts on furnished properties. 'Second home' tax savings were reduced from 50% to 10%. [Defined in the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 and prescribed by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.]

But we discovered that the councils make various ‘assumptions’ in order to ‘steer’ any homeowner with an empty property towards the '2nd home' discounted schemes - where tax is always due. In fact, many if not all landlords should be awarded an “exemption” - thereby paying zilch. The “discretion” reveals that there is a lack of co-ordination by the authorities in London, and that their lobby body London Councils does not have a tight grip on the reigns, as usual. This can be very costly to the not so savvy landlord with an empty property. "An empty property gets charged at a higher rate than a property with a single occupant." Make sense? It does for the councils... because it’s the law of increasing tax returns.

However, novice landlords may be unaware (because councils like it that way) but they are being 'guided' toward discounted schemes - both on websites and over the telephone - to get them to pay tax that they do not in fact owe . It's a scam. A slight of hand that would in any other case be classed as out-and-out deception. And, what's more, it's happening nationally...

Landlords who not only face voids in their property also face crippling and unnecessary council tax payments - unless they wise up to this not-so-neat little tax trick. Or until London Councils reigns in its members and halts the practice. But don't hold your breath.

And then, there are ways to avoid the tax altogether.

TheBigRetort's step-by-step guide to avoiding council tax on an empty buy-to-let property. And it's legal.

Take the furniture out.

A “Class C” exemption applies if a ‘property is vacant and substantially unfurnished’ for up to six months. And rightly speaking no tax is due.

Following an initial phone query in Brent, we reveal that the exemption for empty properties is kept in the background. “The discount for properties that are empty but furnished (including second homes) is ten per cent” many councils claim up front. But more often than not we had to dig to find the exempt categories, where they were found, in many instances, the burden of proof was weighted against the landlord with the empty property - which obviously makes it difficult (if not impossible) to pursue the exemption. Which is the way that many of these councils want it.

Wandsworth Council states on its website that landlords are ‘required to notify us' when there is a change of occupancy. Are they really? Additional requests include forwarding addresses of any tenant who moves out of the property and other ‘relevant’ information. Landlords could easily find themselves on the wrong side of the Data Protection’s Act, or harassment laws. But the motivation behind such demands is obvious....

“You must also note that for any period between tenancies, you will be made responsible for Council Tax payments.” Wandsworth goes on to say, "If the property remains furnished during this period, you may be eligible for a 25% discount from your Council Tax."

It's a con... if your property is partly furnished and empty then you don't have to pay a bean. It's only when TheBigRetort knocked at the proverbial door of truth that we discovered the following... "If unfurnished and unoccupied you may be eligible for a six month exemption from Council Tax..."

But there is no 'may' about it, you are entitled to the exemption, and to the buy-to-let landlord facing a dreaded rental void that may mean the difference between retention or repossession.

Lambeth Council claims, “Even if they do not live there, the owner of the property will have to pay the Council Tax if: (i) the property is no one's main home." In fact if a landlord has a - partly or totally unfurnished - empty property due to a void or refurbishment circumstances then s/he will find that the same exemption applies – and no tax is due.

A property counts as a main home if you live there for the majority of the time and most of your possessions are kept there. However what Lambeth then goes on to claim is both puzzlingly and contradictory, “There is no discount for unfurnished empty properties.” [Lambeth’s emphasis.] It is only when we read on that we discover that the council speaks with forked tongue…. "Such properties may be exempt from Council Tax for up to six months but after that time, there is now no discount.’"

Misleading, or what? In a very roundabout bureaucratic way, Lambeth Council tells us that there is no discount for unfurnished properties: which is true, because it’s - wait for it - an exemption. [Lambeth just hopes that you landlords don't log on to TheBigRetort and discover how misleading.]

Southwark Council also goes boldly where Lambeth has gone before when it states, “There is only one council tax bill per household whether it is owned, rented or empty.” Which is true…. owned, rented, or empty, there is only one council tax bill. But what if the property is partly furnished and empty? Well.... no council tax is due.

Landlords in Southwark should watch out for this council tax jiggery-smokery. The council lists the answer(s) under separate categories marked “Discounts” and “Exemptions”. Under the first it duly reveals that there are circumstances when a discount can be awarded, “If there is only one adult we could reduce your Council Tax bill by 25% (one quarter). If there are no adults we could reduce your Council Tax bill by 50% (one half).” [Other councils only - curiously - reduce the discount by 10% on an empty property.] So what if a property is empty and (partly) unfurnished? The fallback answer is found under the heading "Empty Properties and Second Homes", but novice landlords ignore the “2nd Home” ten percent discount - that's just the red herring - it's the exemption you need.

Reducing a council tax bill to zero

There are a number of ways that a homeowner can reduce a council tax bill to zero….and it is with the help of that Great Landlord in the Sky.

Religious Community status is a must for those choosing to avoid council tax... The only requirement is a written confirmation of the number of adults resident in the property and the name and details of the religious community and details of any income. Seem fair? Why should non-believers pay tax on behalf of those who believe in a greater being? Can an atheist classify a ‘faith’ in non-existence and thereby escape the tax? What is ‘belief’ and - more importantly - why should it be totally exempt from council tax anyway? Surely the believers amongst us go to a tax-free haven in the sky and get the best of both worlds. [But don't ask us, ask London Councils.]

Class C Exemption

In fact "Class C" exemptions should be applied nationally to empty unfurnished homes and should not be classed under ‘2nd home ownership, which simply qualifies for a discount - and that is probably the sole motivation for any council withholding the exemption information.

In tower Hamlets a ‘Second Home’ (in other words not the main home but a furnished one), sees the council tax bill reduced by 10%. As with other councils prior to 1st April 2004 the discount was 50%, which is still applicable where it is ‘job related’ and the occupier is liable to pay council tax for another dwelling by an employer. [How much does an MP pay?] In fact, it is only when we looked under the Exempt Homes category that we discovered a transparent explanation: “Vacant properties are exempt when they are ‘unfurnished’ (exempt for up to six months).”

Camden Council gave a full and forward and open account on its website of the exemption: “Section 75, of the Local Government Finance Act 2003, gave local councils' the discretion to amend the council tax discounts; that they give to the owners of unoccupied domestic properties, with effect from 01 April 2004. Regulations made by the Secretary of State namely, The Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations SI 2003: 3011, specified the classes of domestic property for which the discounts could be reduced as follows: A Class C exemption applies if the property is unfurnished and unoccupied. By unoccupied, we mean that a property is not anyone's main home.”

All great stuff... Unfortunately the council then goes on to argue, “In the case of Class C, the discount can be removed altogether so that the full council tax bill is payable.”

A case of giving it with one hand and taking it back with the other if ever. Camden Council passed a resolution in 2004. It ruled that an empty property exemption could be reduced from 50% to zero. Does this apply to a landlord with an empty unfurnished property?

The policy is discretionary. Local authorities' throughout England follow different strategies. Indeed, just within the Greater London area alone there are great differences. However, and here’s the rub… An exemption will still apply for the first six months, where a property becomes substantially unfurnished. [In the case of uninhabitable properties, this period increases to 12 months. Lewisham Council is very helpful in this regard.]

And that leaves us with the council that misled the most...

Brent Council initially claimed that council tax was due on an empty property - even though it was ‘unfurnished’. It claimed, wrongly, that the exemption only applied if the property was being ‘refurbished’, which is not true. Nevertheless Brent ignored this and demanded more than £200 for the months the unfurnished property was empty. [Brent Council's press office was very helpful when we queried this and other behaviour but did not get back to us at the point of writing with any answers, so we may never learn what has gone on there. Firstly why is it more expensive for tax on a discounted empty property? And, secondly, why is the council directing landlords away from the all-important no-tax exemptions?]

So landlords in Brent do not be cowed. If your empty property is partly furnished, or unfurnished, then no council tax is owed, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of the regulations, or a thief. But then, to a council, a ten percent discount sounds much better than a zero exemption.

Ealing Council stated on its website - and of the 'Thirty-Two' it wasn't alone - “If only one adult lives in the property the council tax will be reduced by 25%. Properties which are unoccupied and furnished will get a 10% discount."

Ealing's landlords are supposed to see this and go, Oh my property’s empty, why don’t I just say it’s got one person in it and avoid a further 15% tax! Don’t bother… It’s a scam. You don’t owe the council grifters a penny. Seek out the all-important “exemptions” column.

So, if you’re a landlord with an empty (partly) unfurnished property... just say No to Council Tax.

Free speech costs plenty

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." An eloquent defence of tolerance, or a cosy assumption from people who don't have to face the consequences of what they defend?

Had the Oxford Debating Society students known their onions they may have been surprised to learn that the saying attributed to French writer François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire was actually written by Stephen G Tallentyre, a pseudonym for (female) writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall. She added it to her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. It was only intended to summarise Voltaire's attitude and were not words that he himself actually uttered.

Renowned for his satirical wit, Voltaire, a millionaire at forty, did not occupy the moral high ground - and even if he had uttered 'his' famous expression he would not have extended it to all.
It was Voltaire's (erroneously based) free speech ideals that led to the Oxford Union Debating Society's controversial invitation to two 'racists'. However, Voltaire believed that Africans were a separate species, inferior to the Europeans and that ancient Jews were "an ignorant and barbarous people".
Paradoxically an atheist-in-religious-guise, Voltaire used 'faith'. In his day freedom of expression came with the caveats not against the Church and not against the State - he fell foul to both. Little wonder that a biographer - writing under a male pseudonym - placed an often misunderstood ideal in his mouth. Women did not have the same rights as men circa 1906.

So was female writer Hall was secretly lobbying for the rights of women at the beginning of the 20th Century through an early liberal racist philosopher?

Ironically the Oxford Two are a symbol of Voltaire himself. He was in complete accord with what both had to say and would no doubt defend... to the death.
What is even more ironic - something the free-speech-brigade avoids - Voltaire shared the same self-absorbed belief that his 'race' alone was at the pinnacle of species, rather than a fractious part of humankind.

But freedom is not democracy and democracy is not free.
[Voltaire.]

Philippines hotel siege: surrender

Military ‘rebels’ who seized a luxury hotel in the Philippines capital have agreed to surrender, for the safety of the hostages.
"We're going out ... because we cannot live with our conscience if some of you get hurt in the crossfire," Antonio Trillanes, a Navy Lieutenant informed them.
About 200 civilians (many journalists) were trapped inside the Peninsula Hotel in Manila when the rebels, calling for the overthrow of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, took control of the building which is ringed by troops. Guest inside were said to be 'calm'.

Scandal of the high street banks

THERE IS A VERY OLD SAYING THAT 'HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF TIME AND TIME AGAIN'. RECENTLY TWO COMPUTER DISCS CONTAINING THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF 26 MILLION PEOPLE DISAPPEARED.... IN THE POST. BUT HASN'T IT ALL HAPPENED BEFORE? THEBIGRETORT REVEALS ...

Some years back, an investigation was conducted by two undercover reporters working for Punch Magazine - Pete Sawyer and Jon Paul Morgan . The pair of sleuths presented a groundbreaking piece of journalism, following months of painstaking research, that was featured on Channel 4 News - as the lead item - and copied in newspapers and magazines the length and breadth of Britain. Reproduced here (with the kind permission of Punch Magazine) is what the pair uncovered...

THE REPORTERS SIFTING THROUGH MOUNTAINS OF PERSONAL BANK INFORMATION LEFT OUT ON THE STREETS. [Sawyer pictured left, Morgan right.].

THE TITLE SAID IT ALL...

'Doing undercover work at night, can make you stick out like a sore thumb. Pete and I used to dress quite smartly at first and pose as businessmen searching for our own documents, sometimes we used to dress like tramps, and actually hardly ever got noticed. Except when we appeared on Channel 4, and our cover was blown. We still caught them dumping personal details though!' (JPM)

'The banks had become really sloppy, creating an illusion of security where in fact none existed. In many instances we found passwords, opinions on customers, amounts held, phone numbers, pass numbers, oh... and a jam doughnut.'

'In order to show that this wasn't just a London problem, we broadened our investigation with the help of colleagues credited above.'
THE BANKS WERE CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN, AND COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHTY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MORGAN AND SAWYER. THOUGH SOME TRIED TO WRIGGLE FREE... WHICH WAS ALWAYS VERY INTERESTING... THE REPORTERS TARGETED THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND YES... THEY WERE STILL DOING IT.
Can our data ever be secure in their hands? Is there still a place for a National ID Card? We leave it up to you to decide. Data recovery

Why we are alone

Could Mankind be the only technologically advanced society in the Cosmos?

D. Bruce Merrifield, writing in Integrated Patterns of Civilization, seems to think so. Apparently it is due to surges in greenhouse gases, which coincide with periods of global warming, that we may occupy a unique place in the Cosmos... alone.

Merrifield's report, published in American Thinker (November 2007), claims that it is only during the last 5,000 years weather conditions have allowed an advanced civilisation to emerge on planet Earth. Samples taken from ice cores in the Antarctic Ice Cap and the Sargasso Sea record that a unique set of circumstances led towards our present civilisation.

Global warming has been periodically recurring for many hundreds of thousands of years Mankind has evolved by periodic 100,000-year great ice age-ending warming periods, each coincident with enormous surges of carbon dioxide and methane from the oceans. These surges, lasting about 15,000 to 25,000 years, are far greater than those currently generated from fossil fuels. Remarkably, in the last 5,000 years, a number of shorter periods of warming have taken place, lasting 200 to 300-years. And in the brief history of Mankind, each of the shorter warming periods has coincided with the rise and decline of major civilisations.

Amazingly, between these sequential warming periods, advances made in one civilisation have not been lost to the next. This one factor alone has allowed Mankind to gain an evolutionary foothold. We are currently about 20,000 years into the most recent of the 100,000-year cycles, and this one peaked about 10,000 years ago. It has since been cooling. However, these warming cycles are coincident with the earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. Solar radiation bombarded the planet and as it did so it increased and decreased in strength. The Earth has cooled from its most recent peak up to about 8500 B.C. when a previous civilisation was ‘snuffed out’.

In Fact, the rise of the civilisations has been coincident with these warming – or birthing - periods. Times that were conducive to the increased availability of food. Naturally civilisations grew. The cooling process was reversed when a new great surge of methane rose into the atmosphere at about 5000 B.C. Is it any coincidence that this was the period that coincided with the beginning of civilisation in the Nile, Euphrates, and Tigris River Valleys?

Fortunately, the rise and fall of civilisations, which were sufficiently close together, ensured that any cultural advances made in each civilisation did not die out. Such a fortuitous sequence has never occurred before in any of the previous 100,000-year warming periods. The result has been that the extraordinary advance of civilisation to its present state and may be unique in the process of Earth's evolution - and the Cosmos itself. Remarkably all the great incremental advances in the human condition were made during these sequential periods About 90 percent of all scientific knowledge has been generated during the last ‘30’ years.

London Councils: double indemnity.

Is service-provider London Councils really running a range of services designed to make life better for 'all'? In a previous article we tried to test this claim by posing a question: how many councils know the law. Unfortunately, instead of an answer we were given the old heave-ho. [Blame the press office... 'freelancers' are apparently amoeba.] Be that as it surely may…

TheBigRetort was intrigued to find a press release - posted by London Councils on the Internet under its then guise the "ALG". It boasted of inconsiderate motorists who were to face fines for blocking people's driveways in London.

So, a simple question, well answered. Albeit many years ago.

Really...?

The problem is that it was posted back in 2003... before our undercover investigation began. [See London Councils: Just the ticket.]

So why then does this 'four year old' press release have the same reference number (83/03) as another press release dated three days later? [Headed “Press release: New measures will help tackle child poverty in London – says Association of London Government” - aka... London Councils.]

Different story. Different date... But with the same press release number...?

Perhaps one was meant for the eyes of the mainstream press and the other for those lower down the chain.

But don't take our words for it, take theirs... just click on the enclosure link above.

London Underground: Mind the map

THE NEXT TIME YOU TAKE THE TUBE... MIND THE MAP.

The London underground 'map' was created by graphic designer Henry C Beck (pictured below) in 1933.

'Harry' Beck, as he was known, was an engineering draughtsman at the London Underground Signals Office. Less map more diagram, sheer simplicity is what makes the 'map' so user-friendly. He constructed the diagram in his spare time. Harry had the idea of creating a full system map in colour. He believed passengers riding the trains weren't too bothered about the geographical accuracy - this was way before the Congestion Charge - but were more interested in how to get from one station to another and where to change. The idea has since been emulated around the world.

Harry continued to update his Tube map on a freelance basis. [The Victoria Line was added by someone else and many additional changes were also introduced, without Harry's approval.]

Harry struggled furiously to regain control of his map down the years. Unfortunately for him, responsibility was eventually given to a third designer Paul Garbutt. Ironically, he changed the style of the map to look more like Harry's map of the 1930s. Harry too attempted subsequent versions, but the workplace, like the underground, is forever evolving, and Harry became persona non grata. He continued to make sketches and drawings for the map until his death aged seventy-one.

After long failing to acknowledge his importance as the Tube map's original designer, London Regional Transport relented and created the Beck Gallery where his works can be seen.

Transport for London started to credit Harry for the original idea and his name now appears on modern Tube maps.

Henry C. Beck , born 1903. Died 1974.
A commemorative plaque rests at Finchley Central tube station.

David Kelly: Thy will be done

THE CURIOUS CASE OF DR DAVID KELLY AND WHY HE WROTE THAT WILL...

Researchers never seem to mention it but the dead scientist's will, proved at the District Probate Registry at Winchester, not only states a time of death but when the will was written - the 26th November 1998.

Fresh from his frequent trips to Iraq, which ended - also coincidentally - in 1998, what was it that convinced the scientist that he needed a will at that point?

Why did he not write a will during those dangerous times in Iraq, and in the unhappy times before he was 'found dead in the woods'?

Was it the first time Dr Kelly had drawn one? If so it was rather late in the day. But then, so was his conversion to religion the following year.

Was Dr Kelly following Baha'i law in writing it? It is a requirement of that particular faith that a will be done... But Kelly is said not to have joined the movement until 1999 - which is curious.

Either he wrote the will before he joined the faith or joined the Baha'i faith much earlier than acknowledged.

London Councils: Just the ticket?

IN A PREVIOUS ARTICLE THEBIGRETORT REVEALED THAT A 'NEW' LAW HAS BEEN INTRODUCED AGAINST SELFISH PARKING - BUT DO LONDON COUNCILS KNOW IT?

Following on from our last expose many of you wrote in to tell us why you felt that you had been kept in the dark about a change in the law that came into force four years ago. It is now unlawful to block "any part of the footway or verge where it has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway... for the purpose of assisting pedestrians to cross or assisting vehicles to enter or leave the road across the footway or verge.” In other words homeowners, frustrated by cars blocking their driveways, now have legal redress in the fight against selfish parking.

The new law currently applies to London only. An owner can demand that a car is removed even if there is no vehicle being blocked. To enforce the restriction no traffic order or signs are required and - providing the owner has requested it - a penalty charge notice can be issued… Or at least that is what the law states.

TheBigRetort exclusive reveals that despite Section 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (introduced to combat blocked driveway parking), some London councils have not been made aware of it by the organisation that was set up to guide them.

In some cases councils' are acting unlawfully and are not singing off the same law sheet.

In one instance, notably Lewisham Council - on the advice of its legal department - does not recognise the law.

In fact, there is confusion for some authorities as to where the jurisdiction for the offence lies: Councils or Police. The police often claim that it is a matter for the local authority, which is largely true, however, on the other hand, many local authorities are without guidance from choirmaster London Councils, previously known as the ALG.

TheBIGRetort highlights that many councils need to be given clear guidance on this quite important law, which concerns the whole of London and visitors to it.

So what advice has been given?

We asked London Councils... Its response leaves us in no doubt why many councils are misguided about the dropped kerb law.

In fact, when we enquired about the guidance offered Natinder Boparai, press representative of London Councils, refused to answer. A former freelance journalist, she claimed that this was due to the fact that we were "non-commissioned freelancers” - not on the payroll of a newspaper or magazine (which rather negates the description "freelance" one might think) - and that the information was - or so she claimed - 'not readily available'. She also felt that a query from a freelancer 'can eat into the time of my people', time best reserved for the 'nationals'.

Despite this reaction, the "non commissioned" report commissioned by TheBIGRetort, reveals that some councils are either flaunting or ignorant of the law, largely due to a lack of co-ordination by London Councils itself.

We asked each council: DO YOU ISSUE PCNs TO VEHICLES BLOCKING DROPPED KERB DRIVEWAYS? These were the responses.

Barking and Dagenham Council said ‘Yes.’ It issued PCNs 'twenty-four-seven'. [We marked it 8 out of 10.]

Barnet Council played us some classical music - for a while - and then wanted to know if the wheels of our investigation were 'on the pavement or on a yellow line'. It was on neither. 'No,' it said. However, when urged to confirm this it changed its response to ‘Yes’. [We place Barnet in the “not sure” section. Zero out of 10.]

Meanwhile Bexley Council informed us that a single driveway must be registered before enforcement, even though the law does not state this, and that if it is a shared driveway then an automatic penalty applies. It also operates outside business hours with a skeleton staff. [9-10.]

In north London Brent Council informed: “If a vehicle is blocking your drive, in or out, in this case we remove it.” [9-10.]

Nearby Camden Council responded, “We do enforce that… You give us the registration and address and we send an officer around (twenty-four seven). We ticket it, but if it’s a persistent offender then we also tow.” [9-10.]

At Bromley Council, where an out of hours team also operates, the answer was a resounding ‘Yes’. [9-10.]

However, at the City of London Council, where curious and ancient laws apply….”I’m not sure. I’ll just check,” an AMERICAN SOUNDING WOMAN said as yet more jazz music followed her pleasant voice. She later confirmed, “If it’s a private driveway then we don’t.” [0-10.]

Croydon Council seemed more up to speed. “We do if it’s a personal driveway with a dropped kerb.” Officers ticket and remove up to 630pm, after that time they just ticket. Homeowners will need to call by 9pm as the line closes after that time. [9-10.]

Over at Ealing Council they played us lots of mood music. However, between the beat we were assured that our call was important to them and that it would be answered by the next available adviser, and following which more mood music filtered through the phone. To be fair it apologised for the delay etc - more music. Customer services…? There wasn't any. We asked for parking enforcement. “What’s it about?” We explained... but the "adviser" seemed ‘confused’. More ringing... Leave a message this time or follow these options. We hung up instead. [We placed the borough in the “don’t knows” but ”No” seems a strong category. 0-10.]

Greenwich Council insisted that it ticketed, “Only with a yellow line.” We mentioned the Act that made it an offence - since 2003! - and received the following response. “I couldn’t tell you that…you would have to go higher than me, but as far as I’m aware we can't enforce it.” [A big “No” from Greenwich then. 0-10.]

Hackney Council wanted to know if the car was on a yellow line. No. “Let me find out for you.” Following a pause we were informed that the authority can log it (on the database). “It usually takes half an hour for an enforcement officer to inspect, and then we can ticket it (or tow).” The scheme operates from 8am-8pm but there is also an out of hours team. [7-10.]

Hammersmith and Fulham Council operates a call queue system on its phone system. So be prepared to listen to a load of guff that is of no relevance to the beleaguered homeowner with a blocked drive. Simply please hold for connection, and then listen to another instruction. “We would have to send someone out to see if it’s parked illegally or not.” In fact the adviser did not know and had to ask for further instruction. A dreadful repetitive beeping noise designed to get rid us did just that. [0-10.]

Haringey Council actually removes cars from blocked driveways, but only between the hours of 7am-6pm Mon-Sat. And only if the car is parked "more than half way across the drive." [7-10.]

Harrow Council seemed far too busy to answer the phone. Normally a persistent bunch, we gave up. [0.10.]

Havering Council said “Yes”. Parking attendants operates 9-5, but it is also operated out of hours too. [9-10.]

Hillingdon Council said “It must be a single driveway, that is not shared with a neighbour, and the exact details of the vehicle must be supplied.” Response times can be up to two hours. The scheme operates from Mon-Fri, 9-5pm, with police standing in outside these hours. [9-10.]

Hounslow Council… Well... the adviser was not aware of the law, claiming that it only had authority to remove vehicles that were parked on a yellow line. "Otherwise it’s a police matter." [Which is the truth but not the whole truth, Guv.] When informed this was incorrect, he responded, “You’ll have to speak to my supervisor.” [0-10.]

Islington Council... You may be surprised to learn that for Islington to issue a ticket a car ‘has to be committing a contravention’. “If there are no road markings then (anyone) can park there. We may use our discretion and ask them to move it.” When we attempted to point out that this was incorrect the adviser seemed stunned. He did not, we concluded, know the law. [0-10.]

Kensington and Chelsea Council responded, “That is correct… a PCN is issued to the vehicle.” [9-10.]

Kingston Upon Thames Council passed us to the environmental services to the strains of the Four Seasons then on Planning, who told us we needed “Highways” and so on. Eventually we discovered that it too did not apply the law correctly. It only issued PCNs if there were yellow lines. When the Act was brought to its attention its “adviser” said that she would find out 'more'. And indeed more Four Seasons followed. And more... Finally, “we assess it” the adviser informed. We do not know if this was a reference to Vivaldi. [0-10.]

Lambeth Council said that it “depends”. Depends on what? "We can arrange to have them removed, if there is a white line pasted across it then they’ll get a penalty charge. [Incorrect... A white line is just a courtesy marking. It is not required by law. The Councils’ charge for painting these so it may be this that guides them. 0-10]

Lewisham Council was challenged on the parking issue. “If you don’t have a yellow line, you can’t enforce it. If a vehicle is blocking your drive, imprisoning you, then they (the police) must deal with it.” We pointed out to the NCP officer that it is a contravention under the Act. He responded: “Are you asking about your vehicle, or the law? [Both actually.] He seemed annoyed and officious and so we did not pursue the matter. We concluded that Lewisham Council is not only ignorant of the law but ignorant full stop. [0-10]

Unlike an adviser we spoke to at Merton Council... He knew the law - inside out. He spoke clearly and concisely, and was extremely polite and professional too, which was unusual. Amongst many things, he pointed out that an owner can “allow” a person to park adjacent to their own driveway. Where a multitude of residents use the same driveway, the council will react automatically and a penalty will be charged. "Those are the rules." (Yes Merton… but if only some of your sister boroughs knew it.) In our survey, Merton came out on top with its knowledge, response and helpful manner. [10-10.]

Newham Council was also marked higher than many of the other councils who seemed vague in their responses, rude, or just plain daft. “Yes we do, “ was Merton’s big retort. “Give us a call and we send someone around. We need a signature from someone in the house.” The scheme operates from Mon-Fri 8-4pm with a tow-away, and at weekends with just a ticket. [We gave Newham Council 9 out of ten.]

Redbridge Council put it plainly, “As long as it’s on the road and it’s blocking your driveway… it doesn’t have to have a yellow line. You have to sign a witness form.” It operates from 7am-11pm Mon-Thurs. Fri-Sat until 1am. Sunday 11pm. [9 - 10.]

In leafy Richmond upon Thames Council we were passed around the houses. “If there are no parking restrictions then I would have thought not.” The adviser was unaware of the law so we decided to probe deeper... But the Parking Shop seemed equally confused. “If it’s a controlled parking zone, and on a yellow line only.” We were passed over to the parking wardens when we became to nosy. However, the one we spoke to seemed in a bit if a fugue state and had to refer to other colleagues. Finally he told us “Yes… but only if authorised by a supervisor.” A requirement that was later dropped as we probed ever deeper. It operates between the hours 7am-10pm. [We marked it 3-10, but it would have been less had we not probed.]

Southwark Council parking shop initially seemed confused. “We don’t issue tickets for that… that’s obstruction.” [Meaning the police deal with it.] However, when we probed and the driveway was described it was decided that a ticket could be issued - 24/7. In some cases the vehicle could be towed. [3-10.]

Sutton Council informed us that the expected waiting time to have TheBigeRetort's query answered was three minutes and 52 seconds. We moved up slowly in the queue accompanied by familiar music. We were also informed that any information given would be ‘held on a database’. Due to its initial slow response we knocked a point off Sutton, but, to be fair, this belies the fact that both the call centre adviser and the NCP officer we were passed to knew the law and applied it correctly. “One full wheel has to be adjacent to the flat part of the dropped kerb,” we were informed. [8-10.]

Tower Hamlets Council was an unusual one... An adviser claimed that all of the driveways in Tower Hamlets have yellow lines, and so the law there is applied with this in mind. [We could not rank it, as it did not include the new law. Unless the adviser was wrong and all the driveways do not have yellow lines. In which case we would mark it to zero.]

Waltham Forest Council responded with a “Yes”. The council immediately logs the contravention on a screen and NCP sends a traffic warden with a tow truck 24/7. [9-10.]

Wandsworth Council, after initial confusion, passed us over to a person 'in the know'.… And he did. “In October the council had 5 calls relating to Dropped Kerb Parking.” A “27 Offence PCN” was attached and in each case the vehicles were photographed and ‘relocated’. [Probably to Lewisham where no one cares. We marked it 8-10 due to the confusion, but it would have been a ten had we been put through to the right person.]

Westminster Council seemed a bit overzealous with its application of the law - and apparently flaunts it; which for a seat-of-democratic-government borough is unforgivable. The contravention is recorded as a “62c”. "As soon as a parking attendant sees it they can issue a ticket. This is done regardless of whether a request has been made by an owner and despite there being no yellow lines." In other words, if a person blocks their own driveway they will be ticketed. It operates 24/7. [We marked Westminter 0-10 because we don't think it should ticket an owner's vehicle unless it's on a yellow line.]

Finally, a word on London Councils itself...

The organisation is funded by the boroughs councils. Lobbying forms a major part of its remit, but it also develops policy in many key areas. For instance it claims on its website “to help our member councils deliver better services, and to promote better cross-borough and pan-London working.”

Ironically, John O'Brien, its new Chief Executive, was previously director of Local Government Performance and Practice at DCLG and, formerly, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Prior to joining government, he was a director at the Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government.

[A man after our own heart, he sounds like a bit of a freelancer himself. However... we mark his organisation 0-10 due to its failure to communicate with its membership, and, of course, that last bastion of truth and justice, the freelance press.]

Statement of Sir Ian Blair - Met Commissioner

TheBigRetort has always found calls for the resignation of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to be unwarranted.

If heads should roll they should fall lower down the ranks.

However, it was part of Sir Ian's statement to the press following calls for his resignation that pricked our ears.

Sir Ian ended his statement, with the following - curious? - paragraph:

"A report published this morning also revealed that none of the 17 members of the public on board the train recalled hearing officers shout "armed police" prior to killing Mr de Menezes, even though all eight police in the carriage claimed they had."

The question is why the Commissioner needs us to know this.

Glenda Jackson's boobs

TheBigRetort exposé reveals how the former movie star and MP for Hampstead and Highgate has displayed her boobs in the past... both of them.

Glenda Jackson MP does not do flesh. Instead, as soon as she opened the door and we entered the room she turned her back and then waved imperiously towards two seats. It was after all her "surgery". [A misnomer if ever... the description lends itself to the medical profession Glenda.]


I am here with the owner of a bar styled Brondes Age. A popular venue situated on the Kilburn High Road, as a result, with its ambiance and music, owner "Brian" had created one of the must check-out places in NW6. But small business landlord Spacia look set to demolish that dream.

Brian desperately needed his MP's help.

Enter Glenda Jackson - in the flesh - breathing heavily. I had strongly disagreed with her about Brian’s chances of success, because of this she appeared to get more than a little annoyed.

"You WILL lose! You have NOT got a chance! You WILL LOSE! You can do anything you like but YOU WILL LOSE!" Rigor mortise set across her face in what was possibly a grin.

Apparently Spacia had a right under the shorthold tenancy agreement to demand Brian vacate the premises, following which Brondes Age would be torn down, which seemed like a gross irresponsibility - and a crime against the community. The building would be rebuilt, with flats above it, and Brondes Age would be totally rebuilt - then let for a higher rent. Brian could have first refusal of course, but the date of the rebuild and the rental costs were uncertain...

For all his hard graft, Brian would face ruin whilst Spacia would profit through its property windfall.

But Glenda did not see it that way... she shrugged. It was not her problem: "You must have known when you took the tenancy on that this could happen!”

"Yes, but--"

--"You will lose!” She cut Brian off.

“What are you doing!” she enquired as she peered over her desk at me.

I was taking notes. "Writing," I said.

“Writing what…!” MP Jackson turned to me and screamed.

“What you say.” I gulped. She seemed angry.

“Well don’t! Put that pen down!” She held my gaze like a banshee. "I’ll let you know what I have said!" she roared imperiously.

I put my pen and notepad away… Years previous I had dreamt of taking more than her words down.

Brian and I sat and listened. YOU WILL LOSE... We were ushered out. YOU WILL LOSE. She obviously enjoyed the mantra. YOU WILL LOSE.

The last time I had seen Glenda in the flesh she stood some thirty feet tall, was bollock naked, and had nipples like two headlights full beam. She was also breathing heavily… but not at me. [The movie was titled Women in Love. Too young to see it, I had 'bunked' into the cinema.]

‘We’ll see,” I said, and added, "Thanks... for your... help."

I offered Glenda my hand. She looked at it curiously as if it was contaminated… She took it, gingerly, and shook it limply, then closed the door.

Of course MPs are always right. Obviously Brian lost his battle. Obviously Brondes Age was demolished... obviously.

Only it wasn't.

Because Glenda Jackson had displayed two very large boobs that day. Sorry, I mean "boobies".

Six months later, having ignored her assertions, and having conducted our own "surgery", Spacia sold out to Brian... and Brondes Age survived.
http://www.brondesage.com/

Bully TV

In the world in which we live there is an argument that bullying can be a useful tool.

Kelvin Mackenzie, the former newspaper editor and blowtorch of reasoned debate, claims that forceful motivation – renamed in this liberal age - is an absolute must.

Kelvin bullies his employees, but only if they are at a certain level - bullying across the board and not unproductive and demotivating bullying down.

According to Kelvin – and he is presumably not alone in this - bullying is what keeps us ahead of the global productivity game, without it we will whither on the global vine. But do bullies exist purely in the playground and boardroom, or can they be found in other strands of our society? And are we, as Kelvin MacKenzie may claim, simply mistaking forceful motivation for bullying?

The answer must surely be No... With our current obsession with such shows as The Apprentice, Big Brother, X Factor, Hell’s Kitchen… we are in fact officially a bully nation

Take Dragons’ Den…

The show originated in Japan... Owned by Sony, the format consists of entrepreneurs pitching for investment finance from five of the nation’s top venture capitalists – Dragons – who effectively bully but rarely invest. (The BBC admits that many deals ultimately fall through.)

Theo Paphitis, likes to snort and sneer like a cheeky schoolboy standing on the sidelines whilst the chief bully gets underway; in this instance the chief bully is us.

Peter Jones, the school monitor who manages to be both present and absent – until the last moment when he finally makes a snide appearance and sticks the boot in.

Duncan Bannatyne, the millionaire ice-cream salesman who can hand over a 99-er with a knowing stare.

Deborah Meaden, a dragon if ever, the head girl with a face of thunder that looks as if she repeatedly slaps it with a wet kipper just to get ‘that look’.

New dragon James Caan, who is rather a nice chap for the moment… but just you wait and see...you'll get a bunch of fives instead of fivers.

And that leads me to Richard Farleigh, former Dragon and tech wizard from Oz who, instead of breathing fire, was a man bereft of the bully gene, gently chiding entrepreneurs for their presentation, helpfully pointing out the flaws in each invention or business plan, the thinking man’s Dragon.

Could this be why the producers of the show turned on him?

Apparently Farleigh was booted off the show because they wanted to see an ethnic face on “Dragon”. An antipodean not fitting the ethnic bill, his was not a case of bullying, but out-and-out New-Brit racism. One can almost imagine the brainstorming sessions in the aptly named White City where the BBC has its HQ… Asians are good businessmen we must go Asian.

Nothing against James Caan personally (seems a nice bloke actually) but bring back Richard Farleigh.

Suggestions for next BBC Dragons' Den script meeting: Theo’s seat is always vacant, so ditch the Cyp thereby saving his kids' inheritance, keep the Asian, but - above all - bring back Oz.

Buy the T-shirt now!

[Note... A Sunday Mirror investigation into Dragon’s Den revealed 13 of nineteen contestants on the show promised cash never received it. The total amount unpaid came to £1.9m. However, before going to this site please see a biteback comment left on TheBigRetort... it seems that there are two sides to this tale and even a Dragon can choose the wrong business partner. http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17762194&method=full&siteid=62484&headline=dragons--con-name_page.html]

Fatal Shooting: MET guilty

The Metropolitan Police has been found guilty of breaching health and safety laws over the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times by officers at Stockwell Tube station. He was mistaken for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

The jury convicted the force on the second day of its deliberations. It was fined £175,000 in addition to £385,000 costs by trial judge Mr Justice Henriques.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was in court to hear the verdict.

The jury cleared the operation commander Cressida Dick attaching, ‘no personal culpability’.

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes pledged that they would not rest in their fight for justice and said they were awaiting a "full and thorough" inquest.

Heather Mills-McCartney

PRIOR to and during her tempestuous relationship Heather Mills-McCartney (seen in the photo left with Sir Paul) often danced with the devil - usually in the form of a journalist. But as they danced the lady should have noticed that her partner had a camera in one hand and a pen and paper in the other.

Because there is always a 'copy' to file… which is why you can never completely trust Satan.

Now Lady Maccabeth claims there is a hate campaign being waged against her by the tabloids. True… few people like or trust her. Her outburst on GMTV yesterday drew further criticism from detractors who claim to have witnessed grief... but through a veil of 'crocodile tears'. [For further postings on crocodile tears see “Soham: Insincere grief”.]

It is certainly true that the mocking of the loss of one of her limbs ranks amongst the vilest media baiting in print... Remember here is a very attractive woman who - against all the odds - fought back from a horrifying and debilitating injury and walked taller and prouder on one leg than most people do on two.

In addition, here is the ‘lady’ who was extremely successful at highlighting the dangers of landmines. Who brought forth public awareness of various charities. Who down the years has revealed a dedication to challenging the war machine that was not just a scene-stealing celebrity moment (a one off) but a life’s calling. It is safe to say that she is not going to simply hobble away (no cruelty intended).

Heather Mills first met her future husband Sir Paul McCartney when she was a guest speaker at a charity event during which she spoke passionately and effectively. As a result, and in defiance of her critics, she bagged a national monument into the bargain. [The Beatles used to hang out in my aunties caff before they made it… but that’s another story.]

It was one of my aunts who, during an epileptic fit, collapsed and stumbled into a fire. By the time she was pulled out it was too late... her leg had to be amputated. This event changed her life. Always a happy-go-lucky woman she became withdrawn… Her husband ran off with another woman leaving her with three kids. In Liverpool, during the 60s, ridicule was no different - then or now it seems - and ‘Pegleg!’ was often screamed by way of what some people presumably thought was a joke – just like Heather.

Maybe it wasn't so much a joke but what they or she perceived as a weakness, but my auntie became isolated. Most of the time following her accident she spent lying on a sofa in the lounge in front of the telly or reading a book. She was eventually found on the sofa, life cut tragically short.

Did she take an overdose having been driven to 'the verge' or did she simply vomit and choke during another epileptic spell?

We shall never know... we just knew the pain was over

Anyway, it no longer matters. Life, in spite of a missing limbs, moves on… Which brings us back to Heather…

Heather lifted herself up from that sofa... She added a famous surname to her own… She refused absolutely to allow others to ‘steal’ her dignity and prior to her meeting and during her time with Sir Paul she displayed an incredible strength of will. Sadly however it was not just this that was absent in her GMTV ‘fight back’ yesterday and the criticism now directed at her (by a few people) is that she produced crocodile tears during the interview.

The above is something I feel able to comment on. I spent fourteen years working for one of the most prolific casting agencies in the movie business. Davis-Zimmerman Casting saw an enormous amount of talent pass through the revolving door of fame. Whilst many did not see the Hollywood sun set over their Spotlight page - the actors’ equivalent of Wall-Mart - a few did go on to become stars.

However, be that as it may, what I eventually discovered during this time is that insincerity is easily highlighted on the screen - mostly videotaped ‘auditions’ [which I still have locked away in my loft. So watch out Jude, Elizabeth, Uma, Hugh, Daniel etc!]And one thing is certain... insincerity on camera need not in itself suggest that a person is being deceitful or untrue to their emotions.

‘What’s my motivation?’ Dustin Hoffman once asked director John Schlesinger. ‘What were paying you, darling!’ came the riposte. [Actually, judging from the performances the majority of actors are now turning in this may be an industry standard.]

In fact, during my time in casting I quickly learnt that the ability to turn on the 'water taps' must rank amongst the most difficult and unnecessary manifestations of sadness/anger/hurt that an actor (unfairly usually women) need to display. [Note the emphasis.]

An observation that should come with the caveat: in the time allowed. Because no five-minute audition ever produced an Oscar. And the greatest difficulty for some actors to get their swollen heads around was that emotion does not come out of a vacuum, but builds. [An accomplished actor does it in stages.]

‘Build! Build! Build!’ Some got it. Many didn’t. And by no means was it only the most successful that ever did.

An actor doesn't just burst into tears s/he builds towards the moment. Often trying not to cry is more effective than trying. Grief builds. It shows in the body, the voice, the eyes, the voice, back to the eyes etc. But mostly it shows in the broken sentence of an unscripted speech.

NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO CRY THE BAD ACTOR SAYS. Of course... it never is... because emotion builds.

However yesterday on GMTV the emotion did not build. It started at the bottom and quickly jumped to the top. It was, as my ex and dear departed boss Noel Davis might say - himself a former accomplished actor- ‘More effing ham than Sainsbury’s!’ He might also have added, ‘She’s a regular See You Next Tuesday that one!’

But, like the part, Lady Maccabeth would not have got that either.

Exclusive: Tom Cruise

Set dressers on the new Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie returning after a weekend off received a bit of a shock... the Nazis had disappeared from Berlin.

Valkyrie is centered around the attempted assassination of Adolph Hitler, with Cruise in the role of Claus von Stauffenberg, later executed for attempting to kill the Fuhrer with two suitcase bombs in 1944. [We're not giving anything away as this is based on a real events. Hitler dies in the end, and the 1000-year Reich perished after just 12 years.)

An insider informed the beleaguered set dressers that the images of the Third Reich had not been stolen but were ordered down 'by some one on high'.

Apparently a wedding reception had taken place over the weekend in a hotel opposite the set. Searching for a bit of lebensraum the bride and groom accompanied by their entourage (all Jews) ambled out on to the terrace to take in all the sights Berlin had to offer.

Nein! Nein! Nein!

Greeted by their worst nightmare they fled back inside.

But the question on every one's lips is who succeeded in getting rid of the mighty Third Reich where von Stauffenberg failed?

The Big Retort can reveal that it was none other than much-maligned Cruise, a person forbidden to pursue his own religion in Germany where Scientology is banned.

Ist nicht rightig.

Vanished: Psychic cop

TheBigRetort strange but true series continues with a chilling tale of child abduction.

It also reads as a bizarre prequel to the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and reveals a father's startling sixth sense.

Not too long ago, somewhere in the UK, a schoolchild inexplicably vanished off the face of the earth. As in the Algarve case, the girl disappeared mysteriously, without trace, leaving police and public totally perplexed.

However, fortunately, this did not turn out to be a smoke-and-mirrors investigation -or a whodunit leading nowhere - because there was a single witness.

Police say that's all it takes.

A man out walking his dog recalled seeing a white van going up and down a lane. He told police that it was constantly retracing its steps, almost as if the driver was searching for something.

Or should that be someone?

Police did not have much to go on but they realised that they may have a potential serious child abduction on their hands.

Unlike police in the McCann case they moved swiftly, and following strict procedures laid down in abduction cases they placed a large cordon around the area - every white van leaving and entering the zone was stopped. It was that simple.

But it was also to no avail...

Sadly... nothing was found of the missing girl, and another tragedy at the hands of a monster looked likely.

And yet...

Call it "Strange"... Call it "Otherworldly".... Call it "Divine intervention"

But in this tale of bogey men and missing children there are also additional "howevers" and it is what followed these that so interested TheBigRetort.

A policeman stood waiting at a road block on the outskirts of town in a lonely country lane. He had grown bored with the task that had been set him, but he too had a daughter of his own and so he knew how he would feel if she went missing...however.

He waited patiently...

Suddenly a white van approached. The driver seemed pleasant enough and eager to assist. He dutifully obliged the policeman by opening the van's rear doors… it was full of goods the driver was in the process of delivering.

The copper apologised and told him to be on his way…

And there the mysterious disappearance may have ended. But there was something… "other". Something that the cop could not explain, even to himself - then, or now.

Was it a presentment? Telepathy? Or the driver's body language? Whatever... an eerie feeling came over the policeman and for some inexplicable reason he knew one thing was certain: he could not let the van leave.

'Just a second, sir. I'd just like to take another look. If I may!' he said. The driver hesitated as he was about to climb behind the wheel, it was not a question... And once again he traced around the van to the doors.

'Open them,' the cop ordered as the driver hesitated.

Inside the van all seemed in order.

Be that as it may... despite the normality something was inexplicably drawing the policeman's attention towards the floor of the van and try as he might he could not put his finger on what it was.

He pulled back a carpet in the van... He saw the little body of a girl in a wheel well. The child, wrapped in another carpet, was bound and gagged… and fortunately still alive.

Finally, eerily, the policeman realised why he had inexplicably wanted to search the van... she was his daughter.

New law on selfish parking

A NEW LAW WHICH HAS LAIN UNDISCOVERED FOR YEARS CAN NOW BE USED AS THE LATEST TOOL IN THE FIGHT AGAINST SELFISH PARKING... thanks to TheBigRetort.

Many London drivers may not realise it but since September 2004 the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act has enabled local authorities to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to cars parked unlawfully across driveways.

TheBigRetort calls it SimplySelfishParking. And yes, as Bill said to Monica, it's a mouthful...

But the new law looks set to bring much-needed respite to beleaguered driveway 'barons'.

London based councils' also look set to expand their coffers by £££s with dropped kerb penalties (DKPs) as part of their stealth-tax portfolio$.

Be that as it may, when TheBigRetort found its driveway blocked, we quoted the law to the law - and those boys in blue serge didn't even realise it existed.

In fact, when TheBigRetort initially reported a naughty parker (NP) to the Yard an armed response unit failed to turn up, claiming that there were 'more important' crimes taking place in London. Apparently a blocked driveway is 'low on the list' of the Met's MOST WANTED - way below a blocked drain, which seemed a bit fishy to us - so we were forced to delve deeper.

So deep that we discovered a place called Australia and a little publicised change to the parking laws.

What TheBigRetort found looks set to change life in London as we know it.

In the words of the Met's Commissioner herself...

'Following on from information obtained from that leading investigative group TheBigRetort, Met officers reacted swiftly and decisively in bringing this unfortunate matter to a satisfactory conclusion. May I also take the opportunity in adding... my men do a difficult job under difficult circumstances.'

Who cares how the blurb reads... its £££s for the council, respite for us, and time out for selfish Johnny Rotten.

So be advised.... a yellow line is no longer needed in order to issue a Penalty Charge Notice to a vehicle parked unlawfully across a driveway.

And be further advised... The new law applies regardless of whether a car is blocked on or off it.

Action is only taken against vehicles parked across a driveway if the owner of the property requests it. This is done so that the owner's car, or one s/he allows to park across it, is not wrongly fined. So be nice to your neighbour with the driveway.

And the retort TheBigRetort recently received from its 'neighbour' when police contacted her for blocking our car on the driveway...? 'That was a very un-neighbourly thing to do!'

Like we said, simply selfish.

In fact old Sherlock of the Yard made certain Moriarty moved the offending carriage PDQ. And the perpetrator escaped without a fine this time.

Good god, Holmes, how does TheBigRetort do it!

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Statin danger

WHEN A DOCTOR PRESCRIBED A CHOLESTORAL-LOWERING WONDERDRUG UNUSUAL MUSCLE STIFFNESS FOLLOWED... BE WARNED.

“Don't suppose we can put you down as Asian can we," he asked, pen hovering over medical report.

The doctor had a little box to tick... Statins damage Asians more than any other ethnic group. Fortunately, as a compilation of African-Cherokee-American-Irish-Welsh - and Englishman - TheBigRetort investigator did not have to fill in a box marked "mongrel". (He prefers "hybrid".)

“Only... there isn't a box for someone with your, err, ethnicity. Asians… well…they can only take half the dosage. I suppose it’s alright, isn’t it… ?” He was certainly convinced of our reporter's "ethnicity". 'I'll just put Asian shall I," the doctor ended Shipman-like.

"Err... Can I phone a friend?" was the only response to that.

Chronic aches and pains followed. Accompanied by numbness, weakness, confusion, fatigue, shortness of breath and other symptoms. But this unusual phenomenon did not end there...

Usually a happy-go-lucky chap around the office and home, the type of person who can roll with the punches, our reporter started to show signs of depression. Every little wrong – or at least what he percieved as wrong – seemed to take on a bigger and darker meaning. He reveals the feelings that were going through his tortured mind.

‘If only there was just a passing train then...' He did not need to finish the sentence.

In fact it was only after he conducted some of his own research that he discovered that he was part of a medical experiment headed towards an unknown destination.

Statins are dangerous.

Forget to do something this morning? Memory loss is also amongst the unusual side effects of Statin use.

Then there’s the nerve damage, the numbness - and other maladies too. Pancreatic rot, heart failure (which is strange given that Statins are prescribed to prevent it). And... be warned...aggression.

Gore Blimey: An inconvenient truth

“We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

In reading the history of nations these words of Charles Mackay, a former Victorian editor, were a preface to the 1852 edition of his book, EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS

Amazingly written as far back as 1841, it revealed how easily the masses follow ‘moral epidemics’ and how ‘imitative and gregarious men’ truly are; the Crusades (1096–1291), Tulip Mania (1636–37), Witch Mania (1668-1676), the Mississippi Scheme (1717), the South-Sea Bubble (1720) - Scotsman Mackay concluded - were all delusions.

In fact Mackay’s “Extraordinary Delusions” might have become yet another weighty tome gathering dust on a shelf at the British Library, until we started turning its pages. The book is a clarion call for sanity.

And TheBigRetort can reveal this century’s current folly... is global warming.

A recent landmark ruling at the High Court in London has burst the carbon bubble. The question recently asked: is an award-winning film more shockumentary than documentary.

Yesterday Mr Justice Burton found that the "broadly accurate" film An Inconvenient Truth could be screened in schools – but only if it was accompanied by a disclaimer by the climate change denial fraternity.

The judgement followed criticism from Stewart Dimmock, a school governor in Kent. Dimmock, also a member of a political group called the New Party, accused the Government of "brainwashing" children. (He should have read Mackay’s book…)

Mr Justice Burton forensically examined claims in the documentary and identified nine significant errors. He found that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of
climate change. In other words not true.

Far be it from us to place words of menial discord in a judge’s mouth, this is what he actually said: “It is built around the charismatic (sic) presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.”

Unlike his nemesis Moses who heard a voice emanating from a burning bush - (Hello) - Gore was on a mission for Good and not from God, as the most learned and honourable judge said: “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

Gore was manipulating the facts to suit the delusion gene. The claims that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over” thousands of years. Another untruth found by a very learned man. (I have to say that just in case I end up at the High Court myself – again.)

Mr Justice Burton added: “The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.” A truth uncovered by a man more accustomed to getting at it.

In addition, a claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence” – and another untruth was found.

Two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit”. Untrue... they overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream would shut down was also found to be untrue.

The drying of Lake Chad – untrue. Likely to result from population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability.

Hurricane Katrina was also a result of manmade global warming – but again this was found to be untrue.

Polar bears drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming – untrue. Surely not but yes - the only drowned polar bears were four that died following a storm.

Coral bleaching – untrue. (Okay the judge said “not proved” but in court speak that means What a pile of Codswallop.) Separating the direct impacts of climate change from other factors was difficult, his judgment concluded.

The judge said that the scientific community had been unable to find evidence that proved a direct link. However, to be fair, the claims in the film were fully backed up by the weight of science too. In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments on climate change; but had a dispute in how the message was being given.

In fact whilst Gore has presented himself as the Moses of the global environment many ‘deniers’ - anyone who disagrees with the Gore lobby is a ‘climate change denier’ - have long suspected that he is using global warming for a repeat shot at the White House.

But will the London ruling dampen the Gore “carbon ability” as he runs for the presidency?

As Gore's international reputation has soared, so too has his use of jet travel.

Gore’s 20-room mansion in Nashville reportedly consumes more electricity in a month than the average American “crib” in a year.

And with a frame as big as Big Al’s you can be sure he lets rip every now and again – and - phew - what the heck, downwind, during the Primaries? (Shucks Mr President we wuz only joking.)

These contradictions by Gore have added as much to the debate as man has carbon in the atmosphere. (How much carbon dioxide is there on the planet anyway? 2%, which man is responsible for some 0.2%.)

The film has won plaudits from the environmental lobby, world leaders, and received an Oscar – the latter after Academy members made their way to Hollywood in their private jets.

Until yesterday, Gore, “Moses” who would have the world believe that this apocalypse is man-induced, stood as the head of a global brand of a pseudo-religious new-age movement, but now... who knows?

Is Gore floundering at the shores of credibility like a beached whale at New Brighton, or is the Nobel winner now presidential material?

When President Bush was asked whether he would watch An Inconvenient Truth he riposted, with the familiar wisdom of Solomon, “Doubt it".

Mackay may not have known it at the time, but could the President have let slip that he was aware of the discovery of a “folly gene” specifically dating back to that branch of a tree from which Adam took that first ignoble bite? Of course this delusional ‘first’ for knowledge was blamed on Eve, who in turn fingered the serpent, but there we go again, truth or folly?

It’s a rotten apple indeed that falls from the tree and feeds the madness of the crowds and our foibles and makes enemies of us all, I hear Justice Mackay say.

If the madness of the crowd is anything to go by one thing remains certain... mankind looks likely to repeat its errors time and time again, it’s encoded into our DNA.

DIANA: Conspiracy revealed

EXT PARIS HOTEL…

Just past midnight, a grainy image captured on a security camera reveals Henri Paul, hotel security officer: He signals towards two men waiting on a scooter... later identified as paparazzi

Around the front of the hotel, other "ratz" (surely) and onlookers wait expectantly; not realising that around the back of the hotel a conspiracy is underway; Henri has been paid to tip someone off.

Million-franc shot with killer headlines:

"PRINCESS AND PLAYBOY RUN RITZ RATZ"

But the photo-first does not go to plan… and the headline becomes somewhat different.

The photograph of the backs of two heads do not make scandalous viewing, nor the shot of a bodyguard… and smiling accomplice “Henri”.

EXT PARIS STREET… the Ratz pursue the Mercedes.

Driver Henri is not affected by a couple of drinks. But then… his master in back is screaming faster! and the two Ratz (who will pay handsomely) are screaming slower!

Henri should follow his master’s command… Only there's dollar signs in his eyes. (Henri did have those “unexplained” moneys in bank accounts. And in the 8 months previous 40,000 francs in cash was paid into an account on five separate occasions.)

INTERIOR PONT D’ALMA TUNNEL… way past midnight.

Henri can’t go faster... Henri can’t go slower. Either will upset his paymasters. So what does Henri do?

He swerves to let the Ratz on the scooters overtake the car.

But what’s that ahead… too late.

Actually, not really... one Ratz gets that million-franc shot... it captures the dying moments of a people's princess.

THE END… ?

Go Go Go to NHS rehab Amy

Concerns for Amy Winehouse and other “rehab celebs” brings to mind the Priory Hospital and NHS treatment for stars.

I was first tipped off about the junkie-star-scam a number of years ago. All hush hush of course...  It was a passing comment that held my interest. The Priory Hospital, where the former 'vet' held a senior position,  apparently regularly played host to 'stars whose treatment was subsidised wholly or in part by the NHS'.

Stars on Soash..?

No. No. No.
 

RMT Walkout: Dope test cheats?

TheBigRetort uncovers the real reason behind the 'disputes' involving tube and transport workers - and it makes 'sober' reading to passengers.

Travelling home on the North London Line (overground) one evening, I happened to fall into conversation with a fellow traveller who was party to a secret... a dope secret.

He had been watching a televised football match at a pub.

Arsenal -v- Letsgetsmashed. Notably with TfL tube staff (members of the RMT Union) fans in drunken attendance.

His 'best mate' worked on the Tube and had done so for many years....

My fellow traveller warned his friend about his and other tube workers' drinking and drug taking.

His mate, who had work the next day, chuckled... then revealed their strategy for cheating - call it what it is - the transport management's 'drink and dope test safety measures'.

He told TheBigRetort that many London Transport employees who got 'smashed' at these televised drink-an-drug fests then called for a walkout.

The culprits in the transport system? "The spot checks that take place in work to find 'em." [He meant drug or drink levels.] Or at least that is the way this little 'union' saw it.

The stranger's TfL/RMT Union mate claimed that drink-and-drunk-filled 'binges' during and following matches determined transport policy in London. "Not Government... Not passenger... But drink and drugs, 'at's what determines policy. If they didn't do the tests, we'd all happily turn out,' he is alleged to have confided.

On that particular night his drinking companions (TfL staff and RMT Union members)were either so drunk or drugged that a walkout or some other action would follow that night's game.

And it did.

It was so simple... Off duty workers who had drunk alcohol could not go into work the following day as they were still 'over the limit' and a test would reveal this - they are regularly tested. The off duty workers who had been taking illegal drugs that night would only test negative days after their intake. Only then could they return to work and defeat the dope test.

In short, it is drugs that determine whether the trains run or not in this the finest capital city in the world.

Don't believe me? Look at the Arsenal game on the 25th September.

And remember... you heard it at TheBigRetort.