She is billed as a former student of King’s College London here and here and you can see a photo of this feisty fighter for freedom in action here. As you can see, she is a very presentable young lady (and no doubt a very charismatic one also).
So you may be interested to know that this ‘want’ ad and this ‘want’ ad and this ‘want’ ad were all posted by Tanja Suessenbach, who appears to be starting a fashion school in London.
This might be why she took on the case of this most controversial of doctors; they have similar edu-entrepreneurial instincts (The Obi One used to run a language school).
Tanja Suessenbach makes it clear on her website that she is NOT a solicitor, but rather a legal consultant (who can “provide cost-effective legal assistance to all those who cannot afford the often very high legal costs”).
(And you can clearly see via comparing lexcity.org to ittrainingcenter.ro how very serious Tanja Suessenbach is about cutting costs.)
Primary URL: http://www.lexcity.org/
WHOIS: lexcity.org is registered in the name of Andre Alexander Gottshalk, Flat 9, Beaumont Court, 5 Streatham Place, SW2 4PY
Company details: According to main website Lexcity.org; Lexcity.org Ltd, registered in England and Wales, No. 6064790 – registered address: 147 B Knights Hill, London, SE27 0SP
Business listings: Here and here, business address listed as; 44 Oakdale Road, London, SW16 2HL
As you can see, Tanja Suessenbach and Andre Alexander Gottshalk appear to intersect at two common addresses (just over a mile apart).
They also intersect at this Blogger-hosted weblog, which carries promotional links to lexcity.org and accentsoftening.com
Both that blog and Lexcity.org offer useful descriptions of the services provided by Tanja Suessenbach (yes, ‘civil litigation’ is listed), but with all of this confusion over past/present addresses and what not, I thought I’d try to find the very latest details, just in case any of these sites were outdated in any way… and I found them in this recent submission to CraigsList:
Affordable Employment Law Advice and Cheap Represenattion
Reply to: serv-582741644@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-02-22, 4:36PM GMT
We are legal consultants, who specialise in Employment Law.
We provide advice to employees and companies in claims for race or sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, disability, redundancy, unpaid wages and equal pay and provide cheap representation at Employment Tribunals.
We also advise companies on a wide range of employment issues.
Our rates are extremely competitive.
[snip numbers]
Email: info@lexcity.org
Or visit our webpage at www.lexcity.org
So, what have we learned from all this?
Well, we’ve learned that if you’re poor and vulnerable – and even if you struggle with English – then Tanja Suessenbach stands ready to offer you legal consultation and even some forms of representation at bargain-basement prices (when she’s not busy working on her new fashion school).
Warms the heart, doesn’t it?
What an angel of mercy she is.
And I’m especially impressed that Netcetera caved so readily to her. This, surely, is a testament to her great skill as a solicitor provider of limited forms of legal consultation and fashion tuition.
Financier of the Alternative Medicine Fights Back Campaign , Dr Joseph Obi , has maverickly brushed aside recent attempts to discredit him based on GMC Sponsored News Articles.
Speaking in Belfast where he is currently enjoying a wonderful weekend he said :
” When I was told that the Enemies of Alternative Medicine had recruited 5000 (Five Thousand) Bloggers to write rubbish about me 24 hours a day , ( every single day of the year ) , I said OK . . . Let’s wait and see precisely what they will say . . . (Because in my view , it is a perfectly Good Military Tactic to sit back and watch them all come creeping out of the woodwork , so that I know precisely what their capabilities are).
Well, I must say, he’s won me over… that is an *excellent* strategy, and I for one can’t wait to try it myself now that the supporters of Doctor Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi have had a chance to ‘come out of the woodwork’ (so to speak).
Like this video @ WellnessFM and this video @ WellnessFM, Obi’s appeal has been posted as a video reply to a largely unrelated but also largely popular video; this means that we cannot even reliably guesstimate how many interested parties there are (for or against), as an unknown amount of traffic has originated from the resulting referral link. The ‘links’ has been turned off, so we can’t see where any other inbound links are coming from. Finally, the only positive comment allowed under this video (so far) is this one:
However, it’s a start. Nice official-sounding and reassuring name, too. Following the profile link takes us to the YouTube Channel of MedicalDoctors:
WHOIS: medlc.org is registered in the name of Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi, 18-19 College Green, Dublin
Oh dear.
That’s not good.
But let’s press on. I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for all of this, and it would be wrong of me to obsess over a possible sock-puppeting when there are real issues to be dealt with.
Newsflash : It has just been revealed that Medical Licensing Commission has been duly incorporated as a lawful entity by the Government of the United Kingdom.
This comes after many months of Bitter Legal Wrangling whereby the General Medical Council (a ‘Registered Charity’) tried desperately to block State Recognition for the New Voluntary Regulatory Body (MLC).
The Official Registration Number of the Medical Licensing Commission is 05953931 , and it is billed to start lawful operations sometime next year , thereby offering Medical Graduates (Worldwide) the radical opportunity to obtain a hitherto unforseen additional form of Licensure which would allow them to still put their Medical Training to good use – even if they do not have (or find themselves suddenly losing) the Statutory Medical License to Practise in any chosen Jurisdiction.
The General Medical Council Opposition Network (run by someone who describes himself as ‘only a Sidekick of this Eminent Medical Rebel’ (i.e. Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi) urges its readers not to send them money directly to support their ‘Abolish The GMC’ campaign; they instead request that you direct money to the (third-party-provided) bookstore of Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi, the (third-party-provided) merchandise store of Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi or royalcam.org (see above).
WHOIS: apply4cash.co.uk is registered in the name of Dr Joseph C. Obi, 7 Mersey Place, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, NE8 3ST
[Psst! This is a residential address, but not a current one for The Obi One. See comments.]
Erm, let’s move on, shall we?
What I’m going to do is take these endorsements for Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi and the Medical Licensing Commission at face value and see what else I can learn from these non-poisonous websites.
Appearing on the above website and on the MLC website is a (third-party-provided) animated Flash ad. The full script for this ad is below:
This is Maria your medically qualified wellness consultant speaking. The Grand Master of the Medical Licensing Commission has kindly asked me to put you through your professional registration paces. Thankfully, he will be passing by from time to time to see how well we are getting on. We really do have so many administrative formalities to cover in such little time, so I must publicly request all qualified medical graduates to email all of the necessary documentation and fees without delay to enable us to duly induct them into a brand new clinical profession.
A brand new clinical profession, you say? Headed by Professor Grand Master Joseph Chikelue Obi, no less?
And it sounds like they have a *lot* of work to do.
Wow, no wonder Grand Master Joseph Chikelue Obi is so concerned that some bloggers are colluding with the GMC in a clear attempt to undermine his reputation!
Thankfully, now that I look closely, I can also see some bloggers batting for him:
The British Loans weblog carries a supportive article entitled ‘Royal College of Alternative Medicine Boss Defeats General Medical Council’.
Primary weblog URL: http://www.north-east.org.uk/ (formerly used to promote an english school by ‘DrJCObi@aol.com’)
WHOIS: north-east.org.uk is registered in the name of Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi, 7 Mersey Place, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, NE8 3ST
WHOIS: medlc.org is registered in the name of Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi, 18-19 College Green, Dublin
Erm…
No, I’m sorry, but you cannot shake my love for this man, his mission to protect other human beings, and his downright adorable desire to give punctuation the breathing space it deserves.
I’ll carry no truck with any blogger who dares to question his credentials, mock his entrepreneurial leanings or suggest that he is such an irrepressible quack that he now seeks to begin an independent accreditation system for all quacks, because – while he may not have an army of supporters – he’s still got *me*.
The Sun – Death penalty: Your verdict: Almost 100,000 Sun readers unite today to call for the return of the death penalty. Monster Mark Dixie, Suffolk Strangler Steve Wright and the teenage killers of hero dad Garry Newlove have sickened the nation in recent weeks as details emerged of their vile crimes. All received jail sentences. But as the clamour grew for the return of capital punishment, The Sun on Saturday dared to ask the burning question: “Do we really want it back?” And a staggering 99 per cent of the 95,000 readers who responded to our You The Jury poll said the Government SHOULD reintroduce it.
OK, let’s start by generously accepting the following; every time the Sun runs a high-profile phone poll, roughly 100,000 of their 3 million readers vote (another e.g.). Let’s also classify this result as a 3% ‘voter turnout’ (rather than a vote involving 2,900,000 ‘undecideds’).
1. If the best The Sun can manage is a 3% turnout on a bloody phone-in poll, then I may have to start rethinking my position on compulsory ballot casting.
2. There’s been a clear attempt to skew the debate… and not in the way that you might expect. On Saturday, the poll was announced using an entire colour page dominated by a menacing set of gallows (i.e. a single scarified option). The poll question was; “Do we really want it back?”
3. Today’s front page and editorial pretty much scream; “No, wait… think about it!”
4. That same editorial also says; “(Capital punishment) will not be brought back on a wave of public emotion, however much we sympathise with it.” which isn’t entirely in keeping with Rebekah Wade’s position in past crusades for justice… but perhaps she’s starting to cotton on to this whole 3% turnout thing.
8. Rebekah Wade is so desperate to calm her readers, she’s even using her secret weapon, the Page 3 girl, and there’s some lovely spin on this boobtastic editorial; it’s because of the terrible things that we make you afraid of that we need a stronger alternative to the death penalty!
Amy D can understand why victims are calling for the return of the death penalty. But Amy says: “There are so many terrible people stalking the streets, that there has to be a stronger deterrent. They should be locked way forever.”
9. Locked away forever? At great expense to the taxpayer? Am I really reading this in the Sun newspaper? No wonder Rebekah is having trouble reigning in readers like xms, who had this to say on the subject of capital punishment:
Not only should we bring back hanging, we should also bring back the “Birch” for unruly thugs. Our prison are full of psychopathic killers who should have been executed years ago. Instead, it costs the taxpayers billions of pounds to keep these killers in a life of luxury for the rest of their miserable life’s.
By bring back hanging we reduce over populated prisons, and save money that could go on hospitals, medical research etc. It’s about time politicians did their jobs, and started listening to the people they are supposed to represent. Forget the religious leaders, and the goody-goody brigade who are against hanging, and use common sense. If you deliberately kill someone you hang. If you steal, mug someone, burgle someones home, you get the Birch.
10. How can Rebekah Wade possibly hope to turn this round (or at least keep things down to a dull roar)? Well, by being a little smarter about which buttons she pushes, of course:
Guardian – Miliband admits US rendition flights stopped on UK soil: Britain acknowledged today for the first time that US planes on “extraordinary rendition” flights stopped on British soil twice. The admission came from the foreign secretary, David Miliband, who apologised to MPs for wrong information given by his predecessor Jack Straw and former prime minister Tony Blair.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… Brown can go stuff himself while Straw’s in the cabinet and the torture issue remains largely in the closet.
Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) was told to put up or shut up… and he chose the latter option.
Didn’t stop Dizzy from trying to pick a fight, though. Iain Dale had a bit of a go, too… but it was so pathetic an effort it’s barely worth mentioning.
I’ll make the time to include a linky-list of support posts from during the dispute here later (not a smart idea right now with a shaky database on a busy afternoon):
[OK, here you go. Do let me know if I’ve missed anyone.]
You all saw what happened; MessageSpace played nicey-nice and/or ‘no comment’ after Staines set his lawyer onto me. Staines made no mention of this on his website, but when I refused to roll over, I was subjected to a series of increasingly vicious personal attacks from his mates (and a great many of those personal attacks attempted to portray my side of it as a personal attack).
We wouldn’t stand for this kind of bullying and disinformation in old media, so why the hell should we put up with it in new media?
This kind of crap does not work if more than a few bloggers stand up, say they’re not going to stand for it… and bloody well mean it. And that’s the only way to stop this kind of behaviour from spreading so far and fast that it overwhelms us before the next general election.
We have to individually lead by example… and not be afraid to challenge bloggers who present themselves as the leaders of blogging when they set a very poor example.
Otherwise no-one will take any of us seriously, and old media will continue to get away with dismissing personal contributions to the blogosphere while they themselves try to muscle in on the action while following the poorer example themselves. (Take, just for example, the rather self-serving comment moderation policies of most major newspapers.)
Sorry, I’ll get off the mount now.
(ahem)
When the time came to thinking about how cats should be released from bags if such an act were necessary, I thought some drama was called for… and perhaps a bit of music. A script was written for a video. That video won’t be made now, and I can’t share the script with you, but you can enjoy the bitchin’ soundtrack (if it helps, close your eyes and picture a bit of background in two main chapters, each ending with a series of increasingly alarming screengrabs and document scans, with a few soundgrabs to take us through the guitar solo):
[*I’m now sure it was Iain, even though he still refuses to be grown-up enough to confirm or deny it himself: Shane Greer once guested on Iain’s blog. Shane Greer hosts this comment. Case closed. This comment and all the others submitted by ‘Iain Dale’ under it are from our Iain. I look forward to discussing the use of bad language and abuse that he says that he won’t stand for on his own site (while appearing to suggest that I was banned for being sweary/abusive).]
Dr Graham Henderson, husband of Anne Milton MP, was Director of Public Health for the East Surrey PCT until late 2006 (i.e. until the formation of the Surrey mega-PCT, a move his wife opposed, BTW).
While in that position, Dr Graham Henderson was subject to the NHS Code of Conduct. I draw your attention to the following extract from that code:
NHS Code of Conduct – Declaration of Interests
It is a requirement that chairs and all board directors should declare any conflict of interest that arises in the course of conducting NHS business. All NHS organisations maintain a register of member’s interests to avoid any danger of board directors being influenced, or appearing to be influenced, by their private interests in the exercise of their public duties. All board members are therefore expected to declare any personal or business interest which may influence, or may be perceived to influence, their judgement. This should include, as a minimum, personal direct and indirect financial interests, and should normally also include such interests of close family members. Indirect financial interests arise from connections with bodies which have a direct financial interest, or from being a business partner of, or being employed by, a person with such an interest.
So if Dr Graham Henderson was employed in any way that would influence, or may be perceived to influence, his judgement, he should have declared it.
I now draw your attention to this entry from the East Surrey PCT Register of Members’ Interests from July 2006:
Graham Henderson, Director of Public Health:
Wife is Member of Parliament for Guildford
And now, finally, I draw your attention to this extract from an article about Anne Milton’s expenses:
The Tory shadow minister for health has hired spouse Graham Henderson in each of her first two years in Westminster. Between 2005 and 2006, he earned £6,500 from Ms Milton’s expenses as a researcher while the former nurse was setting up her office. – (Surrey Ad – February 8, 2008)
Oh dear.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Dr Graham Henderson should have declared that period of employment, yes?
Dr Henderson may not be in a position where he can be held accountable for this oversight, but (as David Cameron and Anne Milton have made clear) the Conway matter and its fallout is an issue of public trust… and this does not look good.
3. Instead of hiring an experienced libel lawyer, Staines used the services of Donal Blaney, a tax lawyer and – co-incidentally – a right-wingblogger with numerous personal, political and/or personal connections to many of the people referenced under #5
4. The correspondence from Blaney threatening litigation and big-heartedly promising not to chase me for damages (just ‘costs’) if I capitulated immediately was challenged, and the last I heard, Blaney was awaiting instructions from his client. That was almost 3 weeks ago (on the 31st of January).
5. I haven’t heard a thing back from either Paul Staines or Donal Blaney since. I have, however, been the subject of several personal attacks at the hands of other right-wing bloggers. Lowlife highlights can be seen here and here, with a full run-down here.
6. The only right-wing blogger who sought to take on the issue itself (while engaging in personal attacks, natch) was Praguetory, who failed to make his case.
7. More recently, I’ve been in touch with Jag Singh, the Chief Information Officer of MessageSpace, who limited his official response to: “We do not comment on rumours or speculation.”
8. As you no doubt already suspect, there was also some unofficial communication (from a number of parties tied to MessageSpace). It appealed to my better nature, making mention of those employees and bloggers who rely on MessageSpace for income.
9. On the 8th of February – almost 2 weeks ago – I sent an email to Jag Singh and Paul Staines, inviting them to review – prior to publication – an article written in response to Staines hiding behind MessageSpace and its employees/users whilst trying to keep this issue as far away from MessageSpace as possible. On paper, Staines appears to be an orbital figure at MessageSpace, but I have paperwork myself that would suggest otherwise. However, to make my case and reveal the illusion of Staines’ distance from that organisation, I would have to release a cat that would never again be allowed to return to the bag. Paul Staines did not even bother to acknowledge receipt of that email.
10. I don’t want to mess with MessageSpace any more than I have to, but I feel they are forcing my hand, especially with the threat of litigation still hanging in the air.
Paul Staines has – via the public threat of litigation – accused me of lying… and I doubt very much if he is going to withdraw the threat as publicly as he made it.
I’m not going to stand for that, but there is a way to resolve the issue without undue damage to MessageSpace and those who rely on it (in whole or in part) for income.
Paul Staines has 24 hours to either pursue litigation in earnest or forfeit.
If he says sweet bugger-all in the next 24 hours, then we’ll all know that it’s over.
Paul won’t be compelled to publish the same kind of apology on his weblog that his lawyer demanded of me, and will be able to continue – in some quarters – to keep playing Mr Tough Guy.
[If you’re at all concerned that Paul Staines won’t see this message (he claims not to read my website) then feel free to forward a copy to guido.fawkes@order-order.com and/or paul.staines@messagespace.co.uk]
Given what Anne Milton published on her website the day before the article referenced above appeared in our local newspaper, I considered it quite reasonable to expect some answers…. but it wasn’t until after I got in touch with David Cameron that I received the following single answer to all five of the questions submitted:
“I believed it was vital to answer all media enquiries because clarity and openness is crucial to trust and confidence in the democratic process.” – Anne Milton
This exact same answer was sent to ‘Scotch’ (a fellow constituent who contributes to Bloggerheads via comments) who had independently submitted some questions of his own.
So what I’m going to do today is take that answer and see how (or indeed if) it delivers against each question that I submitted….
[Psst! One thing to keep in mind throughout is that Anne Milton has stated that Dr Graham Henderson is no longer an employee, but a volunteer. She told the Surrey Advertiser that; “In the last year, my husband has worked for me and he has not been paid for it.” So this answer might not even relate to any question(s) relating to Dr Graham Henderson, as it could be interpreted as referring to “the staff I employ” (i.e. currently) as opposed to “the staff I have employed” (i.e. historically). Nevertheless, we shall try to press on in the face of this uncertainty and – in good faith – assume that Anne Milton is consistent on this issue. The phrase “the staff I employ” will be taken as an indication of Anne Milton’s past and present stance on employment.]
Q1. Where did Dr Graham Henderson carry out this work you describe? In your parliamentary office, your constituency office, from home…?
A: “I would like to assure you that all the staff I employ work extremely hard to ensure that I give my constituents the best service possible.”
If the question were in any way loaded, it would have presented a fourth possible option; during the tax year for 2005-2006, Dr Graham Henderson was Director of Public Health for the East Surrey PCT, but I did not ask if he did work for his wife’s office from his office.
This is a fair and straightforward question that presents likely options that I would regard to be fair, especially given that Anne Milton clearly stated that she did not even have an office for her first six weeks as MP.
Regardless of the inclusion of these or other options, I asked specifically where the described work by her husband was conducted, and Anne Milton’s answer does not answer this question.
Why?
Q2. What evidence can you show your constituents of the work you claim was done by Dr Graham Henderson?
A: “I would like to assure you that all the staff I employ work extremely hard to ensure that I give my constituents the best service possible.”
Here, we can be as generous as possible regarding Anne Milton’s assurance, and even take it as a given that all work done by Dr Graham Henderson offered constituents “the best service possible”… but I asked what evidence Anne Milton could show of this service to those same constituents, and Anne Milton’s answer does not answer this question.
Why?
Q3. Was the work you claim was done by Dr Graham Henderson directly connected to the Save the Royal Surrey campaign, and – if so – what proof can you show of this?
A: “I would like to assure you that all the staff I employ work extremely hard to ensure that I give my constituents the best service possible.”
Anne Milton’s past statements would appear to associate some of the work done by her husband to the very popular Save the Royal Surrey campaign. I have asked if he worked on that campaign specifically (and what proof she might be able to show us if this is so), but Anne Milton’s answer does not answer this question.
Why?
Q4. You have said that your husband has done some work in the past year for which he has not been paid. What reassurance can you provide that he won’t be paid retrospectively?
A: “I would like to assure you that all the staff I employ work extremely hard to ensure that I give my constituents the best service possible.”
Again, a fair question. Anne Milton stated in an earlier article that she had in the past paid her husband retrospectively for work he had done. She is then quoted in the article referenced above that – in the current tax year – he had done some work that he had not been paid for. My mind added the word ‘yet’ but – to be fair – I asked for clarification.
Also, this is the only question that actually seeks assurance (as opposed to an answer based on facts/evidence) but Anne’s assurance does not rule out retrospective payment, not even for the current tax year alone.
Why?
Q5. Have any other members of your family been employed in this or any other way by your office?
A: “I would like to assure you that all the staff I employ work extremely hard to ensure that I give my constituents the best service possible.”
Yes, and any number of those staff members (past or present) could be members of Anne Milton’s family.
Anne Milton’s answer does not answer this question.
Why?
David Cameron says I’m right to demand more transparency and openness:
“I believe the public are right to demand more transparency and openness when it comes to MPs staff, pay, allowances and expenses…” – David Cameron
This single answer from Anne Milton does not offer transparency or openness. In fact, it’s downright evasive.
Anne Milton says it’s important (and urgent) that she and other MPs work to regain public trust via the use of clarity and openness:
“I believed it was vital to answer all media enquiries because clarity and openness is crucial to trust and confidence in the democratic process… We must regain public trust in not only MPs but in all politicians and if we are to safeguard our democracy, the urgency for this cannot be underestimated.” – Anne Milton
This single answer from Anne Milton does not offer clarity or openness. In fact, it’s so vague an answer (and it took so long to get it) that I’m beginning to think she didn’t really mean any of the above.
In fact, the longer it takes me to get answers to my questions, the further my trust and confidence in Anne Milton – and the democratic process – will be undermined.
David Cameron says I deserve to ask questions. Anne Milton says I deserve answers.
So where are my answers, and why does it seem so very, very hard just to get my MP to acknowledge my questions?
Posted inAnne Milton|Comments Off on Anne Milton: where are my answers?
