• Brexit: A prisoner’s tale!

      0 comments

    Above, HM Prison Dartmoor.

    A prison officer once said to me; “We are all prisoners. But of different circumstances. Nobody can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. Nobody has that much control over their situation.”

    This is true. For instance, I could not walk along a 2 inch diameter steel wire tightly suspended hundreds of feet above the Niagara Falls in the manner of a tightrope walker without loosing my balance and falling to my death. Of course, I would not attempt such a feat; although I am tempted to list a number of individuals who I would like to see attempt such!

    This of course begs the question: What were you doing talking to a prison officer?

    The answer (in this particular instance) was that we were staying in the same hotel and were having a chat in the hotel’s lounge.
    In his blog-post today (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87207), Doctor North laments upon the profound lack of ability of our politicians to come to terms and deal with the Brexit issue competently. As such, any agreed Brexit deal is likely to be “sub-opitimal” (as the modern terminology would have it).

    Many readers in correspondence have suggested that I afford too much prominence (as an authority on Brexit) to Doctor North. In answer I would suggest that this is due mostly to the dearth of knowledgeable and informed comment on the topic generally.

    Thus at this point, I will elucidate upon the reason for me choosing the image of Dartmoor prison for today’s post. To this end, I will set out why, I personally believe that Brexit should take place – something which will explain why I joined UKIP!

    I will use a parable to illustrate the reason.

    Why?

    Because it seems that parables are a good vehicle for this.

    Which of course is why the Good Lord Himself used them!

    OK then, herewith the parable:

    Back in 2013, a man – an ordinary man – came home from work one day and picked up the post (mail) from the doormat. This because the postman delivered the post (mail) at around lunchtime each day; the man having set off to work at 7:40AM. There were four items delivered. Three were obviously junk mail and were dropped into the waste bin without opening. The fourth however was clearly not junk mail. It was a nicely typed white DL envelope and had a 1st class postage stamp. Opening it, the man found it to be a letter from a solicitor. In the letter, the solicitor did what they are very good at doing; saying very little but using many words to do it! The gist was however was that the man would be told something of material interest to him were he to contact the solicitor and that he should do so without delay.

    Accordingly, the man telephoned the solicitors and after he had been put through to the man whose signature was at the bottom of the letter, was told that he had inherited the estate of a distant cousin. In fact a 4th cousin. The solicitor told the man that only reason why the estate had not ended up in the hands of the Crown was that the decease-d’s will stated that the estate should descend, by equal shares per stirpes between the descendants of his great, great, great grandfather. This because the man was unmarried, had no children and had no siblings, but was descended from a prominent man (his great, great, great grandfather).

    The solicitor went onto advise the man that upon the decease-d’s death, the solicitor – who had been appointed as executor and trustee – had instructed a genealogist to trace the living descendants of the decease-d’s great, great, great grandfather and that the aforesaid genealogist had found only one living descendant – the man. The solicitor went onto advise the man that the decease-d has taken out an equity release mortgage on his home some time ago and that this mortgage had entered into negative equity and thus the house was not a de-facto part of the estate. In addition, the decease-d had had an occupational private pension that terminated upon his decease due to him being unmarried. Thus the estate comprised the man’s chattels as per Section 55(1)(x) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925; a building society account with a balance of just over £75,000 and a property in the town centre. The solicitor went onto state that the IHT payable on the estate amounted to just under £75,000 and thus the man would receive the property, the solicitor’s costs as executor and trustee being taken from the sale of the chattels (that are never worth what many people think they are worth) and the money remaining in the building society account after the IHT had been paid. The solicitor suggested that the man make an appointment to come and see him to discuss it further. He did.

    A week later, the man entered the solicitor’s office and the meeting took place. The solicitor described in detail the property the man was now the owner of. It was a freehold building in the centre of the town – Northminster in Oxfordshire. It comprised a shop and a two bedroom flat above it. The shop was located on a busy main road (Compton Road) by a roundabout. The main line railway station was opposite. Immediately in front of the shop entrance was a pedestrian operating crossing to permit pedestrian access across the road and to and from the railway station. It was the busiest part of town. The takeaway was very popular and did a good trade. They had been there for over twenty years and with a new generation from the same family would be there for many years to come. There had never been a problem with the takeaway paying the rent. The solicitor however told the man that whilst the shop would provide a nice rental income for the man, the solicitor was not optimistic about the prospects of renting out the flat. The last tenant had given notice after only three months and the flat had remained vacant for the four months prior to the decease-d’s expiry. This was because the flat was in a noisy location and unless one was profoundly deaf, little if any sleep could be got at night.

    The solicitor explained that being profoundly deaf was exactly what the decease-d’s first tenant was. Years ago the decease-d had let the flat to a then young man who was profoundly deaf and to whom the noise outside the flat was not in any way a problem. This tenant had in fact died some three years before the decease-d himself did and the decease-d had subsequently experienced great difficulties in finding a tenant that would pay the rent the decease-d wished: £500 pcm. The decease-d had in fact received an offer for the tenancy from the takeaway owner. Of £400pcm. The decease-d had rejected the offer which would require planning permission for change of use (from residence to storage space). The solicitor advised the man that he did not anticipate there would be any problems obtaining the change of use consent. The solicitor advised the man that in his opinion the easiest option available to the man was to accept the takeaway owner’s offer of £400 pcm rent especially since the takeaway was willing to pay for the cost of the planning permission.

    “It is of course up to you,” the solicitor said, continuing, “But you’ll be getting £1,100 pcm from the takeaway for the shop and with £400 pcm for the flat above, you’ll gross £1,500 pcm. Of course, you’ll have to deduct a fraction to set aside for maintenance but there will be no need for a letting agency since we have previously drawn up contracts for the decease-d. All you have to do is to print up two copies and get each signed and witnessed.”

    The man thanked the solicitor and told him that he would go away and think about it. The solicitor advised him to go into the town centre and look at the property. He then gave the man a the key to the flat.

    A few days after the meeting, the man did just that. He went and cased the joint! He called in and spoke to the takeaway owner. Who repeated the offer of £400 pcm and offered him a chicken tikka masala on the house! The man said that he would think about the offer of £400 pcm and would accept gladly the free meal. The man found the meal to be most excellent and understood why the takeaway had got such a well deserved reputation.

    After the meal the man explored further. He discovered that whilst the flat faced onto the very busy main road, the flat itself was accessed down a short ginnel – a narrow alley/passageway between the neighbouring premises. The ginnel opened onto a back street that was one way and narrow. The other side of the back street was a large pay and display car park owned by the council. Access to an from the flat was private. Upon entering the flat he found it to be in good repair with no damp or mold. His nostril’s detected the olfactory evidence of the takeaway below. He was also aware of the constant traffic noise outside. The man came to the conclusion that the solicitor was probably right and that £400 pcm from the takeaway was as good as he could get. It was also the safest and most secure option as the takeaway was clearly a very good tenant and would be in occupation for years to come. However, the man went away thinking that although it was likely the offer he would have to end up taking, it was worth trying to see if there would be anybody else who might be interesting in taking up the tenancy at £500 pcm.

    He therefore telephoned the local newspaper, “The Northminster Herald” and placed a lineage advert for a week in the column for such things. Three days after the advert had first appeared, the man’s mobile telephone rang. He answered it. A female voice spoke. “I’ve seen the ad for the flat. Could you tell me about it?”

    The man did. The woman knew the location of the flat. He arranged to meet the woman the next day at the flat to show her around.

    The next day he met the woman outside the flat. The woman introduced herself as “Theresa”. She had with her a friend. This friend introduced herself as “Andrea”. The man showed the women around the flat. The woman who introduced herself as “Theresa” told the man that £500 pcm was more than acceptable but told him that both women would want to refurnish and redecorate the flat at their own expense. The man was most pleased to hear it. “Theresa” then went on to advise the man of her business. “I call myself a courtesan. Other girls describe themselves as escorts, but I prefer the other term. I tell you this as I want there to be no misunderstandings as to the use the premises will be put.”
    The man hesitated. “Won’t your activities be discovered?”
    “Around here? No. Unless of course you inform the authorities yourself. This is the perfect place. Our clients will be able to park in the pay and display and enter and exit unnoticed down the ginnel. We’d like to install CCTV over the entrance for our own security.”
    The other woman, “Andrea” spoke for the first time. “You see, some of our clients, especially mine, come from out of town and get here by the rail-link. This is so convenient for me. The offer is this: Theresa will be the official tenant and will sign the contract and pay £500 each month by standing order. I’ll be the unofficial second tenant. There’ll be no paperwork. Nothing in writing. I’ll pay you £500 each month in cash. If you’re local, I’ll deliver it myself in a brown envelope through your letterbox.”

    The man was tempted. “You’re sure this is OK?” He said. You won’t get caught?”
    “We’ve both been doing this for a few years.” “Andrea” said continuing, “Unless you get cold feet and inform on us yourself, there’ll be no problem.”
    “OK. I’ll think about it.” The man said.
    That evening the man did think about it. He was tempted. He succumbed to the temptation. He felt that giving up on the prospect of an additional £600 a month over and above what the takeaway owner would offer was worth it! He telephoned the woman known as “Theresa” and told her he’d accept her offer. Two days later at the flat they signed contracts. “Andrea” witnessed “Theresa” signing it.

    That was in 2013. The man found that his three tenants (two official, one unofficial) provided him with a satisfying increase in his income! Up to that time the man had shopped regularly at Tescos. He had used his credit card. From the commencement of the unofficial tenancy with “Andrea.” He paid cash. He also ceased withdrawing cash from the post office down the road from his own modest house. This was because of the £500 per month “Andrea” was paying him.

    Five year’s later in 2018, on the anniversary of the grant of probate in fact the man was arrested by police officers who called at his place of work. This was most embarrassing!

    He was charged with allowing premises (owned by him) to be used for prostitution.

    He was also charged with tax evasion as he did not declare Andrea’s £500 pcm!

    He pleaded guilty at Northminster Crown Court. In sentencing him, His Honour Judge Graham Stuart QC looked down severely and told him, “You have pleaded guilty to the two charges. These are the only mitigating factors in your case. This is a case of greed, pure and simple. Five years ago you received out of the blue, an entirely unexpected legacy. Your commercial tenant offered you a rent that you deemed insufficient. The two prostitutes offered you more. You knew that this was unlawful and yet you went ahead. Presumably because you desired an additional £600 a month. In sentencing you to two periods of imprisonment of 9 months, both to run concurrently, I am sending a message that prostitution is a serious menace and people who assist in facilitating it out of greed can expect to be dealt with severely.”

    The judge also made orders under POCA (Proceed of Crime Act) which resulted in the Crown seizing and confiscating the property. After serving a fortnight in the local Victorian Northminster Prison, the man was transferred to HM Prison Dartmoor.

    The property was subsequently sold at auction and was purchased outright by the takeaway owner who upon purchase proceeded to apply for planning permission to change the use of the flat to storage space. The prostitute known as “Theresa of Northminster” was not charged with running a brothel as it was considered not to be in the public interest since only two women were using the premises, these being the aforementioned “Theresa of Northminster” and the woman known as “Andrea of Northminster”.

    Following his conviction, the man was dismissed from his job. He was a book keeper! From his prison cell, he begrudged his collapse in fortune! He knew that neither “Theresa of Northminster” or “Andrea of Northminster” were trafficked women. The women did not use a pimp. They were not intravenous drug users. They provided a service quite voluntarily. In that he felt that he had committed a “victimless crime”. He had provided a safe working environment for two prostitutes. This was evidenced by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) not prosecuting the woman known as “Theresa of Northminster” of running a brothel. His solicitor (a different one from the executor and trustee) told him that the CPS had prosecuted him as the evidence was there and the existence of POCA. It enabled the police to profit from the sale of the premises to the takeaway owner!
    “POCA is a vicious and vindictive piece of legislation!” the solicitor said, continuing, “Offenders are often more offended against than that of their own offending!”
    The man agreed!
    The End!

    “OK then! What the [expletive redacted] does that have to do with Brexit?” I hear you ask.

    THIS:

    Membership of the European Union of the Cities and the Regions is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful for the UK!

    The European Communities Act 1972 and ALL subsequent legislation breaches the terms of the Declaration/Bill of Rights 1688/1689 and also places Her Majesty the Queen in breach of her Coronation Oath (June 1953) to govern us according to OUR laws and customs. Not those of the EU!

    There are those who will say that in economic and trade terms, EU membership is advantageous to the UK. It might be. But it is still unlawful! In this, those who argue for the continence of the UK’s membership are making the same argument that the disgraced book keeper made with himself! It may have been that “Theresa of Northminster” and “Andrea of Northminster” were not being exploited and were entirely free agents. His actions however were unlawful! Actions which included not declaring the £500 pcm he received from “Andrea of Northminster” in his tax return!

    Write a comment