Big Bertha Thing tidings

Big Bertha Thing mathematics
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/maths.html
Access page to 600K ZIP file
Astrophysics net ring access site
Newsgroup Reviews including sci.physics.particle

Postings potentially suitable for fowarding to;-
1.SRF Classical Mathematics
2.SRF Classical Astronomy

13th March 2003 sci.math and sci.astro newsfeeds dropped by university.
Onenet UK Astronomy & Space conference feed dropped by university.
OUSA Research conference still up, by invitation only. (empty)
UK politics internal conference setup next to
Net Access Policy (empty bar 3),
which was last target of the book-burners.
Politics makes poor science.

Big Bertha Thing ISP

23rd June 2000
Finance Director,
Ision Internet Plc.,
UK
Dear Sir,
Further to your letter of the 21st June 2000, regarding payment
of 56.36 pounds sterling, for 77 days ISP charges.

My last payment of 14.09, as detailed in your letter,
covered the three dates as follows;-
1st March 2000
2nd March 2000
13th March 2000

These were the only days of the previous 107 days,
when my site was not disabled, in more ways than one
and my mailbox locked up from me. Apparently the only person,
who can enable site access and password reset,
is your accounts manager. He can only be contacted
via national telephone lines, complete with revolving door
and canned musak.

You want a further payment of 56.36, to bring the charges
up to 23.48 per day. (At a rate of 8570.20 pounds sterling per annum.)
Please find enclosed herewith my cheque for 56.36
and a copy of my previous letter to you,
dated 12th June 2000. (recorded delivery)



In view of the extraordinary nature of these charges,
I would ask you to confirm just three things;-
1.That you have received payment by issueing a reciept. (Received)
2.That you will close my account as from todays date. (Closed 3rd July)
3.That there will be no further charges made against this account.

In mitigation of the conduct of your staff, it would appear
that they had some difficulty with my Usenet newsgroup postings,
as detailed on my new site.
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/news.html

I trust that this will be in order and will be looking forward
to the favour of your reply.
Thank you,
Tony Lance



From: Tony Lance
Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem
Subject: Big Bertha Thing mayor
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:06:57 +0000


Big Bertha Thing mayor

4th October 2000
ex-GLC LPFA/DETR pension rights abuse case
Mr.Ken Livingstone
Mayor of Greater London
Dear Sir,
Local Government Pension Scheme Appeal
In their letter of 12th May 2000, from Mr.K.A.Bloomfied, the DETR upheld
my appeal. I would be gratefull for the opportunity to summarize
subsequent events.

I had applied for early retirement on medical grounds, to the London
pension Fund Authority. My last appeal was to the DETR. They upheld my
appeal and instructed LPFA to grant me an independant medical review.
The grounds were that the LPFA Medical Advisor was under qualified and not
independant enough. Their decision was final and they would not discuss
the matter further. Any further appeal would be to the Ombudsman.

The LPfA Director claims that the LPFA Medical Advisor is qualified and
shows a letter discussing the qualification. He claims that due to this,
the instruction is void and he proposes to take no further action.

DETR was the statutory supervisory body for the LPFA.
LPFA is the statutory successor authority to the Greater London Council.
The Ombudsman has no authority to enforce his judgement on the LPFA.

Under the GLC, the final appeal was to a committee of members of the
council. Upon abolition by statutory transfer, the final appeal was to
be to the Secretary of State for DETR; Mr.John Prescott MP.

Since July 2000 the LPFA is directly accountable to Mr.Ken Lingstone.
Would you please sort out this problem for me. I enclose below some
of my correspondence with the DETR and DHSS, as background.

Thanking you in anticipation of your kind attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Lance


Big Bertha Thing minister

Contact Mr. Phil Goodwin
Director of Operations
London Pensions Fund Authority
8th February 2000
For the Attention of Mr. John Prescott,
Government Minister,
Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
Local Government Pensions Division,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
Dear Mr. Prescott,
Local Government Pension Scheme (LPGS)

I claim my right of appeal to you, as Secretary of State. This was notified
to me by Mr. Goodwin, the Director of Operations of the London Pensions
Fund Authority, in his letter of 5th January 2000, which is enclosed. The
appeal is against the decision not to allow me an early retirement on
medical grounds.

Both the officers, who have dealt with my appeal, have made comments
which are prejudicial. My doctor has said that in his view, I will never
work again. Their view was that the medical grounds are insufficient and
that my background notes to the case are immaterial, sight unseen.

Given that I have the right to attach these notes to the medical
report of my doctor, to maintain that they are immaterial sight unseen,
negates my right. Since my right is statutary, granted by the mother
of parliaments, it should stand and the notes be deemed material evidence.

Please find enclosed copies of my letters to the LPFA dated 25th October 1999
and 2nd December 1999. These together with my letter of 29th April 1999 to
DHSS provide a summary of the case, which will let you decide whether to
proceed further.

The two prejudical comments are given below.

Extract from letter dated 8th November 1999.
From LPFA doctor to LPFA Mr.Scott. Quote
I regret that the enclosures with your letter were not complete, I only
received the first page of Mr Lance's letter of appeal, but none the less,
having reviewed the medical evidence which I have received in this case,
I do not wish to amend or add to my medical report dated 14th October 1999.
Unquote

Extract from letter dated 13th December 1999.
From director to LPFA doctor. Quote
In your letter of 8th November you refer to a "missing page"
from Mr Lance's letter as copied to you. This is now attached
and I shall be obliged if you are able to confirm that this
would have had no material bearing on your opinion.
Unquote

On the bi-focals, mentioned in my letter of 25th Octeber 1999 to LPFA.
It took me two years to find out, that they are not bi-focals. I said
I had trouble with the eye test and nobody believed me. I can get
a refund from the optician.

This brings me to another grounds for appeal. It is a catch 22 situation,
where they think that I am too sick to know, that I am sick enough to
claim early retirement. They are trying to do a "Monty Python Dead Parrot
Sketch" job on me, like the optician did.

You will probably remember how this goes.
Close enough quotation.
I want a refund, for this parrot you sold me?
What's wrong with it?
It's dead.
When did it die?
It was dead, when you sold it to me.
Was it on it's perch, when we sold it to you?
Yes.
Then it must have been alive. How did it stay on it's perch?
It was glued on.
Then how do you know it's dead?
It fell off. It's not even a parrot.
Of course it's a parrot, it's green isn't it?
It's painted green.
End of quotation.

On you being a minister of the crown. Your bill to turn a statute into
guidelines is a bit of a "dead parrot" job. Guidelines are based
on good faith and statutes are based on bad faith. The statute states
that local government authorities shall not "intentionally promote
homosexuality" nor "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended
family relationship." Anybody sitting down to teach schoolchildren
respect for unspeakable acts, as a form of family life, cannot be said
to be acting in good faith. It is to be put to a free vote of like
minded politicians; opticians to a man.

Thanking you in anticipation of your kind attention to this matter and
looking forward to the favour of your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Lance
ex-branch president
Boilermakers Trade Union(GMB)
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance
www.bertha.ndirect.co.uk (disabled)
CC. Internet Usenet newgroups sci.astro et al. (Without addresses, names)


Big Bertha Thing appeal

2nd December 1999
For Attention of Mr. Phillip Goodwin,
Director of Operations,
London Pensions Fund Authority,
Dear Mr. Goodwin,

Local Government Pension Scheme (LPGS)

Further to your letter of 25th November 1999 and our telephone
conversation yesterday, regarding my second appeal.

In your letter you mention that my reservations were conveyed to your doctor.
This was in fact, not the case. In his letter of 8th November 1999, to your
Mr.Scott, what he said is given in the extract below.

"I regret that the enclosures with your letter were not complete, I only
received the first page of Mr. Lance's letter of appeal, but none the less,
having reviewed the medical evidence which I have received in this case,
I do not wish to amend or add to my medical report dated 14th October 1999."

I would thank you for your assurance that my letter of appeal dated
25th October 1999 and my letter to DSS of 29th April 1999 would be taken
into account, in your current independant review of my second appeal,
following the rejection of my application.

I would confirm that there is no further medical evidence to come. There
are, however, two incidents, which may have some bearing. One DSS doctor
asked me why I have had no tests done. I replied that my doctor already
knew what it was. It was a pinched nerve in my back causing my legs to
be inflamed. Another DSS doctor went so far as to lie me down and
examine my legs, to see if they were inflamed. I was not told the
result, but passed my all work fitness test, as unfit for work.

I trust that this will be in order and look forward to the favour of your
reply.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Lance


Big Bertha Thing application

Contact: Tarek El-Din
25th October 1999
London Pension Fund Authority,
Dear Sir,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME.
Further to your letter of 18th October 1999, rejecting my application
for early retirement on medical grounds. I am writing to appeal against
your decision, on the following grounds;-
1. Question of Procedure.
2. Question of Fact.

Twice during the 21 day period to inspect the medical report, I called
at the surgery after 4.30 pm, to be told it was out of office hours, so not
available. The third time, I called at 10.30 am on 18th October 1999, to be
told that the 21 days had expired and the report had already been sent. It
was dated 29th September 1999, which by my reckoning was the 20th day since
it became available. This being said, there was no opportunity to attach
my notes. Hence the procedure had not been complied with.

The report itself, was the first time I had heard of the diagnosis of
sciatica, the three months duration or the infrequent attendance at
surgery. In view of this, I would ask you to bear with me, while I go
through the facts of the case.

On 3rd April 1996, I was told by my doctor, that the strong pain in
both legs was caused by a pinched nerve in my back, which caused my legs
to be inflamed.

I was prescribed 14 No. Voltarol Retard 100 mg tablets, for inflamation.
8 days later the pain stopped, so I still have 6 tablets left.

Since then and continuously for over three years, I have had three well
defined symptons as follows;-
1. I cannot do mental or physical work, for longer than 30 minutes per day.
2. I cannot stand still for longer than 10 minutes, without getting dizzyness
and palpatations.
3. I cannot sit still for an eye test for longer than 7 minutes, without
distress and my eyes going out of focus.

The latest symptom and one which causes me most concern, is that I cannot
read a brand new science fiction book by a favourite author. I recently
returned 12 such books to the library unread. They had been accumulated over
a period of months.

Background circumstances;-
1. 14th October 1990 redundant from job as senior computer programmer.
2. 1991 to 1994 successfully completed first four years towards Open
University degree in Mathematics degree course and awarded Dip.Math(Open)
3. 1995 withdrew from 12 hours per week course, due to family problems.
4. 1996 unable to complete even one homework of 6 hours per week course,
did not take exam and failed course.
5. 1996 fence repairs of 7 hours, actually took 3 weeks at 30 minutes per
day.
6. I have spent 6 years on the dole and 3 years on the sick.
7. MED4 long term sickess note for DSS, simply said general debility.
8. DSS medical exams coducted three times, all with mention of symptoms and
tablets. Passed all work test as unfit for work each time.
9. 4th DSS medical exam deemed unnecessary by DSS, as I was unfit for work.
10. Since I was not receiving treatment, frequent attendance at surgery was
never mentioned by Dr.Cullen.
11. Since 1955 I have been under ENT, with yearly appointments for ear
infections due to mastiod cavity following opperation.
12. I have stopped wearing my hearing aid, due to increased frequency of
infections.
13. I have been unable to wear my bi-focals from new, since 2 out of 4
lenses are out of focus and neither form a useable pair of lenses.
14. I also use a walking stick, inside and outside the home.

I regard both the tablets and the bi-focals as factual evidence, that
would stand up in a court of law or medical enquiry.

Trusting that this appeal will be in order and looking forward to the
favour of your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Lance Dip.Math(Open)


Big Bertha Thing welfare

29th April 1999
Operations Manager,
The Benefits Agency,
Dear Sirs,
Further to your letter of 28th April 1999, regarding a list of
questions, on the possibility of my working at all.

I will attempt to answer your questions, in order as listed in your
letter.

1. I am not working, I am just pottering arround on the internet. I last
registered for course work with the Open University in 1997. This would have
involved 6 hours work per week. I could only manage half-an-hour per day,
so totally failed to do the work or complete the course. Not even one
homework assignment was completed.
In August 1997, I bought a second hand computer for 150 pounds sterling,
and was given free access to the Open University computer along local
telephone lines at a call charge of 1p per minute.
Since that time, I managed to build up a body of correspondence,
within the limits of half-an-hour per day mental or physical work.
In January 1999, this correspondence was transfered by me to my
web site; www.bertha.ndirect.co.uk. I have to pay 14 pounds and 9p per
month for this site.

2. Nobody suggested it, it just happened.
3. My doctor does not know that I have a web site.
4. See answer 1 for description of my activities. No job is being done,
so no job description exists.

5. No employer exists or payments have been recieved.
6. I can think straight for half-an-hour per day. The rest of the time is
spent pottering arround. I can do one side of A4 paper of mathematics or
computer work per day.

7. On any day free of a major shopping expedition, I can do half-an-hour
of original work and about an hour of copy typing at non-typist speeds.

8. My principle interest is a 50 year scientific project, which was started
30 years ago. If I could spend 48 hours per week doing it I would. However
half-an-hour work and an hour pottering, seems to be all I can manage and at
that not every day of the week.
Due to my condition, I asked Mrs. Pam Scruton, a fellow Open
University student to be the project archivist for my work on the Open
University computer. She agreed and kept the archive of the correspondence
which is now on my web site. This is both an unusual request and an
unusually generous service to a fellow student on incapacity benefit.

9. Zero income for as far as the eye can see.
10. Not applicable, zero wages or income.
11. August 1997 and is ongoing.

I trust that the above will put the internet feeding frenzy of the
newspaper hype into some perspective.
Yours faithfully.
Tony Lance Dip.Math(Open)