Tea with a Prime Minister? Happy Days

It’s not a fake hair colour, Folks. Carole has dyed her hair in Bai Lin Tea years before she made herself a guru.

The photo may have come from centuries past but it is preferable to Mrs Prime Minister of the time. Wonder what ever happened to the fake slimming products and the scam promotion team? Still alive in Lytham St Annes and Blackpool?

Amplify’d from www.thesun.co.uk

IT was 1994 and Tony had just delivered his first electrifying speech as Labour leader to the party conference in Blackpool.

Exposed … teen Carole Caplin

“WHERE is she?” Alastair’s voice boomed down the corridor. “Carole,” he bellowed. “Where the f*** is she!” She emerged from the bathroom.

“I thought I told you to stay away from the limelight. But, oh no, you knew better and now our beautiful day has been ruined.”

He was literally spitting.

“What do you mean?” Carole said, looking aghast. “What I mean is that you’re a topless model!” I just sat there and froze.

“I’m not a topless model,” Carole said. “Yes, you are! And what’s more The Sun has pictures of you, and tomorrow no doubt the whole world will have the benefit of seeing your ti*s,” he said.

Slowly the story emerged. Several years before, when Carole was in the pop video business, a boyfriend had taken the pictures. She was 18. They were never published but they would be now. Read more at www.thesun.co.uk

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1gbfu

A NO to Europe until you read all

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat)

The Government have today decided not to opt in to the European Commission‘s proposed regulation creating a European account preservation order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.
The aim of the Commission’s proposal is to establish a self-standing European procedure for a protective measure to freeze the bank accounts of debtors in cross-border cases. The Government welcome the Commission’s objective. It supports measures which make it easier for both businesses and citizens to resolve disputes and enforce judgments across borders. Many of those who responded to the Government’s recent consultation on this proposal also welcomed its aims and agreed with the Commission that a procedure which made it easier for claimants to take protective measures in cross-border cases would be useful to both individuals and businesses in helping them to recover debts.
However the consultation also revealed a number of significant problems, in particular a widespread concern that there was a lack of adequate safeguards for defendants. Issues highlighted included that the threshold for obtaining an order was too low, that there is no requirement for the claimant to provide any security to compensate a defendant for losses suffered from the wrongful grant of an order, and that there should be more discretion for courts when deciding whether to issue an order or the amount for which it should be granted.
Given the apparent ease with which an order might be obtained fears were expressed about the possible dangers posed to companies which were in the process of restructuring or rescue where the freezing of a bank account could undermine the rescue and make insolvency more likely.
Concerns were also raised about the burdens the proposal is likely to place on both the Government and banks, in particular through the provisions of access to information on bank accounts.
Although the Government have decided that the UK should not opt in to the proposal now, they intend to participate fully in the negotiations with the hope that sufficient changes will be made to enable a post-adoption opt-in.

At a time when the recovery system in the UK is so flawed, Lord McNally appears to be taking more notice of what can occur over the Channel than the obscenity of legislation regarding debt recovery in the UK.  Imagine for a moment that the legislation under review was pure UK law and you may appreciate the angst in this statement, but transpose our knowledge of recent cases in UK law as it reveals a plethora of evidence where nothing is done to leash the hound-dogs of the recovery industry, that perennial question has to be re-asked,  Who is Britain’s Parliament working for?