In recent weeks I’ve been involved in a dispute over the terms of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement (AST). I won’t get into the details, but the upshot is that these things are not really contracts whereby the reasonable pre-contractual expectations of the tenant translate into implied terms.
Apparently, a tenant must insist on implied terms being enshrined explicitly; all very well, but what sort of landlord is going to allow that to happen? An AST is for the purposes of making sure that the landlord can kick the tenant out when he wants to, and to make sure that the tenant pays rent for at least 6 months. If you take a look at a standard one, there are pages and pages of conditions by which the tenant has to comply, and a few paragraphs that stipulate the landlord’s obligations. One of these is to do repairs, and another is to allow the tenant to live undisturbed at the premises. Both of these are requirements in legislation and law outside of the agreement in any case. Any other rights pertaining to him that the tenant thinks are quite obviously implied in the terms, by property legislation, do not actually exist.
Most private tenants have ASTs these days, which is mighty convenient for the increasingly corporate buy-to-let conglomerates with their real estate agent partners/sub-divisions who seem to be stitching up the private rental market. And the reader will be interested to note that ASTs are a relatively new kind of lease that are about as old as our current corporate-government. I’m not saying that there has ever been a time when civil rights have ever been properly reflected in a lease – I don’t know this; what I am saying is that this amounts to another case of what one sees over again in this country: the rich and powerful are protected in legislation more than the poor and humble are protected in law. The reality underneath the illusion in the UK is that the British are not free; they are called subjects after all (and some idiots feel proud about it). The Establishment, empowered by the money of its corporate members (with their vested interests), writes legislation to overrule law, and then uses its apparatus of state to enforce it. It is a cartel of gangsters.
Here is another example. It seems that the woman Middleton has been at it again. Being pictured on a beach at Mustique, this time the “Duchess of See-thru-nightee” at least resisted her evident natural predilection for getting her knorks out.
The relatively harmless (by modern standards) image of her in a bikini was all too much for St James’ Palace, however, who said that the emergence of photos of her and William strolling in the sand was “a clear breach of the couple’s right to privacy.”
Once again it seems that the woman can appear in a public place with her flesh exposed, and the slaves are not supposed to notice. The editor of the Australian magazine Woman’s Day, Fiona Connolly, could not agree. She published the images, and had this to say about it: “This is not a hard decision? Kate’s on a public beach, [and] there are other holiday-makers there”.
In Britain, the supposed free-press has been rather less independent. The corporate-media apparently instantly decided to self-censor, and not publish the images. The grovelling submission to the whim of the dictators who live in royal palaces in London reached a pathetic height in the MailOnline where although they printed the front cover of the infamous Italian Chi magazine, they placed a black-out over the whole frame containing the image (rather than place straps in strategic places inside the image so that Middleton could still be identified). In fact, it was rather reminiscent of how they used to put brown paper bags over the magazines on the top shelves in your local newsagent when you were a kid.
Then there was Eamonn Holmes, who had to issue an apology because ITV made a mistake and showed the un-redacted Chi cover: “This was a regrettable error and the programme apologises unreservedly to the Duke and Duchess”, snivelled Holmes.
Of course, this is all very astonishing. The privacy of the “Duke and Duchess of Gots-to-get-nayked” cannot be breached if they go out into the public domain where people have eyes to see them. On the other hand, when the government spies of the little man when he is using the internet to make private transactions, then right there is a real breach of privacy. Where are the unreserved apologies from the State about the routine privacy violations that they subject upon the little people? Nowhere, of course. It’s never a breach of our privacy because the associated legislation that has empowered the State always overrides our rights. If you keep voting for gangsters, then this is the natural outcome.
What this is really all about is that the Establishment has a problem in that Kate Middleton, the future Queen of a modernised and trendee Monarchy, has achieved a reputation for being a) shiftless (her only ambition having been to marry royalty), and b) naked (this website is very illuminating). These are not good attributes to have if a Queen is supposed to project an image of industriousness and probity so as to inspire awe and worship in stupid people (I should call them suggestable, or something, and pity them for their weakness, but there are limits to one’s patience). Kate Middleton has sort of gone beyond the capability of the Establishment’s power to shape perception though. There is only so much that can be done so as to help the stupid people understand Middleton like the Establishment wants them to understand her. What remains is only good old fashioned censorship.
Secondly, while the lowly people’s prospects are getting bashed by deliberate vandalism of the economy by the same Establishment, we are not supposed to see the high-living at our expense of Kate Middleton and “Prince Not-bright-enough-for-Art-History” (which is not a sleight upon a wonderful discipline in which there is much to gain if you are bright).
So, what you are seeing here in this episode is a small hint of the corruption of the Establishment. They do things that they don’t want us to see in case it makes us upset. When we do see the offence, and they can’t manage to tell us that we aren’t actually seeing what we think we are seeing, then they just block it from our view, and cover-up. They then cite legislation, or some regulation upon the media, and tell us that we don’t have any right to see how we are being abused. Hence, they continue to feed upon us, protected as they are by the statutes that they wrote to protect themselves.
Well, we have the law through possession of God-given rights. It’s superior to their legislation. The only reason that they continue to get away with their fraud is because we don’t get en masse into the arena and insist upon our rights (it would also help not to vote for criminals, and reject the corporate-media to boot). It doesn’t matter if we lose our fight; all that matters is that we have challenged them, and we will continue to challenge them, so that finally, by the weight of our numbers and our efforts, we can overwhelm them. If we do that, we are free in the process, and we will be free at the end.