It looks like they will receive several “F” grades

his coming Thursday it will be two weeks or ten working days since I went to study the lack of service at a “customer service” centre that we as taxpayers are forced to pay for.

I was told it can take up to 10 working days (but typically just 5) to process, so I can wait a few more days.

I spoke to 4 ladies there. I wrote 4 articles about that:

• Manchester City Council Customer Service Issues – Part I – Denying Access to Browsers That Aren’t GAFAM or Chrom*-based
• Manchester City Council Customer Service Issues – Part II – No More Complaints by Paper, Only Digital and Without Tracking of Reports
• Manchester City Council Customer Service Issues – Part III – Understaffed Line, Not Even Queue (They Keep Saying Phone Back Later)
• Manchester City Council Customer Service Issues – Part IV – Cautious Hope for a Better Future

This week I will chase those 4 issues again, plus an additional one. As usual, I’ll bring a notebook with me but keep this impersonal (no names of staff).

I am just trying to document how awful customer services became, even where they totally lack competition (a monopoly of the government).

Vote in the ballots, not in social control media (which does not count and won’t be counted)

oday the Americans vote for a party, or for local candidates who occupy the democratic institutions (whose democracy is fast perishing).

I’ll be writing about technical aspects of this. Today I released the latest part below:

I hope that the party of the insurrectionist will lose many seats. Go vote.

Back doors in machines

verybody seems to be talking about politics. Some people do it only privately. Some are very public and vocal about it.

To me, integrity of proprietary voting machines is an important subject. I don’t believe that voting should be done on computers at all. Modern computers have way too many defects in them. The task of managing elections (ballots) is simple enough to be done manually.

I currently have a series going which deals with voting in the US (more recent parts):

The other side had to hire an expensive counsel

HE fight against British racism and corruption (fought by Daniel Pocock in his capacity as a political candidate) is not over. He’s still pursuing a case in the United States, having lodged an appeal there.

In the UK, when lodging an appeal, the process can be slow and cumbersome. That’s partly by design.

“After the sight of masked men at British ports and a sacked former home secretary using social media to vilify volunteer lifeboat crews, I don’t feel any Australian could give money to Reform UK without violating Australian laws that prohibit Australian citizens from resourcing insurrections abroad” -Daniel Pocock

he media is still not covering this. That says so much about the state of the media.

Daniel Pocock‘s attempt to compel Reform UK to pay for its self-serving PR charade (the media failed to cover this, a missed opportunity) may not be over. He can probably lodge an appeal.

It feels like we’re governed by a legal system that almost always benefits those who spend more money (or can spend more money).

In the case of Reform UK, the money was illegally acquired.

Will the same American oligarchs step in the foot the bill? Will 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square pocket American oligarchs’ illegal money?

his afternoon (earlier today) I criticised British media for an inexcusable lack of coverage regarding a “Potential Reform UK Party Limited Insolvency (CR-2026-007405)”. I said this “Illuminates the Sordid State of British Media”.

5 hours ago American (not British) media wrote about this. It looks like Farage spent 200 times more money than the man he had robbed (among all British taxpayers, whom he had also robbed for a personal PR spectacle).

Quoting the billionaire’s news site (US, where billionaires fund the racist part of Farage illegally): “Daniel Pocock, who stood as an independent candidate against Reform leader Nigel Farage in the Clacton-on-Sea by-election in August, said Reform owed him £5,009.21 to cover costs incurred while campaigning. He argued that Farage’s offer to cover the costs of organizing the contest also obliged the party to pay candidates’ expenses.”

It was not about the evidence but about who spent more money on the process.

In the UK you can be a fanatical racist scammer and still ‘win’ cases provided some people in America illegally funnel money to you.

Did the folks of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square manage to not fall asleep in Court today (for a change)?

What is the position of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square on racism?

What is the position of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square on corruption?

Quoting from the paywall-free copy:

Neither Pocock nor any representative attended court on Monday. In an emailed statement to Bloomberg after the judgment was delivered, Pocock — a software developer born in Australia — appeared to imply that he would not pay Reform’s legal costs as ordered.

“After the sight of masked men at British ports and a sacked former home secretary using social media to vilify volunteer lifeboat crews, I don’t feel any Australian could give money to Reform UK without violating Australian laws that prohibit Australian citizens from resourcing insurrections abroad,” he said, referring to controversial anti-immigration protests organised by right-wing groups in the UK over the last several months.

Automatic conversion (flawed English) from a site in Dutch:

Pocock, a software developer originally from Australia, took on Nigel Farage in August at the midterm election in Clacton-on-Sea. He argued that the party owed him £5.009.21 for campaign costs incurred and argued that Farage’s public offer to reimburse costs also applied to individual candidates.

Because Reform UK did not respond, Pocock filed a dissolution request. He pointed to uncertainty surrounding recent donations linked to new rules for foreign donors and suggested the party could get questions about its solvency.

A decision was consciously made not to mention this

his morning or afternoon it seems like a trial (or hearing) was meant to take place, wherein the High Court would be discussing lies told by Farage’s paid spinners, trying to tackle this ‘debacle’, which is an understatement (a sort of fake election or political spectacle organised for and by a Fake Political Party – or foreign-owned business disguised as British political party – at the expense of taxpayers).

Based on Court submissions, Farage is spending well over 20,000 pounds on this, whereas the applicant (or petitioner) spent about 200 pounds and many hours. That means Farage spends about 100 times more money than the person whom he robbed (and who now tries to hold him accountable for this robbery).

Farage enjoy media silence (complicity). Why does the mainstream media write so many mindless puff pieces about a man who wears a trash can on his head? While turning a blind eye to the High Court of the country?

What does this teach us about the state of the press?

How much money spent by people whose constituents compare black politicians to monkeys? And does it matter that this money comes from oligarchs in America?