110 Upper Thames Street
LONDON EC4R 3TJ
Reference: NESTA letters dated 02 and 13 November, signed Margaret McAlpine
Dear Sir or Madam
The a/m letters reject two applications, one for the "Altruist Survivor"
theory, the other for the UEF Theory. NESTA gave these reasons: the project
is "contentious"; the project is "unfortunately fundamental"; and "we also
noted that you incorrectly stated that you have not applied to NESTA on previous
occasions." These reasons are specious and they are incorrect.
Firstly, any new idea or concept is by definition "contentious." Is NESTA
saying Britain does not need these new ideas? That is untrue, as can be seen
from the original statement of NESTA's mission.
Secondly, Science advances by "fundamental" reappraisals. Does NESTA mean
Britain does not want these scientific advances? Again untrue - see above.
Thirdly, for two years or more NESTA has prevented me applying. Your records
should show that initial attempts were met by the excuse that NESTA "is not
yet ready to accept applications." Then it was (repeatedly) stated that projects
can only be submitted via the ridiculously unfriendly NESTA web-site form,
deemed to be "pre-application." Unless NESTA has deceived and misled me,
my first "pre-applications" are now before you. [While this prevarication
was ongoing NESTA was quietly giving away £75,000 of taxpayers' money
for an upper-class poem or two.]
The English establishment's influences can be destructive: the Oxbridge don's
imaginary black holes and
fake Social Darwinist theories give rise to the
arrogantly corrupt officials in MAFF,
DFEE, the Board of Inland Revenue
and the CPS, who in turn cover-up
for thieves and
pedophile cliques in positions of
I ask NESTA to throw off destructive establishment bias and attempt an impartial
re-examination of the applications.
[ed at perceptions]
Peter C Coe
Program Assistant - P&O Department
`Perceptions' note: some background went to an MP earlier see