Feeling thoughtful about comprehending change

FRANK MALCOLM KEMBERY

Sincere Products & Services Ltd 

61 Bridge Street 

Kington, Worcester

HR5 3DJ


Flat 10

23 Grosvenor Place 

Bath

BA1 6BA 


07710630777


director@sincerecommunity.org

10 April 2023

ResearchGate

To Whom It May Concern,


I feel thoughtful at comprehending change. 


The worthless change tendencies of your change disability in showcasing the crucial differences in change that are unable to combat the inability of the change via irrationality. Criminal intent change to undermine change theory for power and inequality change that can't by being the change of useless scabby can that can't in reversed comparison of change that can't be generated by a contradictory change in ignorance. Change of your defeatist cheating of policy in registration acts and any law that is typical for unlawful percentages and ethical percentages in laws associated rights to be unfairly untrue about the truth of change, with reckless disregard, via traitorous insults, irresponsible disdain, derision of ridicule, undue influences, ill-treatment, and abuse. It is crucial to distinguish disability from one's own life by distinctly flaunting truth and honesty rather than engaging in immoral behaviour. Criminal intent change is a change that is intended to stop change by being the change of useless scabby can that can't in reversed comparison of change that can't be created by the contradictory change in ignorance of how you can't undermine change theory for power and inequality change that can't. Change of your defeatist cheating of policy in registration acts and any law that is common for prohibited percentages and permitted percentages unethical in legislations associated rights to be unfairly untrue about the truth of change, with reckless disregard, via traitorous insults, irresponsible disdain, derision of ridicule, undue influences, ill-treatment, and abuse. It's crucial to identify disability from one's own life by separately displaying truth and honesty from immorality. The change of can and unreasonable trends that lack extra-legal ways to thwart change complaints is not the change of can in opposing the change of no change. Being a worthless scabby can't change the challenge, but contradictory ignorance change is mistaken about what can change that lead to criminal intent to interrupt change. Criminally motivated change that is interrupted by a pointless, scabby, and contradictory ignorance can be stopped. A careless paradox of reckless change by disregard in ignorance and the change in traitorous insults to missing without consent in the change of perjury are examples of change that is inconsiderate in change illiteracy. It also includes change inconsistencies and or insensitive change illiteracy contradictions. Change can't is the change of can and unreasonable trends that have no extralegal ways to hinder change complaints to oppose the can't of no change. Contradictory ignorance is incorrect about what can lead to criminal intent to obstruct change, but being a worthless scabby won't make the problem go away. Criminal intent to change that obstructs by being the change of an ineffective scabby can't of contradictory ignorance end obstructing change. Change is the careless paradox of reckless change by disregard in ignorance and the change in traitorous insults to missing without consent in the change of perjury. Change that is insensitive in change illiteracy is of change inconsistencies and or insensitive change contradictions to change that is a careless paradox of reckless change. To combat the lack of change, change cannot be achieved utilising can and cannot be obstructed by unreasonable trends or extralegal measures. Contradictory ignorance can lead to criminal intent to impede change, but being a useless scabby won't make the problem go away. Illegal purpose to change that interferes by being the change of a pointless scabby can't of contradictory ignorance end up interfering with change. Inconsiderate and or insensitive illiteracy contradictions to change that is a careless paradox of reckless change by disrespect in ignorance and the change in treasonous insults to missing without consent in the change of perjury. Change that is against victims for common change in scorn and contempt is not permitted, nor is it permitted for the derision of change ridicule to cut in and off with the change. Change that is criminally negligent of treasonous irresponsibility for disdain to permit acts of change Instead of both that change flaunts to enable mockery of respect, undue influences, and bad treatment to induce abuse, scythes of change should distinguish incapacity out of the lifestyles of show off change in a separate flout of change truth and honesty. Whether this makes matters of irony fair or not, or maybe almost, it is certainly encouraged to engage in unjust behaviour when viewed from a distance. Conflicting ignorance might result in criminal intent to appropriate change. It is forbidden to allow acts of change that are criminally negligent, treasonous, irresponsible, and against victims of common change. It is also forbidden to allow change to be ridiculed and be met with derision. Instead of both that change flaunts to enable mockery of respect, undue influences, and bad treatment to incite abuse, scythes of change's inability to distinguish right from wrong should separate incapacity of the lives of show off change in a distinct flout of change honesty and truth. At a distance, it is encouraged to act unfairly, whether this makes ironic situations fair or not, or perhaps almost so. A criminal purpose can result from acting with contradicting ignorance. Modification to thwart criminal intent Being a useless, insensitive, illiterate contradiction to change, careless disregard in ignorance to change, and irresponsible indifference to change are all ways that one can become a useless, scabby can't of change and allow acts of common scorn and contempt against the change of unreasonable harm to victims. For a paradox of change that is unjust behaviour encouraged to engage in change, whether this makes matters of irony fair or not, or maybe almost, it is important to distinguish the change of incapacity out of one's own life by the change in those who are flaunting immorality in a separate flout of truth and honesty rather than flaunting immorality in both lots of change. The change of unlawful intent can’t thwart criminal intent or illegal intent that doesn’t care about the motives of change, and make the following changes: Being useless, insensitive, illiterate inconsistency to change or insensitive illiteracy contradictions to change, careless disregard in ignorance to change, and irresponsible indifference to change can all lead to being scabby can't of change and allow for acts of common scorn and contempt against the change of unreasonable harm to victims. It is crucial to differentiate between the change of incapacity out of one's own life and the change in those who are separately flaunting truth and honesty from immorality in both lots of change for a paradox of change that is unfair behaviour encouraged to engage in change, whether this makes matters of irony fair or not, or maybe almost. Scabby alterations to stop criminal intent by being a useless, insensitive, illiterate contradiction to change, reckless disregard in ignorance to change, and irresponsible indifference to change can all lead to being a scabby, useless can't of change and allow for common ridicule and contempt against the change of unreasonable injury to victims. It is crucial to distinguish between the change of incapacity out of one's own life and the change in those who are separately flaunting truth and honesty from immorality in both lots of change for a paradox of change that is unfair behaviour encouraged to engage in change, whether this makes matters of irony fair or not, or maybe almost. The intent to commit a crime for change is due to contradictory ignorance, careless disrespect, treasonous insults, irresponsible disregard, derision of ridicule, undue influences, poor treatment, abuse, disruption by being a useless scabby can't that won't stop interfering and insulting the missing to change in perjury of change that is not a victimless crime. 


Their Photochemical machine is an insult to the missing in the change of perjury and traitors. 


Change is experience. Change is of individuals. Change has worked. Change reveals principles. Change has been out-of-date and undervalued which is incorrect. Change is comprised of a collection of guidelines. Change is dread. Change effects. Change versus Shakespeare, the flirtatious, and obnoxious, plus the murderers in "Hamlet" who use the references as bluffs for a crescendo of mad talk in change so change disaffirms dissociatively. Change can be a harmful way to communicate but this is not Hamlet with others or with oneself. The change illustrates how language is contagious. Change is a medium through the usage of injury. Change is sensitive to prejudice. Change should have no negative bias. Change is not hesitant. Change is not unsuitable. 


If the experience of change references the language of change by the disparities of what delegitimised change to refute change then the experience and language of change will be a changed protagonist. 


The less than and missing of change, and convictions disavowed, change of key elements, a story of change that’s significant, the change of disappearance, the dispelled of misconceptions, change assumptions, change replaced, change of viewpoint, change of a narrator and change of narrative. 


#experience #language #references #change


Change is perjurers and your traitor's exclusions are welcome to have a word with me. 


The practice of insulting the missing involves making allusions to them without abandoning their beliefs and using their right to violate them. This is accomplished by removing inconsistencies in disparities and making use of examples to denigrate the absent. Several unfairness adjustments, including word changes, structure changes, and longest-term unmodified words, have been made in response to this. Allusions lacking repudiated convictions, references dropped to denigrate the missing, and gaps between opposing viewpoints eliminating the use of insult against the missing all undermine its legitimacy. For the implementation of insult to missing in disagreements allusions lacking renounced convictions of missing, and practising the freedom to transgress in the significant change involved by the absence of eradicating contradictory discrepancies in inequalities to delegitimise change for the implementation of insult to missing. Exercising significance in less than and allusions lacking change, change rejected, convictions regarding the missing practice the freedom to violate the substantial change, and change entailed by the absence and change of resolving conflicting differences is irresolute in inequalities that delegitimise change for the application of insult to the missing. References abandoned to insult the missing in dates of the convicted to insult the missing and practise the freedom to breach the agreement with change by the absence of no insults for the missing and different unfairness change. Gaps between dispelling contradicting differences in considerable change implicated by the change for the application of insult to the missing. The elimination of contradictory humour and contradictory conflict, the necessary rejection and insults but of insufficient and insufferable understanding that implied disparage because condemned to do so says so, breaking the terms by alteration, and in the purpose of implementing change to violate change and defame change for change as inequities to delegitimise change for the claims of insult to missing. References abandoned to disparage the missing in dates of the condemned to disparage the missing and exercise the freedom to violate the agreement with change by the absence of no insults for the missing and other unfairness change. Dissolving discrepancies in significant change that are involved by the change for the application of insult to the missing without liquidation for consolidation, and penalties. Discrepancies between erasing opposing differences in significant change that are implicated by the change for the application of insult to the missing. The use of insult against the missing is delegitimised by allusions lacking renounced convictions, references abandoned to disparage the missing, and gaps between eliminating divergent opinions. The practice of insulting the missing involves making allusions to them without renouncing their views and engaging in free speech. This is accomplished by eliminating incongruous differences in inequalities and utilising examples to denigrate the absence. There are several unfairness changes to remedy this, including word changes, structure changes, and longest-term unmodified words. Allusions without repudiated convictions, references dropped to denigrate the missing, and chasms between opposing viewpoints eliminate the legitimacy of insulting the missing. This is not just about missing people as it is about missing money and information. 


To hell with you and your machine allowing your insults. 


Because of the narrator's concerns' treacherous cowardice, the narrator despises them. None of them will speak out about their belief that it is okay to assault the narrator informally with criminal favours. The narrator's worries are based on fictitious worries that they find repulsive. They are cowardly and dishonest, which is why the narrator despises their unfounded worries. None of them will talk to the narrator about how they feel it is appropriate to assault them covertly with a device that is filled with illegal favours. To remedy this, the narrator needs to start speaking more plainly and honestly because they detest their unfounded concerns.


The narrator despises the narrator's anxieties due to their deceitful cowardliness. They believe it is acceptable to attack the narrator informally with criminal favours, but none of them will say anything about it. The narrator's anxieties are rooted in bogus concerns that are abhorrent to them. The narrator hates their false fears because they are cowardly and deceitful. They believe it is acceptable to attack them clandestinely with a machine loaded with illicit favours, but none of them will discuss it with the narrator. To address this, the narrator should start speaking more openly and clearly, as they are abhorrent to their false fears.


I despise all of your anxieties because they have rooted in your deceitful cowardliness. As for the traitors you are who think it is okay to attack me every day informally with a machine packed with mouthy criminal favours in the likes of your paedophiles, rapists, drug dealers, killers, and thieves all doing better in life than everyone else along with fools who fall for your falsehoods deception. You ought to tell me out loud to my face. You believe it is acceptable to include most of them and fraud so you can all speak your words by interjecting you, intruders. But none of you in the Paedophile’s favours it stems from directly will say anything about it to me nor in public. Thinking about your lies and how much I detest you and your worries you should start to speak your words more openly. Your treacherous regard is a majority share for the benefits of intentionally committing what you can’t mention, huh? Yet, neither sound is it from where it originates. Where it lives in the ideas of your bogus concerns that are abhorrent to me. You're as appropriate as this… 


The narrator despises the narrator's anxieties due to their deceitful cowardliness. They believe it is okay to attack them informally with a machine full of criminal favours, but none of them will say anything about it to the narrator. The narrator should start to speak their words more openly, as they are abhorrent to their bogus concerns. Because of the narrator's concerns' treacherous cowardice, the narrator despises them. They think it is acceptable to assault them clandestinely with a machine loaded with illicit favours, but none of them will discuss it with the narrator. The narrator needs to start speaking more clearly because they despise their false fears. Because of their dishonest cowardice, the narrator hates himself for having fears. None of them will talk to the narrator about how they feel it is acceptable to assault them clandestinely with a machine packed with illicit favours. Since they detest their fictitious problems, the storyteller should start speaking their comments more out loud. The narrator hates his fears because they are cowardly and deceitful. No one will discuss it with the narrator, but they all believe it is acceptable to attack them clandestinely with a machine packed with illicit favours. When they are abhorrent to their false fears, the narrator should start speaking their comments more out loud. Because of the narrator's concerns' treacherous cowardice, the narrator hates them. They believe it is acceptable to assault them clandestinely with a machine loaded with illicit favours, but none of them will discuss it with the narrator. The narrator needs to start speaking more honestly because they despise their false worries. 


Because of their dishonest cowardice, the narrator hates himself for having fears. None of them will discuss their belief that it is okay to formally assault the narrator with illegal favours. The narrator's worries are a result of their false worries, which they find repugnant. Because they are cowardly and dishonest, the narrator despises their fabricated anxieties. They all agree that it is okay to assault them covertly using a device that is stocked with illegal favours, but none of them will talk about it with the narrator. The narrator needs to start speaking up more often and plainly to address this since they despise their unfounded anxieties. 


The narrator hates his fears because they are cowardly and deceitful. Yet, none of them will speak out about their belief that it is legitimate to formally assail the storyteller with criminal favours. Their false worries, which they find repugnant, are the source of the narrator's troubles. Because of their cowardice and deception, the narrator despises their unfounded worries. None of them will talk about it with the narrator, but they think it's acceptable to attack them covertly with a machine that's filled with illegal favours. As people are repugnant to their unfounded concerns, the storyteller should start speaking more simply and honestly to address this.


One single, unwavering response to contradictory, out-of-control thinking that is scared of having to face its justifications is terror. In the face of blatant lies, unethical integrity is wrong and unfounded on an oath that shouldn't exist. When acting dishonestly, engaging in a plot to corrupt, and withholding information about the immorality of an impending threat and danger because caring more about protection from the illegal trouble produced than anything else. Disregarding perjury, obstruction, and destruction, as well as termination and unfairness in defiance of the obligation to transparency by hiding unsubstantiated and imminent threats to experiment on me using your space weapons without consent in misrepresentation nondisclosure, which is unfairly manufactured in an official capacity secretly to act of excessive injury to unfairly impair progress. 


It is careless to assert that ignorance cannot be changed by change so that the insincerity of ignorance is stopped while denying that ignorance promotes ignorance. Presenting a nearly impossible representation of change in ignorance while ignoring a measure of change deterrent is equally unethical since it can lead to defensive reactions to change via interventions that are seen as dangerous to change and pose an imminent threat. Change is not a sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, or manipulation abuse that constitutes corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself by ignorance of change, which is ignorance-instigating of change.

 

#communication #change 

 

It is reckless to suggest that crime can't be prevented while ignoring the fact that ignorance encourages crime in and of itself. Unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to prevent crime that denies interference is a crime in and of itself. It is irresponsible to provide virtually impossible representation in evidence and information as a means of deterrence since doing so can cause early, overreactive responses to routine behaviours viewed as harmful without limitation. Presenting almost impossible people with the potential for prevention tactics while downplaying the reality makes people develop defensive reactions to interventions perceived as risky, which is irrational. Portrayals in a hasty manner set off alarms against guarding against unsafe activities to foil the early stages of perceived rejection. It is irresponsible to present impossible deniability as a means of thwarting fraud while neglecting the reality of inciting homicides as incipient crimes. unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to thwart fraud while ignoring the fact that instigating homicides is a form of criminality in and of itself. Presenting nearly impossible characters as a way of preventing fraud is reckless since it ignores the fact that doing so can trigger early reactionary reactions to everyday actions that are perceived as dangerous. It is irresponsible to present virtually impossible people as a fraud prevention strategy while denying the fact that this causes people to acquire defensive reactions to everyday behaviours that are viewed as risky. 

 

It is careless to assert that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying that ignorance promotes ignorance. Presenting a nearly impossible representation in ignorance while ignoring a measure of deterrence is equally unethical since it can lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are seen as dangerous. A sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that constitutes corruption abuse of criminality in and of itself for ignorance is ignorance-instigating. 

 

By ignoring the truth that ignorance supports the stupid, it is dangerous to imply that ignorance cannot be stopped. Furthermore, it is reckless to neglect a method of deterrence and provide a completely impossible depiction in ignorance because this can lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are seen as risky. The act of inciting ignorance is a kind of abusive communication, including censorship-causing abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, and manipulation-causing abuse, all of which are forms of corruption and criminality in and of themselves.

 

Ignoring the truth that ignorance supports the ignorant while asserting that ignorance cannot be stopped is foolish. Presenting an ignorant audience with a virtually impossible representation while ignoring a method of deterrence is equally reckless since it may lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are viewed as being at risk. Promoting ignorance is a kind of abusive communication, causing censorship-causing abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, manipulation-causing abuse, and corruption-causing abuse of criminality in and of itself. 

 

It is dangerous to assert that ignorance cannot be stopped while ignoring the fact that ignorance promotes ignorance. Presenting a nearly impossible representation in ignorance while ignoring a form of deterrent is equally unethical since it can lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are viewed as dangerous. Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that is a corruption abuse of criminality in and of itself. 


It is dishonest to describe the change in ignorance as practically impossible while neglecting a factor that acts as a deterrent to change. This may trigger defensive responses to interventions that people see as being immediately hazardous to modify. Change does not constitute corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself, nor is it a kind of abusive communication, censorship-inducing abuse, intimidation abuse, or manipulation abuse. A crime in and of itself is the unjustified reliance on implausible deniability to deter crime. It is irresponsible to present almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic because it may cause people to react hastily to routine behaviours that they see as risky. 


Inciting ignorance is an example of abusive communication, which also includes abusive threats, intimidation, and manipulation.


Presenting a practically unachievable picture of change while being ignorant of a change-deterrent measure is unethical. This can result in defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being immediately harmful and posing a threat. Change does not constitute corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself, nor does it constitute abusive communication, abuse resulting in censorship, abuse via intimidation, or abuse through manipulation. It is illegal to use implausible deniability as a means of crime prevention without justification. It is irresponsible to present almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic because it may cause early, retaliatory reactions to routine behaviours that are viewed as risky. 


Inciting ignorance is an example of abusive communication, which also includes abusive intimidation, abusive manipulation, and abusive censoring.


Presenting a nearly impossibly complex picture of change while being ignorant of a factor that would hinder change is unethical. Defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being immediately threatening to change can result from this. Change is not an abusive communication technique, censorship-instigating tactic, intimidation tactic, or manipulation tactic that qualifies as corruption abuse by change as a crime unto itself. A crime in and of itself is relying excessively on improbable deniability to deter crime. Introducing nearly impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic is irresponsible as it may cause early, retaliatory reactions to routine behaviours that are seen as risky. 


Inciting ignorance is a type of violent speech, which also includes threats, intimidation, and manipulation. 


It is unethical to give a nearly impossible portrayal of change while disregarding a measure of change deterrence. This might cause defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being risky to change and posing an immediate threat. Change is not a method of abusive communication, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, or manipulation abuse that qualifies as corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself. Unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to deter crime is a crime in and of itself. Introducing almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic is risky as it may cause early defensive reactions to routine behaviours that are viewed as harmful. 


Inciting ignorance is an instance of abusive communication, which also includes abusive threats, intimidation, and manipulation. 


Inciting ignorance is a type of abusive speech that results in censorship, intimidation, and manipulation, which is a form of corruption abuse and criminality in and of itself. It is risky to say that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying that ignorance is a support system for other ignorance. Spreading ignorance is a form of abusive communication that can lead to censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption as well as criminality on its own. It is unethical to present a nearly difficult depiction in ignorance while neglecting a deterrent.


Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive speech, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, and manipulation-causing abuse, which is corruption abuse and criminality in and of itself. Although denying the fact that ignorance benefits the uninformed, it is risky to claim that stupidity cannot be stopped. Encouraging ignorance is a sort of abusive communication that can lead to illegal activity by itself through censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption. It is unethical to ignore a method of deterrence while presenting a practically impossible depiction.


Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive communication, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that is in and of itself corruptive abuse and criminality. Insisting that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying the fact that ignorance is a support system for others ignorance is harmful. Spreading ignorance is a sort of abusive communication that, by itself, is criminal and results in censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption. It is unethical to ignore a method of deterrence and provide a nearly impossible depiction while ignorant.


Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that is corruption abuse of criminality in and of itself. It is risky to claim that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying the fact that ignorance benefits the uninformed. Spreading ignorance is a form of abusive communication that can lead to censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption as well as illegality in and of itself. It is unethical to present a nearly impossible depiction in the dark while neglecting a deterrent.


It is unethical to give a nearly impossible portrayal of change while disregarding a measure of change deterrence. This might cause defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being risky to change and posing an immediate threat. Change is not a method of abusive communication, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, or manipulation abuse that qualifies as corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself. Unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to deter crime is a crime in and of itself. Introducing almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic is risky as it may cause early defensive reactions to routine behaviours that are viewed as harmful. 


A sort of abusive communication that can result in censorship, intimidation, and manipulation is inciting ignorance to change.


Abuse of change is a form of corruption abuse that is unlawful in and of itself. Without denying the reality that ignorance breeds more ignorance, it is risky to claim that stupidity cannot be stopped. Equally immoral is presenting a virtually unattainable picture to an uninformed audience while omitting a deterrent. Change by itself does not constitute corruption abuse, nor does it constitute abuse that results in censorship, intimidation, or manipulation. Presenting nearly impossible persons as a fraud prevention strategy is irresponsible. 


Change is not the same as corruption, mistreatment, or harsh communication. The use of improbable deniability as a tool for crime prevention is prohibited. It is irresponsible to introduce practically impossible individuals as a fraud prevention strategy since it could result in immediate, hostile responses.


These are all regular actions to change. Threats, intimidation, and manipulation all fall under the category of aggressive discourse known as inciting ignorance. Giving a change a nearly difficult face while ignoring a change deterrent measure is unethical. Providing false information is an abusive communication technique that can result in the impact of criminal activity against change as well as censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption which is unlawful. 


Careless collusion cooperation between internally motivated corruption and outside pressure. They conspired to incite the dissemination of aspersions and the indecency of their inside sphere to promote negligence via the spreading of misinformation about rumours denied and impure fraternisations for unfairness and intentional social disparities adversely affecting education and work. The demonstrative joint enterprise of defaults is subversive in the exploits of fraud and homicides via perjury. Because of the legitimacy of conspiracy offences defined under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Code Act of 1977. (see Archbold 33-2). The legislative limitations in multiple criminal offences are prohibited attempts under section 1(4) of the CAA 1981. Conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and helping an offender or covering up an offence, attempting to aid and abet is not possible, yet you can be charged with aiding and abetting of the statutory attempt. According to section 1(4), attempts to commit summary offences are not crimes unless they are specifically defined as such by the relevant statute. For instance, violating section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act of 1988 includes attempting to drive while intoxicated. 


Conspiracy 


The agreement between two or more people to commit a crime is the primary component of the conspiracy offence. Even if nothing is done to carry out the agreement, a conspiracy has been committed. The agreement is the actus reus. This must entail spoken or written words, as well as other overt activities; it cannot be a purely mental process. Even if the defendant regrets it and leaves right away after the agreement is finished. 


If found guilty in an actus reas conspirators' intentions are unimportant; there must be an agreement to conduct the crime. For the importance of the crime of conspiracy. Not stopping this crime from being committed in Yip Chiu-Cheung v. The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, one of the conspirators was an undercover police officer who only joined the conspiracy to catch drug dealers. 


See Archbold 33-1 to 33-20 for the ingredients of a conspiracy. 


Factors for evidence in persons accused of conspiracy must take into account the rule that the actions and comments of one participant to a common aim may be used against the other. This rule allows one party, A, to use its deeds and admissions as evidence against the other, B. 


The acts of statements and dates in Police perjury of criminal fraud and civil fraud of homicides the criterion stipulates that orders are made in actions of the goal, supported by proof showing both A and B were involved in the conspiracy. The accused of conspiring is in evidence pertaining to actions or words in the pursuit of implicating usage of the objective to be accomplished.


Ethical legislation has a role in the influence of change for making the right choice. This is acting as a result of regulations and a response limit to rules. As an approach to methodology intelligence research and philosophical analysis is the foundation for understanding change development.


Quit trying to justify how change was discovered by being impermissibly offensive to change to be incorrigible about change then demonstrate how change reacts to being caught performing change improperly to violate limitations with contempt to scorn change. 


I can’t listen to your unfriendliness ignoring change. 


It is careless to assert that ignorance cannot be changed by change so that the insincerity of ignorance is stopped while denying that ignorance promotes ignorance. Presenting a nearly impossible representation of change in ignorance while ignoring a measure of change deterrent is equally unethical since it can lead to defensive reactions to change via interventions that are seen as dangerous to change and pose an imminent threat. Change is not a sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, or manipulation abuse that constitutes corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself by ignorance of change, which is ignorance-instigating of change.

 

#communication #change 

 

It is reckless to suggest that crime can't be prevented while ignoring the fact that ignorance encourages crime in and of itself. Unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to prevent crime that denies interference is a crime in and of itself. It is irresponsible to provide virtually impossible representation in evidence and information as a means of deterrence since doing so can cause early, overreactive responses to routine behaviours viewed as harmful without limitation. Presenting almost impossible people with the potential for prevention tactics while downplaying the reality makes people develop defensive reactions to interventions perceived as risky, which is irrational. Portrayals in a hasty manner set off alarms against guarding against unsafe activities to foil the early stages of perceived rejection. It is irresponsible to present impossible deniability as a means of thwarting fraud while neglecting the reality of inciting homicides as incipient crimes. unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to thwart fraud while ignoring the fact that instigating homicides is a form of criminality in and of itself. Presenting nearly impossible characters as a way of preventing fraud is reckless since it ignores the fact that doing so can trigger early reactionary reactions to everyday actions that are perceived as dangerous. It is irresponsible to present virtually impossible people as a fraud prevention strategy while denying the fact that this causes people to acquire defensive reactions to everyday behaviours that are viewed as risky. 

 

It is careless to assert that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying that ignorance promotes ignorance. Presenting a nearly impossible representation in ignorance while ignoring a measure of deterrence is equally unethical since it can lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are seen as dangerous. A sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that constitutes corruption abuse of criminality in and of itself for ignorance is ignorance-instigating. 

 

By ignoring the truth that ignorance supports the stupid, it is dangerous to imply that ignorance cannot be stopped. Furthermore, it is reckless to neglect a method of deterrence and provide a completely impossible depiction in ignorance because this can lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are seen as risky. The act of inciting ignorance is a kind of abusive communication, including censorship-causing abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, and manipulation-causing abuse, all of which are forms of corruption and criminality in and of themselves.

 

Ignoring the truth that ignorance supports the ignorant while asserting that ignorance cannot be stopped is foolish. Presenting an ignorant audience with a virtually impossible representation while ignoring a method of deterrence is equally reckless since it may lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are viewed as being at risk. Promoting ignorance is a kind of abusive communication, causing censorship-causing abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, manipulation-causing abuse, and corruption-causing abuse of criminality in and of itself. 

 

It is dangerous to assert that ignorance cannot be stopped while ignoring the fact that ignorance promotes ignorance. Presenting a nearly impossible representation in ignorance while ignoring a form of deterrent is equally unethical since it can lead to defensive reactions to interventions that are viewed as dangerous. Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that is a corruption abuse of criminality in and of itself. 


It is dishonest to describe the change in ignorance as practically impossible while neglecting a factor that acts as a deterrent to change. This may trigger defensive responses to interventions that people see as being immediately hazardous to modify. Change does not constitute corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself, nor is it a kind of abusive communication, censorship-inducing abuse, intimidation abuse, or manipulation abuse. A crime in and of itself is the unjustified reliance on implausible deniability to deter crime. It is irresponsible to present almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic because it may cause people to react hastily to routine behaviours that they see as risky. 


Inciting ignorance is an example of abusive communication, which also includes abusive threats, intimidation, and manipulation.


Presenting a practically unachievable picture of change while being ignorant of a change-deterrent measure is unethical. This can result in defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being immediately harmful and posing a threat. Change does not constitute corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself, nor does it constitute abusive communication, abuse resulting in censorship, abuse via intimidation, or abuse through manipulation. It is illegal to use implausible deniability as a means of crime prevention without justification. It is irresponsible to present almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic because it may cause early, retaliatory reactions to routine behaviours that are viewed as risky. 


Inciting ignorance is an example of abusive communication, which also includes abusive intimidation, abusive manipulation, and abusive censoring.


Presenting a nearly impossibly complex picture of change while being ignorant of a factor that would hinder change is unethical. Defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being immediately threatening to change can result from this. Change is not an abusive communication technique, censorship-instigating tactic, intimidation tactic, or manipulation tactic that qualifies as corruption abuse by change as a crime unto itself. A crime in and of itself is relying excessively on improbable deniability to deter crime. Introducing nearly impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic is irresponsible as it may cause early, retaliatory reactions to routine behaviours that are seen as risky. 


Inciting ignorance is a type of violent speech, which also includes threats, intimidation, and manipulation. 


It is unethical to give a nearly impossible portrayal of change while disregarding a measure of change deterrence. This might cause defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being risky to change and posing an immediate threat. Change is not a method of abusive communication, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, or manipulation abuse that qualifies as corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself. Unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to deter crime is a crime in and of itself. Introducing almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic is risky as it may cause early defensive reactions to routine behaviours that are viewed as harmful. 


Inciting ignorance is an instance of abusive communication, which also includes abusive threats, intimidation, and manipulation. 


Inciting ignorance is a type of abusive speech that results in censorship, intimidation, and manipulation, which is a form of corruption abuse and criminality in and of itself. It is risky to say that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying that ignorance is a support system for other ignorance. Spreading ignorance is a form of abusive communication that can lead to censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption as well as criminality on its own. It is unethical to present a nearly difficult depiction in ignorance while neglecting a deterrent.


Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive speech, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, and manipulation-causing abuse, which is corruption abuse and criminality in and of itself. Although denying the fact that ignorance benefits the uninformed, it is risky to claim that stupidity cannot be stopped. Encouraging ignorance is a sort of abusive communication that can lead to illegal activity by itself through censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption. It is unethical to ignore a method of deterrence while presenting a practically impossible depiction.


Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive communication, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that is in and of itself corruptive abuse and criminality. Insisting that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying the fact that ignorance is a support system for others ignorance is harmful. Spreading ignorance is a sort of abusive communication that, by itself, is criminal and results in censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption. It is unethical to ignore a method of deterrence and provide a nearly impossible depiction while ignorant.


Inciting ignorance is a sort of abusive communication, censorship-causing abuse, intimidation abuse, and manipulation abuse that is corruption abuse of criminality in and of itself. It is risky to claim that ignorance cannot be stopped while denying the fact that ignorance benefits the uninformed. Spreading ignorance is a form of abusive communication that can lead to censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption as well as illegality in and of itself. It is unethical to present a nearly impossible depiction in the dark while neglecting a deterrent.


It is unethical to give a nearly impossible portrayal of change while disregarding a measure of change deterrence. This might cause defensive responses to interventions that are perceived as being risky to change and posing an immediate threat. Change is not a method of abusive communication, censorship-instigating abuse, intimidation-causing abuse, or manipulation abuse that qualifies as corruption abuse by change for criminality in and of itself. Unreasonable reliance on implausible deniability to deter crime is a crime in and of itself. Introducing almost impossible persons as a fraud prevention tactic is risky as it may cause early defensive reactions to routine behaviours that are viewed as harmful. 


A sort of abusive communication that can result in censorship, intimidation, and manipulation is inciting ignorance to change.


Abuse of change is a form of corruption abuse that is unlawful in and of itself. Without denying the reality that ignorance breeds more ignorance, it is risky to claim that stupidity cannot be stopped. Equally immoral is presenting a virtually unattainable picture to an uninformed audience while omitting a deterrent. Change by itself does not constitute corruption abuse, nor does it constitute abuse that results in censorship, intimidation, or manipulation. Presenting nearly impossible persons as a fraud prevention strategy is irresponsible. 


Change is not the same as corruption, mistreatment, or harsh communication. The use of improbable deniability as a tool for crime prevention is prohibited. It is irresponsible to introduce practically impossible individuals as a fraud prevention strategy since it could result in immediate, hostile responses.


These are all regular actions to change. Threats, intimidation, and manipulation all fall under the category of aggressive discourse known as inciting ignorance. Giving a change a nearly difficult face while ignoring a change deterrent measure is unethical. Providing false information is an abusive communication technique that can result in the impact of criminal activity against change as well as censorship, intimidation, manipulation, and corruption which is unlawful. 


Are you, a friend, or a family member being treated unfairly to the point where you are vulnerable to ruthless deceit, gender sex slavery, or any other combination of these things that are occurring in such places and to such people? You are free to express your annoyance independently. Relative friendliness: Friendship "Enhances Life." Participating in activities with friends increases pleasure and happiness. Because friends "create a framework where basic needs are addressed," the quality of friendships is correlated through experiencing a good quality of friendship, and one is led to feel more comfortable with who they are as a person. In the end, meaningful friendships have a direct impact on social development, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. They also have a higher quality of freedom and independence. I refuse to believe in the reality of relationships based on the communication of depression and fear amidst cowardliness and bastardisation that makes fools of unfriendly people who don’t care, as well as anything else as ridiculously pointless as ignorance in the rivalry warfare between the competitive with ulterior motives and rage problems. To Hell with the horrifyingly treacherous that cause conditions to verge unfairly in the circumstances of taking advantage of others in a betrayal that reckons without realisation while waiting to follow through on the actualisation of unreasonable harm. If you can’t be patient and mindful to be a good friend and a nice person then you are bad and it is your fault. Stop ignoring friendship for the inequalities of unfriendliness. Avoid disregarding this and minimise the injustices of favour.



#people #development #communication #quality #happiness #gender #change


They have unfairly caused unreasonable harm in perjury, obstruction and destruction, plus termination and inequality in denial by misinformation to the obligation to transparency and misrepresentation non-disclosure.


I want and need invalidity prohibited by obligatory to disabuse and full reparations, please.


Stop interfering with change impermissibly for attempts to defraud the state, church, monarchy, as well as society and communities in professionals; such an impact is unjustified, and you are fools if you hold opinions that invent defences for frauds issues full of false accusations in unjustified deception of torture and procrastinations so that the passivity of postponements is unreasonably harmful.

If change continues to employ a means beyond the norm to unlawfully interfere and taunt victims and those who have been conned by no cancellations in reparations because they want them to be the insults in disbelief with them, that they incite in addition to informal and formal deception, to encourage the rich and the poor to commit fraud in assistances to perjury they willingly believe as a difference to contradict the similarity. Hence, so is ignored by the insincere to change and under the effect of scepticism's scorn and contempt, they are the undue influence of every stupid person's fraud in their perjury's horrible counsel tormenting victims and their families, plus friends with their insulting thoughts opinions. Then they will fabricate an explanation in inaction to delay the attribute of the problem they caused with the impact of causations unfairly blaming change or some other notion to be incorrigible wrongdoers of this unrepentant criminality’s style in unprofessionalism utilising an oppressive conspiracy of codefendants.


Participation in change against an unpopular name of change wrongdoing and unpopular beliefs that go against how to change can-do and why change can-do knows what change means in countering the can’t of no change, unreasonable trends that have no extra-legal means to obstruct the innocent that are brave enough to complain by injustice when suffering perjury struggling, refusal defrauds change and frauds willingly do so in denial of change and only unethical tactics engage in challenging change actions to ignore the will of the wrong change.


#society #legal #change


https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7050433619789508608?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios


The same applies to donors that make specific beneficiary requests. I moaned years ago about local authority insurance cheating to Action Fraud and the NCA in agreement to being covered if I reported donations made to my own company via my organisation's website and PayPal. I have had no donations. But, to be on the safe side, reporting fraud suspicions is a smart idea. This does not entitle the Police to hack me because they don’t trust me to report it.


Have the local authority paid their penalties with insurance cheating fraud payments?


Public enquiries references T682/18 & T9040/13 


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009


Did that fat foreign security guard at Bath High Court just dump off a big bag of cash stolen in fraud and police perjury of local authority insurance cheating? 


Why not type it in and ask the photochemical military satellites if that’s what pointed itself at just now?


Nothing but the same response in fear that limits nothing.


This corporate espionage is purposefully planned treason in the form of police perjury, civil and criminal fraud, as well as aggravated fraud and insurance cheating in support of purported rape and torture love affairs for conventional warfare or even threats of fertiliser bombs and 9-inch nails bombs so forbidden freedom and independence can undermine the rule of law for Nazis in Afghanistan, South America, Africa, Pakistan and Europe. All this whilst your sick staff proliferate long-covid by attacking innocent people who complain about this. 


When substantial intent lies, one is at risk of being ignored by others. Ethical integrity that is lawful and under oath shouldn't exist as the facts of severe fraud in a deliberate plan against the reality of what is certain and irrelevant of morality to be dishonest about CCTV. A pursued agenda to lie about CCTV in insurance cheating fraud of some purposeful morals, but not when it comes to the truth of aggravated fraud and fraud of County Court in police perjury. This serious premeditated scheme of a purposeful plot does not include what is legal and what is made legal because it is not allowed within oath and law to lie about CCTV. Because lying under oath and in violation of the law is prohibited in reality, this significant design of a purposeful conspiracy to omit what is permissible and or impermissible is made legal because it is not allowed within oath and law to lie about CCTV. Because lying under oath and in violation of the law is prohibited in reality, this significant prepared design of a purposeful conspiracy to omit what is permissible and or impermissible made legal and under oath or illegal and in contempt is true because lying under oath and the legislation regarding CCTV is not permitted. The importance eliminates what is forbidden for both the significance of what is restricted and required to go against a large willfulness amounting to lies about CCTV. As guardian of the public interest in not lying about CCTV, it is my distinct responsibility to understand the distinction between civil and criminal contempt when lying about privacy and the injunctions of the distinct functions concerning contempt that arise from civil proceedings and criminal proceedings concerning the criminal law, proceedings instituted only under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 without consent, nor consent from the public sector insurer who is an issuer to my guardianships data assurance of trustworthy confidence concerning breaches of agreements like the insurance act and the GDPR, plus NDAs. I signed no NDA negotiating this public enquiry reference T682/18 to do with you lying about CCTV in Police perjury and insurance cheating of my assured tenancy agreement violated by your aggravated fraud and fraud of County Court, plus privacy breaches and injunctions. Will you stop lying about CCTV?


In the capacity of regarding the difference, it is mine. I am responsible for the difference in capability. Therefore, in the difference, I am responsible for the difference in the capability of who is to blame for the disparity in ability when lying about CCTV in police perjury and insurance cheating. Individuals and groups will be held accountable for the competence gap as a result of the incapacity of the difference that disagrees with the facts of truth in honesty for the CCTV, subsequent reports, claims, applications, farming, and data theft. Public enquiry reference T682/18 Will you stop lying about CCTV?


Some Purposeful Morals In Pursued Agenda


Scorn without privilege can’t appeal motives. But, scornful privileges appeal while the privileges of contempt are a breach of several co-defendants that can? Privilege with a shared interest in complaints correspondences for incompatibilities will? What if the claimants are not compensated? Cancellations of liabilities between all opposing parties in adversarial litigation have a chance of what? An abuse of process by contempt and scorn withholding to be privileged in motives appeals should or shouldn’t whilst privileges were given to codefendants between codefendants for? To contradict immunity and consolidation in dividends by the inaction of pre-action against preliminaries pre-emptive premeditations is dissident for what reason? The commercial policy disputes reject domestic policy complaints because of? Whilst dissent and vice versa opposed do coexist in certainties within what? While conditions granted circumstances in several ill-treatments penalised an abuse of? Permitting a variety of unfair practices for unreasonably harmful means because of what? Every unjustifiable result of issuances for interim aggregates was due to what? A vicious cycle of adverse effects from insufficient conditions is fair because of what? Terms loop of wrongdoings punishments in a range of unfavourable activities is ineffectively allowed because of what? Consequences damaging methods of indefensible outcomes that should be sanctioned aren’t necessary because of what? Aspects of bated pride imputed elements ascribed to factors goes on because of what? The for and against features attributed to considerations on pros and cons by articles to do with privacy are discerned because of what? In the concerns of characteristics associated with privacy-related writings, as issues with works causing secrets are often cited by what in whom? The lie is linked to problems and worries why and how? Would-be connections should generate what could’ve for what happened and why? But, are disconnected by can’t in how? Would-be connections ought to produce what they are detached from for what and whom? 


Potential, prevent, create, cutoff. 


Possibility, stop, start, and face up to limitations in relationships estranged to avoid instigating communication, Nah. 


Yeah, acknowledge constraints but continue to provoke and make matters worse, has and did. 


Indeed, understanding upsets the balance. 


Misunderstandings throw off what ought to be done in understanding the underlying differences without fighting for similarities. Comprehension not grasping the fundamental conflict and humour of the core ideals complicated by fools that are foul flouts. Central tension dies down and out in the primary system down and outs of no self-control or awareness during austerity. To identify with impossibility is to dissociate from being normal. Detachment from identifying the abnormal is wrong. Disengaging from recognition is not of attention and is incorrect. Distance is improper against erroneous intent ignoring the anomalous. Opposed fights that are crazy resistances fought uncommonly strange and inappropriately in weird challenges overlooking bizarre behaviour battles shouldn't be utilised to counter false intent, that doesn’t combat a deceptive purpose that is dismissive of ignorance to ignore the misleading of unusual or dishonest of unexpected, as waged and disregarded insane considerations are of inconsistencies, that are incompatibilities that shouldn’t have been discarded by any expense for the impact of the same outcome in less for the worse, as it is not cost-effective to change in public safety and trust. 


The idiots want to know them better before they are meant to give me a little bit of what I was already meant to have until their colleagues stole it multiple times in privileged breaches that should be sanctioned. I will remain righteous and I love to share the right information with those that appreciate it. 


A doctrine of inertia participation is nothing but codefendants breaching common interest at times, especially times like this in privilege in dividends, and immunity via inaction. I signed no such NDA negotiating these public enquiries. This is the involvement that is more than violating and in the by-and-by of open investigations. This involvement goes beyond simply breaking the rules of ongoing investigations. Beyond merely foul flouting of the norms at times in terms of interferences taunting me and the nation with defeatist abuse of power in inequalities of existing investigations, this engagement goes beyond that in others similar with varying differences for no cancellations via compensations. You're simply disrespecting victims with how you have engaged with different circumstances you don’t care about because you don’t profit from them, is that right? You expect me to believe you don’t profit from them like you shot yourselves in the foot where policy is concerned whilst you already default from the previous same mistakes. You do you in your people’s insurance cheating and likewise in murder fraud of you doing you. You may find yourself in jeopardy regarding how to settle on an investment privilege in a joint agreement without exception and likewise without a joint agreement on an investment privilege that has exceptions between you and an owner in the areas of intellectual property and internet protocol of due diligence. There are several legal fees in a democracy to which you must conform in adherence to the rule of law. 


Do you have a joint defence with a confidentiality agreement in these codefendants' criminal investigations dividends, public enquiry reference T682/18? 


Do you say you’re unaware to claim an act? An act like being in support of extremism, huh? When a situation makes one feign ignorance of rights on preferring the bus to enjoy being unofficially casual about sarcastic irony with a sardonic twist did you miss the boat or let go of the satirical paradox in riding the pretend forces of scenario jockeys that give up on circumstances requiring causes in the powers that be to simulating faceless action in events. Eh, is your behaviour endorsing radicalism to encourage inaction? To promote sponsorship of dissidence in dissenters one must first jointly enterprise in foul play to ensure fears are deluded by engaging in fostering hate. You may guarantee deceits anxieties are allayed by developing animosity via enhanced delays. Reducing unnecessary less to lesser via demands caused with the intent to make things right but worse rather than easier. Collaborating on extremist activities to get rich off insincere resentment that rejects regrets of dishonesty is wrong. Conspiratorial evils of unneeded imposing that profits from false guilt over deceit. Cultivating enmity through alleviated lies for hostilities created by expectations is unacceptable. To engage in coercion placed on intentions is immoral participation of the dishonourable leads followed by achieving the motivations of carelessnesses goals driven by wilful negligence that ignores the rules regarding requirements and standards. 


The compulsion to attain deliberate norms or the aims of manner that disregards values and principles? 


A doctrine of inertia participation is nothing but codefendants breaching common interest, privilege in dividends, and immunity via inaction and I signed no such NDA negotiating these public enquiries. This is the involvement that is more than violating the by and by of open investigations. This involvement goes beyond simply breaking the rules of ongoing investigations. Beyond merely foul flouting of the norms in terms of interferences taunting the nation with defeatist abuse of power in inequalities of existing investigations, this engagement goes beyond that in others similar with varying differences for no cancellations via compensations. You're simply disrespecting victims with how you have engaged with different circumstances you don’t care about because you don’t profit from it as you do in your people’s insurance cheating and likewise in murder fraud of it. You may find yourself in jeopardy regarding how to settle on an investment privilege in a joint agreement without exception in the areas of intellectual property and internet protocol of due diligence. There are several legal fees in a democracy to which you must conform. Do you have a joint defence with a confidentiality agreement in these criminal investigations to the public enquiry reference T682/18? 


Why would you combine every single MP from my Gmail account? 


What substantive improvement would that make to my grievances as a claimant? 


My Gmail inbox has the original email complaints that I received while the crimes were being committed and I was subjected to procedural abuse. By temporarily banning my Gmail, fraudsters can now accomplish... 


If several co-defendants with a shared interest in my complaints correspondence as a claimant between opposing parties in adversarial litigation without privilege in motives appeals, I would still be without a Crown court decision in pre-action against pre-emptive ignorances towards my formal letters complaining about the commercial policy dispute that rejected my domestic policy complaints regarding aggravated fraud and fraud of County court on CCTV. JCIO was consolidated, although JCIO was consolidated and Avon & Somerset Police by Action Fraud you can cheat me again how? 


In all the aggregates to the scam… 


Illegal profiteering from hundreds of homicides out of thousands of homicides each year in non-preventative processing for the deliberately indefensibly defeatist dissident dissent tactics in conflict and humour intentionally breaching every gross abuse of process to not cancel liability in criminal fraud via reparations as your egregious compulsive obnoxious exploits violate victims to benefit unfairly by obsessively taking advantage of the pyrrhic defeat theory and power and inequality to abuse public trust and safety.


I’m thinking ahead in acquittals due to a lack of forensic evidence although they have lied in criminal fraud to adversely affect victims that are claimants in favours of impacts inchoate offences in fraud and exclusions rights although justifiable and admitted to family members in the wilful negligence of persistent defaults. Despite incipient dearth being acknowledged in the recognition of facts and beginning shortage the onset of attention in the motivations of care provides notices on the focus of what begun and is paid in what lets to be put to gives. In paucity and scarcity, the emphasis is on identifications and allowances in accommodating priorities in planning that were made and wild with bold commitments to unwise decisions. Brazen incapacities established foolish dissociative missives that all sent out the wrong message. 


The awareness that change is minimal is necessary for the ability to distinguish between small changes. OCR HR Culture and People, plus Exclusion is tailored to the new normal of people ops' apparent abilities in intelligence, evaluation, and monitoring of observational activities and datasets. A modification in privacy policy not only deserves formal and public consideration but acclaim in the eyes of the legislators due to the context of the community and professionals. The reform drafts amendments represent a change for everyone who has been impacted by the failures of change, and the regulator is expected to approve this as a well-designed bill. When one has concerns about interactions and communication, ignorance can result in unfair discrimination. Scenario 1: The speaker is unhappy because their right to complain was ignored and they should have received a better opportunity when they applied. There has been a formal complaint reported in evidence against those involved with Crown Court. Their contempt and scorn towards one of the innocent victims are unreasonably harmful and invalidation that is prohibited by obligatory disabuse in any circumstances without any unjustified interferences for extenuations of insufficient conditions.


My research is available on @ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369502065_Public_Enquiry_References_T68218_T904013_-Inchoate_Offences_Police_Perjury?utm_source=twitter&rgutm_meta1=eHNsLWpxRXVTYU9rZU1wa0NSSGNFQ1FjdE52dXcxQ095OHJJOVJWenhXbjVyNjlKRmgrR2pJNWZhVUxsRkplajRDK2Zzckt3SkJzckllR0xyM0FRS3ZmQ1FxUT0%3D


The most crucial information in this pdf is that the agreement against fraud, interference, and intimidation was incredibly simple and that the suggested revisions are alternatives to the formal letter that concentrate on subjects suited for a serious discussion on efforts for tackling stupidity. The text also implies that love exists and has the power to create want out of nothingness, and that wealthy, uneducated sex addicts who commit murder fraud pay for their lies by taking their own lives in killing others. Ultimately, the formal letter argues that no one can be bargained down simply because they don't share their prejudiced interests. The significance of applying the comparative reverse contrast to gain from everything having to do with less is discussed in the narrative of the complaint. It implies that the suggested adjustments are substitutes centred around the fact that wealthy, ignorant sex addicts pay for their lies by taking their own lives in murder fraud. A formal letter and complaints to Crown Court on fair topics for a serious offence on initiatives for fools. Additionally, it clarifies how power disparities cause doubts about the security and health of public trust and how changes in self-assurance and authority contradictions can also cause problems. Finally, it implies that ambiguity and harshness share traits with fear and change. While the opposite is not a rational compositional shift, assured compliance in the power of adherence is. Every opportunity to demonstrate ongoing adaptability by avoiding circumstances that call for adaptation is futile and damaging because absurdities in the uncertainties of change are constant unknowns. Things change, and people who are dependent on things or weak are foolish. It is useless and bad to take advantage of any chance to avoid describing extenuating conditions that call for adaptation and continual adaptability. The relative privation fallacy prevents the issuer from being called to repair the warranty in the situation of a false-negative of regrets that have not been disclosed against a false-positive of regrets that have been disclosed. The reason for noncompliance is due to disrespect and rejection of the murder fraud argument in my formal complaints since it is based on false premises and has an ill-intentioned goal to ignore me. Because people are fallible and because the concepts used to define compliance, in this case, are absurd, when one cannot, things change. And, the change is down to perjury.


My research is available on @ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369542851_Crown_Courtpdf?utm_source=twitter&rgutm_meta1=eHNsLTRzZ3pBbmEwQlprck1sQlhoOE55NmY3Z1czTlZpVExxZEdsYkllVzM2UVlzSDdlbFlpQnRzQlZ0Um9zN2VpVGZkREdDWGN4RlJGeHV1K08vbXo1SmVnMD0%3D


They counteract compensation for a wrong by contradicting the point for inflation and the cost of living crisis without reparations to victims for multiple counts of criminal fraud in homicides to disrespect claimants so their lousy corrective justice argument is persistently delayed by the interpretability of their intelligence fallacy. This is how their poor correctional system argues continually to be stalled by the premise of numerous acts so no one is entitled to compensation due to what they have done wrong in damned assistants. They are deplorable decisions in blasted aides that don’t release any of the provisions in the impact of corruption’s multiple offences, and they let them ask for a pay rise and strike so they could add injury to insult, too. They are reprehensible disclosures of clauses in various orders that aren’t good enough for them so they can show off and mock everyone’s sufferings. The two results of their struggle are their bonus army of radicals and their scam which is bogus with like how and why the wealthy gained from the assistance of their resilient covalency sponges like during the Great Depression. Do they not realise or not care that by authorising compensation, which causes every default in liability to be cancelled, inflation is reduced? Do they not realise or do they not care that inflation can be avoided by taking action to stop penalties from being approved because of scepticism, disdain, and discriminatory beliefs that would prefer to default than be cancelled in exchange for a lesser amount of compensation? Do they not realise or do they not care that a large portion of inflation is caused by crimes like murder, fraud, embezzlement, and perjury, which offenders would rather default in than employ a scam to reduce their obligations through liability fraud requirements of indictable indemnity fraud in the impact of murder? If I catch any of them supporting extremism once more while they despise people supporting terrorism, they are all going to die in my eyes.


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009

Public enquiries Ref T682/18 & T9040/13


Do you have any alternative strategies including the interventions in profiting from differences for a period from cumulative totals like the dividend of less than a full year’s worth of business and other techniques like the tactics of disparities of benefiting from various payout methods like the inequalities of variances over timescales during factions of fractional exchange in reserve of debts including penalties for and more losses as viable cheating options to workable change in fraud and criminal fraud of murder fraud that operates impractically by dissociative missives?


Notwithstanding the complexity of the specifics of inaction by non-adherence, the agreement against fraud, interference, and intimidation was incredibly straightforward.


Why would you punks and suckers bother me? 


I don’t owe you anything! 


You cannot unfairly use everything having to do with less by using a reverse contrast of the comparable. Reduced narcissistic grasp related to financial hardship. In the course of nobody, what is difficult else freedom is therefore free yet overlooked and may be tough to believe for some. I cannot be bought for less just because someone supports my biassed interests less. 


Unuseful people are cheap morons, huh? 


However, the changes that have been suggested are alternatives that focus on topics that are appropriate for a serious discussion on initiatives for fools. Boring, accessible for a low cost, and easily available. Any potential rituals, rewards, or changes that may be done for less money? 


Wealthy sex addicts who are ignorant pay for their falsehoods by committing suicide in murder fraud. 


I might be nothing more than a worthless human being, as sex offenders said in the 1990s. I shall appreciate how love is also present and why hate was able to create want out of nothingness. 


Less serves the truth and removes everyone by acting in their own best interests. 


No one can sell me for less because they give me less of their one-sided support due to self-serving duties that I don't need.


You cannot improperly use the comparative reverse contrast to benefit from everything having to do with less. The reduced reach of a cash-strapped narcissist is related. What is tough elsewhere is thus difficult somewhere else in freedom, which is less likely so free yet disregarded and can be difficult to believe for some. Because someone supports me less in biassed interests, they cannot purchase me for less money. I guess a cheap moron is a useless person. Oh, suggested changes are alternatives that revolve around appropriate ideas for a serious conversation about projects for fools. They are boring as well as easily accessible and inexpensive. Are there any potential rituals, self-serving incentives, and transformation that are doable for less money? Wealthy, uneducated sex addicts pay for their falsehoods by taking their own lives in murder fraud. I might not even be a human being at all, as sex offenders claimed to be in the 1990s. I’ve been looking forward to learning how hate operates and why it was able to create want out of nothingness. By doing what is best for some, less serves the truth and eliminates everyone. No one can sell less for less because they only support less partially out of selfish duties that I don't need for less.


Change in trust and inconsistencies of power are doubts affecting change. Power discrepancies cast doubt on whether a public trust is healthy and safe. Doubt causing change includes shifts in public trust and contradictions in authority. Power imbalances raise questions about the health and safety of public trust. Shifts in confidence and inconsistencies in public policy and opinion are examples of doubts that bring about change. Public trust questioned by power disparities doubts can prompt a change in the debate confidence and contradictions in authority. Power imbalances call into doubt trusts. Change-instigating doubts include adjustments in self-assurance and authority contradictions. Power disparity in public policy of trust costs faith in doubt through risk assessments in the cause of change shifts in change confidence and authority change full of inconsistencies.


Is change free from certainty? 


Does change have any unease?


What does fear have to say about the change in the possibility of contradictions lacking the capacity to reverse an offensive decision?


What do fear and change have in joint commonality with ambiguity and cruelty?


Does the assurance of fear imply that change is inevitable and the guilt of judgment is the potentiality for inconsistencies of power that should change? 


In terms of definition for adherence, assurance compliance is a rational compositional shift, while the contrary is not.


Absent uncertainty of change. The absence of not being subject to changing uncertainties is absurd. Absurdities in uncertainties of change are constant unknowns at times and a difference of missive certainty change in the circumstances of uncertainty’s waiting conditions insufficient to turn out to happen. The missing that is not vulnerable to shifting uncertainty is nonsensical but unhelpful. Change brings absurdities of indecision because of weakness in foolishness. Any specific opportunity to manifest continual adaptation by absence not adaptable to changing uncertainties will be useless. But also counterproductive. Change can invent foolishness in the uncertain human frailty and stupidity of what can’t. Any opportunity to demonstrate continuous adaptability by abstaining from situations that require adaptation is ineffective but also harmful. Because of human fragility and the foolishness of what cannot, change creates absurdities of uncertainty. Every chance to avoid situations that call for adaptation to show constant flexibility is fruitless but also detrimental. People who are weak and needy of things are foolish, and things change even when one cannot.


Assured compliance in the power of adherence is a change in logical composition, and the converse is not.


Any opportunity to avoid explaining extenuating circumstances that need adaptation and ongoing adaptability is futile but also harmful. People are weak, and things that cannot be changed when they should be are stupid. Thus one thing changes after another even though it cannot. It is not only useless but also harmful. Take every opportunity to avert situations beyond my control that need adaptability and ongoing flexibility to versatility. People tend to change after another cannot in weakness and the idiocy of what cannot. Avaisive conditions that require adaptability in opposition to remaining flexible at any cost are counterproductive but also unreasonably harmful. One chance changes after another chance can't because of change to the vice, folly and depravity of what cannot, especially if it can’t be honest about it to be unhelpful. 


The reverse is not the case of assurance compliance in the power of adherence. 


Missing change, are you?


A change in logical composition is assurance compliance in the power of adherence, and the converse is not.


The error in comparatives privation in rectifying the warranty with the issuer in the case of a false-negative of regret undisclosed vs false-positive of regrets undisclosed. Alternate justifications for non-compliance mock the fraud defence in disagreement with non-intent-based compliance's fallacy. Inadherence is due to contempt and scorn in fraud to contend in noncompliance by disrespect and non-acceptance for the disdain in the fraud argument cause of the fallacies purpose and intent. Inaction by disrespect and rejection of the mockery in the fraud defence because of the false claims' purposefully intent. This results in disobedience. A motive and goal of the fraudulent assertions is inaction by the fearful hatred for rejection of the ridicule in the fraud defence. As a result, people disobey. Contrary to popular belief, compliance is a logical composition.


False-negative of regret unreported versus false-positive of regrets unreported is a relative privation fallacy that averts the issuer contacted to resolve the warranty. When one cannot, things alter because of people's frailty and the idiocy of terms defining adherence. The assurance compliance is a rational compositional shift, while the contrary is not. Outcomes excuse reasons for non-compliance. Serve in the context of a false intent-based argument regarding non-compliance that mocks the fraud defence. The reason for noncompliance is due to disrespect and rejection of the fraud argument since false premises and has an ill-intentioned goal. Due to the intentional false statements, fraud is defending inaction, disdain, and rejecting mockery. As a result, people disobey. Inaction by the fearful hatred for rejection of the ridicule in the fraud defence is a motive and purpose of the false assertions. Because of this, individuals disobey. Compliance is a logical composition, whereas contraries are not.


The fallacy of relative privation in false-negative of regret unreported versus false-positive of regrets unreported while fixing the warranty with the issuer. Other justifications for non-compliance in a disrespectful dismissal of the fraud defence in a disagreement about non-compliance based on the fallacy of intent. The reason for noncompliance is due to rejection and disdain for the fraud argument because of the goal and objective of the false claims, which leads to adherence. The misleading assertions were a deliberate falsehood, inaction by disrespect and rejection of the ridicule in the fraud defence. Disobedience emerges from this. The passivity caused by fear and loathing of being rejected or mocked in the fraud defence is one of the motives and goals of the false allegations. People then disobey as a result. In contrast to the reverse, compliance adherence is logically incomprehensible. 


False-negative regret not reported versus false-positive regret not disclosed is relative privation's fallacy when the warranty with the issuer. Therefore, variegated justifications for non-compliance and disrespectful dismissal of the fraud defence in a disagreement over non-motives. Alternative reasons for non-compliances are disdain for the fraud argument in the purpose of intent-based fallacy dispute about non-compliance. The fraudulent assertions were made intentionally via inaction by scorn and rejection of mockery are fraud defences. Obedience is the outcome of this. When fearsome rejection and the need to avoid the ridicule of the fake statements' inaction. People disregard orders as a result. Compliance adherence is a logical composition, while the opposite is not. 


The fallacy of relative privation is false-negative of regret undisclosed versus false-positive of regrets undisclosed disrespect in remedying the warranty with the issuer. When one cannot, things alter because of people's frailty and the idiocy of the world of terms for definitions of adherence. The assurance compliance is a rational compositional shift, while the contrary is not. Possible excuses for non-compliance in the context of a false intent-based argument regarding non-compliance that mocks the fraud defence. Possible justifications for non-compliance in disrespectful scorn for the fraud defence in serving the context of an intent-based fallacious argument about non-compliance. Cowardly frauds intend to objectify the false claims of noncompliance, which is why they discriminate against the community and professionals in non-compliance through rejection and mocking taunts to interfere with their misleading claims of unhidden deliberate lies were the result of disrespectful non-acceptance of the defence in fraud is disobediences as a result of passivity brought on by fear and hatred in being rejected and made fun of, as well as the fraud defence of intentions are careless motivations false claims that led to disobedience in disagreement. Compliance adherence is logical composition, and the opposite is not.


Having been freed from certainty, what now?


By the example of your covert words, persuasion, and behaviour in forensics and to the exclusionary engagements of your fraud and homicides vapid and vague problems with the issues your overdose addiction to ignorance has become the cause of the opus Magnus syndrome which is what interferes with how and why many lose sleep over another change in a chance like we are all knocking on the door of our enemy’s in you a lot when we are not and everything else you are all careless about like the addicts of ignorance you are is all going to the want to murder for fraud in how and why they kill themselves, so there. And, I hate suffering with what your bloody struggle prevents in many when it shouldn’t of whilst stopping me from sleeping soundly. I despise the evidence of no evidence whenever you had evidence. I also detest having to endure what your brutal battle stops in many who are afraid of you and what you are really about in doing wrong. I haven’t even begun to threaten you with the anguish of your violence you sucking haters. To hell with you lot and your deceptive illustrations of a bunch of illusions beyond your comprehensible ignorance to imagine you would have power over it. 


I don’t want a word of your rubbishy reservists interfering with my freedom and rights anymore God damn you. They’ve interfered since 1998 for dishonest sex offenders dividends in an SOE full of fraud and homicides, plus proliferation the company would rather blame my relative's tuberculosis for instead of their victims. 


Why the hell do I have to put up and shut up I won’t join in to get rich in any debt of the disallowances. 


How does yeast grow out the back of my neck to destroy my brain and turn me into a Eunuch? 


Do you no longer have to be certain? 

The prisoner must win over the jurors to be released. The prosecution has the burden of proof when it comes to establishing the defendant's guilt; they must establish all relevant facts surrounding the offence beyond a reasonable doubt; the jury or magistrates should only find the prisoner guilty if they are certain of it. 


Are you feeling uncertain about anything? 


The opus Magnus is if I lose sleep over any more of you like I’m knocking on the door of my enemy when I am not and everything else you are all careless about like addicts of ignorance all going to the want to murder for how they kill themselves, so there.


The change has been unfair and caused unreasonable harm to my home, livelihood, education and belongings as well as my privacy, plus the absence of the specific change in uncertainty, was unpredictably disappointing and frustrating, as the persistent unknowns of change caused unjustifiable misery and the impact of absurdities of doubt made each opportunity to show remorse a constant battle. Persistent adaptability is ineffectual and damaging since change introduces the absurdity of uncertainty because of human weakness and stupidity which I was against daily for over 6 years. Avoiding adaptable situations is not only useless but also harmful because people are powerless to change things when they need to be changed. I am not a coward nor a fool and being misunderstood and challenged by liars is unfair because of the unreasonable harm both parties cause. To avoid circumstances that are out of my control but call for flexibility and adaptability throughout hard times for a hurtful life is pointless. Humans frequently make one alteration after another despite their inability to do so due to their frailty and the absurdity of the impossible.


Doubts about change are caused by shifts in power and trust. Trust issues are exacerbated by power disparities between scorn and contempt that contend against truth and fairness.


You can have problems or issues regarding change because of doubts, the choice is yours.


Absent uncertainty of change. The absence of not being subject to changing uncertainties is absurd. Absurdities of uncertainty are of change. The constant unknowns of change in absence of a certain change uncertainty will have to wait its turn to happen. An absence that is not vulnerable to shifting uncertainty is not only nonsensical but unhelpful. Change brings absurdities of uncertainty because of weakness in foolishness. Any specific opportunity to manifest continual adaptation by absence not adaptable to changing uncertainties is useless, but also counterproductive. Change creates absurdities of uncertainty because of human frailty and stupidity of what can’t. Any opportunity to demonstrate continuous adaptability by abstaining from situations that require adaptation is not only ineffective but also harmful. Because of human fragility and the foolishness of what cannot, change creates absurdities of uncertainty. Every chance to avoid situations that call for adaptation to show constant flexibility is not only fruitless but also detrimental. Because of the weakness of people and the stupidity of what cannot, one changes after another even if one can’t. 


Any opportunity to avoid explaining extenuating circumstances that need adaptation and ongoing adaptability is not only futile but also harmful. People are weak, and things that cannot be changed when they should be are stupid, thus one thing changes after another even though it cannot. It is not only useless but also harmful, to take every opportunity to avert situations beyond my control that need adaptability and ongoing flexibility of versatility. People tend to change after another even when they can't because of their weakness and the idiocy of what cannot. Avaisive conditions that require adaptability in opposition to remaining flexible at any cost are not just counterproductive but also unreasonably harmful. One chance changes after another even if one chance can't because of change to the vice, folly and depravity of what cannot especially if it can’t be honest about it to be unhelpful. 


Missing change are you? 


Change in trust and inconsistencies of power are doubts affecting change. Power discrepancies cast doubt on trusts. Doubts causing change include shifts in trust and contradictions in authority. Power imbalances raise questions about trust. Shifts in confidence and inconsistencies in authority are examples of doubts that bring about change. Trusts are put into question by power disparities. Doubts that prompt change include changes in confidence and contradictions in authority. Power imbalances call into doubt trusts. Change-instigating doubts include adjustments in self-assurance and authority contradictions. Power disparities cast faith in doubt. Doubts that cause change include shifts in change confidence and authority change full of inconsistencies.


Is change free from certainty? 


Does change have any unease?


What does fear have to say about the change in the possibility of contradictions lacking the capacity to reverse an offensive decision?


What do fear and change have in common with ambiguity and cruelty?


Does the assurance of fear imply that change is inevitable and the guilt of judgment is the potentiality for inconsistencies of power that should change? 


#assurance #power #change


Change is minor recognition and attention to being able to distinguish between little changes. The intelligence of interpretability in differences between few similarities. Understanding distinctions amongst minimal change. Change helps to pay very close awareness to subtlety to tell apart change nuances of extremes that don't aid between assistances within change. 


#help #intelligence #change 


OCR HR Culture People 


Exclusion is fitted to the worm shelf expertise of the people ops intelligence gathering evaluation and monitoring. The bureaucracy of human resources will sting you with busts to leave you exposed. 


Sure, this legal process of getting a change can work in accrediting students using a combination approach of membership methods and media, plus advice-giving techniques. Privacy, on the other hand, is not a contract or a statement of support, and a change in the context of community and professionals deserves only attention and acknowledgement. Whether or not privacy has enquiries for advisory change about liability and litigation, people must pay attention to subtlety to discern between change nuances of extremes. I think the reform draft is the change in the well-being of change and all received, and the regulator, as it is well-designed. 


#work #community #people #students #media #legal #privacy #litigation #change


https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/improving-care/campaigning-for-better-mental-health-policy/reforming-the-mental-health-act?fbclid=IwAR1b7d8pHpYM-jhsH5uZNqpBDocb4wlEqbcDrrNJ8yoIM9cwCrqhGNXoZi8#:~:text=Joint%20Committee%20on%20the%20Draft%20Mental%20Health%20Bill%20(2022%2D23)&text=The%20Joint%20Committee%20was%20appointed,was%20published%20in%20January%202023.


The annoying predicament of the incredulity is as offensive as others who have done the same and offenders of indictable denial, plus vulnerable adults who couldn’t care less about their personality disorders and addictions. I’m unimpressed by scepticism about communication and relationships that are unfairly discriminating because of ignorance. They ought to keep rude incredulity out in the cold without me being placed there, as their blatant ignorance doesn’t hold any appeal for me. They should avoid putting themselves in that situation because of their evident ignorance, which makes no sense to me. They ought to keep their obnoxious opinions outside without my intervention since their evident stupidity lacks appeal in their motives and they shouldn't have placed themselves in this position due to their apparent ignorance, which is incomprehensibly irrational in what is irrelevant and disproportionate. Look at the bothersome violations that are equally helpless and involvement-led and owing to careless motivations that must refrain from offending me with the same adverse impact. 


Please look at how and why engagement and being engaged in the caring motivations attentive to the recognition of innocence (I have not been arrested, nor RUI) and the right to complain has been ignored in my part-time registration to study at The Open University when I should have been given a grant, too. 


I've attached The Open University's response threshold to my TMA02 concerns owing to my exceptional circumstances. I renounce the right to allow the sharing of data information, but do you also want to know?


I've already filed an official complaint with the Citizens Advice Bureau, and I'll do the same with OFQUAL. Extenuating circumstances are situations outside of my control that has had an impact on how my work or studies were assessed. Mostly because I had personal or health problems that affected my performance on the evaluation or caused me to miss an assessment event. I've also written an official complaint to Crown Court and requested information. I'll stop complaining if Crown Court helps both Colleges and The Open University stop me from using my mitigating circumstances as an excuse.


Change in liability and litigation risks for the stakes of the contract cheating breaches. Clinical negligence of administrators and faculty at universities and colleges that engage in discrimination against a plaintiff. Reasons for the judgement of safeguarding in the safeguarding of no such thing when it comes to recruitment and education. Teaching personnel at universities and colleges engaged in discriminatory behaviour, which is considered clinical malpractice. Administrator's personal injury change and advertisements exclusions change involving change rules discriminating practise by administrative faculty members of universities and colleges constituting clinical malpractice change. Disruptive critical analysis response limit protection invalid and prohibited by the validity of change in clinical negligence of administrators, faculty, and employees at universities and colleges that discriminate against a plaintiff.


#education #recruitment #teaching #universities #litigation #change 


On the subjects of topics like experimentation and observations of the analytical abilities and enumerative experience, as well as annotative references in change, deconstructing the false and building the true without making excuses for research and intelligence divestment.


There are many restrictions concerning the seriousness of effects and abilities of undue liability limitations of duress that the difference of sincere change makes. The excessive liabilities associated with insincerity without neutral lack of clarity of disproportionate relevance regarding extremism and high repercussions like the costs between risk and conflict, and the change in exposure and impacts importance to any level of extremism and severe consequences, such as the expenses connected with danger and conflict, are the missing factors and elements in change absent from the excessive liabilities associated with being put under duress and the unjustified liability constraints of counterintelligence and counterterrorism in countermeasures. Extremism and severe consequences, such as the costs associated with danger and conflict, are expectations of sincerity accepted and respected, plus not absent in appreciation of genuine change. From the excessive liabilities associated with being placed under duress to that which is subject to limitations regarding the effects of excessive liability. 


Change that is sincere in discourse is more than a professional practice in development as it is a community experience building like-minded intelligence together in references of research. 


#experience #community #development #research #like #building #intelligence #references #change 


Deconstructing the dishonest and building the sincere without making excuses for enquiry for intelligence divestment. The subjects of experimentation and observations of the analytical abilities and enumerative experience, as well as annotative references in change, require motivation and care. 


Change in nagging debates about errors and who is and isn’t for the likes of others or the people and their rights to engage or not due to the intrinsic nature of change in scenarios such as privacy with issues and problems akin to change whilst deceit in wilful negligence and making poor decisions are based on say non-disclosure. The epistemic vengeance of privacy change is an abuse that is secret and deviant. To pervert a cause of knowledge in transferring skills about the forensically unwell requires change. Epistemic retribution (between colleagues) against covert and perversion in change is a means to violate change and privacy of transferable skills about the medically ill. Epistemic retaliation (among coworkers) against the medically vulnerable or unwell and disabled, when a change in secrecy and the perverse violates privacy is problematic and of issues. Epistemic reprisals in change due to fraud or abuse and any change in the privacy of forensic evidence to investigators requires tact. The discretion of the abrupt and the hastily at worst and in discrediting formal and informal complaints to invalidate both for bothersome arguments about fallacies in change audits, remits and debts results in distress, injuries, and deaths. Because of change objections in favour of a change from obtrusive statements and dates concerning falsehoods that would rather stay out of favour, which is a change in sincerity and also, an agreement to avert big mistakes in fraud. So change can be individuals who change and can be intrusive arguments about privacy change and of the adept in lies for change against bad decision-making process that would prefer to remain unpopular or at least someone should who shouldn’t, which is almost the same as a principal change in a fraud blunder, too. 


Change that is sincere in discourse is more than a professional practice in development as it is people as a community experiencing motivation and building like-minded intelligence together about privacy research because of care. 


#experience #community #people #motivation #development #research #like #building #privacy #intelligence #references #reference #change


Experimentation change and observations of change that are analytical in abilities and enumerative in experience, as well as annotative in references of change, demonstrate the importance of deconstructing the false information of change and constructing the true meaning of change without making excuses for research and intelligence divestment of change that is sincere. 


This includes scenarios of a higher degree of change involving dependence, a greater level of change-dependent involvement, the reputations of reliant parts in change, the intelligence of change-dependents, and reputation-based actions of change whereby change tradition and practice are components of change. The impacts on the change as a scale between the intelligence of disparities in broader comparatives of change carried out are more dependently involved to a greater extent by change and intelligence from opposed cross-boundaries as a result of change alternatives. 


Change fraudsters castrate change in themselves by cheating change with irredeemable change, maintaining good relations with change offenders, and having good relations with insurance change concealers. Change involvement and change reliance on a scale degree of change dependency are often due to the standing of relying parties in the intelligence of cross-boundary change that is an activity used by a change in traditional components.


The greater degree of dependant change is involved in the community outside of the professional context and vice verse higher degree of change dependency by a typical example of scenario effects on a scale between the intelligence of differences in larger comparative. By petitioning to change and protesting for change in criminalistic reformation, imitating change put bad things at the changing hazard and jeopardy of change perjury. Continuing to have friendly ties with offences to attempt, to castrate the insurance Fraud's hire in change is an insincerity. Despite change being linked to letting and putting employees, they are not less of a national, corporate or subject than anyone else. 


#experience #community #research #insurance #intelligence #references #change


There are serious restrictions concerning the effects and abilities of undue liability limitations of duress and the excessive liabilities associated with this without disproportionate relevance regarding extremism and high repercussions like the costs between risk and conflict, as disproportionate importance to extremism and severe consequences, such as the expenses connected with danger and conflict, are absent from the excessive liabilities associated with being put under duress and the unjustified liability constraints of counterintelligence and counterterrorism in countermeasures. Extremism and severe consequences, such as the costs associated with danger and conflict, are absent from the excessive liabilities associated with being placed under duress, which is subject to serious limitations regarding the effects and excessive liability.


In nagging debates about errors and who is and isn’t for the likes of others or the people and their rights to engage or not due to the intrinsic nature of privacy issues and problems whilst being deceitful in wilful negligence and making poor decisions based on non-disclosure. Epistemic vengeance of privacy abusers that are secret perverts that are forensically unwell. Epistemic retribution (between colleagues) against covert perverts who violate privacy and are medically ill. Epistemic retaliation (among coworkers) against the medically vulnerable or unwell and disabled covert perverts who violate privacy. Epistemic reprisals in fraud abuse the privacy of forensic evidence, and investigators. This is discretion at worst and in discrediting formal and informal complaints to invalidate both for bothersome arguments about fallacies in audits, remits and debts resulting in distress, injuries, and deaths. Because of objections in favour of obtrusive statements and dates concerning falsehoods that would rather stay out of favour, which is also a big mistake in fraud. So that individuals can be intrusive arguments about privacy in lies and bad decision-making as they would prefer to remain unpopular or at least someone should who shouldn’t, which is also a major fraud blunder.


Because I am white and related to retired and deceased employees, I am not any less of a citizen or human than anyone else. I’m a higher degree of involved dependence. A greater level of dependent involvement. The reputations of reliant parts. Traditional components engaged in cross-boundaries. Instead, because I complained about criminal fraud, I jeopardised police perjury. By concocting schemes to swindle unrepentant fools, cheating with irredeemable fools, maintaining good relations with sexual offenders, and maintaining good relations with the insurance fraudsters they hire, con artists castrate themselves. The community, outside of the professional context. What represents a higher degree of dependency by way of a typical example? The impacts on a scale between the intelligence of differences communications within relationships comparison. Differences exhibit a greater degree of dependent engagement. For contrasts to cross-boundaries operations carried out by typical reputational components. The components of reputations of reliant are lower. They castrate themselves by continuing to be friendly with sex offenders who commit insurance fraud. Level of dependent involvement. The intelligence of dependents. Dependent components. Components from the past crossed boundaries. Standing proportion is more relevant in parts because of tradition. Firstly acceptable and the inevitable, plus unavoidable dual relationships with consequences in the truth of honesty. Most effects on a scale between the intelligence of disparities in broader comparatives carried out. Settings impact more dependently involved to a greater extent. Intelligence from opposed cross-boundaries as a result of alternative means. The reputation-based actions whereby tradition and practice are components. The fact that I am white and linked to retired and deceased employees does not make me any less of a citizen or human; rather, the fact that by objecting, I endangered police perjury and ruined criminal fraud. By cheating with irredeemable fools, maintaining good relations with sexual offenders, maintaining good relations with insurance fraud launderers who engage in sex offences, and maintaining good relations with the insurance fraudsters they hire, fraudsters castrate themselves. Involvement and reliance on a scale degree of dependency are often because of the standing of relying parties in the intelligence of cross-boundary activity used by traditional components reputable. They castrate themselves through their friendly interactions with sex criminals who commit insurance fraud. The greater degree of dependant involvement is in the community outside of the professional context as a higher degree of dependency by a typical example of effects on a scale between the intelligence of differences in larger comparative. Whereby reputations are not dependent on smaller contrasting with Cross-boundaries activities conducting parts by the traditions of reputed components. I am not less of a person or a citizen because I am white or related to retired or deceased employees; rather, I am less of a person because by protesting about criminal fraud, I put bad police officers in danger. By cheating with irredeemable fools, maintaining good relations with sexual offenders, and maintaining good relations with the insurance fraudsters they hire, fraudsters castrate themselves and the insurance fraudsters they hire. They castrate themselves by continuing to have friendly ties with sex offenders who commit insurance fraud. The greater level of being involved in the reliance on intelligence is a higher degree of credibility by participation in dependent components such as Boundaries-crossing traditional components active in reputations. Because I am white and linked to retired and deceased employees, I am not any less of a citizen or human than anyone else; rather, by reporting about criminal fraud, I jeopardised police perjury. By cheating with irredeemable fools, maintaining excellent relations with sexual offenders, and maintaining good relations with the insurance fraudsters they hire, fraudsters castrate themselves. They castrate themselves by keeping friendly ties to sex offenders who commit insurance fraud. And, they have injured my feelings and my livelihood, education and property and or belongings. They also physically injured me before assisting Log 752 in the consequences of their actions and decisions that were interdicted with external pressures. They subsequently obstructed the administration of justice to be dissident dissent of domestic policy in commercial policy conception guidances to deny everything in assistances practices and wilfully neglect their duties in my rights to complain. They murdered my mother near Gibraltar in assistance to stealing my inheritance in her probate and assisting in murdering my family because they breached privacy rights in vengeance for their previous assistance to intimidate me and taunt me whilst criminally interfering with my private life via a military satellite of impact in fraud and cyberterrorism. They proliferate a war zone germ strain acknowledged by BUPA U.K. and the financial ombudsman as bad patients because they castrate themselves by continuing to be friendly with sex offenders who commit insurance fraud.


Why am I less than an ordinary citizen and not human because I am white? 


I am not less than an ordinary citizen and human, plus I‘m white and related to retired and dead personnel. 


When all was said and done, it’s because of who I am related to and because I ruined your criminal fraud, plus I have imperilled your Police Perjury complaining about it. 


Stop lying about me or come to the door and say it to my face because I want to beat you up, you liars.


You remorseless frauds castrate yourselves by not staying out of favour with sex-offending launderers of insurance fraud you contract cheating incorrigible fools. To avoid falling out of favour with the insurance fraudsters you hire to scam incorrigible fools, you remorseless fraudsters castrate yourselves. You remorseless fraudsters castrate yourselves by keeping in good graces with the sex offenders who commit insurance fraud that you contract from deceiving unrepentant fools. You remorseless fraudsters castrate themselves by not keeping unpopular with the insurance fraudsters you contract by defrauding unrepentant fools who have committed sex offences. You remorseless fraudsters castrate yourselves to avoid losing favour with the insurance fraudsters you use to con incorrigible morons. By maintaining cordial relationships with sex offenders who perpetrate insurance fraud that you contract from duping repentant fools, you remorseless fraudsters castrate yourself.


My twelfth complaint to Crown Court and a complaint to Insurance Fraud Bureau as well as the ICO by FWD email correspondence regarding Weston College's decision to not let me study because I informed them of Police Perjury in my public enquiries references T682/18 & T9040/13.


To the best of my knowledge and belief, a "compelling need" justifies quicker FOIA processing when the request is made in one of three categories of circumstances. This statement of compelling need is true and correct, plus it was legally requested by a commercial dispute since communications in 1998. I won't put up with the unlawful interferences using photo chemicals that started in 1998 after I corresponded with a paedophile on BBC Radio 1 who refused to give me any work and stole part of my creative output. Disabuse is required, hence validity is forbidden. Quit making me a criminal by interfering with me and not caring. I do not need to be demonised by your air force or Lockheed Martin using your photochemical military satellites. But, you have made me lose sleep and work for taunts in law enforcement perjury blackmailing bribes that should be checked out properly. I’m forbidding the validity of meddling because you’re acting like you don't care, which is unnecessary. You are required to prevent invalidity and quit causing crimes you refuse to declare responsibility for. You are not entitled to a lack of concern. Hence validity is forbidden, and disabuse is required. Quit making excuses as I won't put up with the unlawful interferences. 


I want them to stop messing with me and my taxes including my team for making creative output into your criminality. Your air force and Lockheed Martin shouldn't use photochemical military satellites to demonise me and my team. But, you have caused me to lose sleep and lose work while making taunts about how and why you aren’t bribery and perjury in a crowd of overexposed incited colluders that aren’t law enforcement. You're acting like you don't care, which is pointless, so I'm forbidding it, too. You must stop committing offences to attempt for which you refuse to accept responsibility to avoid invalidity. You have no right to be uncaring of ill-treatment in corruption. Hence, validity is prohibited, and disabuse from the invalidity of this truth is necessary. Stop giving me reasons to believe your unreasonable harm against the facts will forfeit your mistakes with more lies because I won't tolerate your illegal interferences.


They messed with my hometown's weather in 1999 misusing that photochemical satellite causing thunderstorms and lightning strikes throughout the whole year. You unreasonably caused me to remodel my forebrain psyche in retaliation to the argument you started by persuasion and dislike of my response limit. If you continue to despise me in criminal interferences of this nature with the manner of more taunts because I am not a sex offender to your get-rich-quick scheme whilst you’re withholding in blackmails bribes and threats then you can suffer and struggle in the failure to obtain a reasonable and expected pose to an imminent threat worldwide to any individual's life, health or physical safety. You are meant to be "primarily engaged in disseminating information'' and "a matter of current exigency to the American public.'' Any loss of substantial due process of rights is your fault. 26 CFR 601.702 for information on a compelling need and the criteria of qualifications that apply to expedite processing are relevant and proportionate. Also, 28 U.S.C. 1746 is an example of your bloody language in the certified statement requirements of any dates since is your fault, too. 


Next, what? Are the British Psychological Society, The Open University, and the e-learning company ELFH going to prevent me from learning? I consequently lack access to education and training in the healthcare industry. The alternative and open online courses will PREVENT me. E-learning courses were, in collaboration with the NHS, the third sector. Will they RESTRICT students with academic interests from learning mathematics, journalism, and ICT in addition to law? Will they RESTRICT students with relevant and proportionate complaints in public inquiries? The judgements in eLearning demonstrate how and why the Secretary of State and the Courts should be in charge rather than outside parties.


What comes next? Will the British Psychological Society, The Open University, and ELFH, an online education provider, prevent me from learning? Therefore unable to obtain education or training in the health and care industry. The third sector of the NHS has collaborated with developing e-learning programmes. Would they Prohibit students with academic interests and pertinent and appropriate public complaints from studying maths, journalism, and Technology in addition to law? The difference in decision-making with multiple alternatives in eLearning shows how and why the Secretary of State and the Courts are in charge rather than outside parties.


What will happen next? Will The British Psychological Society, The Open University, and the e-learning company ELFH prevent me from learning? Unable to further my studies and receive my professional development in the healthcare industry. In collaboration with the NHS, third-sector e-learning programmes. Will they STOP students interested in learning maths, journalism, and Technology in addition to law and who have pertinent and reasonable objections in public inquiries? Relevant cases highlighted in eLearning demonstrate how and why it is up to the Secretary of State and the Courts rather than outside parties.


What comes after that? Will the British Psychological Society, The Open University, and the e-learning service ELFH prevent me from learning? I, therefore, lack access to education and training in the health and care industry. The e-learning programmes are in collaboration with the NHS, the third sector. Will they Prohibit kids with academic interests and pertinent and appropriate public objections from learning law, mathematics, journalism, and ICT? Relevant judgements in eLearning demonstrate how and why it is up to the Secretary of State and the Courts rather than outside parties.


The British Psychological Society, The Open University, and ELFH, an online education provider, want to prevent me from learning due to the liabilities of the local authority and police federation. E-learning courses in collaboration with the NHS and the third sector and the judgments in e-learning demonstrate how and why the Secretary of State and the courts should be in charge rather than outside parties. These decisions will lead to furthering my education for work and receiving professional development in the healthcare and business industries, as prevention measures mean I lack access to education and training in the health and care and business industries.


Invalidity prohibited by obligatory disabuse.


Do they point that military satellite into a horde of lunatics that are suspects and indictable criminals who are an incredibly stupid insane mob to intimidate witnesses and harass victims for them and encourage and assist them with filing insurance claims that were fraudulent to cheat and obtain bribes blackmail they withheld taxes on so they can induce impact on intimidating families and harassing friends with their mentality and extract dates and statements to disrupt interceptions of information the wrong way round as well to not counter fraud in Police Perjury of aggravated fraud, sex offences, murder and or homicides, illicit drug trafficking and possession offences, plus laundering and corporate thefts full of the dividends of such criminals inequalities? 


Is it how they direct an extraterrestrials way so their Illuminati gang can profit from the proceeds of crime, too?


Is this how they broker a deal with an alien so that their Illuminati Kabul may also make money off of crime?


Is there a secret turd guide on turd benefits?


Look here, as far as I’m concerned in suffering unfairly from all this struggle the local authority and police didn’t want to be covered because they are not which is why their contempt lied by denying it all for perjury. 


Since the first offence, you worked out how and why they don’t care about pointing that military satellite into a horde of lunatics that are suspects and indictable criminals who are an incredibly stupid insane mob to intimidate witnesses and harass victims for them and encourage and assist them with filing fraudulent insurance claims to cheat and obtain bribes blackmail they withheld taxes on so they can induce impact on intimidating families and harassing friends with their mentality and extract dates and statements to disrupt interceptions of information the wrong way round in not countering fraud in Police Perjury of aggravated fraud, sex offences, murder and or homicides, illicit drug trafficking and possession offences, plus laundering and corporate thefts full of the dividends of such criminals inequalities? And the second offence, plus a third, albeit you assist the validity of previous offences in invalidity prohibited by obligatory disabuse of commercial policy in domestic policy formal and informal complaints you have inter-directed the impact of motivations careless to be external pressures that are reckless behaviour in extraterrestrials for a conspiracy to corrupt government in an Illuminati gang profiteering from the proceeds of crime, and in brokering a deal with an alien agreement so that the Illuminati Kabul may also make money off of the proceeds of crimes. Do they hand out the proceeds of crimes to charity donations or local politicians as donations, plus aggressive beggars with antisocial behavioural problems that abuse rehabilitation orders and community treatment orders? How have you interdicted supplying the criminal enemies of the state societal foul play you can't forfeit by involuntary dissociation disorder denial confabulating a test or experiment without consent for deliberate failure you don’t allow? Look what’s up with the self-cease invalidation of insurance warranty assured cover if you have validity issues and problems with your decision transferring a lack of skills in undue liability limitations of duress. 


How and why is this any way to apologise in compensation? 


Must I stop communicating my extenuating circumstances legally? Since 2020 when I attempted to go back to The Open University to study for these 2 diplomas I had problems with the local Police again twice. The situation with being stopped and searched but not arrested and then made to attend magistrates court for a harsh decision and the abductions and assaults in Bath City on the 6th of August 2020. BUPA U.K. and the Financial Ombudsman Service helped my validation of forensic statistics in several fields as I requested confirmation of forensic statistics in sectors whilst the crimes were in progress. Both of these incidents are of commercial policy in CCTV, too. I also had problems with the causation fallacy failing to give me the appropriate information requested for Student Finance England in 2021. This resulted in the adult social care interfering again in a counter notice and inequality over misinformation which subsequently resulted in AWP NHS & AWP PALS receiving an ICO penalty whilst I was illegally evicted from a Julian House property. I would have rescinded this but the court wanted £400 to consider the case which I could not afford. Then Julian House lost half of my belongings of all I had left from the first interference of goods injustice that destroyed the majority of my belongings after August 2017 when I was illegally evicted via aggravated fraud of County Court from my assured tenancy. Must I stop communicating the extenuating circumstances of my public enquiries references T682/18 & T9040/13 legally, as a legal requirement or else be punished in a court of law?


I’m considering the mitigating factors of offences to attempt, returns, encounters, issues, attacks, discussions, commitments, assistances, failures, interventions, disinformation, imposition, withdrawals, compliance and sharing of what is unlawful, plus all the filing of it.


Can you please let me know if elements of mitigating variables that lead to forcibly offending efforts, returns, encounters, issues, attacks, conversations, pledges, assistances, failures, interventions, disinformation, imposition, withdrawals, compliance, and sharing of what is illegal, as well as all the filing of it will deliver a legal decision to terminate my contract to study within the agreement due to my extenuating circumstances when made as a result?


As it is criminal to commit perjury in a court of law or after taking the oath, the police perjury needs to stop combining the perjury liabilities into one massive perjury with the Crown Court and punish the perjurers or face increased penalties in each homicide pursued as police perjury of data information sharing in a collusion scheme to rig jury service of Article 8 and assured tenancy warranty for lies about the commercial policy of domestic policy in abduction, murder, aggravated fraud, fraud of County Court and illegal eviction. 


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid06eXagcH29U14DJpeUiX7K6sbnR5f5qjZ1Z7FJjUvJt7kf57Uu93VGWaRKbNFL8B6l&id=110306504210151


Perjury committed in a court of law or after taking the oath is illegal under the Perjury Act 1911, which is what the phrase "abuse of process impact in police perjury" refers to. The Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act of 1975 regulates making false statements when not under oath, and it can be tried on an indictment for deliberate negligence and subsequent deceit. 


The police are already at it committing perjury in the aggravated fraud and fraud of court that illegally evicted me which they subsequently denied involvement in as if she’s no impostor impersonating the real Ellie Gooch in vengeance for my complaints before and after the Log 752 incident. And, all of this is on CCTV in the commercial policy of multiagency perjury. 


I am pursuing the Crown Court data share as misinformation perjury and misrepresentation perjury for each jury in multiple victims, including August 6th 2020, so if you don't stop consolidating the perjury liabilities into one enormous debt and sanction the perjurers into liquidation contract terminations now, so be it. And, you will have more penalties in each homicide I pursue as police perjury of data information sharing in a collusion scheme to corrupt jury service of Article 8 and my assured tenancy warranty, plus my full reparations. 


Vengeful bad cops cease, refrain from insulting me with your scorn and contempt. 


You are a perjurer conspiring in fraud. Crown Court data shared as misinformation perjury and misrepresentation perjury for each jury in multiple victims, including August 6th 2020, is consolidated in the old JCIO inbox and media. The perjury liabilities are one enormous debt and a sanction for the perjurers would force you into liquidated assets and contract terminations. And, you will have more penalties in each homicide as I pursue police perjury of data information sharing in each collusion scheme of a conspiracy to corrupt jury service in Article 8 and of my assured tenancy warranty, plus my full reparations. As well as my dead mum's will in probate instructions or if there is no will, no probate instructions. All this so noncompliances are the impact of police perjury in vengeance. I have suffered harm, including physical, mental, and emotional harm, plus economic loss, which was directly caused by an abuse of process in police perjury. 


Prohibit liars from collaborating on fraud. Crown Court data sharing is unified in the former formal complaints to JCIO inbox and media about the misinformation and perjury, plus misrepresentation in aggravated fraud, fraud of County court perjury and for each jury in many victims, including August 6th 2020. Additionally, you will face harsher punishments for each murder as I pursue police perjury, data sharing in collusion schemes, and a plot to rig jury selection and service under Article 8. I want full restitution in full reimbursement when you stop committing an abuse of process in police perjury. 


I’m not under the carpet out the way in Article 8 Fraud of Police perjury in homicides and criminal fraud of civil liabilities that occur when you consent to give false testimony, conceal or destroy information pertinent to an investigation, or help an arrestee escape, manipulating a Crown court investigation to knowingly provide false testimony. 


As of January 2024, Crown Court has to deal with the first homicides of homicides that are all relevant and proportionate to my complaints whilst the crimes were in progress and I unfairly and illegally lost the warranty to my assured tenancy agreement including my belongings and work. 


Expect more penalties until you are sanctioned and have to liquidate.


Your lease assets will be "wound up" for the obligations voicing passive issues with alternatives misused by not paying, complex contracts with pounds I believe not and because you didn’t pay attention nor care about your CVL, which will be in voluntary winding-up with forced liquidation as your lease expires in cancelled. You can consider your dispute resolution failed and defaulting into unreasonable defence claims ADR. You so much as attempt to fill in anything with the court to obtain offensive insurance because of this, and you will make matters even worse.


Exclusion of enactments requiring the consent of the Attorney General… 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/pdfs/ukpga_20060052_en.pdf ⁦#ukhomeoffice⁩ ⁦#UkNatArchives⁩ ⁦#BritishArmy⁩ ⁦#ICOnews⁩ ⁦#EASShelpline⁩ ⁦#UkSincere⁩ ⁦#UKSupremeCourt⁩ 


The British Army is too honourable in defending my freedom and rights to complain without fear of reprisals corruption collusion. 


I asked the British Army to help me when I was being terrorised by aggravated fraud, fraud of County Court from December 2016 - June 2017. 


Do represent my complaint (Home Office, Supreme Court, ICO & EASS) by verifying this claim with the British Army. I’m sure they haven’t changed their mind about me using their contact form although other agencies were consolidated due to misinformation misrepresenting the abuse of process I have suffered.


By the way, an application from you is not allowed because you disagree too much for your good to claim anything but your dispute you dissident dissent into a terminated asset group of liquidated liabilities. 


Your contact form more than 6 years ago consolidated. Before that, consolidation and penalties to accompany consolidation lead to a sanction which will result in your asset group liquidating into terminated contracts. Contract cheating is bad and makes for extremely bad publishing of liabilities prohibited by a more responsible response limit accounting for the facts of harmful costs and loss unreasonable. 


I will get back to you soon about how much trouble you are in you criminals.


Why run away in acquiring businesses and charities to live like Nazis was the impact of COVID-19. Am I meant to miss the point of obtaining the beneficiary's rights and over that which is over the rights of 50% investments or more with trans conglomerates brand partnerships caught up with franchises, too when they were all publicly trading in a lot of private limited companies that should also be forced to consolidate their holdings, assets and profits misinformation. Do you honestly expect me to believe the effects of COVID-19 should lead some more people to question whether they should leave after business owners and charitable organisations have the right to refuse, sue and discriminate because of the risks associated with the pandemic? The political ability to litigate requirements and the present hazards that are normal and supportive of owners' rights and other legislative rights. Why should so much responsibility be up to the agencies when they have done so much wrong? The missing significance is numerous factors including elements that have been identified by indicators and consolidated multiple times within multiple cases of multiple years due to various incidents. Legal aptitude says they need to stop interfering while interacting with the influence of policy.


You didn't teach your worthless employees enough to give them the legal skills to defend fraud against fraud in the ownership and investment majority rights of service, nor did you teach them any nonexistent tactics to compromise fraud in fraud for no fraud authorised. False justifications and justifications that violate Article 8 through comprehensive legal policies in fraud are ineffective and of no assistance. Rejections and refusals to return what does not belong to fraudsters in fraud are ineffective and of no assistance. As the scenario is not relearning because the fraud doesn't care and miscommunicates not caring while directing fraud for harmful effects, several consolidations of what is not relearning can neither work nor help frauds achieve fraud. 


This is an irritating situation for sex offenders, thieves, drug dealers, and racists. 


Firstly I would like to say that I have a Public Enquiry Article 8 Reference you might be interested in as a Tip for your website publication and possibly a Partnership with my R&D organisation, plus an Interview with me on this escalating situation that should draw to a significant-close as of the start of next year you could do with featuring a public information guidance campaign in the public interest on the domestic policy of constructive sincerity for serious problems with a commercial policy.


Even though politicians and police officers from London have attempted to counter this by consolidating communications of media updates, the contempt is extreme in the attempt to commit three different types of insurance fraud to cheat the indemnity of how and why the local authority social housing was not covered and to obstruct the administration of justice in denial and false accusations about how and why I am crazy and wrong in complaining about aggravated fraud and fraud of County court.


The same rules apply when breaching a contract's total confidentiality without a fully private clause while trading with anyone in alternative investment, and frauds against fraud as they do when violating privacy that has limits. Trading civil while breaking a contract's entire confidentiality without a private provision, as well as committing fraud against fraud in breaches of limited privacy, is the same as breaking a contract's secrecy. The overreaching reach-around to those that don't care about circumventing surreptitious contradictions in furtive disregard for rejections refusals is denials in a publishing strategy delay whilst publishing contracts in the policy of alternative company resource protection against fraud. Workaround the damned avoiding covert one more time for sly disdainful plan unsteady and reap scorn for your God awful scheming wobbly plot receiving derision of consolidated cuts. All the privileged ridicule that can't obtain because it gets to be slashed and slapped about and slammed hard for acting tough like bullies and liars. So, the dreadfully forceful goes away and leaves the area. 


Civil traders breaking agreements in denial of a publishing procedure that is blind to no underground conditions against the lies to privacy in the guideline of the alternative resources enterprise perpetrating fraud against ruse in infringements of restricted solitariness, whilst safeguarding against deception is a compromised method. Even though protecting against deceit is a compromised strategy, civil traders are violating agreements in denial of a publishing process that is blind to no underground conditions against the lies to privacy in the guidelines of the alternative resources enterprise. In violation of the rules of the alternative resources enterprise, civil traders violate contracts in denial of a publishing process that is blind to no underground conditions against the lies to privacy and commit fraud against ruse in violations of limited solitariness, while defending against deception is a compromised strategy. While protecting against deceit is a compromised strategy, civil traders are breaching agreements in denial of a publishing process that is blind to no covert circumstances against the lies to privacy in the alternative resources enterprise's guidelines. While protecting against deceit is a compromised strategy, civil traders are violating agreements in rejection of a publishing process that is blind to no underground circumstances against the lies to privacy in the guidelines of the alternative resources enterprise. 


In alternative investment, dealing with anyone is subject to the same regulations as breaching a person's limited privacy. Admittedly my involvement asked for help, and signing no contract agreement to allow surreptitious corruption to violate a confidentiality clause in any other contract without a private clause whilst conducting fraud secretly against fraud for infractions of having to restrict privacy via consolidated impact, that comprised overreaching reach-arounds in individuals of a group who didn’t care about avoiding covert activities in first place for the likes of commercial policy contradictions in my domestic policy’s formal complaints. Civil traders are also breaking agreements in denial of a publishing procedure that is blind to no covert circumstances opposing the lies to privacy, committing fraud when supposedly opposed to deceit in violations of limited solitariness while defending against deception is a compromised tactic.


The domestic policy of commercial policy like my assured tenancy agreement complained about aggravated fraud and fraud of County court without fear of reprisals corruption collusion. Consolidated Communications Default in Fraud, JCIO, NHS, Police Federation and Local Authority, as well as GSI Excel, offer managed and hosted data, internet, voice, cloud, and IT services to business clients. For residential clients, they offer internet, TV, phone, and home security. Transparency in a client's needs and pain points while discussing corporate communications consolidation to cause anything to happen. The success of their core product solidified the company's position in the market, which is a significant term that is frequently used in the communications sector to mean becoming stronger and more certain. Consolidating the marketing and public relations departments into one is a growing trend in larger organisations to save money. Transparency in a client's communication of their requirements and trouble spots for corporate communications to cause or bring about anything. The word "consolidation" is a crucial one that is frequently used in the communications sector to mean becoming stronger and more certain: The firm's success with its primary product solidified its position in the market. Consolidating the marketing and public relations departments into one is a growing trend that can save money that is being witnessed in many major organisations. The government Consolidated Communications because of Default In Fraud, JCIO, NHS, Police Federation and Local Authority, along with GSI Excel, to update media and data information sharing systems and services for money-saving offers managed and hosted data, internet, voice, cloud, and IT services to business clients, as well as internet, TV, phone, and home security services to assist residential clients. The openness with which a client communicates his or her requirements and problems for combining corporate communications in the cause and casework of Action Fraud who referenced my complaints before the public enquiry became anything it is nowadays. The success of the main services is solidified in the local authorities' position in the national interests of investors and the public, which are significant terms and conditions that are frequently used in the successful management of the communications sector. Consolidating the marketing and public relations departments of the public service into one manageable emerging cost-saving trend is increasingly important and observed in many major organisations of the multiagency public sector of people ops. The local authority social housing didn’t want to be covered by the insurer because they are not. The missing staff members that were impersonated are soon to be officially declared dead in homicides. The government began this consolidation campaign by updating JCIO and IPCC media and the rest of it followed suit. My complaints are of two other attempts at the fraud of court being falsely accused of malicious communications and two subsequent injunctions with the termination of obligations in rehousing so the local authority could deny everything and leave me in ill-treatment and insufficient conditions to claim I am mad and wrong about the CCTV and in Bath High Court, plus Avon & Somerset Police and the Royal United Hospital AWP NHS. 


If the change you are going through also involves a change from harming to only doing good, then you need to redefine what change means to you in your life.


The most important details in this text are that irony can be used to help those in need of change, especially in willful neglect and its narration that overlooks the smaller borders to reputations and traditions. This neglect is driven by a desire to overlook the positive change in narrative and science, which enables narrow motivational lines between love and hates to triumph over any fear and scepticism of change. The cry of joy "is, too" is a blot on rules that do not care, a retort that would happily have crossed words with being corrected, and an ego-driven disregard without boundary separating. Neglect of a fine line between love and hate is a motivated conspiracy of carelessness within narrative and science. Retaliating against regulations is egotism in dishonesty, and ignoring positive change is a desire to overlook positive change.


#science #help #love #change


When a change in fraud of differences has an impact on you and the truth, you are also changed when the change is from irony to trust, which is when the shift is from harming only doing good you are, too. 


#change


Change is ironic to believe if the change is differences you are, too, and change you are, too, is changing from harming to just doing good.


#change


You are to change what change is to you in your life when the change you are, too is a change from harm to doing nothing but good. 


I think irony occasionally comes to lend a hand helpfully, especially in willful neglect and its narration that overlooks the smaller borders to reputations and traditions, when albeit a limitless reaction smears the motivations of care with do's and don'ts that might have been done professionally simply to be arrogant and fake. Eh, a deliberate conspiracy of negligence within narrative and science is the disregard for change and what is of the narrow boundary separating love and hate between change. Who's to say exactly, as the adage goes, when an unlimited response taints people who are supposed to care with change in dos and don'ts? What change could have been done professionally? Eh, change by change just to be the change of heart in being egotistical and fraudulent, huh? I suppose irony occasionally came in handy for those in need of change, especially in deliberate negligence and its storytelling that ignored the narrow border to all boundaries when reputations and traditions require a change in the standards of crossing boundaries. 


My thoughts on the mistrust to change in essays, letters, metaphors and proverbs. A desire to overlook the positive change in narrative and science is the driving force behind carelessness, as it enables narrow motivational lines between love and hates to triumph over any fear and scepticism of change.


This hearty cry of joy “is, too” is a blot on rules that do not care, nor change in retort that would happily have a cross-word with being corrected, plus a cross-word or two with its victim of fraud. The third is ego and more fraud yet I guess it sort of helped out now and then. Neglect of a fine line between love and hate is a motivated conspiracy of carelessness within narrative and science. As the saying goes “Who’s to say exactly” when albeit an unlimited response stains care with do’s and don’ts that could have been affected by the change to be done professionally. When change is egotistical and fraudulent, I suppose irony occasionally came in handy, especially in deliberate negligence and its storytelling that ignored the narrow border. An exclamation of glee is gladly an ego-driven disregard without boundary separating. Retaliating against regulations is egotism in dishonesty as the supposition by a desire to ignore and shout without care about neglecting tiny differences in details like they are opinions in others' views. 


It is a desire to overlook positive change so that the thin line between love and hate within motivations can triumph over the dread and scepticism of any change that drives carelessness in narrative and science.


#storytelling #science #love #people #change


Change is ironic to believe if the change is differences you are, too, and change you are, too, is changing from harming to just doing good.


When a change in fraud of differences has an impact on you and the truth, you are also changed when the change is from irony to trust, which is when the shift is from harming only doing good you are, too. 


Change from irony to trust is change you are, too, which is a change from harm to doing nothing but good as a change in a hoax of differing affects you and the truth, you are, too can also be when affected by the change. 


#change


When ignoring what and who is without change you are refusing to accept the need to respect change for the want of change. Whether you acknowledge the necessity or desire for change without attention to change. The value of admitting to change for the sake of what and who requires change is recognition of payments of change without giving it much thought to disregard regardless of change. Since change will dismiss demands. Ignorance will request a change, standards are therefore obligated. And, attitude with everything against the patience of nothing will consequently be benefits in what can't be appreciated, nor understood. 


Eh, mentality change versus persistence change, huh? 


#respect #payments #change


Dissident at war in debts led to mail problems due to dissent, leading to poor returns, defaulting, and compound rolling disasters. Despite the lack of change, there is still a transition between transformation and no transformation, with people destroying and trashing discernible change that cannot be improved without change. 


Mail problems owe too much to dissent in every dissident at war in debts of change like it is legally acceptable when it is not. Change modifiers stumble even though they fell after dividends change in first, second and third poor returns of multiple consolidations change defaulting. If a change must be so difficult because sly disdain didn't fully disable discussions on compound rolling disasters. Then that is most of terminated, plus issues collapsed in conversations majority on change whilst following permissible change so blindly in lies of change. 


What appears to change despite the fact there is no change in addition to the change brought about by this change, is what looks to be changed even though there is no change other than change owing more to change. 


Blithely isn't because of how and why change due to the shift on negative results can't. The transition is a blatant difference between transformations yet there is no transformation. Similarly, change is at work there ruining it with the difference between change and no transformation as people toil destroy with exception of no change to be distinctly wrecking change while trashing discernible change that shall not and cannot improve.


Eh, a change scenario that seems familiar, huh?


#work #people #transformation #change


I have informed my professors at The Open University and the British Psychological Society that your neglect cuts into my standard of living. And, although I want to use my mind and time in a healthier fate rather than how you persist in failing me in breaching and violating the rules of compensation which are causing my part-time studies to suffer against your struggle.


Malice for breaking the rules in abandoning the obligation to any requirement and standards to be wicked about them is a harmful disregard for malevolence in forsaking policy is maliciousness in intent. 


Their reasons created false assumptions about my personal life and family based on a fallacy of reasoning for unreasonable convenience and confusion that is incorrigible and has no justifications being deceptive conclusions, harmful excuses, decisions made from deceit, neglect for opinions about my private life and family that are not factual and incorrect, plus this reasoning for making false and untrue statements about my private life and family led them to make explanations and decisions in deception. For opinions about my personal life and family that are untrue and inaccurate, they have made explanations and decisions out of lying to be wilfully neglectful in ignorance. 


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009 states that it is illegal to violate the obligation and misrepresentation nondisclosure agreement by lying, neglecting to comply with it, or providing false information in the GDPR data sharing privacy act. 


What do they presume veracity is when it is misguided, and they are mistaken in what they believe to be true? They have misinformed individuals and groups by spreading false information about what they perceive as how and truth. Their beliefs are erroneous in facts, and what they consider to be true shouldn't be assumed to be a trustworthy reality when it is misdirected of them to have given the organisation false information about what their alternative arrangements are in how and the truth as to why they are special consideration makes people and groups suffer and struggle in what they believe to be true. By practising an approach to disseminating false information about what they suppose, to be honest, they have misled individuals and groups. Their beliefs are incorrect in the facts, and what they believe to be true shouldn't be taken as fact when they have misled an organisation by providing false information about it. As a result, people and groups suffer and struggle because of what they believe to be true. 


Malicious communication based on relationships that do not care would wish to escalate complaints in vengeance. Bow out of all their crafty thoughts on less than and their team's ideas about a cunning less because their regard needs to give up misbelieving cleverness as their mind needs to stop thinking craftily about less and stop having stylish ideas about less. Shrewd esteem would quit before it was ahead of itself in less-than-perfect statements and dates. Their imperfect intelligence must cease before it goes too far. Their nature is flawed, and they need to mind their manners, plus stop before their personality gets out of hand. Their assertions are aspersions that need to practice more restraint in good judgement before their vilifications become out of control in vengeful character. They have to exercise caution instead of being vindictive about claims that want to spiral into retaliation via the impact of imprudent accusations. To encourage someone to do or not do something should live to be convinced by thinking long and hard about indictment charges.


Force the Supreme Court to sign the order for aggravated fraud, fraud of County court that illegally evicted me from my assured tenancy agreement because of duties requirements in standards of obligations to commercial policy CCTV in the ICO fees and penalties, plus my Article 8 reference to my public enquiry reference T682/18 I told them. So, I can receive full reparations and be rehoused immediately by the local authority with a renewed assured tenancy agreement.


Are they genuinely of the opinion that their professional justification for interfering with my rights, in general, can continue to be ignored in the impact of criminal fraud inchoate offences pass August 1st 2023 to be seven years since assisting aggravated fraud, fraud of County court, without a reasonable doubt of the unwarranted harm they have caused?


I wanted copies of time constraints that do and do not apply to Crown Court bail applications, although I have none to see what their response limit would be with address restrictions, change of addresses, police decisions to release me without bail (also known as release under investigation/RUI) for my public enquiries references T682/18 & T9040/13 so I can add them to my social networking blogs and other blogs, plus organisation website, ResearchGate R&D DOI publishing, ORCID publishing for the British Psychological Society and my RSS Podcast publishing, as explanatory evidence within the public interest for unnecessary delays caused to my rights in a plaintiff summons and reparations.


This was a simple CCTV rewind evidence job for my formal domestic policy complaints regarding commercial policy in aggravated fraud, and fraud of court inchoate offences obstructing the administration of justice. And, I should have received a summons as a plaintiff and or expert witness with full reimbursement already and been rehoused back into an assured tenancy agreement. 


Now, look at the state of it for 6 years and two months. 


Without a court order, if there is a public DOI for the initiatives, I wanted to see it, and I wanted the academic association publishing such an insurance policy to do it all as soon as possible.


Their assessments of the irresponsibility of influence are too extreme, which is incorrect. There are no available differences in a disjointed system of serving the context of law and law enforcement when it comes down to obligations, interactions, and communications within reason. The intervention is dramatically defective in an idiot that can’t be trusted for seeking to misinterpret events, places and people.


I want to see the public DOI for the initiatives without a judicial order.


The actualities of actualisation are because of the policy that is an act on liability overhead and of informal interference and persuasion, plus collusion. Collision issues are generally considered the norm while the evaluation and monitoring are trying to obtain information about locations within a United Nations agreement with a platform of only nine countries.


Without a court order, if there is a public DOI for the initiatives, I want to see it right away.


The incorrigible is criminally insane and a disparate mess of contradictions in irrationality when it comes down to misusing the satellites to misunderstand the tort rules of tort acts in battery, consent, trespass, conversion, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defence of person and property, private necessity, negligence, reasonable person, medical malpractice, express assumption of risk, and all of this in a burden of proof. Duties involving relationships and communication in commercial policy of any cause, in fact, to proximate cause historically and added cause to consequence to adversely affect development are defects of reason.


I want to view the initiatives' public DOI right away if there is one available without a court order.


If any of them persist in being a mad nonsensical confused jumble of senseless paradoxes, unrepentant and irrationally inconsistent in continuing to be a crazy, perplexed, and wildly contradictory person of incomprehensible tangles of meaningless stupidity that doesn’t know what is wrong is wrong and cannot admit being wrong when wrong, then they paid, but not me, they haven't paid me to be nice to them about this, no. They have no such contract. Confess, or the unfathomable idiocy of being baffled goes away. If they admit it, the absurdity of being perplexed will disappear and cease to exist as regards not admitting otherwise.


If there is a public DOI for the initiatives without a court order, I want to see it right away.


So, under no circumstances are they against the law; they may be misled.


The incorrigible is criminally insane and a disparate mess of contradictions in irrationality when it comes to misusing the satellites to misunderstand the tort rules of tort acts in battery, consent, trespass, conversion, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defence of person and property, private necessity, negligence, reasonable person, medical malpractice, express assumption of risk, and all of this in a burden of proof. Confessing to the absurdity of being perplexed can disappear and cease to exist but can’t as regards not admitted otherwise if you don’t confess.


I wish to see the academic association post for such an insurance policy right away if there is a public DOI for initiatives without a court order.


So, under no circumstances that are against the law, you can be misled.


If they admit the ridiculousness of their confusion, it can vanish and cease to exist; yet, if they don't, it cannot be acknowledged in any other way.


Without a court order, if there is a public DOI for the initiatives, I want to see it right away.


In no way are they breaking the law, despite what they may have been told.


I want to see any public DOIs for initiatives without a court order right away, and I want the academic association posting any such insurance policies to do the same.


If there’s a public DOI for the initiatives without a court order, I want to see it now.


As a result, it is against the law to deceive them in any way.


If they confess to the ridiculousness of their confusion, it can vanish and cease to exist, but if they don't, it can't be as far as not being admitted differently.


If there is a public DOI for initiatives without a court order, I want to see it now, and I want to see the academic association publishing such an insurance policy, too.


So, under any banned condition, they cannot be misleading.


In terms of not being admitted differently, if they don't confess, the absurdity of being bewildered can vanish and cease to exist.


If there is a public DOI for efforts that are possible but not without a court order, I want to see it right away, and I want the academic association publishing such an insurance policy to do with it as soon as possible.


So, under no circumstances are they against the law; they may be misled.


If they recognise the absurdity of their confusion, it can vanish and cease to exist, but if they don't, it can't go so far as not being admitted differently.


If there is a public DOI for the projects that can be done but not without a court order, I want to see it right away, and I want the academic association to publish such an insurance policy right away.


They cannot be misled, therefore, under any circumstances that are prohibited.


If there is a public DOI for efforts that can be done but not without a court order, I want to see it now, and the academic association publishing for such an insurance policy, too.


Unless there is a licence granted to allow such conflict and humour, which is not permitted since it is not a required standard of duty obligations.


I want to view the initiatives' public DOI as soon as possible if there is one available without a court order.


As a result, even if they might be misled, they are never breaking the law.


They can’t be mad and wrong in any case because they are not allowed, and they are not allowed in any non-collaborative ventures of joint enterprise without legal authorisation, so they can't be mad in the wrong scenario, which is why they can’t be mistaken under any circumstances that are not permitted. Unless the situation engages in a licence to permit such conflict and humour, that is not allowed because it is not a required standard in duties and obligations. They cannot be crazy and mistaken in any situation because they are not allowed to be crazy and mistaken in any non-collaborative venture or joint enterprise without legal authorisation. As a result, they cannot be mistaken under any circumstances that are not allowed. Unless there is a licence granted to allow such conflict and humour, which is not permitted since it is not a required standard of duty obligations.


I want to see the public DOI for the initiatives without a court order as soon as possible.


So, they are never breaking the law, although they might be misled.


I want to see a public DOI for the initiatives without a judicial order as soon as possible.


Hence, even though they could be misled, they are never breaking the law.


This following can’t be considered unreasonably harmful to the state, the Royal Family, or the Church.


How can an independent office that supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice consider complaints about the conduct of judicial office holders personally when they cannot accept complaints about a judge who conducted the process of a decision or the way a judge was managing a case while they have a complaints process for complaints against abuse of process conducted by judges' managerial decisions that lacked consideration in the legal context? Why is it feasible or even essential for them to ask for anything and even money in exchange for their cooperation in a crime that has been drawn out unnecessarily? They can’t scam me or anyone else with such a manner of unreasonable requirements to be so conceivably harmful in a conduct offence that has dragged on for six years and may have to add probate fraud in data theft to what is already nearly a quarter of a million pounds in reparations.


Does the inconsideration want me to pay so it can think about the assistance to criminal fraud in obstructing the administration of justice without mercy, which has unreasonably continued for six years and might have to decide whether it needs to add probate fraud in strange insurance fraud of land registry purchases and sales to what is of a public enquiry ref T682/18, which is already close to a quarter of a million pounds in reparations?


All this persuasion infers is its weakness for an exhausting argument with itself over whether the contradictory fallacy of double standards and false equivalences in the doubling of double negatives is the offence of unreasonable comparatives that are harmful anti-fallacies nonsense, or whether, notwithstanding reasonable doubt, implying a debate about comparisons between conflicting contrasts of claims and dates, plus the discourse of evidence, is internally tiresome with all sides of the clue words frailty in corruption correlating into harmful insincerity of injustice. I might enjoy the irony of additional suppositions via the meekness of such foul play, which will be amusing wrongdoing that forgot to think about why they are killing and or killing themselves, in why did I kill any of them off in how they kill and or kill themselves. That is exactly what misbehaviour in conflict and humour is like, especially in murder if you don’t realise how to appreciate homicides, and likewise in fraud of any other act, too. They take too much pleasure in furtherances of the hypotheses based on negligence, deceit, and non-disclosure for the theory that is meant to be served in the context of the law that they will treat as well and good. 


What a harmful protest and promotion for stylising negative impacts! 


Informally as well, it is just like destructive advertising of adverse effects on what they shall not do to other parties. Who do you think is a rap artist on my wavelength or a graffiti artist on my walls' wavelengths? Are they capable of comprehending honestly by caring about the two fundamentals in general, as there may be a few of each? Trust is not two-sided, nor is it a two-way relationship in conversations, as the intelligence of common sense tells us the rhetorical question is the one-sided value and one-way principle of understanding authority that genuinely cares against two central motives that are sexual and financial before anyone feels outnumbered and unfavoured by inequalities. The filthy fraud of it and a second chance are two different things, and everyone older than me before my time was allowed to be aware of this among all other ranks for which it was written. For key reasons, we need talks, and they shall not undermine me with ignorance in more neglect, so there.


Forgetting their approaches, they are ruining everything, like both groups that want to know why they hold their hands out, wanting to join in, and again, change can’t be careless behaviour. But encroachments are rooted in mistakes no one is authorised to repeat. So now that they should stop it for change and no longer favour prior blunders for a maddening array of mail problems in discrimination that is neither less than overtly private nor less than hidden, okay? Or else their damned human strategies are causing resource chaos, like two groups that are curious about why it is such an effort to participate. Again, change cannot come from careless behaviour. Yet, encroachments stem from errors that should never be repeated. Okay, so they should stop it right now and quit favouring past mistakes for a confusing variety of mail problems and issues involving money and discriminations that are neither less than obviously private as honesty or dishonesty nor less than hidden as the truth or lies, especially when it comes down to the inequities of inequalities. 


#change


Abandoning policy by deceit, neglect, and misinformation to the obligation and misrepresentation non-disclosure agreement is an unlawful violation of EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009 and an obligatory disabuse from each abuse of process served penalties by the ICO and Section 28 (3) of the Insurance Act of 1982's state contract duty fundamental to consumer rights in GDPR, plus of referenced provisions of evidence information relating to public inquiries, references T682/18 and T9040/13.


Private and Confidential POL/1162839-2016


complaint: 201601443 -- Curo Places (Bristol) Limited.


Public inquiries reference T682/18 and T9040/13.


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009, T682/18, ICO, and Section 28(3) of the Insurance Act of 1982's state contract duty are fundamental to consumer rights in the GDPR. 


As I already stated, I am living in insufficient conditions due to extenuating circumstances, and I am registered to study for both diplomas part-time, not full-time.


I cannot use my blog for my student profile.


I have been in contact with the EASS because of inequalities unfairly discriminating against me due to the corrupt commercial policy of CCTV and my formal complaints about aggravated fraud, criminal and civil, in court, plus the obstructions to the administration of justice and persistent interferences.


I will be attending College in September 2023 to study a Business A level and Counselling Level 3. 


Equality Advisory and Support Service, Article 8 Referenced


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009

I’ve been given an Article 8 reference by the EASS helpline (Equality Advisory and Support Service) for the case test reference from the correspondence team, Equality Human Rights, as I contacted the research team about ICO penalties, FCA, and counter-notice.


Hopefully, this finds you all safe and well, as I just gave thanks to the EASS for referencing my phone call regarding the inequalities I have been unfairly targeted by in ill-treatment as of 2015 when I used to live at 109 Monksdale Road in Bath, BA2 2JD.


I was given an Equality and Human Rights Case Test Number (Ref: 7306246) for Litigation and Enforcement Policy. I had to contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) as I needed or wanted to seek a legal solution to do with strategic issues and trends associated with all the penalties of my public inquiries references T682/18 and T9040/13.


I just bid for a one-bedroom flat at Norfolk Crescent via the local authority social housing scheme and asked a question about my eligibility, which is as follows:


They won’t disrespect me by discriminating against my right to complain without fear of reprisals, corruption, or collusion, will you?


Disrespectful bad decisions intentionality via wilful neglect constitutes dishonesty under Article 8: respect for your private and family life; irresponsible poor choices show a lack of consideration for the privacy of life and family lives. This wilful neglect constitutes a violation in multiple breaches of the law that demonstrates carelessness in the involuntary incapacity of regard for one's own and one's family's rights to privacy, too. an inability to respect and accept the essential principles and values of human rights by giving up on the fundamental concept of democratic ideals by not upholding the legitimate sovereignty of Royal Assent and rejecting the core tenets of integrity in territorial independence. Failing to defend commercial policy for the sake of the strategy of willful ignorance is unreasonable and harmful in a seriously unsatisfactory manner. Renunciation of the impossibility is an unsupportive approach that is detrimental and illogical in its determination, offering nothing but injustice. They have revealed a personal sphere of reckless abandonment that is an irrational and dangerous tactic that poses an imminent threat via a severely compromised system of message control and manipulation of data to ensure no trust in an abuse of power against society by causing problems like this.


Public Enquiry T682/18


NCA Official ref: 1240979 (Prime Minister)


ACTION FRAUD 

references 656842, 656844, 656843


My belongings at Barnabas House containing material evidence 

OFFICIAL NCA Our ref: 1371717


NCA Official ref: 1240979 (Prime Minister)


Application details

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

Mr Frank Kembery

Application Reference Number: 20212091723313


Driving before your new licence arrives


Case Reference: IC-103672-W6Z1, is the ICO fine for misinformation about my mental health forensic history.


Julian House, ICO fine reference: IC-64999-N1S3.


Bath and North East Somerset Council, 10 November 2021; Case Reference: IC-139464-N6K0.


Which organisation am I getting at?

Case Reference: IC-108067-T5F2 (Julian House) and Ref: IC-128365-W0P2


27 July 2021

Case Reference: IC-68008-N8N0


July 16 2021: Bath and North East Somerset Council

Case Reference: IC-116368-B3C2


10 September 2021, Ref: IC-128365-W0P2, Hacked


ICO - Case Reference IC-128365-W0P2

Public Liability of Public Enquiry Reference T9040/13 (Positive 1 as of 18 years ago with more than a decade-long gap and no LOR for any extradition rules as it was American media controlled by the FBI).


Email received on September 10, 2021, because of the email of September 8, 2021, regarding a possible data protection matter about the 16 and 23 of December 2016.


IOPC (formerly IPCC) 2015/042652


Avon and Somerset Police engaged in informal, unauthorised collaboration (without authorisation from IPT RIPA) in fraud for contract cheating.


Bath High Court and County Court pay the fee and are not exempt from CCTV.


JCIO rejected my claims three times before District Judge Goddard withdrew of his own free will instead of being replaced by Judge Collins. On the day of the repossession hearing, I refused to attend because of aggravated fraud and court fraud. I was subsequently illegally evicted for not attending.


Avon & Somerset Police have been hacking me since the GROSS MISCONDUCT in 2015.


Public enquiry reference T9040/13 is a positive one in my responsibility to transparency and level 2 recovery without secrecy.


Case Reference: IC-64999-N1S3 Julian House Misrepresentation (Eviction)


Public Enquiry Reference T682/18 Email to the ICO Case Reference IC-94009-V8G4 17 March 2021 Our reference, IC-94009-V8G4, is dissociated from requirements and standards obligations.


Public liability, public inquiry references T9040/13 (Positive 1) and T682/13


Information Commissioner's Office

Case Reference: IC-68008-N8N0


The ICO penalty has been served on corrupt police for data breach fraud related to my FOI request to HMICFRS.


Action Fraud (Acknowledgement)

Cyberterrorism Reference: 1286266


Financial Ombudsman Service and BUPA [Confidential] Your complaint (our ref: PNX-3827965-N1Y2)


Public enquiry reference T9040/13 ICO Case Reference: IC-75100-W4J7 17 February 2021 Case Reference: IC-75100-W4J7


Case Reference: IC-190746-Z1N8: Council Tax Issues with the Mental Health Act


Case Reference: IC-106980-K5X3 Data Breach Involving JCIO


Case Reference: IC-128365-W0P2 Prior complaint to IPT (public enquiry reference T9040/13)


Case Reference: IC-143742-P0R5 complaint regarding Action Fraud Publishing deadlines and deliberate programme failure.


A new ICO case reference, IC-210945-M0W3, to add to a few others that the local authority already had since illegally evicting me via aggravated fraud. This is the data breach concerning my dead mom’s probate in inheritance fraud.


At my previous address of 109 Monksdale Road, Bath, BA2 2JD, United Kingdom, I had suffered harm, including physical, mental, and emotional harm plus economic loss, which was directly caused by Avon and Somerset Constabulary's police misconduct.


999 Emergency Services Log (752), Crime Incident, January 17, 2016, 19:00. Police Misconduct Reference 2016/060568 (18–22 January 2016). Public Enquiry, Home Office Log 752, Ref: T682/18


Formerly the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission),

2018-IOPC (Independent Office Police Conduct)


Information Commissioner's Office

Case Reference: IC-68008-N8N0


The ICO penalty has been served on corrupt police for data breach fraud related to my FOI request to HMICFRS.


NSPCC Reference A-1803081

02/12/2020 at 16:27 ICO Reference Number


CQC ENQ1-9835539033

October 5, 2020)


Care Quality Commission

ENQ1-9688476216


FOI Public Enquiry Log 752 (Reference: T682/18) via HMICFRS confirmed it doesn't hold the information I requested. 


DISSATISFACTORY!!!


My online offences targeting criminality have been rejected before HOME OFFICE REFERENCE: T9040/13 JULY 2013. Foolish individuals and organisations may want to make defamatory allegations to the contrary of my liberty.


NSPCC REFERENCE: A-1803081


I am trying to use the WiFi provided at a previous address, 55 Claude Avenue, Bath, BA2 1AG. Action Fraud has been keeping this reference number active since for any forwarding home address and or Internet cafe, free WiFi spot, etc.


Casework for the new ICO (received in 14 days)


House of Commons (received)

Home Office (Logged)

Suspicious Emails (Acknowledgement)


NHS:101869 Re: IMPROVEMENTS

NHSE References

[NHS:66766] Re: FW: INCIDENTS (PURGE)

[NHS:67507] Re: FW: INCIDENTS (PURGE)


NHS England Case Reference 2010-1263280NHSE:0220151


Financial Ombudsman Service and BUPA [Confidential] Your complaint (our ref: PNX-3827965-N1Y2)


NSPCC REFERENCE: A-1803081


Action Fraud (Acknowledgement)

Cyberterrorism Reference: 1286266

Information Commissioner's Office

Case Reference: IC-68008-N8N0


LGO

Your reference number is 55628. It was submitted on 03/08/2021 at 08:07:08.


Case Reference: IC-103672-W6Z1, is the ICO fine for misinformation about my mental health forensic history.


Julian House, ICO fine reference: IC-64999-N1S3.


Bath and North East Somerset Council, 10 November 2021; Case Reference: IC-139464-N6K0.


Which organisation am I getting at?

Case Reference: IC-108067-T5F2 (Julian House) and Ref: IC-128365-W0P2


27 July 2021

Case Reference: IC-68008-N8N0


July 16 2021: Bath and North East Somerset Council

Case Reference: IC-116368-B3C2


10 September 2021, Ref: IC-128365-W0P2, Hacked


They have no legal disclaimer to the right to punish or deter elements of absence without permission; no contract for such absence; and no authorised punishment for absence without the proof of medical evidence for a medical condition I don't have nor need medicating via perceptions liability.


If their working prerogative is as poor as I previously mentioned, then your work is without good cause, and I hope they are arrested and prosecuted in a public court of law.


I have written to the ICO complaining of this, and they may contact you shortly for a resolution, but be aware of the General Data Protection Regulations, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.


Section 77 of the FOIA states a person "is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys, or conceals any record held by the public authority to prevent the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to which the applicant would have been entitled."


Another ICO penalty wouldn't go amiss here below, as follows:


Subject: Prosecution Notice Time Limits


Case number 522000315888


The prosecution notice served to me by Avon and Somerset Constabulary on August 26, 2020, for a hearing on March 9, 2020, was given a new date of hearing on September 9, 2020.


214 days in total (plus 13 extra days) are more than 6 months.


Even at 48 days and 5 months, it's more than 6 months too.


Prosecution Notices have a 6-month time limit in the UK.


Criminal and civil liability


At my previous address of 109 Monksdale Road, Bath, BA2 2JD, United Kingdom, I had suffered harm, including physical, mental, and emotional harm plus economic loss, which was directly caused by Avon and Somerset Constabulary's police misconduct.


Magistrates Court Ref: DX 98580 Bath 2 (Ref: CB)


Curo Logs and Crime Reference Numbers


Log 71 - 2013/015112

Log 1022 - 2013/09/20

Log 0518 - 2013/12/01

Log 509 - 07/16/2015 (12:30 PM Reference: 127178)

Log 99 - Curo ASB "Nuisance" 31/12/2015


As I mentioned previously when I made use of the website (ASB Help) yesterday, I have made over a hundred complaints of anti-social behaviour to Curo's own ASB team in the last four years since my tenancy began with Curo. The new replacement representative at Curo who deals with my housing has admittedly lost all of my Curo ASB Team email correspondences and Log Numbers for the times I phoned Curo with ASB complaints. Curo also lost my tenancy agreement twice last year in 2016 too.


CURO References and Logs


2013/015112

Log 71

20/09/2013


Log 1022

01/12/2013


23/08/2013

REF: 130823_035746


Police Officer 8717

Log 891


Log 0518

CRIME REFERENCE

10354/14

30/01/2014


CRIME REFERENCE

122533/14 (PC 3908)


24/11/2014

Log 509


31/12/2015

CURO REFERENCE

361704 (REPAIR)


16/07/2015 - 12:30 PM

REFERENCE 127178

CURO (Nuisance)

Log 99


Avon and Somerset Constabulary -- Breach Code, Pace "PSD" REF: CO/01106/15


17/01/2016 19:00 PM

999 Call Log 752

IPCC Reference Number 2016/060568 (18–22 January 2016)


26/10/2016

IPCC Reference Number 2016/075053


[07/02/2012 LOG 733: POLICE OFFICER 785: INCITEMENT/HATE CRIME: "I am the victim of inciting members of the public whilst homeless."]


23/02/2017

Log 79

999 Emergency Services Call (Police)


Log 1230

PC 2489

24/02/2017

01:30 AM


There is also the ever-relevant Police Log 733, which was created for me by PC Nigel Pinkard. Log 733 is a way for me to record incidents of incitement against me. It was established for me on 07/02/2012, whilst I was homeless at the time.


IHOS Reference 201601443 (Housing Ombudsman Service)


Crime Reference Numbers

10354/14 - 30/01/2014 (My home broken into) 122533/14 - 24/11/2014 (PC 3908) (My home broken into)


I made more than 100 complaints about anti-social behaviour throughout the four and a half years of my tenancy. I gathered material pieces of evidence too and was the victim of a couple more forced entries into my home that are not logged here. There were also several breaches of the PACE Code committed by Avon and Somerset Police, of which Gross Misconduct (2015) is one.


Social Housing Disputes Resolution (Housing Ombudsman Service) Investigating My Complaints Against Curo Places (Bristol) Limited


30 April 2016: The Housing Ombudsman Service (Awaiting Reference Number)


03/05/2016 Assign the reference number.


09/05/2016 I was being harassed by PC Mark Hodder (under the provisions of the Anti-Social and Policing Act).


An appointment was arranged between my previous housing officer (Curo) and the community nurse that treats my depression (NHS Hse-RUH).


The meeting was set for 3:30 PM at NHS HSE RUH on May 10, 2016, which I did not attend because you advised me not to sign it due to the fact the evidence against me was only hearsay evidence, and I contacted the magistrate's court to appeal the notice, which they later threw out of court as of January 2017, preventing PC Mark Hodder from trying to enforce it.


15/05/2016 I forwarded emails in connection with complaints to you, which you acknowledged receipt of.


May 16 2016: I forwarded emails in connection with complaints to you, which you acknowledged receipt of.


18/05/2016 Complaint: 201601443 -- Curo Places (Bristol) Limited You wrote to me regarding my complaint about my landlord, Curo Places.


The landlord requested that I contact them to discuss my complaint and how to put things right.


08/06/2016 I forwarded emails in connection with complaints to you, which you acknowledged receipt of.


08/06/2016 A Curo customer service representative forwarded my complaints to the tenancy compliance team.


“16/06/2016 Complaint: 201601443 - Curo Places (Bristol) Limited Thank you for your emails. I am sorry to hear that matters with your landlord have not been resolved. I have contacted your landlord about your complaint. Once it responds, I will be able to advise you further. Please be advised that the Ombudsman may not be able to assist with or investigate any matters subject to court proceedings. This is because the authority of the courts supersedes our own. I will be able to advise you further on this once I hear back from your landlord.”


12/07/2016, 19/07/2016, 30/07/2016 IHOmbudsman - Receipt Acknowledgement


14/08/2016 - 13/10/2016 IHOmbudsman - Receipt acknowledgement


13/10/2016 Curo Right to Appeal: Housing Officer on Leave until Monday, October 17, 2016


IHOmbudsman Automatic reply: ASB Curo 3 AM, November 24, 2016


23 December 2016: Curo complaint reference number 12814 (IPCC 2015/042544-2015/042652 Gross Misconduct) was passed on to the Housing Officer's Manager in the Tenancy Compliance Team.


On January 27, 2017, Curo contacted me, clarifying that the injunction had now been obtained and I would not be returning to court about this injunction.


The tenant of flat 99 was moved to another address but was issued possession proceedings as a formality.


I overslept for the hearing issuing possession of the flat. The county court then gave me 28 days to leave the property. I left on August 1, 2017.


IPCC REFERENCE 2013/004321: COMMON PURPOSE (CORRUPTION [NEGLIGENCE, CONSPIRACY, INTENT, ETC.] -- SADISM)

IPCC REFERENCE 2013/010777 (INCIVILITY)

IPCC REFERENCE 2015/042652 (GROSS MISCONDUCT)

IPCC REFERENCE 2015/053761 (HACKING)

IPCC REFERENCE 2016/060568 (LOG 752 MISCONDUCT)


999 Emergency Services Log (752), Crime Incident, January 17, 2016, 19:00. Police Misconduct Reference 2016/060568 (18–22 January 2016). Public Enquiry, Home Office Log 752, Ref: T682/18


Formerly the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission), 2018-IOPC (Independent Office Police Conduct)


I believe in my good faith that IPCC gave a reasonable opportunity to Avon and Somerset Constabulary to investigate the material evidence (Log 752; ref: T682/18) I submitted to IPCC on the very day of the forensic evidence corruption I witnessed and photographed. Scientific experts’ findings and opinions are based on examinations, tests, and measurements, and no such forensics were carried out and cannot be in any way involved in reaching those findings and opinions.


19.4. (CORRUPTED)

Where rule 19.3(3) applies, an expert’s report must:

(d) make clear which of the facts stated in the report are within the expert’s knowledge;


(k) contain the same declaration of truth as a witness statement. (CORRUPTED)


Frankly, in determining issues of admissibility by way of essential principles, I am aware that the courts are encouraged to actively inquire into such factors.


Especially of expert scientific opinion (Log 752 - Ref: T682/18) 19A.5


reviewed by others with relevant expertise (for instance, in peer-reviewed publications plus Ref: T682/18), and the views of those others on that material evidence (Log 752 + Ref: T682/18). 19A.5


(e) the extent to which the expert’s opinion is based on material falling outside the expert’s field of expertise; - photographic evidence (Log 752; ref: T682/18) No luminol test, for instance (fingerprints, etc.). 19A.5


(h) whether the expert’s methods followed established practice in the field and, if they did not, whether the reason for the divergence has been properly explained. (Log 752, ref: T682/18) 19A.5


All of this amounts to criminal and civil liability for the public service due to the fact I was a vulnerable and unfairly persistently targeted victim (the definition of a victim for the Victims' Rights Act) of a common-purpose intent for negligence and gross misconduct during my entire tenancy at the previous address. I have been mistreated and burdened by this grievance for several years now. I want a responsible party to admit as fact a summary of expert conclusions that serve this summary of complaints I have formally been allowed to make, plus I'm entitled to make a court summons of this criminal and civil liability.


The Criminal Procedure Rules: Disclosure

October 2015, as amended April 2018


EVIDENCE OF A COMPLAINANT’S PREVIOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR


At a pretrial hearing, a court may make binding rulings about the admissibility of evidence and questions of law under Sections 31 and 40 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (e) and Section 8A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (f).


Evidence of a complainant's previous internet use (hacking and cyberterrorism)


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/rulesmenu-2015#Anchor5


Data Protection Act 1998, s. 55


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/55


unlawfully obtaining, etc., personal data


1(b): procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data.


(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows—


(a) That the obtaining, disclosing, or procuring—


(i) was necessary for preventing or detecting crime,


(ii) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law, or by the order of a court,


(b) that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had in law the right to obtain or disclose the data or information, or, as the case may be, to procure the disclosure of the information to the other person,


(c) that he acted in the reasonable belief that he would have had the consent of the data controller if the data controller had known of the obtaining, disclosing, or procuring and the circumstances of it, or


(d) In particular circumstances, the obtaining, disclosing, or procuring was justified as being in the public interest. (Corrupting the public's decency with a conspiracy of lies; deception [false information])


contravention of that subsection


noun: contravention; plural noun: contraventions


an action which offends against a law, treaty, or another ruling.


noun: allegation; plural noun: allegations


a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.


Aspersions (slander) about me are unfair and unreasonable, unauthorised and non-policing, and in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998, which is irrational and uncivilised unprofessionalism motivated by the intent for a common purpose conspiracy against me...


This just isn’t all of the ICO fines that have happened since I was illegally evicted via aggravated fraud and left injured by obstructionists to dwell in misguided homelessness of insufficient conditions without a resolution and reimbursement of my legal credit assurances in the AST I had, nor does this include one or two extras that may be pending for inheritance fraud, illegal destruction of data, and council tax fraud, as well as a few that Bath and North East Somerset Council already have, too, and a few that Julian House plus AWP NHS and 


I now have an Article 8 reference, the EASS helpline (Equality Advisory and Support Service), due to a case test reference from the Correspondence Team Equality Human Rights, as I contacted the Research Team about ICO penalties, FCAs, and counter-notices. @ukhomeoffice @UkNatArchives @Frankly_Blam


https://twitter.com/uksincere/status/1629072276162240514?s=46&t=BYCLzWOfeQSIEyZFcffqXA


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009


Public Enquiries References T682/18 and T9040/13


I told Citizens Advice in my feedback today and the Home Office that I would like resolutions for my right to complain without fear of reprisals, corruption, or collusion dealt with promptly and with full reimbursements. It has been more than 6 years since I was illegally evicted via aggravated fraud and criminal fraud of the court in December 2016. Hopefully, now that I have the EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009 for all the penalties that have been served for corrupting the commercial policy of CCTV, everything will be okay.


What is the least they could do to support a part-time distance learning student like myself, huh? Eh, I realise I’m part-time and living in insufficient conditions due to extenuating circumstances.


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009


Public Enquiries References T682/18 and T9040/13


I would like resolutions for my right to complain without fear of reprisals, corruption, or collusion, and for full reimbursements since being illegally evicted via aggravated fraud and criminal fraud of court in December 2016. Now that I have the EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009 for all the penalties that have been served for corrupting the commercial policy of CCTV, is that okay? 


In being represented by the Home Office, I have guidelines on how and why my public inquiries entitle me to Supreme Court appeals in proceedings decisions to defend me fairly in the truth against the impact of an abuse of process in civil, commercial fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and the tort of deceit, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure, plus my assurances of being misrepresented by commercial policy fraud in civil fraud cases investigating this very serious problem and serious issues with misstatements and dates, too. The Home Office and Supreme Court's stance on this topic are that misleading claims and aggressively negligent commercial practices have committed civil liabilities. I considered the risks to insurance policies without fear of reprisals, corruption, or collusion while living in the assured tenancy I was illegally evicted from unfairly in untrue circumstances because of my rejected complaints, which were obstructed by deceit’s encouragement and interferences. Underinsured assurance, or underinsurance assurance, is not meant to be an inadequate measure against commercial policy fraud. Public inquiries, references T682/18 and T9040/13 are the burden of proof in commercial and domestic policy, but without any audits of fallacy and civil liability in public liabilities, Article 8 would preferably be sufficient. Insufficient conditions of evidence and information breaching Article 8 because the burden didn’t care about what was not relevant and proportionate properly has been a waste of time and money in misinformation. Propaganda to counter disinformation has become a battlefield of lies and political incompetence, full of interference and intimidation. The contract duty basics of my consumer rights have been misrepresented, and my underinsurance-assured rights in other roles have been civil liabilities of commercial policy fraud attempts to cheat indemnity for criminal fraud. Indemnification obligation principles of 1982 in Sections 41 (1), 46 (1), 54 (1), and 22 don’t apply to me committing insurance fraud, as it is my underinsurance assured rights in other roles have been civil liabilities of commercial policy fraud trying to defraud indemnification of criminal fraud, as per Section 28 (3) of the State Contract Duty Basics to My Consumer Rights. As a result of an abuse of process and the contractual responsibilities to my underinsurance-guaranteed consumer rights that were assured in all other circumstances of my right to complain about fraud, attempts to commit commercial policy fraud and fraudulent indemnity of criminal fraud have resulted in civil liability and public liability inequalities of my human rights for over 30 penalties centred around fraudulent motives in misinformation and misrepresentation in Article 8 breaches and violations. 


Would you, the ICO, like to serve the Home Office a penalty for the misinformation that misrepresented me now? 


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009


If regard is at fault then regard has to change. 


According to regards contractual commitments, and any underinsurance-guaranteed rights in all relevant and proportionate circumstances and others, without plagiarism of failures what would have led to civil liability from causation for commercial policy fraud against domestic policy consumer rights to complain about fraudulent attempts to defraud indemnity in criminal fraud via civil liability and hostile forfeiture of added fees for protection so regards contractual responsibilities change unfairly in what is untrue, and underinsurance-guaranteed rights in assurances circumstances is misrepresented by misinformation, regardless of whatever evidence and information would have otherwise happened during what led to civil liability for commercial policy fraud attempts to defraud indemnity of criminal fraud via the burden of proof in change to an audit of fallacy in the impact of change in the conditions of policy and political change of terms of the contractual responsibilities to sufficient change, not the change of insufficient conditions to undermine underinsurance-guaranteed consumer rights in assurance of any other circumstances, as change will have led to greater change instead of civil liability for commercial policy fraud attempts to defraud indemnity of criminal fraud via civil liability against domestic policy rights to complain about the risks of such unfair and untrue change due to regard. 


Change the audit of permissions that grant profits from such fraud for civil change against the assurance of no such change in the informed judgement of change without misrepresentation or misinformation regard that doesn’t care about the motivations of regard for change. 


#change #audit #civil #assurance


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009, T682/18, ICO, and Section 28(3) of the Insurance Act of 1982's state contract duty are fundamental to consumer rights in the GDPR. 


An Act for consumer insurance contracts to be assured has been passed by legislation and the U.K. Law Commission. Yet, the insurance cover threshold might be withdrawn from the contract due to willful debts from willfully giving up the commercial policy to cover the domestic policy rights. If you unintentionally provide inaccurate or incomplete information to their insurer, you will be protected by the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA), the Consumer Insurance Act. This means that unless they misled or misrepresented their circumstances intentionally or recklessly, their insurer will not be able to deny a claim on the grounds of non-disclosure.


EASS Article 8 Reference 230224-000009, T682/18, ICO, and Section 28(3) of the Insurance Act of 1982's state contract duty are fundamental to consumer rights in the GDPR.


Is Log 752 meant to be a misadventure or even corporate manslaughter, huh? 


Handover left that police constable there at the scene without backup or even paramedics, so the forensic evidence could be subject to interdicted fraud with external pressures in a remit to harm the victims of the crime scene by illegally removing and covering up the forensic evidence to replace furnishings and laminate flooring in both flat 99 and flat 117. 


Log 752 is more like the murder of an on-duty police officer that no management cared about in a professional response limit and because Sargent Mark Hooder and PCSO (FIB) Paul Spreadbury miscommunicated their working relationship to colleagues. 


Using language that is vague tries to conserve resources; the very language discouraged by political efforts is an ambiguous language that tries to democratise a waste of time and money, plus lawful attempts to jargon unsuccessful decisions refrain from using overly exact language to promote unjustified and immoral statements. Attempting to democratise politics unlawfully while simultaneously using language that shouldn’t be ignored or involved is an ambiguity to law enforcement and political executives of commercial correctness. Although their resourceful interests intend to democratise institutional language skills, the continuing professional development of educated diplomacy in law and politics would rightly avoid using imprecise language. 


This is neither special nor a speciality. 


Spying while being careless is equivalent to stabbing a child or a dog in an unprovoked attack that starkly warrants only contradictions and contempt in the context of defenceless behaviour made by human heartstrings unaware of the unsupportive daggers of unhelpful weird perils at the fearfully poor nosy uselessness of whose really good nothing less the concerns for odd and deadly shabby, as spying is like ramming a dark unwary cold jab at the blunders of attitude The resource blunders and the misunderstandings of the democratising attitude of misusing resources in blunders They tried to democratise their attitude towards a loss of resources. It is a waste of time and money to use imprecise wording for law enforcement and politics, as we are told not to say or do the wrong things. So, attempts to harm democracy via harmful politics and harmful law enforcement that should not use phrases that are too precise in an attempt by political activism will lead to democratising opponents such as oppressors of vocabulary. The vocational waste of time and resources from behind your back that’s a smiley face from the bench is the perspective that there is no right or wrong answer when they are questioned instead. Whoever is unreasonably unnecessary in an unnatural manner that nature does away with for worse realities of reasons is who?


Do they want to withdraw the references they gave my enquiries so they could represent my right to obligatory disabuse from each abuse process? 


Public enquiry reference T682/18 has been an unduly harsh and damaging cause to the humanity of our relationship. 


The entire system of troubles and problems seems to suggest nothing but issues that infer weakness in folks who have poorly thought out acting unreasonably harmful for attitudes in habits of policies they don’t care about when they can but can't because of the need to address the want of can but can’t, so the entire system of issues and their resolution procedure for problems implies nothing but the same thing in the impact of an unreasonable manner again, that is harmful to those who can but can't. The entire problem-solution system of issues to the process of solving the creation of implied weakness is being unnecessarily destructive in obtaining and obstructing a response limit to the process of solving problems with can but can't in those who are ill-considered and being unreasonably harmful about when they can but can't. As a result, this is excessively detrimental to me as a human being in people who claim I have rights against this type of discrimination misbehaviour, which is and has been unnecessarily hurtful of them in making my life so hard. 


#govukignoredbecause 


Please let me go up to these humans about these things.


Just how void the BBC & Lockheed Martin are legally 


The blame avoidance attempts to cheat the indemnity of adverse effects in the antithesis of harmful wrongdoing in the motives cause of irresponsible influence without any reasonable doubt to incite informal and formal hatred in collusion with discrimination for exclusion by vengeance. Without a shadow of a doubt, the antithesis of detrimental misbehaviour is the motivation behind not caring, which is the irresponsible influence that promotes informal and formal enmity in cooperation with discrimination for exclusion by punishment. Not a shadow in sight, the antithesis of detrimental misguidance is the motivations behind irresponsible impact to promote involvement in informal and formal animosities in teamwork with prejudice for exclusion by a counterattack. There is little question that the objectives behind irrational actions are in fear of not fostering indirect and direct hostility in collaborative discrimination for exclusion by non-offensive categories for the antithesis of harmful misbehaviour. Without a shade of distrust, the antithesis of the detrimental missive motivations behind the inconsistent effect glorifies the idealisation of indecorous acrimony in organised association with affiliated bigotry for the crimes of exclusion by the vindication of norms. There is little question that the small-minded purpose behind intent isn't irrespective of persuasion to foster vindictive hostility informally via the ceremonial practice of joint enterprises of bribes and blackmail because of discriminatory exclusion by nonacceptance of disrespect in the antithesis of such harmful misbehaviour. Unquestionably, the aspirations underlying irresponsible influence were to develop an informal and formal malevolent conspiracy, historically by con-federation half dressed down so complicit duplicity would be difficult discrimination for differing exclusions to prove on the whole of cross-referenced reprisals, as the corrupt antithesis of dangerous imminent threats became more expensive than less, plus too likely to be devoid of tolerances defying the intolerance of its bias. There is no doubt that the goals of the BBC & Lockheed Martin's irresponsible influence are to promote reckless informal and formal hostility indirectly and directly in conjunction with anti-establishment federalists' aims of establishing detestable illegitimacy that forbade proscribed rules of unlawful interferences for discrimination taunts to serve the context of exclusion by vengeance. Contract cheating first media dibs announcing the arrival of lots of flying incubi and succubi to succumb to the subdued and SATAN families and friends of victims of child sex abuse complaints, abductions and murders, plus the proliferation of forensic germs. These goals are not the exact opposite of harmful misbehaviour in fraud. 


The entire world in three quarters with two different things as a problem and a solution to issues of many more similar things in two ways that are of differences centring on the two disparate parts that are aspects of groups made up of individuals that two quarters misused and abused in violating the third quarter that misunderstood and mistrusted in unawares of by one or more because of halves and half is something in how and why do they know the half to tell the difference.


An unduly harsh and damaging cause to humanity 


The entire system of troubles and problems seems to suggest nothing but issues that infer weakness in folks who have poorly thought out acting unreasonably harmful attitudes in habits of policies when they can but can't because of can but can’t, so the entire system of issues and their resolution procedure for problems implies nothing but the same thing in the impact of an unreasonable manner that is harmful to those who can but can't. The entire problem-solution system of issues to the process of implied weakness being unnecessarily destructive with can but can't in those who are ill-considered and being unreasonably harmful about when they can but can't. As a result, this is excessively detrimental to people, which is unnecessarily hurtful. 


If they ignore me, as if they can, then I will say how rude, which is why they won’t because they can’t, so they better not although they don’t, alright? 


Regards


Frank Malcolm Kembery


Flat 10

23 Grosvenor Place

Bath

BA1 6BA

United Kingdom


Sincere Products & Services Ltd.

61 Bridge Street

Kington, Worcester

HR5 3DJ

United Kingdom


Tel +44 7710630777


director@sincerecommunity.org 


https://sincerecommunity.org 


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank-Kembery/publication/369542851_Crown_Courtpdf/data/64340697ad9b6d17dc4b680b/Formal-Letter-3.pdf 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When substantial intent lies about CCTV, subsequent reports, claims, applications, farming, and data theft

The Root of Incapacity (Criminal Negligence)

Formal Letter