Shock! Horror! Politician Does His Job.

Reams has been written here about the evil twins of ‘free’ trade agreements (free in the sense they will relieve global corporations from the tiresome obligation to obey national law), sometimes we think we are winning then the bureaucracies pushing global fascism hit back.

Perhaps the creepiest thing about TPP and TTIP is that they have been negotiated in secret by EU and US bureaucrats and lawyers and even our elected representatives have not been allowed to read the draft versions.

It is uplifting however to hear of a politician who has not only defied his government by reading on of the treaties but has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the Obama administration to prosecute him by defying an order that the contents must in no circumstances be made known to the public.

from TruthOut.org

Senator Reads the TPP and Exposes Its Contents

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is one of the few members of Congress who has taken the time to jump through the hoops and read the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But, he has gone a step farther than other members – he told members of Congress what he read. He told the truth about what the TPP says and why Congress should oppose it in a five page letter to his colleagues.

Sessions’ action flies in the face of the threats made by the US Trade Representative to prosecute elected officials who tell people what is in the trade agreement. Others should follow his example and get out the truth about the TPP.

The debate in the Senate begins on Tuesday, May 19. This is an opportunity for Senators to tell their colleagues the truth about what is in the TPP. Sessions’ “Dear Colleague” letter was leaked and reported in Breitbart. Senators from both parties may want to take a similar approach. Even better, during the debate on the Senate floor there will be an opportunity for amendments that expose problems with the TPP. Senators can tell their colleagues and, through C-SPAN, their constituents the truth about what is in the TPP.

How Senator Sessions Exposed the Truth About TPP

Breitbart has written two articles on Sessions’ revelations. In “Critical Alert: Jeff Sessions Warns America Against Potentially Disastrous Obama Trade Deal,” they report: READ FULL ARTICLE

US Government Advisor Warned He Could Be Jailed For Revealing Content Of TPP.

via Zero Hedge
From Michael Wessel, first posted in Politico:

I’ve Read Obama’s Secret Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren Is Right to Be Concerned.

“You need to tell me what’s wrong with this trade agreement, not one that was passed 25 years ago,” a frustrated President Barack Obama recently complained about criticisms of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). He’s right. The public criticisms of the TPP have been vague. That’s by design—anyone who has read the text of the agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents. I’ve actually read the TPP text provided to the government’s own advisors, and I’ve given the president an earful about how this trade deal will damage this nation. But I can’t share my criticisms with you.

I can tell you that Elizabeth Warren is right about her criticism of the trade deal. We should be very concerned about what’s hidden in this trade deal—and particularly how the Obama administration is keeping information secret even from those of us who are supposed to provide advice.

So-called “cleared advisors” like me are prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches. The government has created a perfect Catch 22: The law prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen, allowing the president to criticize us for not being specific. Instead of simply admitting that he disagrees with me—and with many other cleared advisors—about the merits of the TPP, the president instead pretends that our specific, pointed criticisms don’t exist. READ ALL

RELATED POSTS:
How Congressional Republicans Lie to Approve Obama Trade Deals
With opposition to Obama’s ‘anything-but-free’ trade treaties Trans Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade And Investment Partnership strengthening both in the USA and Europe, it is interesting to observe how support for Obama’s neo – con inititiative which would grant corporate lawyers the power to overturn national law, is not falling according to the usual political party lines. Billionaires and those on the payroll of global corporations are broadly in support, others are recognising the threat to democracy and personal liberty.

How TTIP will open way for American corporations to take over NHS
TTIP establishes a global corporate cartel
Canada trade deal paves way for global fascism
Germany kills Canada trade deal
Europe Bureaucratic empire
Extending Europes bureaucratic Empire

Julian Assange On The TPP: “Deal Isn’t About Trade, It’s About Corporate Control”
Obama Goes Full – On Nazi: “US Accused of Forcing EU to Accept Tar Sands Oil Trade
Germany Axes Canada-EU Trade Agreement, This Will End TTIP Stitch Up Too
France’s President Hollande Says ‘Non’ To Obama’s Demand for Corporate Global Oligarchy
The Death Of Democracy – Lobbying For TTIP
Syriza Official Vows to Kill EU-US Trade Deal as ‘Gift to All European People’
Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From the Public
Leaked EU – TTIP document: Destruction of Democracy planned
Massive Protests In Europe Against TTIP – Mainstream Media Blackout
US Senators Block Obama’s Fast Track For Corporate Friendly Trade Deals
Controversial TTIP (Global Tyranny) Legislation Held in ‘Secure’ Room to Avoid Leaks
EU Bureaucrats To Push TTIP Through Before Obama Leaves Office?
TTIP on the Brink of Failure: EU ‘Frustrated’ By US Refusal To Accept Conditions It Insists Europe Must Accept
Will TTIP Make Europe A Colony Of The USA?
Opposite of Transparency: Germany’s TTIP Room ‘Smacks of Totalitarianism’
German Judges Rule: EU-U.S. ‘Trade’ Deal (TTIP) Would Undermine National Courts.
Could Corrupt EU-US ‘Free Trade’ Deal Be Extended To Israel?

Personal Irritation Claims – Professional claims service

OMFG, we’ve had about ten calls yesterday and today about personal injury claims, mis – selling, unfair treatment  at work, medical negligence, you name is, a bunch of shyster lawyers want to sue someone on your behalf for it.

Except it seems for personal irritation. How much compo do me and Mrs T. deserve for having to listen to about a minutes babble from a bunch of fuickers who can’t even pronounce our name properly. It’s THORPE OK, not Top, not Torp and not Forp. And I don’t want to sue anybody, but I can think of some I’d like to kill if I could reach through the phone system and grab them by the throat.

All of which added up to make this poster found on Facebook seem more hilarious (h/t Ben Pursglove).

And here, for the record, the heraldic arms of the Elmet Thorpe family (not to be confused with the Wessex Thorpes or the East Anglia Thorpes). We go back to the Celtic dominance of these islands.

arms-thorpe

There were a couple of Thorpe’s at Agincourt you know, and one I knew personally in later life was involved in the D Day landings. So while I feel sorry for the poor little schmucks who have to eke out a living cold calling for shyster lawyer companies, I think my family have earned the right to be exempt from harrassment. Unfortunately the nuisance calls opt out service does not work for calls that originate overseas.

RELATED POSTS:
Technowanks for technowankers with Google Glass?
Where Is Bicycle Repair Man When The World Needs Him
Budgie Smugglers the only safe swimwear on Hampstead Heath
SAS – Satnav Antipathic Soldiers and The Misadventures Of Suzie From The Isle Of Skye
Under The Influence Of Mind Altering Drugs Eight Legs Is A Few too Many
Is It A Bird, Is It A Plane, Is It Superman, No, its Supermuslim!
Parent Power: Mr & Mrs Lardarse Join The Parent Council
Comedy Humour

Prosecuting One’s Suit

Prosecuting one’s suit, or pressing one’s suit.

How archaic these phrases now seem for describing the process of courting a lady’s favour seems now. How quaint the word courting itself seems. So why do I not just talk about “copping off?” Well…
A flyer circulating in London’s legal district advertises a special speed dating event for lawyers looking for love. Call me an old cynic if you like but “lawyer” and “love” are not words I can easily associate. Surely people whose entire life is spent examining evidence in forensic detail in the hope of closing loopholes, tying up loose ends, eliminating ambiguity and negotiating compromises can have little room in their souls for anything so indefinable, so unpredictable, so illogical as love? And speed dating?
Anybody who has had the experience of dealing with legal matters will know that “lawyer” and “speed” do not belong in the same sentence, or even the same article. (unless the article refers to the case of a lawyer being disbarred for substance abuse.) Layers are people to whom “due diligence” means sitting on their arse doing nothing for long periods while us poor punters pay them by the hour. When dealing with lawyers things happen “in the fullness of time” rather than now or PDQ.
All things considered then, both de fact and de juris, I must conclude that the entrepreneur who has invested his hard – earned in this venture has behaved in a reckless and foolhardy, but not criminal manner.
What little I know of speed – dating is that people have three minutes in each other’s company after which they must decide if they are up for a casual shag with the person opposite. The idea of a lawyer doing anything in three minutes stretches the credulity of even the most credulous. It would take the speediest lawyer two and a half minutes to shuffle their papers and clear their throat before saying “My Lord, Members of the Jury…” The whole mystique of the legal profession is built on longwindedness, their speeches are full of notwithstandings and heretofores and are peppered with Latin phrases ordinary mortals cannot understand, pro bono ego. Lawyers are not equipped to formulate or respond to questions like :
“Veal or Pasta?”
“Nissan or Jaguar?”
“J-lo or Mariah?”
“Missionary or Spoons?”
but are more likely to begin “bearing in mind that you are still under oath could you tell me, in your own words and without regard to anything you may have read in the press, would Chinese or Italian be preferable for a first dinner date?” and jump on the response like so “You say Chinese, but if you cast your mind back to your divorce, did you or did you not claim that your partner’s obsession with Thai food, which I think you will agree is similar to Chinese, had bored the pants off you?”
Assuming some kind of date is eventually agreed, that would only be the start of the trouble. Imagine negotiating a pre-date contract.
“It shall be understood by both parties that the party of the first part will, on the first date, pay for dinner in full, including wine and tips without prejudice to the party of the second part’s right to withhold the reciprocal sexual favours should the party of the second part deem the party of the first part to be minging, unhygienic or in any way pervy.”
The party of the first part will then be advised that should the party of the second part exercise the withholding of sexual favours clause pending further perusal of the party of the first part’s social and sexual acceptability the party of the first part must have the right to demand that the bill be split down the middle.
Such a love affair would be certain to end in tears of course. Or lawsuits.

UK Speed Dating links.
xdate
slowdating
uknetguide
originaldating
Go on….Go on….Aw go on, you know you want to. Go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on