Anna Raccoon – taken at face value?

There has in the last few days been the most despicable and revolting blog post that I have read in a long time.

I am ashamed, not for who I am or what I believe in, but for the disgusting display of pack animals on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations by Susanne Nundy (Anna Raccoon), especially from those who claim to be libertarian.

I am disappointed to the point of being disgusted. Disgusted that so very few indicated that every story has two sides, and that not one single person said the words ‘prove it’, or ‘where is the evidence’, and it says more about the hive mentality of the audience than the delusions of the writer.

Susanne Nundy, aka Anna Raccoon has decided to air some of her dirty washing in public, yet when we delve deeper into her past and her possible motives, it creates a very different view to her latest story line, because Susanne Nundy has been acting to destabilise the Libertarian Party since its inception, creating problems for the Leadership of the party at every opportunity.

But before we get too far into the Nundy past, let me refute completely her version of events with regards to myself and the actions of Rohan Kapur.

The very first I had heard of this ‘incident’ was when I received a late night telephone call at 11pm on the day that Rohen had left her home. She recalled that she had been in touch by email with Rohan over a period of time, that online conversations led on to the matter of property, that Rohan was looking to buy such a property and that she had a second property that she had for sale. As such she had invited him to France to look at it, and as he had not booked any accommodation for his visit decided to put him up at home for the 2 days he was to be there.

She then explained the ‘events’ of the food eating, the photo’s and the computer use and asked of me ‘what are you going to do about it’.

My response was that if true, such allegations were somewhat serious, but what would she like me to do about it, because as far as I was concerned this was a private matter and nothing to do with the party and I didn’t understand why she would call me over his behaviour.

At this point she then demanded, and I mean demanded, that because Rohen was a Libertarian PPC it was my business, that he was unsuitable as a candidate, that I should discuss this with Andrew (who apart from being Chairman at that time was also acting as the candidate selection officer) and if necessary call a special NCC meeting to have Rohen deselected. She also demanded a full and unreserved apology from Rohen Kapur, because her husband was ready to start legal proceedings unless LPUK did something about him.

It was at this point that she advised me of Rohen’s mental health problems, told me that she had seen his medical record and actually read back to me a list of conditions that were in that file, along with a series of matters that were before the GMC. (that is the first time that my alarm bells began to ring with regards to Susanne Nundy). When asked how she had access to these files, she indicated that some former colleagues had advised her of Rohan’s unsuitability… which if she had known beforehand… would never have invited him to France… Yet she had this information to hand to read to me on the day he left…

Her apparent ability to gain access to private and confidential documentation is something that I will come back to later in this post.

What she didn’t know, and I didn’t tell her was that Rohan had actually approached me 2 months earlier, had advised of his ongoing legal problems with the GMC and had voluntarily agreed to be deselected.

The following day I did speak with Andrew about this, who in turn called Susanne Nundy. I also called Rohan, repeated the allegations, many of which he absolutely denied (and still does), and suggested that he should produce a full apology in order to end this matter.

At no time was her telephone call remarked to be ‘in confidence’. She wanted action and wanted it NOW. As a result there was a special NCC meeting, the outcome being that Rohan Kapur was suspended from the party, a decision I have to say I now regret.

With hindsight I should have stuck to my original line of ‘nothing to do with the party’, and I put this down to set-up #1. As with her post about Andrew Withers, there was no evidence, only her allegations and again she manages to conflate what are private matters with party business.

I would call this a set-up simply because Susanne Nundy has a history. Wherever there is a story of abuse by officials, especially when it relates to children or paedophilia, up pops a swathe of names including Anna Raccoon, Susanne Nundy or under her maiden name Susanne Cameron-Blackie , all ready to ‘assist’, yet strangely the outcome is never the one that those originally abused, or their campaigners envisaged. More often than not they are ripped apart, labelled as nutters and thrown to the pack in the manner we saw with her post about Andrew Withers yesterday. Its almost as if she is a professional Trojan Horse.

Susanne’s own career in the Lord Chancellor’s department is not necessarily what you imagine it was. Whilst she continually presents herself as a lawyer, she can call herself a lawyer only insomuch as she has a law degree, but I can find no records that she ever qualified as a solicitor or barrister and was never called to the bar. (if I am wrong perhaps she has some physical evidence to the contrary, such as certificates or photos that can be published).

No, Susanne Nundy was a ‘Lord Chancellor’s visitor’, as such she was little more than a glorified social worker, but with special powers.

The Lord Chancellor can appoint a Court of Protection visitor to a panel of special visitors or a panel of general visitors. These visitors replace the current Lord Chancellor’s visitors under Section 102 of the Mental Health Act 1983. To be eligible for appointment as a special visitor a person must be a registered medical practitioner or appear to the Lord Chancellor to have other suitable training or special knowledge. However, a general visitor does not need to have any particular medical qualifications.

Visitors have the power to carry out visits and produce reports as directed by the court or the public guardian. They have the power to examine and take copies of documents or records held by authorities that relate to the protected person, and also have the power to interview the protected person in private. Special visitors also have the powers to carry out medical examinations if necessary. The Code of Practice indicates that visitors have a role to play in investigating possible abuse and also to check on the general well-being of a person who lacks capacity.(source)

A lot of power, especially if the person concerned is slightly unstable (as per the Mental Health Act).

Susanne claims to have moved to France in 2005, either 5 years or 2 years after having left the Lord Chancellors office (depending on which of her versions you read), yet here is her LinkedIn profile showing her as a Lord Chancellors visitor (DCA) located in erm… Aquitaine, France. (It is worth noting that the DCA was only added after the Tony Blair shake-up of that department, with the Dept of Constitutional Affairs added to it in 2005), and it is my understanding that her career with the Lord Chancellors office came to an end when she put in a claim under the Mental Health Act for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and walked away with a cool £250,000 of taxpayers money in compensation (her original claim was reported to be £500,000).

That her investments in property with that compensation money have gone awry, leaving her in a parlous financial state must give cause to consider that doing ‘favours’ for the department is a financial motive worth considering.

That Andrew Withers is winning his battles where they should be won, in court, would not stop the more unscrupulous from using smear campaigns to discredit where the attempted legal avenues have been discovered to be littered with lies, perjury, forgeries and malfeasance.

It was after discovering these elements of her past that I perhaps wondered if she was still doing ‘favours’ for old colleagues. Consider that Rohan Kapur was also winning or at least holding his own in his legal battles with the GMC, how better to dispose of a thorn in their side than a public discrediting of him. Also take her post on the Hollie Greg campaign which was also beginning to gain traction, another public shredding from Anna Raccoon.

Earlier I referred to her access to private and confidential documentation, because in each case she seems to have obtained or at least had sight of private or confidential documentation that is certainly not in the public domain, and in the case of Hollie Greg documentation that was sealed, not even available to the family. Just how does Susanne Nundy gain access to such confidential documentation unless she still works for government, or it is being fed to her.

As others have said “let’s face it, there’s no more cruel a kick than the kick of a Trojan Horse”.

Never forget, that there are always multiple levels to politics. What the public see and read in the press and media is a very sanitised end presentation, what goes on in the background and in dark corners is what some of us have been dealing with and exposing every day for many years. We have always been aware that there would be attempts to destabilise the Libertarian Party, to stop it forming into a coherent political force in the same way using similar methods that were tried on UKIP in its early days, and the biggest beneficiary to that destabilisation would be the DCA as I have written about in the past.

Could Anna Raccoon really be a trojan horse for the DCA and other government departments? Because it’s certainly beginning to look like it from where I sit.

But please, all this information is in the public domain, so take your own time to look it up to satisfy yourselves that this is real, and to give you some further insight, here are some observations on the contradictions that are Anna Raccoon, from a black ops watcher, Blackwatch from September last year.

Susanne Nundy is just as baffling a proposition. For those unfamiliar with the story, Susanne Nundy is the name used by British Libertarian blogger, Anna Raccoon, more popularly known for her posts about the Madeleine McCann and Hollie Greig stories and a favourite of the Nbrado-run, Chaos Raptors website (who seem to have blocked my IP this week, from what I can gather).

Nundy and Greg Watkins are alleged to have co-managed a disinformation campaign around the Hollie Greig case by an equally dubious set of Greig supporters (the kind that give Andrew Marr all the amunition he needs to make sweeping generalisations)

Why did ‘Susanne Nundy’ or whoever she is – use the email address courtofprotection.co.uk?

The Court of Protection as it exists now, was set up by Jack Straw and New Labour in 2005 (created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005). In the Inexorable choices‘ post Nundy says she was in office in 2003 (just as Blair ditched the office of Lord Chancellor) and yet in an email she sent me yesterday, Raccoon insists she had resigned the office in 2000 (which I’m happy to forward to anyone who requests it). But even Chris Carter, her replacement in 2004, insists she was working at this time.

Interestingly the email address alleged to have ‘outed’ Anna Raccoon (and I use the term cautiously) was left on a website for Old Scholars at St Christopher’s School in Letchworth, Hertfordshire – an old and respected boarding school set up by Beatrice Ensor – a close friend of Fabian Socialist and Freemason, Annie Besant and sponsored by Helena Blavtasky’s Theosophical Society – a weird and slightly extreme religious group influenced by new age and Aryan mysticism (imagine David Icke with some serious political backers and a decent night’s sleep).

But all this sounds a bit too good to be true in my opinion: leaving a breadcrumb trail to some weird theosophical preparatory school with links to Freemasons and Fabian Socialism? Throw in a few references to the Lord Chancellor and working for the Court of Protection? No, something just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s all too neat. Like my Christmasses have all come early. Things like this don’t just fall into your lap so easily, do they?

On the otherhand, its seems unlikely that the email address was left deliberately (as breadcrumbs) as it appears as far back in the wayback records as January 2004 so she must have been using it around the time.

Why Nundy was using an email address that alluded to a governmental role but which clearly hadn’t been registered through any formal government department remains unclear (the domain name doesn’t have the expected TLD .gov.uk - like that of the Supreme Court, for instance).

A parking page for the courtofprotection.co.uk website from March 2003 suggests the original courtofprotection.co.uk site was set up and maintained in France.

The domain makes one appearance in 2003 and then disappears – so make what you will of the credibility of the site ro her claims.

I’m also finding it difficult to reconcile Susanne Nundy’s celebrated ‘Libertarian’ ideals with the idea of her working with such a crudely draconian, insidious and cheerfully Orwellian institution as the Court of Protection. I’ve seen her attempts to address this fairly awkward little paradox in her blog. She says it wasn’t an invention of ‘Nu Labour’ and Jack Straw – but that’s just being pedantic.

It had existed in one form or another for years, but New Labour extended its powers and its reach exponentially in 2005 (whilst simultaneously incapacitating the power of carers and relatives). It was rebranded, relaunched. According to a Daily Telegraph report, the Court of Protection’s expansion had been controversial’ not only for its extensive powers but also for the fact that almost all of its hearings take place in private‘.

My guess, is that like Shrimpton and Bennett the character going by the name of Nundy doesn’t know whether she’s extremely right or extremely left. However, I suppose the distribution of any ideal can be skewed and uneven on occasion. Just look at the blogs she claims to read – they don’t get more skewed than that. If I was being pedantic (now heaven forbid) I’d say the miscellaneous nature of it made it look more like a webring or a linkfarm of sorts.

But what better way to manage opinion than by managing both sides?

Could Susanne Nundy really be a protector of paedophile rings inside government institutions as is alleged by some of Hollie Greig’s supporters? Was the use of her LinkedIn profile, the fake court of protection email address & website in France a prelude to something more sinister? Further discrepancies are investigated by BW in the comments.

Not too impressed with this ‘Anna Raccoon’, I have to say. She was tripping herself up left right and centre in emails we exchanged yesterday. One minute she was saying she hadn’t placed her name and email address on the St Christopher’s Old Scholars page – that someone else had – (susanne.nundy@courtofprotection.co.uk) the next she was saying she had given permission afterall (after I’d pointed out that I’d been in touch with David Curzons who manages the Old Scholars page and he said old scholars MUST request it themselves).

She says in her ‘Intimidation and cooercion‘ post that “the e-mail address given is not and has never been a genuine e-mail address.”

But if it was not a genuine email address: how could St Christophers contact her using that address to add her to the list as she told me yesterday?

She also says she never used the courtofprotection.co.uk address after retiring in 2000 but the domain is there in the wayback archives in 2003 – under construction in France – where she lives.

Raccoon’s site is down for ‘maintenance’ at the moment so I can well imagine she is altering some of her posts as we speak in the event the Office of the Public Guardian start looking more closely at her claims.

Here’s what she says in her ‘Inexorable choices‘ post:

“I worked in the Lord Chancellor?s Office the last time Labour (under Tony Blair) made one of their knee jerk attempts at reforming the constitution to suit themselves. Blair got up one morning and ?abolished? the Lord Chancellor. Chaos ensued.” – nb: this was 2003-2005.And here’s what Ms Nundy says in an email to me yesterday:

“I most certainly was not working as a Visitor after 2000. I let the domain lapse. I have no idea who re-registered it. I didn?t move to France until 2005 so the fact that it was someone in France has no suspicious connections with me.”And again, in a previous email:

“Mrs Nundy ceased to use the courtofprotection.co.uk address in 2000 when she retired from work. What has happened to it since then is of no interest to me, nor relevance.”Does she always talk about herself in the third person? Here’s another of Ms Nundy’s ‘out of body experiences’ (or travels in the third person narrative) – a rather flattering report she did about ‘the blogger’ Anna Raccoon. Herself by any other name.

She’s not lying exactly. She’s not telling the truth exactly. In one breath she says she retired in 2000 – and in another breath says she was working in the Lord Chancellor’s Office in 2003. That she’s been involved in this work seems certain in many respects but she seems to have lied about all the timings. Why? And how does one balance her propensity for lying with her devotion as a Quaker (anyone remember the ‘testimony of integrity’ and such like)?

Has Raccoon just been impersonating Ms Nundy? Sounds dumb, but who knows, given the lies thus far.

I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions.

.

UPDATE 19/4/11

After having received several comments purporting to be from ‘different commenters’ using the same IP address, the comments on this post are now closed.

The IP and user information relating to those comments will be passed to the police.

About these ads

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Anna Raccoon – taken at face value?

  1. You know the first day there we had lunch and we had a lovely long discussion about Susanne telling me about various entities on the old Anorak site, coming in as different people and arguing with themselves, I had no idea that she was projecting herself and seeing what my reaction was. My antennae started to twitch at that point.

  2. Akvavitix says:

    Reads like a vindictive spiteful smearpost with little or no content to refute the claims made on Anna Racoon’s site. Pathetic. Blog removed from Google Reader I am afraid.

  3. Paul Byrne says:

    I agree with you in that there is a need for evidence and that APW is innocent until proven guilty, but I fail to understand why you do not offer the same courtesy to Anna. Surely any public comments made on an on-going party investigation will prejudice the matter especially ad hominem attacks which show little relevance to the accusations that have been made. If the truth is on Andrew’s side then there is no need for school yard taunts and conspiracy theories.

    • IanPJ says:

      PB.
      The events of 2 years ago are not under investigation by the NCC. However it was necessary for me to put the record straight as they were inaccurate as presented in the original post and also misrepresented myself. To explain that for over 18 months there has been a concern as to the reliability of the accuser is no taunt.

      Consider this, why would the events of 2 years ago be included in her accusations against Andrew if it were not to paint a wider and inaccurate picture for the audience. Remember that I have been acting as press agent for him in his legal battle with BIS.

  4. If she’s so dodgy, then why has her blog been used until very recently as a mouthpiece?

    • IanPJ says:

      TT, That is a question you will need to put to Andrew not me.

      I have not had any involvement with the inner workings or decisions of the party since I resigned in Sept 09, only rejoining as a member earlier this year.

  5. Nic Coome says:

    Ian

    I will make one comment on your blog, and one only. You say that you are disgusted that “not one single person said the words ‘prove it’, or ‘where is the evidence’, and it says more about the hive mentality of the audience than the delusions of the writer.”

    Please be under no illusion that I, as Party Chairman, am not avoiding asking for proof or evidence. It’s just that I don’t personally think that the party is best served by conducting this sort of business in public. Also, of course, we are only interested in matters which concern the party; I’m aware that some of the allegations made have been about personal matters about which we have no interest. I’m very clear about what needs to be done; I’m also very clear that the blogosphere is not the most appropriate place in which to do it.

    In the fullness of time, everything that can be made public will be – we are, after all libertarians; in the meantime, can I please caution patience.

    Nic Coome
    Party Chairman

  6. Nic Coome says:

    I read what I just posted and it contains a horrible typo, faux pas or call it what you will.

    For any legal eagles who may be looking in, my sentence “Please be under no illusion that I, as Party Chairman, am not avoiding asking for proof or evidence” contains a double negative which is not intended.

    I apologise for that.

  7. Kinderling says:

    She’s not lying exactly. She’s not telling the truth exactly.

    Classic Libertarian.

  8. Nic,

    hope it’s not a Freudian slip!

Comments are closed.