J D WETHERSPOON: THEYSEEYOUPEETV

Shock! Horror! Crap! George Orwell's 1984 is now at a pub near you. But is pub chain J D Wetherspoon taking the piss? TheBigRetort investigates.

Customers caught short whilst visiting a pub toilet in Brockley, South-east London may be excused if they have the strange sensation of being 'watched' as they go about their (once usually private) business. And it is not paranoia. Now, as they glance up at the ceiling they will realise the astonishing truth, then wet themselves. For, at the urinals, John Thomas in hand, there it is, on the ceiling, watching... a camera.

Surely not we hear you say... but it's yes.

We immediately visited the offending pub and confirmed our worst fears, following which we spoke to a Wetherspoon's spokesman. The following is not for the reader with a nervous disposition, a full bladder, or for anyone who has had a night on the old Vindaloo.

Surveillance report of society gone mad. Surveillance report of society gone mad. Surveillance...The pub... the Brockley Barge, London SE4. The location... the male toilet. The time... now.

"Most CCTV in Wetherspoons pubs are part of the licence... We believe that cameras are something that customers feel safer with," the Wetherspoon's spokesman confided.

What... in the loo?

"They are not pointed at the urinals. They are only pointed at washbasins."

Really?

"Yeah. If any customer made enquiries, they would be told, quite rightly, that they only point at handbasins."

Why?

(He paused.) "So that people feel safer."

So why isn't there a camera in the ladies loo too?

"Isn't there...? Well, I don't know about that particular pub... but if there isn't it's because the decision is made by the manager."

[So the manager only likes looking at the boys...?] Who looks at them?

"They're not looked at by members of staff. The only people who would have it (the footage) is the police. There are other pubs where this is the case. We're quite open about them. They are only there so that the police can watch."

How long are the images kept?

"I'm not sure."

[So there you have it... the police are the only ones allowed to watch. Whilst the images in the bar and outside the pub can be seen on a monitor the loo images are not shown to the general public. That makes it okay then.]

But are they also focused on the urinal, or, worse still... the loo? (After all it's impossible to say where they are pointed.) Couldn't shit be going on under the watchful of the law?

"At the washbasins," J D spokesperson was eager to assure.

But... why?

"So that they can see what's going on."

Err, well, what can 'they'.... see... at the washbasin?

"Things." (Presumably the washing of hands ceremony that follows visits to the loo.)

But what if any individual is hellbent in dealing with shit - and that kind of thing - and knows that the camera is only pointed at the washbasin, and that the images won't be viewed until, possibly, much later by the Peelice - Sorry we meant 'police' - wouldn't they go into the cubicles, or, dare we suggest, stand at the urinals and, err, pretend?

"It, err... acts as a... deterrent."

[And that's certainly true. It's the last time we spend a penny with JD Wetherspoon.]

Changing LINKS

Roads discovered on planet Mercury

A recent flyby of the planet Mercury from 124 miles (200 kilometers) above the surface has revealed an impact crater with more than 50 twisting roads radiating from its center. But could it be signs of life?

"It's a real mystery, a very unexpected find," said Louise Prockter, an instrument scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which built the probe for the $446 million NASA mission. She said whatever event created them "is anybody's guess," but suggested perhaps a volcanic intrusion beneath the planet's surface led to the formation of the 'troughs'.

However, the claim will fail to impress the 'life out there' brigade. "They are obviously pathways created by a not too technological civilisation," Noj Luap Nagrom a scientist at Toxteth University astronomy programme claimed.

Feelings that are trumpted by other findings...

Earth has a magnetic field surrounding it that acts as a protective bubble shielding the surface from cosmic rays and solar storms enabling life to gain a foothold.

Astonishingly a peculiar element of Mercury is its magnetic field... added to which the planet has an 'atmosphere'.

Scientists are said to be "shocked," having pored over more than 1,200 new images sent by seven instruments on the probe of Mercury's surface."I couldn't sleep at all," said Robert Strom, a MESSENGER science team member who also worked on the Mariner 10 mission. "I've waited 30 years for this."

Does this mean we have at last found life on another planet, and within our solar system? It certainly would raise tempratures.

Iron Mask Harry Bensley: Trashed

In this edition of TheBigRetort we had hoped to bring you the answer to the question to which you have all been waiting: Did he or didn't he?

It began with a 'Wager', widely published in various media around the world, and possibly everyone and his dog - even those wizened moguls of Hollywood - now lay claim to the belief that Harry Bensley, the Man in the Iron Mask, walked around the world pushing a perambulator - for $100,000. The bet was placed by John Pierpoint Morgan and the Earl of Lonsdale. So it must be true, mustn't it?

Well...?

Following the outset of his trek on the 1st of January 1908 various sightings took place of the Iron Mask, mainly throughout the south of England. (He was seen in our local Costcutter as late as last week. We jest, of course, and with good reason...) However, since leaving these shores, over 100 years ago, no account of his amazing exploits abroad have been unearthed, and certainly no one in Australia has come forward stating that they ran into a 'Pom' in an iron mask pushing a pram at a billabong. (If they did then it was like as not Ned kelly.)

Iron Mask simply vanished.

Until that is...

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bensley claimed that J Pierpoint Morgan called off the challenge due to the onset of the 1st World War - which started after he in fact died.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of our knowledge of Bensley's exploits come via a website with a family link.

The Official story [from the McNaught website.]

"Later in life he fell very ill. It was only now this his illegitimate son (Jim Beasley, my grandfather - Mother's side) found out about his father (Harry) and met him several times in Brighton hospital. (Apparently they looked almost identical.) Jim found him too late to be able to help, and Harry died in 1956, three months after their first meeting, back at home in his bedsitting room at 42 Riley Road, Brighton. Kate (his wife) was with him."

The Beasley-McNaught Connection

Harry Bensley's 'achievement' was represented by the Beasley/McNaught family, who claim their father/grandfather "Henry Claude Beasley" - not 'Bensley'? - was Harry's illegitimate son, born in 1908. This individual was referred to as "Jim" and is said to have tracked down his father (Harry Bensley) almost on his deathbed and then related details of that meeting to his own daughter. However, "Henry Claude Beasley" appears to be a totally different individual, with no known association to Harry Bensley; not even the same surname.

[The Beasley/McNaught family claim hinges on Harry providing false information and the surname being corrupted. Records do confirm that a"Henry Claude Beasley" was born on the 24th December 1908. But why should this be "Jim? In fact there is also another birth that we would submit. A "James Henry Beasley" is recorded on the 24th December (sic) 1906. (Note the day and month match.) Could Jim have targeted the wrong father? If so "Jim" made an error. James Henry Beasley died in Aug 1991 (aged 84) at Haywards Heath. If this is the same individual then he cannot be Harry Bensley's son, illegitimate or otherwise. Harry had been in prison either side of Jim's conception from 1904-1907.]

So why did Harry Bensley not complete his march around the world?

This is what the McNaught site has to say: http://mcnaught.orpheusweb.co.uk/HarryB/index.html

"... on reaching Genoa, Italy, in August 1914 and having covered 30,000 miles, with only six countries left to visit and 7,000 miles left to walk, the First World War broke out. Once again, there are conflicting reports of what happened next: (1) Being patriotic, he returned to England to fight for his country."

Harry Bensley was an asylum attendant based at Abbotts Langley in November 1915. [See Short Service Attestation (War Record) above. Kindly supplied by ancestry.com. Was he invalided in the 'three year' service prior, which is recorded on it?]

The McNaught site continues...

"(2) Morgan, worried that his steel empire would be threatened by the outbreak of war, called off the bet. Harry was said to be devastated when Morgan's messenger (or telegram in one report) reached him with the news, and he returned to England, a devastated man. He was never to leave our shores again."

To be fair, the McNaught family acknowledge that J P Morgan died a year before the war, so he could not have 'worried' about the threat, and it seems strange to stress the claim in spite of it. To straighten the record, the (only) gentleman ever referred to in contemporaneous accounts was (initially) described as 'a well-known American millionaire...' The site's author, who expresses some doubt on the manner of the wager, says: "Choose which version you believe."

It also goes on to claim.... 'He fought in the army, but was invalided out after a year.' [In fact, according to the Short Service Attestation signed by Bensley (under oath) it records three months service only, in a depot at Aldershot with the 'Packers & Loaders Company'.

Could it be that Harry Bensley was invalided out of the Packers? The Attestation is hard to read, so it's possible. (See ancestry.com for the whole record.) The previous army service before he was an asylum attendant (at the Imbeciles Asylum, Leavesden) may have seen a prior injury, but none possibly gained in the trenches of the 1st World War. Like as not the injury may have been due to that heavy helmet he was wearing whilst loading munitions. ]

If we are to believe the myth, Iron Mask, having crossed through 10 countries - from the 1st January 1908 to the outbreak of war in August 1914 - after his receipt of that devastating telegram from a dead man (in Genoa, Italy) had, in 6 plus years or 80 months, with no time off for good behaviour, managed a mean average of 375 miles a month, or twelve miles a day around the planet. With a further '7000 miles left', he may have circumnavigated the globe for a journey that would take a further year and a half - if not for the War that is. Truly a remarkable man.

But that's if you believe the myth...

Even Harry Bensley's 'descendants' express doubts. "We have never seen evidence that he left Britain, and because no one knew who he was, he could have quite easily carried on living here."


Following, in TheBigRetort... the whole truth and nothing but... Or Harry's version of it.

Iron Mask: The Harry Bensley trial

It was 'A Remarkable Wager'. A man wearing an iron mask. Pushing a pram. Full of photograph. Must find a wife along the way. Visit three towns in each county of England. Make his way around the world visiting each country and city on the list. It would take 6 years. And for the princely sum of $100,000. An astonishing tale. But was it true? A Big Retort exclusive...

Following a journey from the centre of London, after passing through Woolwich, the Iron Mask and his unnamed companion continued on to Bexleyeath. Things had gone extremely well and so they decided to stay the night at the Upton Hotel. The next morning however disaster struck... As they sold their wares at the Broadway they came under the 'unsympathetic' gaze of a police sergeant.

Seemingly the only man in England who could spot a 'con' at twenty yards, PS Martin later told the court that he saw the defendant selling photos and pamphlets. He asked if he had a certificate and the defendant said 'No, I don't go from house to house.' Witness said 'You go from town to town,' and defendant said 'Yes.' The Iron Mask was then taken into custody.

That night, the 3rd January, allowed bail the Mask and his companion stayed at the George and Bull Hotel to await his fate. The trial, which would be heard in the morning of the 4th had been brought forward a week by considerate Dartford magistrates. "To suit the convenience of the globe trotters."

The Time: 3rd January, 1908, 1pm. The Place: Dartford Police Court.

"'Henry Mason' was called, and a voice from the mask replied 'That's my name, sir,' " the court reporter wrote. He continued... "He was charged 'that on the third of January of this year, in the Parish of Bexley, you unlawfully did act as a pedlar without having a certificate authorising you to do so.' The magistrate inquired if the man was bound to keep that mask on. Mr Clinch (for the Prisoner) said he was going to ask the Court's indulgence 'by and bye'. He was going to ask the magistrates to allow the man to wear the mask during the trial. He pleaded guilty on his behalf to the charge."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"His head and chest were covered by a shiny black contrivance which seemed to be a combination of an ancient warrior's visor and breastplate, and on a kind of a signpost on top of it were the words in white letters "A £20,000 (sic) wager."---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it became known that the Masked Man was to appear at the Dartford Police Court a large crowd had gathered. "He was," the reporter continued, "apparently a young man, judging from his brisk step and as much of his figure as could be seen, attired in a tourist suit and knickers." (The last item not carrying the same meaning 100 years later.)

A mystery inside an ancient mask. As he appeared in the main streets he was treated like the Edwardian equivalent of a superstar. The question on everyone's lips: Would he remove it.

There was general curiosity as to whether the strict rules, compelling all to remove their headgear would be enforced by the court . Amazingly, although it may seem odd in our post 9-11/7-7 world, it was not, and so the Masked Man entered the dock 'without removing his head and shoulder gear' and the police made no request. (The court reporter also claimed that on "a signpost on top of it (the helmet) were the words in white letters 'A £20,000 wager." Which differs from the postcards and other reports. An error perhaps.)

The court reporter recorded dryly... "The magistrates apparently saw the humorous side of the affair, and the strict lines of Court routine were allowed to become unusually elastic for the occasion."

"THE MASKED MAN" "HELD UP BY A BEXLEYHEATH SERGEANT" "A COMEDY IN DARTFORD POLICE COURT" ran the headlines a week later. (Bexleyheath Observer, Jan 10, 1908, p5, col c.)

'Henry Mason' stood in the dock awaiting his fate from behind the confines of an iron helmet. He was quite fortunate... Had the magistrates known who really stood before them the helmet would surely have been exchanged... for iron bars. Mason of course was not his real name. Iron Mask - quite craftily - had put forward this 'nome de convenience', if the bad French may be forgiven, in place of his own.... Harry Bensley. It was a remarkable performance of deception and revealed what a master manipulator he was.

"He had given a certain name but he was sure it would not influence the Court one way or the other," Bensley's lawyer said. (In other words the name given was not really his.) The court transcripts published in the same paper reveals the astonishing depths of Bensley's chutzpah.

The Chairman: As far as the name is concerned, we are not anxious to know the (his real) name.

Mr Mitchell: Wearing a mask is part of getting his living is it?

Mr Clinch said it was not part a question of a 'living' but it would take too long to explain. Clinch elaborated on the conditions of the wager and explained why he was selling the postcards at Bexleyheath. He started from London and went through the Strand and other thoroughfares in London and was not bothered by police. The police too took interest in his venture and purchased some postcards.

Mr Mitchell: Have they (the police) anything to do with the wager? (laughter)

Mr Clinch: I believe not, but they were interested. Clinch referred to 'No 10' of the conditions. This stipulated that the mask should be worn in public places. The court room was such a place and it was 'imperative' to the masked man to preserve this restriction.

The Chairman: If we told him to take off the mask it would be an end of the whole business?

Mr Clinch: I'm afraid it would. [Certainly true... Harry Bensley had been released from prison a month previous.]

The Chairman: We will allow the mask to remain under the circumstances.

Mr Clinch: Thank you, sir. Another condition is No.12. which somewhat puzzles me. It provides that he shall find a wife on the road (laughter). [Bensley was already married, to two women. One bigamously. The latter part led to his term in prison.]

The Chairman said that the mask would not help him much.

Mr Mitchell: Wouldn't he have a better chance at Gravesend (laughter).

Mr Clinch: I should be nearer home. I might be able to find him one there (laughter). Whether or not the wager commended itself to the Bench, it was clear that the man had not the slightest intention on infringing the law. He started in a busy place like London and was not interfered with. He asked the Bench to deal leniently with him, and suggested that considering the special circumstances justice would be met by ordering the man to pay the costs. He expressed his thanks to each magistrate for coming there and holding a special court to suit his convenience. He would not like them to go away without assuring them that he fully appreciated their consideration. If they would like to see photos he had some there.

Mr Mitchell: We've got the genuine article (laughter).

Mr Clinch: That's something better.

The Chairman asked about these photos. The gentleman there who was going with the defendant seemed to have a certificate, while the other had not. Did the goods offered for sale belong to the masked gentleman?

Mr Clinch (cautiously) : I never like to dive into these things too closely (laughter). I should not be surprised if this was not a joint speculation.

Mr Mitchell: Is the perambulator to put his wife in when he finds her (laughter).

The Chairman said that this was a somewhat different case from the ordinary. As a rule when a pedlar came there he had been locked up all night, and they took that into account and let him go. This defendant had no punishment at all. It was not a serious matter, and they would only inflict a small fine of a half-a-crown including costs, or four days. Of course, if he continued acting as a pedlar without a license he would be again dealt with, and a record of that case would be handed in against him. If he continued to act as a pedlar he must get a license. [END.]

Coming soon from TheBigRetort... how Harry Bensley came up with the idea of the Iron Mask Wager, from his prison cell.

The Iron Mask: Day 1

The Iron Mask: Day 1. To recap... the year was 1908. On a foggy New Year's morning. At 10.30 precisely, a man wearing an iron mask left from London's Trafalgar Square pushing a perambulator full of photos and accompanied by an 'American' minder. These were just a few of the conditions set down by 'the Wager '. But what happened after this event? Did Iron Mask get arrested for flogging his goods? Did he make it around the world in 6 years? TheBigRetort brings you some of the detail.... and the devil in it.

Having left the centre of London, the fog had lifted. The Man in the Iron Mask headed south across the River, his companion acting as Tonto to the Lone Ranger.

The streets were paved with postcards

Every street on the way was said to have been 'thronged' with excited crowds.

Several newspapers had been alerted to 'the Wager' and there was much clapping and cheering and waving.

To the man inside the helmet it was hard going - and bewildering. But the people clamoured for the postcards.

A blur of faces and monotonous sound came in and out of vision through the visor.

------------------------------------------------------------------

"We did not taste a mouthful of food, or even a drop of water, from the time we had our breakfast - 7.30- till 9.30 in the evening." The Masked Man, on his first day of 'the Wager' .

------------------------------------------------------------------

It had worked...

By the time the cavalcade of two reached Woolwich many postcards had been sold. And Harry Bensley, or rather the Man in the Iron Mask, had entered legend.

It was 'A Remarkable Wager': TO WALK AROUND THE WORD, MASKED, PUSHING A PERAMBULATOR - FOR $100,000.

In order to get his hands on the cash he had to remain 'entirely unknown throughout the journey' and 'be allowed to sell photographs and pamphlets' and 'call at the capital and three other towns in each county in England'. (The Bexleyheath Observer, Jan 3, 1908, p5, col g.)

But fulfilling one of the three of a much larger list was about to become more difficult than imagined...

Having passed through Woolwich, the same paper informs, 'The Iron Mask' arrived at Bexleyheath with his companion. They stayed for the night at the Upton Hotel. It was Thursday, 2nd January, one day after their epic journey had commenced.

The same paper opined with remarkable prescience, "He was optimistic of being able to accomplish his self imposed (sic) task, but whether he will find it congenial in a few years time especially in traversing hot countries, remains to be known."

'Self imposed task'...?

Coming soon in TheBigRetort.... "THE TRIAL OF IRON MASK".

Harry Bensley: What You Don't Know

In Edwardian England a man accepted an incredible wager: the prize - £21,000. It was set down by two notable men, J P Morgan (the wealthy banker) and the Earl of Lonsdale. But following several sightings around various cities and towns, "Iron Man", who pushed a pram 'throughout the world', face covered in an iron helmet, surviving only on the sale of pamphlets and postcards, disappeared like a phantom. Only to return 6 years later having 'nearly' completed his remarkable odyssey around the globe.

The story of The Man in The Iron Mask captured public imagination, then and now, and today people the world over are searching old newspapers and dusty archives in an effort to trace the footsteps of this intrepid perambulator.

TheBigRetort reveals all, for the first time...

Alleged Frauds

Four years before he took up his remarkable challenge, in 1904, Harry Bensley, then described as age "29", a labourer, appeared at Willesden Magistrates Court. Charged (on remand) with obtaining various sums of money 'by false pretences', the details of his arrest were indexed in the Times for various dates from September to November. This the first time the 'full' story of Bensley's escapades have been presented to a gullible public... and it makes shocking reading.

The scam

Bensley had claimed that he was the son of one Sir Robert Burrell, and as such was heir to extensive estates in Norfolk. He also made the claim that he was heir to his godmother's estate, also at Thetford, Norfolk, the late Mrs Holland. On his thirtieth birthday Bensley let it be known that he was due to inherit an impressive property and the thousands of acres of land that came with it. But there was one problem... or so Mr Bensley confided to his victims,. If he attempted to raise money against the value of his future inheritance then 'the whole of the estate fell into the hands of the trustees'.

He showed a Mr Jordan a telegram. It came from a moneylender offering him two hundred pounds against his future inheritance. However, although Bensley badly needed money, for some unexplained reason (perhaps a caveat in the 'will'), if he accepted the offer then this would thwart his inheritance. Or so he claimed...

By curious but timely coincidence, Mr Jordan (the victim of Bensley's scam) received two telegrams from the moneylender himself. This was most curious. Mr King offered him sums of £50 and £100 if he would 'induce' Bensley 'to accept this offer and a second one of £1000'.

And then there was Bensley's sister...?

She urged her brother to borrow £200 on 'his furniture' in order that he could go on a cruise with her. Bensley told Mr Jordan and a Mr Bradley, warehouseman (and is second victim), that he could not go on the cruise without the money. But, of course, there was that inheritance...

Bensley reeled his 'marks' in like two haddock on a fishing line. Messieurs Jordan and Bradley duly lent the money... but without surety. Bensley had instructed them to destroy any IOUs as these would stop his inheritance. Eventually nothing was heard from Harry Bensley. A visit to Thetford resulted in the police being called in.

A history of bogus claims

The claims were bogus. Harry Bensley was a well-practised fraudster with no regard for his victims or their families. "Jordan and Bradley had been defrauded of their lifelong savings and their provision for their children," the Times reported. 'Mr King' the moneylender did not exist. There was no relationship between Bensley and Robert Burrell (who was indeed wealthy, very alive, but had not received a knighthood). In what must have been a classic version of a long-firm fraud, Jordan and Bradley had been scammed.

Unknown to his victims Harry Bensley, using the alias "Harry Barker", had preplanned the whole thing, as far back as 1903. By the 17th May of the following year he had set sail on a ship headed for Sydney. Bensley had purchased the tickets, one for him and the others for his wife and child, with the first tranche of money he had taken from Jordan. This remarkable and elaborate deception, which revealed a degree of prescience found in a sociopath, had taken a year to complete, involved his 'wife' who was a seamstress, and was commenced by the same man who four years later would announce to the world that he had accepted a remarkable challenge, an astounding wager, (amongst others) to walk 'through' world, always wearing an iron mask, pushing a perambulator, picking up a wife, peddling photographs and pamphlets of his 'planned' endeavours - whilst keeping his identity secret. As we shall later discover there was a very good reason for this.


Harry's Game

On completion of this mammoth six-year task Harry Bensley was set to win an astonishing $100,000... a fortune back in those days. Or at last that is what Bensley claimed, for whatever Harry claimed should always have been taken with a (huge) pinch of salt. In fact, like all good tales there was (and is more) than meets the eye to this franky modern myth. Besides being a conniving, and rather nasty fraudster, Harry Bensley, a labourer and no more, was also a wife 'deceiver'.

In August 1898 he had married Kate Green, laundress, also of Thetford. The marriage produced two issue. At his later 1904 Old Bailey trial, the Common Serjeant heard that the family lived together until two years previous in Norwood. (Anthony road then Cobden road.) However, in July 1902, one year before he commenced his elaborate fraud on Messrs Jordan and Bradley, Mr Bensley - strangely now described as 'a remarkable man' (by some at least?) - deserted Kate his wife and their two children leaving them absolutely destitute. (Perhaps' remarkable' is the word.)

The barmaid and the bigamy

Sometime at this juncture, Harry Bensley had made the acquaintance of a barmaid in Norwood called Lily Chapman. (Listed as "Clapham" in some documents.) Ironically, it was a bigamous marriage to Lily that would catch up with Bensle. But that was after he absconded with Jordan and Bradley's money. Mr Bensley had presented himself as bachelor and heir to a large estate at Thetford to unsuspecting Lily. The modus operandi of the career criminal following its traditional agenda, Harry married Lily under the bogus surname "Burrell". Of course the representations he had also made to Lily were untrue, as indeed were those he would go on to make to Messrs Jordan and Bradley much later. He compounded this deception, the false pretences, by committing bigamy. He was still after all married to Kate Green. Another false representation that was soon to catch up with him.

At the Old Bailey, an additional charge was brought for 'feloniously and unlawfully inter-marrying (sic) with Lily Chapman at Marylebone Registry Office on February 5, 1903, his lawful wife, Kate Beasley (sic), being then and now alive'. (The Times, 11 Oct, 1904, p13, clmn c.)

Having upgraded to a 1st-class cabin with his new 'wife and child', "Harry Barker" - the name he travelled under - set sail on the 17th May with his wife and their child. Having paid £10 for each ticket, "Barker" upgraded to 1st-class passages for himself and his wife and child, a difference of £64 we are told. But all did not go as planned...

The arrest

The ship arrived at the Cape on the 4th June and a reception party awaited. Harry Bensley, son of a sawmill worker at Thetford, was 'nicked'. Brought to book by Detective Sergeant Cole and Detective Inspector Pollard, the prisoner was sent by Willesden magistrates to the Old Bailey. Finally, his deceptions had caught up with him. (Presumably he had more form as 'previous good character' is not recorded in any reporting on the trail.) Harry Bensley, aka Burrell, aka Harry Barker (etc) was sentenced to 4 years penal servitude. Significantly (or so it must surely seem later) he responded to the Common Serjeant at the Old Bailey, "Thank you, my Lord. I deserve it." Perhaps the first time that Harry Bensley had issued a truthful statement.

To follow in the TheBigRetort's buried news series, something the 'experts' and national newspapers missed completely... Iron Mask: The Truth Revealed.

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]