SETI search: Guess it's over

In an extraordinary exclusive interview, TheBigRetort speaks to a Pentagon whistelblower who claims a message from outer space is not benign.

Clarence Dacre, former staff officer at the Pentagon, claimed 'first contact’ with an extra-terrestrial civilisation has already happened – it took place thirty years ago.

Apparently it began when a strong, narrow band radio signal was inadvertently picked up by an early SETI researcher. He circled the discovery on the computer printout and wrote "Wow!" alongside.

The comment stuck ever since.

But the signal, said to have lasted for a total of 72 seconds, which bore all the expected hallmarks of potential extraterrestrial contact, remained a one-off, a 'possibility' never repeated.

Or so it seemed... because the human race may be about to go the way of the dinosaur.

Alerted to Mr Dacre’s claims by a correspondent in North Carolina, we were forced to make contact via a combination of email and phone number relays.

We encountered an astonishing conspiracy that started at a simple PO Box in Galveston, Texas - and leads right up to the Whitehouse.

"Forget global warming," we were warned, "Gone too are those petty disputes based on nationality and race - for there is only one 'race'." And although that race may be human if our source is to be believed this may soon change.

Intrigued... we decided to make contact with the mysterious Mr Dacre.

After repeated attempts however, when we finally spoke to the man at the other end of the phone... he seemed agitated - and far from thrilled.

"I have to be cautious. My pension... it could be revoked. They're watching and reading everything."

[In the three hour (taped) interview Dacre would not be drawn on who 'they' were, simply stating that it would soon become 'evident to all'.]

After we managed to gain his trust, Dacre opened up. He claimed that he had recently been dismissed from a specialist department within the US Air Force. He alleged that SETI (The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) was initially funded through a shell company that was really a front for the National Security Agency (NSA), which moved to PR mode to downplay the Wow! signal's significance.

But that was thirty years ago, Jimmy Carter was President of the USA.

Dacre reminded us that President Carter had been a strong believer in UFOs and he was being secretly briefed by the NSA.

“The NSA simply distanced itself from the SETI programme,” he told TheBigRetort.

Astonishingly however, Mr Dacre claims that another message also of ‘non-terrestrial and non-solar-system origin’ was recently received as early as 2004. "Only it’s not a message… it’s an instruction."

An instruction for what?

“ET is attacking us by stealth. Using our own computers against us.” Dacre insists. He claims that the US government, in tandem with other 'friends', know that the interstellar computer virus arrived from a star system approximately twelve light years from our solar system. "A stone's throw on the galactic scale of failing suns!"

The question raised at the Whitehouse is now that 'they' (the aliens) have the system at their disposal, what are they going to do with it?"

According to Dacre, Pentagon officials believe that these ‘Botnets’ may start breaking encryption codes quite soon. (Ironically this could be done in a similar fashion to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence project (SETI.) itself.)

"The first time in history that we have made ‘contact’ and now a supercomputer is under the control of an extraterrestrial source that we invited in,” Dacre opined.

SETI declined to be drawn into the claim that the Wow! signal had been 'confirmed' over three decades ago, a star system plotted, and that a second later signal also arrived, quite recently. In fact it is this later signal that is the true cause of the ‘Storm Worm’ virus that is currently infecting home computers and being attributed to 'criminals'.

A SETI press officer responded, “We use a distributed network of computers to decipher many signals from outer space. We have to study all of the data, so we don’t yet know if this thing commenced with us. However, if this is confirmed, and I don’t say that it is confirmed, perhaps it’s a way of saying Hello, who knows.”

Dacre responded with a chortle, “The Botnet is closer to five million… and growing. Unlike SETI, the storm is working secretly in the background - so it doesn't take all resources, which is clever, very clever - and so the host - the computer - remains unaware of its presence. That’s hardly saying ‘Hello’ or of benign intent…. It's learning by stealth.”

We put it to Dacre that the Storm did not amount to a supercomputer, whatever the source of the attack.

He explained irritably, “It doesn’t take a supercomputer. All it takes is a wide range of computers – at home – and that’s what concerns the Pentagon.”

We asked why?

“Having resources like that….at their disposal…distributed around the planet from another planet… with a high presence… and in a lot of countries…Well?” He ended saying “Global warming… Increased surveillance. This is the perfect place, a planet that is being quickly terraformed and an uncaring apathetic species on it. One day we are going to go to bed and the next…?” He saw no need to finish the statement.

Recent reports claim that a “Storm Worm” botnet virus has been estimated to have between one and five million computers under its control. – without the owner’s knowledge – and is currently creating a cluster in home computers. There has been some speculation as to its origins.

So could an ‘outside’ force currently be worming its way into millions of home PCs whilst their owners remains unaware be of its non-terrestrial origin?

We asked a contact based at IBM for her views on the virus. (To say she was nervous is an understatement.)

“This one’s hot…” she stated. “It’s more powerful than Blue Gene, so anything and all things possible it is being considered. I don’t know myself what’s going on, I don’t have that type of clearance, but there are people here connected to the military who have disappeared. I heard that they are having high-level briefings at a secret location outside of Washington, that much I can say.” (‘Blue Gene’ is a reference to IBM's Blue Gene/L supercomputer.)

Apparently due to its high number of distributed nodes, the Storm Worm’s cluster can scale faster and a lot larger than any supercomputer on earth.

Whatever its origins the cluster now has a combined computing power greater than the most powerful supercomputer in existence – which is alarming.

A NASA press officer initially scoffed at the Clarence Dacre Claims, as we labelled them. But later, after checking ‘with the big boys’, he turned rather officious indeed.

"This is not a quote,” he instructed. “This is on background.” (In other words for your ears only.) “Understood? Repeat background.” He continued, “I am willing to confirm that there is debate – not 'at the highest levels’ as you claim - as to the validity of a million-strong cluster of computers (or more) being comparable to a supercomputer. However, I am assured that it takes more than a pile of CPUs and RAM to make a super computer. In fact one scientist here says that it’s like comparing an army of snipers with a nuclear weapon.” (He laughed at this.)

“A supercomputer like Blue Gene has millions of dollars of R&D, tweaked I/O and an optimised operating system. In all, it's a system with substantial differences to a botnet. As for that connection with NASA and the NSA… well, frankly, it’s baloney," he said. He did not want to dignify Dacre’s claims of extra-terrestrial origin with a response. “Save to say, and don’t quote me, the man has a drink problem.”

But TheBigRetort had never mentioned a debate 'at the highest levels’ in any of our questions to NASA… it was aimed at NSA which refused to comment. Nor had we mentioned any connection between NASA and the NSA. And neither did tea-totalling Clarence Dacre have 'a drink problem'.

So, threat to world security, coverup, hoax? If so, to what ends?

After so many decades of looking up to the sky into the far reaches of outer space and asking Are We Alone, is that answer simply laying at our fingertips?

[Editor’s note. Whilst going to press we received email from the Pentagon press office. “There is no Lieutenant Paul(sic) Dacre employed at the Pentagon, or in any of are (sic) armed services,” it read. “Neither is there a Lieutenant Dacre employed at Nontestcom.” An extremely interesting response indeed… TheBigRetort had never mentioned Dacre’s rank - he had not informed us of it – nor a "Nontestcom”, which stands for Non-Terrestrial Communications. Unfortunately efforts to confirm the above with ‘Lieutenant’ Paul 'Clarence' Dacre have proved fruitless. His phone line has been terminated. Utility companies claim that no one with the name has ever resided at the address and the PO Box initially used for contact has ceased. Asked who settled the bill, the local shopkeeper controlling it said, “Nontestcom.”]

DO YOU KNOW OF A LIEUTENANT PAUL OR CLARENCE DACRE? DO YOU KNOW OF NONTESTCOM? IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS INTRIGUING STORY, PLEASE GET IN TOUCH.

New mortgage scam warning

American scamBusters Audri, Jim and Pete bring alarming news from across the Pond that should prove a dire warning for homeowners strapped for cash in dear old Blighty...

Apparently, low interest rates and soaring house prices have encouraged "predatory practices” in America – resulting in the theft of houses, literally.

The con artists use three basic schemes to steal a victim’s home, or as much of the equity in it as possible.

There are many variations, but here’s the basic three:

1) "Equity Stripping" or "Bailout". The scammer "rescues" the victim by getting them to surrender the title deeds, promising that s/he can rent and buy back the house later.

But the scammer simply bleeds the property of most (or all of) the equity and the homeowner usually loses the house.

2) Phantom Help. The supposed “rescuer” charges very high fees for basic phone calls and paperwork that the homeowner could have done himself.

Often, the scammer promises to represent the homeowner in an effort to "work things out", but it's never followed through.

The scammer will insist that the homeowner ignore notices and phone calls from the lender or its agents, almost guaranteeing that the house will be seized. By the time the homeowner knows s/he's been conned, it's too late.

3) “Bait and Switch.” The scammer masquerades as a legitimate housing counselor, armed with mounds of legal documents -- often for new loans to "solve" the homeowner's problem. In reality, the owner signs forged documents that give the scammer ownership.

To make things worse, the victim still owes money for the mortgage, but no longer has the house.

To find potential victims, the scammers consult public notices and purchase lists of bad borrowers from companies that specialise in compiling lists.

They also target people of similar racial, ethnic, religious, and age backgrounds in order to build the trust of potential "pigeons".

Remember… It’s the scammer who wants your bricks and mortar. As the Scambusters rightly point out, "Most banks are not in the business of maintaining or selling property. They're in the business of lending money."

In America, the scams are so new that the law is scrambling to catch up… Prevention is the best remedy.

But after our American cousins rid themselves of this nasty virus, will we catch the same cold?

[For a more in depth study http://www.scambusters.org]

Rightmove: is London falling?

Figures revealing the ‘largest monthly fall in asking prices' since the survey began claim to reveal that London 'fell' by an earth-shattering 2.5%.

An earth-shattering two-point-five.

But don't worry too much... as TheBigRetort reveals, the so-called experts have got it wrong - again. (Caveat follows: For now at least.)

Relatively few new instructions took place during the time that the figures cover; August is a month for holidays not usually given to slogging under the eaves.

To be sure the Rightmove report acknowledges this – but then ignores it.

So why is Rightmove using its data to shoot at the HIP?

Apparently rightmove isn't alone in singling out the introduction of HIPs as a major contributory factor… “The drastic fall of 41% in new instructions for detached houses illustrates the impact of HIPs,” one expert reports.

But is this the case?

Such statements, given the admission that these figures cover the holiday season, seem suspect. Detached houses are not kept from sale due to the cost of a £500 HIP alone - if at all; but for other more mundane reasons.

The need to get the family holiday out of the way before buying and selling is one; in addition, and curiously, some of the detached houses referred to above like as not were placed on the market before the HIP itself came into effect; providing a property was marketed before that date a HIP does not apply - a troublesome point for Rightmove surely.

So why is it then that the ‘experts’ are claiming that HIP regulations and the turmoil in the world financial markets are behind the dramatic slow down?

What dramatic slowdown - 2.5%?

And add this to the mortgage pie… The Northern Rock liquidity debacle only came to light after the Rightmove figures were compiled - no reliable indicator there then.

In fact, the real lime in the mortar of the Rightmove figures I suspect are the estate agents and their asking prices (EAAPs for short); which should not be confused with seller expectation prices. The latter of which Rightmove seems oblivious.

And who compiles those SEPs? (I love doing that.)

Why those crafty estate agents of course. Not only do they understand that August is a dry season (not weather wise I hasten to add) - a time when most buyers are away, a time when few properties become actively marketed, and a time when an estate agent says, ‘If you’re not in a hurry let’s test the market’ - but also a time when they say we'll overprice slightly to get you what you want.

And test and overprice they do… With estate agent asking prices set above seller expectation prices (SEPs) in order to negotiate down, not up! - after all this isn't Scotland - everyone's a winner babe.

So how high do estate agents usually set the EAAP in a slow market?

TheBigRetort has compared its own 'data' using what it calls the Charlotte Ultimatum (nothing to do with Bourne, she's knows who she is - my estate agent) and can reveal that this is usually between 2%-2.6% above the seller's expectation.

So there.

Bank run: is C&G next?

Has Cheltenham & Gloucester found a way to beat the liquidity squeeze?

C&G is Lloyds TSB Group’s specialist residential mortgage provider.

In August 2007 it wrote to borrowers informing them on “Important information about C&G mortgages”. The mortgage lender warned:

“Cheltenham & Gloucester plc, as you may know, has been part of the Lloyds TSB Group since 1995. What we’re planning to do is change who the ‘lender’ is for your mortgage. Today it is Cheltenham & Gloucester plc. From 1 October, it will be Lloyds TSB Bank plc.”
So what does the lender have to say about its new now-it's-with-us-now-it-aint mortgage?

“This change has been prompted by new international banking regulations which come in on (sic) 1 January 2008 (called the Basil II Accord).”

But has the lender been adding a little too-much Basel to the sub-prime lending stew in order to hide its US stake?

"Basel II is an effort by international banking supervisors to update the original international bank capital accord (Basel I), which has been in effect since 1988. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, on which the United States serves as a participating member, developed Basel II. The revised accord aims to improve the consistency of capital regulations internationally, make regulatory capital more risk sensitive, and promote enhanced risk-management practices among large, internationally active banking organizations. Revisions to Basel I-based rules also are under consideration."

The C&G move is due to be heard at the High Court on the 20th September.

Maggie and I: Encounter with the Iron Lady

Attending a wedding at St Paul's Cathedral I saw a familiar face treading behind the newlyweds.

It was only after we exchanged pleasant 'nods' and 'hellos' that I realised I knew her... and yet we had never met.

It was former Prime Minister now Baroness Thatcher.

'Thatcher!' one of my friends screamed when they heard of the encounter.

Don't know why people do that. You just need to mention her name and they scream, Thatcher! (Well the people I usually hang round with do.)

However it was our encounter later at the reception that has since been written into the history books. It began following a failed attempt to speak to another wedding guest who was having none of it. Pleasantries with me that is.

Whether it was my attire - casual - or the video camera I had used outside the church (Sony), or me in general - George Michael chin - I don't know. Probably a mix of all of these things and more. It is true to say that this 'knight' did not like the cut of yours truly as I introduced myself.

'And who did you say you were with?' Incredulity sounded in his voice. The bride was a former client and friend of my wife's so...

He looked aghast. 'I'm....Sir William Smith!' (Not his real name.) 'I'm a Member of Parliament! And so is my wife!' he exclaimed without prompting and with a Match That air.

'Ah... really?' I responded. The woman was stood away from our conversation. She did look vaguely familiar. I later had heard that she did not like darkies and had made tasteless and controversial jokes about dead foreigners.

I was going to say that I'm with TheBigRetort but--

--'Ah, there's Margaret! he thundered, 'Must go!'

And with that I was left looking at empty space.

But there is a defining moment in every one's life when we ask: Am I Going to Be Dismissed From The Social Calendar That Easily?

Moving James-Bond-like between him and the former prime minster, I took her hand. 'Hello, M, how are you?' I said. 'Morgan, John Morgan.'

'Hello dear!' she bellowed back in that familiar voice. Softened somewhat by those senior years, "M" looked quite good all told. (Born in Liverpool, I always shorten peoples names. She knew that. I was the first to call Liz Hurley "Liz".)

Sir William must have thought the PM and I were mates because all the old windbag could muster was 'Of course!' Followed by a sound that I took for capitulation. 'Harrumph!' he went.

The daughter's a bit of a beauty and there being no better title than "Daddy", I forced her towards my target.

'Margaret, may I introduce my daughter to you?'

'Of course! Hello dear!' came Maggie's delighted and forceful reply.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the daughter, like Sir William, did not do the hello thing very well. She looked at her feet, did not respond to questions from this stranger, and pretty much ignored all the platitudes bestowed on her by the Iron Lady. So there was I a sort of envoy between the canapes.

From Toxteth to Whitehall.

Arise Sir John, knight of the round table I saw entered in the yearbook of my demolished Secondary Modern. (The building was knocked down. The yearbook was nicked.)

The PM and I fell into an easy banter. My daughter enchanting her (via me it must be said). Me enchanting me.

Baroness Thatcher: 'And how old are you?'

Daughter Stony Silence.

Me: Five.

Baroness Thatcher: 'Ah... Believe it or not I can still remember when I was your age..'

Daughter Stony Silence.

Me: 'I'm sure you can.'

Baroness Thatcher: 'And that was a long time ago!'

Daughter Stony Silence.

Me (lamely and bad idea): 'Nonsense! You don't look a day over fifty'

Baroness Thatcher suddenly goes all Belgrano. Eyes narrow to slits. What was she thinking? Creep? She was too much of a lady to say.

Well, in a BigRetort exclusive I can reveal a state secret. That hard-nosed Iron Maiden with the heart of stone is secretly a little softy, turned by a five-year-old - and Dad of course.

And what of Sir William, I hear you ask.

Banished abroad (they call it the 'countryside') with his Tory wife. where you don't see many dark faces but still hear them 'jokes'.

MAGGIE AND I. MAGGIE AND ME. MAGS AN' RAGS. I haven't yet decided on a title. But all offers duly considered.

Is this traffic mismanagement I see before me?

Congestion charge... Penalty charge... Bus Lane contravention... you can see where this is leading. TheBigRetort exposes a scandal which threatens to drive a coach-and-horse-shit through City Hall - and with it Ken Livingstone's orifice.

The thorn in the Mayor's side? A 'money box junction' situated at Lewisham Way/Parkfield Road, recently nominated as one of England's busiest and noisiest interchanges.

It may seem strange to ask but ask I shall - weren't yellow box junctions designed to increase traffic flow - as Transport for London claims - or are they simply money-raking, tax-gathering, toll gates, the ME stand YOU deliver of 21st Century government?

And whilst we are on that particular rant... will mayoral candidate that toff from Henley on Thames get the votes with moving traffic contraventions as his 'ticket'? (He's not an old fogey, he's a yogey; a young fogey.) Or will that right-leaning ego-driven shock jock from London's Biggest One-way Conversation (?) Nick Ferrari opt for less tax on a Mercedes and throw his fat wallet into the ring? (Come on Nick, mate, join the race. The, err, human race.)

Actually I haven't got a clue... I'm more interested in what the (new) mayor is going to do for that London minority being 'driven' to extinction - ethnically cleansed? - that great unwashed: the car owner. (It used to be No Blacks No Irish No Dogs. Now it's No 4x4s.)

TfL should have conducted an impact study into the traffic flowing through this junction, but look at the picture... Try to guess what's missing. Here's a clue. Moving traffic contraventions...three words synonymous with 'stealth' and 'Tax' and Transport for London has the same letters at the beginning of each word as Tax for London. TfL... Gerrit?

Unmasking Jack - the series continues

When HORACE SKINNER wandered through the unfinished building to play that Monday at No. 1 Hansler Road, south-east London, he did not realise that he had entered a house of horror - until he moved upstairs. In the backroom, in the centre of the floor... he saw her. The year was 1886... June... 9am. But the time and date had ceased to have any meaning to the woman: she was dead.

"Fearful wound"... "Evidence of struggle"... the papers reported. "Horrible discovery near East Dulwich" the South London Observer headlined. Adding that her throat was cut in two places. And Scotland Yard also ticked 'foul play' on the to-investigate list. What unfolds comes from press cuttings of the time. Alongside birth, marriage and death records, and census returns covering the decades concerned, these make interesting reading...

MR HARDY, a surgeon, examined the deceased. She lay in the centre of the floor. Her forehead was resting on her arm. Her features were not recognisable: they had been 'eaten away'. The doctor also found a 'deep' incised wound across her throat. A white handled table-knife was at her left side... he concluded that she had slit it herself.

Thirty-three year old CATHERINE MELLOWS had been missing from her Peckham home since Tuesday 18th May. Husband THOMAS "JOYNES" MELLOWS claimed his wife had a 'presentment' that she would not outlive the day. Apparently she could not sleep at night. On several occasions she had stated that she would commit suicide. 'She had been in a very low state for some time, and seemed depressed by the cares of a large family,' Mellows told the coroner. However it was not until the Thursday morning - two days after her disappearance - that he finally contacted police: her body remained undiscovered for six weeks. A deposition given by domestic help Alice Johnson also alleged that Catherine was behaving 'very strange'that day. When Alice 'missed her' it was between two and three that afternoon; like Mellows the servant did not recognise the knife. But it seemed of little or no importance.

What might seem strange to some is back then coroners' courts sat above the local pub, in this case the St George and Dragon in Camberwell. But coroner GEORGE PERCEVAL WYATT must have had one eye firmly on the bar - suicide was the vedict. "On the 18th May last, witness left home between 8 and 9 in the morning and returned between 5 and 6 o'clock." [South London Press, Saturday July 3, 1886, p2c1.] The reporting into the case seems to cover the husband's alibi and does not speculate on why Catherine chose that particular house - which was still under construction. Or, for that matter, if husband Thomas, a master builder, was constructing it. Mellows had insured his young wife's life for the then not too insignificant sum of five hundred pounds. He did not inform police about his wife's disappearance on the Tuesday - or that she was suicidal - until two days later. Perhaps a standard forty-eight hours notice was needed to file a missing person's report in 1886.

But if Catherine (we don't know if she was left-handed) could slit her own throat right to left as claimed, couldn't the same be said of a right-handed assailant standing in front of her? [In fact a left-handed assailant standing behind or beside Catherine could have cut her in this manner. Two years later, another assailant's cuts were made from left to right. "WAS JACK THE RIPPER LEFT-HANDED?" Stawell Heard concludes Jack was right-handed.]

Forensic science has moved on since 1886, and it is entirely feasible that Catherine Mellows, like the Ripper victims who followed two years later, could have been been strangled, her throat cut afterwards. [Police must have speculated. If so, it does not find its way down to us. In fact, it's entirely plausible - when one ignores the depositions of Mr Mellows who arguably had an incentive in the form of £500 - that Catherine's throat was cut after strangulation. This could have been done wherever the body was positioned, in other words sitting or laying on the ground.] And if that happened Thomas Joynes Mellows would have been the prime suspect.

The above suggests that the handedness of the person is uncertain. (If it was anyone other than Catherine that is.) The doctor's discovery of 'a deep' incised wound across her throat adds even more uncertainty. Newspapers inform us that a white handled table-knife lay at Catherine's left side. QED: it must have been suicide. However was it the position of the knife that led to the assumption that the wound had been inflicted from right to left - therefore, by Catherine' own hand, or was was it the depositions of Mr Mellows and his servant? Perhaps it was both and more. News starved we are left in the dark... the mysterious death at Dulwich quickly moved to a close. And yet...

UNFINISHED BUILDING? BUILDER HUSBAND? FEARFUL WOUND? EVIDENCE OF STRUGGLE? FOUL PLAY? INSURANCE MONEY? MYSTERIOUS KNIFE? Why the rats never went to the open wound of her throat is a mystery (they went for her face instead), but did this obscure tell-tale evidence of anything other than suicide? Had the victim's face been mutilated? CSI Miami Victorian London was not...

Jack the Ripper started his murderous rampage two years after the suicide of Catherine Mellows. Since that time, the dexterity of the Whitechapel/City of London slayer has been commented upon; was he right, left, or both handed? [She, he, they - we don't really know the true sex of the Ripper, or whether it was more than one person actually.] If Catherine slit her own throat she should have been left-handed (or ambidextrous). If she wasn't then that is clearly problematic. And it begs the question: could it have been an insurance job?

Thomas Mellows had insured his wife's life to the value of £500. The South London Observer, July 2, 1890 carried some advice. "Many persons are entirely ignorant of the lamentable consequences which may follow the neglect to make a will. Suppose, for example, a husband die intestate and without children, the widow takes only one half of her husband's personality, and the remaining half become divisible between the husband's next-of-kin, generally his brothers and sisters or their descendants, sometimes very distant relatives - whilst with regard to the realty the widow is only entitled to a life estate in one third as her dower." This was met by a bill in Parliament four years after Catherine Mellows' death and that provided that when a man died leaving no issue and real and personal estate not exceeding £500, the widow should take all of that sum. Amounts above £500 the widow was only allowed up to that amount, the rest becoming divisible amongst the husband's next-of-kin. Thomas Mellows took his wife's 'personality'. He knew beforehand how much insurance money he was going to get.

Thomas Joynes Mellows was born in Nottingham in 1837. The 1861 Census records him unmarried, twenty-three years-old, a 'fruit salesman' residing at 3 Spread Eagle Yard. His mother was Elizabeth, aged 58, the only other occupant being unmarried sister, Anne, aged twenty nine, listed, liker her mother, as a 'green grocer'. [Father "John" is listed deceased on his son's 1862 marriage certificate. Could the middle name "Joynes" be a corruption following a misreading?] Even after his move south to London Mellows remained a greengrocer. His first wife SUSANNA HARKER, whom he married in 1862, died nine years earlier than Catherine in March 1877, aged 38; the cause of death given as pthisis; a vernacular for TB, or pulmonary tuberculosis. The symptoms leading up to death are quite gruelling, the patient is overwhelmed by a large quantity of unmixed blood as it gushes up, and the victim dies from loss of blood or suffocation. Picrotoxin, a powerful convulsive poison was used, principally to check night sweats in phthisis by accelerating respiration. It was also used to adulterate beers, increasing their reputation as intoxicants. Susanna left her (then)'commission agent' from Nottingham with four children. Barely ten months after Susanna's death, at the age of 41, he married CATHERINE PORTORS, aged 25. Six months later she gave birth to their first child. Eight years later she was dead... a mysterious suicide. The Mellows-Portors union produced three issue; in addition to the five from the previous marriage. [The family must have formed a large clan. Additionally, any issue born and dead between the census years would not be recorded.]

Could the care of the children be the reason why Catherine Mellows ended her own life?

According to the 1881 Census the family resided in London's Holborn. Only five children were listed; two from the previous marriage to Susanna, three from Catherine's January 1878 marriage. Two girls and a boy from the first marriage are not present. [Catherine's first child had died. It is not known what happened to the others from the first marriage, save for Thomas jnr... More on whom later. Still, breakfast must have been a bloody nightmare.] But then... Catherine's child Lemuel, a boy, born on the 22 February 1886, has a death recorded at the FRC four months later on the 7th June - thirty days after Catherine is said to have committed suicide by her own left-handedness. Lemuel's death could not possibly have been the cause of his mother's anguish. It was a passing that seems to have gone without remark at his mother's inquest; Lemuel died between the death of his mother and the coroner's court, the discovery of Catherine's body, and the inquest into it, followed just weeks later. Did Lemuel pass away due to abandonment on the 18th? Or is it possible that Catherine did not go missing until after the baby's death? [Hansler Road was still under construction... Why was the site closed from the 18th May until the discovery of Catherine's body 6 weeks later? Her body was described as being badly decomposed. Between the child's death and the discovery of her body three weeks had passed, but could her life have ended after the 7th June? These are the questions that Mr Mellows should have been asked. If the death of Catherine Mellows was due to foul play then a significant inducement could have been the £500 life insurance. However.. there is also another intriguing possibility. If Catherine Mellows was murdered was she known to her killer and had she become in his eyes a whore?

Coming soon in TheBigRetort... The Excellent House that Jack Built.

KERB CRAWLING - Humphrey Hatty investigates various means

I've given up calling Plod. He does not tell me what constitutes an emergency - which the 999 system was set up for I know - but it's only when I dial all the Nines that he then tells me what doesn't. Dropped kerb parking is one that 'apparently and what if sir' - according to local police at Lewisham - doesn't. Many's the time I've had a car or skip parked on the driveway - the latter for building work - when some Mork or Mindy has pulled up and left their car blocking the driveway: effectively trapping mine in. Weird innit I know, but that's life in "Kool Britannia" or Londineum. 'Anyroad' (as me old mam might say by way of meaning 'anyway') the Romans would not put up with it...

The 'route' of the problem
One couple thought I was being unreasonable. They had blocked my skip in overnight... even though it was due to be exchanged for a new one. She screamed that I didn't know who I was messing 'wit'. He screamed equally loudly that I was a 'clot' who had better not 'diss' him, and I had better 'watch it'. 'You don't know him,' the wife warned. I was actually 'datting'' him in terms of 'dat's' my drive don't block it... please. However... surprising how polite one becomes when someone you 'don't know'? threatens to drag you out of the old memsahib zone. Another user of the driveway was also a 'neighbour'- friendliness, consideration etc - who had parked halfway across the driveway, again trapping my car in. She could not see what all the fuss was about. 'I've been working thirteen hours today, and I don't need this,' she said. Adding with visible and contemptuous frustration - a real memsahib - 'You're the only one in the street with this kind of set up anyway!' This was opined in full realisation of what she thought the problem was - mainly, that I had a driveway and she didn't. I've since discovered that she does have a studio so following that same rule I shall move TheBigRetort to the bottom of her garden. I must admit that I was eventually none too polite to both; the first two called me 'wanker' (some truth there) and the other found me 'quite rude'. (Could be a bit of truth in that too as I did use language described in a PC-world as 'strong'.) Still, if an Englishman's home is his castle, then his driveway has to to be the drawbridge... Not according to the Sheriff's men. 'We'll deal with it in a couple of hours, sir. Bit busy now (fighting crime you wally).'

Parking Adjacent to a Dropped Kerb
Depending on who I get I have been told there is no crime in parking across a driveway. It's all about whether it's access or egress. But is that true?
Section 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
introduced a new parking contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. This is defined as any part of the foot way or verge where it has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for a road for the purpose of (a) assisting pedestrians to cross or (b) assisting vehicle to enter or leave the road across the foot way or verge. Clearly, the purpose is to stop vehicles blocking these lowered kerbs and preventing them being used for their intended purpose.

Residential premises
In the case of residential premises with a driveway (not shared with other premises), where the purpose of the dropped foot way is to assist vehicles to enter or leave the road from or to the driveway, a Penalty Charge Notice can be served. [A PNC is not issued unless requested by the occupier of the premises. A caveat without which might see a Penalty Charge Notice being issued to the occupier’s own vehicle.] A number of exemptions apply to this prohibition; for example, for boarding and alighting and loading and unloading. But don't dial 999. 'That's a Transport for London matter, sir,' will be the police response. Oh hum.

PATAS TEST CASE

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) admitted today that a test case may be needed to ensure that justice for a driver is received - even though it ruled against it on appeal.

Exclusive to TheBigRetort
In a BigRetort exclusive, "John Paul Morgan -v- Transport for London (the Authority) sat yesterday at PATAS. The Appellant's concerns surrounded his right to halt in a junction box where traffic in front dictated.

The Adjudicator
Andrew Harman, representing PATAS wrote, "The adjudicator, having considered this appeal on the basis of written and personal evidence from the Appellant and written evidence from the Authority, has refused the appeal." The prohibition is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19, Part 2, Paragraph 7, in which it is claimed:
'...no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.'

But where were the stationary vehicles?
There were no stationary vehicles at the point Morgan's vehicle entered the box, and so the reason for the adjudicator's refusal makes confusing reading. Mr Andrew Harman explained when he wrote: "The prohibition is silent as to whether such stationary vehicles have to be inside or outside the box junction." In this case there were no vehicles stopped in or outside the box, the problem occured later when free-flowing traffic, acknowledged by the adjudicator, was unexpectedly forced to stop inside the box.

A test case?
However, it is what Harman's adjudication went on to say that drives a coach and horses through the junction box 'theory': "The test to be applied is, in law, the state of the traffic when the driver enters the box junction." An admission that the law on this has not been fully tested, something that will find some interest amongst many drivers who have fallen foul of previous 'rulings'.
Morgan stated 'Transport for London (TfL)and PATAS take the interpretation of the regulation on what the law is silent on. In other words what it does NOT say rather than what it does. Which does not seem reasonable.' He believes the statement by PATAS points the way to judicial review.

Silent prohibition, a new term in the English language
So will Morgan be putting the yellow junction box theory to a legal test?
He believes this may be unnecessary. 'I feel certain that the law has made things much simpler than that. It's reasonable to assume that the prohibition is not silent, just misinterpreted... by those who profit most.'

Is PATAS impartial?
PATAS and the London Councils (aka TfL) share the same suite of offices, and the former is paid by the latter, which Morgan feels may affect its impartiality.
Of course, TfL may continue to fine drivers for a contravention that the regulation - the law - is silent on. And PATAS, viewed by Morgan as the monkey to its organ grinder, may continue to rubber stamp the PNCs on appeal because of this, but the road ahead looks pretty bumpy indeed.

Making a monkey out of justice
Coincidentally, Morgan discovered that PATAS is named after the monkey which avoids dense forests... surely this cannot be the reason why it cannot see the wood for the trees?

FINES SCAM CHALLENGE

The Morgan -v- Transport for London appeal took place today at PATAS (the Parking And Traffic Appeals Service). In a surprise move, adjudicator Andrew Harman dispensed with previous TfL 'evidence', and decided to consider video footage instead - made available by the Authority only after the fine was disputed. (See earlier post Lewisham Scam-Cam below.)
But why should the adjudicator choose to decide the merits of the case on the video footage alone? Is it because the photograph TfL presented of the vehicle 'stopped' on the junction box was in fact a snap of a car moving?
The adjudicator claims he does not need to consider the still photograph - in effect evidence of wrongdoing or cock up by TfL - because video footage alone is (now) 'enough' evidence. But the video footage was not what TfL supplied in support of its case against me.... Despite this, the PATAS adjudicator was unable to reach his deliberations at the Hearing, and instead claimed that he needed to view the video footage again - even though he had done so twice that day in my presence.
But let's not lose sight of the regulations in this matter. [7] [1] "no such person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles". [Emphasis added.]
The video reveals that there were no stationary vehicles when my vehicle entered the box. It appears, however, that this may be open to further 'interpretation' by TfL. According to the PATAS adjudicator TfL may (and does) say... 'You should not enter the box if anything (whatsoever) causes you to stop within it.'
Asked how PATAS adjudicators maintain an impartial position - given that the organisation shares an office suite with the ALG Transport & Environment Committee - Harman claimed that this would not affect his decision making.
The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) claims that it "aims to provide a fast, efficient and quality service....[through] panels of independent adjudicators." Coincidentally, it considers appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued by ALG (now known as "London Councils")whilst also coincidentally being on its payroll...

[Ed's note.. The organisation shares more than an acronym with the Patas Monkey photographed above. Erythrocebus patas is ground-dwelling, should normally avoid dense forests... and, like its namesake PATAS, junction boxes.]

BEEB BLAMED FOR BAD LANGUAGE

My daughter is currently training to be a laptop dancer. There...I feel much better for the admission, however, I should elaborate. Besides being a mummy-daddy (it's a modern world) I like to sneak off between feeds and tantrums, prise open the laptop, run my fingers across old Qwerty and write about, well, pretty much anything really. I love to dilly, I love to dally...etc. Until a tiny pair of feet pin my fingers to the laptop keyboard."She's a handful," as my wife might say. Actually our daughter is a lap-top-full, but the the blame for this lies squarely with the BBC - and, chiefly, CBeebies.
Bash! Thud! Thump! Not the sound of an episode of Batman and Robin but tiny feet kicking at the keyboard. Normally followed by that question that echoes in my mind way into deep sleep, "Can I do CBeebies"?
"No!"
"Why not...?"
"I'm writing."
"I want 'puter'.
"Can't...it's mine, I'm writing. Puter mine."
Bash! Don't know how she does it, she must have very dexterous toes, because half-way through a big-retort "Qwerty" just appeared on the screen. So besides offering new words to the global lexicon - such as "blog" "wwwdot" - why not just say all the "double use?- and "ping", it's "Mylo", "Tweenies" and now "Qwerty".
Blame the BBC.